Stopping Sight Distance
Stopping Sight Distance
Stopping Sight Distance
Kiewit -2012/02
April 2012
cce.oregonstate.edu
DISCLAIMER
This paper represents the research and viewpoints of the author. It draws heavily on
information previously prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the
Discussion paper 8A, Stopping Sight Distance and Decisions Sight Distance, for ODOT, by
Dr. Robert D. Layton, The Kiewit Center for Infrastructure and Transportation, Oregon State
University, September 2004.
GENERAL GOAL
This and other background papers are prepared to provide background, enhance
understanding and stimulate discussion among individuals representing a variety of groups,
agencies and interests who have concern in Oregons highways.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of this discussion paper are to:
1.
2.
Summarize research and the current state of the art on the factors and elements of
driver behavior and traffic operations that affect stopping sight distance.
3.
Review current criteria on stopping sight distance within the context of access
management.
4.
Identify questions and issues regarding the appropriate criteria and use of
stopping sight distance for access management.
OVERVIEW
Background
The safe operation of all highway facilities, including intersections, requires the consideration of
three primary elements for safe roadway operations: the driver, the vehicle, and the roadway. An
understanding and consideration of each of these elements is necessary to define appropriate
sight distance criteria. Human factors associated with the drivers performance must take
account of both physical abilities and psychological influences. The size, weight, and braking
ability of vehicles are of particular importance for the safe operation and stopping of vehicles.
The roadway geometric design features, obstacles to sight at the roadsides, pavement surface
condition, and climatic conditions impact the safety on the roadway and sight distance
requirements. Each of these elements and their interactions govern the development and
specifications of sight distance criteria and standards.
The determination of stopping sight distance requires the definition and consideration of seven
design variables:
Perception-reaction time
Object height
Deceleration rates
Roadway grade
An important study on stopping sight distance was published as NCHRP Report 400,
Determination of Stopping Sight Distance (1). This reference presents recommended revisions
to the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design for the 2001, 2004 and 2011 Editions (2,3,4).
Most of the recommended changes from NCHRP Report were included in the 2001 AASHTO
Policy on Geometric Design (i.e., 2001 Greenbook). However, a number of state DOTs have
opted to retain the 0.5 ft. (150 mm) height of object criterion from the 1990 and 1994 AASHTO
Policies (1990 and 1994 Greenbooks), rather than accept the significant impact due to the change
in height of object, from 0.5 ft. (150 mm) to 2.0 ft. (600 mm), for stopping sight distance (5,6,7).
Content
This background paper summarizes the literature, standards and traditional knowledge on
stopping sight distance. The primary emphasis of this discussion is on the driver behavior and
traffic operation conditions that influence the distance required for drivers to stop or maneuver
their vehicles safely.
The discussion includes information drawn from policies, standards and current research. The
primary sources of the policies and standards are the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design,
1990 Edition (English Units), 1994 Edition (Metric units) and 2001 Edition (both units), and the
Oregon Highway Design Manual. The standards and criteria for stopping sight distance have
evolved since the 1920s. The changes in vehicle sizes and operating characteristics, driver
experience and behavior, and highway technology cause a continued evolution of sight distance
policies and standards.
Issues
Sight distance criteria have impact on virtually all elements of highway design, many elements
of the operation/control, and recently, access management implementation. The roadway
geometric design features, presence of obstacles to sight at the roadsides and the pavement
surface condition are fixed by sight distance requirements. The nature of traffic controls and
their placement must take account of sight distance requirements. At times, the effects of traffic
stream conditions, such as traffic queues, must be viewed from adequate distance to stop. The
provision of roadside access and accommodation of pedestrian crossings must assure a safe
stopping distance.
Adequate stopping sight distance must be provided on 100% of the street and highway system so
a driver with the standard eye height can see an object of standard height with sufficient time to
stop safely. This assumes a certain level of alertness on the part of the driver and no influence on
a drivers perception and reaction due to added complexity of traffic, control and local
environmental conditions. Some research has indicated that driver behavior, expectations and
alertness change with the type of area and with the operating conditions on the roadway.
The determination of stopping sight distance requires the definition of six of the seven primary
design variables defined previously. It is not necessary to specify both deceleration rate and a
design coefficient of friction because they both measure the required rate of slowing for the
vehicle.
Under some conditions the added complexity of traffic, local activities and driver expectancy
may require longer times to accommodate long perception-reaction times due to situation
complexity, expectations and alertness, as well as longer distance for normal vehicle maneuvers
of lane changing, speed changes and path changes, or for stopping. The current standards for
stopping sight distance take these factors into account.
These increased perception-reaction times and longer maneuvering distances are accommodated
by decision sight distance. Decision sight distance is applied where numerous conflicts,
pedestrians, various vehicle types, design features, complex control, intense land use, and
topographic conditions must be addressed by the driver. Stopping sight distance is applied where
only one obstacle must be seen in the roadway and dealt with. Decision sight distance is different
for urban versus rural conditions, and also for maneuvers ranging from stopping to speed, path or
direction change within the traffic stream.
Stopping in the context of decision sight distance, as distinct from stopping sight distance, may
be necessary to avoid a vehicle that is forced to stop for some traffic condition, such as a queue
of vehicles, or roadside conflicts, such as, congestion in a driveway.
In view of the complexity and variations in drivers expectancy for situations associated with
access management, in general, decision sight distance is a more logical requirement for many
access management situations than stopping sight distance, as currently defined. Decision sight
distance is covered in a companion paper, Decision Sight Distance: A Discussion Paper,
Kiewit 2012/03, OSU, March 2012.
Should a safe coefficient of friction or acceptable deceleration rate be used to define the
deceleration of vehicles? What deceleration rates are implied by the coefficient of friction
used for design? What deceleration rates are typical and comfortable for drivers? What
deceleration rates are acceptable for stopping of trucks?
2.
What height of eye should be used for stopping sight distance? What proportion of the
drivers should the height of eye criterion represent? What height of eye should be used
for trucks?
3.
Is a 2 ft. (600 mm) object reasonable for assessing stopping sight distance? Should the
height of the object be different for decision sight distance? Should the height of the
object be different for some situations where stopping sight distance is required, such as
pedestrian crossings?
4.
Should trucks be treated specifically or should the higher eye height be assumed to offset
the longer stopping distance required?
5.
Should the stopping sight distance be based on design speed, running speed or vary
according to conditions?
6.
Should the perception-reaction times specified in the AASHTO Green Book be accepted,
or should they be specified according to the situation?
PERCEPTION-REACTION TIMES
PIEV Process
The perception-reaction time for a driver is often broken down into the four components that are
assumed to make up the perception reaction time. These are referred to as the PIEV time or
process.
PIEV Process
Perception
Intellection
Emotion
Volition
2.5 sec
operations/control
1.0 sec
These perception reaction times were based on observed behavior for the 85th percentile driver;
that is, 85% of drivers could react in that time or less. More recent research has shown these
times to be conservative for design (9,10,11,12).
Wortman and Mathias (9) reported both the surprise and alerted 85th percentile perception
reaction times for control. The time perception-reaction was measured after the yellow indication
until brake lights appeared, and was in an urban environment
The Wortman et al., research found:
alerted 85% perception-reaction time
0.9 sec
1.3 sec
1.80
2.35
Chang et al.
1.90
2.50
Sivak et al.
1.78
2.40
Source: (9,10,11,12)
Fatigued
Moderate
3.0 s
Urban Arterial
Alert
High
2.5 s
Rural Freeway
Fatigued
Low
2.5 s
Urban Freeway
Fatigued
High
3.0 s
Source: (12)
Figure 1. 85th Percentile Driver Perception Reaction Time versus Information Content
Source: (6)
For stopping sight distance an unexpected event, such as, an obstacle in the middle of the
roadway would correspond to 1 information bit, and would give a perception-reaction time of
2.7s. A design value of 2.5 seconds was set because it would accommodate 85% of drivers.
The perception-reaction time for traffic control would correspond to 0 information bits since the
driver would see and understand the presence of the signal, and would be waiting for a change of
its indication. This results in a perception-reaction time of 1 second for the expected condition.
One study cited indicated an average alerted perception-reaction time of 0.64 seconds with 5%
of the drivers requiring over 1 second (14).
It also references NCHRP Reports 600A, 600B and 600C dealing with consideration of human
factors for roadway systems (15,16,17).
An appreciation and understanding of human factors, driver behavior and abilities are needed to
determine the sight distance criteria. The physical abilities and psychological limitations of
drivers impact these criteria, and should be reviewed here to obtain perspective.
Visual Acuity
The primary stimulus for operation and safe control of vehicles is eye sight. The physical
composition of the eye and its functioning constitute limits that must be considered when
developing sight distance criteria.
Visual Acuity
3-4 cone
best vision can see texture, shape, size, color, etc.
10 cone
20 cone
~ 90 cone
Drivers focus their attention down the roadway in the cone of clear vision at 3 to 4 times the
stopping distance. They then shift their vision to the right and left to keep track of traffic
conditions, pedestrians and local activities. The eye movement time includes the time required
for a driver to shift their eyes and to focus on an object.
0.15-0.33 sec
0.1-0.3 sec
It takes roughly 0.5 second for a driver to shift his eyes and focus. Thus, a full cycle to right and
back to the left takes about 1 second. If there is glare, it takes 3 seconds to recover full visual
acuity and about 6 seconds to recover from bright to dim conditions.
adequate viewing and response time, where conflicts are numerous, conditions are complex, and
speeds and volumes are high to limit driver workload to acceptable levels.
Human Mind is a Sequential Processor
Humans are sequential processors; that is, drivers sample, select and process information one
element at a time, though very quickly. Therefore, complex situations create unsafe or inefficient
operations because it takes so long for drivers to sample, select and process the information. This
means that as complexity increases, a longer perception-reaction time should be available. The
visual acuity limitations, visibility constraints of glare/dimness recovery and complexity of
traffic conditions, when taken together, require much longer perception-reaction times or
decision times.
Driver Expectancy
Drivers are led to expect a particular operation condition based on the information presented to
them. They use both formal and informal information.
Formal information this includes the traffic-control devices and primary geometric
design features of the roadway, but does not include the roadside features such as ditch
lines, guardrail, and other street furniture.
Informal information this includes roadside features and also land use features, such as
brush lines, tree lines, fences and information signing. It includes all information that is
not formal.
Drivers develop expectations on how to drive a roadway through experience, training and habit.
At times these expectations are in error because they use inappropriate informal information, or
the formal information provided is not proper or gives mixed messages. Often, the information at
a location is conflicting, and drivers who are familiar with the location will read traffic
conditions differently than unfamiliar drivers. For example, driver error due to driver expectancy
can occur where the location of pavement joints (informal information) conflict with lane
markings (formal information). A driver may see and follow the pavement joints rather than the
pavement striping, particularly on dark, wet nights.
Increased perception reaction time is needed to allow time for drivers to make the proper
decision when information conflicts and driver expectancy may be in error.
Traffic conditions vary dramatically on major facilities; consequently, the information that
drivers receive from other vehicles and traffic conditions is constantly changing. Therefore, high
volume and high speed conditions with the added complexity and heavier driver workloads
require longer decision times and compound any problems arising from driver expectancy.
10
The height of eye for design has decreased with time as the vehicle sizes and dimensions
changed. The design height of eye up to the year 2000 was 3.5 ft. (1070 mm) (1,2). This has
reduced from 5.5 ft. (1680 mm) in the 1920s to 3.75 ft. (1150 mm) in 1965. A moderate change
in drivers eye height results in a small change in stopping sight distance and in the required
length of vertical curves (25). Driver eye height for trucks is not normally of concern because
they are significantly higher than passenger cars. The higher height of eye for trucks is assumed
to compensate for their longer stopping sight distance. However, truck eye height may be an
issue where the stopping sight distance is controlled by horizontal alignment, such as cut slopes,
or other vertical sight obstructions, such as a hedge, overhanging limbs or signs. Typical values
for height of eye for trucks are from 71.5 in. (1820 mm) to 112.5 in. (2860 mm) with an average
eye height of 93 in. (2360 mm). In the past, height of eye of 8.0 ft. (2400 mm) has been used for
design (26,27) for trucks.
The NCHRP Report 400 presented the results of some measurements made on height of eye for
various vehicles. These results are shown in Table 3 (1).
Multipurpose Vehicles*
Heavy Trucks
(ft)
mm
(ft)
mm
(ft)
mm
(3.77)
(0.18)
(3.48)
(3.55)
(3.59)
1149
55
1060
1082
1094
(4.86)
(0.43)
(4.15)
(4.28)
(4.37)
1482
130
1264
1306
1331
(8.03)
(0.35)
(7.56)
(7.64)
(7.68)
2447
107
2304
2329
2341
There was some indication that the height of eye adopted by AASHTO would be reduced to 1
meter, or 3.28 ft., since the passenger car fleet had continued to decrease in height. However, the
increased use of pick-ups, SUVs and vans has caused the overall drivers eye height to increase.
The NCHRP Report 400 recommended a height of eye of 3.54 ft. (1080 mm).
11
This change of height of eye of 3.54 ft. (1080 mm) was adopted in the 2001 AASHTO
Greenbook; also the 2001 Greenbook adopted an eye height for trucks of 7.6 ft. (2330 mm), with
a stated range of 6-8 ft. (1800 mm to 2600 mm). These recommended heights of eye are retained
in the new 2011 Greenbook (2,4).
OBJECT HEIGHT
The object heights for stopping sight distance (2,3,4) are:
AASHTO (2001, 2004 & 2011)
Pavement SD
0 ft.
Access points
The object height that has been used for stopping sight distance has been 6 in. (150 mm) since
1965. The standards have required that a driver should be able to see and stop before hitting an
object of 6 in. (150 mm) in height everywhere on the roadway. This arbitrary value recognized
the hazard an object of that height or larger would represent, since 30% of the compact and subcompact vehicles could not clear a 6 in. (150 mm) object (28). It also suggested that the 6 in.
(150 mm) object height was a rational trade-off between the need to see the pavement and the
cost to provide that sight distance. Under some circumstances the height of the tail-light at 1.5 ft.
(450 mm) to 2.0 ft. (600 mm) was recognized as a more appropriate object to be viewed, in
particular at under-crossings, where a truck would be the design vehicle with its height of eye. A
study undertaken by CALTRANS for sight distance on HOV lanes found an 85% tail-light
height of 2.5 ft. (760 mm).
The 2001 AASHTO standard for object height increased to 2.0 ft. (600 mm) based on a cars
tail-light and safety statistics that do not show a high frequency of crashes with small objects in
the roadway. This is retained in the new 2011 Greenbook. CALTRANS, ODOT and WSDOT
retained the 0.5 ft. (150 mm) object height for both stopping sight distance and decision sight
distance, recognizing all of the aspects of safe highway design and visibility that are provided by
this lower height of object of 0.5 ft. (150 mm). Discussion of the safety implications of the use of
a 2.0 ft. (600 mm) height of object is given in Appendix A.
The object height at intersections has been 4.25 ft. (1300 mm), which was the same required for
passing sight distance (5,6). This criterion assumed that being able to see the top or roof of a
passenger car is adequate as the object for intersection sight distance. This ignores the difficulty
in distinguishing the thin splinter of the car roof from other objects, particularly if the car is of an
earth tone color. It also ignores the difficulty in seeing the car at night with the headlights at
about 2 ft. (600 mm) height, even assuming some upward diffusion of the lights. A height of
object of 3.5 ft. (1080 mm), the 2001 AASHTO standard for passing sight distance, would yield
a target of 9-10 in. (220-250 mm) in height, which would assure an approaching vehicle would
be seen. Where the object is the back of queue or vehicles elsewhere in the traffic stream, the
12
object height may be either the height of the vehicle or the height of the tail-light. The height of
tail-light according to NCHRP Report 400 must be no lower than 15 in. (380 mm) nor higher
than 72 in. (1830 mm); the mean tail-light height was found to be 2.38 ft. (726 mm) for
passenger cars. This would typically result in an object height of 1.5-2.5 ft. (460-760 mm). For
vehicles entering the roadway at night, the height of the headlights may be used or 2 ft. (600
mm). The AASHTO standard for object height is 3.5 ft. (1080 mm) for both passing sight
distance and intersection sight distance, according to the 2001 Greenbook; this standard is
retained in the 2011 Greenbook (2,4).
Pavement sight distance should be provided in channelized intersections, on turning roadways,
or at locations where the alignment may take an unexpected direction. This is provided with an
object height of 0.0 ft. (0.0 mm).
In summary:
2009
CALTRANS
2001
ODOT
2011
WSDOT
2.0 ft.
(600 mm)
0.5 ft.
(150 mm)
0.5 ft.
(150 mm)
0.5 ft.
(150 mm)
2.0 ft.
(600 mm)
0.5 ft.
(150 mm)
0.5 ft.
(150 mm)
0.5 ft.
(150 mm)
3.5 ft.
(1080 mm)
4.25 ft.
(1300 mm)
3.5 ft.
(1080 mm)
3.5 ft.
(1080 mm)
3.5 ft.
(1080 mm)
4.25 ft.
(1300 mm)
3.5 ft.
(1080 mm)
3.5 ft.
(1080 mm)
2.0 ft
(600 mm)
Pavement (SSD)
0
Source: (2,4,7,23,24)
13
VEHICLE SPEED
The speed employed in the analysis of stopping sight distance is typically the design speed in
Oregon and other states, in particular for vertical sight restrictions. Until the 2001 AASHTO
Policy, AASHTO allowed the running speed to be used, since the design coefficient of friction
was for wet pavements, and drivers were expected to slow on wet pavements. However,
AASHTO indicates that recent data shows that drivers do not slow appreciably on wet pavement.
The 2001 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design has eliminated stopping sight distance based on
running speed, and stopping sight distanced based on design speed is specified. Therefore,
design speed should be used to determine sight distance criteria. When the facility is an existing
facility, or design speed is not known, the operating speed on the roadway can be used.
The relationship between average speed, 85th percentile speed and design speed is not well
understood. However, the approximate relationship can be defined as follows, based on the
standard Normal Distribution. The design speed has been defined as about the 95th to 98th
percentile speed; therefore:
Mean = Mode = Median
Average operating speed
mean speed
Typically, the standard deviation for speeds is about 5-7 mph. Thus, if the standard deviation is
not known, a rule-of-thumb is:
The 85th percentile speed, or minimum design speed, is mean operating speed + 5 mph
(10 km/h)
Design speed is 85th percentile speed + 5 mph (10 km/h)
Small variations in speed result in very large differences in stopping sight distance, since
stopping sight distance varies as the square of velocity. Decision sight distance varies linearly
with the speed, so the speed definition is not as critical.
14
1s
1s
2s
2s
Mean Speed
15
As seen in Figure 3, the skid resistance drops as design speed increases. The use of a constant
deceleration for all speeds does not capture that phenomenon.
Current 2011 Standard Stopping Based on Deceleration
The current standard AASHTO design deceleration rate is;
AASHTO (2001)
Until 2001, the coefficients of friction used for design on arterials or open highways in the 1990
and 1994 AASHTO Green Books (1) were based on the results of a number of studies that
measured the locked-wheel skid resistance on poor wet pavements. These AASHTO design
values corresponded to a comfortable deceleration rate of 6 to 8 mph/second (9.6 to 12.9
kph/sec); they are shown in Table 4.
