Driver stupefaction...

[Poita (Peter)]

The reaction times in that paper are from a controlled experiment and the time taken to brake when seeing the brake light come on in the car in front.

Those reaction times are consistant with other studies for such a simple and non-stressful situation, and as such would be an absolute best case scenario in good driving conditions and a focused driver.

Not really the same as an emergency situation on the open road.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

The Monash paper states Sivak found:

"The distance separating the lead and experimental vehicles had a highly significant effect on the braking reactions in the Sivak et al (1981b) study. For the short following distance, the mean reaction times for the various configurations ranged from 550 ms to 700 ms, and for the long following distance condition, the mean values lay between 670 ms to 830 ms"

Problem with a lot of this stuff is, lies and statistics. Sure the Germans have a significant number of road deaths, but the rate per capita is significantly lower than Oz. The autobahn rate is even lower still... guess they are *really* paying attention at 200 klicks.

[RickS (Rick)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Problem with a lot of this stuff is, lies and statistics. Sure the Germans have a significant number of road deaths, but the rate per capita is significantly lower than Oz. The autobahn rate is even lower still... guess they are *really* paying attention at 200 klicks.

Driving BMWs and Mercedes instead of Commodores would probably explain this difference

Seriously, I don't think you can directly compare per capita death rates without considering average number of kilometres traveled, road quality, etc.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

In the latest NRMA open road comic that arrived in my letter box, I was bemused to read driver reaction times "in an emergeny" are apparently around. 1.5 to 3 seconds (!!!)


Begging the question, why do motoring "authorities" pedal this rubbish

If I am driving down the road and a child walks out from behind a parked car, I (and probably no-one else either) would take 3 seconds to apply the brakes and take evasive action.
What they are saying in is absolute rubbish.
Just wait, soon they will be after government funding to run driver training courses.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

If I am driving down the road and a child walks out from behind a parked car, I (and probably no-one else either) would take 3 seconds to apply the brakes and take evasive action.
What they are saying in is absolute rubbish.
Just wait, soon they will be after government funding to run driver training courses.

That's a worry. You've only got two seconds at many traffic lights before they go red.

Originally Posted by RickS

Driving BMWs and Mercedes instead of Commodores would probably explain this difference

Seriously, I don't think you can directly compare per capita death rates without considering average number of kilometres traveled, road quality, etc.

..driver training?

Originally Posted by Poita

The reaction times in that paper are from a controlled experiment and the time taken to brake when seeing the brake light come on in the car in front.

Those reaction times are consistant with other studies for such a simple and non-stressful situation, and as such would be an absolute best case scenario in good driving conditions and a focused driver.

Not really the same as an emergency situation on the open road.

Agreed, seems my desire for attentive & focused drivers is probably a vain hope...sigh...instead we have lax driver training, licensing and lame penalties for serious offences (eg drink-driving casuing injury: the Germans accept no excuses & send you to gaol )

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

If I am driving down the road and a child walks out from behind a parked car, I (and probably no-one else either) would take 3 seconds to apply the brakes and take evasive action.
What they are saying in is absolute rubbish.
Just wait, soon they will be after government funding to run driver training courses.

Sorry, deserves more than a glib response.

I expect kids/cats/dogs to emerge from parked cars...and actively look for them in suburban streets.

Countless times I've already had my foot hovering over the brake pedal long before I pass parked traffic. 3 seconds??

Count it out: One thousand, Two thousand, Three throusand. I'd probably hand in my license if that was my routine reaction time.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

I can see where you're coming from Peter, but I have to agree with the earlier responders as well.

Is there anything from the aviation literature about time between a critical event being triggered in a simulator and a pilot assessing the situation and initiating a response?
DT

Sorry, missed this. Oddly enough, there are very few events that require an instant (pilot) response....and those that do are well drilled/trained for.

