1 / 37

Statistical Analysis of the Safety Impacts of Digital On-Premise Signs

Statistical Analysis of the Safety Impacts of Digital On-Premise Signs. H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University Presented at the National Signage Research and Education Conference Cincinnati, Ohio; October 11, 2012.

andra
Download Presentation

Statistical Analysis of the Safety Impacts of Digital On-Premise Signs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Statistical Analysis of the Safety Impacts of Digital On-Premise Signs H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Texas A&M University Presented at the National Signage Research and Education Conference Cincinnati, Ohio; October 11, 2012

  2. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=z6f&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1567&bih=947&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=re7a7BmzF9R4ZM:&imgrefurl=http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/the_savvy_boomer/2008/04/using-your-cell.html&docid=qg392gIw7AG45M&imgurl=http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/07/cell_phone_driver.png&w=450&h=287&ei=SSNWUPCVD4G9qQHIuIDQCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=735&vpy=346&dur=11&hovh=179&hovw=281&tx=120&ty=88&sig=108482171543026786120&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=173&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0,i:128http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=z6f&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1567&bih=947&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=re7a7BmzF9R4ZM:&imgrefurl=http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/the_savvy_boomer/2008/04/using-your-cell.html&docid=qg392gIw7AG45M&imgurl=http://www.thesavvyboomer.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/07/cell_phone_driver.png&w=450&h=287&ei=SSNWUPCVD4G9qQHIuIDQCQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=735&vpy=346&dur=11&hovh=179&hovw=281&tx=120&ty=88&sig=108482171543026786120&page=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=173&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:0,i:128 The Problem • Information, information, + more information • Traffic signs, in-vehicle displays, GPS navigation, billboards, business signs, etc. • As more information is presented, there is more competition for attention

  3. Businesses • Business owners want customers: • Loyal/repeat customers (familiar/old) • Know the way, just need reminder • New customers (unfamiliar/new) • Need to find the way • Both customer groups rely upon signs for navigating to the business • Business owners also rely upon signs for advertising and marketing

  4. Types of Signs • Traffic signs • In the roadway right-of-way • Regulate, warn, and guide traffic • On-premise signs • On business building or property • Get traffic to business • Off-premise signs • Away from business • Generate interest in business

  5. www.textually.org Competition for Attention • Drivers deal with: • Vehicle control • Steering + brakes • Cockpit controls • Environment • Music • GPS • Navigation • Short-term • Long-term • Other challenges • Increased traffic, higher speeds, more controls • Distractions • Phones (talking) • Phones (texting) • Phones (email) • Reading (books) • Listening (books) • Eating • Drinking • Make-up • Passengers • Other vehicles

  6. Recent Example • From Bryan-College Station Eagle

  7. How to Attract Attention • Make it: • Bigger • Brighter • Add motion/movement • Increase contrast • Applies to all visual stimuli • Traffic signs, business signs, people, objects, etc.

  8. Signage Advances • Recent technologies allow: • Electronic signs or panels • Custom messages • Animation • Video • LEDs and other advancements provide more features at lower costs • Potential concern that electronic displays increase driver distraction 2003 2012

  9. The Challenge • Many issues combine to create a challenge: • Advanced sign technologies are relatively new • Have spread rapidly • While traffic sign research is sponsored by public agencies, there is not comparable research program for business signs • Concerns over traffic safety • Base issue: Do electronic message signs create a distraction problem that increases crash risk? • Result: Has led some local agencies to establish sign codes that are based on opinion more than scientific fact

  10. Our Research Study • Goal: • Determine if the installation of digital on-premise signs has an impact on traffic safety in the area around such signs • Highlights: • Scientific procedure • Robust crash dataset • Large sample size of sign locations • Advanced statistical analysis methods

  11. Digital Sign Definition • Target: on-premise digital sign • Located on business property • Sign uses electrical display • Provides changeable message

  12. Related Research • Limited research conducted on business signs • On-premise signs: • Mace (2001): synthesis of literature • Hypothesized that distraction potential of signs could compromise safety • Hypothesized benefits as navigational aid • No data collection to support or refute claims • Wachtel (2009): synthesis suggested on-premise signs affect safety more than off-premise signs • Because locations and elevations of on-premise signs might be closer to the road users • Angles of on-premise signs may be out of vision core and require extreme head movements • Conclusions of both are based on educated judgment rather than scientific analysis

  13. Off-Premise Signs • FHWA study by Molino et al. (2009) • Meta analysis of 32 previous studies • Focus on billboards • Most, but not all, of previous research shows negative safety impact • Although safety issues not resolved, there is more analysis of off-premise signs than on-premise

  14. Knowledge Gap • Little knowledge about safety impacts of on-premise signs • What is known is not based on detailed scientific analysis • Inconsistent findings • Weaknesses • Inadequate sample sizes • Inappropriate statistical analysis methods • Short time frames for analysis (before & after) • At present, cannot define safety impacts of digital signs

  15. Research Approach • Highlights: • Collect sign data • Specific to on-premise digital signs • Installation date and location are critical • Collect crash data at locations where signs are located • Crash information: date, location, type, etc • Need several years of data • Develop statistical analysis procedure • Perform safety analysis

