Traffic Safety Facts

Traffic Tech – Technology Transfer Series

Number 343 March 2008

Evaluation of PC-Based Novice Driver 

Risk Awareness

It	is	well	known	that	new	drivers	have	a	greatly	increased	risk	

of	a	motor	vehicle	crash.	In	response	to	this	problem,	States	

enacted	graduated	driver	licensing	laws	over	the	last	decade,	

and	 the	 legislation	 is	 linked	 with	 reduced	 crash	 rates	 during	the	first	six	months	of	solo	driving.	However,	crash	rates	

per	vehicle	mile	traveled	in	the	first	months	post-licensure	

are	still	significantly	higher	than	other	age	groups.	Research	

indicates	that	these	crashes	frequently	result	from	poor	hazard	 perception	 or	 attention	 maintenance.	 Thus,	 this	 fivestudy	project,	completed	by	the	Human	Performance	Lab	at	

the	University	of	Massachusetts	at	Amherst,	had	two	goals:	

testing	the	efficacy	of	hazard	perception	training	for	young	

drivers,	and	assessing	differences	between	young	and	experienced	drivers’	attention	maintenance.	The	hazard	perception	studies	were	based	on	prior	work	that	showed	training	

novice	drivers	to	recognize	potentially	risky	scenarios	(e.g.,	a	

truck	obstructing	the	view	of	a	pedestrian	who	might	enter	a	

crosswalk)	significantly	improved	scanning	for	hazards.	

The	training	procedure	was	similar	across	the	first	four	studies.	First,	researchers	showed	drivers	schematics	and/or	pictures	of	potentially	risky	driving	scenes	and	asked	them	to	

indicate	places	that	deserved	relatively	constant	monitoring	

and	where	sudden	risks	could	occur.	The	experimenters	provided	feedback	to	the	drivers	regarding	the	correct	locations	

and	 reasons	 why	 certain	 situations	 were	 hazardous.	 The	

drivers’	behavior	was	assessed	in	various	conditions	using	

either	 simulators	 or	 actual	 vehicles	 to	 answer	 questions	

about	the	efficacy	of	training	young	drivers	to	improve	their	

risk	perception.

Experiment 1: Will the effects of training remain after several days?

The	first	study	assessed	hazard	detection	accuracy	of	trained	

relative	to	untrained	young	drivers	three	to	five	days	after	

training	sessions.	The	researchers	also	tested	“near-”	and	“fartransfer”	scenarios	to	assess	the	extent	to	which	the	training	

would	 generalize	 novel	 scenarios.	 Near-transfer	 scenarios	

were	 driving	 situations	 analogous	 to	 training	 scenes	 (e.g.,	

hidden	driveway	on	the	left	during	training	and	post-test).	

Far-transfer	scenarios	were	not	introduced	during	training.	

The	researchers	evaluated	the	training	program	with	a	driving	 simulator	 and	 an	 eye-tracker	 –	 a	 device	 that	 monitors	

and	 records	 eye	 movements.	 There	 were	 predetermined	

“critical	regions”	for	each	post-training	scenario.	If	the	eyetracker	indicated	that	drivers	looked	in	these	regions,	participants	were	counted	as	having	detected	the	potential	hazards.	

Trained	 novice	 drivers	 were	 nearly	 twice	 as	 likely	 (51.8%	

detection)	as	their	untrained	counterparts	(28.8%	detection)	

to	recognize	hazards	in	near-transfer	scenarios	several	days	

after	training.	The	results	also	indicate	that	trained	drivers	

were	more	accurate	than	untrained	drivers	in	detecting	hazards	in	far-transfer	scenarios	(53.1%	versus	27.1%).	

Experiment 2: Will training extend to the actual roadway?	The	

studies	that	showed	a	benefit	to	hazard	perception	training	

were	 evaluated	 with	 a	 driving	 simulator.	 Training	 would	

be	of	little	value	if	the	behavior	did	not	transfer	to	an	actual	

motor	vehicle.	Therefore,	the	researchers	assessed	the	effects	

of	 training	 on	 young	 drivers’	 ability	 to	 detect	 hazards	 on	

actual	roadways.	The	training	program	used	in	Experiment	

1	was	modified	to	include	photographs	in	addition	to	plan	

views.	As	with	the	earlier	studies,	the	researchers	reported	

that	across	all	scenarios	trained	young	drivers	were	nearly	

two	 times	 more	 likely	 than	 untrained	 young	 drivers	 to	

detect	potential	roadway	risks	(60.6%	trained	versus	31.8%	

untrained).	Further,	trained	drivers	were	significantly	more	

accurate	at	perceiving	potential	risks	in	far	transfer	scenarios	

than	were	untrained	drivers.

Experiment 3: Will the modified training program obtain similar results when evaluated with a simulator?	 Now	 that	 one	

has	 established	 that	 training	 does	 generalize	 to	 the	 field,	

one	would	like	to	know	that	the	absolute	size	of	the	effects	

obtained	in	the	field	and	on	the	simulator	were	identical.	But,	

because	 different	 training	 programs	 were	 used	 in	 Experiments	1	(simulator)	and	2	(field),	the	results	from	these	two	

experiments	 cannot	 be	 compared.	 Thus,	 in	 Experiment	 3,	

the	training	procedure	and	evaluation	scenarios	used	were	

identical	to	Experiment	2,	but	the	effectiveness	of	the	training	

program	was	evaluated	with	a	simulator.	Again,	the	findings	

indicate	that	trained	participants	more	accurately	perceived	

risks	than	untrained	participants	(77.4%	versus	40%),	and	the	

results	of	the	simulator	assessment	were	similar	to	the	evaluation	completed	in	the	field.	Figure	1	shows	a	comparison	

of	the	overall	training	effects	associated	with	Experiments	2	

(field)	and	3	(simulator).	

