VTI notat 25-1998
Road User Behaviour at Work Zones
Summary of Literature Review
Paper and Presentation
ARROWS Workshop
Athens, 24-25 November 1997
i .7Author
Lena Nilsson and'Anders Nyberg
Research division Traffic and Road-user Behaviour
Project number
40066
Project name
ARROWS (Advanced Research on Road
Workzon Safety in Europe)
Sponsor
EC and the Swedish Transport and
Communication Research Board (KFB)
Distribution
Fri
Swedish National Road and
' TransportResearch Institute
Preface
The report contains the VTI contribution to a European workshop arranged by the ARROWS project. It presents selected results and a summarised evaluation of the findings of a literature review. The review investigated road work zone behavioural studies, and was undertaken in the ARROWS project. The list of reviewed literature as well as the overheads presented at the workshop are included as appendices.
ARROWS (Advanced Research on ROad Workzone Safety in Europe) is a project in the Transport Workprogramme within the EC:s Fourth Framework. The project has brought together nine research teams with a multi-disciplinary range of skills and competences to address the safety problem at road works. The nine teams arez.
NTUA National Technical University of Athens, Athens (GR), project co-ordinator SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam (NL)
BAST Federal Highway Research Institute, Bergisch Gladbach (DE)
VTI Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping (SE) 3M 3M Hellas Limited, Maroussi - Attiki (GR)
CRR Belgian Road Research Centre, Brussels (BE)
CROW Information and Technology Centre for Transport and Infrastructure, Ede (NL) CDV Transport Research Centre, Brno (CZ)
ZAG Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Ljubljana (SI)
The overall objective of the ARROWS project is to improve the safety at road work zones, by reducing the frequency and/or consequences ofaccidents involving road users as well as road workers. A prerequisite, forbeing able to formulate guidelines and standards intended to help achieving the aim, is to gain knowledge, not only about collisions that occur, but also about road user behaviour and conflicts when passing road works of varying designs under different conditions.
The VTI participation in ARROWS is financially supported (5 0/50) by the EC and the Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board (KFB).
Contents
1 Introduction 2 Procedure 3 Limitations
4 Selected results and discussion
5 Evaluation of the findings based on the model structure 5. l Geographical distribution
5.2 Experimental methods used 5. 3 Type ofroad
5. 4 Work zone operation 5. 5 Work conducted
5. 6 _Road/work zone interactions 5. 7 Work zone area
5.8 Safety measures and devices 5.9 Additionalfactors
5.10 Individual
5.71] Road users Vworkers ' behaviour
5. [2 Road users '/workers attitudes and experiences 5.13 Reported conclusions
6 Summing up the evaluation of using the model in the reviewing process
Appendices 1 List of reviewed literature on which the paper is based 2 Overheads presented at the workshop
VTI Notat 25-1998 m Q Q Q Q M M M M M -k k k
1
Introduction
The level of safety possible to reach at road works depends on how well the often conflicting goals of protecting the workers and minimising the traffic disturbances can be mutually met. ' The challenge is to develop road work designs that are both safe for the workers,and
understood and accepted by the passing road users. Road user acceptance is assumed to lead to the behavioural changes intended and expected by the road work designers (managers, administrators). Thus, the risk level, or possible safety, at a road work is to a large extent determined by the road users behaviour and attitudes, which in turn are strongly influenced by the design of the road work and the workers actions as well as by the road user°s
experience from previous exposure to similar situations. Based on this view, the behavioural aspects in relation to road works was included, and have been studied in the ARROWS project.
2
Procedure
The accumulated knowledge of behavioural and attitudinal aspects related to road works was summarised and analysed. The method used was reviewing of available literature. Relevant reports were mainly collected via searching in computerised databases, and to a lesser extent via researcher networks and personal knowledge of the ARROWS partners. In order to
structure the reviewing and summarising task a model was developed by the partners in the
task (the VTI, the SWOV, the ZAG, and the BAST). The realisation of the model was the
form shown in Figure l. Another purpose with the model was to link the review of the road work zone behavioural studies to the Typology developed in ARROWS (ARROWS
Consortium, 1997).
3
Limitations
It is difficult to generalise and draw clear conclusions from the results presented in the behavioural studies reviewed and analysed. The reason is a number of limitations discovered in many of the studies, for example:
0 Terminology is used rather freely and inconsistently. Different authors use the same terms in different ways and with different meanings.
0 Numerous and often sparsely described factors and conditions are often combined in experimental designs that prevent conclusions to be drawn about specific measures and devices separately.
0 The prevailing conditions are generally, if mentioned at all, described insufflciently making it impossible to assess/judge eventual effect causalities in any detail.
0 The reports are mainly descriptive, and in very few cases statistical testing of differences and hypotheses seem to have been done.
DIMENSIONS OF THE MODEL
A. COUNTRY C. INDIVIDUAL
Al. Reference (bibliographic data according to list) C1. Driver (motorist, car, lorry, bus drivers) A2. Method used (theortical analysis, experimental, C2. Cyclist
questionnaire/interview etc.) C3. Pedestrian C4. Road-Worker
B. ROAD WORK CHARACTERISTICS D. EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUALS CONFRONTED TO (according to ARROWS Typology) A ROAD WORK
Bl. Type of road: A: Motorway and dual-carriageway D1. Road users°/ workers ° behaviour: expressway, B: Rural primary road, C: Rural secondary road, D: 3) Speed adaptation/control
Urban main road, E: Urban local road b) Lane tracking
C) Route choice through/by workzone BZ: Work zone operation: d) Rule/instruction compliance/omission Long-term, short-term stationary, short-term mobile e) Errors/collisions
f) Other BZ . Specific work conducted:
Construction, reconstruction, maintenance D2. Road usei',s/worker,s attitudes/experiences: a) Level of stress/frustration
b) Level of uncertainty/understanding how to behave C) Motivated/ updated design, false alarms
d) Detection/understanding/considering
e) Disturbance/convenience f) Other
B3. Road/ work zone interactions:
a: Lane narrowing, b: Lane closure, c: Diversion, d: Contraflow/crossover, e: Alternate one-way traffic, f: Intersection/interchange, g: Shoulder/roadside, h: Central reserve, i: Footway/bikeway, j: Tramway
B32 Work zone area:
a: Announcement area, b: Advance warning area, c: Narrowing area, d: Stabilizing area, e: Transition area, f: Buffer zone, g: Activity area, h: Termination area, i: Run-off area
B4. Safety measures and devices:
a) Information/warning on the spot (eg. road signs with pure information and warning, warning lights)
b) Road layout (eg. physical protection of road-work zone,
proximity of traffic flows (from both directions) and of traffic flow and boundary of road-work zone)
C) Traffic control (eg. traffic lights, flagman, signs)
d) Route guidance (e. g. ligts for visual guidance, guiding signs/arrows)
e) Supervision (eg. policeman, electronic devices, cameras) f) Other (6. g. Innovative solutions)
BS. Additional factors: a) Time ofday (day or night) b) Environmental conditions (weather) C) Information in massmedia
d) Presence of road-work signs and safety measures in the absence of work: necessary - unnecessary (superfluous signalization)
E. Assessment/conclusions of reported data: a) Safety of identified effects
b) Explanation ofeffects
Figure 1 Form (review sheet) used in the reviewing of road work zone behavioural studies
4
Selected results and discussion
The most consistent (and expected) finding in the reviewed studies is that drivers drive too fast at road works. Compared to signed speed limits, the maj ority of drivers approach and pass road works with much too high speeds. Speed levels of 10 to 20 km/h above signed limits are not unusual in the reviewed reports, and the recorded top value was 172 km/h at a 60 km/h road section! Generally, the drivers don°t adapt speed (decelerate) until just before an abrupt change in the road layout or conditions (like a crossover point), but then they brake extremely hard. Also, a vehicle°s speed in the activity area seems to be related to its initial speed.
Vehicles with higher initial speeds reduce their speed more than vehicles with lower initial speeds. In spite of the larger speed reduction, the fastest vehicles seem to pass the activity area with higher speeds compared to vehicles with lower initial speeds. Among those drivers not reducing their speeds at all, a great maj ority drive with a medium high initial speed.
A cause for real concern is that drivers believe that they take enough caution and slow down enough when passing road works, while experimental studies observing real behaviour clearly show that they do not behave as they claim. Even more problematic is that the drivers not behave as they apparently think they do.
When it comes to measures intended to reduce the speeds at road works, not only the
development and design are of importance. It is also necessary to consider in which phase of passing a road work drivers should be influenced, i.e. the location of a device should be carefully decided. From the results of the reviewed studies, devices used to make drivers slow down, i.e. speed limit signs, feedback VMS, lane narrowing devices, should preferably be positioned before the transition area.
Another question concerns the amount of devices that should be used when furnishing a road work zone. For instance, a lot of different devices could be positioned at the work site with the purpose to reduce speeds. But all these devices shall be detected and understood by the
drivers, and decisions and actions should be taken. The result can be information and mental
overloading of the drivers - especially inexperienced novices - leading to incidents and/or accidents even though the speed is reduced. Is it possible to make road work zones safer by limiting the number of devices and crossover points? A reasonable hypothesis may be, the more devices, the greater the risk that there will be devices missing, misplaced, out of order, misunderstood or not detected.
