Compendium of Recent Research Studies on Distraction from ... · Broadly summarized, the more...

CompendiumofRecentResearchStudiesonDistractionfromCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS)

PreparedbyJerryWachtel,CPE

President,TheVeridianGroup,Inc.Berkeley,California

February2018

TableofContentsBackground…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………3

SummaryofFindings………………………………………………...…………………………………………………...6

Chan,etal.,2008,USA,Amherst,MA……….……………………………………………………………6Young,etal.,2009,England…………………….……………………………………………………………6Backer-Grøndahl,2009,Norway…………………………………………………………………………..6Chattington,etal.,2009,England………………………………………………………………………….7Horberry,etal.,2009,Australia…………………………………………………………………………….7Gitelman,etal.,2010,Israel………………………………………………………………………………….7Bendak&Al-Saleh,2010,SaudiArabia………………………………………………………………….7Milloy&Caird,2011,Canada………………………………………………………………………………..8Edquist,etal.,2011,Australia……………………………………………………………………………….8Dukic,etal.,2012,Sweden……………………………………………………………………………………8Perez,etal,2012,USA,Washington,DC………………………………………………………………...8Divekar,etal.,2013,USA,Amherst,MA…………………………………………………………………9Roberts,etal.,2013,Australia………………………………………………………………………………9Herrstedt,etal.,2013,Denmark……………………………………………………………………………9Hawkins,etal.,2014,USA,CollegeStation,TX……………………………………………………..10Schieber,etal.,2014,USA,Vermillion,SD……………………………………………………………10Gitelman,etal.,2014,Israel…….………………………………………………………………………….10Sisiopiku,etal.,2015,USA,Birmingham,AL………………………………………………………..11Rempel,etal.,2015,Canada……………………………………………………………………………….11Samsa&Phillips,2015,Australia………………………………………………………………………..11Belyusaretal.,2016,USA,Cambridge,MA…………………………………………………………..11Mollu,2018,Belgium………………………………………………………………………………………….12

CompendiumofRecentResearchStudies……………………………………………………………..………13

Citations…………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………..36

BackgroundThisisthesecondinaseriesofbriefupdatesbaseduponthisauthor’s2009reportforAASHTOthroughNCHRPProject20-7/256,1whichwasacomprehensiveandcriticalreviewofresearchthathadbeenundertaken,andguidelinesthathadbeendevelopeduptothattimethataddressedthepotentialconsequencesfordriverdistractionfromCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS)alongtheroadside.Wecriticallyreviewedalloftheresearchpapers(morethan40)thathadbeenpublishedorpresentedwithintheprior30years.Thesepapersrepresentedtheworkofacademic,industry,andgovernmentresearchersinmanycountries(including,butnotlimitedto:Sweden,Denmark,Israel,Canada,US,England,andAustralia),andwhichfollowedmanydifferentresearchprotocols.Whereasearlierstudies(primarilythosefromthe1990sandprior)oftensufferedfromlimitationsinequipment,methodology,orstatisticalrigor,leavingtheirconclusionsopentoquestionandcontroversy,thoseperformedinthemorerecentpastweregenerallymorerobust,andtendedtoreachsimilarconclusionstoeachother.ThepreviousupdatewasdoneinJune,2013andpresentedatajointmeetingofAASHTO’strafficengineeringandhighwaysafetysubcommittees.Thenewmaterialinthisupdateincludesninestudiesinfivecountries.Broadlysummarized,themorerecentstudieshavetendedtofindthatoutdooradvertisingsigns,particularlyCEVMS,attractdrivers’attention,andthatmoredramaticandsalientsignsattractlongerandmorefrequentglances.Thisattentionisoftencapturedthrougha“bottomup”physiologicalprocess,inwhichthedriverattendstothesignunintentionallyandunconsciously,withtheeyescapturedinvoluntarilybythesign’schangingimagery,brightness,conspicuity,and/ormovement.Severalofthereportedstudiessuggestedthatthedistractioncausedbyoutdooradvertisingsignscouldbetoleratedbyexperienceddriversandwhenattentionalorcognitivedemandsofthedrivingtaskwerelow,butthattheriskincreasedwhensuchsignscompetedforthedriver’svisualattentionwithmoredemandingroad,traffic,andweatherconditions,whentravelspeedswerehigher,orwhenanunanticipatedeventoraction(suchasasuddenlanechangeorhardbrakingbyaleadvehicle)occurredtowhichthedriverhadtorespondquicklyandcorrectly.Inaddition,themorerecentresearchcontinuestoshowthatthedriversmostsusceptibletounsafelevelsofdistractionfromroadsidebillboardsaretheyoung(whoaremorepronetodistractionandlessadeptatemergencyvehicleresponse)andtheelderly(whohavemoredifficultywithrapidlyshiftingattention,poorernightvisionandglaresusceptibility,andslowermentalprocessingtime).AswillbeseeninthisCompendium,theseconcernsareheightenedtoday,withourelderlydriverpopulationgrowingquickly,traffic

1Wachtel,J.(2009).“SafetyImpactsoftheEmergingDigitalDisplayTechnologyforOutdoorAdvertisingSigns:FinalReport.NCHRPReport20-7/256.Availableat:http://rightofway.transportation.org/Documents/NCHRP%20Reports/20-7(256)%20digital%20outdoor%20advertising_aashto.pdf

increasinglydense,moreroadsundermaintenanceorrepair(constructionandworkzonescreateaddedrisks),andlarger,brighterdigitalandvideoroadsideadvertisingsignscompetingforthedriver’sattention.Finally,themostrecentepidemiologicalstudies(datingfrom2014and2015)havebeguntodemonstratewhathaslongbeensuspectedbutnotproven–thatroadsidebillboardsareassociatedwithincreasesincrashrateswheresuchbillboardsarelocated.Theresearchandguidelinesreviewedinour2009reportsetthestageforthe21researcharticlesandguidelinesthatarereviewedandsummarizedinthiscompendium.Whileemployingabroadarrayofapproachesandmethodologies,thecommonthemeclearlyindicatesthatthemorethatcommercialdigitalsignssucceedinattractingtheattentionofmotoriststhatrenderthemaworthwhileinvestmentforownersandadvertisers,themoretheyrepresentathreattosafetyalongourbusieststreetsandhighways,wherethesesignstendtobelocated.ThelongawaitedstudybytheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),announcedontheagency’swebsiteonDecember30,2014,isanoutlierinthisgroupofrecentstudies(exceptforthosesponsoredbytheoutdooradvertisingindustry2),inthatitfoundnorelationship

2In2007,twostudiessponsoredbytheoutdooradvertisingindustry(theOutdoorAdvertisingAssociationofAmerica[OAAA]anditsresearcharm,theFoundationforOutdoorAdvertisingResearchandEducation[FOARE])weresubmittedthroughthepeerreviewprocesstotheTransportationResearchBoardofTheNationalAcademies.Bothreports,oneahumanfactorsstudybytheVirginiaTechTransportationInstitute(VTTI),andtheotheranepidemiologicalstudybyTantalaandTantala,receivedoverallnegativereviewsfrompeerreviewers,andwerethereforerejectedbyTRBbothforpresentationandpublication.AlthoughVirginiaTechhasnotperformedsubsequentworkinthisfield,TantalaandTantalahavecontinuedtoperformresearchunderthesponsorshipofOAAA/FOARE.However,forwhateverreasons,FOAREandOAAAhavenotmadethesubsequentstudiesavailabletothepublic,sotheycouldnotbeaddressedinthisCompendiumofresearch.

TheTantalaandTantala2007studywasanepidemiologicalanalysesofcrashrates,buttheauthorsestablisheddatacollectionparametersthatledthemtoexcludefromexaminationtheverydrivercohorts(olderdrivers)androadlocations(interchangeareas)knowntobeatgreatestriskfordistraction.Subsequentcommentsfromtheseniorauthorofthesestudies,totheeffectthattheirsubsequentstudiesfollowthesamebasicmethodologyastheoneperformedin2007(withtheexceptionofamorerobuststatisticaltechniquetoanalyzethedata),remainsacauseforconcernbecauseofthesemethodologicalbiases.TheotherindustrystudyreleasedbyFOAREin2007,thehumanfactorsanalysisperformedbyVTTI,actuallyfoundthatdigitalsignswereassociatedwithmorelong-durationglancesawayfromtheforwardroadwaythanothertypesofsigns,andfurtherfoundthattheproblemwasconsiderablyworseatnight.However,theauthorseditedtheirfinalreporttomakeitseemasiftheseadverseconsequencesdidnotexist,andtheirindustrysponsorsterminatedthenighttimeresearchafterthepilotdatahadbeencollectedandreviewed.Atthattime,manyexpertsconsideredan“eyes-off-road”durationoftwosecondsorlongertobethethresholdforasubstantiallyhigherlevelofcrashrisk,andtheVirginiaTechteamactuallyfoundanumberofinstancesinwhichdigitalsignscausedparticipatingdriverstotaketheireyesofftheroadfortwoandthreesecondsorlonger,whereastheothertestconditions(areaswithtraditionalbillboardsandroadwaysectionsdevoidofbillboards)didnotproducethisresulttothesameextent.

betweendigitalbillboardsandadversedriverscanningbehavior.TheFHWAstudy,however,hasbeenseverelycriticizedforfaultymethodsandanalysesinapeer-reviewedcritiquebythepresentauthor3.TheFHWAstudyremainsavailableontheagency’swebsite,buthasneverbeenformallypublished.Ithasbeenshownthatroadenvironmentsclutteredwithdriving-irrelevantmaterial(oftencalledvisualcomplexity)makeitdifficulttoextractcriticalinformationnecessaryforsafedrivinginatimelymanner,aparticularproblemforolderdrivers.Inaddition,withthegrowingproliferationofCEVMS,ever-newertechnologythatrendersthemmorecompelling,theexpansionofon-premisesignsusingthistechnology,andseveralStatesconsideringtheuseofsuchsignswithintheright-of-way,itwasdeemedappropriatetoprovideanup-to-datereviewofthemostrecentresearchandguidelines.Thenextsectionofthisreportprovidesabriefsummaryofeachofthestudies.Thefollowingsection,theCompendiumitself,providesfurtherdetailsabouteachstudy,includingitssponsorship,researchprotocol,strengthsandweaknesses,andsourceidentification.Thisdocumentconcludeswithacompletelistofreferencesascited.

3Wachtel,Jerry(2015).“APeer-ReviewedCritiqueoftheFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)ReportTitled:“DriverVisualBehaviorinthePresenceofCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS).”Availableat:http://nebula.wsimg.com/722c5bb9d76d4b10b6d7add54d962329?AccessKeyId=388DC3CA49BF0BEF098B&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

SummaryofFindingsThissectionsummarizesthemajorfindingsofeachofthe22studiesdiscussedintheCompendium.Keyconclusionsarehighlightedinbold.Thesubsequentsectionofthisreport,theCompendiumitself,providesadditionaldetailabouteachstudy,andinformationabouthowtoaccessthestudy,whereavailable.Thestudiesarecitedhere,andintheCompendium,ingenerallychronologicalorder.

Chan,etal.,2008–USA,Amherst,MATheresearcherscomparedsusceptibilitytodistractionfromsourcesinsidethevehicle(e.g.phonedialing,mapreading)tothoseoutsidethevehicle(e.g.billboards)forbothyoungnovicedriversandexperienceddrivers.Aspredicted,forthein-vehicledistractors,theyoungdriverslookedawayfromtheroadwayforextendedperiods(2secondsorlonger)morethantwiceasoftenastheexperienceddrivers.Surprisingly,however,resultsshowedthat:(a)externaldistractorswereevenmoredistracting,and(b)theexperienceddriverswerejustasdistractedasthenewly-licenseddriversonthiscriticalmeasureofdistractionwhentheyperformedtheoutside-the-vehicletasks.Theauthorshadassumedthatexperienceddriverswouldexercisethesamedegreeofcautionwiththeexternaldistractorsastheydidwiththeinternalones.Instead,“theexperienceddriversshowedlittleconcernfortheeffectthatdivertingtheirattentiontothesideoftheroadwaymighthavehadontheirabilitytoperceivepotentialrisksimmediatelyinfront.”Insome81%oftheexternaltasks,olderdriversglancedforlongerthan2sawayfromtheforwardroadway.Theauthorsconcludedbysaying:“…wethinkthatourdriversengagedintheexternalsearchtaskweretrulydistractedwithpotentiallyseriousconsequences.”

