Agenda - Council - 07/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Accident Research Unit, School of Psychoiogy, University of Nottingham Attractiorr and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements (Crundaii et al., 2005)' This research used eye movement tracking to measure the difference bet<~,~een street-level advertisements and raised advertisements in terms of how they held drivers` attention at times ~>hen attention should have been devoted to driving tasks. The study found. that street-level advertising signs are more distractuig than raised signs. 3.3 "Dynamic" Billboards:. an Additional Source of Distraction? Signage owners or leasers want to incorporate dynamic features into their signage for a number of reasons: to enhance the sign's ability to attract attention; to facilitate. display. of larger amounts of uifonnation within the same sign area, to conveniently change message content; and to enhance profitability. As mentioned earlier; this repozrt uses the term "dynamic'' signs to refer to non-static signs capable of displaying multiple messages. Several studies documented the ability of a sign to accomplish the first of these goals. University of Toronto Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs (Beijer 8~ Smiley, 2004} a Research done at the University of Toronto compared driver behavior subject to passive (static) and active (dynamic) signs. The -study found that about rivice as many glances were made tot~~ard the active signs than passive signs. A disproportionately larger number of long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds) taken- were toward the active signs. The duration of 0.75 seconds is important because it is close to the minimum perception- reaction time required for a driver to react to a .slowing vehicle. For vehicles with close following distances, or under unusually complex driving conditions, a perception delay of this length could increase the chance of a crash. The following findings were reported in this study: - • 88% of the subjects made long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds). • 22% of all glances made at all signs) were long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds)... 20% of all the subjects made long lances of over t«~o seconds. • As compared to static and scrolling text signs, video and tri-vision. signs attracted more long glances. • video and scrolling text signs received flie longest average maximum glance duration. '~ • All tluee of the moving sig~l types (video; scrolling text and tri-vision) attracted more than-tt~~ice as many glances as static signs. ~~ _217_