The effect of speed limit pavement markings on driving performance

ed
Hadas Marciano1,2

1. The Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making (IIPDM),

iew
University of Haifa,

2. Department of Psychology, Tel-Hai College, Israel

v
re
Corresponding author: Hadas Marciano, hmarcia1@univ.haifa.ac.il,
The Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making (IIPDM), University of Haifa,
199 Aba Khoushy Ave. Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel, Zip Code: 3498838.
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Abstract

ed
The current study explored, via driving simulator study, the effect of speed limit

pavement markings on the speeding behavior of Israeli drivers’ sample (38 participants). Two

different designs of pavement markings (white numbers versus speed limit traffic sign

iew
design) were compared to a base-line condition of traditional speed limit traffic signs only.

Additionally, two different frequencies of these signs were manipulated (once at the

beginning of the road segment, as customary, versus repeated presentation every 500 m).

v
Results show a disadvantage for the white numbers design, which increased median speed

re
and over speeding time percentage. The speed limit traffic sign design was beneficial, but

only with repeated presentation. The findings are discussed with relation to a broader debate
er
regarding the effect of familiarity with a traffic sign (top-down factor) on its effectiveness as

pavement marking. It is concluded that if a familiar design exists, it should be preferred, but
pe
if not, white markings would be more appropriate, due to their better contrast with the black

pavement (bottom-up factor). It is suggested that before choosing a specific design for

pavement markings, carefully designed studies, with adequate sample of the relevant
ot

country’s drivers, should be conducted.

tn

Keywords: Driver attention; Pavement markings, Top-down control; Bottom-up control;

Speeding.
rin
ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 1. Introduction

ed
One of the main factors that influence the probability of an accident’s occurrence, as

well as its severity, is the speed of the vehicles involving in a crash (Clarke et al., 2010; Pei et

al., 2012; Job & Brodie 2022). Although this claim was controversial over years of research

iew
debate, it has been confirmed and widely accepted (Elvik, 2009; 2013; Elvik et al., 2019;

Forbes, 2012). Hence, designing roads that support their speed limit regulation, finding ways

to help drivers keeping the speed limit, and more specifically relevant for the current paper,

v
promoting the awareness of drivers to the actual speed limit at each road segment, are all

re
actions of high priority, which should increase road safety.

Schechtman et al. (2016) found that in numerous investigated road segments many
er
Israeli drivers did not recognize the actual speed limit, usually assumed that it was higher

than it actually was. Unsurprisingly, high percentage of drivers (up to 93%), who claimed
pe
that they were not intend to change their driving speed, were those who thought that they

were driving lawfully. That is, they were “law keepers” in their own view, though actually

they broke the law by over speeding. Another study used a survey questionnaire among
ot

drivers in UK, who were asked to assess the credible speed limit, a limit that the drivers

perceive as matching the road setting and the traffic situation (Yao et al., 2020). These
tn

authors found that in rural motorways between 32% to 54% of the drivers (depending on the

road setting) set the credible speed limit higher than the actual speed limit, and in urban
rin

motorway this percentage was even higher (62%). Similarly, another survey study, conducted

in Czechia, found that the perceived speed limit of the drivers was higher than the actual
ep

speed limit (Ambros et al., 2021). The above literature suggests that awareness of drivers to

the actual speed limit is definitely a traffic safety issue that deserve research attention.
Pr

According to the traffic regulations, traditional traffic signs are normally located on the

sides of the road. More specifically traditional speed limit signs are located on the sides of the

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 road at the beginning of the speed limit segment, usually right after an intersection or

ed
interchange. However, I claim that this side location may be easily overlooked by many

drivers, due to the fact that drivers assign most of their attentional resources to the road and

only small percentage of attentional efforts are devoted to the road’s sides. For example,

iew
Harbluk et al. (2007) reported that as few as three percent of the driving gazes were directed

to the sides of the road. Accordingly, field experiments showed that drivers detect only a

small portion of traffic signs and some signs are totally overlooked by all drivers (for

v
example, Costa et al., 2014; Ghasemi et al., 2020; Milošević & Gajić, 1986; Shoman et al.,

re
2018). In addition, Rehman et al. (2019) showed that the situation awareness of drivers to

signs and hazards located at the sides of the road (including speed limit signs) was much
er
lower than their situation awareness to other objects located on the road.

