Development of Driving Simulation Scenarios Based on Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Road Safety Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the authors are doing a good job in describing the development of driving simulation scenarios based on BIM. I do not have further comments except a few minor ones regarding spellings or clarification;

1) line 49, "..., while in the Netherlands adopted it in 2012."

2) line 244, "context- based assessment ". or "context-based assessment".

3) lines 381 -382, please make sure this sentence is complete.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study focuses on the development of driving simulation scenarios based on BIM for road safety analysis. I think the paper fits well the scope of the journal and addresses an important subject. However, a number of revisions are required before the paper can be considered for publication. There are quite a few weak segments in the paper. These weak segments of the paper must be strengthened. Below please find more specific comments:

 

*Please define BIM in the title. Some readers may not be familiar with this term.

*The abstract should be expanded a bit. In particular, please add one or two sentences highlighting the outcomes and contributions of this work.

*Page 1 line 16: “IFC-based file” – please fine this abbreviation.

*The structure of the manuscript should be improved. Section 1 of the manuscript takes 8 pages. I suggest splitting section 1 into two sections (e.g., introduction and literature review).

*The authors discuss some relevant studies in section 1. However, the literature review coverage seems to be narrow. Some important studies that deployed driving simulators in past have not been reviewed, including the following:

• Man–Son–Hing, M., Marshall, S. C., Molnar, F. J., and Wilson, K. G., 2007. Systematic review of driving risk and the efficacy of compensatory strategies in persons with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55 (6), pp. 878–884.
• Shahar, A., Alberti, C.F., Clarke, D., Crundall, D., 2010. Hazard perception as a function of target location and the field of view. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42 (6), pp. 1577–1584.
• Andrews E.C., and Westerman, S.J., 2012. Age differences in simulated driving performance: compensatory processes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, pp. 660–668.
• Dulebenets, M.A., Abioye, O.F., Ozguven, E.E., Moses, R., Boot, W.R., and Sando, T., 2019a. Development of statistical models for improving efficiency of emergency evacuation in areas with vulnerable population. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 182, pp. 233-249.
• Campagne, A., Pebayle, T., and Muzet, A., 2004. Correlation between driving errors and vigilance level: influence of the driver’s age. Physiology & Behavior, 80, pp. 515–524.
• Philip, P., Sagaspe, P., Taillard, J., Valtat, C., Moore, N., Åkerstedt, T., Charles, A., Bioulac, B., 2005. Fatigue, sleepiness, and performance in simulated versus real driving conditions. Sleep, 28 (12), pp. 1511–1516.
• Abioye, O.F., Dulebenets, M.A., Ozguven, E.E., Moses, R., Boot, W.R. and Sando, T., 2020. Assessing perceived driving difficulties under emergency evacuation for vulnerable population groups. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, p.100878.
• Hoogendoorn, R. G., Arem, B. v., and Brookhuis, K. A., 2013. Longitudinal driving behavior in case of emergency situations: An Empirically Underpinned Theoretical Framework. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 36, pp. 581-603.

Without reviewing these important and relevant studies, the manuscript may seem incomplete to some readers.

*Page 15: I suggest for the authors to expand the discussion regarding driving simulation experiments (e.g., how did you recruit participants, what was the socio-demographic profile of the participants, were there any major challenges during the experiments)? This will be certainly of interest to the readers.

*Page 19: The conclusions section should be expanded. More specifically, please expand on limitations of this study and how they will be addressed as a part of future research. I suggest listing bullet points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made some improvements in the manuscript based on my previous comments. However, some of my comments have not been adequately addressed. Plus, when I was reading the revised manuscript, I noticed some other discrepancies. Before this manuscript can be accepted for publication, the following issues have to be addressed: *Page 1 line 42: Excessive use of “etc.” does not read well. Please revise. *The manuscript has a lot of abbreviations (e.g., BIM, IFC , UPV , ASCII, CDTI, RSA, LIDAR, VR, and others). In order to prevent confusion of future readers, I suggest adding an appendix that contains all the abbreviations and defines them. *Page 2 line 57: “by the Government through a series of pilot works” should be replaced with “by the government through a series of pilot works” (there is no need to capitalize “government”). *In the previous round of reviews, I pointed out that the literature review is missing some of the relevant studies that deployed driving simulators to identify the factors that may influence safety of drivers in different settings, including the following: • Man–Son–Hing, M., Marshall, S. C., Molnar, F. J., and Wilson, K. G., 2007. Systematic review of driving risk and the efficacy of compensatory strategies in persons with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55 (6), pp. 878–884. • Shahar, A., Alberti, C.F., Clarke, D., Crundall, D., 2010. Hazard perception as a function of target location and the field of view. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42 (6), pp. 1577–1584. • Andrews E.C., and Westerman, S.J., 2012. Age differences in simulated driving performance: compensatory processes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 45, pp. 660–668. • Dulebenets, M.A., Abioye, O.F., Ozguven, E.E., Moses, R., Boot, W.R., and Sando, T., 2019a. Development of statistical models for improving efficiency of emergency evacuation in areas with vulnerable population. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 182, pp. 233-249. • Campagne, A., Pebayle, T., and Muzet, A., 2004. Correlation between driving errors and vigilance level: influence of the driver’s age. Physiology & Behavior, 80, pp. 515–524. • Philip, P., Sagaspe, P., Taillard, J., Valtat, C., Moore, N., Åkerstedt, T., Charles, A., Bioulac, B., 2005. Fatigue, sleepiness, and performance in simulated versus real driving conditions. Sleep, 28 (12), pp. 1511–1516. • Abioye, O.F., Dulebenets, M.A., Ozguven, E.E., Moses, R., Boot, W.R. and Sando, T., 2020. Assessing perceived driving difficulties under emergency evacuation for vulnerable population groups. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, p.100878. • Hoogendoorn, R. G., Arem, B. v., and Brookhuis, K. A., 2013. Longitudinal driving behavior in case of emergency situations: An Empirically Underpinned Theoretical Framework. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 36, pp. 581-603. However, this comment has not been addressed. The authors state that these studies are not exactly related to what is being done in the present study, which does not seem accurate to me. The suggested studies definitely fit section 2.2, which is devoted to safety of roadway users (or the beginning of section 2). Section 2.2 cites only three studies ([11], [34], and [35]), which does not seem to be convincing. *Page 6 line 235: Is there any rationale behind capitalizing “Road Safety Analysis” in the name of Fig. 1? If not, please use “road safety analysis”. *Page 18 line 707: Similarly, is there any rationale behind capitalizing “Road Safety Auditing”? If not, please use “road safety auditing”. The same applies to “Road Safety Inspections” in line 712. Please check the entire manuscript for this issue. *Page 19 line 777: “IFC based format files” is not grammatically correct. Please use “IFC-based format files”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adequately addressed my original concerns regarding the manuscript. The quality and presentation of the manuscript have been improved. Therefore, I recommend acceptance.