Could Intelligent Speed Adaptation make overtaking unsafe?

This driving simulator study investigated how mandatory and voluntary ISA might affect a driver's overtaking decisions on rural roads, by presenting drivers with a variety of overtaking scenarios designed to evaluate both the frequency and safety of the manoeuvres. In half the overtaking scenarios, ISA was active and in the remainder ISA was switched off. A rural road was modelled with a number of 2 + 1 road sections, thus allowing drivers a protected overtaking opportunity. The results indicate that drivers became less inclined to initiate an overtaking manoeuvre when the mandatory ISA was active and this was particularly so when the overtaking opportunity was short. In addition to this, when ISA was activated drivers were more likely to have to abandon an overtaking, presumably due to running out of road. They also spent more time in the critical hatched area - a potentially unsafe behaviour. The quality of the overtaking manoeuvre was also affected when mandatory ISA was active, with drivers pulling out and cutting back in more sharply. In contrast, when driving with a voluntary ISA, overtaking behaviour remained mostly unchanged: drivers disengaged the function in approximately 70% of overtaking scenarios. The results of this study suggest that mandatory ISA could affect the safety of overtaking manoeuvres unless coupled with an adaptation period or other driver support functions that support safe overtaking

Application of the theory of planned behaviour to the prediction of objectively assessed breaking of posted speed limits

In two studies the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) including moral norms, anticipated regret and past behaviour was applied to predicting intention to exceed the posted speed limit across different roads and objectively assessed speeding behaviour. All measures except behaviour were taken by self-report questionnaires referring to different driving scenarios. The behaviour measures were based on performance in a simulator (Study 1) or unobtrusive on-road speed camera assessment taken without driver awareness (Study 2) across roads with varying posted speed limits. Results are reported averaged across road types in both studies. In Study 1 (N = 83), 82% of the variance in intentions to speed was explained, with attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control (PBC), moral norms, anticipated regret and past behaviour being significant predictors. A total of 35% of the variance in speed as assessed on a driving simulator was accounted for with intentions, PBC, moral norms and previous accidents being significant predictors. In Study 2 (N = 303), 76% of the variance in intentions to speed was explained with attitudes, moral norms, anticipated regret and past behaviour being significant predictors. A total of 17% of the variance in speed as assessed on-road was accounted for with intentions and moral norms being significant. Practical implications of the findings for road safety are discussed