IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 IMPROVER Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment Appendix D Subproject 4 Harmonisation of road signs and road marking on the TERN from a safety point of view INTERNAL DELIVERABLE REPORT WP 4.2Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN with the following partners: BASt Federal Highway Research Institute, Germany IS-V Ingenieurbro Siegener, Germany KTI Institute for Transport Sciences, Hungary LCPC Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses, France TIS.pt Consultores em Transportes Inovao e Sistemas, Portugal TRL Transport Research Laboratory Limited, United Kingdom VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 2SUMMARY This Work Package 4.2 continued the analysis of road signing differences initiated in theWorkPackage4.1bymeansofquestionnairesconcerningfourroadsigning aspects.TheaimoftheWP4.2wastoexamineandclassifytheneedsforfurther harmonisationofroadsigninginEU-countries.Theapproachfocusedontheroad users' point of view. Potentialsafetycriticaldifferencesinstandardtrafficsigns,directionsigns,road markingsandinstitutionalaspectsofroadsigningwerefirstidentified.Aframework for further evaluations of these differences were created based on: Different driver groups on the TERN; Drivers' information processing capabilities; The levels of driving task; Accordance with Vienna convention. Withthisframework,theevaluationsforharmonisationneedswereconductedas expertjudgementsandcomplementedwithrelevantresearchliterature.Finally, harmonisations needs were classified according to potential safety effects (i.e. driver behaviour having significance for traffic safety). From the traffic safety point of view, harmonisation and improvements in road signing are needed in the following main issues:Measuresdecreasinginformationoverloadinducedbydirectionsigns(sign positions, maximum number destinations and the size of inscriptions);The use of road and exit numbers as tactical and strategic level guidance tool; Extendingtheuseof''trafficcongestion''signtoeveryEU-countryinorderto prevent rear-end accidents Increasing in the sizes of triangular signs on motorways in some EU-countriesto ensure early detection of signs; Coherent signing in approach of motorway exits and roundabouts; Moreuniformroadmarkingsrelatedtoovertakingsituationsinorderto decrease unexpectedness (pre-signing system and the range of vision); Wideruseoffeedbackproducingroadmarkingsandimprovementsinthe night-time performance of road markings enhancing drivers' lane keeping task and optical guidance; Providing pre-trip information about the meaning of various signs and signing systems in the EU-countries e.g. by means of World Wide Web. Inordertomakethenecessarychangesefficientlythefollowinginstitutional improvements are needed: AEuropeanorganisationwhichcontinuouslydealswiththeissueofroad signing harmonisation on the TERN; Clear steps for transposing supra-national regulations to national level; Qualityassuranceofimplementation,inspectionandmaintenanceofroad signing systems on the TERN e.g. by means of systematic road safety audits. TheseevaluationswillbefurtherelaboratedinthefollowingWorkPackages.Work Package4.3willidentifyfeasiblemeasuresandestimatescostsassociatedwith possible changes; and the reduction in risk through best practise. Work Package 4.4 willformscenariosandrecommendationshowroadsigningdifferencesshouldbe harmonised.WorkPackage4.5willfindouttheinstitutionalsideoffuture harmonisation work. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 3CONTENTS 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5 1.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 The safety approach............................................................................................................. 6 1.2.1 Drivers ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2.2 Drivers' information processing........................................................................................... 7 1.2.3 Hierarchical levels of driving task........................................................................................ 8 1.2.4 Evaluation method............................................................................................................... 9 2 Standard traffic signs....................................................................................................................12 2.1 Differences in standard traffic signs with high safety effect ......................................... 13 2.1.1 ''Traffic congestion sign.................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Differences in standard traffic signs with medium safety effect................................... 13 2.2.1 Exit lane countdown marker signs..................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Signs in approach of a roundabout ................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 The sizes of triangular signs on motorways ...................................................................... 14 2.3 Differences in standard traffic signs with low safety effect........................................... 14 2.3.1 ''Priority road'' sign and additional panel indicating priority road....................................... 14 2.3.2 ''General speed limits'' sign ............................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Design of symbols used in signs....................................................................................... 15 2.4 Differences in standard traffic signs with a safety effect more applicable to roads outside the TERN...................................................................................................................... 16 2.4.1 ''One-way'' sign.................................................................................................................. 16 2.4.3 Signs in the immediate vicinity or at approaches to level crossings ................................. 16 2.4.4 ''Pedestrian crossing'' signs............................................................................................... 17 3 Direction signs...............................................................................................................................18 3.1 Differences in direction signs with high safety effect .................................................... 19 3.1.1 Sign positions .................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Road numbers................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Road numbers as a destination......................................................................................... 21 3.1.4 Number/name of motorway intersection and number/name of motorway exit.................. 21 3.1.5 Maximum number of destinations at motorway exits ........................................................ 22 3.1.6 Maximum number of destinations for main road junctions................................................ 24 3.2 Differences in direction signs with medium safety effect.............................................. 25 3.2.1 Size of characters: Motorway and main roads.................................................................. 25 3.3 Differences in direction signs with low safety effect...................................................... 25 3.3.1 The use of the motorway symbol in direction signs outside motorways ........................... 25 3.3.2 Pictograms used in direction signs on motorways ............................................................ 25 3.3.3 Nationality symbol for foreign countries ............................................................................ 27 3.3.4 Foreign destinations .......................................................................................................... 27 3.3.5 Bi-lingual signs .................................................................................................................. 28 3.3.6 Background colour............................................................................................................. 28 3.3.7 Determination of destination names and arrangement of the destinations....................... 29 4 Road markings...............................................................................................................................30 4.1 Differences in road markings with high safety effect..................................................... 31 4.1.1 Pre-signing system and the relationship between range of vision and the approach speed used................................................................................................................................. 31 4.1.2 Retro-reflective materials .................................................................................................. 33 4.1.3 Night-time visibility in wet conditions................................................................................. 33 4.1.4 Profiled road markings ...................................................................................................... 33 4.1.5 Standardisation.................................................................................................................. 34 4.1.6 Marking of reverse three-lanes roads................................................................................ 35 4.2 Differences in road markings with medium safety effect............................................... 36 4.2.1 Dimensions and use of broken lines ................................................................................. 36 4.2.2 Hard shoulders .................................................................................................................. 37 4.2.3 Separation between opposite flows in dual-carriageways ................................................ 37 4.3 Differences in road markings with low safety effect ...................................................... 38 4.3.1 Transverse line indicating points at which drivers must GIVE WAY................................. 38 4.3.2 Width of edge lines............................................................................................................ 38 4.3.3 Arrows, word and number markings.................................................................................. 39 4.3.4 Road studs ........................................................................................................................ 39 IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 45 General remark and conclusion concerning diversity in standard traffic signs, direction signs and road markings .................................................................................................................41 6 Institutional scenario.....................................................................................................................42 6.1 Differences in institutional scenarios .............................................................................. 43 6.1.1 Supra-National Representation......................................................................................... 43 6.1.2 Production of National Regulations................................................................................... 44 6.1.3 Production of local regulations .......................................................................................... 46 6.1.4 Physical implementation.................................................................................................... 47 7 Classification of harmonisation needs........................................................................................52 8 References......................................................................................................................................54 IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 51. Introduction 1.1 Background ThisWorkPackage4.2continuestheworkdoneinWP4.1whichconsistedofthe literaturereviewconcerningharmonisationworkonsupra-nationallevel,and questionnaires concerning different aspects of road signs and road markings in EU-countries(Fig.1).TheWP4.2startedattheworkshopwherepartnersidentified preliminarily key areas for harmonisation based on the material from WP 4.1. Classification of harmonisation needsReview of harmonisation; Survey of signing practices on the TERNIdentification of safety critical and institutional aspectsAssessments in the reduction of risk; Estimations of probable costs and benefitsIdentification ofmeasures in different time spansPriorisation of harmonisation needs and measuresImplementation paths of scenarios and recommendationsWP 4.1DataCollectionWP 4.2HarmonisationNeedsWP 4.3Cost EstimationWP 4.4Harmonisation ScenariosWP 4.5EU actionsEvaluations of safety effects due to differences in road signingTargets for safe and cost effective harmonisationInstitutional framework Fig.1.RelationoftheWP4.2"HarmonisationNeedsIdentification"withother project tasks. WP 4.2 focused on the road users' point of view. This included evaluation of possible problemsduetodifferencesinimplementationandtechnicalfunctionalityofsigns. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 6Furthermore,roaduser'scapacitytocopewithdifferencesinroadsigningwhen crossing boundaries was considered. This was closely related to design and meaning ofsigns.Finally,harmonisationneedswereclassifiedfromthesafetypointofview. Thus, the aim of the WP 4.2 was to investigate the needs for further harmonisation of road signs and markings. WP4.2formsthebasisfortherestofWPs,wherecostandsafetybenefitswillbe assessed (WP 4.3); scenarios for harmonisation will be created (WP 4.4); and finally institutional actions will be suggested to make the necessary adjustments to the road signing on the TERN (WP 4.5). 1.2 The safety approach Trafficsafetyisinfluencedbythreefactors:exposure,accidentrate(accidentrisk) andinjuryseverity(Nilsson,2004;ElvikandVaa,2004).Roadsignsandmarkings may affect accident risk and injury severity if they have an effect on driver behaviour (e.g.Horberryetal.,2004).Forexample,comprehensionofnon-localsignscan sometimesbeverylow,evenoppositemisinterpretationsoftheirtruemeaningare possible (Shinar et al., 2003). On the other hand, the safety effects of road signs and markings are rarely measurable by accident studies as the crashes are relatively rare events.Specifically,theonlyreliableaccidentstatisticsareavailableforthefatal accidents. However, the numbers of those accidents are too low to reveal almost any effectofroadsignsormarkings.Thus,thefollowingevaluationofpotentialsafety effects of road signs and markings will be based exclusively on the effects on driver behaviour. 1.2.1 Drivers The general approach for safety and harmonisation evaluations is mainly the foreign drivers point of view. However, depending on drivers' nationality and destination they can be divided onto following groups using TERN (Table 1): Table 1. Driver groups on the TERN. DriverEntrance to the TERN Driving on the TERN Exit from the TERN DomesticGroup 1Group 2Group 3 ForeignGroup 4Group 5Group 6 Driverscannaturallybelongmanyofthesegroupsalonghisorherjourney. Nevertheless, in each group, requirements for road signing of TERN may differ from each other. Two basic differentiating factors between drivers are the language used insignsandtheunfamiliaritywiththeroadsigningsystem.Bothcanincreasethe drivingtaskdemandsaccordingtotrafficsituation.Although,thisstudyfocuseson foreigndrivergroups4-6,thedomesticdrivergroups1-3havetobeconsideredin order to check that the TERN and national system do not conflict. Driversmaynotonlydifferbecauseoftheirknowledgeconcerningtheroadsigning system, but also because of their driving capabilities. The proportion of older drivers inroadtrafficisincreasingallaroundEurope(EuropeanConferenceofMinistersof IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 7Transport,2001).Age-relateddeclineindrivingabilities(e.g.McKnightand McKnight, 1999; Simes, 2001) may cause safety problems, especially, on unfamiliar roadswheretheamountofinformationcanexceedthecapabilitiesofthedriver.Of course,thisconcernstheaveragedrivertoo.Thus,accidentpreventionstrategies shouldfocusoncriticalmismatchesbetweendrivingtaskdemandsanddriver capability (Fuller, 2005). 1.2.2 Drivers' information processing Driving is mainly based on visual information input. There can be many sorts of visual informationbutroadsignsandroadmarkingsareimportantbecausetheycan provide relevant information for the driver to execute his or her tasks. Therefore, road signingmayconstituteanimportantroadsafetyfactor.Thecharacteristicsofroad signing may have negative effects on traffic safety in the following cases (e.g. Castro and Horberry, 2004): The driver does not detect the sign/marking; The driver is not able to identify the sign/marking properly; The driver does not understand the sign/marking; The driver does not have enough time to (a) decide and (b) take the action(s) needed; The sign/marking does not meet drivers expectations; The signs message is not heeded by the driver (does not change behaviour); The information in the sign is wrong / inappropriate; The driver does not remember the sign for a necessary time. Basedonthesecriteria,specificevaluationswillbeconductedthatprovide information whether and to which degree the differences in road signing between EU-member states are safety relevant. In order to avoid the above safety problems, several criteria must be met for symbolic signstobeeffective.Dewar(1999)providesgeneralguidelinesforthedesignof publicinformationsymbols.Theseguidelinesareutilisedinthefollowingforthe designofsymbolictrafficsigns.Initially,thesignmustcommandattentionorbe easilydetectedbythedriver.Thetrafficsignsusuallymeetthiscriterionrelatively well if standardised colours and shapes have been used. The signs must be legible at the appropriate distance and must be legible when seen for a brief time or under adverse viewing conditions (e.g. low illumination, glare etc). Giventhatthetrafficsignsbuildasetincludingseveralrelativelysimilarvisual objects, they must also be distinguishable from each other. In addition to the legibility of an individual sign, the driver is expected to detect and identify all traffic signs that are relevant for his or her driving task. On the other hand, the road environment frequently includes too much information for drivers to allocate his or her attention sufficiently to all directions needed (e.g. Cohen, 1987; Luoma and Janson 1990). Information overload is especially high in unfamiliar environments which also results in high accident risk (Engels and Dellen, 1989). Too frequentsigningisaparticularproblemthathasbeenrecognisedforyears.The density of traffic signs and the amount of information provided by the direction signs IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 8istoohighinsomelocations.Consequently,trafficsafetymaydecreasedueto increasing difficulties in the acquisition and processing of relevant traffic information, and thereby result in hazardous behaviour. Some road authorities have guidelines for the maximum number of signs on one pole and the maximum number of destinations in direction signs as well as the minimum distance between signs. However, in most cases these guidelines are not based on any scientific evaluation. Ifthedriverhasdetectedasignandidentifiedthesigntypeandthesymbol,hisor hertaskistointerpretthemessageofthesign.Ingeneral,boththesigntypeand symbolmustbeclearlyunderstoodandtheactiontobetakeninresponsetothe message should be immediately obvious.Comprehension has been assessed to be themostimportantdesigncriterionfortrafficsignpictograms,followedby conspicuity,reactiontimeandlegibilitydistancealthoughnoempiricalevidenceis available (Dewar, 1988). AsDewar(1999)underlines,thesevariouscriteriacanbeinconflict.Forexample, thespecificfeaturesofsymbolsincreasetheirunderstanding.Atthesametime, however,thelegibilitymaydecrease(Luoma,1981).Thisconflictsuggeststhata sequential-componentapproachtosigndesignandmodificationtoenhanceboth legibilityandunderstandingshouldbeapplied(Dewar,1999).However,itmustbe notedthatroadsigninformationtransmissionmayalsoincludeunconscious, automatic processes affecting on driver behaviour (Crundal et al., 2001). 1.2.3 Hierarchical levels of driving task The driver's basic task is to drive the vehicle safely from A to B. In order to perform this task information processing is needed at three levels of driving tasks (Fig.2). AutomaticAction PatternsControlledAction PatternsStrategic levelManoeuvring LevelControl LevelTime ConstantLongsecsmsecRouteSpeed CriteriaFeedback CriteriaEnvironmentalInputEnvironmentalInputGeneralPlans Fig. 2. The levels of driving task (Michon 1985). Strategiclevelcomprisesthegeneralplanningofatrip,routeandmodalchoice. Manoeuvringlevelincludescontrolledactionpatternssuchasturninginan IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 9intersection,overtaking,interactionwithotherroadusersetc.Thetimetakenfor theseactionsisshort,typicallyseconds.However,operationaltasksneeddecision makingeveninshortertime,milliseconds.Thislevelofdecision-makingincludes vehicle control, i.e. keeping to a lane, steering and braking etc. 1.2.4 Evaluation method Data ThebasisfortheworkwastheInternalDeliverablereport:''Tasks4.1.2and4.1.3: Data Collection and Analysis at a National Level'' which presented the distribution of responsesconcerningdifferentaspectsofroadsigninginEU-countries(standard trafficsigns,directionsigns,roadmarkingsandinstitutionalscenariosofroad signing).Fig.3presentsthemapofcountriesthatrespondeddatacollection.In addition,researchliterature,relevanttothedifferenceswasgatheredbytheproject team.Earlierreportsonharmonisationworkandresearchonsupra-nationallevel presented in the Interim Report were also used as background information. Fig. 3. Countries that responded to the survey. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 10 Procedure for evaluation differences in road signingAsimpactsofroadsigningonthenumberofaccidentsarehardtoderivedirectly, safetyevaluationswerebasedonpotentialhazardsinroaduserbehaviourdueto differencesinroadsigning(Horberryetal.,2004).Theseexpertjudgements consistedoftwomainphases.Firstpotentialsafetycriticaldifferencesinstandard traffic signs, direction signs, road markings and institutional scenarios of road signing wereidentifiedattheworkshopbytheprojectteam.Inaddition,inthecaseof standardtrafficsignsaspecialfilteranalysisofanswerswasconductedtofindout potentially safety relevant combinations. Secondly,aframeworkfortheanalysisofthesedifferenceswasformedinorderto examine the harmonisation needs. It was based on: Different driver groups on TERN (Table 1); Drivers' information processing capabilities; The levels of driving task (Fig. 1); Accordance with Vienna convention (this was a clear criteria coming from the previousreportswhichinsistedontheuseofUNECEConventionsand Agreements as the foundations of the TERN). InitialanalysisbyVTTwasgiventotheotherpartnersforextraanalysesand comment. Finally, VTT added this additional information from the other partners and producedthereport.Thisprocessyieldedbackgroundinformationforconclusions about harmonisation needs. Classification of safety effects Afterevaluationofroadsigningdifferences,theywereclassifiedintothreesafety levelsbasedonevaluationsfromthefirstframeworkThus,theassessmentwas basedondriverbehaviouraleffectsasdirectaccidentdatabasedindicatorwasnot available.Thefollowingclassificationdidnottakeintoaccountdrivercomfortand related factors, only the behaviour having significance for traffic safety: 1.Effect on behaviour high; 2.Medium, behavioural safety implications; 3.Low, no major behavioural safety effects.In addition, the quality each evaluation was assessed on a scale: ***based on literature and expert judgement; **based on expert judgement and some literature; *based primarily on expert judgement or design convention. This classification produced the first list of harmonisation needs (Fig. 4). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 11Evaluation of differences in road signingBackground for conclusionConclusion about harmonisation needClassification of safety effectIII Fig.4. The analysis in WP4.2. Structure of the textEach safety issue was presented with the following structure: a) Description of the difference between countries.This section presents the potential safety critical differences identified by partners in aworkshopwherethesurveyreportconcerningdifferencesinroadsigningamong EU-countries was discussed question by question. b) Conclusion about the harmonisation needs.Conclusions for each safety issue are presented in order to give reader a possibility toquicklyfindthemainpointsandsafetypriorities.Takingintoaccountthe comments by the representatives' from most countries, extreme care should be taken inproposingwholesaleharmonisationinmanyroadsignsandmarkings.Itis acknowledged that the harmonisation is not a value as such. c) Background for conclusion.Conclusionsweredrawnbasedonthebackgroundframeworkdescribedindetailin chapters 1.2.1-1.2.3 and accordance with Vienna Convention. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 122 Standard traffic signs TheViennaConventiononRoadSignsandSignals(1968)dividestrafficsignsinto differentcategories.Basedonthisdistributionofsigns,thestandardtrafficsigns questionnaire dealt with traffic signs from the following categories: Danger warning signs;Priority signs; Prohibitory or restriction signs; Mandatory signs; Special regulation signs; Indication signs; Othercategoriesoftrafficsignswerenotcoveredbecausetheywereassessedas lessimportantwithrespecttotrafficsafetyortheyweretreatedseparatelybecause of different demands (i.e. direction signs). Thequestionnairecontainedquestionsconcerningthedesignandmeaningofeach trafficsigntakenfromtheViennaConvention(includingtheiruniquereference number and meaning):Question 1: Is the sign shown part of your official traffic sign collection? Question 2: Does the sign have the same meaning or obligation in your country? Question3:Doyouuseanothersignlookingdifferentlytheoneshownbutwiththe same meaning? If the answer is YES, mark the aspect that is different (shape, colour, other) Tofindoutdifferencesinanswersthatmighthavesafetyconsequences,a preselection of answers was conducted by means of filter analysis. The combinations ofanswersforeachgiventrafficsignwereanalysed.Table2showsthedifferent possibilities. Table 2. The combinations of answers. QuestionPotentially safety relevant answer combinations Q1YesNoYesNoNoNoNoNo Q2Yes-No----- Q3NoYes (other) NoYes (colour) Yes (shape) Yes (2 differ-ences) Yes (3 differ-ences) No 123456 Thenumbersfrom1to6showthepotentiallysafetyrelevantcombinations(1, differenceinmeaning;2-5,differenceindesign;6,signisnotimplemented).Signs with combinations of answers on the left side of the line are assumed not to have a safetyeffect.AppendixD1containsalistofpotentiallysafetyrelevantcombinations from the filter analysis and the detailed results by country.The most safety relevant combinationswerechosenbelowwiththeframeworkdescribedinchapter1.In addition, a comparison of sizes of signs was included (appendix D2). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 13Generally,thetrafficsigncollectionofIrelanddiffersclearlythemostfromother EuropeancountriesandViennaConvention.However,theIrisharegoingthrough some major signing changes currently. 2.1 Differences in standard traffic signs with high safety effect 2.1.1 ''Traffic congestion sign InHungaryandIrelandthedangerwarningsigntoindicatetrafficcongestionisnot implemented (A24). Conclusion ThesignshouldbeusedontheTERNtowarnroaduseriftrafficcongestion occurs.Sincetrafficcongestionistemporaryphenomena,itisreasonableto use the traffic congestion sign as a dynamic variable message sign and not as a static sign which is meant as a permanent arrangement. Background Many rear-end accidents are, at least partly, attributed to traffic congestion (Kujirai & Matano,1998;McCartt,Northrup&Retting,2004.Therefore,theuseofthedanger warning sign traffic congestion may contribute traffic safety. This counts particularly for high-speed roads with much traffic and high probabilities for traffic congestion.

2.2 Differences in standard traffic signs with medium safety effect 2.2.1 Exit lane countdown marker signsTen of 16 countries do not use signs notifying an exit on a motorway (G22a-c). Conclusion As motorways carry high-speed traffic the beginning of the exit lane should be indicated in appropriate distances. Background These signs indicate a distance to the exit from motorway. This advance information may improve driver's manoeuvring task and prevent swooping accidents.

2.2.2 Signs in approach of a roundabout (D3)(A22) IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 14InEuropedifferentsignsandsigncombinationsareusedtoindicateroundabouts (eitherwithorwithouttheaboveshowndangerwarningsignA22).Austria,France and Ireland have not implemented the mandatory sign compulsory roundabout (D3) that prescribes the direction to turn. Conclusion Forroundabouts,withpriorityfortrafficmovinginside,itisrecommendedto use the sign compulsory roundabout D3 combined with the sign give way B1inimmediatevicinityoftheroundabout.Aseparatedangerwarningisnot necessary. Instead, the give way sign can be announced, if needed. Background Roundabouts with the same priority rules should have the same signs in approach to meetdrivers'expectations.Thus,misunderstandingsconcerningpriorityrulesand the direction to turn, when entering the roundabout, can be avoided best. 2.2.3 The sizes of triangular signs on motorways The length of one side in triangular signs is in Portugal 700 or 900 mm and in Cyprus 900mmwhileinotherEuropeancountriesitis1000mm.Spainhasthebiggest triangular signs with the size of 1750 mm on motorways. (See appendix D2 for more details). Conclusion Astheearlyrecognitionoftriangulardangerwarningsignsissafetyrelevant on motorways with high-speed traffic, their size should be at least 1000 mm. Background Timeforrecognising,readingandunderstandingasignwhileapproachingdepends on the driving speed and the size of the sign. To ensure that available time is enough for perception process signs must have appropriate dimensions. According to Vienna Convention900mmisthesizefornormalsizedsignswhenvehiclesdrivewith normal speed. However, on motorways high speeds decrease the time available for roadsignperception.Byincreasingthesizesofsigns,abetterlegibilitycanbe achieved and also the range between the biggest and the smallest signs is reduced among EU-countries. 2.3 Differences in standard traffic signs with low safety effect 2.3.1 ''Priority road'' sign and additional panel indicating priority road (B3)(H8) IrelandandUKdonothavethesignforpriorityroad(B3).Inaddition,Cyprus, DenmarkandIrelandhavenotimplementedtheadditionalsigntoindicatepriority road (H8) at intersection. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 15Conclusion Thepriorityroadsignshouldbeusedtoindicatepriorityintheimmediate vicinityofmajorintersections.Ifapplicable,theadditionalpanelindicating priority road should be arranged to improve road user guidance. Background Thesignpriorityroadintheimmediateapproachofanintersectionhelpstoavoid misunderstandingsconcerningpriorityrules.Ifthepriorityroaddoesnotcontinue straight ahead at an intersection, the guidance of the road user can be improved by using the additional panel indicating that priority road makes a turn. This clarifies the intersection driving task. Thus, it gives useful advance information that the unfamiliar driver can use, when negotiating through an intersection. 2.3.2 ''General speed limits'' sign UK and Ireland do not have the general speed limits signs (G14). Conclusion Understanding of prevailing speed limits is central information for safe driving. Therefore,thegeneralspeedlimitsignsshouldbeshownonTERNwhen crossing boundaries. Background Speeding is one of the most common risk factors behind fatal accidents (e.g. ETSC 1995). However, speed limits vary on European roads depending on the type of road and whether the road is inside or outside built-up areas. Sign G14 informs road users about the general speed limits in the entered state. If this information is missing, the driver may use speeds which are above the limit for safe driving. 2.3.3 Design of symbols used in signs In the most of the EU-states the design/style of symbols used in traffic signs has not beenreworkedonalargescalesincesignswerefirstestablished.Theearly symbolism of pictograms showing persons or vehicles comprises quite many specific features(e.g.personswearbags,womanweardresses,cyclesareequippedwith pedals).Ontheotherhand,atleastfivecountrieshavereworkedthedesignof symbols to improve understanding and legibility by creating design that concentrates on the main specific features.

Conclusion IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 16Many countries use symbols comprising a lot of specific features. This makes legibility more difficult, particularly from greater distances. The aim should be tooptimiseboththeunderstandingaswellasthelegibilityofsigns.Forthat thesymbolsshouldbesimplydesignedandlimitedonthemostimportant characteristics of features. Background Thesymbolsinstandardtrafficsignshavetobelegibleandunderstandableinthe availabletime.Thepotentialconflictbetweenthesecriteriahasalreadybeen mentionedinchapter1.2.2.Byshowingmorespecificfeaturestoimprove understanding,oneeasilygetsanegativeeffectforlegibilityofasymboland consequently for the whole sign perception. 2.4 Differences in standard traffic signs with a safety effect more applicable to roads outside the TERN The foreign driver on the TERN enters likely the national road network in other country as his or hers own at some stage. Therefore, in the following, three safety related differences concerning more the road network outside the TERN were brought out. However, as these differences are rare (or none) on the TERN, they are not dealt in the further parts of the project.

2.4.1 ''One-way'' sign Belgium, France, UK, Ireland and Portugal have not implemented the ''one-way'' sign with the arrow across (E3b) that is arranged for turning in road user. Conclusion The''one-way''signshouldbeusedinordertoguidedriverstoturntothe correct direction and prevent wrong-way driving. Background ''One-way''signindicatesimportantinformationtothedriverthataone-wayroadis enteredandinwhichdirectiontodrive.Anymisunderstandingmayhaveserious consequences.However,theone-waysignisassumablemoreapplicableforurban roads than for TERN. 2.4.3 Signs in the immediate vicinity or at approaches to level crossings (A28a) (A29a-c) ThesurveyrevealedthatIrelandistheonlycountrythatdoesnotusetheSt. AndrewsCross.InPortugalitisnotused,whencrossinghasaguard.Besides,in IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 17Belgium and Ireland the additional signs that show the distance to the level-crossing (A29a-c) are not implemented. Conclusion A consistent signalling in approach of at-grade level crossings through Europe meetsdrivers'expectationsbest.ThisincludestheexistenceofSt.Andrews Cross (e.g. for the case of any technical problem or a missing guard) as well as additional signs that show the distance to the level-crossing. Background Duetohugemassdifference,accidentbetweencarandtrainoftenhassevere consequences.Afirstmeasuretoavoidsuchaccidentsistoannounceandmark level-crossingsconsistently,sotheroadusercanadaptanappropriatedriving behaviour.Especially,at-gradelevel-crossingswithoutanytechnicalsafetydevice are safety critical when the detection of train only depends on vehicle driver. 2.4.4 ''Pedestrian crossing'' signs (A12a) (E12a) MostcountriesusethedangerwarningsignA12atoindicateapedestriancrossing as well as the special indication sign E12a in immediate vicinity of the crossing. In UK and Ireland sign E12a is not established. Conclusion ''PedestriancrossingsignE12ashouldbeusedinimmediatevicinityofa pedestrian crossing, so the driver is aware of pedestrians who might cross the road.Ifneedede.g.duetopoorvisibility,thedangerwarningsigncanbe arranged in appropriate distance. Background The driver is probably more likely to miss the pedestrian crossing if the ''pedestrian crossing'' signs are not used.IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 18 3 Direction signs Direction signs must help the road user to find his/her route (direction and lane) in the availabletime(dependingonspeedandhisreactioncapabilities).Thedesignof directionsignsmayhaveimpactsonsafetyinmanyways.Althoughdirectionsigns aremeanttodirectlyinfluencetheroutefinding(i.e.strategiclevel),thedecisions take place at the manoeuvring and control level. Typically, if the information acquisition or processing dealing with the direction signs isdelayedforareasonoranother,thedriverismorelikelythanusuallytomake abrupt manoeuvring such as sudden lane changes, turns or braking that may result in hazardoussituations.Consequently,itisassumedthatfactorssuchasthecorrect identificationandunderstandingoftheinformationareofimportanceaswellas sufficient time to decide and take the actions needed. In addition, an important factor withacloseconnectiontopotentialharmonisationneedsisthatthedirectionsigns havetomeetdriversexpectationswhichhaveremarkableeffectsondriver perception(e.g.Hills,1980;Theeuwes&Hagenzieker,1993).Specifically,drivers havedevelopedcertainprinciples(models)ofwheretherelevantandnecessary information is to be obtained (Luoma, 1986). The relevant signs in the Vienna Convention are advance direction signs G,1a to G,1c , the direction signs G,4a; G,4b; G,4c; G,5 to G,6b and confirmatory signs G,10. The signs for direction signing in Europe partly differ from the pictures in the Vienna Convention.Inaddition,therearenoexamplesforoverheadsigns,announcement signsoradvancesignsforroundaboutsintheViennaConvention.Thepicturesdo notshowtheshapeofarrowsforroadapproacheswithseparatedleftorrightturn lanes. The pictures in the Vienna Convention only show which elements can be used on a direction sign. These are for example: 1.Road numbers; 2.Written destinations; 3.Pictograms; 4.Distances up to a destination; 5.Arrows for the direction of a destination; 6.Different background colours. Thedirectionsignsquestionnaire(partofWorkPackage4.1)dealtprimarilywith these elements. It included also the use of the E-number according to the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) from 1975. ThedocumentationintheRightwayproject(Finalreport2001)showedthatthe direction signing in many countries in Europe is not always consistent. Therefore this surveyalsoconsideredtherulesregardingdirectionsigningintheEuropean countries. Thequestionnairerequestedinformationoneitherstandardisednormplansor pictures (photos or drawings) for signs normally used. The review focused on five different types of intersections: IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 19 1.Approach road on a motorway intersection (on grade-separated intersection on motorways); 2.Motorway exit (exit on grade-separated intersection on motorways with a lower class road); 3.Motorway entry (on grade-separated intersection on main road with a motorway). The motorway should belong to the E-road network (based on AGR, 1975). If there are no motorways main roads (E-road) with on grade-separated intersections should be included; 4.Road approach on a main road junction (at-grade intersection on main roads); 5.Approach road to a roundabout on main roads. The number of messages and the size of lettering are important for the legibility and understanding. Therefore these aspects were also included in the questionnaire. An additionalquestiondealtwiththevisibility(lightingthesignsand/orusingretro reflective foil). 3.1 Differences in direction signs with high safety effect 3.1.1 Sign positionsIt seems that some countries are lacking norm plans for sign positions. The received plans also differ in the layout and contents. Consequently, comparisons can be made to a limited extent. The rules for the number and positions of direction signs showed awidevariation(e.g.thefirstadvancedirectionsignorannouncementsignlocate between 1,000-2,000 m, see appendixes D3 and D4). (Questions 2.2.1 2.2.5). Conclusion Asunexpectedsignpositionsmayhavenegativeeffectsondriverbehaviour, theharmonisationneedforthemishigh.Eachcountryshouldhavenorm plans for typical intersections with a similar layout and contents. At least basic rules should be defined, in order to get a better harmonisation for the number andpositionofthedestinationsigns.Theyshouldbeconsideredforthe national norm plans specially for intersections and exits on motorways. However, no individual country can design the harmonised norm plans without generalguidelines.Therefore,aharmonisednormplanattheEuropeanlevel should be designed. Background The harmonised positions and numbers of destination signs at junctions can help the roaduserformanoeuvringalthoughthereisnospecificscientificbackgroundwhich of the existing different rules in the European countries should be recommended. In general, it is expected that the sign positioning that meets driver expectations is likely toimprovetheinformationacquisitionandprocessing(fromdetectiontoaction)as well as decision making at the manoeuvring and control level (see e.g. Luoma, 1986; Theeuwes&Hagenzieker,1993).Particularly,theharmonisedsignpositionwould benefit foreign drivers (groups 4-6). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 20FirstrecommendationsformotorwayintersectionsarementionedintheSTART ReportandintheAITandFIAReport(1.and2.ReportintheInterimReport).But eventhoserecommendationsdiffer.Fortheentrancetomotorwaystherearealso recommendations in the above mentioned AIT and FIA Report. FormainroadsAITandFIAReportprovidesomegeneralrecommendations(3. ReportintheInterimReport).Itisrequired,thatanadvanceinformationonthe overalllayoutoftheapproachhastobegiveninacertaindistance.Thereisno harmonisedruleinEuropeforthisrequirement.Sometimesthelanesatthe intersectionareshownonadvancedirectionsigns,sometimesonadditionalsigns and sometimes not at all. TheroundaboutsaredifferentinEuropeancountriesandthebestdesignofthe advancedirectionsignsforthemisnotknown.However,thereexistsno recommendation so far. Evenifitwillbedifficulttodefinethebestrulesforthenumberandpositionsof direction signs a harmonisation should be recommended. It is reasonable to assume that a uniform system would help drivers on the TERN and thereby the traffic safety is likely to be improved.

3.1.2 Road numbersEachcountrythatresponded,exceptEstonia,FinlandandLatvia,havespecial numbersformotorways.All17countrieshavenumbersfortheprimaryroad.The colours and size of numbers differ extremely except for the E-number. In addition, the use of E-number in directions signs varies across Europe. E.g. eleven countries out of17showtheE-numberonconfirmatorysignsonmotorwayexits.Butonlyfourof countries show E-number in announcement signs. (Questions 2.2.6 2.2.9). Conclusion Theharmoniseduseofroadnumberswouldlikelytoimprovetrafficsafety, becausedriverdecisionmakingatthestrategicandtacticallevelwouldbe enhanced(thepotentialbehaviouraleffectishigh).Giventhecurrentdiverse use of road numbers, however, the harmonisation should first focus on the use of E-numbers. Background It is reasonable to assume that the numbers are an efficient way to inform about the destinationasthenumbersareshortmessagescomparedtowords(i.e.ahigh legibility)(JrvenpandLuoma,1982;Janssen,1986).Thus,thegeneral harmonisationofroadnumberscouldimprovetrafficsafety,althoughthereisno direct evidence available. Furthermore,thesurveyresultsshowedthattheE-numberisalreadyusedinmost countries but not in the harmonised way (i.e. not on the same destination signs). This calls a harmonised practise. The E-number could be shown on all direction signs (on E-roads, which cross at least one border). This practise is expected to be useful for the driver groups 5 and 6 and can improve navigational planning and manoeuvrings. CrundalandUnderwood(2001)advocatedtherepetitiveuseofroadsignsas informationtransmissionconsistnotonlyofconsciousprocessingbutalso IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 21unconscious (automatic) processing with experience of the context.They noted that: ''Driversmaymodifytheirdrivingbehaviour(suchasdecreaseinspeed)without being able to consciously recall doing so on the basis of a traffic sign (e.g. Hkkinen, 1965; Summala and Hietamki 1984)''. 3.1.3 Road numbers as a destinationFourteenoutof17countrieswhichrespondeduseroadnumbersasadestination. However, the design of number signing differs among countries. The diverse use of roadnumbersasadestination(Fig.5)mayresultincomprehensionproblems, especially among foreign drivers. (Question 2.2.11). Road number with dashed line AustriaFinlandGermany It indicates that Endsbury is reached via the A133 HungarySwedenUK Fig. 5. Examples of road numbers as a destination. Conclusion Theuseofroadnumbersasadestinationneedsharmonisationastheycan efficientlyguideparticularlyforeigndrivers.Specifically,theroadnumbersas adestinationshouldbeusedineverycountryandthenumbersusedasa destination should have a similar layout (e.g. dashed lines as in Finland). Background As noted earlier the numbers are an efficient way to inform about the destination as thenumbersareshortmessagescomparedtowords.Inaddition,thelanguage problemwithdrivergroups4-6disappears.However,theforeigndriverscanutilise this practise efficiently only if the use and layout is harmonised. 3.1.4 Number/name of motorway intersection and number/name of motorway exit Numberingornamingthemotorwayintersectionsandexitsindifferentkindof directionsignsshowedalargevariationbetweenEU-countries.Ninecountriesuse IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 22numbers for motorway intersections and for motorway exits fifteen out of 16 countries (Thisisinfact16outof16countriesasexitnumberinghasstartedonEroadsin Swedentoo).However,thespecificpracticesdiffer:numbersarenotshownonthe sametypeofdirectionsigns(e.g.notonadvancedirectionsignsinGermany).Six out of 14 countries have always a name for motorway intersections and five countries for motorway exits. (Questions 2.2.12 2.2.18).

