Safety effects of freeway work zone delineation methods: response time as a surrogate measure
Y. Xu, A. Greenwood, G. Corso, M. Hunter, M.O. Rodgers
Pages: 113-126
Abstract:
This paper presents an experiment in which participants were asked to identify freeway diverge locations under different work zone settings. A total of 130 participants were shown computer rendered images of freeway diverges and tasked with identifying the diverge location by clicking on the image with a mouse. The evaluation method employed the participant’s response time as one of the important surrogate safety measures, along with the response accuracy and the types of errors observed. The results show that response times are closely correlated with other measures in indicating participant performance, although some differences exist. Specifically, work zone delineation methods that show greater numbers of correct responses also tended to feature shorter response times. However, the use of correct response time reveals nuanced differences among channelizing devices that otherwise would not be recognized if the participant responses were only analyzed for accuracy. This was particularly true for a proposed linear channeling device where accuracy and response time demonstrated a wider divergence. Using a framework that simultaneously assessed response accuracy, error types, and response times, portable concrete barriers were found to be the most effective in assisting drivers with locating the freeway diverge in work zones. In contrast, drums were found least effective. The proposed linear channelizing device showed mixed results among the performance measures. The study method and results show the potential importance and relevance of response time as a possible surrogate safety measure in a comprehensive evaluation of innovative traffic control devices. The inclusion of response times not only reinforces, but also adds finer detail to methods that often only focus on response accuracy.
Keywords: traffic safety; freeway diverge; channelizing device; response time
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES