This report describes three studies that focus on the role of car drivers in car– motorcycle interactions. Study 1 targets some of the top-down influences that feed into the driving schemata. The study builds on our previous research which found car drivers to have poor empathy and considerable negative attitudes towards motorcycles, and linked them to reported accident rates. In an attempt to improve car drivers’ attitudes towards motorcyclists the authors exposed drivers to a motorcyclist’s perspective through the use of hazard perception clips filmed from a moving motorcycle, and had them ride a motorcycle simulator through a series of virtual hazards. By exposing car drivers to some of the dangers that motorcyclists face we hoped to encourage empathy and to reduce negative attitudes towards motorcyclists. Attitude change was measured via pre-and post-intervention questionnaires, based on the questionnaire used in a previous study. Study 2 was concerned with assessing why drivers pull out in front of approaching motorcycles at T-junctions and why some drivers change lanes on multiple-carriageway roads without ostensibly being aware of an overtaking motorcycle. Both of these situations are right-of-way violations on the part of the car driver, and equate well to the two most common forms of car–motorcycle accidents. Often drivers resort to a LBFTS excuse, yet it remains to be seen whether the drivers have problems looking at, perceiving or appraising the conflicting motorcycle. In order to gain insight into this, we developed a multiple screen hazard perception test, allowing drivers to watch videos that included T-junction and change-lane scenarios. The additional screens allowed participants to look down the road at junctions, while inset mirror information allowed drivers to search for overtaking vehicles in change-lane scenarios. Eye movement recordings allowed us to assess whether any problems with motorcycles were due to failures to look (the visual search strategy), failures to perceive (as noted in gaze durations upon conflicting vehicles) or failures to appraise the level of risk (button responses). Finally, Study 3 attempted to improve where drivers look, whether they perceive, and whether they correctly appraise, the risk of an approaching motorcycle. Three separate training interventions were developed. The performance and eye movements of the three trained groups on the multiple-screen hazard perception rig were compared with a control group. (Author/publisher) This report may be accessed by Internet users at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/cardriversatt…
Abstract