Measuring perceived risk: Self-reported and actual hand positions of SUV and car drivers

This research examines the observed steering wheel hand positions and the reported steering wheel hand placements of a sample of Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) and car drivers. Following the method of Walton and Thomas (Walton, D. & Thomas, J. A. (2005). Naturalistic observations of driver hand positions. Transportation Research Part F. Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8, 229–238), variation in hand position is found to be an effective, indirect measure of drivers’ perceived risk. As perceived risk increases, it is expected that drivers will be more likely to adopt a ‘10–2 o’clock’ hand placement to increase their control over the vehicle. Because they are a larger vehicle, SUVs are typically perceived by drivers as being safe, so it is also expected that SUV drivers would have a lower level of perceived risk, as evidenced by their hand positions. A questionnaire examining drivers’ hand placements confirmed that drivers do perceive that two hands on the top half of the steering wheel will give the most control over the vehicle, and also revealed that drivers overestimate their use of this hand position, when compared with actual observation. Observed hand positions reveal that SUV drivers are more likely to drive with one hand instead of two hands on the top half of the steering wheel, indicating a lower level of perceived risk.     

Look: No hands! Driving on the motorway

How drivers hold their steering wheels when they are driving has been studied in restricted ways for many years. Here I describe the advantages (and disadvantages) of a more naturalistic way of studying this phenomenon, and present the results from two studies that observed the hand positions of motorway drivers from an elevated vehicle. In the first study I tape-recorded the data as we passed traffic on the left, and in the second I used paper and pencil to record the data as traffic passed us on the right. In both studies few drivers kept to the recommended 10-2 (or more generous 9-3) position for holding the steering wheel, and approximately one-third of them were driving with one hand on the wheel. Very few of the drivers observed (some 2%) were using mobile phones, but two were driving with no hands on the wheel. The paper concludes with some discussion of the value of this methodology for obtaining realistic data.     

Disengagement from driving when using automation during a 4-week field trial

IntroductionA small body of research on the real-world use of commercially available partial driving automation suggests that drivers may struggle with or otherwise lapse in adequately monitoring the system and highway environment, and little is known about key issues such as how behavior associated with system use changes over time. The current study assessed how driver disengagement, defined as visual-manual interaction with electronics or removal of hands from the wheel, differed as drivers became more accustomed to partial automation over a 4-week trial.MethodsTen volunteers drove a Volvo S90 with adaptive cruise control (ACC), which automates speed and headway, and Pilot Assist, which combines ACC and continuous lane centering. Instrumentation captured automation use, secondary task activity, hands-on-wheel status, vehicle speed, and GPS location during all trips.ResultsThe longer drivers used the Pilot Assist partial automation system, the more likely they were to become disengaged, with a significant increase in the odds of observing participants with both hands off the steering wheel or manipulating a cell phone relative to manual control. Results associated with use of ACC found comparable or lower levels of disengagement compared to manual driving as the study progressed.DiscussionThis study highlights concerns about vehicle control and the degree to which drivers remain actively in the loop when using automation. Calls for implementing more robust driver monitoring with partial automation appear warranted—particularly those that track head or eye position.     

A comparison of experienced and novice drivers’ rear-end collision avoidance maneuvers under urgent decelerating events

A leading vehicle’s sudden deceleration can lead to a rear-end collision. Due to a lack of driving experience, novice drivers have a greater tendency to be involved in these accidents. Most previous studies have examined driver response time and braking behaviors, but few researchers have focused on what experienced and novice drivers did after their feet touched the braking pedal and their hands turned the steering wheel. These braking and steering parameters are essential in understanding driver avoidance behavior during emergencies. We programmed rear-end crash risk scenarios to examine experienced and novice drivers’ behaviors thoroughly using a driving simulator. Twenty experienced and twenty five novice subjects participated in our experiments, and their braking and steering maneuvers were recorded when leading vehicles ran at 60 km/h, 80 km/h and 100 km/h. The results showed that the two groups of subjects tended to execute two kinds of maneuvers to avoid crashes: braking only (novice 33%, experienced 19%) and the combination of braking with steering (novice 22%, experienced 26%). When the novice drivers executed braking with steering, their response time and steering duration were significantly longer than those of the experienced drivers who executed braking with steering. As the speed increased, the novice drivers’ response time, maximum braking force and maximum steering angle were significantly affected. These results showed that novice drivers should brake only when the leading vehicle suddenly decelerates. The experienced drivers executed steadier maneuvers. Their risk perception time was shorter, and their maximum braking force and the maximum steering angles were smaller. The response time, braking intensity and steering wheel angle should be considered when developing rear-end collision warning systems.     