Failures prior to V1 are acted upon almost instantly.....if you took three seconds you'd almost certainly have left the runway and would require re-training.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by Baddad

One of my pet subjects. Safe Driving.

Idealy I would have liked to see all young drivers do one year on bicycles before being awarded a full licence. It makes you more aware of safety and promotes a defensive attitude.

Ideally I'd like to see all lycra wearing cyclists trained and licenced before going on the roads.
Then they would be subject to the same road rules as motorists, which at present, they are clearly not.
I have been either driving a car or riding motorcycles for over 40 years. Never crashed into anything and never been booked. That would not happen if my response time was as NMRA suggests.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

... I've tried timing how far I am behind the car in front (count 'and 1 and 2') and 2 seconds is further than you think and much further than most drivers ever leave themselves. My theory is that if I leave enough room I can afford to relax a bit, look at the scenery a bit be safer and arrive in better condition.

On any road around Sydney, a two second gap is enough for two or three cars to cut in in front of you. Traffic lights make the road an ABS test track. SWMBO saw three cars cut in on a semi the other day. He had left himself space to stop for the lights and had to change lanes (fortunately there was a gap) to avoid the third one.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

On any road around Sydney, a two second gap is enough for two or three cars to cut in in front of you. Traffic lights make the road an ABS test track. SWMBO saw three cars cut in on a semi the other day. He had left himself space to stop for the lights and had to change lanes (fortunately there was a gap) to avoid the third one.

I know all about being cut in on. With the old troopie we had a 2 tonne vehicle carrying > 1 tonne and drums all round. It stopped like a hippo on rollerskates. That's no drama in that cars natural environment - out bush. But in the city it is very different. I allowed myself plenty of braking space but constantly had motorists in buzz-bombs cutting in front of me. (Couldn't they see the size of that bull-bar?) Of course if they cut in and stopped and so wound up with me in their back seat it would have been all my fault. I was talking to the bloke who delivers gas cylinders here about this and his opinion is that if he backed off every time someone cut into his braking space he would go backwards. He drives a 4 axle truck with a dog trailer and people don't understand to give him room. I'd say let Darwinian selection cull the population but of course it's his license and his conscience.

[Terry B]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Don't know. I drive very defensively...keeping away from traffic clusters, and for example, never assume just because a light is green, someone isn't trying to T-bone me.

I always try to be *very* predictable, e.g. indicate before I brake. Make sure my cars are very well maintained.

I suspect this is a legacy from being a motorcycle rider in my youth. Don't quite know what my reaction times are, but I do "create time" by keeping safe gap & look far beyond the car infront/behind etc.
Works for me....well almost...got rear-ended about 8 years ago..P-plater not conversant with aquaplaning.

Interesting the different take on this. I drive mostly in the country and the unexpected events that I thought about was Roos or other animals suddenly appearing I front of the car. A child is easier. You always need to stop. A roo vs a bunny suddenly appearing has a different response and a decision need to be made in that 1 sec. It does take time to decide to hit the breaks and risk skidding etc vs hitting the breaks and not getting a damaged front to the car from a roo.

[sheeny (Al)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Ahh... can I respectfully suggest "you are watching and calculating trajectories and are placed and prepared" is exactly how you should be driving a vehicle?

100% agree!

Way back when I was a teenager involved with Wyong District Motorcycle Club... the club elders came up with the 12 year apprenticeship. From the combined experience of most of the members of the club (200+ at the time), it seems that you needed to ride a bike on the road for about 12 years before your rate of accidents/incidents dropped significantly i.e. that's how long it took to learn to ride safely for yourself and every other nong on the road. And you can't do that without being attentive, learning to read hazards and plan for and expect "the unexpected".

I've recently got a helmet mounted video camera, and it's very interesting to notice the slight head movements that I subconsciously do when scanning for hazards when riding down a busy street.