Standardisation of work site areas regarding traffic guidance, alignment, and width of
temporary lanes, as well as of individual signposts and guiding devices, is proposed by many authors, and assumed to strongly contribute to the solution of the safety problem at road works. This standpoint is also in line with the harmonisation task in ARROWS. Even so, the remark by Pomareda and Zacharias (1991) may be worth considering. They put forward some worry that a too uniform appearance of work sites may give the drivers a feeling of familiarity and false safety, which can make them to no longer possess an adequate sensitivity for
unexpected hazardous situations that may occur within a work zone.
5
Evaluation of the findings based on the model structure
How well the different categories in the used model were covered by the found and reviewed reports was investigated. It is obvious that the great maj ority of the studies deals with a limited number of the aspects in the model , while many categories are only sparsely or not at all considered (mentioned). Going through the results of the reviewing of behavioural studies in a quantitative way resulted in the following remarks.
5. 1 Geographical distribution
A majority ofthe reviewed studies is from the United States, which leads to several questions to discuss. Is it for instance possible to translate/transfer the results from US studies to
European conditions? Simply copying or modifying US solutions and suggestions should be carefully considered, not least because of differences between US and Eur0pean rules and habits (traffic, social). The methods can probably be copied to investigations on European ground, but the safety measures - for instance, different signs and closures - can be a problem. In many cases the safety measures used in US differ from those used in Europe. Great care should therefore be taken before for example a sign that has been clearly seen, understood and shown to reduce drivers speed inside work zones in the United States is included in European guidelines. The lack of studies done in Europe regarding behaviour at road work zones, also leads to the question if it is possible - at this stage - to know or predict whether this or that guideline will lead to a correct behaviour at European road works. Perhaps we should try some ofthe most promising methods from the US studies here in Europe, before we draw any
conclusions in this matter?
5.2 Experimental methods used
Field studies (different kinds) measuring real behaviour are clearly the most commonly used method in the reviewed reports, followed by interviews and questionnaires. Studies containing both field tests and interviews and/or questionnaires are however unusual. This fact is
interesting to note as the latter case obviously is to prefer to enable getting the whole picture of a problem, i.e. to besides observing behaviour also enable answering questions like whether the road users did see and understand the signing and guiding or not, how they experienced the road work, why they behaved as they did etc.
5.3 Type of road
The reviewed studies almost exclusively investigate road user behaviour at road works on motorways and dual-carriageway expressways. Hardly any of the studies deals with road user behaviour at road works conducted on rural secondary roads and urban local roads. The question is - why? Is the lesser research interest based on an estimated risk level for workers and road users, degree of obstruction of the traffic, size and type of work, or The noted unbalance demands special attention also because the proportion of non-motorway type roads is greater in Europe than in the US. If we want to fully understand the road users behaviour at road works in all types of environments, it is of the greatest importance that investigations of road works on rural secondary roads and urban local roads are done in the near future.
5.4 Work zone operation
ln about 50% of the reviewed studies of road user behaviour at road works, the work zone
operation undertaken was not specified. When the operation was described, it was in most cases classified as a long-term work zone Operation, while short-term mobile operations were very seldom investigated.
5.5 Work conducted
The review of road work zone behavioural studies shows that the specific work conducted during the studies is usually construction or maintenance, while reconstruction projects are unusual. lt must however be pointed out that in a large number of the reports the type of work conducted is not mentioned at all.
5. 6 Road/work zone interactions
When it comes to road/work zone interactions the interaction appearing most frequently in the studies is lane closure followed by contraflow/crossover. In a large number of studies the type of road/work zone interaction is not specified, and most ofthe alternatives in this category have not a single time been mentioned in the reviewed studies.
5. 7 Work zone area
The road user behaviour has in most studies been observed and recorded in the advance warning area, the narrowing area, the transition area, or the activity area, the pr0portions of these locations being about the same. The alternatives in this category as well as those under the heading road/work zone interactions (see above) have been very difficult to use when reviewing the studies. In many cases the alternatives used in our model, which are in accordance with the typology developed in ARROWS Task 1.1, have not been mentioned. Also, in many other cases a different terminology, not using a division at our level of detail, have been applied. This finding leads of course to the question if the design of the model is improper, or if studies concerning road users behaviour are insufficiently thorough when it comes to more technical descriptions of the road work zone.
5.8 Safety measures and devices
The safety measures and devices actually examined in the studies were usually information and/or warnings on the spot (in the form of road signs), and route guidance devices (lights for visual guidance, guiding signs/arrows). When reviewing the reports, specification of the safety measures and devices according to the model caused some problems. On one hand, it was difficult to decide which safety measures and devices should be mentioned in the review when only one particular device was being tested, but also a lot of other safety measures and devices were in place during the study. On the other hand, some studies didn°t mention other devices than the item(s) under study even though other devices obviously must have been in place, because otherwise the test site could not have been a road work zone! Also, experimental designs where one device after another is added incrementally are not uncommon, making it impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of separate measures. Thus, in many cases it is difficult to estimate how much other devices than those really investigated influenced the results reported. This aspect was not discussed by the authors.
5.9 Additional factors
The additional factor most frequently described in the reviewed studies was time of day, followed by the prevailing environmental conditions. Also when it comes to additional factors 1t must be pointed out that they were not mentioned at all in a large pr0portion of the reviewed studies.
5. 10
Individual
When it comes to the individuals studied, it is clear that almost all the reviewed studies have
investigated drivers (especially car and truck drivers°) behaviour in road work zones. Such investigations are of course ofgreat importance and value. At the same time, it is a serious problem that the behaviour of cyclists, pedestrians and road-workers has hardly been paid any attention at all. The reason for the unbalance is probably that the road works have been studied mainly on motorways and dual-carriageway expressways. Even so, if we are aiming at safer conditions for workers and road user in all types of work zones and environments, it is obvious that behavioural research covering all road user groups have to be done.
5. 11 Road users '/workers' behaviour
The effect of different safety measures and road work designs on road user behaviour is predominantly recorded and observed in terms of speed (adaptation and control). The second most common variables are lane tracking and lane change. The other alternatives of
behavioural effect variables included in the model (eg. route choice, obedience of rules and instructions, mistakes/errors and collisions) are rarely recorded or observed. The question necessary to raise is then if behavioural variables other than speed and lateral position are improper, or if research regarding these other variables have simply not been conducted (have bee neglected). Our Opinion is that the latter case is the truth.
5. 12 Road users'/workers' attitudes and experiences
Road users attitudes and experiences are more seldom examined than their actual behaviour. And when they are, the road users are usually asked to report whether or not they detected, understood, and considered the messages conveyed by signs and other devices within the
road work zone. Aspects like experienced stress, frustration, inconvenience, uncertainty and
false designs are very seldom dealt with, as is how motivated the road users find the road work design.
ln very few studies data about both the actual behaviour of the road users and their attitudes and experiences are collected. lf this is due to a lacking interest of road users subjective view (attitudes, opinions and experiences) from passing road works or something else is open for
discussion. But it is our recommendation that, whenever possible, future studies should
contain measuring the effects on road users actual behaviour as well as on their attitudes and experiences. The result would be a better understanding ofwhy the road users behaved like they did in a specific set up. It is incorrect to say that a new device is a failure just because you could not find any change in the road users behaviour. For instance, the lack of change in behaviour may very well be due to the fact that the road users did not see the device. Without asking the road users, it is hard to draw any safe conclusions about why the behaviour was not changed. Also, it is difficult to draw any safe conclusions about the behavioural effects of a
specific safety measure if you just ask the road users about their behaviour, and not observe their actual behaviour in order to see if they behave like they say.
5. 13 Reported conclusions
The main suggestions by the authors of the reviewed reports were changes in equipment and regulations.
6
Summing up the evaluation of using the model in the
reviewing process
The model worked well concerning some aspects, but not others. Too often just a few
alternatives under the respective heading have been investigated or mentioned in the reviewed studies. This leads to the following questions regarding what structure ( model ) to adopt in assessing effects of different road work designs in different environments and conditions: O Was the model used in assessing the reviewed reports too detailed for behavioural
studies?
0 Should the relatively large number of aspects and variables included in the model - but not dealt with in the studies - be interpreted as not important, meaning that a more rough outline (division between and within categories) of assessing structure will do?
0 Dr the other way around; does the lack of knowledge concerning a relatively large proportion of aspects show that research in these areas has to be done to reach a higher level of safety at road works as a whole?
Bilaga 1 Sid 1 (4)
List of reviewed literature on which the paper is based
Ahmed, S.A. (1991). Evaluation of retroreflective sheetings for use on traffic control devices at construction work zones. Final report. School of Civil Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Stillwater, OK, 118 pp.
ARROWS Consortium (1997). Road Work Zone Typology, Safety Measures, Standards and Practices. Deliverable 1, ARROWS Project, within the EC:s Fourth Framework, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA).
Aulbach, J. (1992). Lichttechnische Gestaltung von Arbeitsstellen. Technische Hochschule, Darmstadt, Forschungsbericht FE-Nr. 03.213 G 89 F, (German).