  16. Sign Data Acquisition • Required significant effort • Initial attempts not successful • Asking for too much • Refined request based on crash data dates and states • Installed in 2006 or 2007 • Insures adequate before and after periods • Located in California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, or Washington • These are states with crash data

  17. Sign Data Sets • Sign datasets acquired from two companies • #1: 2,953 sites with 27 variables • Variables: date, address, cross-street, road/traffic information, etc. • Road/traffic information not used • #2: 63 sites with 10 variables • Sign locations had to be confirmed through Google Earth/Map to be usable

  18. Sign Data Processing • Raw sign data required significant processing to be useable • Sites eliminated due to: • Installed before 2006 or after 2007 • These limits provided sufficient date in both before and after analysis periods • Year of installation not included in analysis • Location could not be confirmed in Google Earth or Google Maps (Street View) • Analysis area defined as within 0.1 mile of target sign

  19. Crash Data Background • Comprehensive crash data is limited and hard to obtain • Belongs to agencies • Protected information for liability reasons • Expensive to maintain • National databases • FARS: Fatal Accident Reporting System • NHTSA owned – no info on crash location • HSIS: Highway Safety Information System • FHWA owned – significant related information

  20. HSIS Crash Data • HSIS provided the best means of performing a detailed national analysis of crash impacts due to digital signs • Contains crash, roadway, and vehicle information • Operated/maintained by FHWA • Widely used for safety research • Multi-state data • California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington • We chose to focus on CA, NC, OH, and WA due to limited sign locations in IL, ME, and MN

  21. HSIS File Types • Crash files: • Location, date, time, light, weather conditions, severity, number of related vehicles, collision type • Driver and vehicle files: • Driver gender, age, contributing factor (possible casual factor), vehicle type • Road and traffic files : • Traffic data – Average Daily Traffic (ADT), speed limit • Road data – number of lanes, lane and median width, shoulder width and type, rural or urban designation, and functional classifications. • All files are linked to provide for robust analysis • Example: crash frequency and traffic volume can be combined to present a crash rate at a location

  22. Data Analysis Steps • General steps • Confirm location of signs • Convert sign location to crash location • Evaluate site qualification factors • Conduct statistical analysis • Each is explained in upcoming slides

  23. Confirm Sign Location • Use Google Map and Google Earth • Verify location of each target sign • Used street address provided in sign data set • Confirm that it is a digital sign • Confirm that is it an on-premise sign • Confirm still in place (as of the date of the Google Street View image) • Measure milepost from county boundary • Used to link location to crash data

  24. Confirm Sign Location • Labor intensive and time consuming activity • Used student workers to process data

  25. Combine Sign and Crash Data • Sign and crash data use different location systems • Sign data based on street address • Crash data based on route and milepost • Convert sign location to route and milepost format and combine with crash location data set

  26. Site Qualification Factors • We only retained the sign sites satisfying the following conditions: • Located in CA, NC, OH, or WA • Installed between 2006-2007 • Located on the major roads • With at least one crash record in the before or after period

  27. Sign Data Yield Rates • After processing sign and crash data, the number of sites usable for analysis was a fraction of initial number • Initial sign data sets: 2,953 + 63 = 3,016 • Overall yield rate = 126/3016 = 4.2%

  28. Statistical Analysis Options • Options for analyzing safety impacts: • Before-after study • Crashes in the period before improvement compared to crashes in the period after the improvement • Provides more direct evaluation • Cross-sectional study • Crashes on a facilities with the improvement compared to crashes on similar facilities without the improvement • Different facilities rarely identical in all features • We chose to use before-after study

  29. Types of Before-After • Naïve before-after study • Simple comparison • Results may be influenced by factors not accounted for • Not a preferred analysis method • Before-after study with control group • Control group helps to account for external influences that could affect results • Requires additional data for control locations • Difficult to identify appropriate control locations with same characteristics • Before-after study using the empirical Bayes (EB) method

  30. Empirical Bayesian Method • Recommended as preferred method in Highway Safety Manual • Combines short-term observed crash numbers with crash prediction model data to obtain a more accurate estimation of the long-term crash mean • Example: a new driver has no crashes during first year of driving • Typical new driver has 0.08 crashes per year • Not reasonable to expect 0 or 0.08 crashes in second year • EB would provide an estimate that is a mixture of these two values by considering safety of a specific segment and safety of a typically similar road

  31. EB Analysis Formula • General form: • Where:

  32. Preliminary Study Results • Interpretation factors • All crashes • For entire sample • For each state • Single and multiple vehicle crashes • For entire sample • For each state • These results are preliminary • Research in final stages of completion

  33. Interpreting Results • Using the EB method, there is no statistically significant change in crashes if the confidence interval for EB contains 1

  34. Preliminary Results for All Crash Types  No. of Sites Sample Size

  35. Preliminary Results for Single Vehicle Crashes  No. of Sites Sample Size

  36. Preliminary Results for Multiple Vehicle Crashes  No. of Sites Sample Size

  37. Preliminary Conclusions • For the entire sample: • We did not find a statistically significant impact between the installation of digital signs and an increase in crashes within 0.1 mile of the signs’ locations • For multiple-vehicle crashes • We found the same result • For single-vehicle crashes • We found the same result except for California, which is likely due to the smaller sample size and the resulting decrease in statistical certainty (increased probability of error)

More Related