Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

The impact of the luminance, size and location of LED billboards on drivers’
visual performance—Laboratory tests
Malgorzata Zalesinska
Poznan University of Technology, Division of Lighting and Electro Heating Engineering, 5 M. Sklodowska-Curie Square, 60-965 Poznan, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A proper visual performance by drivers can be ensured by, among else, a correct distribution of luminance in
LED billboards their field of view. At night, when the driver’s sight is adapted to low luminance levels, high luminance level
Billboard recommendations objects located near the road may be a source of glare, which is not only a nuisance, but it may also blind the
Driver’s visual performance driver. For many years, LED billboards (light-emitting diode billboards) have been installed near roads. Such
Driving simulator
billboards are usually large, have high luminance and show dynamically changing images. These parameters
Road safety
have a significant impact on the drivers’ visual performance and, in turn, on road traffic safety.
The study on the impact of the luminance, size and location of LED billboards on the drivers' visual perfor-
mance was conducted on a volunteer group. Testing the impact of LED billboards on the visual performance of
drivers in real-life conditions is very difficult. Therefore, the tests have been conducted in laboratory conditions,
using a car driving simulator. The paper describes the testing procedure and tests results. The permissible lu-
minance and areas of LED screens in two locations near the road, which significantly reduce the drivers’ visual
performance in municipal traffic at night, were determined by conducting an analysis of the results.
Recommendations on the permissible luminance and areas of LED billboards were formulated.

1. Introduction
The application of light emitting diodes (LED) in outdoor adver-
tising opened new possibilities in presenting all sorts of advertising
content. Such advertising devices could be used to display text, graphic
images, animations and video. A dozen of advertisements, arranged in a
sequence and clearly visible, both during the day and at night, could be
presented on just one LED screen. However, everything that makes this
advertising medium highly attractive may be, on many occasions, a
potential danger to road traffic safety. LED billboards have large areas
and are very bright - much brighter than traditional billboards. The
maximal luminance values specified by LED screen manufactures
(white) are around 7000 cd/m2. Tests conducted in the laboratory
showed that the maximal value of an actual, real LED module was
8.300 cd/m2 (Zalesinska and Wandachowicz, 2012)
The research conducted by Domke et al. (2010) shows that the
average value of maximum luminance measured for 18 screens oper-
ating at night in real conditions was 1980 cd/m2 for advertising content
using various colours. Given such high luminance levels in comparison
to the low luminance in the billboard's vicinity (several or a dozen cd/
m2 - e.g. the measured values for the background were 108 cd/m2 –
0.9 cd/m2, sky – 6.3 cd/m2 0.2 cd/m2, road 4.6 cd/m2 –1.1 cd/m2) and
a much lower luminance of traditional billboards (e.g. measured value
for billboards illuminated externally was 7 cd/m2 – 67 cd/m2 and bill-
boards illuminated from the inside - 106 cd/m2 – 360 cd/m2 (Zalesinska
and Wandachowicz, 2013)), such objects are a potential source of
blinding glare, making it impossible to see and, in the best case, limiting
the ability to see – disability glare. Additionally, involuntarily directing
sight at very bright objects diverts it from the road (“the moth effect”
Green, 2006). Tests carried out by Klauer et al. (2006) showed that
distracting a driver's attention from the road for over 2 s is a potential
threat to road traffic safety.
Moreover, LED billboards displaying animations, video images and
quickly alternating advertisements can potentially distract drivers, and
by displaying content that resembles traffic signs or colours used in
traffic lights, they may mislead drivers, potentially leading to dan-
gerous situations in road traffic (Roberts et al., 2013; Wachtel, 2009).
2. Current knowledge
2.1. Review of the research on the impact of LED billboards on road traffic
safety
Tests aiming to determine the relation between the increase of car
accidents and the possible presence of LED billboards near such places
have been carried out for many years. Due to the complexity of this

E-mail address: malgorzata.zalesinska@put.poznan.pl.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.005
Received 2 October 2017; Received in revised form 4 February 2018; Accepted 5 February 2018
0001-4575/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Zalesinska, M., Accident Analysis and Prevention (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.005
M. Zalesinska
phenomenon, it is very difficult to determine such a relation.
Oftentimes, drivers themselves are not aware of all the factors that
played a role in the accident or, fearing a fine or having to pay in-
creased insurance premiums, fail to admit, on purpose, that the acci-
dent was caused because they were distracted by a billboard (Speirs
et al., 2008). The published research results are also not unanimous.
Tests carried out by Tantala and Tantala (2009, 2010) showed that the
number of accidents dropped by several or even a dozen percent after a
billboard was installed in the vicinity of the road. However, tests car-
ried at the order of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
(WisDOT, 1994) for ads with a variable message sign showed that, after
the installation of billboards in the drivers’ field of view, the number of
accidents spiked by a few dozen percent. Similar tests carried out for
ads displaying video images showed an increase in the number of ac-
cidents in 2 out of 3 examined intersections (Smiley et al., 2005). De-
spite the lack of documentation explicitly proving the influence of LED
billboards on the higher number of road accidents, numerous tests
confirm that electronic billboards negatively affect the drivers’ visual
conditions. Attracting the drivers’ attention and distracting them are
usually considered as the major factors (Belyusar et al. 2016, Dukic
et al., 2013; Molino et al., 2009, Speirs et al., 2008, Dudek,
2008;Crudall et al., 2006,Farbry et al., 2001). Nonetheless, some re-
ferences report test results showing a negative impact of the colour and
content of the displayed ads (Speirs et al., 2008).
The negative impact of LED billboards on the drivers' visual con-
ditions was confirmed by surveys carried out by Domke et al. (2013).
One hundred and twelve drivers of different ages participated in the
study. The participants of the survey were asked about their attention
being drawn to LED billboards. Ninety respondents, i.e. 80%, answered
affirmatively to the question. Another question was: Do LED billboards
distract you, as a driver, when you are driving? Most of the re-
spondents, namely 69 people (62%), confirmed the negative impact of
LED billboards on the visual conditions. The most commonly cited
factor was the excessive brightness of the areas of billboards, followed
by excessively bright colours and rapidly changing images.
2.2. Review of the requirements with regard to LED billboards
In some countries where problems with very bright LED billboards
have emerged, e.g. USA, Australia, South Africa, Holland and Poland,
attempts have been made to limit the negative impact of LED billboards
on the safety of road traffic by issuing relevant legal regulations. These
regulations often differ from each other significantly and only apply to
factors affecting distraction, such as displaying moving images,
minimum dwell times, visual effects and the interval between con-
secutive images. Parameters, such as the luminance of the displayed
images, their size and location in relation to the road, which may have
an additional impact on the glare of drivers, are rarely taken into ac-
count. The requirements in force in selected countries, related to the
permissible luminance, size and locations of advertising devices, are
presented below.
2.2.1. Permissible luminance of large billboards
Usually, limiting the luminance of billboards during the day is not
necessary, but such a limitation should be unquestionably introduced at
night. Unfortunately, legal regulations rarely provide for such re-
quirements. If, however, the maximal luminance values are taken into
account, the applied values vary a lot. For example:
In the New York State in America (NYSDOT, 2008), the maximal
luminance is specified at 5000 cd/m2 for daytime and 280 cd/m2 for the
night. In San Antonio, Texas, a luminance of 7000 cd/m2 is permitted
during daytime and 2.500 cd/m2 at night (Ord. No. 2017-05-04-0297,
2017) The regulations, however, fail to specify the required lighting
conditions in the billboard's vicinity. In Queensland and New South
Wales, Australia, a limitation of billboard luminance was introduced in
relation to the surrounding level of lighting. Still, the permissible values
2
Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
of luminance differ significantly for those two states. Three zones were
introduced in Queensland (Roberts et al., 2013): high level of lighting,
e.g. town centres - max. 500 cd/m2; average level of lighting, e.g.
suburban industrial zones, parking lots – max. 350 cd/m2; and low level
of lighting, e.g. residential areas – max. 300 cd/m2. Four zones were
introduced in New South Wales (Roberts et al., 2013): high level of
lighting, e.g. town centres - unlimited; average level of lighting, e.g.