It is therefore suggested that conveying important information to the driver should not
pe
rely solely on these traditional traffic signs. which are easily ignored. Instead, it should be

backup with more accessible and noticeable pavement markings, which are effortlessly and

readily perceived during driving. Recently, the effectiveness of such pavement markings that
ot

specify the direction of each lane, was confirmed, via simulator study, in which earlier

perception followed by earlier maneuvers to the correct lane was found (Marciano, 2022). In
tn

the current study a driving simulator research was conducted to explore the influence of

speed limit pavement markings on the speeding behavior of drivers.

rin

Marciano (2022) compared two different configurations of pavement markings: white

markings that present the name of the town the lane leads to written in white letters, versus
ep

shield markings presenting the name in a red and white shields, similar to the shield symbol

of route numbers in Israel. Contrary to former findings (Ullman et al., 2010), Marciano

(2022) found a benefit of white over shield markings. On the one hand, this white over shield
Pr

effectiveness may be explained by the known bottom-up sensitivity of the human visual

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 system to high contrasts (Wang et al., 2021), in which white letters over black pavement is

ed
more salient then red and white over black. Likewise, Abou-Senna et al. (2021) found a

benefit for white delineators over all other tested colors. Yet, former results, showing colored

shield pavement markings benefit over white markings (Ullman et al., 2010), and more

iew
specifically a benefit for red pavement markings (Babić & Brijs, 2021), cannot be reconciled

with this bottom-up explanation regarding contrast sensitivity. Alternatively, Marciano

(2022) raised a top-down explanation (see Theeuwes, 2010). The effectiveness of pavement

v
markings’ design may have derived from the former experience of the drivers with the

re
specific design. Hence, according to this explanation, the most crucial factor is the familiarity

of the driver with the specific marking design.

er
In the theoretical context of attention research, speaking of familiarity effect may imply

also to the argument of Awh et al. (2012) which claimed that apart from the bottom-up and
pe
top-down well known processes, there is another category which they labeled “selection

history”. This category refers to the history of attentional deployments that may produce

selection biases not related to either top-down goals or the bottom-up salience of visual
ot

elements. The mechanism for the extraction of the relevant properties of these elements was

called statistical learning (Theeuwes, 2021), which also implies that familiarity with visual
tn

stimuli enhance its perception. Theeuwes (2021) reasoned that human cognitive system is

tuned to the environment properties which we learned to expect in the specific context,
rin

through statistical learning. Either top-down driven or selection history driven, I propose that

the familiarity of traffic signs design plays an important role in explaining the effectiveness
ep

or ineffectiveness of pavement markings that are designed as the traffic signs.

When the familiarity of a traffic sign is low, the bottom-up demands (i.e., keeping the

contrast as high as possible) becomes more critical. Therefore, in such cases white markings
Pr

should be preferred. On the other hand, when well familiar traffic sign design is used, even if

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 its contrast with the black color of the pavement is lower, it facilitates the drivers’ perception

ed
and improve their driving performance compared with less familiar white markings (despite

their higher contrast). One support of this argument may derive directly from a closer

examination of the contradicting findings of Ullman et al. (2010) and Marciano (2022). The

iew
experiment of Ullman et al. (2010), that found a benefit for shield over white markings, was

conducted with a sample of American drivers, who are presumably well familiar with the

common shield symbols designating route numbers in USA. American route numbers

v
symbols are well known in the USA, and even worldwide, due to many American TV series

re
and movies. In contrast, the opposite pattern, namely a benefit for white over shield

markings, that was found in Marciano (2022), may reflect the argument that typical Israeli
er
drivers are not familiar with the common shield symbols designating route numbers in Israel.

To empirically test this argument, a survey among 94 Israeli drivers was conducted and its
pe
finding suggest that many Israeli drivers are not familiar with the Israeli common shield

symbol of route number (see “Preliminary survey” - supplement file). To further confirm this

claim, and gather more convergence evidence, in the current study I used much more familiar
ot

traffic sign – speed limit sign – as pavement markings. In a driving simulator study these

speed limit sign pavement markings were compared with white numbers pavement markings,
tn

with a sample of the same population as in Marciano (2022), namely Israeli drivers. If white

markings’ advantage would be find, as in Marciano (2022), then the bottom-up explanation
rin

would be confirmed. Alternatively, if not, the top-down explanation, concerning the

importance of familiarity with the sign, would be confirmed.

ep

Distinguishing between the bottom-up and the top-down explanations is important, not

only theoretically, but because each explanation imply different implications regarding

optimal pavement markings. If the bottom-up explanation, concerning the contrast sensitivity
Pr

of the human visual system is the most relevant explanation, then it should be recommended

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 to use white color for all information items marked on pavements. However, if the top-down

ed
explanation, regarding the familiarity of the designated marking, plays an important role, then

the familiarity effect should be taken into consideration when designing pavement markings.

The current paper presents a driving simulator study which addresses these questions.

iew
Speed limit pavement markings, with two different designs (white numbers versus speed

limit traffic sign design) were compared to a base-line condition, which constituted

traditional speed limit traffic signs only. In addition, two different frequencies of these signs

v
were compared – only once, at the beginning of the road segment, versus repeated

re
presentation, every 500 m. Using a well-known and highly familiar traffic sign (speed limit

sign) as pavement markings, and comparing it to white numbers markings, should promote
er
better insights concerning the perceptual process of the drivers, and may also lead to practical

general guidelines for pavement markings design. In addition, testing the speed limit sign as
pe
pavement markings may also put forward an easy and cheap way to promote the awareness of

drivers to the actual speed limitation.

To sum, the current study had two goals: 1. To systematically explore the effect of two
ot

different designs of speed limits pavement markings (white numbers versus speed limit traffic

sign design) and different frequencies of their presentation on the speeding behavior of
tn

drivers. 2. To enable decisive conclusion about the role of familiarity of a traffic sign for the

design of pavement markings. Since a speed limit sign is very common and familiar to most
rin

Israeli drivers, as was confirmed by the preliminary survey (see supplement file), the finding

of the current study can shed a light on the question.

ep
Pr

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 2. Materials and Method

ed
2.1. Participants

Thirty-eight participants (21 women), all students at the University of Haifa, took part

iew
in the experiment in return for a monetary reward. The average age of the participants was 26

years old (ranging from 22 to 40, SD=3.26). All the participants had normal or corrected-to-

normal vision and driving experience of at least four years (mean of 5.3, SD=0.8). All

v
reported driving on a regular basis, between once a week to everyday. The participants were

re
randomly assigned to two experimental groups. All the participants drove in the control

(base-line) condition, where only traditional speed signs were presented, and also drove in

another experimental condition of pavement markings - either presented as speed limit sign
er
design or as white numbers design (Figure 1). This research complied with the APA Code of

Ethics and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Haifa.
pe
2.2. Tools

The study took place in a driving simulator using STISIM Drive® software on a PC
ot

computer. A Logitech steering system, which included a steering wheel and gas and brake

pedals, was used. The participants sat on a stationary office chair, 2.5 m in front of a wide
tn

screen (2.3×3 m) subtending 62° of visual angle. A speaker (Studiophile BX5a Deluxe)

providing background sounds was placed behind them.

rin

2.3. Driving scenarios and task

General: A 17 km long scenario of suburban road with two lanes in each direction,
ep

separated by a road median, was developed. The geometry of the road was straight, apart

from two blunt curves. The scenario was divided to eight two km long alternated segments,
Pr

where the speed limit was set to either 70 kph (segments 1, 3, 5, and 7) or 100 kph (segments

2, 4, 6, and 8). To support the speed limit perception, the two types of speed limit segments

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 were different with respect to perceptual load levels, mainly at the sides of the road. In 70

ed
kph segments the sides of the road were more cluttered, imaging a suburban road with many

parked vehicles and occasionally pedestrians (Figures 1a and 1b). The load on the road was

also a bit higher in this condition. On the other hand, in 100 kph segments, the perceptual

iew
load was low, both on the road and its sides, thus these segments resembled interurban road,

where higher speed appears reasonable (Figures 1c and 1d). In these segments no parked

vehicles and no pedestrians were presented, and only few vehicles were simulated. Along the

v
whole scenario the left lane in the drivers’ direction was free of other vehicles to let the driver

re
perform an overtaking, if needed. For more details concerning the effect of perceptual load

levels on the road and its sides, see Marciano and Yeshurun (2015).
er
To manipulate the speed limit indications, three version of the same scenario were

created. In all three versions the speed limitation was presented, as customary, via traditional
pe
speed limit traffic signs which were simulated on both sides of the drivers’ lane at the

beginning of each speed limit segment. In the base-line version these traditional signs were

the only indications of the speed limit. In the two other experimental versions, the speed limit
ot

was additionally indicated via pavement markings depicted on both lanes (with either speed

limit sign design, see Figures 1a and 1c; or white numbers design see Figure 1b, depends on
tn

the experimental group). The frequency of the speed limit indications was also manipulated

within the scenario. In one condition, it was presented only once at the beginning of the
rin

segment (in segments 2, 4, 5, and 7 of each scenario): In the base-line scenario there was only

one location of traditional signs whereas in the experimental scenarios there was one location
ep

of traditional signs plus pavement markings (Figure 1a, 1b, and 1d). Alternatively, in the

second experimental condition, the speed limit indications were presented repeatedly every

500 m (in segments 1, 3, 6, and 8): In the base-line scenario there were four locations of
Pr

traditional signs; in the experimental scenarios there was one location of traditional signs at

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 the beginning of the segment with additional pavement markings, and in addition, there were

ed
three more locations that presened pavement markings only.

a b

v iew
re
c d
er
pe

Figure 1. Screenshots from the experiment’s scenarios: a. 70 kph segment with traditional
ot

speed limit signs plus speed limit traffic sign markings; b. 70 kph segment with traditional
speed limit sign plus white numbers sign markings; c. 100 kph segment with traditional speed
limit signs only; d. 100 kph segment with traditional speed limit signs plus speed limit traffic
sign markings.
tn

2.4. Procedure
rin

The participants took part in one session, which took about an hour and 15 minutes.

The experimenter read aloud the instructions of the experiment specifying that the
ep

participants’ task is to reach, as quickly as possible, to the end of the scenario without

breaking any traffic law, but no specific reference was made concerning speed. It was

indicated that traffic offences would result in monetary fine, that would be taken from a
Pr

potential monetary bonus.

10

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 After listening to the instructions, the drivers drove in one practice scenario for about

ed
20 minutes, to get used to the simulator setting, and then they drove in two additional

scenarios successively: the base-line scenario and one pavement markings scenario (either

speed limit sign markings or white numbers markings, according to their experimental

iew
group). To prevent fatigue or practice effects, the order of these two scenarios was

counterbalanced across participants.

v
3. Results

re
Two measurements were used to assess the findings: a. the median speed of each

segment (which was chosen in order to minimize the effect of extreme values on the

findings); b. the proportion of driving time in which the participant drove above the speed
er
limit in each segment, namely over speeding time percentage.

The median speed and over speeding time percentage, of each participant in each
pe
segment of each scenario, was calculated. Over speeding was defined as driving above the

speed limitation of each segment, namely more than 70 kph, or more than 100 kph,
ot

depending on the speed limit condition. These two measurements were then averaged across

participants, for each condition of speed limit (70 and 100 kph) separately, according to the
tn

combination of the following experimental variables: speed limit indication type (traditional

sign, speed sign design, and white numbers) and frequency of the speed limit indication type
rin

(once at the beginning of each segment versus every 500 m). Table 1 presents the means,

SDs, minimum and maximum values of these two measurements.

ep
Pr

11

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Table 1. Descriptive data: means, SDs, minimum and maximum values of the different
combinations of experimental groups × speed limit indication type × speed limit indication

ed
frequency, of median speed and over speeding time percentage, at 70 and 100 kph speed
limits segments (N=38).

Measurement Group (n=19) Condition Mean SD Minimum Maximum

TS; once 89.4 11.6 63.4 105.0

iew
TS; every 500 m 90.7 10.6 62.2 99.7
Speed limit sign
SLS; once 90.7 7.9 72.3 98.1
Median speed: SLS; every 500 m 91.8 7.8 70.7 98.4
Speed limit = 100 kph TS; once 95.1 6.2 86.0 113.8
TS; every 500 m 93.6 8.3 73.8 112.4
White numbers
WNS; once 96.4 6.3 87.0 108.2
WNS; every 500 m 96.0 6.1 87.6 111.5

v
TS; once 69.6 7.7 49.2 90.0
TS; every 500 m 68.7 7.0 51.7 91.1
Speed limit sign

re
SLS; once 70.4 4.8 61.9 84.6
Median speed: SLS; every 500 m 68.1 2.8 62.1 71.4
Speed limit = 70 kph TS; once 72.2 6.3 64.4 88.6
TS; every 500 m 71.3 5.7 64.5 86.6
White numbers
WNS; once 74.1 9.3 65.1 99.0
erWNS; every 500 m 72.9 7.8 63.1 93.2
TS; once 9.4 18.1 0.0 67.1
TS; every 500 m 8.7 14.4 0.0 48.0
Speed limit sign
SLS; once 9.2 12.0 0.0 35.7
Over speeding time
SLS; every 500 m 9.3 12.0 0.0 33.6
percentage:
pe
TS; once 19.2 24.7 0.0 88.5
Speed limit = 100 kph
TS; every 500 m 19.5 28.5 0.0 93.1
White numbers
WNS; once 23.1 32.2 0.0 88.1
WNS; every 500 m 24.1 31.0 0.0 86.7
TS; once 45.2 33.4 0.0 100.0
TS; every 500 m 36.7 26.9 0.0 100.0
Speed limit sign
SLS; once 48.1 27.0 0.0 97.4
ot

Over speeding time

SLS; every 500 m 34.2 23.8 0.7 69.0
percentage:
TS; once 57.4 32.5 0.0 100.0
Speed limit = 70 kph
TS; every 500 m 52.2 30.8 0.0 100.0
White numbers
WNS; once 60.1 37.4 0.2 100.0
tn

WNS; every 500 m 61.5 36.2 1.8 100.0

TS=traditional signs; SLS=speed limit sign; WNS=white numbers sign

rin

Two different mixed design ANOVAs with speed limit indication type (traditional sign,

speed sign design, and white numbers) as a between variable, and frequency of the speed
ep

limit indication (once at the beginning of each segment vs. every 500 m) as a within variable,

were conducted, one for each speed limitation condition (70 and 100 kph). In the following

sections the significant and nearly significant effects are presented.

Pr

12

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 3.1. 70 kph speed limit segments

ed
Median speed. The main effect of the speed limit indication type was significant [F(3,

35)=2.96, p<.05; ηp2=0.14]. Figure 2 shows that white numbers markings significantly

iew
increased the median speed in comparison to all the other speed limit indication types, which

were not different from each other. In addition, the main effect of the frequency of the speed

limit indications was also significant [F(1, 37)=6.71, p<.02; ηp2=0.15]. When only one

indication of speed limit was presented at the beginning of each segment, the median speed

v
was higher than it was when the indications were repeatedly presented every 500 m along the

re
segment (71.6 versus 70.2 kph, respectively).

er *
* *
pe
ot
tn

Figure 2. Averaged median speed as function of speed limit indication type in 70 kph speed
limit segments.
TS=traditional signs; WNS=white numbers sign; SLS=speed limit sign; ‘*’ = significant
effect of the simple pairwise comparisons at p<0.05.
rin

Over speeding time percentage. The main effect of the speed limit indication type

was nearly significant [F(3, 35)=2.51, p=.0748; ηp2=0.18]. Figure 3 indicates that white
ep

numbers markings significantly increased the percentage of over speeding time in

comparison to all other indication types, which were not significantly different from each
Pr

other. The main effect of the frequency of the speed limit indications was significant [F(1,

37)=10.46, p<.003; ηp2=0.22]. When only one indication of speed limit was presented, at the

13

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 beginning of each segment, the over speeding time percentage was longer than it was when

ed
the indications were repeatedly presented every 500 m along the segment (52.7% versus

46.2%, respectively).

iew
*
* *

v
re
er
Figure 3. Averaged over speeding time percentage as function of speed limit indication type
in 70 kph speed limit segments.
pe
TS=traditional signs; WNS=white numbers sign; SLS=speed limit sign; ‘*’ = significant
effect of the simple pairwise comparisons at p<0.05.

In addition, the interaction between the speed limit indication type and the frequency of
ot

the speed limit indications was nearly significant [F(3, 35)=2.47, p=.0782; ηp2=0.17]. As can

be seen in Figure 4, no difference was found between the various speed limit indication types
tn

when it was presented only once at the beginning of the segment. However, when the

indications were presented repeatedly every 500 m, the white number condition significantly
rin

increased the over speeding time percentage in comparison with all other conditions.
ep
Pr

14

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 * *

ed
*
*

v iew
re
Figure 4. Averaged over speeding time percentage as function of speed limit indication type
and speed limit indication frequency in 70 kph speed limit segments.
TS=traditional signs; WNS=white numbers sign; SLS=speed limit sign; ‘*’ = significant
effect of the simple pairwise comparisons at p<0.05.

3.2.
er
100 kph speed limit segments

Median speed. The main effect of the speed limit indication type was significant [F(3,
pe
35)=2.95, p<.05, ηp2=0.20]. Figure 5 shows that white numbers markings significantly

increased the median speed in comparison with the traditional traffic signs. All other effects
ot

or interactions did not reach significance.

tn

*
rin
ep
Pr

15

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Figure 5. Averaged median speed as function of speed limit indication type in 100 kph speed
limit segments. TS=traditional signs; WNS=white numbers sign; SLS=speed limit sign;

ed
‘*’ = significant effect of the simple pairwise comparisons at p<0.05.

4. Discussion

The effects of two different speed limit pavement markings – speed limit sign design

iew
and white numbers design – on drivers’ speeding behavior were compared. In addition, each

of these two pavement markings was also compared with the effect of traditional speed limit

traffic signs, which were located on the road sides. Furthermore, two frequencies conditions

v
of these speed limit indications were also compared – once at the beginning of a speed limit

re
segment, as the current traffic regulations demand, versus repeatedly presentation every 500

m throughout the speed limit segment.

er
In the higher speed limit segments, of 100 kph, white numbers pavement markings

significantly increased the median speed of the drivers compared with traditional traffic
pe
signs. The median speed was also higher (though not statistically significant) in comparison

with the other groups’ values, either when they drove with traditional speed limit signs only,

or when speed limits sign markings were presented. However, since the median speed of all
ot

these experimental conditions never exceeded the speed limit, it cannot be seen as an

evidence for safety compromise.

