Pete Thomas, Ruth Welsh, Andrew Morris, Steve Reed
{"title":"验证自我报告的驾驶行为是实际驾驶速度的决定因素。","authors":"Pete Thomas, Ruth Welsh, Andrew Morris, Steve Reed","doi":"10.1080/00140139.2024.2395419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Self-reported driver behaviour has long been a tool used by road safety researchers to classify drivers and to evaluate the impact of interventions yet the relationship with real-world driving is challenging to validate due to the need for extensive, detailed observations of normal driving. This study examines this association by applying the large UDRIVE naturalistic driving study data involving 96 car drivers, comprising 131,462 trips and 1,459,110 km travelled over a duration of 32,096 hours, to compare individual questions and composite indicators based on the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire with real world driving. Self-reported speed behaviour was compared to the measured values under urban and highway conditions. Generalised Linear Mixed Models were developed to examine the relationships between the observed speed behaviours with DBQ errors and violations scores in conjunction with traffic and environmental factors. Drivers' self-reported data on speed selection seldom aligned with their real-world behaviour and there were no meaningful differences between many of the response categories. The DBQ violations and errors scales showed a highly significant correlation with driving speed indicators however they had a low explanatory power compared to other traffic situational and driving factors. Overall, the study highlights the need to validate self-reported driving data against the accuracy and relevance to real-world driving.</p>","PeriodicalId":50503,"journal":{"name":"Ergonomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating self-reported driving behaviours as determinants of real-world driving speeds.\",\"authors\":\"Pete Thomas, Ruth Welsh, Andrew Morris, Steve Reed\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00140139.2024.2395419\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Self-reported driver behaviour has long been a tool used by road safety researchers to classify drivers and to evaluate the impact of interventions yet the relationship with real-world driving is challenging to validate due to the need for extensive, detailed observations of normal driving. This study examines this association by applying the large UDRIVE naturalistic driving study data involving 96 car drivers, comprising 131,462 trips and 1,459,110 km travelled over a duration of 32,096 hours, to compare individual questions and composite indicators based on the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire with real world driving. Self-reported speed behaviour was compared to the measured values under urban and highway conditions. Generalised Linear Mixed Models were developed to examine the relationships between the observed speed behaviours with DBQ errors and violations scores in conjunction with traffic and environmental factors. Drivers' self-reported data on speed selection seldom aligned with their real-world behaviour and there were no meaningful differences between many of the response categories. The DBQ violations and errors scales showed a highly significant correlation with driving speed indicators however they had a low explanatory power compared to other traffic situational and driving factors. Overall, the study highlights the need to validate self-reported driving data against the accuracy and relevance to real-world driving.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ergonomics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2395419\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2395419","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Validating self-reported driving behaviours as determinants of real-world driving speeds.
Self-reported driver behaviour has long been a tool used by road safety researchers to classify drivers and to evaluate the impact of interventions yet the relationship with real-world driving is challenging to validate due to the need for extensive, detailed observations of normal driving. This study examines this association by applying the large UDRIVE naturalistic driving study data involving 96 car drivers, comprising 131,462 trips and 1,459,110 km travelled over a duration of 32,096 hours, to compare individual questions and composite indicators based on the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire with real world driving. Self-reported speed behaviour was compared to the measured values under urban and highway conditions. Generalised Linear Mixed Models were developed to examine the relationships between the observed speed behaviours with DBQ errors and violations scores in conjunction with traffic and environmental factors. Drivers' self-reported data on speed selection seldom aligned with their real-world behaviour and there were no meaningful differences between many of the response categories. The DBQ violations and errors scales showed a highly significant correlation with driving speed indicators however they had a low explanatory power compared to other traffic situational and driving factors. Overall, the study highlights the need to validate self-reported driving data against the accuracy and relevance to real-world driving.
期刊介绍:
Ergonomics, also known as human factors, is the scientific discipline that seeks to understand and improve human interactions with products, equipment, environments and systems. Drawing upon human biology, psychology, engineering and design, Ergonomics aims to develop and apply knowledge and techniques to optimise system performance, whilst protecting the health, safety and well-being of individuals involved. The attention of ergonomics extends across work, leisure and other aspects of our daily lives.
The journal Ergonomics is an international refereed publication, with a 60 year tradition of disseminating high quality research. Original submissions, both theoretical and applied, are invited from across the subject, including physical, cognitive, organisational and environmental ergonomics. Papers reporting the findings of research from cognate disciplines are also welcome, where these contribute to understanding equipment, tasks, jobs, systems and environments and the corresponding needs, abilities and limitations of people.
All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees.