My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-26-2005 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
10-26-2005 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2012 1:38:27 PM
Creation date
4/23/2012 1:21:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The report takes an extremely conservative approach as to message change <br />interval, advising against the use of operations other than nearly instantaneous <br />message changes. If such operations are permitted, the report suggests "that <br />the figure commonly used as a measure of average glance duration, 0.3 <br />second, be used here as a maximum permissible message change time limit." <br />The report further advocates minimizing off -time between messages, where <br />static message changes are used, stating that "[Hs this interval of off -time is <br />lengthened, the difficulty of maintaining the continuity of attention and V;4� <br />comprehension is increased." <br />S�. <br />The conservative nature of the authors' position is reflected both in the report, <br />and in over twenty years of practice since the report was issued. The report <br />cites studies indicating that, in some situations, the use of electronic operations <br />had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, by creating a more visually - stimulating <br />environment along an otherwise mind - numbing segment of highway, helping <br />to re -focus and sharpen the driver's attention to his or her surroundings. <br />In over twenty years of experience, with numerous electronic signs nationwide <br />utilizing the various operational capabilities for message change, there has <br />been no significant degradation to highway safety reported. Many electronic <br />signs used by highway departments now use a mode of transition between <br />messages or message segments, such as traveling or scrolling. Drivers are <br />apparently capable of attaching primacy to the visual information most critical <br />to the driving task, with sign messages taking a secondary role. <br />The report further expresses its limited focus upon interstate and federal aid <br />primary highways. Noting the stimulating visual environment created by full - <br />animation signage in places like Times Square, Las Vegas and Toronto's Eaton <br />Centre, the authors of the report agreed that such signs added vitality and <br />dimension to the urban core, but discouraged the use of animation alongside <br />the highway. The report did not deal with the use of such signs, or their <br />operational characteristics, on roadways between the extremes of the interstate <br />highway and the urban core. In addition, animation has now been used on <br />highway - oriented signs in many locations for years, with no reported adverse <br />effect of traffic safety. <br />I sum, the report acknowledged the appropriateness of fu - animation <br />electronic signs within the urban core, but recommended that full- animation <br />not be used along interstate and primary highways. It took a conservative <br />position on operations of such signs Hong highways, advocating static <br />message change sequences only, with no more than 0.3 seconds of message <br />change interval or "off- time" between messages. The message changes on <br />sequential segmented messages should be displayed such that a motorist can <br />see and read the entire chain of message segments in a single pass. <br />Messages should be permitted to change at "reasonable intervals." Such signsd <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.