Evaluating the impact of managed lane separation lines on driver behavior and safety: A human factors study

IF 4.4 2区 工程技术 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Sharfuddin Ahmed, Hatem Abou-Senna
{"title":"Evaluating the impact of managed lane separation lines on driver behavior and safety: A human factors study","authors":"Sharfuddin Ahmed,&nbsp;Hatem Abou-Senna","doi":"10.1016/j.trf.2025.103357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Delineators along with separation lines are commonly used managed lane (ML) delineation systems in United States. These separation lines, positioned alongside delineators, provide visual cues to enhance lane discipline by clearly marking the width of separation between ML and general-purpose lanes (GPL), thus guiding drivers to maintain appropriate lateral positioning. Two types of lines are typically employed in MLs: double solid lines, which represent wider separation widths, and single solid lines, indicating narrower widths. Although the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acknowledges the effectiveness of combining separation lines with delineators for guiding driver behavior, the specific impacts of different separation lines remain understudied. Given the limited research in this area, this study investigates the comparative effects of single and double solid lines on driver behavior and safety within ML. A driving simulator and an eye tracking device are utilized to capture drivers’ responses to the separation lines under different driving conditions including time of day, traffic density and visibility. Data was collected from 60 participants from different age groups and genders, and four key performance measures (deceleration, speed, lane deviation and detection time) were considered to evaluate driving behavior. The results showed that separation lines have a significant effect on drivers’ speeding and lane following behavior. With double solid lines, drivers exhibited more cautious entry into the ML and better speed performance while they tended to show greater lane deviation. Furthermore, it was found that the double solid lines have better visibility than single solid lines.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48355,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 103357"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847825003122","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Delineators along with separation lines are commonly used managed lane (ML) delineation systems in United States. These separation lines, positioned alongside delineators, provide visual cues to enhance lane discipline by clearly marking the width of separation between ML and general-purpose lanes (GPL), thus guiding drivers to maintain appropriate lateral positioning. Two types of lines are typically employed in MLs: double solid lines, which represent wider separation widths, and single solid lines, indicating narrower widths. Although the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) acknowledges the effectiveness of combining separation lines with delineators for guiding driver behavior, the specific impacts of different separation lines remain understudied. Given the limited research in this area, this study investigates the comparative effects of single and double solid lines on driver behavior and safety within ML. A driving simulator and an eye tracking device are utilized to capture drivers’ responses to the separation lines under different driving conditions including time of day, traffic density and visibility. Data was collected from 60 participants from different age groups and genders, and four key performance measures (deceleration, speed, lane deviation and detection time) were considered to evaluate driving behavior. The results showed that separation lines have a significant effect on drivers’ speeding and lane following behavior. With double solid lines, drivers exhibited more cautious entry into the ML and better speed performance while they tended to show greater lane deviation. Furthermore, it was found that the double solid lines have better visibility than single solid lines.
人为因素研究:管理车道分隔线对驾驶员行为和安全的影响评估
沿分隔线的划定是常用的管理车道(ML)划定系统在美国。这些分隔线位于划定线旁边,通过清晰地标记ML和通用车道(GPL)之间的分隔宽度,为加强车道纪律提供了视觉线索,从而指导驾驶员保持适当的横向定位。ml中通常使用两种类型的线:双实线,表示更宽的分隔宽度;单实线,表示更窄的宽度。尽管联邦公路管理局(FHWA)承认将分隔线与划定线结合起来指导驾驶员行为的有效性,但不同分隔线的具体影响仍未得到充分研究。鉴于该领域的研究有限,本研究探讨了单线和双线对ML内驾驶员行为和安全的比较影响。利用驾驶模拟器和眼动追踪设备捕捉驾驶员在不同驾驶条件下对分隔线的反应,包括一天中的时间、交通密度和能见度。数据收集了来自不同年龄和性别的60名参与者,并考虑了四个关键性能指标(减速、速度、车道偏差和检测时间)来评估驾驶行为。结果表明,分隔线对驾驶员的超速行为和车道跟随行为有显著影响。对于双实线,驾驶员在进入ML时表现得更谨慎,速度表现更好,但他们往往表现出更大的车道偏差。此外,双实线比单实线具有更好的能见度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
14.60%
发文量
239
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour focuses on the behavioural and psychological aspects of traffic and transport. The aim of the journal is to enhance theory development, improve the quality of empirical studies and to stimulate the application of research findings in practice. TRF provides a focus and a means of communication for the considerable amount of research activities that are now being carried out in this field. The journal provides a forum for transportation researchers, psychologists, ergonomists, engineers and policy-makers with an interest in traffic and transport psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信