Driving simulator validation for speed research

1. Driving simulator validation for speed research Professor: Liu Student: Ruby

2. Purpose & motive • Purpose • Using the advanced driving simulator for evaluating speeding strategy was performed for mean speed. • Motive • The authors think the simulators must have appropriate validity to be useful human factors research tools.

3. Reference

4. Method: instrumented car • Participants • 24 participants (12males, 12females) • Age from 22 to 52 years old (average age: 29.8) • Have the driving license for 3 years • Treatment and control sites • The three pairs of sites chosen were located in suburban Melbourne. (stop sign, right and left curve.) • The curves had an angle of curvature of 150°. All sites were on two-lane suburban roads with a 60 kph speed limit.

5. Method: instrumented car • Rumble strips • The rumble strips used were red • The width is 60 cm and the high is 1 cm • Excluded participants • There 5 participants deleted for the stop sign • There 1 participant deleted for the right curves • There 4 participants deleted for the left curves

6. Method: simulator experiment • Participants • 20 participants (12males, 8females) • Age from 22 to 40 years old (the average is 26.4) • The participants who did the first method can not did the second method. • Driving simulator • The MUARC Research Driving Simulator

7. Method: simulator experiment • Rumble strips • The rumble strips used were red • The longitude is 60 cm and the high is 1 cm • A 0.5 m gap between the end of strips and both the centerline and gutter. • Routes and terrain • 4 routes here, 2 for practice and 2 for the test. • The second practice and test are set in a suburban.

8. Data organization • The data for the two tests were collected.

9. Result-stop sign approach • The speed at the treatment site stop sign approach was significantly slower than at the control site, F(1,37)=22.98, P0.001. • The simulator treatment site speed was 4.12 kph faster F(1,37)= 11.09, P0.01), and the simulator control site speed was 3.73 kph faster F(1,37)=6.05, P0.05.

10. Result-right curve approach • There was no difference between the mean speed at the treatment and control sites averaged across both experiments F(1,41)=3.66, P=0.063. • The simulator treatment site was slower than its control site by 4.33 kph. The two experiments generated a significant interaction F(1,41)=7.24, P0.01. • The control site speed was slower by 3.84 kph in the instrumented car experiment than it was in the simulator experiment F(1,41)=5.42, P0.05.

11. Result-left curve approach • Driving was slower at the treatment sites than at the control sites F(1,38)=32.54, P0.001. • Speed differences were significantly different between the two experiments, F(1,38)=18.36, P0.001. • Participants drove significantly faster in the instrumented car than in the simulator by 10.20 kph at the treatment left curve approaches F(1,38)=21.50, P 0.001.

12. Discussion-relative validation • The simulator had larger average speed differences between its treatment and control sites during the curve roads than the on-road trials. • The speeds at the treatment in instrumented car experiment were faster than they were at the control. • The treatment speeds started to reduce, compared to the control site speeds.

13. Discussion-relative validation • In the on-road tests, the treatment speeds were faster than they were at the control sites for the curve roads. • The on-road curve treatment had wider than their control sites, and wider lane widths are helpful to driving faster. • The treatment used in the instrumented car experiment were chosen for rumble strip.

14. Discussion-relative validation • The on-road treatment had faster speeds than the control sites, when speeds started to slow at the treatment (relative to the control sites), it was some distance before the treatment speeds became slower than the control site speeds. • The averaged relative validity differences at the curve roads were also exacerbated by the speed reduced at the treatment starting earlier on the simulator.

15. Discussion-relative validation • All participants came to a complete stop at the intersection at both sites in both experiments, the converging speed pattern should have been found in both tests. • The simulator may have slightly increased the speed differences between the three treatment and control evaluated.

16. Discussion-absolute validation • The general trend found was for the simulator to induce slower speeds than the instrumented car.

17. Conclusions • The speed profiles indicate a speed decreased relative to control roads or other roads. • Speed has been clearly verified as a dependent variable for research using the simulator.