A study of the effectiveness of orange traffic cones for warning of a pedestrian hazard was undertaken after an injury resulted from the reported failure of a young girl to perceive the presence of a hazard marked by orange traffic cones. Despite their common usage, there are few studies of the effectiveness of orange traffic cones for warning drivers, and none for pedestrians. Results of the study showed that orange traffic cones surrounding a hazardous area was sufficient for 97% of the young participants to perceive the presence of a hazard, and to indicate that they would avoid the hazard. Implications for future research to determine behavioral compliance are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ANSI Z535.3. [2002]. American National Standard Criteria for Safety Symbols, Annex B (Informative) General Procedures for Evaluating Candidate Symbols. National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn VA.
2.
GarberN.J.WooT-S. H. (1990). Accident characteristics at construction and maintenance zones in urban areas. Virginia Transportation Research Council. Report No. VTRC 90-R12.
3.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2003). Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control. U.S.Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
4.
OtsuboS.M. (1988). A behavioral study of warning labels for consumer products: Perceived danger and use of pictographs. In Proc. of Human Factors Society 52nd Annual Meeting, 536-540. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
5.
PainR.F.McGeeH.W.KnappB.G. (1981). Evaluation of traffic controls for highway work zones. Transportation Research Board No. 236.
6.
WogalterM.S.GodfreyS.S.FontennelleG.A.DesaulniersD.R.RothsteinP.R.LaugheryK.R. (1987). Effectiveness of warnings. Human Factors, 29 (5), 599-612.
