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 63
HFG TUTORIALS Version 1.0 Tutorial 1: Real-World Driver Behavior Versus Design Models Much of the information on sight distance presented in Chapter 5 reflects the application of empirically derived models to determine sight distance requirements. Such models, while valu- able for estimating driver behavior across a broad range of drivers, conditions, and situations, have limitations. This tutorial discusses how driver behavior as represented in sight distance models may dif- fer from actual driver behavior. The design models presented in Chapter 5 use simplified con- cepts of how the driver thinks and acts. This simplification should not be viewed as a flaw or error in the sight distance equations. These models are a very effective way of bringing human factors data into design equations in a manner that makes them accessible and usable. After all, the in- tent of a sight distance equation is not to reflect the complexities of human behavior but to bring what we know about it into highway design in a concise, practical way. However, like any behav- ioral model, models for deriving sight distance requirements are not precise predictors of every case and there may be some limitations to their generality. Therefore, having an understanding of certain basic principles of human behavior in driving situations is useful to better interpret these models and to understand how they may differ from the range of real-world driving situ- ations. Sight distance formulas for various maneuvers (presented in Chapter 5) differ from one an- other, but they share a common simple behavioral model as part of the process. The model as- sumes that some time is required for drivers to perceive and react to a situation or condition re- quiring a particular driving maneuver (i.e., PRT), which is followed by some time (i.e., MT) and/or distance required to execute the maneuver. Sight distance equations for some maneuvers may contain additional elements or assumptions; however, all have this basic two-stage model somewhere at their core. The two equations that follow show two versions of the general, two-component model. In both versions, the first term shows the distance traveled during the PRT component and the sec- ond term shows the distance traveled during the MT component. The difference is that the first equation shows a case where the distance traveled while executing the maneuver is based on the time required to make that maneuver (for example, the time to cross an intersection from a Stop), while the second equation shows a case where the distance traveled while executing the maneuver is based directly on the distance required to complete the maneuver (for example, braking distance for an emergency stop). For both forms of this general equation, vehicle speed (V) influences the second (MT) component. The general form of the sight distance equation is: d SD = kVt prt + kVt man , where maneuver time is input or d SD = kVt prt + d manV , where maneuver time is input Where: d = required sight distance V = velocity of the vehicle(s) tprt = PRT tman = MT dmanV = distance required to execute a maneuver at velocity V k = a constant to convert the solution to the desired units (feet, meters) 22-2
OCR for page 64
HFG TUTORIALS Version 1.0 · Groeger, J. A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press. · Krammes, R. A., Brackett, R. Q., Shafer, M. A., Ottesen, J. L., Anderson, I. B., Fink, K. L., Collins, K. M., Pendleton, O. J., and Messer, C. J. (1995). Horizontal Alignment Design Con- sistency for Rural Two-Lane Highways. Final Report. (FHWA-RD-94-034). McLean, VA: FHWA. · McKnight, A. J., and Adams, B. B. (1970). Driver Education Task Analysis. Volume I. Task Description. (DOT HS 800 367). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Ad- ministration. · Pendleton, O. J., and Messer, C. J. (1995). Horizontal Alignment Design Consistency for Rural Two-Lane Highways. Final Report. (FHWA-RD-94-034). McLean, VA: FHWA. · Richard, C. M., Campbell, J. L., and Brown, J. L. (2006). Task Analysis of Intersection Driving Scenarios: Information Processing Bottlenecks (FHWA-HRT-06-033). Washington, DC: FHWA. Available at http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/06033/ · Salvendy, G. (Ed.). (1997) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. · Serafin, C. (1994). Driver Eye Fixations on Rural Roads: Insight into Safe Driving Behavior. (UMTRI-94-21). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. · Underwood, G. (1998). Eye Guidance in Reading and Scene Perception. Oxford: Elsevier. · Vaniotou, M. (1991). The perception of bend configuration. Recherche Transports Securite, (7), 3948. For the most part, these references and the other research provided information about which tasks were involved in a given segment, but not complete information about the spe- cific information-processing subtasks. To determine this information, the details about the in- formation-processing subtasks and any other necessary information were identified by the au- thors based on expert judgment and other more general sources of driving behavior and human factors research (e.g., Groegor, 2000; Salvendy, 1997; Underwood, 1998). 22-37