Becker, H. & Schmuck, A. (1983). Verkehrsablauf an Autobahnbaustellen. Lehrstuhl für
Verkehrsplanung und Strassenwesen, Hochschule der Bundeswehr München, Heft 14, pp. 7-167, (German).
Benekohal, R.F. & Kastel, L.M. (1991). Evaluation of flagger training session on speed
control in rural interstate construction zones.Transportation Research Record, nr 1304,
pp. 270-291.
Benekohal, R.F., Resende, P.T.V. & Zhao, W. (1993). Temporal speed reduction effects of drone radar in work zones. Transportation Research Record, nr 1409, pp. 32-41.
Benekohal, R.F., Shim, E. & Resende, P.T. (1995). Truck drivers' concerns in work zones:
Travel characteristics and accident experiences. Transportation Research Record, nr 1509, pp. 55-64.
Benekohal, R.F. & Wang, L. (1994). Relationship between initial speed and speed inside a highway work zone. Transportation Research Record, nr 1442, pp. 41-48.
Benekohal, R.F., Wang, L., Orloski, R. & Kastel, EM. (1992). Speed-reduction patterns of vehicles in a highway construction zone. Transportation Research Record, nr 1352, pp 35-45.
Better Roads. (1991). Which signs really cut work-zone accidents? Better Roads, 61(3), P. O.
Box 558, Park Ridge, IL, 60068, USA, pp. 22-23.
Blackmon, R.B., & Gramopadhye, A.K. (1995). Improving construction safety by providing positive feedback on backup alarms. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management. 121(2), pp. 166-171.
Bowman, B.L., Fruin, IJ., Zegeer, C.V. (1989). Pedestrian facilities in work zones. In:
Handbook on planning, design, and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Goodell-Grivas Inc., Washington DC, pp. 176-190.
Bryden, J.E. (1990). Crash Tests of Work Zone Traffic Control Devices. Traffic control devices for highways, work zones and railroad grade crossings. Transportation Research Record, nr 1254, pp. 26-35.
Chadda, H.S., Brisbin, G.H. (1983). The obstacle course: Pedestrians in highway work zones.
Transportation Research Record, nr 904, pp. 50-57.
Cooper, M.D., Phillips, R.A., Robertson, I.T. & Duff, A.R. (1993). Improving safety on construction sites by psychologically based techniques: alternative approaches to the measurement of safety behaviour. European Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 43, No.
1, pp. 33-40.
Dudek, C.L., Richards, S.H. & Buffington, J.L. (1986). Some effects of traffic control on four-lane divided highways. Transportation Research Record, nr 1086, pp. 20-30.
Dudek, C.L., Ullman, G.L. (1989). Traffic control for short-duration maintenance Operations on four-lane divided highways. Transportation Research Record, nr 1230, pp. 12-19.
Bilaga 1 Sid 2 (4)
Freedman, M., Teed, N. & Migletz, J. (1994). Effect of radar drone operation on speeds at high crash risk locations. Transportation Research Record, nr 1464, pp. 69-80.
Garber, N.J. & Patel, S.T. (1995). Control of vehicle speeds in temporary traffic control zones (work zones) using changeable message signs with radar. Transportation Research
Record, nr 1509, pp.73-81.
Gardner D.J. & Rockwell T.H. (1983). Two views of motorist behavior in rural freeway construction and maintenance zones: the driver and the state highway patrolman. Human Factors, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 415-424.
Godthelp, H. & Riemersma, J.B.J. (1982a). Perception of delineation devices in road work zones during nighttime. SAE Technical paper 82 04 13, Warrendale, PA, 9 pp.
Godthelp, H. & Riemersma, J.B.J. (1982b). Vehicle guidance in road-work zones. Ergonomics, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp. 909-916.
Hanscom, F.R. (1982). Effectiveness of changeable message signing at freeway construction site lane closures.Transportation Research Record, nr 844, pp. 35-41.
Hanscom, F. (1991). Closed track testing of maintenance work zone safety devices. In:
Proceedings ofthe Conference Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Traffic Safety on two Continents, September 18-20 1990, Gothenburg, Sweden, VTI Rapport nr 372A:5, Swedish Naitonal Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, pp. 125
-13 9.
Hanscom, F., Graham, J. & Stout, D. (1994). Highway evaluation of maintenance work zone
safety devices. Proceedings of the Conference Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Traffic Safety on two Continents, September 22-24 1993, Hague, the Netherlands, VTI Konferens nr 1A. Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, pp. 143-157.
Harkey, D.L., Mera, R. & Byington, S.R. (1993). Effect of nonpermanent pavement markings on driver performance. Transportation Research Record, nr 1409, pp, 52-61.
