A comparison of cybersickness symptoms across 360-degree hazard perception and hazard prediction tests for drivers.

Hazard perception assessment may benefit from VR-presentation by removing field-of-view restrictions imposed by single-screen tests. One concern is whether VR-induced 'cybersickness' will offset any benefits. Self-reported cybersickness ratings were recorded from 77 participants viewing two variants of a 360-degree hazard test: hazard perception and hazard prediction. The latter was hypothesised to be particularly susceptible as clips abruptly cut to a probe question at hazard onset. Such sudden occlusions are thought to increase cybersickness. Overall cybersickness levels were low, with only four participants excluded for above-threshold sickness ratings. The remaining participants showed unexpectedly lower symptoms for the hazard prediction test and rated this test format as more comfortable and engaging. These findings mitigate concerns over the use of 360-degree videos in formative hazard assessments, even when clips involve sudden occlusions. Nonetheless, removal of any participants due to cybersickness raises problems for using VR for formal assessments of hazard perception skill.

A novel driving assessment combining hazard perception, hazard prediction and theory questions.

A new hazard test was created using high-fidelity computer animation containing ten hazards. Sixty learner drivers and sixty experienced drivers sat either a hazard-perception version of this test (requiring timed responses to materialized hazards) or a hazard-prediction variant of the test (where the screen is occluded as the hazard begins to appear and drivers are asked 'What happens next?'). Recent studies have demonstrated that the prediction test format outperforms the hazard perception format using naturalistic video, but there has not yet been a study replicating this effect with computer-animated materials similar to the quality of those used in the official UK hazard perception test. The new test also included eleven theory questions designed to probe drivers' knowledge of the rules of the road. The results demonstrated that both test variants differentiated between driver groups with considerable effect sizes. Theory-question scores were comparable across learner and experienced driver groups, reflecting learners' preparation for the test and possible issues with memory decay and overwriting in the experienced group. As an interesting aside, driving-related video game play negatively correlated with hazard perception performance, but not with hazard prediction scores. Some individual hazards better suited the prediction or perception test format, raising the possibility of a future hybrid test that combines the two approaches.

Creating a hazard-based training and assessment tool for emergency response drivers.

Emergency response drivers (ERDs) are often required to engage in high-risk driving manoeuvres on their way to a reported incident. Such risk requires that these drivers receive a high-level of training and continued development. The aim of this paper was to investigate an innovative format for a new potential tool that could support the training and assessment of these drivers: a single-clip Holistic Hazard Test, containing multiple hazards in a single route. In study one, we created a proof-of-concept 15-minute clip containing hazards, multiple-choice questions and probes to collect self-reported safety ratings. ERDs were more accurate on the multiple-choice questions (MCQs) than a control group, though response time scores to hazards did not reach the threshold for significance. In study two, we refined the development process and created a series of new holistic hazard tests across four counties of the East Midlands, UK. Each test contained many hazards and MCQs that assessed situation awareness and decision-making, based on the results of study 1. Participants were recruited across the four counties and were presented with both the test that was specific to their county and one of the unfamiliar-location tests, in order to assess the generalisability of the tests across different locales. The results showed no differences regarding location familiarity, suggesting that tests filmed in one area of the country can be viewed by drivers elsewhere without detriment to performance. ERDs once again responded to MCQs more accurately, and also scored more hazard points on the basis of faster responses to hazards compared to control participants. These results suggest such tests can successfully tap into ERD-specific skills with regard to spotting, predicting and responding to hazards on the road. We recommend refinement of this tool for assessment of emergency response drivers, and further development to extend the materials to create a training tool.

Prediction and perception of hazards in professional drivers: Does hazard perception skill differ between safe and less-safe fire-appliance drivers?

Can hazard perception testing be useful for the emergency services? Previous research has found emergency response drivers' (ERDs) to perform better than controls, however these studies used clips of normal driving. In contrast, the current study filmed footage from a fire-appliance on blue-light training runs through Nottinghamshire, and endeavoured to discriminate between different groups of EDRs based on experience and collision risk. Thirty clips were selected to create two variants of the hazard perception test: a traditional push-button test requiring speeded-responses to hazards, and a prediction test that occludes at hazard onset and provides four possible outcomes for participants to choose between. Three groups of fire-appliance drivers (novices, low-risk experienced and high-risk experienced), and age-matched controls undertook both tests. The hazard perception test only discriminated between controls and all FA drivers, whereas the hazard prediction test was more sensitive, discriminating between high and low-risk experienced fire appliance drivers. Eye movement analyses suggest that the low-risk drivers were better at prioritising the hazardous precursors, leading to better predictive accuracy. These results pave the way for future assessment and training tools to supplement emergency response driver training, while supporting the growing literature that identifies hazard prediction as a more robust measure of driver safety than traditional hazard perception tests.