U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Figure 1. Percent Scanning Critical Region in Simulator 

and Field Studies as a Function of Training.

Experiment 4: Will training that uses a low-cost simulator improve 

risk perception?	The	researchers	devised	a	new	training	program	that	was	hoped	would	bring	novice	drivers	closer	to	

criterion	 performance.	 Participants	 in	 the	 training	 group	

were	first	exposed	to	the	methods	described	in	Experiments	

1	through	3,	and	then	they	were	trained	further	with	a	lowcost	driving	simulator	(different	from	the	one	being	used	to	

evaluate	the	effects	of	training	in	Experiments	1	–	3	and	in	

this	experiment).	During	simulator	training,	the	participants	

drove	 through	 scenarios	 repeatedly	 until	 they	 made	 head	

movements	toward	the	area	that	contained	the	risk.	Researchers	assessed	the	training	program	with	a	high-fidelity	simulator.	The	assessment	again	included	near-transfer	scenarios	

(situations	present	during	training)	and	far-transfer	scenarios	

(situations	not	present	during	training).	Overall,	the	training	

group	recognized	significantly	more	risks	(72.4%)	than	the	

control	group	(46.9%).	Further	research	is	needed	to	determine	whether	the	simulator	training	offers	a	benefit	beyond	

the	training	program	used	in	Experiments	1	through	3.

Summary: Experiments 1-4.	The	findings	indicate	that	training	

effects	are	evident	with	several	days	between	training	and	

evaluation,	that	the	effects	extend	to	the	field	and	to	scenarios	 different	 than	 those	 presented	 in	 training,	 and	 that	 the	

results	are	similar	whether	evaluated	in	the	field	or	on	a	driving	simulator.	

Experiment 5: Are young drivers more likely than experienced drivers to divert attention away from the forward roadway?	The	100-car	

naturalistic	driving	study	found	that	glances	away	from	the	

forward	roadway	lasting	longer	than	2	seconds	were	related	

to	increased	near-crash	risk.1	In	the	fifth	study,	participants	

completed	 several	 in-vehicle	 tasks,	 such	 as	 searching	 for	 a	

road	on	a	map,	and	one	outside-of-vehicle	task	–	searching	

a	roadside	sign	for	the	presence	of	a	particular	letter.	Several	

seconds	of	focused,	visual	attention	were	needed	to	complete	

the	tasks.	Participants	completed	the	tasks	while	driving	a	

simulator	and	wearing	eye-tracking	equipment.	Young	drivers	were	significantly	more	likely	than	older	drivers	to	look	

away	from	the	road	when	completing	the	in-vehicle	tasks.	

One	measure	showing	this	difference	was	the	percent	of	scenarios	in	which	the	maximum	glance	duration	was	greater	

than	2	seconds.	Among	the	young	driver	group,	56.7	percent	

of	the	maximum	glances	were	greater	than	2	seconds	compared	to	20	percent	for	the	older	participant	group.	

Limitations.	 First,	 the	 sample	 sizes	 of	 the	 research	 projects	

were	small	and	may	not	represent	the	population	of	young	

drivers.	 Second,	 participants	 in	 hazard	 perception	 Experiments	3	and	4	ranged	in	age	from	18	to	21,	an	age	range	with	

different	crash	patterns	than	16-	to	17-year-old	drivers.	The	

benefits	of	hazard	detection	training	were	consistent	across	

studies.	 Future	 research	 is	 needed	 to	 determine	 whether	

these	findings	can	reduce	crashes	or	crash	risk.	

1

	 Klauer,	 S.	 G.,	 Dingus,	 T.	 A.,	 Neale,	 V.	 L.,	 Sudweeks,	 J.	 D.,	 &	

Ramsey,	 D.	 J.	 (2006).	 The Impact of Driver Inattention On NearCrash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic 

 Driving Study Data. Washington,	DC:	National	Highway	Traffic	

Safety	Administration.

How to Order

Download	a	copy	of	Evaluation of PC-Based Novice Driver 

Risk Awareness (100	pages)	from	NHTSA.dot.gov	or	write	

to	the	Office	of	Behavioral	Safety	Research,	NHTSA,	NTI130,	

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue	SE.,	Washington,	DC	20590,	fax	202-

366-7096.	Ian	Reagan	was	the	Contracting	Officer’s	Technical	

Representative	for	this	project.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Simulator Field

Percent Scanning Critical Area

Untrained 

Trained

TRAFFIC TECH	is	a	publication	to	disseminate	information	about	

traffic	 safety	 programs,	 including	 evaluations,	 innovative	 programs,	and	new	publications.	Feel	free	to	copy	it	as	you	wish.	If	you	

would	like	to	receive	a	copy,	contact	Patricia	Ellison-Potter,	Ph.D.,	

Editor,	fax	202-366-7096,	e-mail:	traffic.tech@dot.gov.

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue	SE.,	NTI-130

Washington,	DC	20590