Driving Simulator Validity of Driving Behavior in Work Zones

Driving simulation is an efficient, safe, and data-collection-friendly method to examine driving behavior in a controlled environment. However, the validity of a driving simulator is inconsistent when the type of the driving simulator or the driving scenario is different. The purpose of this research is to verify driving simulator validity in driving behavior research in work zones. A field experiment and a corresponding simulation experiment were conducted to collect behavioral data. Indicators such as speed, car-following distance, and reaction delay time were chosen to examine the absolute and relative validity of the driving simulator. In particular, a survival analysis method was proposed in this research to examine the validity of reaction delay time. The result indicates the following: (1) most indicators are valid in driving behavior research in the work zone. For example, spot speed, car-following distance, headway, and reaction delay time show absolute validity. (2) Standard deviation of the car-following distance shows relative validity. Consistent with previous researches, some driving behaviors appear to be more aggressive in the simulation environment.

[1]  Bohdan T. Kulakowski,et al.  Artificial Neural Network Speed Profile Model for Construction Work Zones on High-Speed Highways , 2007 .

[2]  Paul M. Salmon,et al.  Systematic review of driving simulator validation studies , 2019, Safety Science.

[3]  Perco Paolo,et al.  Driving Speed Behaviour Approaching Road Work Zones On Two-Lane Rural Roads , 2012 .

[4]  Silviu-Iulian Niculescu,et al.  Stability of Traffic Flow Behavior with Distributed Delays Modeling the Memory Effects of the Drivers , 2007, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[5]  Qiang Meng,et al.  Evaluation of rear-end crash risk at work zone using work zone traffic data. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[6]  Jing Zhao,et al.  Impact of in-vehicle navigation information on lane-change behavior in urban expressway diverge segments. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  H Ozaki,et al.  REACTION AND ANTICIPATION IN THE CAR-FOLLOWING BEHAVIOR. , 1993 .

[8]  Fridulv Sagberg,et al.  Analysing the influence of visible roadwork activity on drivers’ speed choice at work zones using a video-based experiment , 2017 .

[9]  Ana María Pérez-Zuriaga,et al.  Validation of a Low-Cost Driving Simulator Based on Continuous Speed Profiles , 2016 .

[10]  P. Philip,et al.  Lorazepam impairs highway driving performance more than heavy alcohol consumption. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Yao Yu,et al.  Time-dependent drivers’ merging behavior model in work zone merging areas , 2017 .

[12]  Luigi Biggiero,et al.  Erratum to “Validity of Mental Workload Measures in a Driving Simulation Environment” , 2018 .

[13]  Ali Ghaffari,et al.  A Modified Car-Following Model Based on a Neural Network Model of the Human Driver Effects , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[14]  Xiao Zhang,et al.  Estimation of driver reaction time from detailed vehicle trajectory data , 2007 .

[15]  Evi Blana,et al.  DRIVING SIMULATOR VALIDATION STUDIES: A LITERATURE REVIEW , 1996 .

[16]  Xuedong Yan,et al.  In-depth analysis of drivers' merging behavior and rear-end crash risks in work zone merging areas. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[17]  Gang Du,et al.  Time-varying mixed logit model for vehicle merging behavior in work zone merging areas. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[18]  Alessandro Nocentini,et al.  Speed behaviour in work zone crossovers. A driving simulator study. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  Terje Moen,et al.  Comparison of driving simulator performance with real driving after alcohol intake: a randomised, single blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Terje Moen,et al.  Evaluation of measures of impairment in real and simulated driving: Results from a randomized, placebo-controlled study , 2016, Traffic injury prevention.

[21]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Analysis of the Frequency and Severity of Rear-End Crashes in Work Zones , 2013, Traffic injury prevention.

[22]  Qiang Meng,et al.  Rear-end crash potential estimation in the work zone merging areas , 2014 .

[23]  Lorenzo Domenichini,et al.  Drivers’ speed behaviour in real and simulated urban roads – A validation study , 2017 .

[24]  Hiran Ekanayake,et al.  Comparing Expert Driving Behavior in Real World and Simulator Contexts , 2013, Int. J. Comput. Games Technol..

[25]  Andreas Riener,et al.  Simulating On-the-Road Behavior Using a Driving Simulator , 2010, 2010 Third International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions.

[26]  Thomas J Triggs,et al.  Driving simulator validation for speed research. , 2002, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[27]  Motohiro Fujita,et al.  Car-following behavior with instantaneous driver–vehicle reaction delay: A neural-network-based methodology , 2013 .

[28]  J Törnros,et al.  Driving behavior in a real and a simulated road tunnel--a validation study. , 1998, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[29]  Ondřej Přibyl,et al.  CROSS-STUDY RESEARCH ON UTILITY AND VALIDITY OF DRIVING SIMULATOR FOR DRIVER BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS , 2017 .

[30]  Khaled A El-Rayes,et al.  Optimizing the Planning of Highway Work Zones to Maximize Safety and Mobility , 2018 .

[31]  Harith Abdulsattar,et al.  Surrogate Safety Assessment of Work Zone Rear-End Collisions in a Connected Vehicle Environment: Agent-Based Modeling Framework , 2018, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems.

[32]  Francesco Bella,et al.  Driving simulator for speed research on two-lane rural roads. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[33]  Lynn B. Meuleners,et al.  A validation study of driving errors using a driving simulator , 2015 .

[34]  N. Sze,et al.  Impacts of reduced visibility under hazy weather condition on collision risk and car-following behavior: Implications for traffic control and management , 2020, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation.

[35]  Ashim Kumar Debnath,et al.  A comparison of self-nominated and actual speeds in work zones , 2015 .

[36]  David G. Kleinbaum,et al.  Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text , 1997 .

[37]  Haneen Farah,et al.  Passing Behavior on Two-Lane Roads in Real and Simulated Environments , 2016 .

[38]  Haitham Al-Deek,et al.  Modeling Driver Behavior in Work and Nonwork Zones , 2015 .

[39]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text. , 1996 .

[40]  Samer H. Hamdar,et al.  Work zones versus nonwork zones: Risk factors leading to rear-end and sideswipe collisions , 2016 .

[41]  Pierre Philip,et al.  Reliability of simulator driving tool for evaluation of sleepiness, fatigue and driving performance. , 2012, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[42]  Carina Fors,et al.  Sleepy driving on the real road and in the simulator--A comparison. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.