Lane change manoeuvres and safety margins

The relation between perceptual information and the motor response during lane-change manoeuvres was studied in a fixed-based driving simulator. Eight subjects performed 48 lane changes with varying vehicle speed, lane width and direction of movement. Three sequential phases of the lane change manoeuvre are distinguished. During the first phase the steering wheel is turned to a maximum angle. After this the steering wheel is turned to the opposite direction. The second phase ends when the vehicle heading approaches a maximum that generally occurs at the moment the steering wheel angle passes through zero. During the third phase the steering wheel is turned to a second maximum steering wheel angle in opposite direction to stabilize the vehicle in the new lane. Duration of the separate phases were analysed together with steering amplitudes and Time-to-Line Crossing in order to test whether and how drivers use the outcome of each phase during the lane change manoeuvre to adjust the way the subsequent phase is executed. During the first phase the time margin to the outer lane boundary was controlled by the driver such that a higher speed was compensated for by a smaller steering wheel amplitude. Due to this mechanism the time margin to the lane boundary was not affected by vehicle speed. During the second phase the speed with which the steering wheel was turned to the opposite direction was affected by the time margins to the lane boundary at the start of the second phase. Thereafter, smaller minimum time margins were compensated for by a larger steering wheel amplitude to the opposite direction. The results suggest that steering actions are controlled by the outcome of previous actions in such a way that safety margins are maintained. The results also suggest that visual feedback is used by the driver during lane change manoeuvres to control steering actions, resulting in flexible and adaptive steering behaviour. Evidence is presented in support of the idea that temporal information on the relation between the vehicle and lane boundaries is used by the driver in order to control the motor response.     

Driver hand position on the steering wheel while merging into motorway traffic

It has been suggested that a driver’s hand position on the steering wheel can reflect the perceived risk of the road context (Walton, D., & Thomas, J. A. (2005). Naturalistic observations of driver hand positions. Transportation Research Part F, 8, 229–238, Thomas, J. A., & Walton, D. (2007). Measuring perceived risk: Self-reported and actual hand positions of SUV and car drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 10, 201–207). These original studies were based on field observations where only a part of the steering wheel could be viewed. In the present study hand positions were observed in a driving simulator during the performance of a demanding task; merging into motorway traffic. In the current study the whole steering wheel could be observed and hand positions were classified in three categories: high control, medium control, and low control. Differences in hand position between different traffic conditions were limited, and hand position did not correlate with self-reported risk or self-reported mental effort, but changes in hand positions do seem to be associated with changes in workload demand. It is therefore concluded that hand position can give some information about mental workload.     

The time-saving bias, speed choices and driving behavior

When drivers are asked to estimate how much time can be saved by increasing speed, they generally underestimate the time saved when increasing from a relatively low speed and overestimate the time saved when increasing from a relatively high speed. This time-saving bias has been demonstrated to affect drivers’ estimations of driving speed as well as drivers’ personal choice of speed. Specifically, drivers with a high time-saving bias chose unduly high speeds, which sometimes results in speeding, more frequently than drivers with a lower degree of the bias. This study sought to determine whether this relationship would be mediated by individual differences in driving behavior – including drivers’ attitudes, norms and habits regarding speeding behavior as well as their level of aberrant driving behavior (committing aggressive or ordinary violations, errors or lapses in driving, measured by the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire). The results showed that the time-saving bias predicted estimations of required speed better than any of these factors, and also better than drivers’ age, gender, education and income, as well as the number of years they have had a license and their monthly driving kilometrage, their prior speeding violations and crash involvement. In predicting drivers’ personal speed choices, the time-saving bias was second only to the frequency of committing ordinary violations.     

Using a multi-user driving simulator system to explore the patterns of vehicle fleet rear-end collisions occurrence under different foggy conditions and speed limits

Vehicle fleet rear-end collisions (FRECs) are an extremely fatal type of traffic collisions on freeway and they usually occur in foggy weather. This study aimed to explore the patterns of vehicle fleet rear-end collisions occurrence under different foggy conditions and speed limits on freeway. A multi-user driving simulator system was used to conduct the experiment and the driving behavior data were collected from eight participants. The experimental results showed that as the fog density increased, the length of vehicle fleet decreased significantly, and drivers tended to keep a more stable car-following distance. The fog weather and short vehicle gap prompted drivers to react faster and brake harder in respond to the leading vehicle’s brake. In spite of the compensational behaviors, more FRECs were observed under heavy fog condition. Lowering speed limit can significantly reduce the FRECs under foggy conditions. As the speed limits reduced, drivers’ brake response time and speed variance significantly reduced. The study also found that drivers’ brake response time was negatively correlated with their positions in the fleet. Drivers in the front positions of the fleet had a longer response time than drivers in the back positions and thus were more likely to encounter collisions. The study generated a better understanding of drivers’ behavioral pattern in a vehicle fleet and the patterns of vehicle fleet rear-end collisions occurrence. The findings also shed lights on the design of driver assistance system for complex driving situations such as freeway driving under adverse weather.     

