A randomized controlled evaluation study of the effects of a one-day advanced rider training course.

UNLABELLED: Motorcyclists have a relative high risk of crash involvement. As a consequence there is an on-going search for safety measures to improve road safety for motorcyclists. One popular measure is motorcycle training. Although intuitively sound, there are only few thorough studies on rider training courses and they do not always show a positive safety effect. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of the advanced rider training course 'Risk'. Through random assignment motorcyclists (N=222) were assigned to an experimental and control condition. At pre- and post-test, participants completed a questionnaire and their riding behaviour was assessed in an on-road ride. Furthermore, a selection of participants took a hazard perception test at post-test. Participants in the experimental condition (n=137) followed the advanced training course 'Risk' between pre- and post-test. RESULT: s indicated that trained participants were rated higher on safe riding than the control group. A positive effect was also found for riding behaviour, i.e., speed and position on the road if it needed to be adapted to increase visibility and in reaction to potential hazard. The training did not affect riders' assessment of their own riding behaviour. Overall the trained riders performed better on the hazard perception test. This study is a step forward to demonstrate that motorcyclists' traffic behaviour can be positively influenced by the right training course. Crucial for this training course is that it did not lead to overconfidence, while it quantifiably improved traffic behaviour.

A different perspective on conspicuity related motorcycle crashes.

The most common type of conflict in which a motorcyclist is injured or killed is a collision between a motorcycle and a car, often in priority situations. Many studies on motorcycle safety focus on the question why car drivers fail to give priority and on the poor conspicuity of motorcycles. The concept of 'looked-but-failed-to-see' crashes is a recurring item. On the other hand, it is not entirely unexpected that motorcycles have many conflicts with cars; there simply are so many cars on the road. This paper tries to unravel whether - acknowledging the differences in exposure - car drivers indeed fail to yield for motorcycles more often than for other cars. For this purpose we compared the causes of crashes on intersections (e.g. failing to give priority, speeding, etc.) between different crash types (car-motorcycle or car-car). In addition, we compared the crash causes of dual drivers (i.e. car drivers who also have their motorcycle licence) with regular car drivers. Our crash analysis suggests that car drivers do not fail to give priority to motorcycles relatively more often than to another car when this car/motorcycle approaches from a perpendicular angle. There is only one priority situation where motorcycles seem to be at a disadvantage compared to cars. This is when a car makes a left turn, and fails to give priority to an oncoming motorcycle. This specific crash scenario occurs more often when the oncoming vehicle is a motorcycle than when it is a car. We did not find a significant difference between dual drivers and regular car drivers in how often they give priority to motorcycles compared to cars.

Young drivers who obtained their licence after an intensive driving course report more incidents than drivers with a traditional driver education.

This paper studies the effectiveness of intensive driving courses; both in driving test success and safe driving after passing the driving test. The so-called intensive driving course (IDC) consists of a limited number of consecutive days in which the learner driver takes driving lessons all day long; and is different from traditional training in which lessons are spread out over several months and in which learners take one or two driving lessons of approximately 1 h each per week. Our study indicates that--in the first two years of their driving career--IDC drivers (n=35) reported an incident significantly more often (43%) than 351 drivers who obtained their driving licence after traditional training (26%). Our study also indicates that the IDC drivers underwent almost the same number of training hours as the drivers who had traditional training, although spacing of these hours was different. There was no difference in the number of attempts to pass the driving test. We did not find any evidence that a self-selection bias was responsible for the difference in reported number of incidents.

The development of a method to measure speed adaptation to traffic complexity: identifying novice, unsafe, and overconfident drivers.

To monitor novice driver performance in the first years of solo driving, a test aimed at assessing speed adaptation to the traffic situation was developed and evaluated. The Adaptation Test consisted of 18 traffic scenes presented in two (almost) identical photographs, which differed in one single detail, increasing the situation's complexity. As the pictures were presented randomly and participants could not return to previous pictures, participants were kept unaware of the complexity differences in the pictures. The difference in reported speed between the two pictures was used as an indication of drivers' inclination to adapt their speed to the complexity of the traffic situation. Results showed that novice drivers (n=434) performed worse on the Adaptation Test (i.e. less often reported a lower speed in the more complex situation) than experienced drivers (n=173). In addition, unsafe drivers and overconfident drivers, as identified in an on-road driving assessment, performed worse on the Adaptation Test. This indicates that the Adaptation Test is effective at measuring adaptation of driving speed to the complexity of the situation; and that incorrect self-assessment, and overestimating driving skills in particular, may have a negative effect on speed adaptation.