Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and

Int. J. Vehicle Safety, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2011
Automotive participant tailgating safety training
device: design and test
M. Jensen
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of North Florida
1720 Merrimac Circle,
Seneca, SC 29672, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
J. Wagner*
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
212 Fluor Daniel Engineering Building,
Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
K. Alexander and P. Pidgeon
Automotive Safety Research Institute,
D-141 Poole Agriculture Center,
Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634-0931 USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
K. Rogich and R. Fedrizzi
Richard Petty Driving Experience,
6022 Victory Lane,
Concord, NC 28027, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: The safe operation of a ground vehicle requires a combination
of driver skills and behaviour, motor-vehicle knowledge, and recognition of
driving conditions and environments. One dangerous scenario commonly
encountered by drivers is tailgating. In this paper, a lightweight tailgating
device that can be installed on a sport utility vehicle (or truck) to support driver
training activities will be presented. The tailgating apparatus has been field
tested on a closed course as part of a safe driving programme. Objective vehicle
measurements and subjective instructor evaluations revealed that 75% of
students successfully completed the driving task at a passing level.
Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
319
320
M. Jensen et al.
Keywords: driver behaviour; vehicle safety; driver training; tailgating event;
vehicle accident; vehicle crash; field testing; system design.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Jensen, M., Wagner, J.,
Alexander, K., Pidgeon, P., Rogich, K. and Fedrizzi, R. (2011) ‘Automotive
participant tailgating safety training device: design and test’, Int. J. Vehicle
Safety, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.319–332.
Biographical notes: Matthew Jensen received his Bachelor’s Degree from
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in 2006 and his Doctorate from Clemson
University in 2011, both in Mechanical Engineering. During his undergraduate
studies, he worked for Toyota Motor Manufacturing North American and
Toyota Motors Proving Grounds. While completing his graduate studies,
he was awarded the Department of Mechanical Engineering Endowed Teaching
Fellowship. He is currently a Visiting Professor at the University of North
Florida in the Mechanical Engineering Department. His research interests
include applications in automotive/transportation safety, electro-mechanical
systems, data analysis strategies and techniques, dynamic modelling, and driver
training.
John Wagner joined the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson
in 1998. He holds BS, MS, and PhD Degrees in Mechanical Engineering from
the State University of New York at Buffalo and Purdue University. He was
previously employed at Delphi Electronics, designing, testing, and analysing
automotive electronic control systems. He held a variety of technical positions
including powertrain/chassis project engineer, hardware-in-the-loop group
leader, and supervisor of the Electronic Spark Control groups. His research
interests include nonlinear and intelligent control theory, dynamic system
modelling, diagnostic and prognostic strategies, and mechatronic system
design. He is a licensed Mechanical Engineer.
Kim Alexander is the Executive Director of the Clemson University
Automotive Safety Research Institute (CU-ASRI). CU-ASRI is a research
based interdisciplinary programme focusing on the critical human-vehicle-road
interface by developing evidence-based countermeasures and products.
Her expertise includes education research and curriculum development,
instructional system analysis, design, development, implementation, and
evaluation in transportation safety, including K-12, college, post-secondary
and leadership development. She holds Degrees in Marketing (BS), Guidance
and Counselling (MEd); she received her Doctorate in Education (EdD) from
Clemson. She holds national leadership positions, including membership on
the Vehicle Highway Automation Committee of the Transportation Research
Board.
Philip Pidgeon is the Assistant Director for Research, Clemson University
Automotive Safety Research Institute. He holds BA and DMin Degrees with
an EdD Degree focusing on curriculum development and educational
leadership from Clemson University. He was previously employed on the
administrative board of a secondary school with duties including junior
high and high school instruction as well as providing counselling for adolescent
and adult psychiatric patients. His expertise includes teacher training,
leadership development, education research, analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation in transportation safety, including K-12,
college, and postsecondary education.
Kenneth Rogich is the Chief Financial Officer for Petty Holdings, LLC. He is
responsible for managing the Accounting/Finance, Human Resources and
Systems areas of the company, as well as heading up the company’s safe
Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and test
321
driving initiative. From 1994 to 1997, he was Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer for The Harris Group. Prior to that, he worked for
Marriott International in Bethesda, MD. He is a CPA and began his career with
KPMG-Peat Marwick in Washington, DC. He is a Graduate of The College of
William and Mary in VA with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree
in Accounting.
Richard Fedrizzi has been the President/COO of RPDE since 1998. He is
responsible for the management of all operational aspects of the company.
Since joining RPDE in 1994 as the Mechanical Operations Manager, he has
successfully implemented preventive maintenance, quality assurance and
customer satisfaction programmes. From 1988 to 1993, he worked at Westhill
Central School District in Syracuse, NY. Prior to that, he served as the Crew
Chief for a modified race team, where he amassed over 100 feature wins and
7 track championships in the Syracuse area. Richard studied Mechanical
Engineering at Syracuse University.
1
Introduction
Realistic and practical training methods are critical to impart skills to a target audience
for high penetration levels (Hatakka et al., 2002). Training devices such as computerbased simulators and physical apparatuses have been used to train athletes, pilots, and
general students of all levels. In the USA, there are more than 203 million licensed
drivers with approximately 4.9 million drivers aged 19 and under, a large percentage
of whom have/will undergo some form of driver training (Federal Highway
Administration, 2008).
Driver training courses are typically designed to improve either the driver’s skill or
safety. Some states require a certain level of formal driver training focused on driving
knowledge and skills before young adults (typically under 21 years old) are eligible for
licensure (Williams et al., 1996). These programmes traditionally occur in the classroom
with some supplemental in-vehicle practice (Ferguson and Williams, 1996). Classroom
time is generally far greater than behind-the-wheel time due to higher costs and reduced
student through-put associated with in-vehicle training. For example, the National Driver
Education Standards Project (2009) recommends a minimum of 45 h of classroom
vs. a minimum of 10 h behind-the-wheel instruction.
The demand for driver education programmes offering specialised instruction and
behind-the-wheel skills training has prompted the development and evaluation of
in-vehicle training courses (Williams et al., 2009; SUPREME, 2007). Research has
suggested that programmes attempting to increase driver safety by means of increasing
driver skill levels are at best ineffective while possibly raising the student’s crash risk
(Senserrick, 2007). These programmes are usually targeted at younger drivers due to their
higher crash potential and reduced driving experience. Overconfidence associated with
having taken an advanced driving skills course is the primary factor attributed to the
elevated crash risk. Ideally, programmes focused on increasing the students’ driving
safety levels should address human behaviour and anticipatory driving strategies as much
or more than skills and knowledge (Rosenbloom et al., 2008; Foss, 2007). Additionally,
these courses should include targeted content appropriate for the given demographic.
With young drivers, content related to visual searching, attention errors, and overall
vehicle speed should be included (McKnight, 2006).
322
M. Jensen et al.
Content is critical to providing a beneficial training programme and requires
effective implementation for its full potential to be realised. Due to the inherent dangers
associated with driving, implementation can be costly and difficult. The safety of both the
student and the instructor must be taken into consideration; similarly, property damage is
possible whenever a moving vehicle is used. For these reasons, automotive simulators
have been used in driver training courses for simulating high-risk situations to eliminate
crash risk and ensure safety (Wang et al., 2007; Kaptein et al., 1996). One recent study by
Norfleet et al. (2010) investigated the use of automotive simulators with embedded
learning content to create a virtual training environment. The results showed a 58% and
83% pass rate for the ‘following etiquette’ and ‘situational awareness’ modules
respectively, using college students as research subjects. The researchers in this study
emphasised the benefits to using simulators for driving situations normally too dangerous
for on-road instruction. However, they also noted limitations in that simulators are
typically very expensive depending on the necessary functionality (Norfleet et al., 2009).
In terms of the educational benefits of simulated driving scenarios, the degree
of realism should be determined by the learning goals (Mayora, 2008). Recent research
has demonstrated that the effectiveness of driver training is enhanced when a high degree
of physical and psychological fidelity is presented in the simulated environment (Slick
et al., 2006). Furthermore, when considering the fidelity of the simulator, it is equally
important to maximise student through-put and minimise per-student costs. Using these
criteria, training apparatuses providing a realistic scenario experience may be the best
choice for certain training content.
