Search

In the last decade, pedestrian fatalities at night, especially at midblock locations, have been increasing at an alarming rate. Lighting is an effective countermeasure in reducing nighttime crashes. However, few studies have evaluated the effects of crosswalk lighting on pedestrian visibility at midblock locations. There is an existing need to develop lighting designs that increase pedestrian visibility. Further, the safety effects of lighting have never been directly compared to other pedestrian-crossing treatments (such as flashing signs, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), etc.). Thus, in order to make effective recommendations for increasing nighttime pedestrian visibility, it is important to compare the visibility benefits of crosswalk lighting designs with and without pedestrian-crossing treatments. This study evaluated the visual performance of five midblock crosswalk lighting designs along with two pedestrian safety countermeasures at three light levels on a realistic midblock crosswalk. Visual performance was measured by calculating the distance at which the participants could detect a child-sized mannequin under the evaluated conditions. The results showed that midblock crosswalks should be illuminated to an average vertical illuminance of 10 lux to ensure optimal pedestrian visibility. Lighting designs that render the pedestrian in positive contrast (area in front of the crosswalk is illuminated) are recommended to increase pedestrian visibility. It is also recommended that pedestrian-crossing treatments, such as RRFBs and flashing signs, should be used with lighting to increase nighttime visibility. Published version

This study evaluates the visual performance of four intersection lighting designs and five midblock crosswalk lighting designs along with two pedestrian safety countermeasures (rectangular rapid flashing beacons and flashing signs) at three light levels. The study involved a pedestrian detection task, which was completed at night on a realistic roadway intersection and a midblock crosswalk. The results from the study showed that driver nighttime visual performance at intersection and midblock crosswalks was influenced by the lighting design and light level. Intersections should be illuminated to an average horizontal illuminance of 14 lux (1.3 fc). This light level ensures optimal visibility of pedestrians regardless of the lighting design (or luminaire layout) of the intersection. The average horizontal illuminance of 14 lux (1.3 fc) also increases the visibility of pedestrians when glare from oncoming vehicles is present. The 14 lux (1.3 fc) average horizontal illuminance is valid for all lighting designs evaluated except the lighting design that illuminated the exits of the intersection. When the exits of the intersection are illuminated, an average horizontal illuminance of 24 lux (2.2 fc) is needed to offset the disability glare from opposing vehicles. Midblock crosswalks should be illuminated to an average vertical illuminance of 10 lux (0.9 fc) to ensure optimal pedestrian visibility. Where overhead lighting is available, midblock crosswalk lighting designs that render the pedestrian in positive contrast are recommended. Where overhead lighting is not available, crosswalk illuminators can be used to illuminate midblock crosswalks. At night, pedestrian crossing treatments such as rectangular rapid flashing beacons and flashing signs should not be used for pedestrian visibility at midblock crosswalks. Pedestrians crossing treatments should be used in conjunction with overhead lighting or crosswalk illuminators at the established vertical illuminance to ensure optimal pedestrian visibility at midblock crosswalks.

Light levels recommended for parking facilities should be backed by empirical research that accounts for all users. In the current study, pedestrians’ and drivers’ visual performance and their perceptions of safety, comfort, and visibility were evaluated at a parking garage and at parking lots with asphalt and concrete pavements under three light source types (high-pressure sodium luminaire, 3000 K light emitting diode [LED] luminaire, and 5000 K LED luminaire) and at multiple light levels. Visual performance involved facial and hand recognition, wheel stop detection, detection of a side-facing pedestrian, and detection of a vehicle backing up from a parking spot. Perceptions of safety, comfort, and visibility were assessed by means of a questionnaire. Results showed that in the parking garage, an increase in light level beyond 10 lux of average horizontal pavement illuminance did not result in a statistically significant increase in visual performance or perceptions of safety, comfort, and visibility. For parking lots of asphalt and concrete pavements, this plateauing was observed at the 2 lux light level. No statistical differences were observed between the light source types for the visual performance tasks, but the perceptions of safety, comfort, and visibility were highest for the 5000 K LED luminaires. Published version

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

Almost all existing research about intersection lighting indicates that the presence of lighting reduces nighttime crashes. This study aimed to quantify the effect of lighting level and lighting quality on the night-to-day (ND) crash ratios at rural intersections. Illuminance measurements were collected from 99 lighted and unlighted rural intersections in Virginia. The measurements were then combined with the crash data, obtained from the Virginia Department of Transportation, for each of the intersections. A negative binomial regression was used to model the crash and lighting data. Results indicated that lighting level (average horizontal illuminance) significantly affected the ND crash ratios at rural intersections. A 1 lux (lx) increase in the average horizontal illuminance at all rural intersections in Virginia corresponded to a 7% decrease in the ND crash ratio. For the lighted intersections, a 1 lx increase in average horizontal illuminance corresponded to a 9% decrease in the ND crash ratio. The largest decrease in the ND crash ratio was for unlighted intersections, where a 1 lx increase in the average horizontal illuminance corresponded to a 21% decrease. Stop-controlled intersections had smaller ND crash ratios than signalized intersections. Intersections with a posted speed limit of less than or equal to 40 mph had lower ND crash ratios than intersections with a posted speed limit of greater than 40 mph. Each of the results is discussed with respect to the impacts of the lighting measurements on nighttime driving safety and overall visibility.

More than half of the pedestrian fatalities occur at night. It is important to understand the factors that lead to pedestrian detection for designing and implementing effective countermeasures in order to reduce pedes-trian fatalities. Research has shown that expectancy, motion and overhead lighting affect pedestrian visibil-ity. This goal of this study is to understand the combined effect of these three factors on nighttime visibil-ity. Twenty four participants were recruited to drive on a test track under different conditions of expectancy and overhead lighting. The participants were asked to identify static and moving objects. The results showed that as the level of expectancy increases the detection distances also increase. Moving objects were detected from farther than static objects and presence of overhead lighting also increased the detection dis-tances. Motion tends to draw more attention than expectancy when detecting new objects. These results have implications in the areas of pedestrian safety, novice driver training and work zone safety. They also reiterate the safety benefits of providing overhead lighting at high pedestrian-vehicle conflict areas.

This article is part of the Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Cycling Safety Conference held in Davis, California, USA on September 20th through 23rd in the year 2017.Paper ID: 91

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.

Driving is often considered a visually oriented task. This visual task is constrained when drivers drive at night. Visibility is reduced because visual cues available during the day are not present at night. This study attempted to develop a link between driver safety and the nighttime visual environment. This research required creating and integrating new technology, observing and collecting data, and developing a model framework called the Dynamic Driver Visual Model (DDVM). Conceptually, a DDVM is a system of rules, statistics, and expectations that can be used to define how a driver collects visual information from the environment. Several information sources were investigated, and several dependent variables were identified. Data were collected on how information from signage, objects, lighting, pavement markings, and other vehicles moderates a driver's visual search of the roadway environment. Several logistic regression analyses were performed on the collected data to identify common characteristics to be implemented in the DDVM. These variables included age, lighting, vehicle headlamps, several different objects, glance time, target luminance, and contrast information. The results suggest that a number of target and visibility elements have nonlinear effects on a driver's detection performance at a variety of detection distances. This paper discusses the implications of these findings and the initial framework of the DDVM. Future research and additional data requirements are also discussed.

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.