With trucks the safe coefficient of friction for braking is less than for passenger cars because a
truck cant safely make a locked-wheel stop without the risk of losing control (29). Therefore,
the deceleration rate when stopping is less for trucks than for passenger cars, on the order of 3.5
mph/sec (5.6 kph/sec) to 5.5 mph/sec (8.9 kph/sec); these decelerations correspond to f values
of 0.16 to 0.25, respectively. Design coefficients of friction based on truck performance are
given in the last column of Table 4 above. Note that the coefficient of friction corresponding to a
deceleration rate is determined from the relationship:
f
a (m / sec 2 )
9.8 (m / sec 2 )
(Metric)
16
17
Table 4. 1990 and 1994 Design Coefficients of Friction for Stopping Sight Distance
Design Speed
Running Speed
AASHTO
Coeff.
of Friction for
trucks, fTR
Acceptable
Deceleration
for Trucks, aTR
ft/sec2
(20 mph)
30 kph
(20 mph)
32 kph
0.40
0.25
8.1
(30 mph)
50 kph
(28 mph)
45 kph
0.35
0.21
6.8
(40 mph)
65 kph
(36 mph)
58 kph
0.32
0.19
6.1
(50 mph)
80 kph
(44 mph)
71 kph
0.30
0.18
5.8
(60 mph)
100 kph
(52 mph)
84 kph
0.29
0.17
5.5
(70 mph)
115 kph
(58 mph)
93 kph
0.28
0.16
5.1
V2
a
30 (
g)
32.2
(U.S. Cust.)
or
SSD = 1.47 Vt +
V2
30 (f g)
SSD = 0.278 Vt +
V2
a
254 (
g)
9.81
(U.S. Cust.)
(Metric)
or
SSD = 0.278 Vt +
V2
254 (f g)
(Metric)
where SSD
V
t
f
g
a
18
=
=
=
=
=
=
The 1990 and 1994 AASHTO Greenbooks provided for a minimum and a desirable stopping
sight distance (5,6). The desirable stopping sight distance was provided based on the design
speed and a coefficient of friction for a poor, wet pavement. The minimum stopping sight
distance was provided based on the running speed and a coefficient of friction of a poor, wet
pavement. The NCHRP Report 400 recommended new design criteria to AASHTO using a
deceleration rate of 11.2 ft/sec2 or 3.4 m/sec2 (0.34 g) instead of the wet coefficient of friction
(1). The running speed is the average operating speed on the roadway and is typically less than
design speed, about 83% to 100% of design speed for 20 mph to 70 mph (32 kph to 113 kph),
respectively. As indicated previously, AASHTO has found that drivers do not slow on wet
pavement so the use of running speed is not appropriate to determine stopping sight distances.
Table 5 gives the stopping sight distances for a range of design speeds. For comparison, it also
gives typical emergency stopping sight distances, with short emergency reaction times of 1 sec.
and wet and dry pavement conditions. In this table, the coefficient of friction for a wet pavement
is assumed to be those used for stopping sight distance in the 1990 and 1994 Greenbooks, and
for dry pavement is assumed to be 0.6 (5,6).
It is interesting to note that with low beam headlights, a driver may be able to see from 120 ft. to
350 ft. (37 m to 107 m) and with high beams from 200 ft. to 500 ft. (61 m to 152 m). Thus,
drivers driving faster than 55 mph (88 kph) at night are overdriving their headlights (30).
The 2001 and 2011 AASHTO Greenbooks recommend a minimum stopping sight distance based
on design speed with a deceleration rate of 11.2 ft/sec2 (3.4 m/sec2) and a perception-reaction
time of 2.5 seconds for design (4,6). The minimum stopping sight distance based on running
speed has been abandoned.
Table 5A.
19
Speed
Design Speed
(mph)
Design
(2.5s, a)
115
155
200
250
305
360
425
495
570
Wet Pave.
(1s, fwet)
Dry Pave.
(1s, fdry)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Calculated
(2.5s, a=11.2 FPS2)
111.9
151.9
196.7
246.2
300.6
359.8
423.8
492.4
566.0
63
92
130
172
225
284
357
417
495
52
71
94
120
148
179
212
249
288
65
70
644.4
727.6
645
730
581
686
330
375
Table 5B.
