Research was conducted to evaluate drivers understanding of red retroreflective raised pavement markings (RRPMs) on two-lane and four-lane undivided and divided roadways. The researchers administered an innovative laptop video survey to volunteer participants recruited at the Honolulu International Airport. Five roadway configurations were tested: (1) two-lane, two-way undivided roadway marked for no-passing, (2) two-lane, two-way undivided roadway marked for passing, (3) four-lane, two-way undivided roadway, (4) two-lane, one-way roadway with travel in the correct direction, and (5) two-lane, one-way roadway with travel in the wrong direction (going against the flow of traffic). For each roadway configuration, typical pavement markings were shown as a baseline condition, and then, there were three alternate marking patterns. Two of the alternative marking patterns consisted of two different combinations of supplemental RRPMs, and the third alternate pattern consisted of supplemental pavement marking arrows without RRPMs. Almost 200 survey participants completed the study, equally divided between three participant groups: drivers from left-hand drive countries, drivers from Hawaii, and drivers from the continental United States (U.S.). The general findings were: (1) Red RRPMs on one-way divided roadways used to indicate the wrong direction of travel helped drivers realize when they were going the wrong direction. (2) Red RRPMs on undivided roadways can improve driver understanding for drivers from left-hand drive countries without negatively impacting the driver understanding of drivers from Hawaii and the continental U.S. (3) Replacing supplemental RRPMs with supplemental arrows always improved the correct response rates for all roadway configurations and for all participant groups.
Samenvatting