Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1984

This research consisted of five laboratory experiments designed to address the following two objectives in an integrated analysis: (1) To discriminate between the symbol Stop Ahead warning sign and a small set of other signs (which included the word-legend Stop Ahead sign); and (2) To analyze sign detection, recognizability, and processing characteristics by drivers. A set of 16 signs was used in each of three experiments. A tachistoscope was used to display each sign image to a respondent for a brief interval in a controlled viewing experiment. The first experiment was designed to test detection of a sign in the driver's visual field; the second experiment was designed to test the driver's ability to recognize a given sign in the visual field; and the third experiment was designed to test the speed and accuracy of a driver's response to each sign as a command to perform a driving action. A fourth experiment tested the meanings drivers associated with an eight-sign subset of the 16 signs used in the first three experiments. A fifth experiment required all persons to select which (if any) signs they considered to be appropriate for use on two scale model county road intersections. The conclusions are that word-legend Stop Ahead signs are more effective driver communication devices than symbol stop-ahead signs; that it is helpful to drivers to have a word plate supplementing the symbol sign if a symbol sign is used; and that the guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices on the placement of advance warning signs should not supplant engineering judgment in providing proper sign communication at an intersection.

Addendum to Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1985

This contract extension was granted to analyze data obtained in the original contract period at a level of detail not called for in the original contract nor permitted by the time constraints of the original contract schedule. These further analyses focused on two primary questions: I. What sources of variation can be isolated within the overall pattern of driver recognition errors reported previously for the 16 signs tested in Project HR-256? 2. Were there systematic relations among data on the placement of signs in a simulated signing exercise and data on the respondents' ability to detect the presence of a sign in a visual field or their ability to recognize quickly and correctly a sign shown them or the speed with which these same persons can respond to a sign for a driver decision?