Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 18
18 Both the low-end and midrange simulators discussed by were better prepared for their initial driving assignment. Brock et al. are limited to training one user at a time; how- Seventy-five percent of the drivers surveyed reported that their ever, this provides one-on-one time with an instructor. The bus simulation training enhanced their learning experience, low-end simulator is designed to train students to maneuver although 6 of the 51 respondents reported motion sickness, a transit bus in relatively tight, unforgiving situations. It is a dizziness, and disorientation after bus simulation training. model-board system that replicates the visual, auditory, and Guidelines for what type of simulator should be acquired vibratory effects of driving a bus in an urban, crowded envi- by agencies wishing to integrate training into their curriculum ronment. Skills that may be taught with the system include were provided by Brock et al. (2001). An open loop simulator approaching a bus stop, parking, tight turns, and backing. provides skills-based training opportunities. It can be used to Brock et al. state that students and trainers are convinced that train perceptual skills in a noninteractive environment, includ- use of this simulator allows new operators to get into actual ing stopping distances, role of reaction time, and visual recog- buses more quickly and results in safer drivers. The midrange nition. It costs approximately $40,000 to $80,000. A low-end simulator is the newest and most expensive, and few are cur- simulator provides rules-based training opportunities and rently in use. Its visual (graphics-based) and auditory systems some skills-based learning. It can be used to train vehicle are much more realistic, and it uses a rear-projection screen maneuvers in a static environment, including parking, backing, allowing drivers to adjust their mirrors to experience the full turns, and tight maneuvers. It costs approximately $100,000. extent of the driving environment beside and behind the vehi- A midrange simulator provides skills-based, rules-based, and cle. A student drives in a 50-square-mile virtual world where knowledge-based training opportunities. It can be used to train the instructor regulates other traffic flow and can insert vehicle skill integration in a dynamic environment, including forward malfunctions into the scenarios. planning, observation skills, push-pull steering, directional Brock et al. (2001) note that the use of simulation decreased signal use, proper mirror use, and driving in traffic. It costs trainee drop-out rates by 35% for an agency using the mid- approximately $300,000. When deciding to use simulation, level simulator, decreased student failure rates by 50% in an companies (or schools) must adjust their current training pro- agency that uses the open loop and the low-end simulators, gram to utilize the particular technology appropriately; oth- and decreased the collision rate by 10% in an agency using a erwise, just adding simulation to an existing program could combination of open-loop and low-end simulators. In addi- add to program cost without increasing effectiveness. tion, the use of simulation reduced training time in one agency Vance et al. (2002) similarly offer that reasoning or cogni- from 19 days to 17 days, by replacing classroom bus train- tive ability tasks do not require high physical fidelity simula- ing with simulator training. In another agency using just the tors, whereas training that involves learning perceptual-motor open-loop system, training time was reduced by 5 days when skills or the interaction of the trainee with the layout of the simulation was employed. The only agency surveyed that equipment does require high physical fidelity. Also, a close cor- used the midrange simulator reported that 90 days after train- respondence between equipment in a simulator and the actual ing, 32% of their conventionally trained drivers had expe- equipment in the vehicle is desirable to enhance the transfer rienced a crash, compared with 18% of their simulator- of training to the real-world situation. trained drivers. In this agency, simulator training in tasks At the high end of simulator applications for CMV driver related to overtaking and being overtaken by vehicles on the training, a $1-million system recently purchased by the Texas left and right sides of the bus resulted in fewer crashes by the Motor Transportation Association deserves mention. This students performing these maneuvers in the real world (17 system is used to allow experienced truck drivers to safely crashes by the simulator-trained students compared with 154 experience dangerous situations such as a veering car, a tire crashes for the nonsimulator-trained students). blowout, or dense fog. The full-motion simulator is built into The transit agencies surveyed by Brock et al. reported that a 53-ft trailer and uses an authentic truck cab that moves in simulators are also able to replace some of the hours spent in response to a driver's inputs when viewing driving scenarios the actual vehicle. This can have a significant impact on train- on a large screen. The trailer also contains a small classroom ing costs, as simulator costs can run as low as $3 per hour per with six computers that provide interactive lessons on topics student versus $40 per hour per student for in-vehicle training. such as space management and securing loads. The associa- Results of a survey of bus operator trainers conducted by tion will rent the unit to carriers for $1,000 per day. No data Brock et al. (2001) indicate a high level of satisfaction with regarding the effectiveness of this training tool was found in their training simulators. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents this review. indicated that simulator training is more effective than tradi- tional training for teaching certain types of knowledge, skills, or attitudes. In particular, simulator training validates defen- COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING sive driving techniques taught in the classroom, provides an opportunity to experience hazardous situations without putting Computer-based training is a means of providing company- the students or the bus at risk, reinforces proper driving habits wide job consistency and reducing training costs (Kahaner, and defensive driving principles, and allows instructors to 2001). UPS, which has been using CD- and web-based pro- check reaction time, eye-hand coordination, and driving skills. grams since 1998, states that they are much more efficient Instructors indicated that trainees with little or no experience and yield better results than paper manuals. A computer-based