Young,etal.,2009-EnglandInthisdrivingsimulatorstudy,participantsdroverural,urban,andhighwayroutesinthepresenceandabsenceofroadsidebillboards,whiletheirdrivingperformancewasmeasured.Billboardshadadetrimentaleffectonlateralcontrol,andappearedtoincreasecrashrisk.Longitudinalcontrolwasnotaffected.Themoststrikingeffectswerefoundfordriverattention.Drivermentalworkload(usingtheNASAdevelopedTLXscale)significantlyincreasedinthepresenceofbillboards.Onruralroadsandmotorways,resultsshowedthatbillboardswereconsciouslyattendedtoatthecostofmorerelevantroadsigns.Theauthorsreacheda“persuasiveoverallconclusionthatadvertisinghasadverseeffectsondrivingperformanceanddriverattention.WhilsttherearesometimesconflictsofinterestatLocalAuthoritylevelwhenauthorizingbillboards(sinceCouncilsoftentakeashareoftheprofitfromroadsideadvertising),thesedatacouldandshouldbeusedtoredressthebalanceinfavourofroadsafety.”

Backer-Grøndahl,&Sagberg,2009-NorwayTheauthorsaskeddriverswhohadactuallybeeninvolvedinacrashtoidentify,fromalist,whattheybelievedwerethecausesofdistractionforthatcrash.(Cellphoneusewasexcluded).Themostfrequentlyreportedsourcesofdistractionwere:(1)

conversationswithpassengers,and(2)attendingtochildreninthebackseat.However,whentheresearchersappliedthestatisticalmethodknownasquasi-inducedexposure,theyfoundthatdistractionswiththe“highestrelativerisk”were:(1)billboardsoutsidethevehicle,and,(2)searchingforaddresses.Theauthorsnotethatbothofthehighestriskdistractorswerevisualdistractions,ratherthanphysical,auditory,orcognitiveones.

Chattington,etal.,2009-EnglandTheresearchersfound“significanteffectsonbothdrivers’visualbehavioranddrivingperformance”inthepresenceofbothstaticandvideobillboards.Asexpected,thevideosignswereseenasmorepotentdistractorsthansimilarlyplacedstaticsigns.Theauthorsstatethattheirresults“supportandextend(thefindingsof)otherstudiesofdriverdistractionbyadvertising,”citingstudiesbyCrundall,etal,andofYoungandMahfoud(bothofwhichwereextensivelyreviewedintheWachtel2009reportforAASHTO).Thestudyshowedthatseveralaspectsofdrivingperformancewereadverselyaffectedbybothvideoandstaticbillboards,withthevideosignsgenerallymoreharmfultosuchperformancethanthestaticsigns.Theauthorslisttheseeffectsas:speedcontrol,braking,andlanepositionmaintenance.

Horberry,etal.,2009-AustraliaRoadauthoritiesmaybejustifiedinusingthebestresearchinformationavailable,evenifincomplete,coupledwithengineeringjudgment,forthedevelopmentofbillboardguidelines.Theauthorsrecommendthattheirclient(Queensland,Australia)adoptadvertisingrestrictionsatknownareasofhighdriverworkload,including“locationswithhighaccidentrates,lanemerges,curves/bends,hillsandroad/works/abnormaltrafficflows.”(Theystatethat)“thisisbroadlyinlinewithWachtelwhorecommendedarestrictionofadvertisementsattimeswhendriverdecision,actionpointsandcognitivedemandaregreatest–suchasatfreewayexits/entrances,lanereductions,mergesandcurves.Althoughusefulforallroadusers,suchrestrictionswouldbeofspecificbenefittoolderdrivers.”

Gitelman,etal.,2010-IsraelTheauthorsstudiedcrashesattwohighwaylocationsalongthesameheavilytraveledfreeway–a“treatment”sectioninwhichpreviouslyvisiblebillboardswerecoveredaspartofatrialperiod,anda“control”sectioninwhichthebillboardsremainedvisible.Atthecontrolsites,crashesremainedessentiallythesamethroughoutthe3-yearstudyperiod;atthetreatmentsites,crashesdeclineddramaticallyafterthebillboardswerecovered.Theresultsweresimilarforinjuryandfatalcrashes.Afteradjustingfortrafficvolume,crasheswerereducedatthetreatmentsites(wherebillboardshadbeencovered)bythefollowingpercentages:allcrashesby60%;injury/fatalcrashesby39%;propertydamagecrashesby72%.

Bendak&Al-Saleh,2010-SaudiArabiaTheauthorsusedadrivingsimulatorinwhichtestsubjectsdroveontwosimilarroads,onewithadvertisingsignsandonewithout.Twelvemalevolunteers,ages23-28,

participatedinthestudy.DriveropinionsaboutbillboardswerealsosoughtusingasimplequestionnairedistributedtomaledriversatrandominthecityofRiyadh,SaudiArabia.160questionnaireswerereturned.Resultsofthesimulatorstudyshowedthatthedrivingspeedofparticipantswasnotaffectedbythepresenceofadvertisingsigns.However,twoofthefiveindicatorswerestatisticallysignificant.Both“driftingunnecessarilyfrom(the)lane”and“recklesslycrossingdangerousintersections”weresignificantlymoreprevalentinthepresenceofbillboards.Althoughnotreachingstatisticalsignificance,eachoftheotherthreemeasures,tailgating,speeding,andfailuretosignal,wereallworseinthepresenceofbillboards.Halfoftherespondentstothequestionnaireindicatedthattheyhadbeendistractedbyabillboard,and22%indicatedthattheyhadbeenputinadangeroussituationduetodistractionfrombillboards.

Milloy&Caird,2011-CanadaThiswasadrivingsimulatorstudythatlookedatdistractioneffectsofavideobillboardandawindturbine.Theresultsdemonstratedacausal(italicsoriginal)relationshipbetweenthepresenceofavideobillboardandcollisionswith,anddelaysinrespondingto,theleadvehicle.

Edquist,etal.,2011-Australia“Thefindingthatthepresenceofbillboardsincreasestimetodetectchangesisanimportantone.”Billboardscanautomaticallyattractattentionwhendriversareengagedinothertasks,delayingtheirresponsestootheraspectsintheenvironment.Theeffectofbillboardswasparticularlystronginsceneswhereresponsetimesarealreadylengthenedbyhighlevelsofvisualclutter.Thisisofparticularconcernbecauseroadswithhighlevelsofclutteraretheverykindofbusy,commercial,hightrafficenvironmentswherebillboardsaremostoftenerected.”Theresultsareconsistentwithgrowingevidencesuggestingthatbillboardsimpairaspectsofdrivingperformancesuchasvisualsearchandthedetectionofhazards,andthereforeshouldbemorepreciselyregulated.

Dukic,etal.,2012-SwedenInthison-road,instrumentedvehiclestudy,drivershadasignificantlylongerdwelltime(timelookingatthebillboards),agreaternumberoffixations,andalongermaximumfixationdurationwhendrivingpastdigitalbillboardscomparedtoothersignsalongthesameroadsections.

Perez,etal.,2012–USA,Washington,DCTheauthorsofthisFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA)sponsoredstudyusedaninstrumentedvehiclethatrecordedvolunteerdrivers’eyeglancesastheydrovealongpre-determinedroutesinReading,PennsylvaniaandRichmond,Virginia.Theroutesincludeddigitalaswellasstaticbillboards,undefinedon-premisesigns,andareasfreeofcommercialsignage.Theroutesweredrivenduringdaylightandatnight,andthereportfoundthatdigitalbillboards“werenotassociatedwith‘unacceptablylongglancesawayfromtheroad’.”Asnotedabove,however,thedraftreportofthis

studywasstronglycriticizedbytheagency’sselectedpeerreviewers,particularlywithregardtotheefficacyoftheobtainedeyeglancedata.Indeed,theparticipantsinthestudydidgazemoreoftentodigitalbillboardsthantoothersigns,insomecasesmorethantwiceasmuch.(Forexample71%vs.29%atnightinRichmond).Asaresultofthecriticalpeerreviews,theauthorstook33monthstorevisethestudy,which,althoughdatedSeptember2012,wasreleasedontheagency’swebsiteonDecember30,2013.Thisrevisedreport,inturn,wasreviewedbythepresentauthor,whosecriticalreportwasreviewedandagreed-toby14independentexpertpeerreviewers.Toourknowledge,therevisedFHWAreportwasnotsubjectedtopeerreviewbytheagencypriortoitsissuanceontheagencywebsite,andithasneverbeengivenanofficialagencyreportnumber,puttingitinastateofuncertaintywithregardtoitspublication.

Divekar,etal.,2013–USA,Amherst,MAExperienceddriversarefarlesslikelytobedistractedbyinside-the-vehicletasks(e.g.cellphone,mapdisplay,entertainmentsystem)thannovicedrivers.However,theresearchersweresurprisedtofindthatexperiencedandnovicedriversareatanequalandelevatedriskofgettingintoacrashwhentheyareperformingasecondarytaskoutsidethevehiclesuchaslookingatbillboards

Roberts,etal.,2013-AustraliaTheappearanceofmovementorchangesinluminancecaninvoluntarilycaptureattention,andengaginginformationcancaptureattentiontothedetrimentofdrivingperformance,particularlyininexperienceddrivers.Wherethishappensinadrivingsituationthatisalsocognitivelydemanding,theconsequencesfordrivingperformancearelikelytobesignificant.Further,ifthisresultsinasituationwhereadriver’seyesareofftheforwardroadwayfor2secondsorlonger,thiswillfurtherreducesafety.Additionally,roadenvironmentsclutteredwithdriving-irrelevantmaterialmaymakeitdifficulttoextractinformationthatisnecessaryforsafedriving,particularlyforolderdrivers.Thestudiesthathavebeenconductedshowconvincinglythatroadsideadvertisingisdistractingandthatitmayleadtopoorervehiclecontrol.

Herrstedt,etal.,2013-DenmarkTheauthorsstudieddriversusinganinstrumentedcarequippedwithaneye-trackingsystem,aGPSsystemforregisteringthevehicle’sspeed,andalaserscannerformeasurementoffollowingdistancestootherroadusers.Theoverallfindingsofthestudiesdemonstratethat“advertisingsignsdoaffectdriverattentiontotheextentthatroadsafetyiscompromised.”In69%ofalldrivespastadvertisingsigns,thedriverglancedatleastonceatthesign;inalmosthalfofalldrives,thedriverglancedtwiceormoreatthesamesign.For22%ofalldrives,thetotalglancedurationofsuccessiveglanceswastwo(2)secondsorlonger.In18%ofalldrives,glancedurationsofone(1)secondorlongerwasrecorded.Inapproximately25%ofallglances,thesafetybuffertothevehicleaheadwaslessthantwo(2)seconds,andin20%oftheglances,thesafetybufferwaslessthan1.5seconds.ThisstudyhasbeenpraisedinindependentpeerreviewbyDr.RichardPain,TransportationResearchBoardSeniorProgramOfficer,retired.Dr.Painconsideredthisstudytobethebestdesignedand

conductedon-roadstudyinthisfield,theconclusionsofwhich,hebelieves,werefarmorevalidandrobustthanthoseoftheFHWAstudy(discussedabove).

Hawkins,etal.,2014–USA,CollegeStation,TXThisstudy,sponsoredbytheon-premisesignageindustry,wasastatistical(epidemiological)analysisofcrashratesinthevicinityofon-premisedigitalsignsthathadbeenfirstinstalledin2006-07.Onpremisesignsdifferfrombillboardsinseveralways.Perthecommonmeaningoftheterm,on-premisesignsmustadvertiseonlyabusinessorservicethatisavailableonthepropertyonwhichthesignislocated.Becauseofthat,on-premisesignstypicallyfunctiontoidentifythebusinessand,assuch,theymayhavelittletextorimageryotherthanthatrequiredforsuchidentification.Ontheotherhand,theyareoftenclosertotheroadthanbillboardsarepermittedtobe,anditisoftenpossibleforthemtobelargerthanbillboardsandtofeaturemotionortheappearanceofmotion.ThisstudyemployedananalysismethodologyknownasempiricalBayes(orEB)tolookatbefore-and-aftercrashdatainfourstates.Atotalof135signlocationsand1,301controlsiteswereused,andtheresearchersfound“noevidencetheinstallationofon-premisesignsattheselocationsledtoanautomaticincreaseinthenumberofcrashes.”

