Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence

NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006

Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance

Grant Gordon,
Opus International Consultants Limited, Auckland

ABSTRACT

One of the key criteria governing safety is the ability of a driver to recognise a hazard
ahead, and to take appropriate action to maintain control of the vehicle or avoid the
hazard. This is often difficult to achieve within the constraints of topography, road
designations, and geometry.

Often engineers are called upon to exercise judgement on a situation where sight
distance is commonly regarded as a key issue. All too often resort is made to a
simple table, to pluck out a distance based on a design speed. Further refinement is
sometimes achieved through consideration of likely reaction time, or the effects of
gradient.

However, there may be a danger in such a simplistic approach, using a

manufactured or ‘black box’ solution. Even experienced practitioners may fall victim
to this, so it is important to recognise the subtleties of the components of sight
distance.

This paper considers how human factors affect the perception, recognition, and
decision process that governs reaction time, with particular regard to the manner in
which drivers assess the distance and closing speed to an approaching object.

It proposes that such judgements are made in a contextual manner, by relating the
position of the object to a perceived frame of reference around it, which can be
affected by the texture of the object or its surroundings. This is because we have
difficulty recognising or comprehending a change in the angle subtended by a fast
approaching object. Therefore we are probably not able to distinguish range solely
from the angle subtended by a fast approaching object.

The paper then considers situations where driver judgement is made difficult by road
features or geometry.

This paper aims to assist designers, safety auditors, network maintenance managers
and safety inspectors, by making them aware of how drivers make decisions, and
what enables them to make better judgements.

1
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

1. THE BASIS OF SIGHT DISTANCE

Engineers have a natural inclination to analyse things in terms of numbers and
criteria. When considering safety, particularly at intersections and driveways, the
tendency is to adopt a mechanical calculation of sight distance, as the simple
concept of a measurement of available visibility appeals.

The analysis of Sight Distance (SD) is based on the premise that a driver should be
given the opportunity to identify a problem, react, and avoid the prospect of a crash.
Developing this analysis with simple considerations of motion has produced the
familiar definition of sight distance as the sum of a distance covered while a driver
perceives a hazard and reacts, plus a braking distance.

SD = RT . V / 3.6 + V2 / 254 ( f - g )

Key variables are speed, V, and reaction time, RT

In New Zealand, speeds used in assessing sight distance requirements can be

higher than 85th percentile speeds, such as the use of 120km/h in Transit’s Planning
Policy Manual1 for open road (100km/h) areas. This reduces the risk of crashes,
providing space for faster drivers to react and stop.

Reaction time is established from observations of driver performance. Typical values

are adopted based on likely driver alertness. Usually this is simplified into discrete
values based on environment. Currently Austroads has moved away from values as
low as 1.5 seconds, using instead 2.0 seconds for urban or low speed situations
where drivers are more likely to be wary, and 2.5 seconds for rural/high speed areas.

Establishment of reaction times has been based on a series of trials or experiments,

where drivers’ time to react in a predefined manner was measured. However, this
may not take into account some environmental issues. For example, a faster reaction
time is to be expected when the recognition of the need for reaction, and the decision
on the form of reaction are simple. More complex situations or decisions may result
in driver hestitation, or longer reaction time.

Hence it may be useful to think of reaction time as being the time required by a driver
to perceive a situation, recognise it, analyse options, decide on a course of action,
and implement it.

There is a danger that tests lead to a reaction time that does not make adequate
provision for perception, recognition, analysis and activation, particularly where a
driving situation makes these elements more difficult.

This is recognised in design guides such as the AASHTO Green Book, and
Austroads GTEP Parts 5 and 6. Different sight distance criteria are set out in an
attempt to make suitable provision for the complexity of the driving task, based on
empirical results and on consideration of likely driver capacity. However, there may
be some weakness in the provision for driver perception, where environmental
factors make perception difficult.

2
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

2. PERCEPTION
The key method that drivers use to estimate speed and distance is by making
positional comparisons with a recognisable frame of reference, such as a horizon.
This has been recognised in previous research2,3, and in the development of vision
systems for robots4.

A driver can incorrectly estimate the distance and closing speed of another vehicle if
conditions prevent them from quickly establishing a frame of reference. This is
important as the drivers cannot accurately estimate distance and closing speed of an
object by the angle it subtends, unless the object is very close, and the rate of
change in angle subtended is perceptible.

That is why it is so difficult to catch a small ball (such as a cricket ball) travelling fast,
straight into your face, until it is very close, typically less than 10 metres away. This is
because:

1. The angle subtended by the ball does not change perceptibly until it is very
close; and

2. The ball is not considered in close relation to a recognisable frame of

reference.

Conditions of reducing light can aggravate this situation, possibly as the ability to
judge speed and distance by angle subtended or texture of the ball is reduced.
Texture is another visual cue that can assist with estimation of an object’s relative
position.