tn

In contrast, in the lower speed limit segments, of 70 kph, a significant increase of the

median speed with white numbers pavement markings, compared with all other experimental
rin

conditions, was found. In this case the markings increased the median speed to a level that

was clearly violated the speed limitation, thus it can be concluded that the road safety was
ep

compromised. This conclusion is further confirmed when examining the results of the over

speeding time percentage measurement. When exploring the interaction between the speed

limit indication type and the speed limit indication frequencies, it is evident that the increased
Pr

over speeding time in the condition of white numbers pavement markings was mainly

16

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 expressed when the markings were presented repeatedly every 500 m. Furthermore, this

ed
increasing effect was also influences by the observable decrease of the over speeding time in

all other conditions, as compared with their equivalent conditions when the indications were

presented only once (though this decreasing effect was statistically significant only for the

iew
speed limit sign markings group). Therefore, it is suggested that the repeated presentation of

traditional signs or speed limit sign pavement markings improved road safety by facilitate

speed limit compliance. However, repeated presentation of white numbers markings did not

v
affect the drivers in the same way, and potentially had a negative effect of increasing the over

re
speeding time percentage.

A former study, which compared judgments of the appropriate speed based on static
er
photos of roads, found that white numbers pavement markings were not more beneficial than

traditional speed limit traffic signs (Lee & Sheppard, 2020). The current study clearly
pe
demonstrates the disadvantage of white numbers pavement markings over traditional sign as

well as speed limit sign pavement markings. Indeed, looking at the 70 kph speed limit

segments, it is evident that the current study’s best combination, in which the least over
ot

speeding time percentage and the lowest median speed were observed, is when the speed

limit indication was presented repeatedly with speed limit sign pavement markings (Table 1).
tn

Speed limit sign pavement markings might be also beneficial in comparison with traditional

traffic signs, but only with repeated presentation. However, this latter claim should be treated
rin

with cautious, because the difference between traditional signs and speed limit sign pavement

markings was not statistically significant, implying that more research is needed to affirm this
ep

claim.

In addition to the empirically interest regarding the best way to present speed limit

instructions, this study had another aim, to reconcile the contradicting findings concerning
Pr

white versus shield pavement markings, which were reported in former studies (Marciano,

17

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 2022; Ullman et al., 2010). These contradicting findings also generate a more theoretical

ed
concern, with regard to the influence of bottom-up versus top-down factors in driving (see

Theeuwes, 2010; 2021). If an advantage of white number markings over speed limit sign

markings would have been found in the current study, as was formerly found with regard to

iew
markings of lane direction (Marciano, 2022), then it might have implied that contrast

sensitivity of the human visual system (a bottom-up variable) is the most important factor.

However, the current study clearly demonstrates the opposite: speed limit sign pavement

v
markings had a safety advantage in comparison with white numbers pavement markings,

re
which actually can be seen as harmful in the current study. Therefore, this finding support the

top-down explanation suggested by Marciano (2022), regarding the importance of the

er
familiarity with traffic signs, when choosing the best configuration of pavement markings.

According to the current study, it can be generally concluded that when pavement
pe
markings present information which is usually presented with a highly familiar traffic sign, it

should preferably follow the design of that sign, to allow the benefits of top-down processes

(Theeuwes., 2010). However, in absence of familiar traffic sign, white markings should be
ot

preferred, to enhance the effect of bottom-up process of the human visual system’s contrast

sensitivity, as was found in Marciano (2022). Importantly, though this claim could serve as a
tn

rule of thumb, when actually considering pavement markings, the familiarity effect should be

always empirically tested. These empirical testing may be conducted in the form of surveys,
rin

but more preferably they should include driving simulator studies or even field studies, to test

the actual benefits of the proposed pavement markings on relevant driving measurements of a
ep

relevant drivers’ sample.

It should be stressed that unlike the universal bottom-up processes, which stem from

the human visual system’s biology, the top-down processes in general, and in the context of
Pr

the current study the familiarity effect, in particular, are more idiosyncratic. Top-down

18

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 abilities are related to higher mental processes, such as individual’s experience, expectations,

ed
goals, beliefs, values, and social influences. In line with this claim, several observations

demonstrated that familiarity with traffic signs may differ across cultures and countries. For

example, Ng and Chan (2007) reported that Hong Kong Chinese participants with higher visit

iew
experience in Mainland China, hence higher familiarity with Chinese traffic signs, were more

successful at guessing the Chinese signs’ meaning, than participants who had no visit

experience in Mainland China. The effect of culture on traffic signs’ comprehension was also

v
demonstrated by comparing signs’ comprehension across participants from the four following

re
countries: Canada, Finland, Israel, and Poland (Shinar et al., 2003). Finally, the familiarity of

traffic signs has been also found to be an important factor in the comprehension of various
er
international road signs by U.S. drivers (Ward et al., 2004).