Schieber,etal.,2014–USA,Vermillion,SDInthissimulatorstudytheauthorsvariedmessagelength(4,8,or12words)ondigitalbillboardsthatparticipantsdrovepastateither25or50MPH.Althoughtherewasnodecrementinlanekeepingorbillboardreadingperformanceatthelowerspeedonstraightroads,“clearevidenceofimpairedperformancebecameapparentatthehigher(50MPH)drivingspeed.”Theanalysisrevealedthat,ratherthanweavinginandoutoflanewhilereadingthebillboardswithlongermessages,participantstendedtoslowlydriftawayfromthelanecenterandthenexecutealargeamplitudecorrectivesteeringinputabouteight(8)secondsafterpassingthebillboard.Eyegazeanalysisshowedthatinformationprocessingoverloadbegantoemergewithamessagelengthofeight(8)words,andwasclearlypresentwithtwelve(12)wordmessagesunderthe50MPHcondition.

Gitelman,etal.,2014-IsraelIn2014,theseauthorshadtheopportunitytoaddanadditionaldatasettothatintheir2010study(discussedabove),andtoreanalyzethedatafromtheoriginalstudy.Thiswasbecausetheroadauthoritiesissuedadecisiontoreauthorizethedisplayofbillboardsthattheyhadpreviouslyhadorderedcovered.Inotherwords,theauthorshadtheopportunitytostudytrafficcrashesonasingleroadwaywhenbillboardswere:(a)visible,then(b)covered,then(c)visibleagain.The2010studyexaminedconditions(a)and(b),andthe2014supplementaddedcondition(c)andareanalysisof(a)and(b).Theyfoundthat:“Theresultssupportandstrengthenthepreviousfindings.”Removal/coveringofthebillboardsfromthehighway(condition[b])wasassociatedwitha30-40%reductionininjurycrashesfromcondition(a)accordingtotwodifferentdatabases,whereasthereintroduction/uncoveringofthebillboards(condition[c])wasassociatedwitha40-50%or18-45%increaseinsuchcrashes,dependingonthedatabasecited.Thetrendsweresimilarand

consistentacrossdamage-only,injury,andtotalaccidentsaswellasnighttimevs.daytimeinjuryaccidents.

Sisiopiku,etal.,2015–USA,AL,FLTheauthorsanalyzedcrashesfromeight(8)digitalbillboardlocationsinAlabamaandten(10)inFlorida.Allsiteswereonhighspeed,limitedaccesshighways.Atotalof377crashesinFloridaand77inAlabamawereusedintheanalysis.Actualtrafficcollisionreportswereusedsincetheauthorsdiscoverednumerouserrorsincodinginthesummarycrashdatabasesthattheyinitiallyexamined.Althoughthedatasetwastoosmalltoemploystatisticalanalyses,theauthorsfoundthat“thepresenceofdigitalbillboardsincreasedtheoverallcrashratesinareasofbillboardinfluencecomparedtocontrolareasdownstreamofthedigitalbillboardlocations.Theincreasewas25%inFloridaand29%inAlabama.”Thepredominantcrashtypesthatwereoverrepresentedatbillboardlocationswererear-endandsideswipecollisions,bothtypicalofdriverdistraction.

Rempel,etal.,2015-CanadaTheseauthors,workingonbehalfoftheTransportAssociationofCanada,developedasetofguidelinesforthecontrolofdigitalandprojectedadvertisingsigns.Theresultantguidelinesarebasedonacomprehensiveliteraturereview,asurveyofCanadiangovernmentaljurisdictions,areviewofexistingsignregulations,interviewswithinternationalGovernmentalagencies,discussionswithsignindustryrepresentatives,andtheapplicationofhumanfactorsandtrafficengineeringprinciples.ThekeyprincipledocumentedintheGuidelinesisthatthey“providerecommendationsdesignedtocontrol(digitalbillboards)suchthattheyemulatestaticadvertisingsigns(italicsadded),andthereforeresultinasimilardistractingandroadsafetyeffectasstaticadvertisements.”

Samsa&Phillips,2015-AustraliaTheseauthors,workingonbehalfoftheOutdoorMediaAssociationofAustralia,studied29participants,ages25-54inaninstrumentedvehicle.Theparticipantswerefittedwith“eyetrackingglasses”andtheireyefixationsanddrivingperformancewasassessedastheydrovea14.6kmrouteinBrisbane,Queensland.Theroutetookthempasta“number”ofadvertisingsigns,includingstatic,digital,andon-premisesigns.Theresultsshowedthatfixationdurations“werewellbelow”0.75seconds,andthattherewerenosignificantdifferencesinvehicleheadwaysbetweenthethreetypesofsignage.Onestatisticallysignificantfindingwasthatlateraldeviationwaspoorerwhenbillboardswerepresent.(Notethat,atpresent,onlyanAbstractofthisindustry-sponsoredstudyisavailable).

Belyusar,etal.,2016–USA,Cambridge,MAInthison-roadstudy,datawascollectedfrom123subjects,nearlyequallydividedbetweenmales(63)andfemales(60)andbetweenyoung(age20-29,N=63)andolder(age60-69,N=60).Thesevolunteersdroveaninstrumentedvehicleundernormaldrivingconditions(withnospecifictaskstoperform)pastadigitalbillboardona

posted65MPHroadwaywithfourtravellanesineachdirection.Datawascollectedduringlatemorningandearlyafternoontoavoidcommutertraffic.Theauthorsstate:“IncontrasttotherecentFHWAreport(Perez,etal.,2012),thefindingsrevealedstatisticallysignificantchangesintotalnumberofglancesand,dependinguponthedirectionoftravel,moderate-to-longdurationglancesinthedirectionofthebillboard.”Olderdriverswerethoughttobeparticularlyaffected.Theauthorsalsofoundthat:“Driversglancedmoreatthetimeofaswitchtoanewadvertisementdisplaythanduringacomparablesectionofroadwaywhenthebillboardwassimplyvisibleandstable.”Giventypicalbillboarddwell(cycle)timesofsix(6)oreight(8)seconds,thesefindingsaddtotheargumentthedwelltimesforsuchsignsshouldbeconsiderablylonger.

Mollu,2018-BelgiumPera2015EuropeanCommissionreport,distractionaccountsfor10-30%ofallEuropeanroadaccidents.Althoughthereisnoconsistentdefinitionofdistraction,mostdefinitionsdescribeadiversionofattentionawayfromthedrivingtask,andtowardacompetingactivityinsideoroutsidethevehicle.Thisdiversionofattentionmaybevisualand/orcognitive.Theauthorandhiscolleaguessoughttostudywhethertheglancebehaviorofroaduserswasinfluencedbyadvertisingsigns,whethersuchsignsleadtochangesindrivingbehaviorandwhethertherewerenotableeffectsonroadsafetyasaresult.Thirty-fivetestsubjects(agerange20-69;54%male)completedtheprotocolanddroveasimulatorpastLEDbillboardswith3,6,and15-seconddwelltimes,andat41and65-meterdistancesfrompedestriancrossings.Thesignswereplacedinaroadsegmentwitharetailzoneandinonetransitioningtoabuilt-uparea.Allothercharacteristicsofthesign(size,placement,illumination,etc.,wereheldconstant.Attheshortestdisplaytimesandtheclosestdistancetothepedestriancrossingthestudyshowedsignificantlyhighermentaldemandsandlowerperformance.Thelongerthemessagedisplaytime,thefewerglancesweremadetothesign.Thesignsalsocontributedtohigherapproachspeedstopedestriancrossingsanddelayedslowinguponapproachtothecrossing.Therewasalsoanindication,althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,ofincreasedswervingbehavior(changeinlateralposition)inthepresenceofthebillboards.

CompendiumofRecentResearchStudiesonCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS)

KeytoCodesUsedinTables:*TypeofStudy:

N=on-road,naturalisticQ=on-road,quasi-naturalisticC=on-road,controlledS=lab,simulatorL=lab,otherE=epidemiological,crashdataR=reviewofotherworkCR=criticalreviewofotherworkD=discussion/consultationwithexpertsG=guidelinesorregulationsdevelopmentQI=questionnaires,interviews,surveys,focusgroups,etc.

**TypeofSignsStudied:

O=On-premiseC=ConventionalbillboardD=DigitalbillboardV=SigncontainsvideooranimationH=OfficialhighwaysignU=Unknown

Date1stpublished/presented

Location U.S.(Massachusetts)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Chan,E.,Pradhan,AK,Knodler,MA,Jr.,Pollatsek,A.&Fisher,DLEmpiricalEvaluationonaDrivingSimulatoroftheEffectofDistractionsInsideandOutsidetheVehicleonDrivers’EyeBehaviors

Forum TRB–presentationandCDROMPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource NationalScienceFoundation;NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration(NHTSA)TypeofStudy* STypeofSignsStudied** C(simulated)BriefDescriptionofMethod

Young,novicedrivers(age16-17)areatgreatlyelevatedriskofcrashing,anditisbelievedthatdistractionplaysalargeroleinsuchcrashes.Moreexperienced,olderteendrivers(age18-19)havealsobeenshowntolookawayfromtheforwardroadwayforextendedperiodsoftime.Thissimulatorstudycomparedsuchextended,off-roadwayglancedurationsofnewlylicenseddriverstothoseofolder,experienceddrivers,usingeyemovementrecordingsasparticipantsdrovealongasimulatedroadwayandengagedindistractingtasksbothinsideandoutsidethevehicle.

SummaryofFindings

Theresearcherscomparedtheaveragemaximumdurationofanepisode,(themaximumtimethatdriversspentcontinuouslylookingawayfromtheforwardroadway).Forthein-vehicledistractors,theaveragewas1.63sfortheexperienceddrivers,and2.76sfortheyoungerdrivers.Anothermeasure,thepercentageofscenariosinwhichthemaximumdurationofanepisodewasgreaterthan2s,yieldedsimilarfindings.Theresultswerestatisticallysignificantbetweenthetwogroups.Aspredictedforin-vehicledistractors,theyoungdriverslookedawayfromtheroadwayforextendedperiods(2sorlonger)morethantwiceasoftenastheexperienceddriverswhileengagedininside-the-vehicledistractors(suchasphonedialing,mapreading,andCDsearching).Surprisingly,however,resultsshowedthat:(a)externaldistractorswereevenmoredistracting,and(b)therewasnodifferencebetweennewly-licensedandexperienceddriversonthiscriticalmeasureofdistractionwhenthedriversperformedoutside-the-vehicletasks,specifically,searchingforatargetletterina5x5gridrepresentativeofabillboard.Theauthorshadassumedthatexperienceddriverswouldexercisethesamedegreeofcautionwiththeexternaldistractorsastheydidwiththeinternalones.Instead,“theexperienceddriversshowedlittleconcernfortheeffectthatdivertingtheirattentiontothesideoftheroadwaymighthavehadontheirabilitytoperceivepotentialrisksimmediatelyinfront.Infact,in81%oftheexternaltasks,olderdriversglancedforlongerthan2sawayfromtheforwardroadway.Theauthorsconclude:“…wethinkthatourdriversengagedintheexternalsearchtaskweretrulydistractedwithpotentialserousconsequences.”

Strengths Thestudyisthefirsttodirectlycomparethesusceptibilitytodistractionfrominternalandexternaltasksbetweennewlylicensedandexperienceddrivers.

Weaknesses/Limitations Olderdriverswerenotincludedinthisstudy.Therepresentativenessoftheoutside-thevehicletaskisquestionable.