Conclusion The use of names at the motorway intersections/exits might be convenient for domestic (local) drivers but it is hard to find any safety benefit in that practice. Consequently,theuseofnumbersispreferred,especiallybecausemost countries have applied that practice. In addition, it is important that the use of numbersshouldbeharmonised.Forexample,allexitsshouldhavenumbers andtheyshouldbeshownon all signs (i.e. advance direction signs, direction signs). They should be preceded by a symbol and positioned at the same place (perhaps at the top on the right side) so they could be easily recognized. The exit numbers should be shown in road maps and in-vehicle route guidance systems.Inthiscase,roadnumberscanhelpnavigationaltaskandoffer guidance for the driver groups 5-6 and also 2-3. Background The easy identification of the motorway intersection would enhance driver decision making at the tactical level. However, the use of exit numbers and names is too variable among EU-countries for providing easily identifiable information. The harmonised and systematic use of exit numbers might ease the driver tasks. The exitnumbersarelikelyeasiertorememberthannames,especiallyfortheforeign drivers.Thewidespreaduseofexitnumbersinroadmapswouldreinforcethe advantages of that system. The information by numbers and names is important inpre-tripplanningasthesenumbersandnamesaremanytimesindicatedinroad maps too. From the foreign drivers point of view names are probably more difficult to rememberandtouseinnavigationasnumbers.Therefore,asystembasedon numbers would probably to be more understandable. 3.1.5 Maximum number of destinations at motorway exitsNearly all countries allow six or less destinations (in total) according to their rules (Table 3). Nine countries out of 15 responded said that it was rare that the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than allowed. Five out of the 15 countries responding said that occasionally the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed. One (United Kingdom) out of the 15 countries responding said that often the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed. (Questions 2.2.29 2.2.30). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 23Table 3. Maximum number of destinations on motorway exits. Maximum number of destinations for motorway exits

Austria Belgium Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK announcement sign3 415 33 advance direction signstraight direction3 313322233 3 exit direction3 34422243343 total5 64 5754466646 direction signstraight direction04 322203 exit direction2 3 43224334total2 34 446446364confirmatory sign 4 34 3434524345 In practicehigher than allowednorareX XXXX XX X occasional X XXX XoftenX Conclusion Timely identification of destinations is highly safety critical on TERN. Thus, the number of destinations should be limited. However, no specific guidelines are given as science-based research results are missing. Background Researchoninformationoverloadhasshownthatthedirectionsignsfrequently includetoomuchinformationfordriverstoidentifyeverythingneeded(Agg,1994; Luoma and Harjula, 2000). Particularly for foreign drivers, the number of destinations should not be too high. For example, Agg (1994) suggested that the UK letter height table(ofthattime)isappropriateforsignswithuptosixdestinations.Basedon tentativeresultsoftheirlaboratoryexperiments,LuomaandHarjula(2000) recommended that the maximum number of destinations, road signs or road numbers shouldnotbemorethan11,8or6ifthepostedspeedlimitis60,80or100km/h, respectively. However, these recommendations cover limited areas of the issue and it isreasonabletoconcludethattherearenoscience-basedguidelinesforthe maximumnumberofdestinationsindifferentsituations(e.g.dependingonspeed limit,fontsizeandtypeetc.).Therefore,thisissueshouldbeinvestigatedsothata recommendation for the maximum number can be given. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 24 3.1.6 Maximum number of destinations for main road junctionsTheallowedtotalnumbersofdestinations(straight+leftturn+rightturn)varies between 3 and 10 destinations with the highest percentage for 4 and 6 destinations (Table4).However,sixoutofthe16countriesresponding(37%)saidthat occasionallytheactualnumberofdestinationswashigherinpracticethanthat allowed.Fiveoutofthe16countriesresponding(31%)saidthatoftentheactual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed. (Questions 2.2.31 2.2.32). Table 4. Maximum number of destinations on main roads. Maximum number of destinations for main roads

Austria Belgium Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK announcement sign3 3-4 4 6 3advance direction signstraight direction3 3 31432 2332for a left turn3 3 32432 4332for a right turn3 3 32432 4332total9 949510644106 66 direction signstraight direction4 0 30432032for a left turn4 3 32432 4332for a right turn4 3 32432 4332total8 649410544103 66 confirmatory sign 3443 345 43 6 In practicehigher than allowednoX X rareXXX occasional X X X XX oftenX XX XX Conclusion See 3.1.5. Background See 3.1.5. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 253.2 Differences in direction signs with medium safety effect 3.2.1 Size of characters: Motorway and main roadsInmostofthecountriesthesizeofcharactersdoesnotdependonspeed.E.g.on directionsignsnexttotheroadtheheightofcapitallettersdifferbetween280 420mm and on overhead direction signs the size differs between 300 420mm. Also for main roads in most of the countries the size of characters does not depend on speed. On signs next to the road the height of capital letters differs between 180 350mm (i. e. for direction signs) with the highest proportion of answers for 200mm. On overhead direction signs the size differs between 200 300mm with the highest proportion of answers for 300mm. (Questions 2.2.35 2.2.42). Conclusion See3.1.5.Overallconclusion:initiatingaresearchprojectfordeterminingthe maximumnumberofdestinationsandsizeofletteringwithrespecttothe cross-border long distance traffic. BackgroundSee 3.1.5. 3.3 Differences in direction signs with low safety effect 3.3.1 The use of the motorway symbol in direction signs outside motorwaysFouroutof17countriesdonotusemotorwaysymbolsindirectionsignsoutside motorways.Twelvecountriesusemotorwaysymbolsatthefinalapproachtothe motorway;ninecountriesusemotorwaysymbolsonthemainroadsleadingto motorways.Inaddition,therearecountriesthatindicatethemotorwaywithcolour coding on direction signs. (Question 2.2.19). Conclusion AsmotorwayswillbethemainpartsofTERNin2020,theuseofmotorway symbol in direction signs needs harmonisation as it helps the driver to find the routefromminorroadtotheTERN.However,thesafetyeffectofmotorway symbols is estimated to be low. Background Aharmoniseduseofmotorwaysymbolscouldbeusefulfornon-localdriverswhen selecting the appropriate route. For example, there are situations where a motorway and another road go to the same destination. If there are no indications which one is the motorway, the driver can make a mistake. That is not safety critical as such, but it may lead to corrective actions that can be safety critical. 3.3.2 Pictograms used in direction signs on motorwaysThe number and design of pictograms on motorway differs. The following pictograms are used in a similar design in some countries (Fig. 6). (Question 2.2.20). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 26 (1)Airport(2) Railway station AustriaFinlandGermanyHungaryFinlandHungary (3) Industrial facility(4) Harbour CyprusFinlandGermanyFinlandGermanyHungary Fig. 6. Examples of pictograms with similar designs. Conclusion The design of the commonly used pictograms should be harmonised although thegeneralsafetyeffectisprobablylow.Thiscallsforaninvestigationof comprehensibilityandlegibilityofvariouslayoutsaswellasthe implementationofthebestpictogramsthroughoutEurope.Inaddition,there should be a pictogram for the destination centre of the city. Background Foreigndriversoftencannotunderstandthenationaldesignationofthedestination buttheyknowthemeaningofcommonpictograms.However,thelayoutofthose pictogramsshouldbesufficientlyharmonisedtoguaranteearapididentification. Becausethereisnoevaluationavailablethatwouldshowthebestlayout,suchan evaluation should be carried out. Thereseemstobeaneedforapictogramforcitycentrebecausethatisa destinationfrequentlyusedontheTERN.Thenationalnamesforcentrecannot alwaysbeunderstoodbyforeigndriverswhichmighthaveharmfuleffectsatthe strategiclevelofdecisionmakingofforeigndrivers.Thedesignofasymbolshould be investigated so that it is well understood by the drivers (human-centred design). A potential design is the one used in Austria (Fig. 7). Fig. 7. A pictogram "city centre" used in Austria. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 273.3.3 Nationality symbol for foreign countries Thenationalitysymbolsforforeigncountriesindirectionsignswereonlyusedby three out of 17 countries. (Question 2.2.21). Conclusion Overall,itisassumedthattheuseofnationalitysymbolhasnomajorsafety effect.Nevertheless,theharmoniseduseofnationalitysymbolsmighthelp foreign drivers in navigation. The nationality symbol of the next foreign country shouldbeaddedtotheE-number.However,thispractiseshouldbeapplied only if the distance to the border is short (less than 100 km, for example). Background When a motorway crosses an E-route, a driver needs to know in which directions the E-roadleads.However,giventhattheinformationonthedirectionsignsshouldbe limited (because of the potential information overload), those symbols should be used only if the distance to the border is short. 