• David Crundall and Victoria Kroll.
• Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, UK. Electronic address: david.crundall@ntu.ac.uk.
• Accid Anal Prev. 2018 Dec 1; 121: 335-346.

AbstractCan hazard perception testing be useful for the emergency services? Previous research has found emergency response drivers' (ERDs) to perform better than controls, however these studies used clips of normal driving. In contrast, the current study filmed footage from a fire-appliance on blue-light training runs through Nottinghamshire, and endeavoured to discriminate between different groups of EDRs based on experience and collision risk. Thirty clips were selected to create two variants of the hazard perception test: a traditional push-button test requiring speeded-responses to hazards, and a prediction test that occludes at hazard onset and provides four possible outcomes for participants to choose between. Three groups of fire-appliance drivers (novices, low-risk experienced and high-risk experienced), and age-matched controls undertook both tests. The hazard perception test only discriminated between controls and all FA drivers, whereas the hazard prediction test was more sensitive, discriminating between high and low-risk experienced fire appliance drivers. Eye movement analyses suggest that the low-risk drivers were better at prioritising the hazardous precursors, leading to better predictive accuracy. These results pave the way for future assessment and training tools to supplement emergency response driver training, while supporting the growing literature that identifies hazard prediction as a more robust measure of driver safety than traditional hazard perception tests.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

22 keywords...

hide…