• Federal Highway Administration >
• Publications >
• Research Publications >
• Human Factors >
• 01051 >
• Chp4rec.Cfm >
• Guidelines And Recommendations To Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians

Guidelines And Recommendations To Accommodate Older Drivers and Pedestrians

PDF Version (471 KB)

IV. CONSTRUCTION/WORK ZONES

Background and Scope ofHandbook Recommendations

Highway construction and maintenance zones deserve special consideration with respect to older driver needs because of their strong potential to violate driver expectancy. Alexander and Lunenfeld (1986) properly emphasized that driver expectancy is a key factor affecting the safety and efficiency of all aspects of the driving task. Consequently, it is understandable that crash analyses consistently show that more crashes occur on highway segments containing construction zones than on the same highway segments before the zones were implemented (Juergens, 1972; Graham, Paulsen, and Glennon, 1977; Lisle, 1978; Nemeth and Migletz, 1978; Paulsen, Harwood, and Glennon, 1978; Garber and Woo, 1990; Hawkins, Kacir, and Ogden, 1992).

Work–zone traffic control must provide adequate notice to motorists that describes the condition ahead, the location, and the required driver response. Once drivers reach a work zone, pavement markings, signing, and channelization must be conspicuous and unambiguous in providing guidance through the area. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB, 1992) stated that the MUTCD guidelines concerning signing and other work–zone safety features provide more than adequate warning for a vigilant driver, but may be inadequate for an inattentive or otherwise impaired driver. It is within this context that functional deficits associated with normal aging, as described below, may place older drivers at greater risk when negotiating work zones.

In a crash analysis at 20 case–study work–zone locations, among the most frequently listed contributing factors were driver attention errors and failure to yield the right–of–way (Pigman and Agent, 1990). Older drivers are most likely to demonstrate these deficits. Research on selective attention has documented that older adults respond much more slowly to stimuli that areunexpected (Hoyer and Familant, 1987), suggesting that older adults could be particularly disadvantaged by changes in roadway geometry and operations such as those found in construction zones. There is also research indicating that older adults are more likely to respond to new traffic patterns in an "automatized" fashion, resulting in more frequent driver error (Fisk, McGee, and Giambra, 1988). To respond in situations that require decisions among multiple and/or unfamiliar alternatives, with unexpected path–following cues, drivers' actions are described by complex reaction times that are longer than reaction times in simple situations with expected cues. In Mihal and Barrett's analysis (1976) relating simple, choice, and complex reaction time to crash involvement, only an increase in complex reaction time was associated with crashes. The relationship with driver age was most striking: the correlation between complex reaction time and crash involvement increased from r= 0.27 for the total analysis sample (all ages) to r= 0.52 when only older adults were included. Such data suggest that in situations where there is increased complexity in the information to be processed by drivers––such as in work zones––the most relevant information must be communicated in a dramatic manner to ensure that it receives a high priority by older individuals.

Compounding their exaggerated difficulties in allocating attention to the most relevant aspects of novel driving situations, diminished visual capabilities among older drivers are well documented (McFarland, Domey, Warren, and Ward, 1960; Weymouth, 1960; Richards, 1972; Pitts, 1982; Sekuler, Kline, and Dismukes, 1982; Owsley, Sekuler, and Siemsen, 1983; Wood and Troutbeck, 1994). Deficits in static and dynamic acuity and contrast sensitivity, particularly under low–luminance conditions, make it more difficult for them to detect and read traffic signs, to read variable message signs, and to detect pavement markings and downstream channelization devices. Olson (1988) determined that for a traffic sign to be noticed at night in a visually complex environment, its reflectivity must be increased by a factor of 10 to achieve the same level of conspicuity as in a low–complexity environment. Mace (1988) asserted that the minimum required visibility distance––the distance from a traffic sign required by drivers in order to detect the sign, understand the situation, make a decision, and complete a vehicle maneuver before reaching a sign––is increased significantly for older drivers due to their poorer visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, coupled with inadequate sign luminance and legend size. Other age–related deficits cited by Mace (1988) include lowered driver alertness, slower detection time in complex roadway scenes due to distraction from irrelevant stimuli, increased time to understand unclear messages such as symbols, and slower decision making.

In a mail survey of 1,329 American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) members ages 50 to 97, conducted to identify older driver freeway needs and capabilities, 21 percent of the respondents indicated that they have problems with accurately judging distances in construction zones (Knoblauch, Nitzburg, and Seifert, 1997). These drivers reported additional problems in negotiating work zones, including congestion/traffic; lack of adequate warning; narrow lanes; lane closures and lane shifts; and difficulty staying in their lane.

This section will provide recommendations to enhance the performance of diminished–capacity drivers as they approach and travel through construction/work zones, keyed to five specific design elements: A. lane closure/lane transition practices; B. portable changeable (variable) message signing practices; C. channelization practices (path guidance); D. delineation of crossovers/alternate travel paths; and E. temporary pavement markings.

Recommendations by Design Element

	B. Design Element: Portable Changeable (Variable) Message Signing Practices
ITE:2 MUTCD:4	(1) It is recommended that no more than two phases be used on a changeable message sign (CMS); if a message cannot be conveyed in two phases, multiple CMS's and/or a supplemental highway advisory radio message should be used.
MUTCD:4	(2) It is recommended that each phase of a CMS message be displayed for a minimum of 3 s.
MUTCD:4	(3) It is recommended that no more than one unit of information be displayed on a single line on a CMS, and no more than three units should be displayed for any single phase. A unit of information is one or more words that answers a specific question (e.g., What happened? Where? What is the effect on traffic? What should the driver do?).
ITE:4 MUTCD:4	(4) For CMS messages split into two phases, a total of no more than four uniqueunits of information should be presented.
ITE:4 MUTCD:4	(5) When a portable CMS is used to display a message in two phases, the problem and location statements should be displayed during phase 1 and the effect or action statement during phase 2. For example: Phase 1 Phase 2 If legibility distance restrictions rule out a two–phase display, the use of abbreviations [as specified in the MUTCD (FHWA, 2000)] plus elimination of the problem statement is the recommended strategy to allow for the presentation of the entire message in one phase:
MUTCD:4	(6) For superior legibility, it is recommended that: (6a) Only single–stroke fonts should be used for displays of alphanumeric characters on portable CMS's with the conventional 5– x 7–pixel matrix; double–stroke fonts should be avoided.
MUTCD:4	(6b) As new portable CMS's are procured by a highway agency, the performance specifications of such devices should include a minimum character width–to–height ratio of 0.7 (complete character) and a maximum stroke width–to–height ratio of 0.13.

FHWA-RD-01-051