The author suggests that the distinction between violation and error is, at present, arbitrary. This is due to the fact that there is no useable taxonomy of normative driver behaviour. Even if there would be, translating such a taxonomy into a dynamic driver model would still have to be accomplished. So far, the notion of computational modelling has not yet produced a representation of driver behaviour. Motivational models, on the other hand, still lack precision to be able to distinguish between error and violation. Much progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms underlying intentional violations, but this line of research is based on a priori assumptions of error-based and violation-based behaviour. The distinction between error and violation, or unintended and intended deviation from normative, reference behaviour is not just a theoretic issue. It has far reaching consequences for the way deviant behaviour can be corrected. Driver training should distinguish between the two. Identifying deviant drivers is only useful if it is determined why they are deviant. In transport telematics, driver support systems based on error correction and driver surveillance systems based on violation detecting and feedback need to be integrated. The debate about errors versus violations as accident contributory factors needs to be preceded by a discussion about how to distinguish between the two.
Samenvatting