Australian Road Research 16(3), September 1986, pp.

184-93

Luminance, Uniformity and Glare in Road Lighting

Some More Equal Than Others?

A.J. FISHER
R.R. HALL
School of Civil Engineering,
University of New South Wales, Australia
P.O. Box 1, Kensington, 2033, New South Wales

ABSTRACT

Eighteen experts appraised 15 traffic route lighting installations in dry conditions. The installations
included a diversity of luminaire light distributions and spacings. This gave a range of values of the
quality characteristics of average road luminance, uniformity and glare control. In each installation,
the observers appraised each characteristic separately and then made an overall appraisal. The
overall appraisal was strongly correlated to the appraisals of luminance and uniformity, but only
weakly to that of glare control. Weak correlations were found between the appraisals of luminance
and uniformity, respectively, and their computed values. No correlation was found between the
appraisal of glare control and any light technical parameter related to glare control. The implications
of this study to the revision of the Australian Public Lighting Code are discussed.

Introduction Test Installations

The design of road lighting can be based on a number of
quality characteristics, including road carriageway lumi-
nance, its uniformity and glare control (van Bommel and
de Boer 1980). The design values are chosen, in part, on
the results of appraisals of these quality characteristics in
models or in actual lighting installations. Thus, in standards,
limiting values are given of light technical parameters,
which are formal definitions of the quality characteristics,
e.g.
overall uniformity (Uo) shall not be less than 0.4, where U0 is the
ratio of the minimum to average luminance within the specified
area of roadway.
A major revision of the then current Australian
Public Lighting Code (Standards Association of Australia
(SAA) 1973) was commenced in 1980 (now completed
(SAA 1986a)) and included basing lighting design on the
CIE quality characteristics and associated light technical
parameters (Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage
(CIE) 1977; SAA 1986b). As an input to this revision,
appraisals were made of road lighting installations to
determine-
(a) how the quality of lighting used in Australia is rated;
(b) what weight is put on each of the quality charac-
teristics; and
(c) whether there is a correlation between appraisal
ratings and light technical parameter values.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority hosted these
appraisals and put in a considerable effort setting up the test installations.
The Authority and the Osram Lamps and Lighting Division of GEC
Australia Ltd provided the luminaire light distribution data.
Details of the 15 test installations appraised are given in
Table I All installations were opposite or single-sided
arrangements on straight road sections, except for three
sites which were on bends. The luminaires had either
cut-off (five sites) or semi-cut-off (ten sites) light
distributions with either high pressure mercury lamps
(four sites) or high pressure sodium lamps (eleven sites).
All luminaires were reflector type except those fitted with
high pressure sodium tubular lamps which were refractor
type (two sites). Each test installation was approximately
to the SAA Code (1973) (i.e. CO at 3H spacing, SCO at
5H spacing) except two sites with longer spacing and one
which was under-fluxed. The test installations were
realised by deliberately choosing or modifying sections of
existing installations so as to give a wide range of each
quality characteristic.
The roads used are all traffic routes in the Australian
Capital Territory (A.C.T.), which are normally con-
tinuously lit (except one site) to the 1973 Code, generally
using semi-cut-off reflector luminaires. The test sections
were mainly 5 spans in length (except three sites) and were
clearly identified to the observers.
Appraisals
Eighteen observers made the appraisals; all were members
of the Road Lighting Committee of the SAA or of the
A.C.T. Electricity Authority; all were male; their ages
ranged between 24 and 57 years (average 43 years); and
three wore glasses. Four cars, in two pairs, were used; each
pair started the appraisal circuit at a different point. In
general, each observer appraised each installation twice

184 Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986

 ROAD LIGHTING

Table I
Details of Installations
InstaL W M A H S 0 Luminaire Comments
Number
8 SS 9 32 1.2 CO 400W MBF/U 3 spans

2 14 2 Opp 9 33 0 CO 400W MBF/U 6 spans, intersection

3 15 (12) SS 12 55 2 SCO 250W SON/T Wide median

4 15 (12) SS 12 55 2 SCO 250W SON/T Wide median

5 20 4 Opp. 10.5 43 2 SCO 400W MBF/U

6 11 SS 10.5 37 2 SCO 400W MBF/U Bend r = 215, inside

7 8 SS 12 49 2 SCO 250W SON/E Bend r = 645, outside

8 8 SS 12 52 2 SCO 250W SON/E Bend r = 725, inside

9 7.5 SS 10.5 50 0.7 SCO(A) 250W SON/E

10 7.5 SS 10.5 50 0.7 CO(A) 250W SON/E CO at S = 5H

11 8 SS 10.5 49 0.7 SCO 250W SON/T

12 25 6 Opp. 10.5 50 2 CO(A) 250W SON/E 4 spans isolated, CO at S = 5H

13 25 6 Opp. 10.5 50 2 SCO(A) 150W SON/E Low lumens

14 7.5 (12) SS 12 52 0.7 SCO 250W SON/E Wide median
15 22.5 8.5 Opp. 12 53 —0.3 SCO 250W SON/E

W = road width, except where there is wide median and then the installation is considered as single sided and then W is carriageway width.
M = median width, A = arrangement, H = mounting height, S = spacing, 0 = overhang, r = radius of curvature, all in metres.
CO and SCO means cut-off and semi-cut-off glare control respectively and the suffix (A) means aeroscreen, where the light released at high angles is essentially zero.
MBF/U = high pressure color corrected mercury lamp.
SON = high pressure sodium lamp; the suffixes E and T refer to diffuse elliptical and clear tubular lamp envelopes respectively.

from the moving cars. The time taken for the appraisals
was approximately 2 hours, in a period of light traffic and
essentially dry weather. The appraisals were carried out on
27 May 1981.
After each installation appraisal the observer filled in
a form with his appraisal rating of the characteristics of
road luminance, luminance uniformity, glare control,
surround illuminance and overall installation performance
on a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 being bad and 9 excellent (see
Table II). The rating scale is similar to that used previously
in other, overseas, appraisals (van Bommel and de Boer
1980; Gordon 1985) except that in this case the appraisal
of glare has been replaced with glare control so that a
common scale can be used for all attributes.
Appraisal Data
There should have been 36 individual appraisal ratings for
each characteristic for each installation (i.e. 18 observers x
two repetitions). Where for some reason an installation
was not appraised twice, the first appraisal rating was
duplicated for subsequent analysis; this occurred on 14 per
cent of occasions.
The appraisals of the observers taken together for any
characteristic, in any installation, generally ranged over a
considerable portion of the appraisal scale. There were no
apparent effects due to the seating position of the observers
or the order in which the installations were appraised. In
Table II an example is given of the data for one
installation, in which the frequency of appraisal rating is
shown. It can be seen that for some characteristics the
distribution of ratings is peaked (e g luminance — rating 7
had a frequency of 15; glare control — rating 7 had a
frequency of 16) whereas for others the distribution is flat
(e.g. surrounds — rating 5 had a frequency of 8, and
ratings 6 and 7 each had frequencies of 9).
The distributions of ratings of characteristics varied
from installation to installation. In Table III the average
rating for each characteristic for each installation, is given,
together with the modal value (the rating which occurred

Table II
Example of Appraisal Data
Appraisal Bad Poor Fair Good Excel. Aver.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Luminance 0 0 1 1 7 6 15 4 2 6.5
Uniformity 0 1 6 5 5 8 9 2 0 5.3
Glare Control 0 0 0 1 4 2 16 6 7 7.2
Surrounds 0 0 2 4 8 9 9 4 0 5.9
Overall 0 0 1 2 7 9 10 7 0 6.3

The numbers refer to the frequency of a particular appraisal rating.

Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986 185

 ROAD LIGHTING

Table III

Appraisal Scores
(Mean, mode/frequency)
InstaL
Number Luminance Uniformity Glare Control Surrounds Overall
1 6.5 7/15 5.3 7/9 7.2 7/16 5.9 6,7/9 6.3 7/10
2 7.2 7/12 5.9 7/9 7.2 7/17 6.9 7/19 6.8 7/19
3 6.4 7/12 5.7 4,7/10 4.6 3/9 5.9 5/12 5.8 7/11
4 5.9 7/16 5.2 6/13 4.4 3,5/8 5.4 5/16 5.3 7/11
5 5.6 6/13 5.9 5/ 10 5.6 5/15 5.7 5/13 5.7 5/12
6 6.0 6/16 4.9 5/13 5.5 5/15 6.1 6/13 5.6 5/11
7 7.1 7/18 6.9 7/16 5.7 5/12 6.5 7/14 6.8 7/17
8 6.7 7/15 5.9 6/14 5.9 7/13 6.2 7/15 6.3 7/14
9 6.5 7/17 4.8 6/9 72 7,9/9 5.9 5/12 5.7 6/15
10 5.8 5/12 3.7 3/20 72 7/11 5.4 5/12 4.8 4/16
11 6.6 7/11 5.8 6/11 4.8 5/8 6.2 7/13 5.9 7/11
12 7.1 7/13 5.7 6/9 72 7/11 6.9 7/18 6.6 7/13
13 5.6 4/10 4.9 5/13 7.1 7/19 6.0 5/12 5.8 5/14
14 6.4 6/12 6.1 5,6/11 5.6 5/14 6.3 7/15 6.2 7/12
15 6.4 7/13 6.3 6/13 5.8 6/13 6.4 7/13 6.1 6/13

most frequently) and its frequency. It can be seen that in fair for SCO reflector luminaires, and (c) somewhat below
only a few cases there was not a single mode. fair for SCO refractor luminaires.

Surround Illuminance
Appraisal Results
All installations were rated between fair and good;
The results are detailed and discussed in separate sections however, the ratings are very similar to those for road
each covering the three questions posed in the introduction. luminance.

General Rating of Installation Quality
Road Luminance
All installations were rated, on average, between somewhat
above fair to good. The under-fluxed installation (13) and
an installation (10) with CO luminaires at 5H spacing
were rated at the low end of the range. However,
installation (12), similar to (10), was rated at the high end
of the range but this was an installation with no other
lighting nearby.
Uniformity of Luminance
All installations, except one, were rated between fair to
good. The exception (10) was one with CO luminaires at
5H spacing, rated towards poor, but again the similar but
isolated installation (12) was rated above fair. The ratings
for installations with CO and SCO aeroscreen luminaires
appear to be lower than those for other SCO luminaires.
Installations on bends were rated from fair to good, in the
order (6) (inside mounting, small radius), (8) (inside
mounting, large radius), and (7) (outside mounting, large
radius).
Glare Control
All installations were rated between somewhat below fair
to good. The rating does not appear to be related to either
installation geometry or colour of light. However, there
appears to be three distinct levels of average rating
associated with luminaire light distribution: (a) good for
CO and SCO aeroscreen luminaires, (b) somewhat above
Overall Performance
All installations were rated between fair and good, in spite
of some low ratings for the individual quality
characteristics.
Discussion
It would appear that those concerned with road lighting
find the luminance and uniformity quality in Australian
installations fair to good. Rather large changes have to be
made, e.g. the use of CO luminaires at longer spacing
normally associated with SCO luminaires, for the
deterioration in rating to be significant. The mounting of
luminaires on the inside of bends (for road safety reasons;
Fisher and Hall 1985) appears to be acceptable. It appears
that observers are less critical of installations in intrinsically
isolated surroundings, although this finding is based on the
rating of a single installation.
The rating of glare appears to be closely associated
with the physical appearance of the luminaire, regardless
of the classification of the luminaire. Thus SCO aeroscreen
luminaires are rated in exactly the same way as ones
classified as CO. The SCO reflector luminaires, widely
used in Australia, were always rated above fair but never
good.
In spite of the range of installations involved, all
installations were appraised overall to be above fair,
except one (with reduced uniformity rating), but never
good.