The above literature reinforces the top-down explanation, regarding the effect of the
pe
signs’ familiarity, as a valid explanation to the discrepancy between the findings of Ullman et

al. (2010) and Marciano (2022). Evidently, the route number shield symbol used in the study

of Ullman et al. (2010), is highly familiar to American drivers, explaining the advantage of
ot

the shield over white pavement markings. However, as was confirmed in the current study’s

preliminary survey (see supplement file), the equivalent route number shield which is used in
tn

Israeli roads is not familiar to many of the Israeli drivers, explaining the opposite pattern of

results, reported by Marciano (2022). Yet, in the current study, when Israeli drivers (a sample
rin

of the same population as in Marciano, 2022) were confronted with pavement markings of

the well-known speed limit traffic sign, it resulted in an unfavorable effect of white number
ep

markings. Similarly, Loyola et al. (2022) reported different effects of cycle lanes pavement

markings between Australian, Dutch and British drivers. The markings had a greater effect on

Dutch drivers, apparently because they were more familiar with such cycle lanes markings.
Pr

19

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 To sum, the current study along with the finding of the study of Marciano (2022)

ed
suggest that when familiar signs are involved, using their design as pavement markings

would be beneficial. Alternatively, when much less familiar signs are considered, white

markings are recommended. However, since familiarity with traffic signs is different in

iew
various cultures and countries, to address the familiarity question, empirically studies should

be conducted before choosing concrete pavement markings.

Limitations: The current study used a mix design in which the speed limit markings

v
were manipulated as between groups variable. This design may complicate the conclusion,

re
since it can be argued that one group is more prone to over speeding then the other, regardless

of the specific speed marking. It should be mentioned that this argument is not confirmed by
er
the current data, since when comparing the means of the current measurements of both

groups, separately for 100 and 70 kph, under the base-line driving condition (traditional
pe
speed limit traffic sign which were presented only once, as customary), no significant

differences were found. Still, to further confirm the current findings, it is recommended to

conduct a similar study with fully within participants’ design. Additionally, though simulator
ot

studies offer close to real settings (e.g., Matowicki & Přibyl, 2017; Wynne et al., 2019), field

studies, aimed to validate the results in a real driving setting, are also recommended.
tn

5. Conclusion and practical recommendation

rin

The current study allows a theoretical conclusion, with regard to the debate arose in

Marciano (2022), concerning the influence of familiarity effect on the effectiveness of traffic

pavement markings. Apparently, in real life settings, such as driving a vehicle, when a top-
ep

down familiarity effect is available it overpowers the more bottom-up processes, such as

contrast sensitivity. This general conclusion may have many practical implications. In the
Pr

context of the current driving settings, it implies that using pavement markings may enhance

driving safety, but the specific markings design should be carefully chosen. If a familiar

20

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 design is applicable it should be preferred, otherwise, if there is no familiar design, white

ed
markings should be chosen. Still, since familiarity is also a matter of culture, before choosing

a specific design, it is important to perform carefully designed studies with a sample of

drivers from the specific relevant country.

iew
Finally, concerning the specific issue tested in the current study, namely speed limit

pavement markings, it can be concluded that white numbers marking are not beneficial. On

the other hand, speed limit sign pavement markings may enhance road safety, but most likely

v
only if they are presented repeatedly. To confirm this claim it should be further explored with

re
more studies. Since speed limit sign design is quite similar in most countries, and presumably

is also highly familiar, future studies with drivers from other countries may validate the

current conclusion.
er
pe
Acknowledgement: This work was supported by the Research Fund on Insurance Matters in

Israel.
ot

1. Bibliography
tn

Abou-Senna, H., El-Agroudy, M., Mouloua, M., & Radwan, E. (2021). Effect of changing a

traffic control device color on driver behavior and perception across different age
rin

groups. Transportation research record, 2675(10), 228-240.

Ambros, J., Turek, R., Šragová, E., Petr, K., Šucha, M., & Frič, J. (2021). How fast would
ep

you (or should you) drive here? Investigation of relationships between official speed

limit, perceived speed limit, and preferred speed. Transportation research part F:
Pr

traffic psychology and behaviour, 83, 164-178.

21

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Awh, E., Belopolsky, A., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional

ed
control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437–

443.

iew
Babić, D., & Brijs, T. (2021). Low-cost road marking measures for increasing safety in

horizontal curves: a driving simulator study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 153,

106013.

v
Clarke, D. D., Ward, P., Bartle, C., & Truman, W. (2010). Killer crashes: fatal road traffic

re
accidents in the UK. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(2), 764-770.

Costa, M., Simone, A., Vignali, V., Lantieri, C., Bucchi, A., & Dondi, G. (2014). Looking
er
behavior for vertical road signs. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology

and Behaviour, 23, 147-155.

pe

Elvik, R. (2009). The Power Model of the relationship between speed and road safety:

Update and new analyses (No. 1034/2009).

ot

Elvik, R. (2013). A re-parameterisation of the Power Model of the relationship between the

speed of traffic and the number of accidents and accident victims. Accident Analysis
tn

& Prevention, 50, 854-860.

