|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 3, 2013 9:13:06 GMT
Do people driving the same route every day drive on Auto-Pilot and not take notice of their surroundings as much?....
Suggestion, can it be measured how much attention people are taking to the road....
Can "The usual route home" be compared to a diverted route.
Can reaction times on both routes be measured when an "Unexpected" event happens.
Will there be a difference in reaction times?...
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Jan 3, 2013 10:06:29 GMT
Interesting questions.
Back when I used to commute by car or motorbike, I'd often arrived at my destination with little recollection of the details of the journey, presumably because there were no unexpected variations on the 'template' memory of the averaged routine.
I would expect that drivers taking an unfamiliar route would be more alert and have quicker responses to unexpected hazards on those routes than the familiar route, quite simply because the driver's mind is more occupied with reading the road trying to figure out where the route is taking them.
Whether this is testable is probably where this discussion is going to go and I'm not too sure that it is ethically testable.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 3, 2013 15:25:05 GMT
to me, the question is not so much whether it is ethically testable as whether there are metrics available to use.
I know there are parts of my routine journey where I am more attentive than others - as I know places where idiots and wildlife are less likely to jump out in front of me.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 4, 2013 10:26:22 GMT
Suggestion.
Bill Boards. Place certain adverts on Bill Boards and ask the driver to describe details. (After the journey, not pre-warned...) Has the usual route driver just ignored them? has the Diverted Driver noticed more detail?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 4, 2013 14:12:54 GMT
and would that demonstrate that he was paying less attention because he was looking at the new billboards; or that he was paying more attention because he noticed the change?
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 5, 2013 23:02:09 GMT
Do people driving the same route every day drive on Auto-Pilot and not take notice of their surroundings as much?.... Suggestion, can it be measured how much attention people are taking to the road.... Can "The usual route home" be compared to a diverted route. Can reaction times on both routes be measured when an "Unexpected" event happens. Will there be a difference in reaction times?... Yes, there was a German study just doing that. They used a very good car simulator (almost as complex as modern airplane simulators) and monitored the eyes with a camera so the computer knew where the eyes are aimed at and when, how often and how long the eyes blink. I hadn't seen the official results, but I had heard that a routine driver only takes in 20% of what a learner driver looks at. And when asked about the trip, they almost never remembered seeing the ambulance, school bus or playing children on the sidewalk.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2013 23:21:39 GMT
I would be inclined to question whether that is a matter of subconscious threat assessment and prioritization, or autopilot. let's get out electrodes and measure brain activity.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 5, 2013 23:23:02 GMT
I would be inclined to question whether that is a matter of subconscious threat assessment and prioritization, or autopilot. let's get out electrodes and measure brain activity. I think they had done that, too. But you definitely want to use a car simulator for the tests, not "the real thing"!
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Jan 5, 2013 23:36:01 GMT
I spent 18 years on the roads of NA as a contractor and there were many times I'd suddenly realize I had no conscious memory of the past 100 miles or more, even when it involved going through a town or city. I was obviously paying significant attention of SOME kind, even if only my subconscious, since I didn't have crashes, pick up tickets or go off route.
I think most people do pay attention while driving (some obviously don't or the crash rate would lower) but a great deal only goes into that ~7 seconds of short-term memory and "purged" unless something happens.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 7, 2013 5:38:20 GMT
I cant see the necessity of using a simulator, and I think that would skew the results.
If we are testing a regular route, they will drive that way whether we are testing or not, we are just an observer, an impartial observer, and it must be so that we do not interfere in any way with the usual route, otherwise it wont be the usual route?....
As suggested, perhaps a camera mounted such that it does not obscure view that monitors eye movement, and leave that running for a day or two until the driver starts to ignore it. The same with any OTHER test equipment, the driver needs to get that to the state of being ignored as the usual thing....
It must not in any way interfere with the ability to drive or observe the usual surroundings.
The reason I suggest the usual route home... Its common "Knowledge" and perhaps that is moving into Myth now, that MOST accidents happen within a few miles of "Home".......
I suggest that as the driver knows exactly what to expect, he forgets to expect the unexpected?... And therefore engages Autopilot, and drives the way they always did, perhaps not looking out properly....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2013 7:25:01 GMT
so you set up the simulator to randomize the traffic, and have the driver drive the same route daily for a couple months (yes, that makes it rather long if you don't do a montage) and see if their attention to detail drops off.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 7, 2013 7:47:36 GMT
I cant see the need for simulator..... I still think thats because its a simulator it will skew results....
As the saying goes, there is no reset in real life? Will Simulator make people take more chances?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2013 15:10:03 GMT
It might, but they will theoretically be consistent chances. and you don't have to tell the test subjects WHY they are being recorded on daily simulator runs. in fact, it would be best if you made up a reason like studying what parts of the brain handle different driving tasks. that would give you an excuse to study the drivers.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 7, 2013 17:05:53 GMT
I cant see the necessity of using a simulator, and I think that would skew the results. Of course. And they could use a giant chicken gun to fling toddlers and kittens into the traffic in a controlled manner. Would definitely look cool on TV!