3.3.4 Foreign destinationsA variety of responses included: Sevenof17countriesuseonlytheirownlanguagefordestinationsin neighbourhood countries. Fouroutof16countriesuseonlytheforeignlanguagefordestinationsin neighbourhood countries. Two out of 16 countries use both languages for destinations in neighbourhood countries (Ireland and Belgium). Threeoutof16countriesonlyusebothlanguagesifunderstandingofthe foreign destination would be too difficult (Austria, France and Germany). Threeoutof16countriesusebothlanguagesonlyinspecialcases(Finland Hungary and Sweden). A variation in response indicates mixed systems in different EU-countries in the use of language for destinations in neighbourhood countries. (Question 2.2.22). Conclusion There is no need to harmonise the language of foreign destinations because it isassumedthatthesigningsituationsvarytoomuchinEurope.However,in caseswherethenameindifferentlanguageshassubstantialdifferencesthat mightcausemisunderstanding,itisemphasisedthatthedestinationsshould begivenbybothlanguages.Iftherearenosubstantialdifferences,the destinationshouldbegiveninthelanguageofthedestinationcountry.In addition, the Vienna convention indicates that "in countries not using the Latin alphabet, the words in Latin characters may be entered either on the same sign as the words in the national language or on a repeat sign". Background Themainissuehereisthecorrectunderstandingoftheforeigndestination.It depends on many factors, e.g. the native language of the driver, language of the map used by the driver. Consequently, it is almost impossible to provide the information by IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 28themostdesirablelanguageforeverydriver.Therefore,theprovidedinformation shouldfittoinformationgivenbymapsandtheinformationshouldbegivenintwo languages if there are substantial differences. 3.3.5 Bi-lingual signsThe same kind of variation concerned also bi-lingual signs for destinations. From the countries which responded: Three out of 17 countries indicated that all their signs are bi-lingual (Cyprus, Greece and Ireland). Three out of 17 countries indicated that many of their signs are bi-lingual (Belgium, Finland and Spain). Four out of 17 countries responded that few of their signs are bi-lingual. Eight out of 17 countries responded that none of their signs are bi-lingual. It was also asked, why country have many or few signs bi-lingual. The following answers were given Finland has two official languages, Finnish and Swedish. The Swedish minority lives mainly in the coastal municipalities and there the signs are bi-lingual. Ireland has two official languages, Irish Gaelic and English. In Sweden bi-lingual signs are used only in areas defined as bi-lingual areas, i.e. in the north of Sweden and only on place identification signs. United Kingdom - In Wales many signs are bilingual, also a few in Scotland. (Question 2.2.23). Conclusion Bi-lingualsignsmayhavesafetyimplicationsinspecificcountries,but generally their harmonisation need is low. If bi-lingual signs are used, potential overloadproblemsshouldbeminimizebylimitingthetotalamountof information on the signs. Background Research on bilingual signs has confirmed increased reading times compared to their monolingual counterparts (Rutley, 1972, Lesage, 1978, Anttila et al., 2000), although driversneedonlyreadhalfoftheinformationpresentedinordertoreadthe appropriatemessage.Thisfindingsuggeststhatthetotalamountofinformationin bilingual signs should be viewed very carefully. 3.3.6 Background colourOn motorways the background colour for city destination in the straight direction can beblue(53%ofcountries)orgreen(24%).Thesegmentsforcertaindestinations (suchaslocaldestinations,industrialfacilitiesortouristdestinations)canhave another background (e.g. white). There is a general difference between the countries for the background of the exit direction: they can be shown in the same colour as for thestraightdirectiononmotorwaysorwiththebackgroundcolourusedonmain roads. (Question 2.2.24). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 29 Conclusion The mixed use of background colour in Europe decreases potential benefits of colourcoding,especiallyamongforeigndrivers.However,fromthesafety pointofviewthedifferentcoloursarepresumablylessimportantfactor. Overall,theharmonisationofthebackgroundcolourissuggestedbutno specific guidelines are given. Background Ingeneral,severalbenefitsresultfromtheautomaticcharacteristicsofcolour processing(seeWickensandHollands,2004).Forexample,LuomaandHarjula (2000)showedthatreactiontimeswere23%shorterforcolour-codeddirectional signs(whiteonblueandblackonwhitevs.whiteonblue).Thisimpliesthatcolour coding can enhance the detection of destinations. However, it is not known how well drivers are able to utilise this feature. It is possible that even domestic drivers do not know the colour coding system in a given country. In addition, defective colour vision mayhindereffectiveuseofcolours,e.g.deuteranopesseegreendirectionssigns lessattentionconspicuousthancolour-normalobservers(O'Brienetal.2002).Also thewhitelettersongreendirectionssignshavelesscontrastfordeuteranopes. Further research is needed to explore this issue and design specific guidelines for the use of colour coding in direction signs. 3.3.7 Determination of destination names and arrangement of the destinationsThe destination with the longest distance is mostly a large city close to the end of the motorway.Thedistanceuptoadestinationisacriterionforthearrangementofthe destinations on the sign in 16 out of 17 countries. Thirteen countries responded that the position of the destination with the longest distance is on top and four responded thatthepositionofthedestinationwiththelongestdistanceisrightatthebottom. (Question 2.2.27). Conclusion Though this is not a major safety issues, the position of the destination should be harmonised so that the longest distance is on the top (which is the practice in most countries). Background Itmaybedesirabletohavealwaysthesamearrangement,becausethatmayhelp foreign drivers to find their destination on a sign as rapidly as possible. The practise obtained by the vast majority of countries is recommended although some drivers are notusedtothat.Itwouldbedesirablethatanycountrythatwouldchangethe positions of the names would do the same on other road network as well. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 304 Road markings Althoughthefunctionofroadsignsandroadmarkingsiscomplementary,theyalso differfromeachotherinsomerespect.Roadmarkingshelpdriverstokeepthe vehicleontheroadandtoanticipatetheroadalignmentahead.Thisconcerns especiallypoorvisibilityconditions(dark,rainetc.)whenotherroadenvironment giveslesscuesfordriverslane-keepingandmanoeuvringtask(Rumar&Marsh, 1998).Roadmarkingsdefinealsopermittedareasforovertakingandlanechanges ontheroad.Inaddition,the(legal)informationprovidedwithroadsignsismany times supported with road markings. Fig.8presentsthewayshowroadmarkingscaninfluencetrafficsafetybyaltering drivers time available for vehicle control. The controversial aspect of road markings isthattheysometimesincreasedrivingspeeds(vanDriel,Davidse&van Maarseveen,2004)decreasingavailabletimeforavoidingpotentialhazards.The increaseofaveragespeedby1km/h,increasesthenumberofroadfatalities6% (ETSC 1995, Ranta & Kallberg 1996, Andersson & Nilsson 1997). However, it is self-evidentthatdriversneedvisualguidanceinordertobeabletofollowtheroad without paying too much attention on lane keeping task at expense of missing some other safety relevant information. Drivers obviously use two road guidance functions, short-andlong-rangeguidance(Rumar&Marsh,1998).Actuallanekeepingis basedoninformationclosetovehiclederivedwithperipheralvision(e.g.Landand Horwood, 1995). Road markings give cues of the lateral position for peripheral vision. Thus,clearlymarkedcentreandedgelinesarelikelytoenhancethelanekeeping task. Long-range guidance involves a more conscious prediction of driving course by usingcentralvision.Ifroadmarkingsarevisible,theyhaveacentralroleespecially during the dark in directing the attention for the long range guidance. Road markings can also be used to raise the level of vigilance by means of profiled road markings. Optical guidance, warningSpeed Lateral position, courseDirection of attentionAvailable time for vehicle control before potential hazard Fig. 8. Road markings as road guidance tool from the safety perspective. However,basedonmorethan30studies,Elvik&Vaa(2004)concludedthat''the majorityofroadmarkingmeasuresappeartohaverelativelylittleeffectonthe IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 31numberofaccidents''.Thisdidnotconcernshoulderrumblestripsanddistance markersonmotorwayswhichcanreduceaccidentssignificantly.Inaddition, combination of road markings may have safety effects. Theroadmarkingsquestionnaire(partofWorkPackage4.1)concernedstaticroad markingsystem,includingroadstuds,whichapplyforTERNroads.The questionnaireexcludedthetemporaryroadmarkings,theroadmarkingsusedonly for secondary roads and signing system used in tunnels. Thequestionnairewasdividedinto11sectionswhichdealtwithdifferentaspectsof roadmarkingssystem.Specificquestionswerepresentedbutthequestionnaire included also open questions for which potential comments are allowed. 4.1 Differences in road markings with high safety effect 4.1.1 Pre-signing system and the relationship between range of vision and the approach speed usedOverall,elevencountriesof17reportedthatcontinuouslines(separatingopposite trafficflows)arealwaysprecededbyanapproachline.However,thelengthof approach line varied considerably (Table 5). Those countries that did not always use it were: Sweden, Slovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland and Finland. In addition, thequestionnaireuncoveredagreatdealofvariationintherelationshipbetween range of vision and approach speed, although most countries were within the Vienna Conventionrecommendations.However,thedifferencebetweenthelowestand highestvaluecanbesignificant,e.g.350mbetweenUKandEstoniain100km/h approach speed (table 6). (Questions 2.4.78 2.4.94). Table 5. Examples of line approach length according to approach speed and type of road.Approach speed (km/h) Two-lanes road (m)Dual-carriageways (m) 5039 (France) 100 250(Netherlands) 39 (France) 100 250 (Netherlands) 8044 (Ireland)- 275 400 (Netherlands) 117 (France) - 150 (Latvia) IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 32Table 6. Relationship between range of vision and approach speed. Speed (km/hr)Lowest value (m)Highest value (m) Recommended values in the Vienna Convention (m) 5060 (France, Germany and Portugal) 120 (Estonia, Sweden) 60-120 6080/90 (Portugal)160 (Estonia) 70120/100 (Portugal) 200 (Sweden) For 65km/h90-180 80120 (UK)260 (Estonia)130-260 90200/140 (Portugal) 320 (Estonia)- 100150 (UK)400 (Estonia)160-320 ConclusionThe differences in road markings related to overtaking situations may be safety critical.Theharmoniseduseofapproachlineprecedingcontinuouslineand thedimensionsofnon-overtakingareaswouldlikelydecreasethe unexpectednessinovertakingsituations.Non-overtakingareasshouldbe defined and marked as close as possible according to definitions from Vienna Convention.

