Development and Status of the Human Factors Guidelines (HFG) for Road

Systems

John L. Campbell1
Battelle, Center for Human Performance and Safety

Samuel C. Tignor
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Introduction:

Highway designers, traffic engineers and other practitioners depend on the use of
existing guides, standards, and references when planning and modifying highways
and streets. The prominent resources are the AASHTOs (American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials) A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Detailed factual and proven information on the needs of road users has been largely
missing from typically used resources. Recognizing this, the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) initiated the development of a new resource
document to fill this void, namely, the Human Factors Guidelines (HFG) for Road
Systems. The purpose of the HFG document is to provide the best factual
information and insight on road users characteristics so as to facilitate safe roadway
design and operational decisions.

Successful highway safety depends on consideration and integration of three

components the roadway, the vehicle, and the roadway user. Unfortunately, the
roadway users informational needs, limitations, and capabilities are often
insufficiently identified. The HFG provides easy-to-use human factors principles and
guidelines. It will allow the non-expert in human factors to more effectively recognize
the needs and limitations of the road user and make sure roads are designed and
operated more safely for all. The new HFG provides specific data, illustrations, and
empirical research information about the needs of road users in much clearer detail
than has been available in existing references and houses it within a single
document.

A very important companion document has also been developed by the NCHRP - the
Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Highway designers and traffic engineers, when
planning a new road or modifying an existing roadway, want to review or predict the
expected safety of the new design. The methodology presented in the HSM provides
analysis tools, not previously available, for many types of roadway sections and
intersections. Candidate designs and traffic control can be reviewed and compared
to their relative safety. But, the final design cannot be completed until all of the
design candidates have been reviewed for the needs of the drivers, pedestrians, or
other users. The HFG provides easily used guidelines for roadway sections and
intersections to assist designers and traffic engineers in making sure the design is
functional, easily understood, and safe for all users. The HFG and HSM can be and
should be used together in assessing roadway safety for road users.

1
Corresponding author: campjohn@battelle.org; 206.528.3254

1
Since 2001, four separate NCHRP projects have been initiated to develop the HFG;
the fourth (NCHRP 17-47) will conclude in October, 2011 and will complete the initial
version of the HFG. Much of the HFG is already available in 2 parts at the links
below:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_600A.pdf
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_600B.pdf

The HSM is expected to be published by AASHTO in mid-2010. Neither the HFG

nor the HSM are legal standards of care as to the information they contain. They can
be used to assist agencies in their effort to integrate safety into their decision-making
processes. Neither document is intended to be a substitute for the exercise of sound
engineering judgment.

Content of the HFG:

We decided to enhance the accessibility, understandability, and ease-of-use of the

guidelines contained in the HFG by making a key departure from the approach
typically use to present human factors design information. The HFG presents
individual guidelines in a highly-structured, two-page format as illustrated in Figure 1.
This format is easily comprehended by the user and it includes short, specific
excerpts from substantive, supporting research.

2
 Abbreviated Abbreviated
Handbook Title Chapter Title Revision Version
Guideline Title (Both Pages) (Both Pages) (Both Pages)
Bar Scale Rating
Introduction

HFG SIGHT D ISTANCE Version 0.01 HFG SIGHT DISTANCE Version 0.01
Discussion
KEY COMPONENTS OF SIGHT DISTANCE Discussion
Introduction Before drivers can execute a maneuver, they must first recognize there is a need for some action and decide what that
Sight Distance (SD) is the distance that a vehicle travels before completing a maneuver in response to some roadway action should be. Therefore, this mental activityperception, cognition, and action planningprecedes an overt vehicle
element or condition that necessitates a change of speed and/or path. Sight Distance is based on two key control action and takes some amount of time. The reaction time is typically defined as the period from the time the
components: object or condition requiring a response becomes visible in the drivers field to view to the moment of initiation of the
vehicle maneuver (e.g., first contact with the brake pedal). Although a particular reaction time value (e.g., 2.5 s from
1) A Reaction Time (RT) required to initiate a maneuver (pre-maneuver phase), and AASHTO 2004) is used in deriving sight distance requirements for a given design situation, this reaction time value
2) The time required to safely complete a maneuver (Maneuver Time; MT). should not be viewed as a fixed human attribute, since it is influenced by many factors. Some the of the key factors
that influence reaction time are shown in the table below.
The reaction time includes the time needed to see/perceive the roadway element, time needed to complete relevant
cognitive operations (e.g., recognize hazard, read sign, decide how to respond etc.), and time needed to initiate a FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF REACTION TIME
maneuver (e.g., take foot off accelerator and step on brake pedal).
Factor Explanation
Maneuver Time includes actions and time required to safely coordinate and complete a required driving maneuver
(e.g., stop at intersection, pass a vehicle, etc). Typically, a vehicle maintains its current speed and trajectory during Low contrast (e.g., night) It takes longer to perceive low-contrast objects
the reaction time phase, while changing its speed and/or path during the maneuver time phase. Visual glare Objects are perceived less quickly in the presence of glare
Older drivers less sensitive to visual contrast and are more
Seeing/ Older Age
Design Design Guidelines
Perceiving
impaired by visual glare (e.g., oncoming headlights)
Object size /height Smaller objects/text require drivers to be closer to see them
Guideline Sight Distance = Distance traveled while driver perceives,
makes decisions about, and initiates action
+ Distance traveled while the driver
completes an appropriate maneuver
Driver expectations It takes substantially longer to perceive unexpected objects
in response to roadway element (RT) (MT) Visual complexity It takes longer to perceive objects buried in visual clutter
Older age Older drivers require more time to make decisions
Cognitive
elements Drivers require more time to comprehend complex information or
Complexity
Based Primarily on Based Equally on Expert Judgment Based Primarily on situations and to initiate more complex or calibrated maneuvers
Expert Judgment and Empirical Data Empirical Data
Initiating Older drivers require more time to make vehicle control
Older age
Actions movements and they may be limited their range of motion
SCHEMATIC SHOWING THE REACTION TIME AND MANEUVER TIME COMPONENTS OF SIGHT DISTANCE In contrast to the reaction time, the maneuver time is primarily affected by the physics of the situation, including
vehicle performance capabilities. In particular, tire-pavement friction, road-surface conditions (e.g. ice), downgrades,
A
Drivers Eye
(3.5 ft High)
Line of Sight Sufficient Sight Distance
Hazard
etc. can increase maneuver time or make some maneuvers unsafe at higher speeds. Maneuver time is also affected to a
lesser extent by driver-related factors (e.g., deceleration profile), but these factors are highly situation specific since the Design
maneuvers are very different (e.g., emergency stop, passing, left turn through traffic etc.). These factors are covered in
(2ft high)
more detail in the relevant guideline sections (see GL). Issues
Figure, Reaction
Time
Maneuver
Time Design Issues