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2013 8:49:34 GMT
Where balls bounce little boys follow...... You dont have to fire "Live" kitten and Children into the traffic, that is just getting silly isnt it?... And a bit sensationalist?... But you CAN arrange a van with instead of a hinged door at the back, a hinged cardboard cut-out of a pedestrian............... Or throw a football into the road........ Of course, you would do that making sure that no OTHER road users will be affected at the time. Basic common sense, not sensationalism here... after all, we want to test reactions, not actual real life emergencies. We all have the right to use public roads, if you are saying that the sudden appearance of an ACTUAL child that is not part of the testing may create an accident, and in fact WILL create an incident, what the (beep) is that driver doing on the road in the first place?..... We are supposed to be using real life drivers with real life qualifications and real life actual skills in being able to avoid such incidents. I live in a highly residential area, I have to dodge Kids on a daily basis to navigate round this corner of England, to suggest I would not be able to is to suggest I cant drive safely.... And if that is true, like anyone else on the road, I should hand back my licence?.... You sensationalist statement is therefore not valid. We are after all testing to find out of their danger triggers have gone to sleep.... if an actual child does stray onto the road at the time of testing, and the driver DOES NOTHING?.... I would say that if that happens, its a HUGE CONFIRMEDI am writing this having already done advanced modern hazard perception, which is now part of the UK test procedure for ALL drivers. including car drivers. In that, we are taught, there are no "Unforeseen" sudden appearances in the road. You are taught that you should be able to spot if that could happen, such as densely parked vehicles around a crossing area, and to EXPECT pedestrians to try and cross.....
I therefore suggest that if you are driving in a residential area on your way home, sudden Children should be part of what you are expecting...........? and you SHOULD be ready to react???
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Jan 8, 2013 13:34:28 GMT
There was a test during during "talking on a cell phone while driving" study where a real child was standing on the curb in plain sight and rolled a ball in front of the cell using driver. More than HALF ran over the ball and never saw the ball or the child or heard the ball when the car hit it. That's scary.
Around here in town, cars parallel park on the streets. I can't count how many times a driver has opened a door in front of me or walked out into traffic to the driver's door. The amazing part is they act like it's your fault for having to slam on brakes and blasting the horn in an effort to keep from hitting them.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2013 15:20:12 GMT
and where mythbuster go, explosions follow.
I think you missed the point of C64's comment. which was that there will be some sort of silliness involved at some point.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2013 15:22:57 GMT
There was a test during during "talking on a cell phone while driving" study where a real child was standing on the curb in plain sight and rolled a ball in front of the cell using driver. More than HALF ran over the ball and never saw the ball or the child or heard the ball when the car hit it. That's scary. Around here in town, cars parallel park on the streets. I can't count how many times a driver has opened a door in front of me or walked out into traffic to the driver's door. The amazing part is they act like it's your fault for having to slam on brakes and blasting the horn in an effort to keep from hitting them. there was a driver who opened his door into traffic, hitting my father's trailer. then he called my father's insurance company and demanded that they immediately provide a rental car and arrange the complete repair of his own car. the insurance company told him the same thing the police told him. it is illegal to open a car door in such a way that it opens into a traffic lane. if you choose to do so, you do it at your own risk.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 9, 2013 7:38:31 GMT
I think we have that same common sense here... if by opening a door yo hit another vehicle YOU pay for the repairs....
Its also "Against the rules" to cause any other vehicle to brake hard without good reason. Such as stepping out into the road, opening a door in front of them, reversing or any other form of emerging onto a live traffic lane without first checking there is nothing coming.....
I once witnessed a police force on a main road write tickets for every vehicle parked on a drive with its nose inwards, on the grounds that the only way the vehicle could get out again was reverse out onto the main road... which is illegal..... That particular road had had several incidents in the past [month or so] caused by vehicle reversing out into traffic?...
Some people just dont think, they go by "Its MY drive I will park how I want", whats the difference, reverse in or break the law getting out... somehow they think reversing in is harder for them?... go figure?....
Again, "Auto Pilot", "I have always parked this way...." and they can not change that, because by the time they remember, they are already inside taking their coat off?...
This inability to react to change is exactly what I am trying to convey.... I witnessed a local furious twerp who because of having a new road surface laid on the road outside their house had to park 100 yds away.........
What, WALK 100 yds for one day?........
The steam was rising as they complained bitterly about the inconvenience?...... Yet the old road surface, who was the loudest voice about "Well they should do something", because it was plainly worn out and full of pot-holes.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 9, 2013 14:08:00 GMT
Some people just dont think, they go by "Its MY drive I will park how I want", whats the difference, reverse in or break the law getting out... somehow they think reversing in is harder for them?... go figure?.... Interesting. In Germany, it's illegal to park "nose out" in an enclosed garage, you must park "tailpipe out". It's illegal to run a car engine which blows its exhaust gasses into an enclosed space. Fortunately, backing into a road is legal, you just must make sure nobody is close to your driveway so if someone is coming, there is decent time to stop after seeing the turn signal and white backup lights. That's why white backup lights are mandatory and need to be retrofitted if your car doesn't have them (built before 1974 or import)
|
|