Measuring driving workload of heavy vehicles at roundabouts

Correctly designed roundabouts proved to have positive safety and functional performances. However, they are also affected by peculiar disadvantages. In particular, they are difficult to manoeuvre, especially for heavy vehicle drivers. Despite these concerns, there are currently no driving workload metrics devoted to roundabouts.A novel methodological approach is proposed for trying to quantify workload impinging on heavy vehicle drivers when manoeuvring through complex at-grade intersections. Proper acquisition of input data constitutes the starting point for future research about ascertainment of workload for these particular road scenarios. The described procedure enables recording steering wheel angles performed by a driver when manoeuvring an articulated lorry through a complex at-grade intersection. A field trial was carried out for verifying the practical feasibility of proposed method in capturing driver’s steering behaviour. Dynamic data acquired via global navigation satellite system instrumentation were related to actual driver’s steering wheel behaviour captured by camera frames. As a complement to the experiment, selected steering behaviour metrics were calculated. Steering Entropy attributed a high difficulty level to the manoeuvres performed through the roundabout, whereas High Frequency Component and Steering Reversal Rate showed intensity and occurrences of driver’s corrections needed for controlling position of the semitrailer at the ring. It appears that even a single roundabout may represent an arduous task for drivers. The study concludes with recommendations for further research about workload imposed by roundabouts to heavy vehicle drivers, with special attention to successions of closely spaced roundabouts.     

The tendency of drivers to pass other vehicles

The purpose of this study was to assess the speed differential threshold—if there is one—at which drivers decide to pass a lead vehicle. Drivers in a simulator encountered vehicles in front that were programmed to travel at speeds that were similar, slightly below, or even slightly above the drivers’ own speed. The study involved a total of 152 such passing opportunities. In almost all of the encounters with slower vehicles (traveling at speeds slower than 3 km/h of the driver) they passed them, and in two thirds of the encounters when the lead vehicles were moving at their speed they passed them too. Most surprising was that in 50% of the encounters drivers passed the lead vehicle when it was traveling faster than their average speed. In these situations drivers actually increased their own speed substantially to accomplish the passing maneuver, despite the fact that not passing the lead vehicle would not have caused any delays. The tendency to pass appears to be related to the drivers’ own speed variability: the more variable the driver’s speed the more likely he or she was to pass the vehicle ahead even when its speed was greater than their average speed. The results are interpreted in terms of (a) driver aggression, and (b) association of car following with added effort, attention overload, or risk. The latter explanation implies that the tendency to pass vehicles may be reduced with the introduction of in-vehicle technologies such as adaptive cruise control.     

The role of drivers’ social interactions in their driving behavior: Empirical evidence and implications for car-following and traffic flow

Models for describing the microscopic driving behavior rarely consider the “social effects” on drivers’ driving decisions. However, social effect can be generated due to interactions with surrounding vehicles and affect drivers’ driving behavior, e.g., the interactions result in imitating the behavior of peer drivers. Therefore, social environment and peer influence can impact the drivers’ instantaneous behavior and shift the individuals’ driving state. This study aims to explore empirical evidence for existence of a social effect, i.e., when a fast-moving vehicle passes a subject vehicle, does the driver mimic the behavior of passing vehicle? High-resolution Basic Safety Message data set (N = 151,380,578) from the Safety Pilot Model Deployment program in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is used to explore the issue. The data relates to positions, speeds, and accelerations of 63 host vehicles traveling in connected vehicles with detailed information on surrounding environment at a frequency of 10 Hz. Rigorous random parameter logit models are estimated to capture the heterogeneity among the observations and to explore if the correlates of social effect can vary both positively and negatively. Results show that subject drivers do mimic the behavior of passing vehicles –in 16 percent of passing events (N = 18,099 total passings occurred in freeways), subject vehicle drivers are observed to follow the passing vehicles accelerating. We found that only 1.2 percent of drivers normally sped up (10 km/hr in 10 s) during their trips, when they were not passed by other vehicles. However, if passed by a high speed vehicle the percentage of drivers who sped up is 16.0 percent. The speed change of at least 10 km/hr within 10 s duration is considered as accelerating threshold. Furthermore, the acceleration of subject vehicle is more likely if the speed of subject driver is higher and more surrounding vehicles are present. Interestingly, if the difference with passing vehicle speed is high, the likelihood of subject driver’s acceleration is lower, consistent with expectation that if such differences are too high, the subject driver may be minimally affected. The study provides new evidence that drivers’ social interactions can change traffic flow and implications of the study results are discussed.     

