Laserfiche WebLink
Faustman (California Route 40) Field Study (1961)^ and Federal Highway <br />Administration, Reanalysis of Faustman Field Study (1973)5 <br />Two studies that appear to have stood the test of time are Faustman's original analysis of <br />California Route 40 and its re-examination by FHWA more than a decade later. The <br />original analysis tried to improve upon previous research by limiting variables, such as <br />roadway geometric design and roadway access controls. The FHWA reanalysis focused <br />on disaggregating the data and converting actual crashes to expected crash rates on <br />specific roadway sections. Each of the sections was given a value based on the number <br />of billboards on the section. A linear regression was performed to determine the <br />expected crash rates. An analysis of variance of the regression coefficients found that the <br />number of billboards on a section was statistically significant. The reanalysis found a <br />strong correlation between the number of billboards and crash rates as shown in Table 1. <br />Table 1. FHN~A Reanalysis of Faustman's Findings <br /> Expected No. of <br /> <br />No. of Billboards <br />Accidents in a Cumulative Increase <br /> <br />5-year Period in Accident Rate <br />0 5,92 <br />1 6.65 12.3 <br />2 7.38 24.2 <br />3 8.11 37.0 <br />4 8.84 49.3 <br />5 9.57 61.7 <br />Federal Highway Administration <br />Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial <br />Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980) e <br />This extensive review provides a comprehensive discussion of roadside advertising <br />research as of 1980. The study authors noted "attempts to quantify the impact of roadside <br />advertising on traffic safety have not yielded conclusive results." The authors found that <br />courts typically rule on the side of disallowing billboards because of the "readily <br />understood logic that a driver cannot be expected to give full attention to his driving tasks <br />when he is reading a billboard: ' Because the distraction evidence is not conclusive, these <br />decisions were generally not based on empirical evidence. <br />The research review noted that accident reports often cite "driver distraction" as a default <br />category used by uncertain law enforcement officers who must identify the cause of a <br />crash. As a result, the authors believe crashes due to driver distraction are not always <br />properly identified. 1n addition, law enforcement officers often fail to indicate the precise <br />crash locations on crash reports, making it difficult to establish relationships between <br />crashes and roadside features. <br />gA8 <br />