Background Pre-signingsystemanddefinitionscomingfromtherangeofvisionandapproach speedshavedirectconsequencesfortrafficsafetyasitguidesthestartandendof overtakings. E.g. if the driver is used to anticipate the end of overtaking by means of anapproachline,thelackordifferentlengthofitmaycausesurprisingsituations. Thus,pre-signingsystemformsanimportantpartofcuesforovertakingparticularly during dark. In addition, some countries use arrows to indicate the end of overtaking area causing more variance between countries. Drivers' judgement of oncoming traffic speed fail as they cannot detect the very small changes in visual image size associated with directly oncoming vehicles (Hills, 1980). Therelationshipbetweenrangeofvisionandapproachspeeddefinesthelengthof overtaking areas on roads. Changing definitions and markings in different countries, especiallyontwo-laneruralroads,increasestheuncertaintyintheovertaking situations. AccordingtoViennaConventionwherethetrafficlanesaremarkedbybrokenlines onanormalsectionofroad,thecontinuouslineshouldalsobeprecededbyan approachlineforadistanceofatleast50m,dependingonthenormalspeedofthe vehicles using the road. However,fromthedomesticdrivers'pointofviewitshouldbeguaranteedthatthe possiblechangesdonotconflicttoomuchwithothernationalroadnetworkorthe changes should be extended to that network too if they are considerable. IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 33 4.1.2 Retro-reflective materialsRoadmarkingsarealwaysmadeofretro-reflectivematerialsinsixcountriesandin elevencountriesoutof17theywerenotalwaysmadeofretro-reflectivematerials dependingonthelocationoftheroad;roadlighting,etc..(Questions2.4.112 2.4.113). Conclusion Duringdarktheuseofretro-reflectivematerialsishighlysignificantforthe drivingtask.UnderTERNretro-reflective materials are always needed as road lighting can sometimes be out of order or there is no road lighting. Background Visible road markings have a central role in supporting manoeuvring tasks especially during dark. The visibility of road markings for a driver can be calculated in terms of previewtime.Itisthetimegapbetweenthemomentswhenthedrivercanseethe roadmarkingforthefirsttime,tothemomentwhenthedriverpassestheroad marking. According to Rumar & Marsh (1998), drivers need about 5s of preview time for safe and comfortable driving at the speed of 100 km/h that means about 140 m. COST 331 recommended preview time of 3to 5 seconds. It showed also that when thevisibilityofroadmarkingsincreases(e.g.increaseofthepreviewtime),the drivers increase their speed. But it appears that the increase of speed is limited and thegreatestbenefitwasusedtoincreasethepreviewtimewhichallowsabigger marginoferrorsforthedrivers.Furthermore,deWaardetal.(2004)foundina drivingsimulatorstudythatincreasingopticalguidancebyaddingcentrelinesand edgelinesdoesnotalwaysresultinhigherdrivingspeeds.Inaddition,Zwahlen& Schnell(1998)showedthatolddriversdetectroadmarkingssignificantlylaterthan young drivers. 4.1.3 Night-time visibility in wet conditions Roadmarkingsdesignedtoimprovenight-timevisibilityinwetareusedbyeleven countriesoutof16countries.Nocommoncriteriaforhowtheimprovementisdone were found. (Questions 2.4.114 2.4.115). ConclusionSee 4.1.2. There is need for criteria, when and where road markings should be applied to enhance the night-time visibility in wet conditions. Background See 4.1.2 4.1.4 Profiled road markingsAllcountries(17)respondedthattheywereusingprofiledroadmarkingsmainly because of their capability to give sound feedback to drivers and to a less extent to improve night-time visibility under rain or wetness). (Questions 2.4.116 2.4.119). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 34 ConclusionProfiled road markings are a measure from which accident reducing effect has been proved. As fatigue is a frequent problem among drivers in long distance travel,theuseofprofiledroadmarkingsinroadshoulders(nearside)and centre lines and stripes (offside) should be promoted on TERN. Background Profiledroadmarkingscannotonlyalertfatigueddriverbutalsowarndistracted driver from running off the lane by means of vibration and sound they produce inside the car. The study of Griffith (1999) showed that shoulder rumble strips on motorways (inUSA)decreasedtherun-offaccidentsby18%.ElvikandVaa(2004)indicateda 30%reduction.Furthermore,thecentrelinerumblestripsindicatedtohaveeven higher or at least similar positive road safety effect (Giaver et. al., 1999, Persaud et. al., 2003) probably as a result of drivers' improved lane-keeping behaviour (Rsnen, 2005). Anegativeeffectofprofiledroadmarkingsisthenoisetheyproducetothe surrounding environment. Thus, more research is needed to find out the best solution tominimisethenoisepollutionoutsidethecarbuttoensureawakeneffectforthe driver. 4.1.5 StandardisationTheEuropeanstandardEN1436RoadmarkingmaterialsRoadmarking performanceforroadusersspecifiestheperformanceforroadusersofwhiteand yellowroadmarkings,asexpressedbytheirreflectionindaylightorunderroad lighting (QD or luminance factor ), retro-reflection in car headlamp illumination (RL), colour(chromaticitycoordinatesx,y)andskidresistance(PTV-SRTvalue).The standard is implemented in fourteen out of 16 countries responded. Those countries whereitisnotimplementedare:PortugalandEstonia.Othercountrieshave implemented the standard but use different requirement levels: White marking on asphalt QD varied from 100 (Sweden) to 160 (Spain). White marking on asphalt varied from 0.3 (Hungary) to 0.80 (Cyprus). White marking on cement/concrete QD varied from 100 (Austria) to 200 (Spain). White marking on cement/concrete was given at 0.4 for Hungary, Poland and Spain (no other countries gave this measurement). Yellow QD varied from 80 (Belgium) to 130 (Cyprus). Yellow varied from 0.2 (several countries) to 0.50 (Cyprus). White marking on asphalt RL (dry) varied from 100 (Sweden) to 300 (Spain). White marking on asphalt RL (wet) varied from 25 (Belgium) to 50 (Finland). White marking on asphalt RL (during rain) varied from 25 (Hungary) to 35 (France). White marking on cement/concrete RL (dry) varied from 100 (Austria) to 300 (Spain). White marking on cement/concrete RL (wet) varied from 25 (Hungary) to 35 (Sweden). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 35White marking on cement/concrete RL (during rain) varied from 25 (Belgium) to 35 (France). Yellow RL (dry) varied from 80 (Hungary, Poland) to 300 (Spain). Yellow RL (wet) varied from 25 (Hungary) to 50 (Finland). Yellow RL (during rain) was given for Hungary (25) and France (35). SRT threshold value only varied slightly from 45 (Germany, Poland) to 55 (Netherlands). (Questions 2.4.120 2.4.127). ConclusionThe European standards should be applied in every EU-country. The road markingsrequirementsshouldbedefinedbyperformanceclassesaccording toEN1436.Asminimumlevelrequirementsdifferbetweencountries,they shouldbeharmonisedfortheTERNtoprovideatleastaminimumlevelof qualityserviceofroadmarking.Inthelongrun,thresholdvaluesforthe performanceofroadmarkingsneedtobestipulatedduringinitial measurements(whentheroadmarkingsareapplied)andtheperformancein use (at any moment). Background See4.1.2.Theperformancelevelofroadmarkingsdegradesinthecourseoftime and in the worse case snow ploughing may remove the retroreflective material from the road marking at once. 4.1.6 Marking of reverse three-lanes roadsOnly the UK and France responded that those countries have these types of roads.However, in UK these roads do not exist on the TERN. (Question 2.4.50). Conclusion Reversethree-laneroadsmaycauseunexpected,safetycriticalsituationsfor foreign drivers. Thus, they require clear information/warning systems, e.g. with trafficlightsignalsorvariablemessagesigns.However,asreversethree-lane roads are rare in EU-countries, they should not be recommended on the TERN. Background AccordingtoNorwegianresultsreversethree-laneroadsdonothaveasignificant effectonthenumberofaccidents(Elvik&Vaa2004).However,reversethree-lane roads(withoutmovablebarrier)canleadtoaconfusionoflanesinusefordrivers from countries without such arrangement. An error to drive on the lane of oncoming traffic may have serious consequences IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 364.2 Differences in road markings with medium safety effect 4.2.1 Dimensions and use of broken linesAvarietyofclassificationsystemsforlongitudinalmarkingsmadeofbrokenlines existsinEU-countries.Fifteenoutof18countriesrespondedthatthelongitudinal dimensions(gap,marking)dependonspeedand/orroadtype.Thebrokenlineis alsousedasedgelineinFrance,Ireland,TheNetherlands,Slovakia,Swedenand Estonia. (Questions 2.3.6 2.3.9 and 2.4.95-2.4.96). Conclusion Thevarietyindimensionsofbrokenlinesisnotconsideredassafetycritical difference.However,forforeigndriverstheuseofbrokenlinesometimesas edge line markings may cause difficulties to interpret the right vehicle position ontheroadespeciallyduringdarkwhenroadenvironmentisnotclearly visible. Thus, behavioural safety implications are possible and on the TERN the useofbrokenlinesasedgelineshouldbeharmonisedinthelongrun,e.g.a principal rule according to practise in most EU-countries that on road sections theedgelineismarkedasacontinuousline(excludingparkingandsimilar areas). This would also assist the efficiency of lane departure warning systems in vehicles. Background The variety in broken lines may probably not cause major difficulties in understanding theirmeaningalthoughnoresearch,todirectlysupportthis,hasbeenfound.However, problems may occur when some countries mark the edge line with broken linesindifferentsituations.Iftheedgelineissometimesbrokenandsometimes continuous on road sections between intersections, this may confuse foreign drivers whichpartoftheroadisreservedformotorvehicletraffic.AccordingtoVienna Convention a longitudinal marking consisting of a continuous line on the carriageway shallmeanthatvehiclesarenotpermittedtocrossorstraddlethatlineandthat borderlinesindicatingthelimitsofthecarriagewayshallpreferablybemarkedby continuouslines.Ifvulnerableroadusersareallowedtousetheroadshoulder,a broken edge line is a weaker protection to them than a continuous line. AstheTERNconsistsofmotorwaysandprimaryroadswithhighspeedtraffic, vehiclesusingroadshoulderwithdifferentspeedsareasafetyrisk,whichaddress themarkingofedgelineascontinuousinordertoprohibitthatuse.However,if changes of broken edge line into continuous take place, it must be checked that they do not confuse the domestic driver on the TERN. Continuouslinesguidedrivers'pathontheroadbetterthanbrokenlinesas continuouslinesaredetectedatdistancessignificantlyfartherthandashedlinesat night-time(Zwahlen,HagiwaraandSchnell,1995;ZwahlenandSchnell,1995; ZwahlenandSchnell,1997).Thisbenefitsparticularlytheolderdrivers(Rumarand Marsh1998).Visibilityrequirementswerediscussedearlier.However,onesafety benefitofbrokenlinesisthattheygivebetterimpressionofthespeeddriventhan continuous lines (Davidsee et al., 2004). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 37Continuousroadedgelinesenhancetheperformanceoflanedeparturewarning systems, which are usually vision-based lane trackers. These systems predict when the driver is in danger of departing the road, and trigger an alarm to warn the driver (Batavia,1999).ItisestimatedthatintheUSAupto53%ofrunningofftheroad accidents could be avoided if vehicles had lane departure warning systems (Chen et al., 1995). 4.2.2 Hard shouldersAvarietyofresponseswerereceivedregardinghardshouldermarking.InIreland hard shoulders are often marked (not including the road edge line), and in UK, Spain and France hard shoulders are rarely marked (not including the road edge line). UK andFrancemarktheterminationofhardshoulder,Spainincaseswhenthereis gravelinemergencyarea.Othercountriesdonotmarkhardshouldersbyother means as edge lines. (Questions 2.4.73 2.4.75). ConclusionThemarkinganduseofhardshouldersshouldbeharmonisedinconnection with the use of broken edge line markings as edge line markings, see 4.2.1. Background Thedifferentmarkingsofhardshouldersandedgelinesmaycause misinterpretationsfortheiruseespeciallyamongforeigndrivers.Inhighspeed situations that can be fatal. Braimaister (1999) estimated that about 300 road deaths occuryearlyduetomulti-vehicleaccidentsonemergencylanes(hardshoulders)of motorways in 15 EU-countries. 4.2.3 Separation between opposite flows in dual-carriagewaysWhenthereisnophysicalseparationbetweenthetwocarriageways,Belgium responded to use sometimes only one continuous line to separate the opposite flows. (Questions 2.4.54 2.4.56).