Field operational test of a seatbelt reminder system: Effects on driver behaviour and acceptance

The long-term effects on driver behaviour and acceptance of a seatbelt reminder system were examined in an on-road study. The system was capable of detecting seatbelt use in all seating positions and produced a two-stage visual and auditory warning if occupants were unrestrained. The effects of this system were evaluated alone and in combination with two other intelligent transport systems: intelligent speed adaptation and a following distance warning system. Twenty-three fleet car drivers drove an instrumented vehicle (SafeCar) for at least 16,500 km as part of their everyday driving. The results revealed that driver and passenger interaction with the seatbelt reminder system led to large and significant decreases in the percentage of trips where occupants were unbelted, in the percentage of total driving time spent unbelted, and in the time taken to fasten a seatbelt in response to system warnings. The seatbelt reminder system was rated by drivers as being useful, effective and socially acceptable, and led to a decrease in drivers’ subjective workload. These results were found even though the baseline pre-exposure seatbelt wearing compliance rates among participants were high.     

It’s about time! Earlier take-over requests in automated driving enable safer responses to conflicts

Automated driving (AD), which takes full responsibility for the driving task in certain conditions, is currently being developed. An important concern in AD is how to design a take-over request (TOR) that mitigates automation effects (e.g., delayed responses to conflict scenarios) that previous literature from simulator experiments has shown can occur. To address this concern, this study aims to investigate and compare driver responses to TORs and a lead-vehicle cut-out scenario under three conditions: (1) after a period of AD with a TOR issued early (18 s time-to-collision), (2) same as (1) except with a TOR issued late (9 s time-to-collision), and (3) baseline, with adaptive cruise control (ACC). This paper also compares the results to those of a previous study using the same conflict scenario but with near-perfect assisted driving system (SAE Level 2). The lead-vehicle cut-out scenario was encountered on a test track after 30 minutes driving with either ACC or AD. In AD the TOR was issued prior to the conflict object was revealed to the participants when the lead vehicle performed the cut-out (at conflict onset). This TOR strategy differed from previous driving-simulator studies that issued the TOR at conflict onset. The participants had to respond by steering and/or braking to avoid a crash. Our findings show that, independent of TOR timing, the drivers required similar amounts of time to 1) direct their first glance to the human–machine interface, 2) look forward, 3) end their secondary task, 4) put their hands on the steering wheel, and 5) deactivate automation. However, when the TOR was issued early rather than late, they started to brake earlier (even before conflict onset). All participants successfully managed to avoid crashing with the object, independent of the condition. AD with an early TOR resulted in the earliest response, while ACC drivers responded slightly earlier than the drivers in AD with the late TOR. Our findings do not support the findings of severe automation effects in previous driving-simulator studies. One reason for the difference is that when a TOR is issued prior to conflict onset, drivers are given the time needed for their preparatory actions (e.g., placing hands on the wheel, deactivating AD) that is not needed when driving with ACC or in manual driving (baseline), before having to respond to the conflict scenario. Thus, at conflict onset the drivers in AD are as ready to act (hands on wheel, eyes forward) as the drivers in the baseline and can perform an avoidance manoeuvre similar as to the baseline drive. Overall, the present study shows that AD does not need to end up in a highly critical situation if the TOR is issued early enough. In fact, AD with an early TOR may be safer than driving with ACC, because in the former drivers are more likely to brake earlier in preparation for the conflict. Finally, a TOR clearly communicates the need for drivers to resume manual control and handle potential events when AD has been deactivated. In our study, once the drivers had taken control, they clearly understood their responsibilities to respond to the conflict, in contrast to a previous study with a similar, near-perfect assisted driving system.     

Driver conflict response during supervised automation: Do hands on wheel matter?