This paper proposes a design for an apparatus simulating a tailgating scenario
between two vehicles, as shown in Figure 1. In the event of sudden deceleration by the
lead vehicle, the following driver is unable to reduce speed sufficiently enough to avoid a
rear-end collision. The situation is dangerous for both the leading vehicle and the follow
vehicle, as both may sustain damage and injuries. The remainder of the paper has been
organised as follows. The apparatus’ mechanical and electrical design is discussed in
Section 2. Section 3 presents the classroom curriculum content. A case study, using the
curriculum and apparatus, will be presented and discussed in Section 4. Finally,
conclusions are provided in Section 5 with supplemental materials listed in the Appendix.
Figure 1
Truck on closed pylon course with tailgate apparatus accommodating two following
vehicles (see online version for colours)
Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and test
2
323
Tailgating apparatus
A tailgating scenario may incorporate recognition, decision, and performance errors
associated with the driving task, all of which are overrepresented by novice drivers
(Hedlund et al., 2006). Incorporation of a tailgating scenario may greatly improve the
effectiveness of a driver training programme; however, implementation has proven
difficult given the safety and damage implications of tailgating behaviour. For accurate
simulation, a model of the rear of a vehicle should be presented directly in front of the
follow vehicle, but this offers little to no additional safety, nor does it address vehicle
damage concerns.
2.1 Design of mobile structure
Several requirements were identified for the structure of the tailgating apparatus, which
included:
•
portability of the apparatus, including the ability to attach to many vehicle sizes and
types
•
capability to travel at speeds up to 80 kph
•
ability to cause no discernable damage to either the host vehicle or the follow vehicle
should the latter vehicle drive into the structure.
Additionally, flexing of the structure in lateral and longitudinal directions was to be
minimised.
Portability was a large design consideration for the apparatus, requiring both ease
of transport and the ability to attach to multiple vehicle types. A standard size hitch
receiver (50.8 mm, 2 in.) was chosen as the primary attachment point to the vehicle.
Secondary attachment points were created for the bumper that utilised threaded tension
rods, as shown in Figure 2 (left). Height adjustments of the tension rods allow the
apparatus to accommodate many vehicle sizes and types. To reduce the apparatus size
during transport, pinned connections were used between the vertical structure and the
horizontal frame (shown in black and silver, respectively).
Figure 2
Structure for tailgate apparatus with cables (see online version for colours)
Depending on the end use of the tailgate apparatus, speeds of 80 kph (50 mph) may be
achieved during operation. To maintain rigidity during transient and steady state
operation, 66.5 mm (2.62 in) boxed steel was used for the vertical structure.
324
M. Jensen et al.
This structure included connection to the hitch receiver and vehicle bumper, connection
to the horizontal frame, and mounting points for the tension cables. Steel was chosen due
to its high tensile strength. Air resistance was minimised by using small cross-sectional
boxed aluminium for the apparatus frame and as few frame connection points as possible.
Aluminium stock was used in the frame to reduce weight and the associated moment
forces on the vertical structure while offering sufficient strength to incorporate tension
cables. The longitudinal and lateral flex was greatest during transient motion; however,
tension cables connecting the frame to the vertical structure were utilised in both
directions. Ultimately, under the hardest transient manoeuvres and highest steady state
motion necessary (80 kph), structural rigidity was maintained.
A detailed schematic for the tailgate apparatus is shown in Figure 3. The nominal
overall length and height of the two-car tailgate assembly is 10.1 m (396 in.) and 2.0 m
(80 in.), respectively. Variations in dimensions are possible to accommodate different
sized vehicles. The nominal design was optimised for normal mid-sized sedans
simulating a three-lane highway scenario. The height of the brake-light cross beams
allow for little to no impact with the front end of the vehicle, significantly lowering the
possibility of airbag deployment in the event of a collision. The width between the centre
of the lead vehicle and the centre of either brake-light structure is equal to the minimum
lane width for US highways, 3.66 m (144.1 in.). Note the adjustable design of the cross
beam allows for applications to other (narrower/wider) roadway designs.
Figure 3
Computer aided drawing of tailgate apparatus with dimensions
During apparatus use, collisions between the apparatus frame and the follow vehicle(s)
were possible at speeds great enough to cause damage to both the vehicle and apparatus.
