Comparison of Experienced and Novice Drivers’ Visual and Driving Behaviors during Warned or Unwarned Near–Forward Collisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forward collision warning systems (FCWSs) monitor the road ahead and warn drivers when the time to collision reaches a certain threshold. Using a driving simulator, this study compared the effects of FCWSs between novice drivers (unlicensed drivers) and experienced drivers (holding a driving license for at least four years) on near-collision events, as well as visual and driving behaviors. The experimental drives lasted about six hours spread over six consecutive weeks. Visual behaviors (e.g., mean number of fixations) and driving behaviors (e.g., braking reaction times) were collected during unprovoked near-collision events occurring during a car-following task, with (FCWS group) or without FCWS (No Automation group). FCWS presence reduced the number of near-collision events drastically and enhanced visual behaviors during those events. Unexpectedly, brake reaction times were observed to be significantly longer with FCWS, suggesting a cognitive cost associated with the warning process. Still, the FCWS showed a slight safety benefit for novice drivers attributed to the assistance provided for the situation analysis. Outside the warning events, FCWS presence also impacted car-following behaviors. Drivers took an extra safety margin, possibly to prevent incidental triggering of warnings. The data enlighten the nature of the cognitive processes associated with FCWSs. Altogether, the findings support the general efficiency of FCWSs observed through a massive reduction in the number of near-collision events and point toward the need for further investigations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".