Conclusion Onelineisinadequatemarkingfortheseparationbetweentwocarriageways on the TERN. As this marking seems to be rare on the TERN, its general safety effectisnothigh,butwhenuseditmayhavesafetyimplications.Separation betweentwocarriagewaysshouldatleastbebasedoncontinuousdouble lines.Dependingonthespeedlimit,otherroadequipmentsshouldbeused (e.g.:profiledroadmarkings,railor concretebarriers).However,theextentof thisissue(onecontinuouslineseparatingdualcarriageway)isprobably minimal on the TERN and will not be dealt in further parts of the project. Background Onelineprovidesminimalseparationbetweentwocarriageways.Twocontinuous lines indicate more clearly the separation between carriageways. As it is necessary to preventdriversdriftingoverthelaneofoncomingtraffic,drivers'lanekeepingcan alsobeimprovedbymeansofprofiledroadmarkings.Theyinducevibrationand IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 38sound to warn driver when running off the lane (see 4.1.4). Overall, the aim should be tobuildwidercentralstripsforgivingdriversmoreavailabletimetotakeevasive actions in emergency situation. 4.3 Differences in road markings with low safety effect 4.3.1 Transverse line indicating points at which drivers must GIVE WAYTen out of 18 countries responded that they always use a marking to indicate a GIVE WAY and the remaining countries responded that they do not always use a marking to indicate a GIVE WAY. Two differences in the marking of GIVE WAY as broken line appeared among some countries: the location of the broken line (pulled in from the intersectionornot)andthelengthofbrokenline(halfintersectionorthroughwhole intersection).Halfofthecountrieswhichrespondedusetrianglessidebysideto mark a GIVE WAY.(Questions 2.3.27 2.3.36). ConclusionGIVE WAY markings as such have probably a low a safety effect. Nevertheless, harmonisedGIVEWAYmarkingscouldeasethedrivingtaskinademanding situation.ThelocationandmarkingofGIVEWAYshouldbeasimilarkindon junctionsoftheTERN.Therefore,aharmonisednormplanattheEuropean levelshouldbedesignedincludingatrianglemarking(thelatterisan additional symbol in the Vienna Convention. Background GIVEWAYmarkingsreinforcetheyieldsign.Theintersectiondrivingtaskis demanding due to many sources of information which have to be taken into account andconsequentdecisions.Moreover,thepotentialerrorscanresultinveryserious consequences because of the intersecting directions of travel of the vehicles. Thus, it isnecessarythatpriorityisunderstoodquicklyandcorrectly.Aninappropriate location of the marking may lead to a situation where driver can not properly look for othertrafficonthemainroad.Thisconcernsthebothdrivergroupsenteringthe TERN (1 and 4). AccordingtoViennaConventionatransversemarkingconsistingofabrokenline across one or more traffic lanes shall show the line which vehicles may not normally passwhengivingwayincompliancewiththesignB,1"GIVEWAY".Inadvanceof suchamarking,atrianglewithbroadsides, having one side paralleltothemarking andtheoppositevertexpointingtowardsapproachingvehicles,maybemarkedon the carriageway to symbolize sign B, 1. 4.3.2 Width of edge lines The width of edge lines ranged from 0.1m to 0.3m. (Question 2.4.95). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 39Conclusion The safety benefits from wider road markings are unclear. See also 4.2.1 BackgroundAccording to Elvik and Vaa (2004) replacing the 10cm edge line with 20cm edge line doesnotaffectthenumberofaccidents.However,widermarkingsimprovetheir visibilityandasconsequencetheopticalguidanceespeciallyduringdarkandfor older drivers (Rumar and Marsh, 1998; Gates and Hawkins, 2002). Thus, enhancing drivers' manoeuvring task. In addition, wider road markings could raise the detection abilitiesoflanedeparturewarningsystemsinvehicles.Butbetteropticalguidance mayalsoincreasedrivingspeedsandwithdrawsafetybenefits.Furthermore,wide roadmarkingscanbedangerousformotorcyclistsasthefrictionisloweronthem. The use of retroreflective materials to improve visibility maybe preferable, see 4.1.10. 4.3.3 Arrows, word and number markingsMany types of arrows were also presented, but basically their meaning seems to be self-evidentinmostofthecases.However,avarietyofnumberandtextmarkings were presented in some countries. (Questions 2.4.95 2.4.101). Conclusion Generally,thesafetyeffectofambiguousnumbers,wordtextetc.isprobably low.However,theyshouldnotbeusedonTERNtoconfuseforeigndrivers. Oneexceptiontothismaybedistancemarkerswhichreduceaccidentson motorways. Background Textmightbedifficulttounderstandforforeigndrivers.Indemandingdriving situations,likenegotiatingthroughintersectionanyadditionalunclearinformation increasesdrivers'informationload.Inaddition,theirlegalmeaningmaysometimes be unclear for foreign drivers. AccordingtoElvikandVaa(2004):''Distancemarkersonmotorwaysreducethe number of accidents by more than 50%. The idea of distance markers is to help car drivers maintain an adequate distance from those in front. It has been shown that the timeintervalsbetweencarshaveincreased(Helliar-Symons,WebsterandSkinner 1995)''. 4.3.4 Road studsRoad studs are used in thirteen out of 17 countries. Those countries that do not use themare:Sweden,Austria,BelgiumandLatvia.Forthosecountries(13)thatused them,eightindicatedtheywerewidespread.TheywerenotwidespreadinFinland, France,Germany,theNetherlandsandHungary.Colour,spacingofmarkingand criteriavariesconsiderablybetweenallcountries.Forexample,differentcoloured studs were used in different countries in the same situation: IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 40Nearside colour was generally white, but yellow in Ireland and red in the UK; Offside colour was generally white but amber in Ireland, yellow in Portugal and amber in the UK); AtjunctioncolourwasgreenintheUK,FranceandIreland;andwhitein Finland and Portugal. (Questions 2.4.102 2.4.106). Conclusion Differencesinroadstudshavemostlikelyanegligiblesafetyeffectonthe TERN.Anyhow,theuseandimplementationcriteriaofroadstudsshouldbe harmonisedinaccordancewithotheredgelineandhardshouldermarkings. E.g. the colours should be the same in the same situations. BackgroundColourcodedtargetsareusuallyperceivedquicklyandeasilyasinformation processing of colours is to a large extent automatic (e.g. Wickens & Hollands 2000). However, 7% of men do not recognise some colours (Wickens & Hollands 2000). In addition, stereotypes related to colours may be uncertain. Therefore, many practical applications are not based only on colours, but the information is presented by other means,liketheorderoflightsintrafficsignals.AccordingtoElvikandVaa2004, raised pavement markers decrease injury accidents by 8% (95% confidence interval -21; +1). IMPROVER: Subproject 4, Appendix D, Harmonisation needs of road signing on the TERN TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 415 General remark and conclusion concerning diversity in standard traffic signs, direction signs and road markings To improve traffic safety and traffic quality a lot of countries u