Hess, M. (1993). Verkehrssicherheit im Bereich von Autobahnbaustellen. Dissertation (Mitteilung Nr. 35). Lehrstuhl und Institut für Strassenwesen, Erd- en Tunnelbau, Rheinischen-Westfalischen Technischen Hochschule (RWTH), Aachen, 165 + 44 pp, (German).
Honrath, J. & Trauden, A. (1988). Untersuchung der Auswirkungen verschiedener Vorwarneinrichtungen auf das Fahrverhalten der Verkehrsteilnehner vor fahrbaren Absperrtafeln auf denUberholfahrstreifen (Study of effects of different advance warning devices on driving behavior while approaching mobile lane closure signs on passing lane). Strassenverkehrstechnik. Vol. 32, Heft 3, pp. 103-109, (German).
Huchingson, D.R., Whaley, J.R. & Huddleston, N.D. (1984). Delay messages and delay tolerance at Houston work zones. Transportation Research Record, nr 957, pp. 19-21. Huddleston, N.D., Richards, S.H. & Dudek, C.L. (1982). Driver understanding of work-zone
flagger signals. Transportation Research Record, nr 864, pp. 1-4.
Hunt, J.G. & Yousif, S.Y. (1990). Merging behaviour at roadworks. Traffic Management and Road Safety. Proceedings of Seminar G, 18th PTRC EurOpean Transport and Planning Summer Annual Meeting, University of Sussex, September 10-14. Vol. P334, pp. 55-68. Hunt, J.G. & Yousif, S.Y. (1994). Traffic capacity at motorway roadworks - effects of layout, incidents and driver behaviour. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Highway Capacity, Vol. 1, pp. 295-314.
Kockelke, W. (1990). Analysis of driver behaviour and accidents at work sites on german motorways. Proceedings ofthe Conference Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Traffic Safety on two Continents, September 27-29 1989, Gothenburg, Sweden, VTI
Bilaga 1 Sid 3 (4)
Rapport nr 351A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, pp. 11-20.
Kuemmel, D.A. (1992). Maximizing legibility of traffic signs in construction work zones. Transportation Research Record, nr 1352, pp. 25-34.
Lenz, K.H. & Steinhoff, H. (1972). Beeinflussung des Fahrverhaltens auf Behelfsfahrstreifen der BAE-Baustellen (Influencing driver behaviour on auxiliary lanes at motorway construction sites). Strassenverkehrstechnik, Vol 16, Heft 3, pp. 82-86, (German).
Lewis, R.M. (1989). Work-zone Traffic Concepts and Terminology. Work-zone traffic control and tests of delineation material. Transportation Research Record 1230, Washington DC, pp. 1-11.
McCoy, P.T., Bonneson, J .A. & Kollbaum, J.A. (1995). Speed reduction effects of speed
monitoring displays with radar in work zones on interstate highways. Transportation Research Record, nr 1509, pp. 65-72.
McCoy, P.T & Peterson, D.J. (1988). Safety effects of two-lane two-way segment length through work zones on normally four-lane divided highways. Transportation Research Record, nr 1163, pp. 15-21.
Mousa, R.M., Rouphail, N.M. & Azadivar, F. (1990). Integrating MicroscOpic Simulation and Optimization: Application to Freeway Work Zone Traffic Control. Traffic control devices for highways, work zones and railroad grade crossings. Transportation Research Record 1254, pp. 14-25.
Nadler, F., Hanko, W. & Schrefel, J. (1988). Verkehrssicherheit im Bereich von Baustellen
auf Autobahnen. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten, Wien, Strassenforschungsvorhaben Nr. 659, Heft 372, (German).
National Transportation Safety Board. (1991). Highway accident report : multiple vehicle collision and fire in a work zone on interstate highway 79 near Sutton, West Virginia, July 26. National Transportation Safety Board NTSB, Washington, DC., p. 47.
Noel, E.C., Sabra, Z.A. & Dudek, C.L. (1989). Work zone traffic management synthesis: Use of rumble strips in work zones. Daniel Consultants Inc, Dudek & Assoc, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, 51 pp.
Nygaard, B. (1982). Försök med körfaltsförändringstavla och olika vägmärken. (Tests with a sign indicating lane change manoeuvre and different road signs). VTIMeddelande nr 280, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, 23 pp
Ogden, M.A. & Mounce, IM. (1991). Misunderstood applications of urban work zone traffic control. Transportation Research Record, nr 1304, pp. 245-251.