Elvik, R., Vadeby, A., Hels, T., & van Schagen, I. (2019). Updated estimates of the
rin

relationship between speed and road safety at the aggregate and individual levels.

Accident Analysis & Prevention, 123, 114-122.

ep

Forbes, G. (2012). Human Factors, Safety and the Impacts of Speed. In 2012 Conference and

Exhibition Of The Transportation Association Of Canada-Transportation: Innovations

Opportunities.
Pr

22

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Ghasemi, N., Acerra, E., Vignali, V., Lantieri, C., Simone, A., & Imine, H. (2020). Road

ed
Safety Review update by using innovative technologies to investigate driver

behaviour. Transportation Research Procedia, 45, 368-375.

iew
Harbluk, J. L., Noy, Y. I., Trbovich, P. L., & Eizenman, M. (2007). An on-road assessment of

cognitive distraction: Impacts on drivers’ visual behavior and braking performance.

Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(2), 372-379.

v
Job, R. S., & Brodie, C. (2022). Road safety evidence review: Understanding the role of

re
speeding and speed in serious crash trauma: A case study of New Zealand. Journal of

road safety, 33(1), 5-25.

er
Lee, Y. M., & Sheppard, E. (2020). Effects of position of speed limit signs and the presence

of speed camera on Malaysian drivers’ speed choice: An eye-tracking study.

pe
Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 74, 386-395.

Loyola, M., Nelson, J. D., Clifton, G., & Levinson, D. (2022). The relation of visual
ot

perception of speed limits and the implementation of cycle lanes-a cross-country

comparison. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 174, 106722.

tn

Marciano, H. (2022). The effect of lane direction pavement markings on driving performance
rin

and safety: a driving simulator study. Human Factors, 00187208221099137.

Marciano, H., & Yeshurun, Y. (2015). Perceptual load in different regions of the visual scene
ep

and its relevance for driving. Human Factors, 57(4), 701-716.

Matowicki, M., & Přibyl, O. (2017). Cross-study research on utility and validity of driving
Pr

simulator for driver behavior analysis. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings, 12, 68-

73.

23

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Milošević, S., & Gajić, R. (1986). Presentation factors and driver characteristics affecting

ed
road-sign registration. Ergonomics, 29(6), 807-815.

Ng, A. W., & Chan, A. H. ()2007. Culture issues in traffic sign usability. In International

iew
Conference on Usability and Internationalization (pp. 379-387). Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg.

Pei, X., Wong, S. C., & Sze, N. N. (2012). The roles of exposure and speed in road safety

v
analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 48, 464-471.

re
Rehman, U., Cao, S., & MacGregor, C. (2019). Using an integrated cognitive architecture to

model the effect of environmental complexity on drivers’ situation awareness.

er
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1),

812-816.
pe
Schechtman, E., Bar-Gera, H., & Musicant, O. (2016). Driver views on speed and

enforcement. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 89, 9-21.

Shinar, D., Dewar, R. E., Summala, H., & Zakowska, L. (2003). Traffic sign symbol
ot

comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Ergonomics, 46(15), 1549-1565.

Shoman, M., Simone, A., & Vignali, V. (2018). Looking behavior to vertical road signs on
tn

rural roads. MOJ Civil Engineering, 4(2), 75-79.

Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top–down and bottom–up control of visual selection. Acta

rin

Psychologica, 135(2), 77-99.

Theeuwes, J. (2021). Self-explaining roads: What does visual cognition tell us about
ep

designing safer roads?. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6(1), 1-15.

Ullman, B. R., Finley, M. D., Chrysler, S. T., Trout, N. D., Nelson, A. A., & Young, S.

(2010). Guidelines for the Use of Pavement Marking Symbols at Freeway

Pr

Interchanges: Final Report (No. FHWA/TX-10/0-5890-1). FHWA/TX-10/05890-1.

24

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503
 Texas A&M Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, College

ed
Station, 2010. http://tti. tamu. edu/documents/0-5890-1. pdf.

Ward, S. J., Wogalter, M. S., & Mercer, A. W. (2004). Comprehension and training of

international road signs. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics

iew
Society Annual Meeting, 48(17), 2104-2108. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Yao, Y., Carsten, O., & Hibberd, D. (2020). A close examination of speed limit credibility

v
and compliance on UK roads. IATSS research, 44(1), 17-29.

re
Wynne, R. A., Beanland, V., & Salmon, P. M. (2019). Systematic review of driving simulator

validation studies. Safety science, 117, 138-151.

er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

25

This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4213503