## 6 Results  
To rigorously assess the differences between the three training modalities (practical, e-learning, manual), non-parametric statistical tests were employed, as the data for some variables were not normally distributed. Specifically, the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to compare the group medians for key performance indicators. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the model-generated performance scores across the training groups (H(2) = 7.85, \(p\) = 0.02). Post hoc tests using [PERSON]'s procedure with Bonferroni correction showed that the practical training group (Mean Rank = 31.5) performed significantly better than both the e-learning group (Mean Rank = 21.8, \(p\) = 0.041) and the manual instruction group (Mean Rank = 20.1, \(p\) = 0.015). Figure 5: Functions of input affiliation time_reaction_Rtl [Source: own study]. Figure 6: Function of the dependence of the output value of the controller on the value of the time_reaction_Rtl inputs and the number of attempts [Source: own work]. Furthermore, a significant difference was observed in the number of system activation attempts (H(2) = 8.27, \(p\) = 0.016), where the practical group required fewer attempts than the manual instruction group (\(p\) = 0.016) and the e-learning group (\(p\) = 0.010). These results provide robust, quantitative evidence that the training method has a direct and significant impact on driver competence. Tables 1 and 2 compare the results of the model for practical training broken down by the age of the respondents. The 'Model Output Score' column in Tables 1 and 2 presents the continuous numerical output generated by the fuzzy logic model for each participant. This score is the final, defuzzified value, which is subsequently interpreted into one of three performance classes: 'unacceptable' (score \(\leq\) 2.7), 'acceptable' (2.7 < score \(\leq\) 3.7), or'very good' (score > 3.7). Presenting the raw numerical score, rather than the categorical label, allows for a more granular and detailed statistical comparison of performance between the groups. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the ratings of the respondents who have undergone practical training. The results indicate that, regardless of age, this form of training was highly effective. As many as 81% of the respondents achieved acceptable and very good grades. None of these people posed a threat to other road users. The behavior of just one person in the 25-39 age group was judged unacceptable. In the group of people aged 40-65, there were two people. These subjects were not able to use the system safely on their own. A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to compare the performance outcomes of the practical training between the two age groups (25-39 and 40-65). Key metrics, including measures of central tendency and variability, were calculated to identify any age-related performance trends. The results indicate that while the mean scores were comparable between the younger (M = 4.11, SD = 0.88) and older (M = 3.91, SD = 0.92) cohorts, the median scores suggest a different trend. The older group achieved a higher median score (Mdn = 4.42) compared to the younger group (Mdn = 4.07), indicating that the typical performance of an older driver who successfully completed the training was very high. This is further supported \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of the Respondent** & **Age** & **Number\_of\_Samples** & **Response\_Time\_wl\_System [s]** & **Time\_Reaction\_RII [s]** & **Model Output Score** \\ \hline P3 & 30 & 5 & 3.76 & 6.95 & 2.37 \\ P30 & 36 & 4 & 1.71 & 8.65 & 4.51 \\ P36 & 34 & 5 & 3.25 & 2.95 & 4.01 \\ P39 & 27 & 3 & 1.18 & 4.76 & 5 \\ P40 & 33 & 3 & 2.86 & 4.04 & 4.07 \\ P42 & 27 & 4 & 3.19 & 4.89 & 3.83 \\ P67 & 27 & 3 & 1.2 & 4.7 & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Model results for practical training—age group 25–39 years [Source: own study].