Speed
Design Speed
(km/h)
30
40
50
60
70
80
Calculated
(2.5s, a=3.4 m/sec2)
31.2
46.2
63.5
83.0
104.9
129.0
Design
(2.5s, a)
35
50
65
85
105
130
Wet Pave.
(1s, fwet)
17.1
27.7
42.0
59.6
81.7
106.1
Dry Pave.
(1s, fdry)
14.2
21.6
30.3
40.3
51.6
64.2
90
100
110
120
155.5
184.2
215.3
248.6
160
185
220
250
131.2
163.4
200.6
235.7
78.1
93.4
110.0
127.9
20
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Gazis, D.R, et al., The Problem of the Amber Signal in Traffic Flow, Operations
Research 8, March-April 1960.
11.
Chang, M.S, et al., Timing Traffic Signal Change Intervals Based on Driver Behavior,
T.R. Record 1027, T.R.B, Washington, D.C., 1985.
12.
Sivak, M., et al, Radar Measured Reaction Times of Unalerted Drivers to Brake
Signals, Perceptual Motor Skills 55, 1982.
13.
Johansson, G. and K. Rumar, Drivers Brake Reaction Times, Human Factors, Vol. 13,
No. 1, Feb. 1971.
14.
Report of the Massachusetts Highway Accident Survey, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1935.
15.
Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Collection A, NCHRP Report 600A,
TRB, Washington, DC, 2012.
16.
Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Collection A, NCHRP Report 600B,
TRB, Washington, DC, 2012.
21
17.
Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Collection A, NCHRP Report 600C,
TRB, Washington, DC, 2012.
18.
Synthesis of Human Factors Research on Older Drivers and Highway Safety, Vol. 1,
FHWA-RD-97-094, FHWA, USDOT, Washington, DC, 1997.
19.
Older Drivers: A Literature Review (No. 25), Department of Transport, London, UK.
20.
Bing, A., An Investigation of Some Relationships Between Dynamic Visual Acuity and
Static Visual Acuity and Driving, Report 64-18, Univ. of California at Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA, 1964.
21.
D. Horswill, M.S., et al., The Hazard Perception of Older Drivers, The Journal of
Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences, 63-(4), 2008.
22.
Shivar, D., Driver Performance and Individual Differences in Attention, DOT-HS-801819-DAP, USDOT, Washington, DC, 1978.
23.
24.
25.
26.
P.L. Olson, D.E. Cleveland, P.S. Fancher, L.P. Kostyniuk and L.W. Schneider,
Parameters Affecting Stopping Sight Distance, NCHRP Report 270, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, June 1984.
27.
J.W. Hall and D.S. Turner, Stopping Sight Distance: Can We See Where We Now
Stand?, Transportation Research Record 1208, Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, 1989.
28.
D.L. Woods, Small Car Impacts on Highway Design, ITE Journal, April 1983.
29.
P.B. Middleton, M.Y. Wong, J. Taylor, H. Thompson and J. Bennett, Analysis of Truck
Safety on Crest Vertical Curves, Report FHWA/RD-86/060, FHWA, USDOT, 1983.
30.
Urban Behavioral Research Associates, The Investigation of Driver Eye Height and
Field of Vision, Report DOT-FH-11-9141, FHWA, USDOT, 1978.
Appendix A
The roadway section that is visible to a driver at stopping sight distance is reduced appreciably,
that is, the side slopes, ditch sections and other visual cues that drivers use to operate their
vehicle are not available. Consequently, unfamiliar drivers might be expected to slow at such
locations. Other drivers are going to have less time to react and adjust to roadway conditions.
A comparison of the preview distance to a 0.5 ft. (150 mm) object for a vertical curve
designed under the 2001 criteria, versus the 1990-94 criteria, shows how restricted operations
become under the new criteria.
