Traffic Sign Comprehensibility in an Aging Society

Abstract

This paper analyzes the comprehensibility of current and experimental signs to indicate a photo-enforced traffic signal ahead. In Arnold, Missouri, four signalized intersections are photo enforced and have been indicated with the text-only “photo-enforced” regulatory sign posted below the traditional “signal ahead” warning sign. These signs were replaced with an experimental sign that indicates a photo-enforced traffic signal ahead with a single regulatory sign. The evaluation is performed by using three surveys: one for the currently approved signage and two for the experimental sign. The second survey was conducted shortly after installation of the experimental sign, and the third survey was conducted about 9 months after installation. The study found that older drivers (age 65+ years) have greater difficulty in comprehending both the current and experimental photo-enforced signage compared with younger drivers. However, older drivers’ comprehension of the experimental sign improved more over time than other drivers’ comprehension (62.5% to 75.8% correct comprehension for older versus 79.8% to 81.2% for others). The results indicate that the experimental sign has the potential to improve safety by better delivering its intended meaning, particularly to older drivers, but also that it may take older drivers more time than other drivers to learn about and comprehend new signs.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Staplin

Lococo

Byington

and Harkey

. Guidelines and Recommendations: To Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians. Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-051. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.

Liu

Y-C.

A Simulated Study on the Effects of Information Volume on Traffic Signs, Viewing Strategies and Sign Familiarity upon Driver's Visual Search Performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 35, 2005, pp. 1147–1158.

Crundall

and Underwood

. The Priming Function of Road Signs. Transportation Research: Part F, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 187–200.

A. W. Y.

and Chan

A. H. S.

. The Guessability of Traffic Signs: Effects of Prospective-User Factors and Sign Design Features. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, 2007, pp. 1245–1257.

Charlton

S. G.

Conspicuity, Memorability, Comprehension, and Priming in Road Hazard Warning Signs. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 496–506.

Dewar

R. E.

Kline

D. W.

and Swanson

H. A.

. Age Differences in Comprehension of Traffic Sign Symbols. In Transportation Research Record 1456, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 1–10.

A. W. Y.

and Chan

A. H. S.

. The Effects of Driver Factors and Sign Design Features on the Comprehensibility of Traffic Signs. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 39, 2008, pp. 321–332.

Al-Madani

and Al-Janahi

A. R.

. Role of Drivers’ Personal Characteristics in Understanding Traffic Sign Symbols. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, 2002, pp. 185–196.

Al-Madani

and Al-Janahi

A. R.

. Assessment of Drivers’ Comprehension of Traffic Signs Based on Their Traffic, Personal and Social Characteristics. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 5, 2002, pp. 63–76.

10.

Al-Ghamdi

Analysis of Traffic Accidents at Urban Intersections in Riyadh. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, 2003, pp. 717–724.

11.

IIHS. Q&As: Red Light Cameras. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., February 2008. www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html. Accessed May 30, 2008.

12.

Martinez

and Porter

. Characterizing Red Light Runners Following Implementation of a Photo Enforcement Program. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 862–870.

13.

Retting

Ulmer

and Williams

. Prevalence and Characteristics of Red Light Running Crashes in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 31, 1999, pp. 687–694.

14.

Shin

and Washington

. The Impact of Red Light Cameras on Safety in Arizona. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, 2007, pp. 1212–1221.

15.

FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

16.

Caltrans. California Coded Sign Specifications. California Department of Transportation, 2008. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs.htm/. Accessed Nov. 9, 2008.

17.

FHWA. Standard Highway Signs. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.

18.

McFadden

D. L.

Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics Zarembka

ed.), Academic Press, New York, 1974, pp. 105–142.

19.

NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts 2002. Publication No. DOT HS 809 611. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

20.

Lyman

Ferguson

S. A.

Braver

E. E.

and Williams

A. F.

. Older Driver Involvements in Police-Reported Crashes and Fatal Crashes: Trends and Projections. Injury Prevention, Vol. 8, 2002, pp. 116–120.

21.

NHTSA. Traffic Safety Facts 1998: Older Population. Publication No. DOT HS 808 955. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999.