Availability/Accessibility TRB2008AnnualMeetingCD-ROM

Location UK(England,London)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Young,MS,Mahfoud,JM,Stanton,N.Salmon,PM,Jenkins,DP&Walker,GH.“ConflictsofInterest:Theimplicationsofroadsideadvertisingfordriverattention.”BrunelUniversity,WestLondon,England

Forum TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,Vol.12(5),September2009,381-388.

PeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource Insurancecompany–TheReesJeffreysRoadFundTypeofStudy* STypeofSignsStudied** C,HBriefDescriptionofMethod

ThestudywasconductedintheUniversity’sdrivingsimulator.48driversdroveurban,rural,andmotorwayroutesinthepresenceandabsenceofbillboards.Dependentvariablesincludedmeasuresofspeedandlateralcontrol,anddriverattention(mentalworkload,eyemovements,andrecallofsignsandbillboards).

SummaryofFindings

Thepresenceofbillboardshadadetrimentaleffectonlateralcontrol,andappearedtoincreasecrashrisk.Longitudinalcontrolwasnotaffected.Morestrikingeffectswerefoundfordriverattention.Drivermentalworkloadsignificantlyincreasedinthepresenceofbillboards.Onruralroadsandmotorways,resultsshowedthatbillboardswereconsciouslyattendedtoatthecostofmorerelevantroadsigns.“Wemustonceagainemphasizethepersuasiveoverallconclusionthatadvertisinghasadverseeffectsondrivingperformanceanddriverattention.WhilsttherearesometimesconflictsofinterestatLocalAuthoritylevelwhenauthorizingbillboards(sinceCouncilsoftentakeashareoftheprofitfromroadsideadvertising),thesedatacouldandshouldbeusedtoredressthebalanceinfavourofroadsafety.”

Strengths Afullyinteractivehighfidelitysimulatorwasused.TheuseoftheNASA-TLXinstrumentformeasuringsubjectivementalworkloadwasausefultoolthatisusedtooinfrequentlyinstudiesofdriverperformance.Allparticipantsexperiencedidenticalroadandsignconditiontheonlymanipulationbeingthepresenceorabsenceofbillboards.

Weaknesses/Limitations Thesampleofparticipantsdidnotincludeeitherolderoryoungerdrivers–theagegroupsthoughttobeatgreatestriskforadverseconsequencesofbillboarddistraction.MeasuresoflateralandlongitudinalvariabilitywereconstrainedbythestudydesignandwerenotfullyrepresentativeofthemeasuresofthesevariablesusedmostcommonlyintheUS.

Availability/Accessibility Journalisavailableonline.

Location NorwayAuthor(s)Title;Affiliation

Backer-Grøndahl,A.,&Sagberg,F.“Relativecrashinvolvementriskassociatedwithdifferentsourcesofdriverdistraction.”InstituteofTransportEconomics,Norway

Forum FirstInternationalConferenceonDriverDistractionandInattentionPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource UnknownTypeofStudy* E,QITypeofSignsStudied** CBriefdescriptionofmethod

Usedweb-andpaper-basedquestionnairetoask4300+driverswhohadbeeninacrashtoidentifyfromalistofpossiblechoicesthecauseoftheircrash.Separatedthoseatfaultfromthosenotatfault.Relativecrashriskofeachfactorwasestimatedusingthequasi-inducedexposuremethod.

SummaryofFindings

Themostfrequentsourcesofdistractionwere:(1)conversationswithpassengers,and(2)attendingtochildreninthebackseat.Whenthestatisticalmethodwasappliedtothedata,itwasfoundthatdistractionswiththe“highestrelativerisk”were:(1)billboardsoutsidethevehicle,and,(2)searchingforaddresses.Theauthorsnotethatbothofthehighestriskdistractorswerevisualdistractions,vs.physical,auditory,orcognitive.

Strengths Authorscontrolledforpossibleconfoundingvariables(suchasage,gender,drivingexperience[years]andannualmileagedriven)usinglogisticalregressionwithculpabilityasthedependentvariable.

Weaknesses/Limitations Someresearchersquestiontheviabilityofthequasi-inducedexposuremethod;cellphoneusewas(intentionally)excludedfromthequestionnaire.(Itlikelywouldhaveproventobethehighestriskfactor).Confidenceintervalswerequitelarge.

Availability/Accessibility Presentedatlargeinternationalconference;publishedinconferenceproceedings.

Location UK-EnglandAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Chattington,M.,Reed,N.,Basacik,D.,Flint,A.,&Parkes,A.“InvestigatingDriverDistraction:TheEffectsofVideoandStaticAdvertising:TransportResearchLaboratory

Forum ReportPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource TransportforLondonTypeofStudy* STypeofSignsStudied** C,VBriefDescriptionofMethod

UsedthehighfidelityTRLdrivingsimulator,withaspecificallydesignedurban/suburbandatabasetypicaloftheareaaroundLondon.48participantsdrove4differentroutes,eachofwhichrequiredabout15minutes.Participantsdidnotknowthepurposeofthestudy.Theireyemovementswereunobtrusivelyrecorded.Roadsideadvertisingwasdesignedtovaryby:location(placementwithinthescene);type(staticorvideo);andexposureduration(at30MPH,driverscouldseeatleast50%oftheadvertisementforeither2,4,or6+seconds.Videoadsranina6-secondloop.

SummaryofFindings

“Thereporthasfoundsignificanteffectsonbothdrivers’visualbehavioranddrivingperformancewhenstaticandvideoadvertsarepresentandthatthevideoadvertsseemmorepotentdistractorsthansimilarlyplacedstaticadverts.Theresultssupportandextend(thefindingsof)otherstudiesofdriverdistractionbyadvertising.”(Here,theauthorscitetheworkofCrundall,etal,andofYoungandMahfoud,bothofwhichwereextensivelyreviewedintheWachtel2009reportforAASHTO).Thestudyshowedthatseveraldifferentaspectsofdrivingperformancewereadverselyaffectedbothvideoandstaticbillboards,withthevideosignsgenerallymoreharmfultosuchperformancethanthestaticsigns.Theauthorsdescribetheseeffectsasbeing“fundamentaltothesafecontrolofthevehicle.”Theeffectsinclude:speedcontrol,braking,andthevariabilityofeachofthesemeasures,aswellasdriversshowingthattheyare“lessabletomaintainaconsistentlaneposition”

Strengths Averycomprehensiveandsophisticatedsimulationstudy.Theresearcherswentsofarastopre-screenthecontentofthesimulatedadvertisementstoensurethattheywereofequivalentinteresttothedifferentagegroupsintheirparticipantpopulation.

Weaknesses/Limitations Itisimportanttonotethatthisstudycompareddigitalvideobillboardstotraditionalstaticbillboards(i.e.itdidnotexaminedigitalbillboardswithintermittentdisplays(i.e.thosethatchangetheirmessageevery6-8seconds)thataretypicalintheU.S.Althoughtheauthorsstatethattheirparticipantsrepresenteda“widerangeofages,”itisnotknownhowwellyoungandolddriverswererepresentedinthestudy.Thisisofconcernbecausethesetwoagegroupsattheendsofthedrivingpopulationdistributionareknowntohavethegreatestdegreeofdifficultywithattentionanddistraction.

Availability/Accessibility TRLReportNumberRPN256.

Location Australia,QueenslandAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Horberry,T.,Regan,MA,&Edquist,J.DriverDistractionfromRoadsideAdvertising:Theclashofroadsafetyevidence,highwayauthorityguidelines,andcommercialadvertisingpressure.UniversityofQueensland(Australia),INRETS(France),MonashUniversity(Australia).

Forum UnknownPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource SwedishNationalRoadandTransportInstitute,VTITypeofStudy* CR,D,GTypeofSignsStudied** C,DBriefDescriptionofMethod

Criticalreviewoftheresearch,worldwide,aswellasexistingguidelinesandregulations.

SummaryofFindings

“Roadauthoritiesaroundtheworldmay…bejustifiedinusingthebestresearchinformationavailable(albeitincomplete)coupledwithengineeringjudgmentforthedevelopmentof3rdpartyadvertisingguidelines.”TheauthorsrecommendthatMainRoadsQueenslandadoptadvertisingrestrictionsatknownareasofhighdriverworkload,including“locationswithhighaccidentrates,non-junctionrelatedlanemerges,curves/bends,hillsandroad/works/abnormaltrafficflows.ThisisbroadlyinlinewithWachtelwhorecommendedarestrictionofadvertisementsattimeswhendriverdecision,actionpointsandcognitivedemandaregreatest–suchasatfreewayexits/entrances,lanereductions,mergesandcurves.Althoughusefulforallroadusers,suchrestrictionswouldbeofspecificbenefittoolderdrivers.”Theauthorscorrectlypointouttheflawinargumentsthatsuggestthatguidanceorregulatorycontrolsareprematurebecausethereisalackofdatashowingacausalrelationshipbetweenbillboardsandaccidents

Strengths Thestudyexaminedindetailtheexisting(2002)guidelinesthatseekto“minimizethepossibilityfor3rdpartyroadsideadvertisementstodistractdrivers…”withanintenttowarddevelopingupgradedguidelines.

Weaknesses/Limitations Thereviewofcurrentguidelines,worldwide,issomewhatsuperficial.Availability/Accessibility https://document.chalmers.se/download?docid=653291678

Location Israel(TelAviv)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Gitelman,V.,Zaidel,D.,&Doveh,E.“InfluenceofBillboardsonDrivingBehaviorandRoadSafety,”

Forum Presentedat:FifthInternationalConferenceonTrafficandTransportationPsychology(2012);andatAnnualMeetingofTransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies(2013)

PeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource IsraelNationalRoadsAuthorityTypeofStudy* EStudyDesign Quasi-experimental:Beforeandaftercrashdatewithcontrols–CrashdatawithDBBs

present(2006-7)andabsent(2008),withandwithoutsignsthatwerecovered.Dependentmeasure–crashesandinjuries.Controlvariable–trafficvolume.Studysites–8treatmentand6control.

TypeofSignsStudied** CBriefDescriptionofMethod

Becauseofcomplaints,Israel’sSupremeCourtruledthataseriesofbillboardsonanurbanfreewaynearTelAvivhadtoberemovedfor1yearwhileanevaluationtookplace.Atcontrolsites,thebillboardsremainedvisiblethroughoutthestudyperiod.Attreatmentsites,billboardswerevisibleinthe“before”period(2006-7),andwerecoveredduringthe“after”period(2008).Crasheswererecordedandcategorized(propertydamageonly,injuryorfatality)underfourconditions:(a)attreatmentsiteswhilesignswerevisible;(b)attreatmentsitesaftersignswerecovered;(c)atcontrolsiteswheresignswerevisible;and(d)atthesamecontrolsiteswhilesignswerestillvisiblebutsignswerecoveredatthetreatmentsites.

SummaryofFindings

Atcontrolsites,crashesremainedessentiallythesamethroughoutthe3-yearstudyperiod;atthetreatmentsites,crashesdeclineddramaticallyafterthebillboardswerecovered.Theresultswerethesameforinjuryandfatalcrashes.Afteradjustingfortrafficvolume,crasheswerereducedatthetreatmentsites(wherebillboardswerevisibleinthe“before”periodbutcoveredduringthe“after”period)bythefollowingpercentages:allcrashesby60%;injury/fatalcrashesby39%;propertydamagecrashesby72%.

Strengths Forafieldstudy,thisusedawell-controlledresearchdesign.Before-and-aftermeasureswereobtainedbothforsiteswherethebillboardswerecoveredduringthestudy,andforthesiteswherethebillboardsremainedvisibleduringthissametimeperiod.Roadsectionswereincloseproximity,onthesamehighway,ensuringthattrafficspeedsandvolumes,aswellasweatherconditions,lawenforcementactivity,etc.werecomparable.

Weaknesses/Limitations Theremighthavebeendifferencesincertainroadwaycharacteristicsbetweenthetreatmentandcontrolsites(e.g.curves,merges,etc.)thatwerenotidentified.

Availability/Accessibility FindingsavailableasPowerPointfromeitherconference;originalstudyisinHebrewonly;Englishtranslationnotyetavailable.