186 Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986

 ROAD LIGHTING
Overall Quality of Installations
The data were evaluated using the SPSS multiple regression
technique (Nie et aL 1975). In order to gauge the
contribution of the average appraisal rating of each quality
characteristic to the average overall quality rating of an
installation the correlation matrix was examined. The
correlation coefficient matrix was:
Uniformity 0.57
Glare Control 0.17 —0.37
Surrounds 0.81 0.62 0.25
Overall 0.83 0.78 0.19 0.87
Luminance Uniformity Glare Control Surrounds
It can be seen that appraisals of luminance, uniformity
and surrounds are strongly correlated with overall whereas
that of glare control is not. In addition, appraisals of
surround and of luminance are highly correlated, as was
evident in the previous section. This suggests that in the
installations the quality characteristics of luminance and
surrounds were not independent. Examination of the
installations showed that there was not a wide range of
surrounds; each installation had only a verge or shoulder
as an extension of the road surface with virtually no
vertical surfaces beyond the roadway. Therefore, as
luminance and surrounds are correlated, one must be
dispensed with in further analysis. It was decided to retain
the luminance data as luminance is assumed to be the more
important characteristic and there was a wide range of
average road luminance.
There is a weak correlation between uniformity and
luminance, suggesting that there was some tendency for
luminance level and its uniformity to go hand in hand, in
spite of the wide range of test installations presented.
There is almost no correlation between glare and
both luminance and uniformity, indicating no tendency
for the degree of glare control to be associated with the
level of luminance or uniformity.
After dispensing with the data on surrounds the
following relationship was found using the SPSS stepwise
linear regression technique (Nie et al. 1975):
0 = 0.4L + 0.5U + 0.2G — 0.5 (1)
where 0 = the average appraisal of overall
performance,
L = the average appraisal of road
luminance,
U = the average appraisal of luminance
uniformity, and
G = the average appraisal of glare
control.
The coefficients have only been given to one significant
place, consistent with the resolution inherent in the
appraisal scale.
The relationship is statistically significant to better
than the 0.1 per cent level and explains 93 per cent of the
variation in the observed data. A similar analysis of the
non-averaged data gave an almost identical relationship.
Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986
That the above relationship has face validity can be
demonstrated by comparing the overall appraisal predicted
by the relationship with that which one would reasonably
expect. For instance, if the luminance, uniformity and
glare were all appraised as having the same rating, then the
overall should have that same rating. This is shown to be
true by substitution of L = U= G = 3, 5, 7 giving values of
0 of 2.8, 5 and 7.2 respectively.
Graphs of average appraisal ratings for the quality
characteristics luminance, uniformity and glare control
versus overall appraisal are shown in Fig. I. The data for
the CO and SCO aeroscreen luminaires, for SCO reflector
and for refractor lanterns are shown separately and in each
graph the line of perfect correlation is shown.
It can be seen that the luminance appraisals are
positively correlated with the overall appraisals with the
data points generally above the line of perfect correlation,
i.e. the overall appraisal is less than that of luminance. The
luminaire light distribution appears to have no influence
on the appraisals.
The uniformity appraisals are also positively
correlated with those of overall, with the data points
generally below the line of perfect correlation, i.e. the
overall appraisal is greater than that of uniformity. It can
be seen that the data points associated with the CO type
luminaires lie further from the line than those for SCO
luminaires, i.e. for a given level of uniformity appraisal the
overall appraisal will probably be somewhat greater for
installations with CO type luminaires than for installations
with SCO luminaires, than is indicated by eqn (1); or,
conversely for a given overall rating, the rating of
uniformity for a CO installation can be less than for a SCO
one.
For glare control there is little correlation with the
overall appraisals, the data points being in three distinct
groups associated with the luminaire light distribution.
Discussion
It appears that observers can reliably appraise quality
aspects of road lighting independently of one another.
When asked to given an overall appraisal they appear to
give different weightings to each of the quality charac-
teristics. In spite of giving a wide range of ratings to G, it
seems that G is not given a large weighting by observers in
the overall assessment.
In the only other previously fully reported investi-
gation into the inter-relationship between appraised quality
characteristics, Cornwell (1973) found, for appraisals
made in 38 traffic route installations by 36 British experts
when the roads were wet and by 18 British non-experts
when the roads were dry, the following relationships:
Dry road:
V = 0.55L + 0.14U + 0.04G + 0.45 VG — 1.29
Wet road:
V = 0.36L ± 0.40U + 0.10G + 0.23 VG — 0.59
187
 ROAD LIGHTING

4 4
O

5 6 7 4 5 6 7
0 O
O 0 0 0 0
0

A
A

4 5 6 7
0
Fig. 1 — Relationships between average appraisal rating: (a) Luminance L, (b) Uniformity U and (c) Glare G
with the Overall 0 average appraisal rating
Note that values for the different types of luminaires are shown thus:
CO and SCO aeroscreen reflector 0, SCO reflector A, SCO refractor 0