To eliminate/reduce the damage caused by these collisions, pivot points were added to
the aluminium frame at the connection of the electrical taillight structure and lateral
structure. The pivot points included two springs per side set in tension so as
to maintain the vertical orientation of the electrical structure during motion. In addition to
the pivot points, 22.4 mm (0.89 in.) thick foam padding was attached to the brake lamp
structure. This structure was the only portion of the apparatus that the follow vehicle
could collide with. To reduce damage to the host vehicle, rubber padding was used on the
tension rods connecting the vertical structure to the rear bumper of the vehicle.
No pressure significant enough to indent/damage the bumper was generated during
normal operating manoeuvres. Given the standard configuration, the tailgate apparatus
Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and test
325
will require a width of 9.91 m (390 in.) for vehicles to operate safely with a 2 m (78.7 in.)
safety buffer on each side.
2.2 Electronics and instrumentation
The electronics for the tailgating apparatus are straightforward, given the availability
of aftermarket braking lamps and manufacturer-installed towing functionality on the host
truck. A standard trailer light kit, readily available, typically contains two stud mounted
rectangular tail lights with wiring harness and four-pole connectors. If desired, oval or
round lamps may be selected to allow the creation of light displays, which emulate the
target vehicle(s) for training requirements. Note that the lamps may be either
incandescent or LED. The base truck will likely feature a trailer wiring connection near
the rear bumper for quick attachment; tail/marker (brown wire) corresponds to the
taillights positive line and ground (white wire) denotes the vehicle ground point.
A representative wiring diagram has been displayed in Figure 4 for the two sets of three
external lamps and basic truck brake subsystem wiring guide.
To evaluate participant performance during the tailgating manoeuvre, instructor
evaluations on questionnaires or in-vehicle sensors can be analysed. In the latter instance,
video cameras can record both the drivers’ reaction and vehicles’ motion during a
stopping event, and couple it with operating data such as vehicle speed, brake pedal
position, and stopping time. In this manner, quantitative and qualitative data can be
examined to determine whether the driver has sufficiently mastered the driving module
concept.
Figure 4
3
Electrical wiring schematic for interfacing the tailgate apparatus to the trucks’ brake
subsystem
Tailgating curriculum
The development of a safe driver-training curriculum was performed in conjunction with
the design of the tailgate apparatus. The focus of the course was in-vehicle training for
novice drivers with additional classroom instruction. The course totalled 75 min,
including a 15 min introduction and demonstration, 30 min of in-vehicle driver training,
326
M. Jensen et al.
and 30 min of classroom instruction. The course was designed for 16 students; however,
larger groups may be accommodated with additional vehicles and instructors.
A brief introduction to the curriculum oriented the students to the course objectives
and the driving manoeuvres. A diagram of the track layout is shown in Figure 5.
Nine learning objectives were divided into four categories, including knowledge, skill,
attitudinal, and experiential. Knowledge objectives focused on the participants’ ability to
recognise proper following distances while developing a strategy for determining proper
following distances in a variety of driving situations and environmental conditions.
Skill and knowledge objectives were constructed so while the participant drivers were on
the course, they applied what they learned in the classroom. The attitudinal objectives
were used to ascertain the likelihood of the participants using their newly acquired
knowledge and skills, and the experiential objectives defined what the course provided
in the form of unique and practical driving events.
The in-vehicle driving component was conducted with two participant-driven
vehicles practicing the tailgating scenarios simultaneously. Participants experienced
several scenarios using the tailgate apparatus, including a generic tailgate situation with
reduced following distance (less than two seconds), stop-and-go traffic patterns,
and wet/icy roadway conditions (low road surface µ). During the assessment run,
participants were asked to select a comfortable following distance. In each scenario, the
instructor-driver of the lead vehicle with the attached tailgate apparatus randomly brought
the vehicle to an emergency stop, requiring the students in the following vehicles to react
accordingly. During the stop-and-go scenario, the lead vehicle alternated between quick
sudden stops, and moderate accelerations while never bringing the vehicle to a complete
stop. In addition, a distraction was introduced into the student’s vehicle cabin in the form
of a ringing cell phone during the stop-and-go simulation. This distraction element was
used to reduce the driver’s focus on the lead vehicle, likely causing increased reaction
times. The ringing cell phone was chosen for its realistic nature and ease of recognition.
