Search

A systems-level approach to intersection lighting design has shown that illuminating the intersection box increases drivers’ nighttime visual performance. However, for an intersection lighting design to be effective and accepted, it should not only maximize visual performance but also enhance perceived visibility and minimize glare. The goals of this study were to assess the effects of different intersection lighting designs on these two outcomes. Visibility was assessed with respect to a pedestrian, several targets, and an intersection. Perceptions of visibility and glare were measured using Likert scales, with participants exposed to multiple lighting designs on a realistic intersection. Twenty-four participants completed the study, with an equal number of younger (18–35 years) and older (65+) drivers. The lighting design that illuminated the intersection box had the highest levels of perceived target and intersection visibility and the lowest ratings of glare. For the same lighting configuration, a strong positive correlation was also found between perceived target visibility and previous results on target detection distances. In this configuration, perceived visibility plateaued between 7 and 10 lux of mean intersection illuminance. Increased levels of perceived visibility in different conditions were likely a result of size and contrast differences, and the distribution of the luminaires used. These results suggest that illuminating the intersection box has multiple benefits, in that it not only increases visual performance but also increases perceived visibility and reduces glare.

Portable light towers are a significant source of glare to motorists entering a work zone. Although existing research has evaluated the effect of light tower orientation on visibility and glare, the effects of factors like mounting height, offset distance from the roadway, and number of light towers in the work zone, on visual performance and discomfort glare is not known. Understanding these relationships can help in developing illuminating guidelines for work zones that can reduce glare for drivers. The goal of this paper is to understand the effect of mounting height, offset distance to the roadway, and number of light towers in the work zone on drivers’ visual performance and discomfort glare. Participants drove through a realistic work zone and evaluated portable light towers in varying mounting heights, offset distances, and number of light towers in the work zone. Results showed that the mounting height and offset distances play a critical role in affecting the driver’s visual performance and discomfort glare rating. Portable light towers, irrespective of wattage and lumen output, at lower than a mounting height of 20 ft and closer to the roadway result in decreasing driver visual performance and increasing their discomfort glare. Portable light towers should be mounted at a height of at least 20 ft and balloon light towers with higher wattage (4,000 W and greater) and lumen output (400,000 lumens and greater) should be located at an offset distance of at least 10 ft from the roadway.

Nighttime crashes at intersections present a major traffic safety issue in the United States. Existing approaches to intersection lighting design do not account for a driver’s visual performance or the potential interactive effects of vehicle headlamps and roadway lighting. For effective design lighting at intersections, empirical research is required to evaluate the effects of lighting configuration (part of the intersection illuminated) and lighting levels on nighttime driver visual performance. The current study had two goals: First, to quantify visual performance in three lighting configurations (illuminating the intersection box, approach, or both) and second, to determine what lighting levels within each lighting configuration support the best visual performance. The study involved a target detection task completed at night on a realistic roadway intersection. Illuminating the intersection box led to superior visual performance, as indicated by longer target detection distances, fewer missed targets, and more targets identified within a safe stopping distance. For this lighting configuration, visual performance plateaued between 7 and 10 lx of mean intersection illuminance. These results have important implications for the design of intersection lighting at isolated/rural intersections, specifically that illuminating the intersection box is an effective strategy to increase nighttime visual performance for a wider range of driver ages and could also be an energy-efficient solution. Published version

Nighttime crashes at work zones are major concerns for construction workers and motorists. Although in a majority of the U.S. states, department of transportation specifications for work zone lighting mention that contractors should reduce glare for workers and drivers, only two states advocate detailed specifications like light positions, orientation, and light levels. Although some studies have examined the impact of glare from work zone lights on workers and others have calculated veiling luminance levels for drivers in the work zone, the effect of work zone lighting on drivers’ visual performance and glare perception has never been studied in a realistic setting. The goal of this study was to understand the impact of commercially available portable light towers (metal halide, LED, and balloon) and their orientation on drivers’ visual performance and their perceptions of glare. Participants drove through a realistic work zone simulated on the Virginia Smart Road. Visual performance was assessed by a detection task and perception of visibility and glare were assessed by questionnaires. Results indicated that the type of light tower and its orientation affect visual performance and perceptions of visibility and glare. Light towers aimed toward the driver resulted in lowering drivers’ visual performance, both objectively and subjectively. When the light towers were aimed away from or perpendicular to the driver, the visual performance was higher and the differences in visual performance between the types of light towers were minimal. These findings indicate that these orientations should be preferred for work zone light towers.

Virtual reality (VR) can be a very effective tool to evaluate built environment to support improvement of pedestrian and other vulnerable road user safety. However, in order to draw actionable conclusions from VR it is important to understand the degree to which pedestrians’ perceptions and behaviors match across real and virtual environments. In this study, participants experienced equivalent real and virtual environments and performed similar tasks in each. Tasks included pedestrian’ intention to cross, estimation of speed and distance of an approaching vehicle, and the perceived safety and risk of crossing a road. Pedestrians’ presence was also measured in all environments. Result showed that there were no differences between the real and virtual environments for most of the tasks. Significant differences between real and virtual environments were observed in the estimation of speed and measures of presence. These results have important implications for using VR as tool to evaluate pedestrian safety in built environments.