CompendiumofRecentResearchStudiesonDistractionfromCommercialElectronicVariableMessageSigns(CEVMS)

PreparedbyJerryWachtel,CPE

President,TheVeridianGroup,Inc.Berkeley,California

February2018

2

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

3

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

4

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.

5

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

6

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)

7

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,

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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.

13

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

14

Date1stpublished/presented

2008

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

15

Date1stpublished/presented

2009

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.

16

Date1stpublished/presented

2009

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.

17

Date1stpublished/presented

2009

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.

18

Date1stpublished/presented

2009

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

19

Date1stpublished/presented

2010

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.

20

Date1stpublished/presented

2010

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

21

Date1stpublished/presented

2011

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.

22

Date1stpublished/presented

2011

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

23

Date1stpublished/presented

2012

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

24

Date1stpublished/presented

2012

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.

25

Date1stpublished/presented

2013

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.

26

Date1stpublished/presented

2013

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

27

Date1stpublished/presented

2013

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.

28

Date1stpublished/presented

2014

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.

29

Date1stpublished/presented

2014

Location USAAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

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.

30

Date1stpublished/presented

2014

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.

31

Date1stpublished/presented

2015

Location USAAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

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.

32

Date1stpublished/presented

2015

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

33

Date1stpublished/presented

20152

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.

34

Date1stpublished/presented

2016

Location USAAuthor(s)TitleAffiliation

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

35

Date1stpublished/presented

2018

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

36

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.

37

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).

38

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