Location SaudiArabiaAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Bendak,S.,&Al-Saleh,K.“TheRoleofRoadsideAdvertisingSignsinDistractingDrivers.”KingSaudUniversity

Forum InternationalJournalofIndustrialErgonomics,40,233-236.PeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource ResearchCentreoftheCollegeofEngineering,KingSaudUniversityTypeofStudy* S,QIStudyDesign TypeofSignsStudied** O,C,D,VBriefDescriptionofMethod

Twelvemaledrivers,age23-28,droveasimulatorconsistingoftwourbanroadways,each9.3-kmlong,andmatchedforphysical,environmentalandtrafficcharacteristics.Oneroadcontainedadvertisingsigns;theotherwasdevoidofadvertisements.

SummaryofFindings

Theaveragedrivingdurationwas12.83minutesforeachrouteshowingthatthepresenceofadvertisingsignsdidnotmateriallyaffectdrivingspeed.Therewerenoaccidents.Laneplacementandpositionmaintenancesufferedsignificantlyinthepresenceofadvertisingsigns.Accordingtotheauthors:“swinginganddriftingfromlaneinthepresenceofadvertisingsignsisastrongindicationofhowsuchsignsdistractdriversandaffecttheirperformance.”Asecondfindingwasthat“recklesslycrossingdangerousintersections”wasalsosignificantlyandadverselyaffectedbythepresenceofadvertisingsigns.Thisfinding,accordingtotheauthors“indicatesthelossofthisfinecoordinationbetweenpayingattentionanddriving.…Thiscanreasonablyattributed…tothelongerreactiontimeneededinthepresenceofhazardsduetobeingdistracted.”Allthreeoftheothermeasures:tailgating,“overspeeding,”andfailuretosignal,werepoorerinthepresenceofadvertisingsigns,butthesewerenotstatisticallysignificant.Inresponsetothequestionnaire,50%ofthe160respondentssaidtheyhadbeendistractedbyadvertisingsigns,and22%reportedhavingbeeninadangeroussituationatleastonceduetobeingdistractedbyadvertisingsigns.

Strengths Thetwosimulatedroutesdrivenwerematchedforkeycharacteristics;thedifferencesbetweenthemwereessentiallyonlyinthepresenceorabsenceofadvertisingsigns.

Weaknesses/Limitations Nofemalesandnodriversolderthan28wereincluded.“Advertising”signsofmanydifferenttypeswerecomingled,soitwasimpossibletoidentifytheeffectsofanyonecategoryofsigns,suchasbillboards.Nodefinitionisprovidedofthebehavioridentifiedas“recklesslycrossingdangerousintersections.”Theauthorsattributepoorerperformanceinthismeasuretolongerreactiontimeinthepresenceoftheadvertisingsigns,butthereisnoindicationthattheymeasuredthisresponse.Thequestionnairecompletedby160respondentswasnotincludedinthepaper.

Availability/Accessibility www.elsevier.com/locate.ergon

Location Canada(Calgary,Alberta)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Milloy,SL;andCaird,JK.“ExternalDriverDistractions:TheEffectsofVideoBillboardsandWindFarmsonDriverPerformance.”UniversityofCalgary

Forum BookchapterPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource UnspecifiedTypeofStudy* STypeofSignsStudied** V(simulated)BriefDescriptionofMethod

Thecontributiontodriverdistractionfromin-vehicletechnologiessuchascellphones,I-Pods,andnavigationsystemshavebeenstudiedextensively.Butitisexternaldistractionsthatcomposethesinglelargestcategoryofdistraction-relatedcrashes.Theleastisknownaboutsuchcrashes,possiblybecausethevarietyofpeople,objectsandeventsthatmakeupexternaldistractionsareverydifficulttostudyinacontrolledempiricalfashion.Intheory,driversoftenhavesparecognitivecapacitythattheycanallocatetowarddistractorssuchasbillboards.Thequestionaskedherewas:whathappenswhenanunlikelybuttotallyplausibleemergencyeventtakesplace–canthedriver“reallocate”hisorherattentionsoastorespondtotheeventinatimelymanner.Inthis“event-based”scenario,eitherthedriverrespondsadequatelyornot.Inthissimulatorstudy,driversonafreewaymovingat80km/h(50mph)inanindustrialenvironmentpassedavideobillboardatthesametimethataleadvehiclesuddenlybrakedhard.

SummaryofFindings

Theresultsfoundacausal(italicsoriginal)relationshipbetweenthepresenceofthevideobillboardandcollisionswith,anddelaysinrespondingto,theleadvehicle.Theauthorsnotethatthebillboardsinthisstudywerelessabletocapturethedrivers’attentionthanvideobillboardsintherealworldbecausethesimulatedbillboardswerenotasbrightasactualbillboards,andbecausethestudywasnotconductedatnight,wherethedistractingeffectswerebelievedtobegreater.Theimplicationisthatrealworldsafetyproblemsmaybemoresignificantthanthoseindicatedbythestudy.

Strengths Ahighfidelity,interactivedrivingsimulatorwitha150-degreeforwardfieldofviewwasused.All21subjectsmadethreedrives,andviewedtwostaticandtwovideobillboardsineach.Theimagesonthebillboardsweredifferentineachpresentation.Aleadvehicleappearedintermittently,and,twiceduringeachpresentation,brakedsuddenlysothatthesubjecthadtorespondquicklytoavoidacollision

Weaknesses/Limitations Youngerandolderdrivers,thosebelievedtobemostsusceptibletosuchdistractions,werenotincludedinthestudy.Learningmayhaveoccurredfromearlierdrives,andsubjectsmayhavecometousetheappearanceofbillboardsasavisualcuetopreparetobrakefortheleadvehicle.

Availability/Accessibility Publishedin:“HandbookofDrivingSimulationforEngineering,MedicineandPsychology.”Editedby:D.L.Fisher,M.Rizzo,J.K.Caird,&J.D.Lee.BocaRaton:CRCPress.

Location Australia,PerthAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Edquist,J.,Horberry,T.,Hosking,S.&Johnston,I“Advertisingbillboardsimpairchangedetectioninroadscenes”MonashUniversityAccidentResearchCentre

Forum 2011AustralasianRoadSafetyResearch,Education&PolicingConferencePeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource UnknownTypeofStudy* LTypeofSignsStudied** C,HBriefDescriptionofMethod

Theauthorsuseda“changedetection”paradigmtostudyhowbillboardsaffectvisualsearchandsituationawarenessinroadscenes.Changedetectiontimehasbeenshowntocorrelatewithat-faulterrorsinasimulateddrivingtask.Inacontrolledexperiment,inexperienced(meanage19.3),older(73.0),andcomparison(34.8)driverssearchedforchangestoroadsignsandvehiclelocationsinstaticphotographsofroadscenes.Theroadscenesrangedfromsuburbanmainstreetstomultilanehighwaystoprovidevaryinglevelsofbackgroundclutter.Theactualexperimentalprotocolistoocomplextoincludeinthissummary,butmaybefoundintheoriginalarticle.

SummaryofFindings

“Thefindingthatthepresenceofbillboardsincreasestimetodetectchangesisanimportantone.Thisresultlendssupporttotheideathatbillboardscanautomaticallyattractattentionwhendriversareengagedinothertasks,delayingtheirresponsestootheraspectsintheenvironmentTheeffectofbillboardswasparticularlystronginsceneswhereresponsetimesarealreadylengthenedbyhighlevelsofbuiltordesignedclutter.Thisisparticularlyconcerning,asroadsceneswithhighlevelsofbuiltand/ordesignedclutterarejustthesortofbusy,commercial,hightrafficenvironmentswherebillboardsaremostoftenerected.”Participantstooklongertodetectchangesinroadscenesthatcontainedadvertisingbillboards.Thisfindingwasespeciallytruewhentheroadwaybackgroundwasmorecluttered,whenthechangewastoanofficialroadsign,andforolderdrivers.Theresultsareconsistentwiththesmallbutgrowingbodyofevidencesuggestingthatroadsidebillboardsimpairaspectsofdrivingperformancesuchasvisualsearchandthedetectionofhazards,andthereforeshouldbemorepreciselyregulatedinordertoensureasaferoadsystem.

Strengths Thechangedetectiontaskhasbeenshowntoberelevanttosafedrivingperformance,buthasbeenunderutilizedinresearch.Theinclusionofthreediverseagecohortsaddresseslimitationsinmanyotherstudies.

Weaknesses/Limitations Thestudydidnotincludeanactual,orsimulateddrivingtask;ratherasurrogatemeasureforvisualsubtasksrequiredduringdriving.(However,theresultsareconsistentwithmountingevidenceshowingthatroadsidebillboardsimpairkeyaspectsofdrivingperformance).Horberry,etal.,(2009)arguethat:“ratherthanwaitinguntilitcanbeprovenbeyonddoubtthatroadsideadvertisingisresponsibleforaparticularcollision,roadauthoritiesshouldregulatebillboardstominimizetheprobabilityofinterferencewithdriving.”

Availability/Accessibility http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/rsr/RSR2011/4CPaper%20166%20Edquist.pdf

Location Sweden(Stockholm)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Dukic,T.,Ahlstrom,C.,Patten,C.,Kettwich,C.,&Kircher,K.“EffectsofElectronicBillboardsonDriverDistraction.”SwedishNationalRoadandTransportResearchInstitute,andKarlsruheInstituteofTechnology

Forum JournalofTrafficInjuryPreventionPeerReviewed? YSponsor/fundingsource SwedishTransportAdministrationTypeofStudy* QTypeofSignsStudied** DBriefDescriptionofMethod

TheSwedishgovernmentallowed12digitalbillboardstobeerectedalonghighwaysnearStockholmforatrialperiodduringwhichthis,andrelatedresearchwasconducted.41volunteersdroveaninstrumentedvehiclepast4ofthebillboardsinbothday(N=20)andnight(N=21)conditions.Eyemovements(andothermeasures)wererecorded.“Adriver(was)consideredtobevisuallydistractedwhenlookingatabillboardcontinuouslyformorethantwosecondswithasinglelongglance,orifthedriverlookedawayfromtheroadfora‘highpercentageoftime’.”(Thisisdefinedinthestudybasedonpriorresearch,butistoocomplexforinclusioninthisbriefsummary).Dependentmeasureswereeyetrackinganddrivingperformancemeasures.

SummaryofFindings

Drivershadasignificantlylongerdwelltime(timelookingatthebillboards),agreaternumberoffixations,andalongermaximumfixationdurationwhendrivingpastaDBBcomparedtoothersignsalongthesameroadsections.Nodifferenceswerefoundforday-night,orforspecificdriverperformancevariables.

Strengths Excellentreviewoftherelevantliteratureandexplanationofthepsycho-physiologicalprocessesinvolved

Weaknesses/Limitations Itisknownfromotherresearchthatyoungerdrivers(e.g.thoseunderage25)andolderdrivers(e.g.thoseoverage65)aremorelikelytobedistractedbyroadsidestimulithatareirrelevanttothedrivingtask;thisstudywaslimitedtodriversbetweentheagesof35and55.

Availability/Accessibility http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389588.2012.731546

Location USAAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Perez,WA,Bertola,MA,Kennedy,JF,&Molino,JA“DriverVisualBehaviorinthePresenceofCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS).”SAIC(nowLeidos)

Forum UnnumberedFHWAReportPeerReviewed? N4Sponsor/fundingsource FederalHighwayAdministrationTypeofStudy* CTypeofSignsStudied** O,C,D,HBriefDescriptionofMethod

FHWAcontractorusedinstrumentedvehiclewithon-boardeyeglancedatarecordingasparticipantdriversdrovealongpredeterminedroutesinReading,PAandRichmond,VA.Eachroutetooktheparticipantspastaseriesofon-premiseandoff-premise(billboard)signs,apparentlybothconventionalanddigital,duringdaytimeandatnight.

SummaryofFindings

Gazestotheroadaheadwerehighacrossalltestconditions;however,inthreeofthefourtestconditionsdigitalandconventionalbillboardsresultedinalowerprobabilityofgazestotheroadaheadascomparedtothecontrolconditionsinwhichbillboardswerenotpresent(althoughon-premisesigns,including,potentially,electronicsigns,mighthavebeenpresent).InRichmond,driversgazedmoreatthedigitalthanstandardbillboardsatnight,butthisdifferencewasnotfoundinReading.

