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

Home

University of Toronto Impact of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Pafterns (Smiley et al., 2001) 9 Another study completed at the University of Toronto used similar eye fixation information in urban locations to show that drivers made roughly the same number of glances at traffic signals and street signs with and without full-motion video billboards present. This may be interpreted to meals that while electronic billboards may be distracting, they do not appear to distract drivers from noticing traffic signs. This study also found that video sigiLS entering the driver's line of sight directly in front of the vehicle (e.g., «~hen the sign is situated at a curve) are very distracting. City of Seattle Report (Wachtel, 2001)10 The City of Seattle commissioned a report in 2001 to examine the relationship bet«~een electronic signs with moving/flashing images and driver distraction. The report found that electronic sib ~s ~~,~ith moving images contribute to driver distraction for longer intervals than electronic signs with no movement. Following are major points made in the report: • New video display teclulologies produce images of higher quality than previously available technologies.. These signs have improved color; image quality and brightness. • New video display technologies use LEDs with higher viewing angles. Drivers can read the sign from very close distances «~hen they are at a large angle from the face of the sign. . • Signs with a visual. story or message that carries for two or more frames are particularly distracting because drivers tend to focus on the message until it is completed rather than the driving task at hand. • Research has shown that drivers expend about 80 percent of their attention on driving related tasks; leaving 20% of their attention for non-essential tasks. • Tlie Seattle consultant suggests a "10 second rule" as the maximum display time for a video message. The expanded content of a dynamic sign also contributes to extended distraction from the driving task. The Seattle Report examined how this may be due in part to the Zeigarn.i.k effect ~a~hich describes the psychological need to follow a task to its conclusion. People's attention is limited by the ability to only focus on a small number of tasks at a time; and by the tendency to choose. to complete one task before begiuzilg another. In a drivig environment, drivers'• attention might be dra«~n to the sign rather than the task of driving because they are ~~~aiting to-see a change in the message. This loss of attention could lead to unsafe driving behaviors; such as prolonged glances away from the roadway; slowing; or even lane departure. X10 -218-