Maximizing Legibility of Unlit Freeway Guide Signs with Clearview Font and Combinations of Retroreflective Sheeting Materials

Abstract

The legibility of full-scale guide signs was evaluated in a controlled field study. The objective was to determine how the legibility of unlit guide signs could be maximized with combinations of font and retroreflective sheeting. Two fonts were tested: Series E (Modified) and Clearview 5WR, a modified version of Clearview 5W. Five combinations of retroreflective sheeting were also evaluated. The study included 30 subjects split into three age groups. Without informing the subjects, the researchers varied headlamp output to evaluate the legibility of various sign lighting levels. The results of the study clearly show that the most legible combination of font and retroreflective sheeting (of those tested) is the Clearview 5WR font and microprismatic legends on beaded, high-intensity backgrounds. Although the combination of microprismatic legends and backgrounds performed statistically equivalently to microprismatic legends on beaded, high-intensity backgrounds (in term of legibility distances), the research shows that the higher luminance contrast and lower costs associated with the latter combination make it a much more attractive application.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

Carlson

P. J.

, and Hawkins

. Legibility of Overhead Guide Signs with Encapsulated Versus Microprismatic Retroreflective Sheeting. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1844, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 59–66.

American Society for Testing and Materials.

Standard Specification for Retroreflective Sheeting for Traffic Control. ASTM D4956-01a. West Conshohocken, Pa., 2001.

Carlson

P. J.

, and Brinkmeyer

. Evaluation of Clearview on Freeway Guide Signs with Microprismatic Sheeting. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1801, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 27–38.

Keese

C. J.

, Cleveland

D. E.

, and Rowan

N. J.

. Intersection and Sign Illumination for Highway Safety and Efficiency. Research Report Number 5–9 Final. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 1966.

Woods

D. L.

, Rowan

N. J.

, and Johnston

J. H.

. A Summary Report—Significant Points from Diagnostic Field Studies. Research Report 606. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 1970.

Woods

D. L.

, and Rowan

N. J.

. Overhead Signs Without External Illumination. In Transportation Research Record 611, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 38–44.

Robertson

R. N.

Evaluation of High-Intensity Sheeting for Overhead Highway Signs. In Transportation Research Record 611, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 28–34.

Robertson

R. N.

, and Shelor

J. D.

. Using Encapsulated-Lens Reflective Sheeting on Overhead Highway Signs. In Transportation Research Record 628, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1977, pp. 49–52.

10.

Mace

D. J.

, Garvey

P. M.

, and Heckard

R. F

. Relative Visibility of Increased Legend Size Versus Brighter Materials for Traffic Signs. Report FHWA-RD-94–035. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994.

11.

Zwahlen

H. T.

, Russ

, and Vatan

. Nighttime Expert Panel and Photometric Evaluation of Unlighted Overhead Guide Signs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1844, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 67–78.

12.

Zwahlen

H. T.

, Russ

, and Vatan

. Photometric Evaluation of Unlighted Overhead Guide Signs. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003.

13.

Sivak

, and Olson

P. L.

. Optimal and Minimal Luminance Characteristics for Retroreflective Highway Signs. In Transportation Research Record 1027, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 53–57.

14.

Garvey

P. M.

, Pietrucha

M. T.

, and Meeker

. Effects of Font and Capitalization on Legibility of Guide Signs. In Transportation Research Record 1605, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 73–79.

15.

Hawkins

H. G.

, Wooldridge

M. D.

, Kelly

A. B.

, Picha

D. L.

, and Greene

F. K.

. Legibility Comparison of Three Freeway Guide Sign Alphabets. Report FHWA/TX-99/1276-1F. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 1999.

16.

Carlson

P. J.

Evaluation of Clearview Alphabet with Microprismatic Retroreflective Sheetings. Report FHWA/TX-02/4049-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2001.

17.

Carlson

P. J.

, and Hawkins

H. G.

. Minimum Retroreflectivity Values for Overhead Guide Signs and Street Name Signs. Report FHWA-RD-03–082. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

18.

Carlson

P. J.

, and Hawkins

H. G.

. Updated Minimum Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs. Report FHWA-RD-03–081. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2003.

19.

Holick

A. J.

, and Carlson

P. J.

. Nighttime Guide Sign Legibility for Microprismatic Clearview Legend on High Intensity Background. Report FHWA/TX-04/0-1796-4. Texas Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Tex., 2003.

20.

NHTSA. Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Standard 108. 49 C.F.R. 5th vol., rev., March 1997.