Ogden, M.A., Womack, K.N. & Mounce, J .M. (1990). Motorist comprehension of signing applied in urban arterial work zones. Transportation Research Record, nr 1281, pp. 127-13 5.
Opiela, K.S. & Knoblauch, R.L. (1990). Work zone traffic control delineation for
channelization. Final report. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Center for Applied Research Inc, Washington DC, 102 pp.
Pain, R.F. & Hanscom, F.N. (1989). Waming lights on service vehicles in work zones.
Proceedings of the Conference Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and Traffic Safety on two Continents, September 27-29 1989, Gothenburg, Sweden, VTI Rapport nr 351A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, pp. 57-69. Paniati, J.F . (1989). Redesign and evaluation of selected work zone sign symbols.
Transportation Research Record, nr 1213, pp. 47-55.
Pant, P.D., Huang, X.H. & Krishnamurthy, S.A. (1992). Steady-burn lights in highway work zones: Further results of study in Ohio. Transportation Research Record, nr 1352, pp. 60-66.
Bilaga 1 Sid 4 (4)
Pant, P.D. & Park, Y. (1992). Effectiveness of steady-burn lights for traffic control in tangent sections of highway work zones. Transportation Research Record, nr 1352, pp. 56-59. Parker, M.T. (1996). The effect of heavy goodsvehicles and following behaviour on capacity
at motorway roadwork sites. Traffic engineering and control. Vol. 37, No. 9, pp. 524-531. Pettersson, H-E. (1984). Utmärkning av rörliga vägarbeten: En effektstudie (Warning devices
for moving road work zones: An effect study). VTIRapport 273, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, 42 pp + appendix.
Pigman, J.G. & Agent, K.R. (1988). Evaluation of I-75 lane closures. Transportation Research
Record, nr 1163, pp. 22-30.
Pomareda, F. & Zacharias, U. (1991). Verkehrssicherheit und Verkehrsablauf im Bereich von Baustellen auf Betriebsstrecken der BAB. SNV mbH, Berlin, Forschungsvorhaben, Bundesministers für Verkehr, Förderkennzeichen FB 03.214 R 89 F, (German).
Richards, S.H. & Dudek, C.L. (1986). Implementation of work-zone speed control measures. Transportation Research Record, nr 1086, pp. 36-42.
Rouphail, N.M., Yang, Z.S. & Fazio, J. (1988). Comparative study of short- and long-term urban freeway work zones. Transportation Research Record, nr 1163, pp. 4-14.
Schuurman, H. (1991). Bottlenecks on freeways: traffic operational aspects of road
maintenance. In: Verkeerskundige werkdagen 1991, CROW publikatie 56 ii, 1991/05, pp. 557-568.
Shepard, F.D. (1989). Improving Work-Zone Delineation on Limited Access Highways. Final Report (No: fhwa/va-89/ 16). Virginia Department of Transportation, 47 pp.
Shepard, F.D. (1990). Improving Work Zone Delineation on Limited Access Highways. Traffic control devices for highways, work zones and railroad grade crossings. Transportation Research Record 1254, pp. 36-43.
Summala, H. & Pihlman, M. (1989). Trailer-truck drivers in work zones: Effects of a focussed campaign. Helsingin Yliopisto. Liikennetut-kimusyksikkö. Tutkimuksia 1721989.
Helsingfors, 13 pp.
Ullman, G.L. (1993). US. 75 North Central Expressway reconstruction: Lemmon/Oak Lawn/Peak screen line automobile user panel. Interim report. Texas Transportation
Institute, Texas A & M University, Research report 1940-6, College Station, TX, 21 pp. +
appendix.
Webb, S.A. & Coe, G.A. (1992). The Standards of Signing at Roadworks on Trunk and Principal Roads. Report No cr 306, TRL, Crowthorne, Berkshire, 41 pp.
Weinspach, K. (1988). Verkehrssicherheit und Verkehrsablauf im Bereich von Baustellen auf Betriebsstrecken der Bundesautobahnen. Strasse und Autobahn, Vol. 39, Heft 7, pp. 257-265.
Vercruyssen, M., Hancock, P.A., Williams, G., Olofinboba, O., Nookala, M. & Foderberg, D.
(1995). Lighted guidance devices : environmental modulation of drivers' perception of vehicle speed through work zones. Proceedings of the Second ITS World Congress, 9-11
November 1995, Yokohama, Japan, Vol. 4, pp. 1689-1694.
Bilaga 2 Sid 1 (21)
Road Work Zone
Behavioural Studies
Lena Nilsson
Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute (VTI)
Bilaga 2 Sid 2 (21)
Background
ARROWS Task 2.1
Assessment of available knowledge
>I< road user behaviour
>I< road users opinions and
experience
>I< safety implications
Partners: VTI, SWOV, ZAG, BAST
Bilaga 2 Sid 3 (21)
Method
Literature study
Structured review
Development of assessment model
linked to ARROWS typology and
classiñeation
Bilaga 2 Sid 4 (21)
Results
Drivers pass road works too fast!!
