| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Ped SIgns

Page history last edited by Frank Broen 10 years, 3 months ago

This is a skipping record but of course more research is needed. Another th=

ought about this specific study information. It is plausible that the legen=

d of the R1-6 sign influenced the shorter wait. The R1-6 explicitly states:=

 Yield to Pedestrian Within Crosswalk. Therefore, may the drivers have seen=

 the pedestrian at the edge of the street (not within the crosswalk) wait a=

 second or two or twenty (or 4.7 on average) and then since the visually im=

paired person did not enter the crosswalk think: well I guess I should proc=

eed? It would be interesting to see the results if only the R1-5 were used =

since that sign simply states : Yield Here to Pedestrian. I would estimate =

using the R1-5 alone would have at least equal but probably longer wait tim=

es compared to the control condition. One last thing that I just noticed in=

 Figures 7 and 10 of the report. I=E2=80=99m curious as to the possibility =

of the R1-5 sign being minimally effective because it appears to have been =

at least partially blocked by a small tree.

 

=20

 

Jay Vorisek, P.E.

 


Subject: Re: Increasing Yield to Pedestrian Rates

 

=20

 

Several agencies are seeing the value in ground-mounted or post mounted on =

roundabouts but until FHWA receives a request to experiment, the use of R1-=

6 is not endorsed in the MUTCD.  See page 56 for the standard on ground-mou=

nted Pedestrian Crossing Sign (on a lane line) R1-6.  The design you posted=

 is a =E2=80=9Cshall-not=E2=80=9D standard.

 

=20

 

In the Columbus, Ohio area they are being in-lane (on two lanners) with rep=

ortedly good results.  I think a request to experiment should soon be in pl=

ay for the use of the ground-mounted or post-mounted R1-6 sign at roundabou=

ts.

 

=20

 

Mark Lenters

 


Does anyone in the USA have experience of using the R1-6 series signs at ro=

undabouts? I=E2=80=99m also curious as to why the R1-5 series are not to be=

 used at roundabouts.=20=20

 

=20

 

Jay Vorisek, P.E.

 

 

Very interesting question that could result in some worthwhile discussion. =

Anyone know the thinking behind this ? The pros and cons ? I have ever seen=

 this discussed anywhere. gene=20

 


Hi Gene,

 

=20

 

We=E2=80=99ve been working on this specific signing issue as part of more c=

omprehensive signing and markings designs and in-service designs as it rela=

tes to the overall messaging, driver comprehension and safety performance f=

or vehicular traffic AND the safety and comfort related to non-motorized tr=

affic.=20

 

=20

 

Utilizing the excellent work completed and published in NCHRP 674 regarding=

 =E2=80=9CPedestrian Facilitation=E2=80=9D we=E2=80=99ve developed a frame =

work of issues we=E2=80=99ve been observing and have summarized these issue=

s along with 3-D graphics to visually explore these issues. Please see atta=

ched specific information and graphics utilizing the R1-6 sign in place of =

the W11-2, and I have also attached some slides of the implementation of th=

e R1-6 at the roundabout in Richfield MN see link to Richfield slides below.

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24098589/Signing/R1-6signTRB%20webinar2=

013.pdf

 

=20

 

I did present on this briefly during the TRB signing and marking webinar we=

 produced last summer, as well briefly touched on it as part of the short o=

verview I gave at last January=E2=80=99s  TRB Roundabout committee mtg in D=

C on the Richfield MN signing and marking in-service redesign and implement=

ation project aimed at improved safety.=20

 

=20

 

I hope the attached information assists to facilitate continued instructive=

 dialogue on these important topics.=20=20=20

 

=20

 

Thank you!

 

=20

 

MTJ

 

=20

 

Mark T. Johnson, P.E.

 


Again, what is the reasoning to not allow these signs? Without a response t=

o this I can=E2=80=99t help but think this could be a similar mistake (IMO)=

 as the original Roundabout Info Guide stating that circulatory roadway str=

iping not be used. Looks like there is NOT an issue (i.e. need to wait on t=

he FHWA) to place the R1-6 in the median(splitter) island.

 

=20

 

Jay Vorisek, P.E.


And here's the results that I was referring to when I said there were

some possible negative results for blind pedestrians related to the R1-6:

"In the control condition, drivers waited an average of 10.8 s. In the

treatment condition, drivers waited an average of 4.7 s. In the control

condition, wait times varied between 1 and 25 s. In the treatment

condition, wait times varied between 1 and 20 s. The difference in wait

times, not assuming equal variances between groups, was statistically

reliable (t (39) = 5.1, p < 0.01). The difference in willingness to wait

may have been because drivers who were induced to stop by the yield sign

were not as committed to waiting as were drivers who stopped without the

added

inducement. If this hypothesis is correct, then the benefit for visually

impaired pedestrians of yield signs is diminished. The bulk of the

drivers who are influenced by the sign appear to be

willing to wait only 3 to 6 s. Thus, these drivers may be pulling away

just as the pedestrian with visual impairment begins to cross."

 

Janet

 

Janet M. Barlow


I did a quick read of the study Janet mentioned (FHWA-HRT-05-080) and then =

one that was referenced in that study(FHWA-RD-00-098). I would say that the=

 conclusions point to a positive result of the signs rather than a negative=

. 05-080 is a study of vision impaired peds crossing roundabout entrance/ex=

it (not all peds) and noted the signs may help but that vision impaired ped=

s had difficulty detecting that vehicles had stopped.  Study 00-098 tried v=

arious signs and dealt with all peds. After reading these 2 studies I=E2=80=

=99d be more inclined to try the signs at roundabout ped crossings rather t=

han less.=20

 

=20

 

Jay Vorisek, P.E.

 


Subject: Re: Increasing Yield to Pedestrian Rates

 

=20

 

With all due respect to the researchers, all excellent, a sample of one doe=

s not make a robust study. As I read the the abstract, it  does not indicat=

e negative results with the R1-6, i.e., yielding increased from 11 % to 16 =

%- not great, but I wouldn't say negative. Other aspects of the study were =

negative, which I believe is why the last paragraph indicates , "---these s=

tudies do not appear to be promising-".  If the sign part was not ever foll=

owed up, it probably should have been. if for no other reason than it was o=

ne specific sample,=20

 

=46rom the report abstract

 

"-----State Law sign that was placed in the roundabout exit between the two=

 travel lanes resulted in an increase in drivers' yielding from 11 percent =

of vehicles in the control condition to 16 percent in the experimental cond=

ition.=20

 

=20

 

It was concluded that the treatments explored in these studies do not appea=

r promising for double-lane roundabouts, but should be explored further to =

see if they might work at single-lane crossings. "

 

=20

 

Also, I am pretty familiar with the NCUTCD, being on technical committees f=

rom the late 70s to early 90s, and more recently represented NACE as an alt=

ernate on the voting council, and although I believe it is a great organiza=

tion, I know that not 100% of all decisions that end up in the MUTCD are ba=

sed on good, sound, state-of-the-art research., which is why it is being co=

nstantly being evaluated and updated- which is good.

 

=20

 

Gene

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.