A-1
Appendix A
Example Comparison of a Typical 50 mph Vertical Curve Design
Given: SSD 2001 = 425;
SSD 1990-94 = 475
Design Speed = 50 mph
G1 = +4%, G2 = -2%
-2%
+4%
L = 504 (2001 GB)
L = 960 (1990-94 GB)
L = 84 x 6
L = 504
SL: L
L = 160 x 6
100 2h1 2h 2
504
L = 960
AS 2
6S2
S 333 ft.
333
4 .5 s
1.4750
_____
* See AASHTO Geometric Design Greenbook or a Route Surveying text for equation development
A-2
Appendix A
Total Required Maneuver Time
The total distance required to maneuver around an object is the perception / reaction distance
plus the maneuver distance. Typical lateral movement velocities of 3-4 ft/sec have been
observed. The required maneuver time for the example curve, for both rural and urban areas, is
longer than available, by 1 second urban and 2 seconds rural, respectively, as shown below.
Maneuver
Time
PRT
Urban
2.5S
12 ft
4 FPS
Rural
2.5
12 ft
3 FPS
If we assume that we need a preview distance that is equal to stopping sight distance, it is also
inadequate. As shown, 5.8 seconds is required compared to 4.5 seconds provided.
Preview Distance = SSD
Preview Time =
425
5.8s 4.5s
1.4750
Further, if we look at the pavement sight distance condition with a height of object equal to 0,
the available pavement sight distance is;
S L:L
AS 2
6 S2
S 242 ft.
242
3.3 sec .
1.47(50)
Only 3.3 sec. of travel time and 242 ft. of travel distance are available for a driver to see the
pavement, react and maneuver the vehicle. Clearly, very short by the maneuver distance or the
stopping sight distance standard.
A-3
Appendix A
Headlight Sight Distance over a Crest Vertical Curve
The headlight sight distance over a crest vertical curve has been accommodated, somewhat, by
the more conservative height of object criteria of 0.5 ft. (150 mm). However, the headlight sight
distance over a crest vertical curve is restricted for vertical curves designed with a 2.0 ft. (600
mm) object height. For the previous curve example, it provides only 366 ft. to a vehicle that is
stopped without tail lights lit, where the reflection of the tail lights from the vehicles headlights
shows as the object. Notice for the example curve, an object must be 3.5 ft. (1080 mm) high to
be visible with the headlights at the stopping sight distance of 425 ft.; no objects shorter than 3.5
ft. (1080 mm) would be lit by the headlights at 425 ft. Therefore, there is not adequate stopping
sight distance at night for any objects shorter than 3.5 ft. (1080 mm).
Eye = 3.5
Headlights = 2.0 ft.
2.0 ft.
-2%
+4%
Headlight S.D. over the 2001 Example Crest Vertical Curve with Headlight Height of 2 ft.
(600 mm) for an Object Height of 2 ft. (600 mm):
L
AS2
6 S2
100 2 x 2 2x 2
366
5.0 sec 4.5 sec
1.47(50)
Thus, the travel time of 5.0 sec. required to see and stop before a 2 ft. (600 mm) object is only
slightly larger than the necessary available maneuver time to avoid the object.
A-4
Appendix A
Headlight S.D. with 2 ft. Headlight and 0.5 ft. Object over the 2001 Example Vertical Curve:
The headlight sight distance to a 0.5 ft. object in the roadway is:
L
AS 2
100 2h1 2h 2
504
6S2
275
3.7 sec . 4.5 sec .
1.47(50)
The driver cannot see a 0.5 ft. object until he/she is 275 ft. away, with a required stopping sight
distance of 425 ft. The travel time of 3.7 sec. to the object is less than the required maneuver
time of 4.5 sec. to avoid the object.
Headlight S.D. to Pavement from Headlight over the 2001 Example Vertical Curve:
The distance from which the pavement can be seen is;
L
AS 2
100 2h1 2h 2
504
6S2
100 2 x 2.0 2x 0
183
2.5 sec . 4.5 sec .
1.47(50)
This provides time for the to perception / reaction time for design, but leaves no time for the
action to steer to avoid a condition in the pavement, such as, a pothole. The available time to
perceive, react and follow the lane comfortably is not sufficient.
A-5