Strengths Thestudyusedstate-of-the-arteyeglancerecordingequipment.Thestudyroutehaddriverspasssignsonruralandurbanroutes,andsurroundingsthatdifferedinvisualcomplexity.

Weaknesses/Limitations Numerouscriticaldiscrepanciesbetweendraftandfinalreports;errorsinidentifyingbillboardlocationsincludingsize,distancefromroadedge,sideofroad;bothfarandneardistancesatwhicheyeglancestobillboardswererecordedwereartificiallytruncated;twoexperimenterssatinthevehiclewiththeparticipantdriver;dataoverloadrequiredexperimentalvehicletopulloffroadforresets;inappropriaterecordationofbillboardluminancelevels;confoundingofbillboardswithon-premisesigns.

Availability/Accessibility ReportisavailableontheFHWAwebsiteathttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/oac/visual_behavior_report/final/cevmsfinal.pdf

4InMarch2011,FHWAreleasedadraftversionofthereporttothreepre-selectedpeerreviewers.Thereviewerswerenotidentifiedandthedraftreportwasnotmadeavailabletothepublic.Thecommentsoftwoofthethreereviewers(thethirddidnotprovidemeaningfulorcomprehensivecomments)weresocriticalofthedraftreport(stating,inessence,thatthereport’sfindingsabouteyeglancedurationstobillboardswerenotcredible)thatFHWAspentthenext33monthsrevisingandrewritingthereport.Afinalreport,whichwasnotpeerreviewed,wasreleasedontheagency’swebsiteonDecember30,2013,althoughthereportwasdatedSeptember2012.AlthoughtheunreleaseddraftreportwasgiventheofficialagencyreportnumberFHWA-HEP-11-014,thefinalreportremainsunnumberedandunpublished.

Location U.S.(Massachusetts,Amherst)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Divekar,G.,Pradhan,AK,Pollatsek,A.,&Fisher,DL;“EffectsofExternalDistractions”UniversityofMassachusetts,Amherst

Forum JournalPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource NationalInstitutesofHealth,NationalScienceFoundation,ArbellaInsuranceGroup

CharitableFoundationTypeofStudy* STypeofSignsStudied** D(simulated)BriefDescriptionofMethod

Followingpreviousresearchinthesamelab,theauthorssoughttounderstand:(a)whyexperienceddriversweretakingsuchlongglancesatexternaldistractions(simulatedbillboards)whentheywereunwillingtodosofordistractorsinsidethevehicle,and(b)iftheseexperienceddriversweresacrificingsomeoftheirabilitytomonitorvisiblehazardsintheroadwayaheadoftheirvehicle,aretheysacrificingevenmoreoftheirabilitytoanticipateunseenhazards.Noviceandexperienceddriversperformedanexternalsearchtask(readingasimulatedbillboard)whiledrivinginasimulator.Eyemovementswererecorded,aswerevehicleperformance.

SummaryofFindings

Distractionsareamajorcontributortocrashes,andalmostone-thirdofsuchdistractionsarecausedbysourcesexternaltothevehicle.Ofthese,digitalbillboardsstandoutbecauseoftheirbrightnessandchangingimagery.Recentresearchindicatesthatsuchbillboardsmayattractattentionawayfromtheforwardroadwayforextendedperiodsoftime,andconvergingevidenceshowsthatlookingawayfromtheforwardroadwayforsuchextendedperiodsisassociatedwithelevatedcrashrisk.Theexternaltasksinthisstudyweredesignedtobesimilartoscanningasigndensewithinformationintherealworld,suchasadigitalbillboardthatchangedmessageeveryfewseconds.“Thisstudyprovidesclearevidencethatexternaltasksaredistractingnotonlyfornovicedrivers,butalsoformoreexperienceddrivers.”Forbothgroups,externaldistractionssignificantlyaffectthedrivers’anticipationofhazards.Overallthestudyshowedthatexperiencedaswellasnovicedriversareatanelevatedriskofgettingintoacrashwhentheyareperformingasecondarytasksuchaslookingatabillboard.

Strengths Sophisticateddrivingsimulatorwithrealistichazardscenarios.Weaknesses/Limitations Thesimulatedbillboards,althoughrequiringanexternal,visualdistractiontask,were

notveryrepresentativeofroadsidebillboards.Therewasnoefforttostudytheeffectsofsuchexternaldistractionsonolderdrivers,agroupknowntobeathighriskforsuchdistraction

Availability/Accessibility TransportationResearchRecord,JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoardNo.2321.

Location AustraliaAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Roberts,P.,Boddington,K.,&Rodwell,L.“ImpactofRoadsideAdvertisingonRoadSafety”ARRBGroup(formerlyAustralianRoadResearchBoard)

Forum AustroadsRoadResearchReport:PublicationNo.AP-R420-13PeerReviewed? UnknownSponsor/fundingsource Austroads(TheAssociationofAustralianandNewZealandRoadTransportandTraffic

Authorities)TypeofStudy* CR,GTypeofSignsStudied** O,C,D,VBriefDescriptionofMethod

(a)Acriticalreviewofexistingliteraturetostudytheriskofdistractionfromroadsideadvertising,andtocommunicatethesefindings;(b)documentandreviewexistingguidelinesacrossdifferenthighwayagenciestoidentifygapsandinconsistencies;(c)developguidingprinciplesandmakeguidancerecommendationsthatcouldbeusedtocreateguidelinesandtoharmonizeguidelinesacrossdiverseagencies.

SummaryofFindings

Mostdrivers,undermostconditions,mostofthetime,probablypossesssufficientsparecognitivecapacitythattheycantoleratedriving-irrelevantinformation.Theproblemcomesinsomedrivingsituationswhereitbecomeslikelythat(theappearanceof)movementorchangesinluminancewillinvoluntarilycaptureattentionandthatparticularlysalientemotionalorengaginginformationwillcaptureattentiontothedetrimentofdrivingperformance,particularlyininexperienceddrivers.Wherethishappensinadrivingsituationthatisalsocognitivelydemanding,theconsequencesfordrivingperformancearelikelytobesignificant.Further,ifthisattentionalcapturealsoresultsinasituationwhereadriver’seyesareofftheforwardroadwayforasignificantamountoftime(i.e.2secondsorlonger)thiswillfurtherreducesafety.Additionally,roadenvironmentsclutteredwithdriving-irrelevantmaterialmaymakeitdifficulttoextractinformationthatisnecessaryforsafedriving,particularlyforolderdrivers.Thestudiesthathavebeenconductedshowconvincinglythatroadsideadvertisingisdistractingandthatitmayleadtopoorervehiclecontrol.ResultsfromtheKlauer,etal(2006)studiesshowthatlookingatanexternalobjectincreasedthecrashriskbynearlyfourtimes,nonethelessthenumberofcrashesresultingfromsuchdistractionisprobablyquitesmall.Thissuggeststhatthecontributionofroadsideadvertisingtocrashesislikelytoberelativelyminor.Nonetheless,fromtheSafeSystemperspectiveitwouldbedifficulttojustifyaddinganyinfrastructuretotheroadenvironmentthatcouldresultinincreaseddistractionfordrivers.Theexceptiontothismaybeinthecaselongdrivesonmonotonousroadswheredriversarelikelytosuffertheeffectsofpassivefatigue.

Strengths Acomprehensivereview,notonlyofexistingresearch,butalsoofrelevanthumanfactorsprinciples,advertisingsigntechnology,andbestpractices.

Weaknesses/Limitations Althoughtheauthorsextensivelyreviewandcommentonexistingregulationsandguidelines,onlybriefmentionismadeofguidelinesintheU.S.

Availability/Accessibility AvailableontheAustroadswebsite

Location DenmarkAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Herrstedt,L.,Greibe,P.,&Andersson,P.“RoadsideAdvertisingAffectsDriverAttentionandRoadSafety.”Trafitec,Denmark

Forum InternationalConferencePeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource UnknownTypeofStudy* QTypeofSignsStudied** C,DBriefDescriptionofMethod

32drivers,bothmenandwomenbetweentheagesof23and70,droveaninstrumentedvehicleononeofseveralcomparableroutes.Drivershadtohaveacurrentlicenseandnotrequireeyeglasseswhiledriving.Driverswerenotinformedinadvanceofthepurposeofthedrive.Thecar’sinstrumentsrecordedeyemovements,vehiclespeedandposition,andproximitytovehiclesaheadofthetestvehicle.A“safetybuffer”wascalculatedwhichreflectedthetimeavailableforthedrivertorespondtoasuddencriticalsituationrequiringimmediateactiontoavoidanaccident.

SummaryofFindings

Atotalof109drivespastadvertisingsignswerecompleted,andatotalof233glancestothe16roadsideadvertisingsignswererecorded.Resultsshowedthat,in69%ofalldrives,thedriverglancedattheadvertisementatleastonce.Innearlyhalfofalldrives,thedriverglancedtwoormoretimestothesamebillboard.18%ofallglanceslastedfor1secondorlonger,andthetotaldurationofsuccessiveglancesonasingledrivewas1.5secondsorlongerin29%oftrials,2.0secondsorlongerin22%oftrials,and3.0secondsorlongerin10%oftrials.In65ofthe233glances(28%),avehicleaheadwaspresentwithinatimegapoflessthan3.0seconds.In59cases(25%)thesafetybufferwaslessthan2.0seconds,andin20%ofallcases,thesafetybufferwasaslowas1.5seconds.Theauthorsconcludethat,in25%ofallcases,drivingsafetywasreducedbecausethesafetybufferwaslessthan2secondstotheleadvehicle.Further,in16%ofalldrives(17outof109),thesumofcumulativeglancestothesamebillboardresultedinvisualdistractionusingthemethoddevelopedbyVTTI(2.0secondsormorewithina6.0secondwindow).Inotherwords,theauthorsstate:“Inmorethaneverysixthdrivepast,visualdistractionoccursasaresultoftheadvertisingsign.”Theiroverallconclusionwasthat“theinvestigatedadvertisingsignsdocapturedrivers’attentiontotheextentthatitimpactsroadsafety.”

Strengths Thisisoneofonlytwoknownon-roadstudiestocombinemeasuresofdriverglancebehavior(numberanddurationofglancestobillboards)withthesimultaneousmeasureoffollowingdistancetoavehicleahead,andtheonlyoneto(apparently)calculatesuchfollowingdistancesvialaserscannerforaccuracy.Olderdriverswereincludedintheparticipantgroup.

Weaknesses/Limitations Moredetailsaboutthespecificbillboardsstudiedwouldhavebeenhelpful.Availability/Accessibility Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalConferenceonDriverDistractionandInattention.

Location USAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Hawkins,HG,Jr.,Kuo,P-F,&Lord,D.“StatisticalAnalysisoftheTrafficSafetyImpactsofOn-PremiseDigitalSigns”TexasA&MUniversity

Forum 93rdAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoardPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource On-premisesignindustry(SignageFoundation,Inc.)TypeofStudy* ETypeofSignsStudied** OBriefDescriptionofMethod

135sitesinfourstates,whereonpremisesignshadbeeninstalledin2006-07,werecomparedto1,301controlsitesusingtheEmpiricalBayes(EB)statisticalmethodology.

SummaryofFindings

Therewerenostatisticallysignificantchangesincrashfrequencyassociatedwiththeinstallationoftheon-premisedigitalsignsstudied.Acalculatedsafetyeffectivenessindexwasequalto1.00,withthe95percentconfidenceintervalbetween0.93and1.07.ThefindingsweresimilarforeachofthefourinvestigatedStates.Theresearchersconcludedthat“thereisnoevidence(that)theinstallationofon-premisesignsatthelocations(studied)ledtoanautomaticincreaseinthenumberofcrashes.”Theauthorspointoutintheirconclusionsthatitmightbeofinteresttoexaminewhetherornottheindexvariesasafunctionofsigndesignandoperationorcharacteristicsofthecrashesthemselves.