where V mean visibility appraisal, Thus there is corroboration that G is not given as
mean luminance level appraisal, much weight as other quality characteristics. This rather
belies the emphasis given to research on glare, as reported
mean luminance uniformity
in the literature. On the other hand, there is general
appraisal, agreement that road luminance is weighted strongly.
mean glare limitation appraisal, Different weights have been assigned to the quality
and characteristic uniformity depending on the road condition
VG = mean visual guidance appraisal. and class of observer. Cornwell introduced a fourth
characteristic visual guidance, which is given considerable
From the appraisals made by 11 Continental experts weighting.
at 38 traffic route installations when the roads were wet, One other aspect is noted, the difference between the
the following relationship was obtained by Cornwell: contribution of the uniformity appraisals for CO and SCO
Wet road: type luminaires to the overall appraisal. On one hand the
potential luminance gradients along an installation with
V = 0.49L + 0.34U 0.04G + 0.25 VG — 0.97 CO luminaires will be greater than those with SCO
luminaires, with the potential for observers to be more
The coefficients of determination (r2) for the equations
critical of the uniformity in CO installations. However, the
were 0.97, 0.97 and 0.94 respectively. The Cornwell study
corollary is that G in CO installations will always be rated
employed a very similar methodology to that in this paper.
higher.
Schreuder (1983) mentions, with no further informa-
tion whatsoever, the following result: Appraisal Ratings and Light Technical Parameters

GI = 0.6L + 0.2U + 0.2G The -values of the CIE light technical parameters average
(initial) luminance L, longitudinal uniformity UL, overall
where GI is the general impression of the road. uniformity Uo, Glare Control mark Gm and Threshold

188 Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986

 ROAD LIGHTING

Increment TI were calculated for each installation (SAA In the case of glare, there appears to be no strong
1986b). The CIE computer program was used; the relationship between the glare control appraisal and any
luminaire light distribution data were supplied from the tabulated aspect of the light distribution (see Table V). In
luminaire manufacturers and from the lighting authority, particular, luminaires appraised as having good glare
and the road surface was assumed to have the reflection control (G> 7) have associated calculated Gm values of 5
characteristics of CIE surface R3 (CIE 1982). to 8. The only indication of some relationship is between G
and log 188 (see Fig. 4).
The data obtained are given in Table IV. For the light
technical parameters L, U0 and UL best fit models of the
form y = ax b and y = axb, between the appraisal rating Discussion
and each light technical parameter were determined. No When it comes to relating the appraised quality charac-
such determination was performed for Gm or TI since a teristics to the light technical parameters, the data are not
cursory inspection shows no link between them. The explicit. There are only weak correlations between the
models determined are: appraisal ratings and the conventional light technical
L 0.9E ± 5.1 r= 0.62 p < 0.02 parameters. This could be so because the observers are not
6.21aw r= 0.45 p> 0.05 all appraising the same specific characteristics because:
U= 3.6 U0 + 4.0 r= 0.49 p> 0.05 (just)
(a) the appraisal scale is not an equal interval scale;
U= 7.2 U00-3° r= 0.51 p= 0.05
U= 2.4UL ± 3.9 r= 0.47 p> 0.05 (just) (b) the calculated values of the light technical parameters
U= 6.2U2.29 r= 0.54 p < 0.05 are not the same as occurred on the road since the
light distribution and road reflection data are not truly
There are only weak correlations between the representative;
appraisals and the conventional light technical parameters,
barely significant at the 5 per cent level. The form of the (c) the conventional light technical parameters do not
model has no practical significance since, for the range of adequately describe the characteristics appraised;
values involved, the curves are almost identical. In (d) there are interactive effects between the light technical
addition, the appraisal rating appears to be rather insensitive parameters; or
to changes in the light technical parameters (see Fig. 2). In
addition, UL, which has been associated with the appraisal (e) a combination of these.
of uniformity (van Bommel and de Boer 1980), is no better Some of these aspects have also been discussed recently by
(or no worse) a predictor than Uo. Gordon (1985) and Padmos (1985).
Further analysis, using other possible light technical
parameters describing uniformity, (L„,a, - L„,in )/ L, Appraisals on laboratory-simulated road scenes give
(L„,a, -Lmin) and (4a," L„ii,), showed the last to be a data that show there are such interactions. For instance,
slightly better predictor, viz. uniformity appraisal is influenced by luminance gradients,
the average luminance and spacing of the luminaires (van
L max
Bommel and de Boer 1980). Of all the conventional light
U = 6.7 - 0.24( r = 0.65, p < 0.01 technical parameters only glare control mark Gm includes
L min
the influence of other factors, i.e. L as well as those
This relationship is shown in Fig. 3. pertaining to the luminaire.