With teenagers currently learning to drive, I have also noticed how poor their perception of hazards is when they start. I do my best to teach them to read the hazards as I do, and so far they've progressed well (1 to go), but I have been a passenger with a lot of people who can easily scare the willies out of me... though lack of hazard perception and (lack of) competence. I'm all for the German or Finnish method of licensing if it makes more competent drivers.

After 20 something years of road crash rescue, I feel confident to say the road is no place be complacent. Too many people are.

Al.

[Poita (Peter)]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

If I am driving down the road and a child walks out from behind a parked car, I (and probably no-one else either) would take 3 seconds to apply the brakes and take evasive action.
What they are saying in is absolute rubbish.
Just wait, soon they will be after government funding to run driver training courses.

Well, read the actual studies and you can see the reaction times to various events, they are well researched and the research is very sound.
It is easy to say something is rubbish without actually investigating it.
(They also say 1.5 - 3s in 'an emergency', not "3s when a child runs out")

And, yes some will take 3s, some people will not brake at all, the shock and weight of the decision can cause otherwise rational people to freeze-up.

That freeze-up period can be anywhere from half a second to way too late.

It also depends on what else is happening, and how much other stimuli is happening. If you are already tracking other inputs the time gets longer. There are linear correlations between the complexity of the situation and of the possible outcomes.

A child appearing will have *most* people just stomp the brakes and pretty quickly too, on an empty road it is easy to process and the response is pretty clear, but a very few will take the full 3 seconds or longer due to the shock. Sometimes the brain refuses to believe what it sees, especially when the consequences are profound.

But on a busy road cluttered with billboards, flashing signs and with the driver perhaps looking to overtake, checking his mirror because of a tailgating driver, or worried about that motorbike creeping up the other side of him, or all of the above and the reaction time stretches out as the brain has to register the new thing that has appeared in the visual field in amongst all the other clutter, decide that it is a child an not something else and then decide wether braking will be enough to stop, wether swerving would cause more carnage etc. etc.

Add in tiredness or a recent fight with their spouse or the radio etc. and it pushes out more.
It would be great if all of us were always on our game, and always at our best and never let our concentration fail, but the world doesn't work that way.

I saw a professional motor-writer who is an astoundingly good driver crash a very (and I mean very) expensive car that was on loan for review as they just froze when a car appeared on the one lane road unexpectedly.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Poita

That freeze-up period can be anywhere from half a second to way too late.

There in lies a major problem. Why do we license drivers with absolutely no training or testing in siutations that may lead to the above??

A simple PC simulation (read: inexpensive to implement) at the licensing stage to weed out those who have not been trained or simply can't respond
in a timely/adequate manner to an emergency might not be a bad idea.

[naskies (Dave)]

I do academic research in human factors (as I suspect some of the other posters here do too) - the research on reaction times is very, very extensive and well conducted.

Simply dismissing it out of hand would be confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

There in lies a major problem. Why do we license drivers with absolutely no training or testing in siutations that may lead to the above??

Same reason why people freak out over virtually every minor commercial aviation incident, yet happily hop into their cars, drive distracted, etc

A simple PC simulation (read: inexpensive to implement) at the licensing stage to weed out those who have not been trained or simply can't respond
in a timely/adequate manner to an emergency might not be a bad idea.

This is already in practice, for example:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Licensing/...tion-test.aspx

http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/...eptionTest.htm

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/licensing/20625.asp

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by naskies

I do academic research in human factors

Dave, sorry, to be blunt I'd suggest the hazard perception test is only slightly better than taking the candidate's pulse to ensure they are still alive....

Last time I drove a car/ rode a bike, "clicking a mouse" was not a useful motor-memory skill.

While I wouldn't expect the multi-million dollar flight-sims I get given buggery in every few months to keep employed, a fixed-base vehicle simulator with a wide screen display, steering wheel, clutch, brake and some dynamic scenarios would be my starting point for someone wanting to take a tonne or so of metal down a public road.