Strengths Thestudyemployedalargedatabaseandarobuststatisticalanalysisprocedure.Weaknesses/Limitations Theon-premisesignstobestudiedwerechosenbythesponsorandindividualsign

companiesratherthanbytheauthorsoratrandom.Itispossiblethattheselectioncriteriaincludedabiastowardtheleastpotentiallydistractingsigns(intermsofsize,color,contrast,animation,video,etc.).

Availability/Accessibility PaperNo.:14-2772ofthe93rdAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard.

Schieber,F.,Limrick,K.,McCall,R.,&Beck,A.“EvaluationoftheVisualDemandsofDigitalBillboardsUsingaHybridDrivingSimulator”UniversityofSouthDakota

Forum JournalPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource UnknownTypeofStudy* STypeofSignsStudied** D(Simulated)BriefDescriptionofMethod

Theauthorsusedapurpose-builthybriddrivingsimulatordesigned“forinvestigatingthelimitsofsignreadingperformancewhiledriving.”Thedrivingtaskandtheviewoftheroadaheadusedavalidated,commercialsimulator;butthedigitalbillboardstimuluswasimplementedonaseparate20:1scaledLCDdisplaymountedonalinearactuatorrailthatcouldmovethesimulatedsigntowardtheobserveratangularvelocitiessimulatingspeedsupto55mph.18universityundergraduatesparticipated.Gazedirection(roadaheadvs.billboard)wascapturedbyavideorecordingofeachparticipant’sfaceastheydrove–thistechniquewaspreviouslydemonstratedbytheseniorauthor.Participantsdroveonceat25andagainat50mph.Digitalbillboardstimuliwerepresentedatpredeterminedrandomintervals,andcontainedeither4,8,or12frequentlyusedEnglishwords,alsodisplayedatrandom.

SummaryofFindings

Theauthorsstate:“Althoughlittleornodecrementinlanekeepingorreadingperformancewasobservedatslowspeed(25MPH)onstraightroads,clearevidenceofimpairedperformancebecameapparentatthehigherdrivingspeed(50MPH).Lanekeepingperformancewassignificantlydegradedwhenparticipantswererequiredtoreaddigitalbillboardswith8ormorewordsatthehigherspeed.Thisdecrementbecamegreaterwhenthesigncontained12words.Surprisingly,thedecrementsinlanekeepingperformanceemergedaftertheparticipantshadfinishedreadingthesign.Theparticipantstendedtoslowlydriftawayfromthecenterofthelane,andthenexecutedalargeamplitudecorrectivesteeringinputduringthe8-secondintervalafterencounteringthedigitalbillboard.Eyegazestatisticsandreadingperformanceshowedthatinformationprocessingoverloadbegantoemergeatamessagelengthof8wordsandwasclearlypresentwhen12wordsweredisplayed.

Strengths Sophisticated,hybriddrivingsimulatorwithacustombuiltzoomedimagesignprojectordesignedtoovercometraditionalsimulatorconstraintsonsignlegibilityatrealisticdistances.Simulateddigitalbillboardscontaineddifferent,commonwordsof4-5letterseach,andeachwaspresentedinthesamesizeandlocationonthebillboard.

Weaknesses/Limitations Noolderdriverswerestudied.Thereisnodiscussionofthevalidityofthehybriddrivingsimulatorforthisspecificapplication.Thesimulatedbillboardswereonly10ft.inwidth,onlyaboutone-fifththewidthoftypicalhighwaybillboards.

Availability/Accessibility ProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety58thAnnualMeeting,2214-2218.

Location Israel(TelAviv)Author(s)TitleAffiliation

Gitelman,V.,Zaidel,D.,Doveh,E.,&Silberstein,R.“AccidentsonAyalonHighway-ThreePeriodsComparison:BillboardsPresent,Removed,andReturned”

Forum PeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource IsraelNationalRoadsAuthorityTypeofStudy* EStudyDesign Quasi-experimental:Billboardspresent(2006-07),absent(2008),presentagain(2009-

12)withcontrols.Dependentmeasure–propertydamageandinjurycrashes.Controlvariable–trafficvolume.Studysites–8treatmentand6control.

TypeofSignsStudied** CBriefDescriptionofMethod

Becauseofcomplaints,Israel’sSupremeCourtruledthataseriesofbillboardsonanurbanfreewaynearTelAvivhadtoberemoved,i.e.covered,foroneyearwhileanevaluationtookplace.Attheendoftheexperimentalperiod,thebillboardswereuncoveredsuchthattheywereagainvisibletomotorists.Atcontrolsites,thebillboardsremainedvisiblethroughoutthestudyperiod.Attreatmentsites,billboardswerevisibleinthe“present”period(2006-7),coveredduringthe“removed”period(2008),andvisibleagaininthe“returned”period(2009-12).Crasheswererecordedandcategorized(propertydamageonly,injuryorfatality)undersixconditions:(a)attreatmentsiteswhilesignswerevisible;(b)attreatmentsitesaftersignswerecovered;(c)attreatmentsiteswheresignswerevisibleagainafterhavingbeenuncovered;(d)atcontrolsiteswheresignswerevisible;and(e)atthesamecontrolsiteswhilesignswerestillvisiblebutsignswerecoveredatthetreatmentsites;and(f)atcontrolsiteswhilesignswereagainvisibleatthetreatmentsites.

SummaryofFindings

Atcontrolsites,crashesremainedessentiallythesamethroughoutthe6-yearstudyperiod;atthetreatmentsites,crashesdeclineddramaticallyafterthebillboardswerecovered,andreturnedjustasdramaticallyoncethebillboardswereuncoveredandthereforeagainvisible.Theresultswerethesameforinjuryandfatalcrashes.Afteradjustingfortrafficvolume,crasheswerereducedatthetreatmentsites(wherebillboardswerevisibleinthe“before”periodbutcoveredduringthe“after”period)bythefollowingpercentages:allcrashesby60%;injury/fatalcrashesby39%;propertydamagecrashesby72%.

Strengths Forafieldstudy,thisusedawell-controlledresearchdesign.Before-and-aftermeasureswereobtainedbothforsiteswherethebillboardswerecoveredduringthestudy,andforthesiteswherethebillboardsremainedvisibleduringthissametimeperiod.Roadsectionswereincloseproximity,onthesamehighway,ensuringthattrafficspeedsandvolumes,aswellasweatherconditions,lawenforcementactivity,etc.werecomparable.

Weaknesses/Limitations Theremighthavebeendifferencesincertainroadwaycharacteristicsbetweenthetreatmentandcontrolsites(e.g.curves,merges,etc.)thatwerenotidentified.

Availability/Accessibility CompletestudyisinHebrewonly;EnglishtranslationisavailablefortheExecutiveSummaryonly.

Sisiopiku,VP,Islam,M.,Haleem,K.,Alluri,P.&Gan,A.“InvestigationofthePotentialRelationshipbetweenCrashOccurrencesandthePresenceofDigitalBillboardsinAlabamaandFlorida”

Forum ConferencePaperPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource U.S.DepartmentofTransportation/RITA,AlabamaDepartmentofTransportation,

FloridaDepartmentofTransportationTypeofStudy* ETypeofSignsStudied** DBriefDescriptionofMethod

TheauthorsanalyzedhistoricalcrashrecordsfromthestatesofAlabamaandFlorida.Theyidentifiedlocationsofdigitalbillboardsalongmajorlimited-accessroadwaysandchose18suitablesitesforanalysis,eachwithitsowncontrolsite.Crashrecordswereobtainedforafive-yearperiodfromacentralizeddatabaseinAlabama,andcrashratesweredeterminedpermillionvehiclemilestravelledateachsite.TheprocedurewassimilarinFlorida,althoughonlythreeyearswerestudied.Becausemanycrashesinthevicinityofthebillboardswerefoundtobelocatedincorrectly,theauthorsretrievedtheactualpolicetrafficcollisionreportsfor783crashes.Ofthese,406hadtobeeliminatedduetocodingerrorsintheoriginalsummaryreports,leavingatotalof377crashesforthesafetyassessment.

SummaryofFindings

Theauthorsstate:“Theoverallresultswereconsistentbetweenthetwostates.Thepresenceofdigitalbillboardsincreasedtheoverallcrashratesat“digitaladvertisingbillboardinfluencezones”by25%inFloridaand29%inAlabama,comparedtocontrolsites.Inaddition,sideswipeandrear-endcrasheswereoverrepresentedatdigitalbillboardinfluencezonescomparedtocontrolsites.

Strengths Includedintheirinfluencezonewasashortdistance(minimum0.05mile)downstreamofeachbillboard.ThisisinkeepingwiththefindingsofSchieber,etal.,discussedelsewhereinthepresentdocument.Theinfluencezoneandassociatedcontrolzoneforeachbillboardwerematchedfortrafficandroadwayconditions.

Weaknesses/Limitations Theauthorsprovidenoexplanationforhowthespecificbillboardlocationswerechosenoutofallpossibilitiesthattheyidentified.Apparently,theyidentified“influencezones”bycalculatingthedistancesupstreamofeachdigitalbillboardfromwhichthesigncouldbeseen,usingGoogleStreetView.ThereseemstohavebeennoefforttorelatesightdistanceintherealworldtothatshownintheGoogleStreetViewimages.Itisunclearwhethertheir5yearsofdata(AL)and3years(FL)correspondtoperiodswhenthebillboardsstudiedwereactuallyinplace,giventhattheauthorsseemtohaveselectedsitesfromGoogleStreetView.

Availability/Accessibility ProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety58thAnnualMeeting,2214-2218.

Location CanadaAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Rempel,G.,Montufar,J.,Forbes,G.,&Dewar,R.“DigitalandprojectedadvertisingDisplays:RegulatoryandRoadSafetyAssessmentGuidelines.”MORRTransportationConsulting,Ltd.,IntusRoadSafetyEngineering,Inc..,WesternErgonomics,Inc.

Forum TransportationAssociationofCanadaReportPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource TransportationAssociationofCanadaTypeofStudy* CRTypeofSignsStudied** O,DBriefDescriptionofMethod

Theauthorsperformedacriticalliteraturereview,metwithrepresentativesofCanadiangovernmentagenciesandoutdooradvertisingcompanies,investigatedpracticesandregulations/guidelinesinothercountries,andappliedhumanfactorsprinciplestowardthedevelopmentofguidelinesforCanada.

SummaryofFindings

Theresultantguidelinesarespecifictotrafficsafetyissues–theydonotaddresstheaesthetic,“nuisance,”oreconomicfactorsofsuchsigns.Guidanceisdevelopedforsigndensity,spacing,dwelltime(whichtheycall“frameduration”),illuminance(whichtheyauthorscall“brightness”),proximitytotrafficcontroldevicesanddriverdecisionpoints,messagesequencingandtextscrolling,animation,andtransitiontimebetweenmessages.Theoverridingprincipleproposedinthisreportisthatdigitaladvertisingsignsshould“emulate”traditionalsigns.

Strengths Acomprehensivereview,notonlyofexistingresearch,butalsoofrelevanthumanfactorsprinciples,advertisingsigntechnology,andbestpractices.

Weaknesses/Limitations AcceptedindustrypracticesregardingDBBlightingratherthangettingtheviewsoflightingexpertsorundertakingtheirownindependentevaluation.

Availability/Accessibility AvailableforpurchasefromTransportationAssociationofCanadaathttp://tac-atc.ca/en/digital-and-projected-advertising-displays-publication-now-available

Location AustraliaAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Samsa,C.,&Phillips,T.“DigitalBillboards‘DownUnder’:AretheyDistractingtoDriversandcanIndustryandRegulatorsWorkTogetherforaSuccessfulRoadSafetyOutcome?”SamsaConsulting,OutdoorMediaAssociationofAustralia

Forum 4thInternationalConferenceonDriverDistractionandInattentionPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource OutdoorMediaAssociationofAustraliaTypeofStudy* CTypeofSignsStudied** C,D,OBriefDescriptionofMethod

29participants,ages25-54,droveaninstrumentedvehiclealonga14.6kmrouteinBrisbane,Queensland.Driverswerefittedwith“eyetrackingglasses.”

SummaryofFindings

Averagefixationdurationswere“wellbelow0.75s”.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinaveragevehicleheadwaybetweenthethreesignagetypes.Therewasastatisticallysignificantdifferenceinlateraldeviationwhenbillboardswerepresent.

Strengths Thedatashowingsignificantdifferencesinlateraldeviationinthepresenceofbillboardsisinaccordwithfindingsfromotherrecentstudies.

Weaknesses/Limitations Noolderdriverswerestudied.Thereislittledescriptionoftheeyetrackingglassesused,butthisapparatusisnotknowntoprovidetheprecisionnecessarytodetermineexactlywherethewearerislooking.Noinformationisprovidedtoenablethereadertodeterminehowvehicleheadwaysweremeasured;assuchitisnotpossibletocomparethisstudytotheoneconductedinDenmark,whereheadwaymeasurementwasclearlydescribed.

Availability/Accessibility https://www.ivvy.com/event/DD20152Atthepresenttime,thispaperisavailableonlyasanAbstract.Ourcommentsmightchangeonceweareabletoreviewthecompletepaper.

Belyusar,D.,Reimer,B.MehlerB.,&Coughlin,JF.“AFieldStudyontheEffectsofDigitalBillboardsonGlanceBehaviorDuringHighwayDriving.”NewEnglandUniversityTransportationCenter&MITAgeLab

Forum AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,88,88-96PeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource USDepartmentofTransportation,Region1NewEngland,UniversityTransportation

CenteratMIT,andtheToyotaClassActionSettlementSafetyResearchandEducationProgram.

TypeofStudy* QTypeofSignsStudied** DBriefDescriptionofMethod

Thison-roadstudyhad123subjects,nearlyequallydividedbetweenmalesandfemalesandbetweenyoungandold.Participantsdroveaninstrumentedvehicleundernormaldrivingconditions,withnospecifictaskstoperform,pastadigitalbillboardonahighwaywithaspeedlimitof65MPH.

SummaryofFindings

Theauthorsfoundstatisticallysignificantchangesintotalnumberofglancesand,dependinguponthedirectionoftravel,moderate-to-longdurationglancesinthedirectionofthebillboardascomparedtosectionsoftheroadwayinwhichthebillboardwasnotvisible.Olderdriverswereparticularlyaffected.Theauthorsalsofoundthat:“Driversglancedmoreatthetimeofaswitchtoanewadvertisementdisplaythanduringacomparablesectionofroadwaywhenthebillboardwassimplyvisibleandstable.”Theyconcluded:“Giventypicalbillboarddwell(cycle)timesofsix(6)oreight(8)seconds,thesefindingsaddtotheargumentthedwelltimesforsuchsignsshouldbeconsiderablylonger.”

Strengths Thedrivingtaskwasquasinaturalistic;bothyoungandolddrivers,andbothmalesandfemales,wereequallyrepresented.

Weaknesses/Limitations Onlyonebillboard,withtwofaces,wasusedintheanalysis.Therecouldbecharacteristicsofthatsign,oritslocation,whichmaketheresultsnotgeneralizabletootherbillboards.

Availability/Accessibility http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515301664

Location Belgium,FlandersAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

Mollu,K.“InfluenceofanIlluminatedDigitalBillboardonDrivingBehaviorwithaFocusonVariableDisplayTimeandDistancefromaPedestrianCrossing.”HasseltUniversityandFlandersAgencyforRoadsandTraffic

Forum TRBSubcommitteeonDigitalBillboardsPeerReviewed? YesSponsor/fundingsource FlandersAgencyforRoadsandTrafficTypeofStudy* NTypeofSignsStudied** D(simulated)BriefDescriptionofMethod

Usingadrivingsimulator,investigatorscomparedsubjectiveworkloadandresponsesofdriverstopedestrianscrossingincrosswalks.Subjectsincluded35persons,age20-60,with54%male.Signsvariedindwelltimeandlocationinretailzonesorintransitionstobuilt-upareas.

SummaryofFindings

Studyparticipantsratedtheirmentaldemandsignificantlyhigherandtheirownperformancelowerwhenadigitalbillboardwaspresent.TheminimumspeeduponapproachtothepedestrianwashigherandwasreachedcloserwhenaDBBwaspresent.Althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,lateraldisplacementwashigherinthepresenceoftheDBB.Brake-reactiontime(perceptionreactiontime)tothepedestrianwasapproximately1.5timeshigherinthepresenceoftheDBB–andtherewasnoeffectofdwelltimeordistancetothesign.

Strengths Highdefinitiondrivingsimulator;roadsagencysponsored;reasonablylargenumberofsubjects.Alargenumberofbillboardsandroadsettingswereused.

Weaknesses/Limitations Noneofthedisplaytimesmatchedthoseinmostcommonuse;simulateddigitalbillboardsweresmallerthanthoseincommonuseintheU.S.

Availability/Accessibility Author

Citations:Backer-Grøndahl,A.,&Sagberg,F.(2009).“Relativecrashinvolvementriskassociatedwithdifferentsourcesofdriverdistraction.”PresentedattheFirstinternationalConferenceonDriverDistractionandInattention.Gothenburg,Sweden:ChalmersUniversity.Belyusar,D.,Reimer,B.,Mehler,B.,&Coughlin,JF.(2016).“Afieldstudyontheeffectsofdigitalbillboardsonglancebehaviorduringhighwaydriving.”AccidentAnalysisandPrevention,88,88-96.Bendak,S.,&Al-Saleh,K.(2010).“Theroleofadvertisingsignsindistractingdrivers.”InternationalJournalofIndustrialErgonomics,40,233-236.Chan,E.,Pradhan,AK,Knodler,MA,Jr.,Pollatsek,A.&Fisher,DL.(2008).“EmpiricalEvaluationonaDrivingSimulatoroftheEffectofDistractionsInsideandOutsidetheVehicleonDrivers’EyeBehaviors,”Washington,DC:87thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies.Chattington,M.,Reed,N.,Basacik,D.,Flint,A.,&Parkes,A.(2009).“InvestigatingDriverDistraction:TheEffectsofVideoandStaticAdvertising.”ReportNo.RPN256.UnitedKingdom:TransportResearchLaboratoryDivekar,G.,Pradhan,AK,Pollatsek,A.,&Fisher,DL.(2013).“ExternalDistractions”:Evaluationsoftheireffectonyoungernoviceandexperienceddrivers’behaviorandvehiclecontrol.”TransportationResearchRecord,JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoardNo.2321.Washington,DC:TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies.Dukic,T.,Ahlstrom,C.,Patten,C.,Kettwich,C.,&Kircher,K.(2012).“EffectsofElectronicBillboardsonDriverDistraction.”JournalofTrafficInjuryPrevention,14,469-476.Edquist,J.,Horberry,T.,Hosking,S.&Johnston,I.(2011).“Advertisingbillboardsimpairchangedetectioninroadscenes.”Paperpresentedatthe2011AustralasianRoadSafetyResearch,Education&PolicingConference.Gitelman,V.,Zaidel,D.,&Doveh,E.(2012).“InfluenceofBillboardsonDrivingBehaviorandRoadSafety,”Presentedat:FifthInternationalConferenceonTrafficandTransportationPsychology.Groningen,TheNetherlands:UniversityofGroningen.Gitelman,V.,Zaidel,D.,Doveh,E.,&Zilberstein,R.(2014)“TheImpactofBillboardsonRoadAccidentsonAyalonHighwayThreePeriodsComparison–BillboardsPresent,Removed,andReturned.”ReporttotheIsraeliNationalRoadAuthority.Hawkins,HG,Jr.,Kuo,PF,&Lord,D.(2014).“StatisticalAnalysisoftheTrafficSafetyImpactsofOn-PremiseDigitalSigns.”PaperNo:14-2772.Presentedatthe93rdAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard.

Herrstedt,L.,Greibe,P.&Andersson,P.(2013).“RoadsideAdvertisingAffectsDriverAttentionandRoadSafety.”Proceedingsofthe3rdInternationalConferenceonDriverDistractionandInattention,Gothenburg,Sweden.Horberry,T.,Regan,MA,&Edquist,J.(2009).DriverDistractionfromRoadsideAdvertising:Theclashofroadsafetyevidence,highwayauthorityguidelines,andcommercialadvertisingpressure.Downloadedfromthewebat:https://document.chalmers.se/download?docid=653291678Milloy,SLandCaird,JK.(2011).“ExternalDriverDistractions:TheEffectsofVideoBillboardsandWindFarmsonDriverPerformance.”Publishedin:HandbookofDrivingSimulationforEngineering,MedicineandPsychology.Editedby:D.L.Fisher,M.Rizzo,J.K.Caird,&J.D.Lee.BocaRaton:CRCPress.Mollu,K.(2018).“InfluenceofanIlluminatedDigitalBillboardonDrivingBehaviorwithaFocusonVariableDisplayTimeandDistancefromaPedestrianCrossing(SimulatorStudy).”PresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheTRBDigitalBillboardsSubcommitteeMeeting.Perez,WA.,Bertola,MA,Kennedy,JF,&Molino,JA.(2012).“DriverVisualBehaviorinthePresenceofCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS).”UnnumberedReport,FederalHighwayAdministration,Washington,DC.Downloadedfromthewebat:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/oac/visual_behavior_report/final/cevmsfinal.pdfRempel,G,Montufar,J.,Forbes,G.&Dewar,R.(2015).“DigitalandProjectedAdvertisingDisplays:RegulatoryandRoadSafetyAssessmentGuidelines.”UnnumberedTransportationAssociationofCanadaReport.Roberts,P.,Boddington,K.,&Rodwell,L.(2013).ImpactofRoadsideAdvertisingonRoadSafety.AustroadsRoadResearchReport:PublicationNo.AP-R420-13.City:Australia,ARRBGroup.Samsa,C.,&Phillips,T.(2015).DigitalBillboards‘DownUnder’.AretheyDistractingtoDriversandcanIndustryandRegulatorsWorkTogetherforaSuccessfulRoadSafetyOutcome?PaperPresentedatthe4thInternationalConferenceonDriverDistractionandInattention,Sydney,Australia.Schieber,F.,Limrick,K.McCall,R,&Beck,A.(2014).EvaluationoftheVisualDemandsofDigitalBillboardsUsingaHybridDrivingSimulator.ProceedingsoftheHumanFactorsandErgonomicsSociety58thAnnualMeeting,2214-2218.Sisiopiku,VP,Islam,M,Haleem,K,Alluri,P.&Gan,A.(2014).InvestigationofthePotentialRelationshipbetweenCrashOccurrenceandthePresenceofDigitalAdvertisingBillboardsinAlabamaandFlorida.ProceedingsoftheTransportationResearchBoard(TRB)94thAnnualMeeting.Young,MS,Mahfoud,JM,Stanton,N.Salmon,PM,Jenkins,DP&Walker,GH.(2009).

“ConflictsofInterest:Theimplicationsofroadsideadvertisingfordriverattention.”TransportationResearchPartF:TrafficPsychologyandBehaviour,Vol.12(5),381-388.

Compendium of Recent Research Studies on Distraction from ... · Broadly summarized, the more...

Documents

Recent studies on thermophysical properties of metallic

RECENT STUDIES OF OXYGEN-IODINE LASER KINETICS

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES INTO THE 21ST … · INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES INTO THE 21ST CENTURY 153 5). More recent interdisciplinary reforms have tended to be "reno vative rather

Recent findings from ASD genetic studies

Lessons from some recent ICMI studies

Recent Studies in OER Adoption

Recent Studies in Nineteenth-Century English Literature

1059 Recent Findings From SRI Studies

Recent transportation studies for the kern region

ReSeARch And Recent StudieS Birth defects

Recent Surface Studies in KEK-STF

Recent Structure Activity Relationship Studies of 1,4

Recent Studies on the PRISM FFAG Ring

Recent Studies

Recent case studies

Optimization Direct: Introduction and recent case studies

THE CANON IN RECENT BIBLICAL STUDIES

Recent Electron-Cloud Mitigation Studies at KEK

Recent advances in skeletal maturity studies

Advanced Design Studies: Recent Accomplishments and Plans