Table IV
Values of Light Technical Parameters
Instal. Lmax* Lmin U0 ULt Gm 77
1 1.83 3.10 0.74 0.41 0.86 5.2 11
2 2.18 3.27 1.41 0.65 0.89 4.9 11
3 1.05 2.11 0.27 0.26 0.76 3.9 12
4 0.93 1.78 0.43 0.46 0.66 5.6 14
5 1.55 2.29 0.81 0.52 0.74 4.1 15
6 1.29 2.56 0.36 0.28 0.70 4.4 13
7 1.72 2.57 0.75 0.44 0.73 4.5 13
8 1.62 2.46 0.71 0.44 0.77 4.5 14
9 1.29 2.49 0.41 0.32 0.69 4.9 14
10 1.26 3.32 0.39 0.31 034 8.2 12
11 1.60 2.47 0.77 0.49 0.78 4.7 16
12 1.28 3.38 0.44 0.35 037 7.7 13
13 0.77 1.44 0.28 0.37 0.70 5.1 14
14 1.55 2.42 0.59 0.38 0.69 4.5 14
15 1.61 2.44 0.76 0.47 0.70 4.1 15

Values over whole calculation grid.

t Value of Lmin /Lma, along the driver's line of sight.

Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986 189

 ROAD LIGHTING

7
O

0 6

U
5
L -)

4
0
4

Ls I
0.4
L
0.5
I
0.6
I
0.7
I
0.8
I
0.9
(c) uL
0.5 1 1.5 2
(a) L cd/m 2
0 0
0
7

6 6
0

0
G
u 5 5
0 0
0
0

4 4
0

Li
(b)
0.3 0.4
uo
0.5 0.6 0.7 4 5
Gm
6 7 8
(a)

Fig. 2 — Relationships between the average appraisal rating and the calculated CIE light technical parameters:
(a) luminance L with average road luminance L,
(b) uniformity U with overall uniformity U0,
(c) uniformity U with longitudinal uniformity U1,
(d) glare control G with glare control mark GM
Note that the full lines are for the linear regression and the dotted lines are for the non-linear regression

6 0

4
0

1 I I 1 1 1
3 4 5 6 7 8
Lmax./Lmin.

Fig. 3 — Relationship between the average appraisal rating U and uniformity given by L max /Lmin

190 Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986

 ROAD LIGHTING

Table V
Parameters of Luminaires Related to Glare Control
Instal
No. Luminaire GM SLI 180 188 1801788 F

I CO 400W MBF/U 5.2 3.6 1150 138 8.3 0.05

2 CO 400W MBF/U 4.9 3.6 1150 138 8.3 0.05

3 SCO 250W SON/T 3.9 1.6 4940 390 12.7 0.05

4 SCO 250W SON/T 5.6 3.3 1040 440 2.4 0.05

5 SCO 400W MBF/U 4.1 2.4 3270 320 10.1 0.10

6 SCO 400W MBF/U 4.4 2.4 3270 320 10.1 0.10
7 SCO 250W SON/E 4.5 1.9 4130 730 5.7 0.10
8 SCO 250W SON/E 4.5 1.9 4130 730 5.7 0.10
9 SCO(A) 250W SON/E 4.9 2.8 2580 50 51.5 0.05
10 CO(A) 250W SON/E 8.2 6.1 200 25 8.0 0.05
11 SCO 250W SON/T 4.7 2.6 1920 570 3.4 0.05
12 CO(A) 250W SON/E 7.7 6.1 200 25 8.0 0.05
13 SCO(A) 150W SON/E 5.1 3.6 1490 30 51.5 0.05
14 SCO 250W SON/E 4.5 1.9 4130 730 5.7 0.10
15 SCO 250W SON/E 4.1 1.9 4130 730 5.7 0.10

GM = CIE Glare Control Mark

SLI = Specific Luminaire Index

180 = Luminous intensity at y = 80° in the Co plane (cd), i.e. at 80° to downward vertical in plane parallel to road
edge

188 = Luminous intensity at y = 88° in the Co plane (cd).

F = Flashed area at y = 76° (m2).