Securing appropriate driver responses to conflicts is essential in automation that is not perfect (because the driver is needed as a fall-back for system limitations and failures). However, this is recognized as a major challenge in the human factors literature. Moreover, in-depth knowledge is lacking regarding mechanisms affecting the driver response process. The first aim of this study was to investigate how driver conflict response while using highly reliable (but not perfect) supervised automation differ for drivers that (a) crash or avoid a conflict object and (b) report high trust or low trust in automation to avoid the conflict object. The second aim was to understand the influence on the driver conflict response of two specific factors: a hands-on-wheel requirement (with vs. without), and the conflict object type (garbage bag vs. stationary vehicle). Seventy-six participants drove with highly reliable but supervised automation for 30 min on a test track. Thereafter they needed to avoid a static object that was revealed by a lead-vehicle cut-out. The driver conflict response was assessed through the response process: timepoints for driver surprise reaction, hands-on-wheel, driver steering, and driver braking. Crashers generally responded later in all actions of the response process compared to non-crashers. In fact, some crashers collided with the conflict object without even putting their hands on the wheel. Driver conflict response was independent of the hands-on-wheel requirement. High-trust drivers generally responded later than the low-trust drivers or not at all, and only high trust drivers crashed. The larger stationary vehicle triggered an earlier surprise reaction compared to the garbage bag, while hands-on-wheel and steering response were similar for the two conflict object types. To conclude, crashing is associated with a delay in all actions of the response process. In addition, driver conflict response does not change with a hands-on-wheel requirement but changes with trust-level and conflict object type. Simply holding the hands on the wheel is not sufficient to prevent collisions or elicit earlier responses. High trust in automation is associated with late response and crashing, whereas low trust is associated with appropriate driver response. A larger conflict object trigger earlier surprise reactions.     

Analysis of vehicle-based lateral performance measures during distracted driving due to phone use

Distracted driving due to mobile phone use has been identified as a major contributor to accidents; therefore, it is required to develop ways for detecting driver distraction due to phone use. Though prior literature has documented various visual behavioural and physiological techniques to identify driver distraction, comparatively little is known about vehicle based performance features which can identify driver’s distracted state during phone conversation and texting while driving. Therefore, this study examined the effects of simple conversation, complex conversation, simple texting and complex texting tasks on vehicle based performance parameters such as standard deviation of lane positioning, number of lane excursions, mean and standard deviation of lateral acceleration, mean and standard deviation of steering wheel angle and steering reversal rates (for 1°, 5° and 10° angle differences). All these performance measures were collected for 100 licensed drivers, belonging to three age groups (young, mid-age and old age), with the help of a driving simulator. Effects of all the phone use conditions and driver demographics (age, gender and phone use habits) on the measures were analysed by repeated measures ANOVA tests. Results showed that 1°, 5° SRRs are able to identify all the distracted conditions except for simple conversation; while, 10° SSR can detect all the distracted conditions (including simple conversation). The results suggest that 10° SRR can be included in intelligent in-vehicle devices in order to detect distraction and alert drivers of their distracted state. This can prevent mobile phone use during driving and therefore can help in reducing the road accidents due to mobile phone distractions.     

Driver brake vs. steer response to sudden forward collision scenario in manual and automated driving modes

In autonomous vehicle operation, situations may arise when the driver is required to re-engage in manual control of the vehicle. Whether the control handoff from vehicle to human is done in a structured or unstructured manner, the process may be affected by the driver’s state, i.e. distracted or not. The study reported here was designed to measure a non-distracted driver’s response to a sudden forward collision (FC) event, in which the driver would assume manual control of the autonomous vehicle. Three driving scenarios were investigated: autonomous vehicle driven with full collision avoidance support, autonomous vehicle driven without collision avoidance support, and vehicle driven in manual mode.Forty-eight volunteers participated in a simulator study conducted in VIRTTEX. It was found that, at handoff, (1) drivers in manual mode tended to use evasive steering, rather than braking, compared to drivers in both the autonomous modes, (2) between subjects variations in speed were higher for the automation with collision support condition than for the other two scenarios, (3) for both autonomous driving scenarios, drivers reaction times were longer than for manual driving. In some cases the driver response was so late and the distance remaining so reduced that crash avoidance might be unfeasible. At a minimum, results of this study suggest that drivers may benefit from appropriate driver assistance technologies when a crash imminent situation is suddenly encountered.     