Table, or B Insufficient Sight Distance

It is important to note that although most design requirements are expressed as a design distance, from the drivers
perspective the critical aspect is time. It takes time to recognize a situation, understand its implications, decide on a
Graphic reaction, and initiate the maneuver. While this process may seem almost instantaneous to us when driving, it can
translate into hundreds of feet at highway speeds before a maneuver is even initiated. Speed selection is also critical,
since the relative speed between the driver and the hazard determines how much distance is traversed in the time it
takes the driver to initiate and complete the maneuver (see Speed GL). Cross
Reaction Maneuver Cross References
Time Time
Specific types of sight distance (pg. 5-X, 5-X); Greenbook section on calculating sight distance
References
Diagram A: The hazard is visible to the driver far enough away that there is sufficient distance for the driver to recognize and react to the hazard
and to complete the maneuver necessary to avoid it. Curves, Traffic engineering elements (signs), decision sight distance? (these are not currently included as HFG topics)
Diagram B: Because of the steeper vertical crest, the drivers sight distance is shorter than in Diagram A making it possible for a hazard to be
hidden from sight until there is insufficient distance to avoid it. Key References
*Note: distances not to scale
None
References
5-1 5-2

Left-hand page Right-hand page

Page Numbers

Figure 1 Sample Two-Page HFG Format

3
The HFG is designed to be a living document in that additional guidelines can be written
when definitive research is undertaken and completed in the future. The first complete
version of the HFG will include the following parts, and chapters.

Organization of the HFG:

PART I: INTRODUCTION TO THE HUMAN FACTORS GUIDELINES

Chapter 1: Why Have Human Factors Guidelines (HFG) for Road Systems?
Chapter 2: How to Use This Document

PART II: BRINGING ROAD USER CAPABILITIES INTO HIGHWAY DESIGN AND TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING PRACTICE
Chapter 3: Finding Information Like a Road User
Chapter 4: Integrating Road User, Highway Design, and Traffic Engineering Needs

PART III: HUMAN FACTORS GUIDANCE FOR ROADWAY LOCATION ELEMENTS

Chapter 5: Sight Distance Guidelines (9 guidelines)
Chapter 6: Curves (Horizontal Alignment) (6 guidelines)
Chapter 7: Grades (Vertical Alignment) Under Development
Chapter 8: Tangent Sections and Roadside (Cross Section) Under Development
Chapter 9: Transition Zones Between Varying Road Designs Under Development
Chapter 10: Non-Signalized Intersections (5 guidelines)
Chapter 11: Signalized Intersections (4 guidelines)
Chapter 12: Interchanges Under Development
Chapter 13: Construction and Work Zones (5 guidelines)
Chapter 14: Rail-Highway Grade Crossings Under Development
Chapter 15: Special Considerations for Urban Environments Under Development
Chapter 16: Special Considerations for Rural Environments (4 guidelines)
Chapter 17: Speed Perception, Speed Choice, and Speed Control (7 guidelines)

PART IV: HUMAN FACTORS GUIDANCE FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ELEMENTS

Chapter 18: Signing (5 guidelines)
Chapter 19: Variable Message Signs (7 guidelines)
Chapter 20: Markings (5 guidelines)
Chapter 21: Lighting Under Development

PART V: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Chapter 22: Tutorials (6 tutorials to-date, 3 contained in Report 600C)

4
 Chapter 23: References
Chapter 24. Glossary
Chapter 25. Index
Chapter 26. Abbreviations
Chapter 27. Equations Under Development

Italics = Future NCHRP Report 600C; to be published in 2010.

Acknowledgements:
The materials presented in this paper have been developed as part of NCHRP Projects
17-18(8) 17-31, 17-41, and 17-47 (see also
http://sites.google.com/site/trbcommitteeand102/).

Mr. Charles Niessner is the TRB staff officer responsible for the effort; Mr. Tom Hicks is
the Chairman of the NCHRP Project Panel.