Figure 5
Top view of track layout for behind-the-wheel training with tailgate apparatus
(see online version for colours)
The classroom portion of the curriculum supported the in-vehicle skill and
decision-making practice. The instructor used several topical posters and video footage
to demonstrate proper following distances behind lead vehicles, visual scanning methods
Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and test
327
and braking technique (non-skid). Additionally, several topics including adverse visibility
and roadway conditions, appropriate following distances, the effect of reaction time on
‘pile-up’ and large truck ‘no zones’ were discussed.
Several assessment tools, including questionnaires, instructor evaluations, and
driver-vehicle operational data, were utilised to evaluate the participants’ completion
of the course objectives. They were asked pre- and post-test knowledge questions.
Experiential and skill assessment was performed by the in-vehicle driving instructors
following the final (assessment run) scenario.
4
Case study: safe driving programme
In development of a national safe driving programme, 12 participants enrolled in a pilot
of the tailgate curriculum including both the in-vehicle driving and classroom portions.
Most participants (79%) were 15–17 years old. Participants #1–4 were in one event with
the same in-vehicle instructor, while participants #5–12 were in a separate event,
all having the same in-vehicle instructor. All participants completed identical pre and
posttests as well as a satisfaction survey at the end of the programme.
Trained in-vehicle instructors administered the assessment of driving skills and
documented the students’ experiences. In addition, instrumented vehicles were used
to obtain objective vehicle measurements allowing for data analysis and supplemental
skill assessment.
4.1 In-vehicle instrumentation and survey
Both lead and follow vehicles were instrumented with in-vehicle data recorders; the
follow (student) vehicle included a Race-Keeper multi-camera video and data recording
system. The Race-Keeper system gathered vehicle parameters from the On-Board
Diagnostic port (OBD-II) including vehicle, Vx, and engine, N, speeds. External
accelerometers measured the lateral, ay, and longitudinal, ax, accelerations, and a GPS
receiver was used to collect the vehicle’s spatial position. Absolute vehicle position was
not used; however, relative vehicle position from the lead vehicle, allowing for derivation
of the following distances, was considered, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6
Tailgate apparatus in action attached to the truck with two trailing vehicles a short
distance behind (see online version for colours)
328
M. Jensen et al.
In addition to data collection, the follow vehicle was outfitted with small video cameras
that allowed for video capture of vehicle views. In the latter case, one camera was
attached to the vehicle’s windshield facing towards the front of the vehicle.
The other camera was mounted to the dashboard facing towards the rear of the vehicle,
capturing the driver and instructor.
4.2 Assessment results
Student performance was evaluated through an analysis of collected qualitative and
quantitative data. A variety of vehicle signals including th and xh, vf, adecel, and tr were
recorded and examined. In Figure 7, the vehicle headway distance, xh, (distance between
the rear bumper of the tailgate truck and the front bumper of the student-driven vehicle as
measured using GPS data) has been displayed vs. time. Vertical lines labelled ‘B’ and ‘C’
indicate the beginning of the two sequential braking events. The braking event was
initiated by the truck at t = 12.0 s; the participant responded at t = 12.5 s which represents
a 0.5 s reaction time. The speed of the vehicles just before braking was vx = 51.7 kph
(32.1 mph) (truck) and vx = 61.2 kph (38.0 mph) (students’ vehicle). Similarly, the
vehicle decelerations were adecel = –2.32 m/s2 (–7.6 ft/s2, –0.24 g’s) and –2.65 m/s2
(–8.9 ft/s2, 0.27 g’s) respectively.
Figure 7
Headway distance, xh, vs. time, t, for driver #1 on assessment run of the tailgate
exercise; two braking events began at B and C (see online version for colours)
A grading rubric was created to provide an analytical tool for the collected data
(refer to Figure A.1 in the Appendix). First, five criteria were chosen for grading with
weighting factors attached to each criterion. Participants received a score for each
criterion, using a scale of 0–5, based on the key performance data. An objective grade
for each participant was determined using the grading rubric and formula,
5
∑ j =1 ( Criteria Weight *Score ). A total of 100 points were possible.
Second, the in-vehicle instructors observed the manoeuvres and judged the
participant’s vehicle operation using a series of performance questions (see appendix).
If the student hit the tailgate cart, it was noted and impacted the student’s subjective
grade accordingly. For the example shown in Figure 7, participant #1 did not strike the
tailgate apparatus and had a subjective rating of 100 based on the observed compliance
with all criteria.
Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and test
329
The data for all participants has been compiled in Table 1. Two instrumented vehicles
and the support truck operated on a closed course during a two-day time period with two
in-vehicle instructors and one tailgate apparatus instructor driver. Both objective and
subjective evaluations were included in the student’s overall average rating with each
given equal weighting. In general, the subjective and objective scores for the students are
similar with the average difference between scores, equal to 11.4%. Note that subjects
#1–4 and #5–12 were from different events, and therefore had a different in-vehicle
instructor. This may explain the small variance, σ2, in subjective grading for students
#5–12 σ 2subject = 21.4, σ 2 object = 35.1) compared to students #1–4 σ 2subject = 425,
σ 2object = 63.8). The instructors used a standardised record sheet to evaluate the
participants (refer to Figure A.2 in the Appendix); however, instructors used personal
judgment to answer five of the six questions (#28–33).
Table 1
5
Summary of qualitative and quantitative data for each participant who completed the
tailgating exercise (Y = Yes, N = No)
Conclusion
A comprehensive training programme was developed utilising a custom-designed
apparatus for situational training. Twelve drivers participated under instructor guidance.
Both objective and subjective assessments were used to evaluate each participant’s
performance and provide a foundation for their evaluation. Nine of the 12 participants
passed, having received a grade of 85 or better. Two participants conditionally passed
with grades between 70 and 85 while a final participant failed with a grade below 70.
Of note were drivers #3 and #10. These participants enrolled at different events and had
different in-vehicle instructors. Both participants had very similar objective scores (73.5
and 76.5); however, they had very different subjective scores (50 and 90). Based upon the
slower speed before braking and larger headway before braking, driver #10 would be
perceived as much more cautious than driver #3, possibly skewing the instructor’s
evaluation towards a higher score than was warranted. While cautious driving is typically
safer, little learning benefit results from the slow, overly cautious driving exhibited by
student #10. Having both instructor evaluations (subjective grading) and in-vehicle data
collection devices (objective grading) improved the overall evaluation and driving
feedback to the students.
330
M. Jensen et al.
Finally, participants were asked to complete a programme evaluation including
questions about the course content and format. Every participant stated that they
benefited from the programme regardless of their level of driving proficiency. Further
evaluation of the programme validity is possible through correlation between
participants’ driving records and course assessment performance. An expanded study
with more participants would yield stronger results. In addition, complementary driver
training modules may be developed for an improved novice driver training course.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank J.B. Haller and Angus MacKenzie from Trivinci
Systems, LLC for their technical support.
References
Federal Highway Administration (2008) ‘Licensed drivers, vehicle registrations, and resident
population’, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/driver_licensing.htm, April.
Ferguson, S. and Williams, A. (1996) ‘‘Parents’ views of driver licensing practices in the United
States’, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, Summer, pp.73–81.
Foss, R. (2007) ‘Addressing behavioural elements in traffic safety: a recommended approach’,
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, www.aaafts.org/pdf/Foss.pdf, pp.1–15.
Hatakka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregersen, N., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002) ‘From control
of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education’,
Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 5, pp.201–215.
Hedlund, J., Shults, R. and Compton, R. (2006) ‘Graduated driver licensing and teenage driver
research in 2006’, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 37, No. 2, February, pp.107–121.
Kaptein, N., Theeuwes, J. and Van Der Horst R. (1996) ‘Driving simulator validity: some
considerations’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, Vol. 1550, pp.30–36.
Mayora, J.M.P. (2008) A Human Factor Based Approach for Effective Use of Driving Simulators
and E-Learning Tools for Driver Training and Education, European conference on human
centered design for intelligent transportation systems, Session 4: Tools and Methodologies for
ITS Design and Driver Awareness, Lyon, France, pp.205–215.
McKnight, A. (2006) Content of Driver Education, Transportation Research Circular, No. E-C101,
August, pp.4–6.
National Driver Education Standards Project (2009) Novice Teen Driver Education and Training
Administrative Standards, US Department of Transportation – National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington DC.
Norfleet, D., Jensen, M., Wagner, J., Alexander, K., Pidgeon, P. and Switzer, F. (2010) Automotive
Simulator Based Driver Training with Assessment, submitted to the 2011 SAE World
Congress, July.