10 - 30 km/h above limit
decelerate late
brake extremely hard
Drivers think they take enough
caution and slow down enough!!
Location of speed reducing device
important - before transition area
Complicated road works with
numerous devices => mental
overloading => incidents/accidents
in spite of reduced speed
Bilaga 2 Sid 5 (21)
Limitations
Inconsistent terminology
Insufficient descriptions of
experimental and environmental
conditions
Incomplete experimental designs
preventing conclusions to be drawn
about different safety measures
separater
Mainly descriptive studies, and no
statistical hypothesis and testing of
differences
Bilaga 2 Sid 6 (21)
Discussion
Geographical distribution
Majority of studies from US
Transfer of results to European
conditions possible?
>1< methods - yes
* effects of safety measures ???
>r< predictability of correct
behaviour from European
guidelines ???
Bilaga 2 Sid 7 (21)
Discussion
Experimental methen?
1)
Field studies
2)
Questionnaims/interviews
Combined studies mmmnmon but
recommended for future studies to get
the Whole picture
Bilaga 2 Sid 8 (21)
Discussion
Type ofroad
Almost all studies on
motorways
dual-carriageway expressways
Hardly any studies on
rural secondary roads
urban local roads
Interest in understanding behaviour
at road works in all environments???
Larger proportion of motorways in
US than in Europe => ???
Bilaga 2 Sid 9 (21)
Discussion
Work zone operation
Not speeiñed in 50% of the studies
When specified
* mostly long-term operations
* very seldom short-term mobile
operations
Bilaga 2 Sid 10 (21)
Discussion
Work conducted
Usually construction or maintenance
Rarer reconstruction
Bilaga 2 Sid 1] (21)
Discussion
Road - work zone interactions
Most of the alternatives in the
model (ARROWS typology) are
not mentioned in any study
1)
Lane closure
2)
ContraHOW/crossover
Bilaga 2 Sid 12 (21)
Discussion
Work zone area
Research about equally distributed between
advance warning area
narrowing area
transition area
activity area
Several alternatives in the model
(ARROWS typology) have not been
studied (mentioned)
Usually a less detailed division of this
category than in the model
(ARROWS typology)???
Bilaga 2 Sid 13 (21)
Discussion
Safety measures and devices
Information and warnings on the spot
Route guidance (lights, signs and arrows)
Difñculties:
Description of many devices
-which were really studied???
Insufñcient description of devices
in place - influence of other on
reported results???
Devices added incrementally
Bilaga 2 Sid 14 (21)
Discussion
Additionalfactors
Not specified at all
in a large proportion of studies
1)
Time of day
2)
Environmental conditions
Bilaga 2 Sid 15 (21)
Discussion
Individual
Drivers (car and truck)
Pedestrians, eyelists and workers
hardly paid any attention at all
(in reviewed studies)
Interest in safer conditions for
workers and all road user categories
in all types of work zones and
environments???
Bilaga 2 Sid 16 (21)
Discussion
Road users i/workers behaviour
1)
Speed (adaptation and control)
2)
Lane tracking/lane change
Other variables like
obedience of rules and instructions
mistakes and errors
route choice
distance control
accidents
are rarely recorded or observed
Why people behave as they do are not
reflected by these variables!!
Bilaga 2 Sid 17 (21)
Discussion
Road users /w0rkers attitudes und
experiences
Much more seldom examined than
real behaviour
Pe0ple usually asked whether or not they
detected
understood
considered
Aspects very seldom dealt With are experienced
stress
frustration
inconvenience
uncertainty
false (not motivated) designs
Bilaga 2 Sid 18 (21)
Discussion
Reported conclusions
Suggestions by authors mainly
changes in equipment
changes in regulations
Measures direeted directly to read
users and workers???
Bilaga 2 Sid 19 (21)
??? for thefuture
Usability of US results on European
ground???
The types of roads studied most frequently
(motorways, expressways) influence most of
the other factors, eg.
type of operation
road/work zone interactions
work zone areas used
safety measures and devices
road user groups
How broad is our interest in covering
all environments???
Bilaga 2 Sid 20 (21)
???for thefuture (cont.)
What variables should be measured to
reflect safety related behaviour in an
optimal way???
How to link behaviour and attitudes
to incidents and accidents, to better
understand the development of
accident prone situations?
Bilaga 2 Sid 21 (21)
