The Role of Road Engineering in Combatting Driver Distraction and Fatigue Road Safety Risks
Marsh, Brendan; Lautner, Bernhard; Fournier, Lise; Klang, Jaakko; Anelli, Pierre; Kang, Weon-Eui; Brumec, Uroš; Cota, Keith (2017-02)
Marsh, Brendan
Lautner, Bernhard
Fournier, Lise
Klang, Jaakko
Anelli, Pierre
Kang, Weon-Eui
Brumec, Uroš
Cota, Keith
Varsinais-Suomen ELY-keskus
02 / 2017
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-2-84060-419-8
https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-2-84060-419-8
Tiivistelmä
The World Road Association’s (PIARC) strategic planning for the 2012-15 cycle identified the need for engineering guidance to be provided to help mitigate the road safety risk of driver distraction and fatigue crashes. It had been determined that driver distraction and fatigue is becoming an increasingly significant issue across the world and that most literature on the topic is focused on the Safer Road Users pillar of road safety (United Nations, 2011, p. 11).
As a result, PIARC Technical Committee 3.2 (TC3.2) Design and operation of safer road infrastructure, Workgroup 3, was tasked with the identification and documentation of successful strategies for addressing driver distraction and fatigue with the focus on engineering solutions.
The Workgroup:
• Comprised eight representatives from Australia (Brendan Marsh), Austria (Bernhard Lautner), Canada-Quebec (Lise Fournier), Finland (Jaakko Klang), France (Pierre Anelli), Korea (Kang Yi), Slovenia (Uroš Brumec) and United States of America (Keith Cota);
• Met at all meetings of the Technical Committee during the cycle;
• Held a number of joint meetings with Workgroup members of the full committee; and
• Met via PIARC’s web-conference facility on generally a monthly basis for the majority of the cycle.
The work plan developed at the first meeting, formed the basis of the Committee’s work and the quality of the work was overseen by one of the Committee members and through independent review by TC3.2 members beyond the Workgroup.
In undertaking its work, the Committee applied the Safe System approach for road safety to determine the role of road engineering and the most effective strategy for mitigating driver distraction and fatigue risks across all jurisdictions and contexts. It also applied the recently advances by PIARC in the field of human factors in order to better understand driver behaviour, from which the greatest danger to life arises, and contextualise the problems associated with driver distraction and fatigue.
Road engineering has an important role to play in mitigating particularly the serious crash risks associated with driver distraction and fatigue as, in accordance with the Safe System approach, we pursue our ethical obligation to provide safety despite the limitations and fallibility of our road users.
For some of the serious crash risks, roads can be engineered to reliably keep potential crash energies to within the human tolerances for serious injury. Such solutions should always be the road engineering priority and their effectiveness should never be compromised by other objectives. However, there will always be remaining serious crash risks.
Road engineering must consider driver distraction and fatigue because it can itself increase the risk of it and, with good design practices, can mitigate these risks. Major examples include:
• Monotony fatigue: a long, straight and visually unchanging roadside will deactivate the driver, cause significant increases in reaction times and will increase the risk of drivers falling asleep;
• Optical illusions: if the tree line continues in one direction, but ahead the road veers to the left, there will be a risk of some vehicles leaving the road as their driver has been tricked into following the tree line;
• Attractive scenery: if a duller driver’s view is suddenly replaced by exciting scenery, however, just before a serious crash risk, there is a chance that the driver’s attention will be sub-optimal at the critical moment.
• Inconspicuous or confused roadside information: Particularly advertisers are seeking to catch the attention of the travelling public. If their displays out competes critical roadside information there is a greater prospect of it being overlooked by the driver.
Human primeval instincts should be considered in association with highly critical information, as flickering (as in fire) or movement (as in a running animal) naturally catches our attention and can be replicated in traffic signals.
As a result, PIARC Technical Committee 3.2 (TC3.2) Design and operation of safer road infrastructure, Workgroup 3, was tasked with the identification and documentation of successful strategies for addressing driver distraction and fatigue with the focus on engineering solutions.
The Workgroup:
• Comprised eight representatives from Australia (Brendan Marsh), Austria (Bernhard Lautner), Canada-Quebec (Lise Fournier), Finland (Jaakko Klang), France (Pierre Anelli), Korea (Kang Yi), Slovenia (Uroš Brumec) and United States of America (Keith Cota);
• Met at all meetings of the Technical Committee during the cycle;
• Held a number of joint meetings with Workgroup members of the full committee; and
• Met via PIARC’s web-conference facility on generally a monthly basis for the majority of the cycle.
The work plan developed at the first meeting, formed the basis of the Committee’s work and the quality of the work was overseen by one of the Committee members and through independent review by TC3.2 members beyond the Workgroup.
In undertaking its work, the Committee applied the Safe System approach for road safety to determine the role of road engineering and the most effective strategy for mitigating driver distraction and fatigue risks across all jurisdictions and contexts. It also applied the recently advances by PIARC in the field of human factors in order to better understand driver behaviour, from which the greatest danger to life arises, and contextualise the problems associated with driver distraction and fatigue.
Road engineering has an important role to play in mitigating particularly the serious crash risks associated with driver distraction and fatigue as, in accordance with the Safe System approach, we pursue our ethical obligation to provide safety despite the limitations and fallibility of our road users.
For some of the serious crash risks, roads can be engineered to reliably keep potential crash energies to within the human tolerances for serious injury. Such solutions should always be the road engineering priority and their effectiveness should never be compromised by other objectives. However, there will always be remaining serious crash risks.
Road engineering must consider driver distraction and fatigue because it can itself increase the risk of it and, with good design practices, can mitigate these risks. Major examples include:
• Monotony fatigue: a long, straight and visually unchanging roadside will deactivate the driver, cause significant increases in reaction times and will increase the risk of drivers falling asleep;
• Optical illusions: if the tree line continues in one direction, but ahead the road veers to the left, there will be a risk of some vehicles leaving the road as their driver has been tricked into following the tree line;
• Attractive scenery: if a duller driver’s view is suddenly replaced by exciting scenery, however, just before a serious crash risk, there is a chance that the driver’s attention will be sub-optimal at the critical moment.
• Inconspicuous or confused roadside information: Particularly advertisers are seeking to catch the attention of the travelling public. If their displays out competes critical roadside information there is a greater prospect of it being overlooked by the driver.
Human primeval instincts should be considered in association with highly critical information, as flickering (as in fire) or movement (as in a running animal) naturally catches our attention and can be replicated in traffic signals.
Kokoelmat
- Erillisjulkaisut [191]