|
| Authors and year | Type of the study | Conditions | Variables | Highlights |
|
| Visibility of road markings: detection and recognition distance of road markings |
| Aktan and Schnell (2004) [48] | Experimental field study | Night-time, dry, wet, and simulated rain | Detection distance, retroreflectivity | Maximum detection distance for road markings increases with an increase in their retroreflectivity |
| Finley et al. (2002) [49] | Experimental field study | Night-time | Legibility and detection distance, vehicle type (passenger car vs. commercial vehicle), marking material |
| Zwahlen, et al. (1999) [47] | Experimental field study | Daytime and night-time | Recognition distances | (1) Elongated full-scale arrows provide significantly longer recognition distances compared to standard full-scale arrows
(2) Successive pairs of half-scale standard arrows provide longer recognition distances than a single application of the full-scale standard arrow |
|
| Visibility of road markings: defining the minimal retroreflectivity values required for drivers in different conditions |
| Graham et al. (1996) [50] | Field study | Night-time | Subjective evaluations, quantitative measures of markings | More than 85% of participants over 60 years old rated the retroreflectivity value of 100 mcd/lx/m2 as minimal or sufficient |
| Zwahlen and Schnell (1997) [51] | Field study | Night-time | Eye-scanning behaviour, driving speed, markings visibility | (1) Drivers have very short eyes-on-the-marking time and that they do not reduce driving speed depending on the visibility of markings
(2) The longitudinal distance of eye fixations of the drivers has systematically and consistently reduced in conditions of low visibility of road markings |
| Zwahlen and Schnell (2000) [52] | Computer modelling | Night-time | Driving speed, preview time, presence of raised pavement markings | Derived minimum retroreflectivity values for fully marked roads without and with raised pavement markers |
|
| Visibility of road markings: defining the minimal retroreflectivity values required for drivers in different conditions |
| Loetterle et al. (2000) [53] | Experimental field study | Night-time | Markings visibility (separately for the edge and centre lines) | Minimal retroreflectivity values required for safe driving between 120 and 150 mcd/lx/m2 |
| Parker and Meja (2003) [54] | Field study | Night-time | Subjective ratings, retroreflectivity measurements |
| Debaillon (2007) [55] | Computer modelling | Night-time | Marking configuration, road surface type, vehicle speed, vehicle type, presence of raised pavement markers |
| Gibbons and Hankey (2007) [56] | Experimental field study | Rain, night-time | Detection distance, material type, lighting condition, glare, pavement type, vehicle type | (1) Lighting improved visibility and mitigated the effects of glare
(2) Wet retroreflective tape provided the longest visibility distance, followed by a profiled thermoplastic
(3) Large glass beads with standard paint provided the shortest visibility distance |
| Higgins (2009) [57] | Experimental field study | Night-time, dry, wet, and rain | Type of retroreflective material, detection distance | (1) In wet recovery, all three prototype marking systems and the wet-reflective tape sustained 60% to 80% of their dry average detection distances
(2) In rain, they sustained 50% to 70% of their dry average detection distances
(3) The average wet-recovery and rain detection distances for the conventional glass beads-on-paint benchmark system dropped to 28% and 17% of the dry detection distance, respectively |
| Gibbons et al. (2012) [58] | Experimental field study | Wet, night-time | Type of material, detection distance | Minimum retroreflectivity of 150 mcd/lx/m2 for white and yellow pavement markings in both dry and wet night-time conditions |
| NCHRP (2013) [59] | Laboratory testing | — | Type of retroreflective material | (1) Established connection between glass beads properties and retroreflectivity
(2) Developed a recommended laboratory test to predict the initial retroreflectivity of road markings on the field, based on the quality of glass beads |
|
| Visibility of road markings: determine the influence of different factors on retroreflectivity of road markings |
| Burns et al. (2008) [60] | Laboratory testing | — | Embedment of glass beads | (1) Optimal embedment of glass beads: between 50% and 60%
(2) New road markings have 70% of all beads embedded over 60% or fully embedded and 30% of the beads optimally embedded or underembedded |
| O’Brien (1989) [61] |
| Zhang (2010) [62] | Field and laboratory study | — | Bead density, markings retroreflectivity | Bead density values are positively correlated with road markings retroreflectivity |
| Zhang et al. (2013) [63] | Field study | — | Asphalt type and roughness | Mean values of retroreflectivity measurements for the plant-mixed roadways are significantly higher than those for the bituminous surface roadways |
| Rasdorf et al. (2009) [64] | Field study | — | Direction the markings application, markings retroreflectivity | Retroreflectivity values of paint centre line measured in the direction of paint striping are significantly higher (up to 66 mcd/lx/m2) than the values measured in the opposite direction |
| Sarasua (2013) [65] | Field study | — | Direction the markings application, type of the material, markings retroreflectivity | Waterborne markings exhibited 29.8% higher directional readings, while thermoplastic markings exhibited 9.6% higher directional readings |
| Babić et al. (2016) [8] | Field study | — | Daytime and night-time visibility | Developed model for calculating daytime visibility of road markings based on their retroreflectivity |
| Babić et al. (2018) [66] | Field study | — | Direction the markings application, type of the material, markings retroreflectivity | (1) Impact of directionality of paint and flat thermoplastic markings on their retroreflectivity is negligible
(2) A significant difference was noted with structural markings made of cold plastic |
|
| Road markings and occurrence of road accidents |
| FHA (1981) [67] | Field | Before-after comparison | Number of road accidents involving injuries and/or fatalities | From 3% to 16% decrease in the number of accidents |
| Al-Masaeid and Sinha (1994) [68] | Field | Before-after comparison | Proportion of expected accident rates | No statistically significant safety impact except at hazardous sites |
| NCHRP (2002) [71] | Field | Before-after comparison | Length of the section, annual average daily traffic, proportion of annual daily traffic in daytime, night-time, dry, and wet conditions | 6% decrease in the number of road accidents in night-time after the marking’s renewal |
| Tsyganov et al. (2006) [69] | Field | Before-after comparison | Number of road accidents | Decrease in the safety risk with implementation of edge lines |
| Dravitzki et al. (2006) [72] | Field | Before-after comparison | Retroreflectivity of road markings, number of accidents | No statistically significant correlation between the number of road accidents and road markings retroreflectivity |
| NCHRP (2006) [73] | Field | Before-after comparison |
| Horberry (2006) [74] | Driving simulator | Comparison of the treatments | Driving speed, lateral position | Improved lane position and speed with “enhanced markings” |
| Smadi et al. (2008) [75] | Field | Comparison of the treatments | Retroreflectivity of road markings, number of accidents | Low retroreflectivity markings are not associated with more road accidents. Markings with higher retroreflectivity (>200 mcd/lx/m2) have a low negative correlation with the number of road accidents |
| Smadi (2010) [76] | Field | Comparison of the treatments | Retroreflectivity of road markings, number of accidents | Retroreflectivity significantly affects the probability of occurrence of road accidents |
| Park et al. (2012) [70] | Field | Before-after comparison | Daytime and night-time | Crash frequency and width of the markings |
| Carlson et al. (2013) [77] | Field | Comparison of the treatments | Retroreflectivity of road markings, number of night-time accidents | Positive impact of markings on safety |
| Avelar and Carlson (2014) [78] | Field | Comparison of the treatments | Statistically significant correlation between markings retroreflectivity and number of accidents |
| Aldemir-Bektas et al. (2016) [79] | Field | Comparison of the treatments |
| Park et al. (2019) [80] | Field | Before-after comparison | Wet weather road markings provide positive safety effects on wet-night road accidents |
|
