4.7 Article

That's close enough-A threshold effect of time headway on the experience of risk, task difficulty, effort, and comfort

期刊

ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 1926-1933

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.05.014

关键词

Driver Behaviour Theory; Risk; Task Difficulty; Driver decision-making; Car following

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subjective impressions of task difficulty, risk, effort, and comfort are key variables of several theories of driver behaviour. A point of difference between many of these theories is not only the importance of these variables, but also whether they are continuously present and monitored or only experienced by individuals at certain critical points in the driving task. Both a threshold relationship and evidence of constant monitoring of risk and task difficulty have been found for speed choice. In light of these conflicting findings this study seeks to examine a different part of the driving task, the choice of time headway. Participants (N = 40, aged 19 to 30) drove in a simulator behind a vehicle travelling at 50 km/h at set time headways ranging from 0.5 seconds to 4.0 seconds. After each drive ratings of task difficulty, risk, comfort, and effort were collected. In addition participants were asked to drive at the time headway they preferred. In order to assess familiarity participants also drove on both the left and right hand side of the road and the role of driving experience was also examined. The results show support for a threshold awareness of task difficulty, risk, effort, and comfort in relation to time headway. Participant's ratings of these variables tended to be low or nil at large time headways, but then around the 2.0 second mark began to noticeably increase. Feelings of task difficulty, risk, and effort were also found to be highly correlated with each other. No effect of driving experience or side of the road was found. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据