Norfleet, D., Wagner, J., Alexander, K. and Pidgeon, P. (2009) Automotive Driving Simulators:
Research, Education, And Entertainment, SAE Paper No. 2009-01-0533, April.
Rosenbloom, T., Shahar, A., Elharar, A. and Danino, O. (2008) ‘Risk perception of driving as a
function of advanced training aimed at recognizing and handling risks in demanding driving
situations’, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 40, No. 2, March, pp.697–703.
Senserrick, T. (2007) ‘Recent developments in young driver education, training, and licensing
in Australia’, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 38, March, pp.237–244.
Automotive participant tailgating safety training device: design and test
331
Slick, R.F., Kim, E., Evans, D.F. and Steele, J.P. (2006) ‘Using simulators to train novice teen
drivers: assessing psychological fidelity as a precursor of transfer of training, Proceedings of
the Driving Simulator Conference – Asia/Pacific, May, Tsukuba, Japan, pp.1–10.
SUPREME (2007) ‘Thematic Report – Driver education, training, and licensing’, Summary and
Publication of Best Practices in Road Safety in the Member States, Vol. F2, June, pp.10–100.
Wang, Y., Zhang, W., Wu, S. and Guo, Y. (2007) ‘Simulators for driving safety study – a literature
review’, Virtual Reality, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4563, pp.584–593.
Williams, A., Preusser, D. and Ledingham, K. (2009) Feasibility Study on Evaluating Driver
Education Curriculum, U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Final Report, April, DOT HS 811 108.
Williams, A., Weinberg, K., Fields, M. and Ferguson, S. (1996) ‘Current requirements for getting a
drivers license in the United States’, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, Summer,
pp.93–101.
Nomenclature list
a
Acceleration (m/s2, ft/s2)
N
Engine speed (RPM)
Time (s)
t
V
Velocity (kph, mph, m/s, ft/s)
x
Distance travelled (m, ft)
Subscripts
decel
Deceleration
f
Prior to braking
h
Headway
max
Maximum
min
Minimum
r
Reaction
stop
During stopping manoeuvre
x
Longitudinal
y
Lateral
Appendix
Figure A.1
Grading rubric for the analysis of the collected data
Criteria
No title
Weight
factor 5
1 Headway
distance
10
4
Student
Student
maintained slightly
an ideal
deviated
headway
from ideal
distance
headway
distance
Scores & Attributes
3
2
Student
Student
mostly kept could not
a proper
maintain a
headway
consistent
distance with headway
acceptable
distance
deviation
1
0
Student
Student
showed
failed to
little to no maintain
application a proper
proper
headway
headway distance
distance
332
M. Jensen et al.
Figure A.1 Grading rubric for the analysis of the collected data (continued)
Criteria
No title
Weight
factor 5
Scores & Attributes
4
3
2
1
0
Student
maintained
3 second rule
with an
acceptable
deviation
Student
Student
Student
showed no
showed
only
application
inconsistent slightly
grasp for applied the or use of the
3 second 3 second
the 3
rule
second rule rule
2 Headway
time
2
Student
always
applied a
3 second
rule
Student
slightly
deviated
from 3
second
rule
3 Speed
2
Student did
not go
above 36
MPH
Student
Student did
did not go not go above
above 37 38 MPH
MPH
Student
did not go
above 39
MPH
Student
did not go
above 40
MPH
4 Speed
difference
2
Student’s
speed was
virtually
identical to
truck’s
speed at all
times
Student’s
speed only
slightly
deviates
from
truck’s
speed
Student
could not
keep
truck’s
speed
Student
Student was
showed no erratic with
awareness their speed
to the
level with
truck’s
respect to
speed and the truck
space
5 Application
4
Student did
not
anticipate
manoeuvre
Student
Student
slightly
showed
pulled off consistent
accelerator relief on
before
accelerator
manoeuvre before
manoeuvre
Figure A.2
Student
shows an
acceptable
variance
from truck’s
speed
Student
failed to
reach any
type of trap
speed
Student
Student
Student
began to
fully
shoed a
brake before
pulled
sudden
the truck
release in off of
acceleration accelerator began to
before
before
brake
manoeuvre manoeuvre
In-vehicle training assessment sheet including grading scale (see online version
for colours)