7
Goo
6 carriageway is better, but de Grijs and de Boer (see van
5 With respect to glare, it can be agreed with Cornwell
4
1 2
Log 188 cd
Fig. 4 - Relationship between the average appraisal rating G and the intensity
188 (at 88° to downward vertical in plane parallel to road edge)
Of appraisals made in the field, some purport to show
acceptable correlations between the quality characteristics
and the conventional light technical parameters. Cornwell,
through a thorough analysis of his appraisals, found:
(a) a weak correlation between L and L (r = 0.62), with
mean carriageway illuminance being a better predictor
of L;
(b) no predictor of U, after testing a battery of light
technical parameters; and
(c) the appraisal G was well correlated with luminaire
run-back and flashed area (r = 0.93), whereas only
poorly correlated with Gm (r = 0.63).
Although Cornwell measured his light technical
parameters (the accuracy is not stated), the story is little
different from that described here. It has been found here
that U0 and UL are related to U, albeit weakly, but neither
is superior to the other. L /Lmin, taken over the whole
Bommel and de Boer 1980) aver that they found no such
correlation, and that UL is the predictor.
that observers are influenced only by the attributes of the
luminaires. Indications have been found here that G is
related to log igg as shown in Fig. 4. In practice, this is
probably more pronounced than is indicated in Fig. 4,
since it has been found previously that the in-the-field
glaring intensities from refractor luminaires tend to be
3 higher, and those from reflector luminaires lower, than
those given in manufacturers' data (Fisher, Hall and
Halfacree 1970). Also, the flashed area for each of the
three types of luminaires was noticeably different at 88°;
the measurement of flashed area at 76° , as required by the
Gm formula, does not reflect this observation.
Conclusions
Three questions were posed in the introduction. Con-
clusions are reached on each question but considered in
the reverse order:
Correlation between appraisals and the conventional light
technical parameters?
Only weak correlations have been found between
appraisal ratings and L, U0 and UL and none with GAI and

Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986 191

 ROAD LIGHTING
TI. This has been previously reported. The limited scope of
field appraisals, inaccuracy of quantifying the light technical
parameters and the known interactions all confound the
situation. However, the observers here seemed to be able
to appraise, and consistently so, the general quality
characteristics, especially glare.
One cannot but re-echo Cornwell's words of 1973
that we 'should refer to more sophisticated notions of
luminance distribution'. This is more germane today with
computers to ease the task of optimising lighting design
and to exploit possible trade-offs between the light
technical parameters. It has already been noted that the
results of appraisals only partly influence the final
specification of road lighting; the other inputs being visual
performance and safety data. Some progress has been
made to take a more holistic approach (Christie and Fisher
1966; CIE 1981; Fisher 1968; Frederiksen and Rotne
1978; Hall and Fisher 1978), but much needs to be done at
the international level to achieve consensus.
The lighting industry is an international one and it is
not easy for one country to set aside the current hard-won
consensus now entrenched in international documentation.
Moreover, use of the current simple CIE light technical
parameters will ensure to a reasonable extent that design
and specification will be based on the quality charac-
teristics, and not on hardware.
Therefore, with some reservation, the revised
Australian road lighting Code of Practice has been based
on the current CIE light technical parameters, codifying
and quantifying quality characteristics of road luminance
and its uniformity and glare control implicit in the 1973
Code.
Weight put on the quality characteristics?
These appraisals show clearly that glare control has
least weighting with luminance uniformity and level of
luminance being most valued, in that order. This has
economic significance, certainly in Australia, for semi-cut-
off distributions can continue to be used with confidence
and with longer spacings than with cut-off luminaires
(Hall and Fisher 1979). The emphasis on glare control
given in CIE publications appears to be too strong.
How is lighting in Australia rated?
Without being complacent, it seems that installations
with modest light levels, uniformity and glare control, in
terms of the conventional light technical parameters, are
rated above fair and towards good. This coupled with the
knowledge that these installations give good levels of
visibility (Fisher 1968) and have good accident reduction
histories (Fisher 1977) leads to confidence in specification.
For normal arterial roads the performance specification in
the new Code reads:
1 cd/m2 , U0 0.33 , 0.5
G>4 77 5_ 25%
The L value (calculated initial value) remains the same as
implied in the 1973 Code, whereas UL and U0 have been
192
made as high as is practicable, within the context of
current, acceptable lighting practice. However, the G
value has been set at as a reflection of the relative
unimportance of glare in the total road lighting environ-
ment and which can be achieved using SCO luminaires.
The past inflexible light distribution requirements have
been deleted and this, together with a performance type of
specification, should give manufacturers freedom in
luminaire design and engineers freedom in installation
layout, so achieving the most economical lighting possible.
References
CHRISTIE, A.W. and FISHER, A.J. (1966). The effect of glare
from street lighting lanterns on the vision of drivers of
different ages. Trans. Ilium. Eng. Soc. London 31(4), pp.
93-108, 114-20.
COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE DE LE'ECLAIRAGE
(1977). Recommendations for the lighting of roads for
motorised traffic. Pub. 12.2.
-- (1981). An analytic model for describing the influence of
lighting parameters upon visual performance. Pub. 19.2.
(1982). Calculation and measurement of illuminance
and luminance in road lighting. Pub. 30.2.
CORNWELL, P.R. (1973). Appraisals of traffic route lighting
installations. Light Res. Technol. 5(1), pp. 10-16.
FISHER, A.J. (1968). Visibility of objects against dark
backgrounds with street and vehicle lighting. Proc. 4th
ARRB Conf. 4(1), pp. 936-60.
(1977). Road lighting as an accident countermeasure.
Aust Rd Res. 7(4), pp. 3-16.
and HALL, R.R. (1985). The lighting of curves on
arterial roads. Light Res. and Technol. 17(3), pp. 129-37.
FISHER, A.J., HALL, R.R. and HALFACREE, RS. (1970).
Control of disability glare from street lighting lanterns.
Proc. 5th ARRB Conf. 5(3), pp. 234-51.
FREDERIKSEN, E. and ROTNE, N. (1978). Calculation of
visibility in road lighting. Rep. 17. Danish Lighting Eng.
Lab.
GORDON, P. (1985). Subjective appraisals of road lighting.
Light Res. TechnoL 17(3), pp. 116-19 (see also discussion
by Padmos, pp. 120-21).
HALL, R.R. and FISHER, A.J. (1978). Measures of visibility
and visual performance in road lighting. Australian Road
Research Board. Research Report, ARR No. 74. Also Proc.
3rd Int. Symp. on Road Lighting, CIE TC 4.6. Li TG, Fed.
Rep. of Germany.
(1979). Freeway lighting. Australian Road Research
Board. Special Report, SR No. 18.
NIE, N.H., HULL, C.H., JENKINS, J.G., STEINBRENNER,
K. and BENT, D.H. (1975). SPSS:• Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences. (McGraw-Hill: New York.)
STANDARDS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA (1973).
SAA public lighting code. Part 1: Lighting of urban traffic
routes. AS 1158.
(1986a) SAA public lighting code. Part 1: Performance
and installation design requirements. AS 1158.1.
(1986b). SAA public lighting code. Part 2: Computer
procedures for the calculation of light technical parameters
for category A lighting. AS 1158.2.
SCHREUDER, D.A. (1983). Glare in road lighting. CIE J. 2(2),
pp. 53-57.
van BOMMEL, W.J.M. and de BOER, J.B. (1980). Road
lighting. Philips Technical Library.
Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986
 ROAD LIGHTING
Dr Fisher is Senior Lecturer inhuman factors
in transport at the School of Civil Engineering,
University of New South Wales. His special
interest in road lighting has been manifested
through research projects sponsored by the
Australian Road Research Board Govern-
ment departments and the University. He is a
member of the Road Lighting Committee of
the Standards Association of Australia, past
A.J. FISHER, chairman of the International Road Lighting
B.Sc., Ph.D., Committee and currently Vice President
F.I.E.S.(Aust.) Technical of the International Commission of
Illumination (CIE).
Australian Road Research, 16(3), September 1986
Mr Hall is a graduate in Psychology and
Mathematics from the Australian National
University and is a Professional Research
Officer with the Department of Transport
Engineering at the University of New South
Wales. His research activities have included
projects sponsored by the ARRB on road
lighting and delineation of rural roads. He
obtained a MSc. from the University of New
R.R. HALL, South Wales in 1976 and is a Fellow of the
M.Sc., M.I.E.S.(Aust.) Ergonomics Society of Australia and New
Zealand He is also a member of the Standards
Association of Australia Committee LG /2 —
Street Lighting and CS/8 — Bicycle Lamps
and Reflectors.
193