[RobF (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Baddad

One of my pet subjects. Safe Driving.

I used to cycle 5 klms each way to school. I saw many accidents involving cyclists and cars. I was involved in a minor one.

As I saw it, motorists seemed to be blind for cyclists. When I was hit, the women apologetically said, "I just didn't see you until I hit you."

How could she not have seen me? I was right in front of her. She had not waited for the intersection to clear. I did not believe what I saw. She stopped and then proceeded to go through the intersection. Hit the brakes just before she careered into me.

I believe she had seen me but it did not register. She only had partial attention to her driving. Only looking for cars to clear. This is how many people drive. Partial attention and then react so slowly when quick responses are required.

Another story: I was about to enter a main road (I was driving a car).
I noticed a young waman tailgating. It was a few minutes before I joined the flow of traffic. Eventually I came upon the woman's car I saw earlier. She had rear-ended the car in front of her.

I stopped to help. The young lady was abusing the driver in front of her. "He should not stop so fast. Drivers behind you need time to stop."

She further claimed that he was in the wrong and that he is responsible for the damage to her car. (WOW. This girl needs to be licence retested)

The driver in the front car stated that he slowed normally indicating a right turn and stopped waiting for clearance. Witnesses confirmed that.
Again, inattention and driving beyond her means. Tailgating and slow to react.

Even paying the due attention to driving, at 60K/H you travel 12M in 0.7 secs. That is before you even start to slow down.
With out due care, 2 secs puts the car through the intersection, 35M

Idealy I would have liked to see all young drivers do one year on bicycles before being awarded a full licence. It makes you more aware of safety and promotes a defensive attitude. Of-course that is not practicable in the real world.

However I rarely have a close call. The only accidents I have been involved in in the last 20 years have happened while I was stationary at intersections or as a passenger. Where I had no control.

I can quite believe that 2 -3 secs reaction time to be common place. It therefore means we adopt the attitude that all other drivers are half asleep at the wheel and drive accordingly.

Cheers

Ok, I'm being a nerd, but there's a lot of physics and statistics in driving down a suburban street. I try to assume everyone else NEEDS that 2-3 sec reaction time, figuring that improves my chances of other drivers noticing me before it's too late. Might only give me an extra 10 or 20% assurance, but that extra safety margin just might avoid the odd accident or near miss. Agree totally Marty you quickly learn to think this way when you have to survive on the road on a bicycle before you learn to drive

The other problem (I've learned the hard way whilst in the passenger seat during many long distance driving trips at night) is even when the driver REACTS, they don't always take the best evasive action (e.g. SLAMMING on the brakes as they swerve around a tyre or roo in the middle of the road on a pitch dark night ). Pretty hard to talk someone out of doing the wrong then when it happens in slow motion during the eternal 1-3 secs . I suspect our Aussie driver training could do with a bit more coaching in how to react to emergencies. If you're lucky, your Mum and Dad will work on this aspect, but probably many don't have the skills/experience/patience.

[naskies (Dave)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Dave, sorry, to be blunt I'd suggest the hazard perception test is only slightly better than taking the candidate's pulse to ensure they are still alive....

Last time I drove a car/ rode a bike, "clicking a mouse" was not a useful motor-memory skill.

While I wouldn't expect the multi-million dollar flight-sims I get given buggery in every few months to keep employed, a fixed-base vehicle simulator with a wide screen display, steering wheel, clutch, brake and some dynamic scenarios would be my starting point for someone wanting to take a tonne or so of metal down a public road.

No need to apologise. I was merely pointing out that the approach you advocated is currently in use:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

A simple PC simulation (read: inexpensive to implement) at the licensing stage to weed out those who have not been trained or simply can't respond
in a timely/adequate manner to an emergency might not be a bad idea.

As for whether or not a hazard perception test is actually effective in practice... I quote from a UK Department of Transport study:

The impact of hazard perception testing

• The introduction of the hazard perception component in the theory test appears to have been associated with some reduction in subsequent accident liability, although the size of the estimated effect varies with the type of accident.

