Accident statistics alone cannot provide a sound understanding of driver error, although they can assist the evaluation of remedial measures against errors and accidents. Roadside observation of drivers' errors can provide a valid index of their relative riskiness and of overall accident frequency, but only in route-specific applications. Field testing of hypotheses developed from theories of driver error is seen to be a far more valid and arguably more cost-effective method of improving road safety than relying on post hoc subjective assessments of error contributions to accident statistics. The distinction between driving task and environmental factors which contribute to error production and those which constrain error correction is not well-documented in road accident studies. Yet it seems essential to make this distinction if we are to reach a sound understanding of research requirements in this field and hence identify and evaluate cost effective countermeasurs against driver error. The bias which certain drivers appear to have towards inadequate safety margins is seen to provide an instructive theoretical framework for field studies of error production and error correction as contributory factors in traffic accident causation. (A) For the covering abstract of this conference see IRRD 834497.
Samenvatting