Driving behaviour responses to a moose encounter, automatic speed camera, wildlife warning sign and radio message determined in a factorial simulator study.

In a driving simulator study, driving behaviour responses (speed and deceleration) to encountering a moose, automatic speed camera, wildlife warning sign and radio message, with or without a wildlife fence and in dense forest or open landscape, were analysed. The study consisted of a factorial experiment that examined responses to factors singly and in combination over 9-km road stretches driven eight times by 25 participants (10 men, 15 women). The aims were to: determine the most effective animal-vehicle collision (AVC) countermeasures in reducing vehicle speed and test whether these are more effective in combination for reducing vehicle speed; identify the most effective countermeasures on encountering moose; and determine whether the driving responses to AVC countermeasures are affected by the presence of wildlife fences and landscape characteristics. The AVC countermeasures that proved most effective in reducing vehicle speed were a wildlife warning sign and radio message, while automatic speed cameras had a speed-increasing effect. There were no statistically significant interactions between different countermeasures and moose encounters. However, there was a tendency for a stronger speed-reducing effect from the radio message warning and from a combination of a radio message and wildlife warning sign in velocity profiles covering longer driving distances than the statistical tests. Encountering a moose during the drive had the overall strongest speed-reducing effect and gave the strongest deceleration, indicating that moose decoys or moose artwork might be useful as speed-reducing countermeasures. Furthermore, drivers reduced speed earlier on encountering a moose in open landscape and had lower velocity when driving past it. The presence of a wildlife fence on encountering the moose resulted in smaller deceleration.

Stakeholders' opinions on a future in-vehicle alcohol detection system for prevention of drunk driving.

INTRODUCTION: There is a common understanding that driving under the influence of alcohol is associated with higher risk of being involved in crashes with injuries and possible fatalities as the outcome. Various countermeasures have therefore from time to time been taken by the authorities to prevent drunk driving. One of them has been the alcohol interlock. Up to now, interlocks have mainly been used by previously convicted drunk drivers and in the commercial road transport sector, but not in private cars. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: New technology has today reached a level where broader implementation might be possible. To our knowledge, however, little is known about different stakeholders' opinions of a broader implementation of such systems. In order to increase that knowledge, we conducted a focus group study to collect in-depth thoughts from different stakeholders on this topic. Eight focus groups representing a broad societal span were recruited and conducted for the purpose. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The results show that most stakeholders thought that an integrated system for alcohol detection in vehicles might be beneficial in lowering the number of drunk driving crashes. They said that the system would probably mainly prevent driving by people who unintentionally and unknowingly drive under the influence of alcohol. The groups did, however, not regard the system as a final solution to the drunk driving problem, and believed that certain groups, such as criminals and alcoholics, would most likely find a way around the system. Concerns were raised about the risk of increased sleepy driving and driving just under the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit. The results also indicate that stakeholders preferred a system that provides information on the BAC up to the legal limit, but not for levels above the limit; for those, the system should simply prevent the car from starting. Acceptance of the system depended on the reliability of the system, on its ability to perform fast sampling, and on the analytical process, as well as the system's more or less inconspicuous placement and user-friendliness. The stakeholders thought that drivers would probably not voluntarily demand the system. So if broad implementation was desired, it would have to be made compulsory by legislation. As an incentive to increase demand, lower taxes and insurance premiums were suggested.

Landscape heritage objects' effect on driving: a combined driving simulator and questionnaire study.

According to the literature, landscape (panoramas, heritage objects e.g. landmarks) affects people in various ways. Data are primarily developed by asking people (interviews, photo sessions, focus groups) about their preferences, but to a lesser degree by measuring how the body reacts to such objects. Personal experience while driving a car through a landscape is even more rare. In this paper we study how different types of objects in the landscape affect drivers during their drive. A high-fidelity moving-base driving simulator was used to measure choice of speed and lateral position in combination with stress (heart rate measure) and eye tracking. The data were supplemented with questionnaires. Eighteen test drivers (8 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 37 were recruited. The test drivers were exposed to different new and old types of landscape objects such as 19th century church, wind turbine, 17th century milestone and bus stop, placed at different distances from the road driven. The findings are in some respect contradictory, but it was concluded that that 33% of the test drivers felt stressed during the drive. All test drivers said that they had felt calm at times during the drive but the reason for this was only to a minor degree connected with old and modern objects. The open landscape was experienced as conducive to acceleration. Most objects were, to a small degree, experienced (subjective data) as having a speed-reducing effect, much in line with the simulator data (objective data). Objects close to the road affected the drivers' choice of' lateral position. No significant differences could be observed concerning the test drivers' gaze between old or modern objects, but a significant difference was observed between the test drivers' gaze between road stretches with faraway objects and stretches without objects. No meaningful, significant differences were found for the drivers' stress levels as measured by heart rate.

Crash barriers and driver behavior: a simulator study.

OBJECTIVE: The study examines how drivers experience a conventional W-beam guardrail (metal crash barrier) along both sides of narrow versus wider roads (single carriageway with 2 lanes) in terms of stress, feelings, and driving patterns and whether subjective experience concurs with the actual driving patterns captured by the quantitative data. METHODS: The study used different methods to capture data, including the VTI Driving Simulator III (speed and lateral vehicle position) in conjunction with electrocardiogram (ECG) data on heart rate variability (HRV) and questionnaires (oral during driving and written after driving). Eighteen participants--8 men and 10 women--were recruited for the simulator study and the simulator road section was 10 km long. RESULTS: Driving speeds increased slightly on the wider road and on the road with a crash barrier, and the lateral driving position was nearer to the road center on the narrower road and on the road with a crash barrier. The HRV data did not indicate that participants experienced greater stress due to road width or due to the presence of a crash barrier. Participant experience captured in the oral questionnaires suggested that road width did not affect driver stress or driving patterns; however, the written questionnaire results supported the simulator data, indicating that a wider road led to increased speed. None of the participants felt that crash barriers made them feel calmer. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that there is a possibility that the increased speed on roads with crash barriers may be explained by drivers' sense of increased security. This study demonstrates that an experimental design including experience-based data captured using both a simulator and questionnaires is productive. It also demonstrates that driving simulators can be used to study road features such as crash barriers. It seems more than likely that features such as street lamps, signs, and landscape objects could be tested in this way.