Conversing while driving: The importance of visual information for conversation modulation

Multiple studies have shown an increased accident risk due to telephoning while driving. On the other hand, driving with passengers leads to a decreased accident risk. One explanation is a conversation modulation by passengers in cars which leads to a different conversation pattern which is not so detrimental to driving as that when phoning. A driving simulator study was conducted in order to examine this conversation modulation more closely and to find out more about the factors involved in this modulation, especially about the role of visual information available to the passenger. In a within-subject design the conversational patterns of 33 drivers and passengers in different in-car settings (passenger as usual, passenger without front view or passenger without view of the driver) were compared to a hands-free cell phone and to a hands-free cell phone with additional visual information either about the driving situation or the driver. Participants were instructed to have a naturalistic small-talk with a friend. Results of the drivers’ speaking behavior showed a reduction of speaking while driving. Compared to a conversation partner on the cell phone, a passenger in the car varies his speaking rhythm by speaking more often but shorter. Further analyses showed that this effect is also found with a cell phone when providing the conversation partner additional visual information either about the driving situation or the driver. This latter finding supports the idea that conversation modulation is not triggered by being in the car but by the visual information about the driver’s state and the driving situation.     

Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving

As part of the HASTE European Project, effects of visual and cognitive demand on driving performance and driver state were systematically investigated by means of artificial, or surrogate, In-vehicle Information Systems (S-IVIS). The present paper reports results from simulated and real motorway driving. Data were collected in a fixed base simulator, a moving base simulator and an instrumented vehicle driven in real traffic. The data collected included speed, lane keeping performance, steering wheel movements, eye movements, physiological signals and self-reported driving performance. The results show that the effects of visual and cognitive load affect driving performance in qualitatively different ways. Visual demand led to reduced speed and increased lane keeping variation. By contrast, cognitive load did not affect speed and resulted in reduced lane keeping variation. Moreover, the cognitive load resulted in increased gaze concentration towards the road centre. Both S-IVIS had an effect on physiological signals and the drivers’ assessment of their own driving performance. The study also investigated differences between the three experimental settings (static simulator, moving base simulator and field). The results are discussed with respect to the development of a generic safety test regime for In-vehicle Information Systems.     

Driving-induced stress in urban college students

Urban college student commuters (N = 407) were surveyed about their experiences with stress induced by driving. Of the participants 23.6% reported becoming angry at another driver more than once per day. They rated stress from other drivers as equal to the stress experienced during a college examination but gave slightly lower ratings to traffic congestion, road construction, and finding a parking place as sources of stress. Slow drivers, a child not restrained, and a vehicle following too closely were the highest rated annoying situations. Of participants, 21.6% had reported another driver to the police; nearly 22% said they carried a weapon for protection from other drivers (5.4% said a gun). Men were more than twice as likely as women to carry a weapon and three times as likely to carry a gun. Of the total sample, 19.1% feared being shot by another driver. Most participants (75.8%) said drivers were more aggressive and dangerous than they were five years ago.     

Cross-cultural comparison of drivers’ tendency to commit different aberrant driving behaviours

The first aim of the present study was to identify key items which are rated differently by drivers from Finland, Sweden, Greece and Turkey. The second aim was to examine how these key items relate to drivers’ self-reported accident involvement. Similar comparisons have previously been conducted in Europe but these have only included items classified as violations and errors, but not lapses. A sample of Finnish (N = 200), Swedish (N = 200), Greek (N = 200) and Turkish (N = 200) drivers completed the driver behaviour questionnaire (DBQ) and reported their accident involvement during the previous 3 years. The results showed that nine key items (which drivers from different countries rated differently) could be identified. These items included two aggressive violations, four ordinary violations, three lapses, but no errors. Out of these nine items, five items (Become angered by a certain type of driver and indicate your hostility by whatever means you can, Disregard the speed limit on a motorway, Overtake a slow driver on the inside, Pull out of a junction so far that the driver with right of way has to stop and let you out and Get into the wrong lane approaching a roundabout or a junction) could explain differences in drivers’ self-reported yearly accident involvement when all four countries were taken together. At the same time, none of the items could explain differences in self-reported yearly accident involvement in Finland and Sweden while one of the items (Overtake a slow driver on the inside) could explain differences in self-reported yearly accident involvement in Greece and two of the items (Become angered by a certain type of driver and indicate your hostility by whatever means you can and Disregard the speed limit on a residential road) could explain differences in self-reported yearly accident involvement in Turkey. This shows that different countries have different problems with regard to aberrant driving behaviours which need to be taken into account when promoting traffic safety interventions and the driver behaviour questionnaire (DBQ) can be used to diagnose risk areas and to better inform road safety practitioners within and between countries.