Similar situations exist for drivers attempting to judge distance and closing speed of
vehicles. Difficulty in quickly establishing a frame of reference for comparison affects
drivers’ ability to make decisions.

It is then possible that drivers may become engrossed with calculating what is
happening, and dwell on assessing how far away the problem is, or how much time
they have, before they move onto the next step of deciding what action to take.

3. LIMITATIONS ON THE FRAME OF REFERENCE

In this paper it is postulated that the ability of drivers to make quality judgements is
substantially reduced when a frame of reference is not available. However this issue
does not appear to be well covered in guidelines on geometric design. Indeed, some
methods for measuring sight distances may give a false sense of security.

Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) is commonly used in non intersection situations, and
is measured to 200mm object height on the basis that this size of object can be
detected at the reliable limit of driver visual acuity.

At intersections the minimum standard to be achieved is Approach Sight Distance

(ASD) measured to zero object height to allow identification of markings.

3
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

Other sight distances including Safe Intersection Sight Distance (SISD), Entering
Sight Distance (ESD), and Overtaking Sight Distance (OSD) are all measured to
1.05m object height. The basis for this is that a driver needs to identify the presence
of an approaching vehicle, and can judge the distance and closing speed to the
object vehicle on the basis of observing that portion of a vehicle above 1.05m height.

The potential flaw with such analysis, is that it does not consider whether a frame of
reference is present for judging distance and speed. In situations where it is not
reliably available, drivers are being expected to make a quality of judgement of
closing speed and distance on the basis of the angle subtended by an object. This
can lead to poor driver decisions.

The frame of reference most commonly used by drivers is a comparison of an objects

position relative to a horizon. However other features can be called upon to further
assist, including comparison with recognisable vertical elements, and texture or
surrounding environment. Thus drivers typically rely on being able to see the road
surface right up to the subject of their attention.

Problems can occur where vertical elements obstruct or foreshorten the frame of
reference. Examples of this include:

(i) Vertical crest curves or sudden changes in grade that prevent drivers from
observing the pavement up to a vehicle, as shown in Photo 1. Note that this
issue does not include situations where sight distance to horizontal curves,
lane diverges or merges, or off ramps are hidden beyond a crest. Rather it is
the situation where an object or vehicle can be seen, but the opportunity for a
driver to judge distance and closing speed to it is compromised by the lack of
a frame of reference

Photo 1: Example of a frame of reference foreshortened by a crest.

(ii) Fences, hedges, bridge rails, sight rails or guardrails that interrupt line of sight
to pavement level, as shown in photo 2.

4
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

Photo 2 : Example of a frame of reference interrupted by a guardrail.

(iii) Atmospheric miraging can interrupt a frame of reference, in addition to hiding

the critical lower part of an object, where it relates to a possible frame of
reference. This may lead overtaking drivers to estimate that an opposing
vehicle is further away than it really is. Photo 3 shows miraging above a road.

Photo 3 : Example of atmospheric miraging.

(iv) Similarly, surface water can reducing driver appreciation of markings and the
environment used to establish a frame of reference, as can darkness or
strongly contrasting light intensity. Photo 4 shows an example of strongly
contrasting light intensity.

5
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

Photo 4 : Example of strongly contrasting light intensity.

In all these examples the drivers’ frame of reference has been affected, preventing
their primary means of assessing closing distance and speed.

4. MITIGATIONS AND REMEDIES

What can be done to remedy or mitigate such problems? As a general guide,
attempting to provide a frame of reference will increase drivers’ ease and reliability of
making judgements.

4.1 VERTICAL CRESTS

Avoid locating intersections just over vertical crests. While ASD is the minimum
stopping sight distance requirement, this represents an emergency stopping
scenario. More generous sight distance affords less stress to motorists.

Photo 5 : Intersection at short crest, with shortened frame of reference.

6
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon
Consider alternative strategies to best allow drivers to develop a frame of reference,
such as by separating the effect of crests from areas where drivers are assessing
distance and closing speed. In urban areas where speeds are low enough that crests
can be comparatively short, then the crest can be coincident with the frame of
reference.

Photo 6 : Intersection at short crest, viewed from side road.

Avoid setting out temporary traffic controls just beyond a crest or change in grade.
Consider bringing the start of cone tapers or other critical features forward of the
crest.

I
Photo 7 : Example of sudden change in grade on a motorway.

Avoid stopping vehicles such as crash attenuator trucks just beyond a crest or
change in grade. Instead park the vehicle early on the crest, or before the crest, so a
frame of reference is preserved.

When evaluating sight distances at intersections and driveways, consider what frame
of reference is available in addition to the values of ASD, SISD and ESD. In most
situations the actual calculation drivers prefer to make is the one based on a frame of
reference, rather the object’s subtended angle.

7
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

Where conditions affect the frame of reference it may mean that drivers are making a
decision based on a shortened analysis length, or that they will be overly
conservative in their gap acceptance. Usually the latter applies, as drivers
subconsciously recognise when they are having difficulty with judgement, though
they may not understand exactly why.

One mitigating factor when considering the LTSA Guide to Visibility at Driveways5
criteria, or those in Transit’s Planning Policy Manual, is that a very conservative
design speed is adopted. In rural areas a value of 120km/h is adopted, requiring
330m of SISD. The sight distances associated with such speeds are approaching the
limit of drivers’ judgement, but more importantly are higher than the 85th percentile
speed normally adopted for design. Thus when reviewing sight distances and the
drivers’ frame of reference, it may be better to provide sight distance to zero object
height for the 85th percentile speed, than to provide full SISD to 1.05m object height.

Photo 8 : A shortened frame of reference at a rural driveway

The risk drivers take is increased when delays occur in finding a gap, such as when
crossing two directions of traffic, and on busier roads. In such circumstances drivers
feel increasing pressure to pull out, and are therefore more in need of a good basis to
judge distance and closing speed. Certainly as traffic flows increase, so does the
demand for quality sight distance that includes the ability to provide a frame of
reference. Thus as capacity is increased, through the addition of more lanes, or as
speeds increase with carriageway widening, then geometric limitations on sight
distance need to be improved.

Another problem area arises at traffic signals. Where crests affect a frame of
reference at a signalised intersection, there is a risk to filter right turning traffic. This
problem can be worse at free flow conditions, when drivers may be less wary. The
presence of this problem may be sufficient to consider controlling opposed turns, so
they cannot filter.

Photo 9 shows such an intersection treatment.

8
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

Photo 9 : Crest shortens the frame of reference at traffic signals

4.2 GUARDRAILS, FENCES, AND HEDGES

Ensure drivers can obtain SSD around or over guardrails, barriers, fences, hedges,
etc either by setting them back from the line of sight line, or keeping them low.

4.3 TRAFFIC ISLANDS

Ensure drivers can obtain adequate sight distance for gap acceptance, such as at
roundabouts, where raised or planted islands interrupt the frame of reference. This
can include the central rotary island.

I
Photo 10 : A frame of reference shortened by a planted traffic island

4.4 MIRAGING

In areas where atmospheric miraging is common, and at the time of year when such
conditions are most likely, consider a campaign to make drivers aware of the issue.

9
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon

4.5 SURFACE WATER

Consider profiled markings or Reflectorised Raised Pavement Markers (RRPM’s) to

provide a frame of reference in wet conditions.

Installation edge marker posts at closer spacings can also be considered.

Consider the opportunity to use a porous surfacing.

4.6 DARKNESS

Mark edgelines or install RRPMs as these improve development of a frame of

reference. Consider installing street lighting, or improving its uniformity.

Possibly install edge marker posts at closer spacings

4.7 STRONGLY CONTRASTING LIGHT INTENSITY/SHADOWS

Consider removing the object throwing the shadow, or making it more permeable to
light.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Driver judgement of distance and closing speed to an object can be made on the
basis of measuring position against a frame of reference (comparison), or on the
basis of the angle subtended by the object (calculation).

It is argued that the frame of reference can give drivers a better basis of making
judgements than the use of the angle subtended. Drivers will naturally revert to a
frame of reference as the preferred method of assessing speed and distance
wherever possible.

Where the frame of reference is affected, drivers are often more cautious, being
aware that they are having difficulty judging speed and distance. However this does
not always translate into more conservative behaviour.

Therefore, wherever possible a good frame of reference should be available to suit

the operating environment. In general this places limitations on geometry, particularly
vertical elements. It is another reason why the design speed of vertical alignment
features should be greater than that of the horizontal alignment.

When assessing visibility lines, sight distances to object heights greater than zero
may be readily available, but that does not mean that the available sight distance is
regarded as safe by drivers. Care should be taken to assess the extent of a reliable
frame of reference when measuring sight distance

10
Transportation and the Pursuit of Excellence
NZIHT & Transit NZ 8th Annual Conference 2006
Towards A Better Understanding Of Sight Distance
Grant Gordon
6. REFERENCES
1. Transit New Zealand, Planning Policy Manual, December 1999 (plus
September 2005 Supplement), Wellington, ISBN 0-478-04700-2

2. Loomis, Jack M., Looking Down Is Looking Up, Nature Vol.414, 8 November
2001, p155

3. Ooi, T.L., Wu B., & Zijiang, J.H., Distance determined by the angular
declination below the horizon, Nature, Vol. 414, , 8 November 2001, p197

4. Biever, C., Why a robot is better with one eye than two, New Scientist 17
December 2005, p30

5. Land Transport Safety Authority, Guidelines for visibility at driveways – RTS

6, May 1993, ISBN 0-477-05292-4

11