Search

In 2010, the left turn flashing yellow arrow (FYA) signal displays were installed at signalized intersections on state routes in the Peoria, Illinois, area. Supplemental traffic signs with text “Left Turn Yield on Flashing Yellow Arrow” were mounted on the mast arm adjacent to the left turn signal at over half of the FYA installations. The purpose of this paper is to present the results of the effectiveness evaluation of the FYA supplemental sign on safety. Analyses are presented on the effects of the FYA supplemental sign for all drivers and a subset of drivers age 65 and older. A crash-based comparison of 164 FYA approaches including 90 approaches with the sign and 74 approaches without the sign showed greater crash reductions when the supplemental FYA sign was present. The results also showed that crashes involving drivers age 65 and older did not experience the same magnitudes of crash reductions as compared to all drivers. The findings of this research indicate that supplemental FYA signs may help in improving safety for left-turning vehicles during the permissive interval. Thus, it is recommended that supplemental signs be used when initially implementing the FYA, and that effort to educate the driving public on new traffic control be made to further improve safety at signalized intersections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Analyses of intersection accidents have shown that in most cases drivers overlook or see other road users with the right of way too late that they cannot react in time. Appropriate visual warning signals which support drivers in their attention allocation and driving behavior could be useful to improve drivers’ reaction. In a driving simulator study, two warning strategies varying in their timing: (1) top-down warning while approaching a critical intersection and (2) bottom-up warning directly before the critical incident were investigated in a T-intersection situation. For the bottom-up warning, two warning signal designs were compared. 48 subjects (M =27.3 years, SD=7.4 years) participated in the study. Driving data as well as subjective evaluation of the three warning signals (one early and two late warning signals) were analyzed. The early warning signal which was given while approaching the intersection showed a positive effect. Here, most collisions could be avoided due to drivers’ adaptation of their driving behavior toward safer driving. They waited longer at the intersection before turning and finally turned with a lower velocity. In addition, drivers evaluated the early warning signal as very “useful”. With regard to the late warnings a much smaller effect was found. From these results, requirements can be derived for the design of effective warning strategies when driving at critical intersections. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Collision diagnosis is the second step in the six-step road safety management process described in the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Diagnosis is designed to identify a dominant or abnormally high proportion of particular collision configurations (e.g., rear end, right angle, etc.) at a target location. The primary diagnosis method suggested in the HSM is descriptive data analysis. This type of analysis relies on, for example, pie charts, histograms, and/or collision diagrams. Using location specific collision data (e.g., collision frequency per collision configuration for a target location), safety engineers identify (the most) frequent collision configurations. Safety countermeasures are then likely to concentrate on preventing the selected collision configurations. Although its real-world application in engineering practice is limited, an additional collision diagnosis method, known as the beta-binomial (BB) test, is also presented as the secondary diagnosis tool in the HSM. The BB test compares the proportion of a particular collision configuration observed at one location with the proportion of the same collision configuration found at other reference locations which are similar to the target location in terms of selected traffic and roadway characteristics (e.g., traffic volume, traffic control, and number of lanes). This study compared the outcomes obtained from descriptive data analysis and the BB test, and investigates two questions: (1) Do descriptive data analysis and the BB tests produce the same results (i.e., do they select the same collision configurations at the same locations)? and (2) If the tests produce different results, which result should be adopted in engineering practice? This study''s analysis was based on a sample of the most recent five years (2005–2009) of collision and roadway configuration data for 143 signalized intersections in the City of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The study results show that the BB test''s role in diagnosing safety concerns in road safety engineering projects such as safety review projects for existing roadways may be just as important as the descriptive data analysis method. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]