• For reported non-low-speed accidents on a public road where the driver accepted some blame, the size of the accident reduction in the first year of driving for those who had taken the hazard perception test (controlling for age, sex, experience and exposure) compared with those who had not was at least 3%.

• There is a predictive relation between the hazard perception score achieved by respondents and levels of reported accidents in the first year of driving. For non- low-speed public road accidents, in which the driver accepted some blame, those in the highest scoring group in the hazard perception test had an accident liability estimated to be at least 4.5% lower than that of the lowest scoring group.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by naskies

No need to apologise. I was merely pointing out that the approach you advocated is currently in use:

Well no, it's not. Clicking on a flash-enabled video is not the same as using motion controls (ie steering wheel, brake etc.) in a fluid visual simulation.

Originally Posted by naskies

As for whether or not a hazard perception test is actually effective in practice... I quote from a UK Department of Transport study:

Clearly we don't have a standard deviation here. I'd say 3-4% is noise.

[naskies (Dave)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Well no, it's not. Clicking on a flash-enabled video is not the same as using motion controls (ie steering wheel, brake etc.) in a fluid visual simulation.

I evidently misunderstood what you wrote!

Yep, I agree that being able to screen drivers in an immersive simulator would be a great idea.

More stringent training and testing procedures (ala German driving tests) would be excellent especially considering that car crashes are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) causes of non-disease related deaths in Australia.

[rat156]

Is, perhaps, the main problem that driving a modern car is too easy? Even if you stuff up, there's a fair chance the electronics will save you. I remember when learning to drive meant learning to control a car, with co-ordination required between hands and feet to do even mundane things as changing gears. You also had to watch the road (no autopilot watching out for the traffic in front), your mirrors (no blind-spot detectors), your speed (no cruise control), you had to be able to threshold brake (no ABS), control the throttle (no traction control), make sensible adjustments to the steering (no ESC), be able to operate the switch that turns on (or off) your headlights and windscreen wipers, all whilst tuning the radio (with a knob thing), having a fag and chatting to your mate in the passenger seat. Perhaps that's why the muppets didn't get a licence, it was too hard.

Now, all these things save lives, but at what cost? The modern "appliance" that is running around on the road these days is a fantastic piece of engineering that takes very little skill to sit in the driver's seat and "drive". I'm not sure how many people can be said to be in control of the motor vehicle though? The Top Gear boys in the UK did had a bit of a rant about the operation of a mobile phone whilst driving (or some such thing), with the authorities saying that driving was a complex task that commanded most of the driver's attention. Of course the Top Gear boys (top class researchers they are!) said that was Bollocks and proceeded to make some claims about driving their test track whilst sewing a button on his shirt (Clarkson), in a sleeping bag (May) and whilst "pleasuring himself" (Hammond), thankfully they only showed the first two on TV. What was worrying was that they could do it!

My drive to work on the Westgate Freeway every morning sees feats of incredulously stupid driving pretty much every day. How can you have a nose to tail crash when the traffic is barely moving? Yet it happens, probably daily. These people don't deserve a licence, it should be taken from them and never given back. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. The laws are there to punish you for transgressions, but unless you do something very bad they only punish you financially, yes, eventually you may lose your licence for repeated minor infringements, but if the authorities were really serious about road safety then the "points" punishments would be far more severe. Even then, you serve you time and get your licence back with a clean slate. Many just drive unlicensed for a few months.

So, as this post is getting quite long now, better driving education, harder tests, harsher points penalties and a ban on automatic cars will fix the problem, or at least reduce the road clutter. OK the ban on automatics might be a bit of a step too far, but think about it, do you really want to be on the road with someone who hasn't got the co-ordination or skill to change gears manually without losing control of their vehicle?

<Nomex on>

Cheers
Stuart