suburban industrial zones, parking lots – max. 1.200 cd/m2; low level of
lighting, e.g. small, isolated shopping centres – max. 300 cd/m2; and
areas lacking external lighting, e.g. rural areas 400 cd/m2. In South
Africa (SANRAL, 2000), the permissible luminance depends on the
billboard's size. The following permissible luminance values were used:
1000 cd/m2 for billboards whose area is below 0.5 m2; 800 cd/m2 for
0.5–2.0 m2; 600 cd/m2 for 2.0–10.0 m2; 350 cd/m2 - above 10.0 m2
(within the road lane); and 400 cd/m2 above 10.0 m2 (outside the road
lane). In Poland, there are also plans to limit the luminance of adver-
tising billboards in developed areas to 4000 cd/m2 in the daytime and
400 cd/m2 at night, and in undeveloped areas to 4000 cd/m2 in the
daytime and to 300 cd/m2 at night (Draft Regulation, 2016)
2.2.2. Permissible area and location of billboards
The maximal permissible advertising areas usually depend on the
state (or local) legal regulations and range from a few to several tens of
square meters. For example, in Tasmania (Roberts et al., 2013), the
maximal advertising surface is 3 m2; in New Zealand (Roberts et al.,
2013), the maximal size is 3 m high and 6 m wide; in Queensland
(Roberts et al., 2013), Australia – 43 m2; in San Antonio, Texas – 62 m2
(Ord. No. 2017-05-04-0297, 2017). With regard to the permissible lo-
cation requirements, it is often stipulated that a billboard may not limit
visibility and endanger road traffic. Billboards should not be installed in
places where drivers are required to pay special attention (e.g. near
pedestrian crossings). Still, some regulations precisely specify permis-
sible location zones for billboards. For example, in South Africa
(SANRAL, 2000), billboards should be installed over 50 m away from
intersections where the speed limit is below 60 km/h, 100 m where the
speed is limited to 60 km/h, and 200 m where the speed limit is over
100 km/h. In New South Wales (Roberts et al., 2013), Australia, the
minimal distance from a billboard to the zone where traffic changes
direction, to traffic signs or exits should be 10 m in cities, 15 m outside
cities and 15 m on highways. In Holland (Daluge et al., 2011), bill-
boards must not be placed closer than 13 m from the road and 200 m
from the place where the road begins to curve; moreover, billboards
cannot be placed in front of or behind road traffic signs or other traffic
control devices. In Poland (Arc of 21 March 1985), placing billboards
near roads is subject to the road category and the land it crosses. In
developed areas, the minimal distance is 6 m for local roads, 8 m for
district and regional roads, and 10 m for national roads. Outside de-
veloped areas, the distances are 15 m, 20 m and 25 m, respectively.
3. Objective of research
The problem of unpleasant and distracting glare has been known for
a long time. As new technologies are being developed, e.g. CCD matrix
(Charge-Coupled Device matrix), eye trackers or driving simulators,
numerous research projects are under way, aiming to create newer
methods of measuring and evaluating the impact of glare on visual
performance (Porsch et al., 2014, Blaszczyk, 2013; Van den Berg et al.,
2009; Rob, 2007). Although recommendations and methods of evalu-
ating glare caused by luminaires are known, there are no specific re-
quirements and recommendations for large LED billboards, especially
with regard to their photometric and geometric properties. Therefore, a
research project has been commenced to determine the impact of LED
billboards on the drivers’ visual performance. In several studies, a lu-
minance was recommended, which does not reduce the drivers' visual
performance in urban traffic. However, the cumulative impact of the
luminance, size and the location of the billboard on the drivers' visual
M. Zalesinska
performance was not analysed. The objective of the research discussed
here by the author is to determine the maximal permissible luminance
and area for an LED billboard that does not pose a significant threat to
urban road traffic safety in relation to two locations of the billboard in
the driver’s field of vision.
4. Research method
Visual performance is the performance of the human visual system
measured with, for example, the speed and accuracy of performing a
visual task. The drivers’ visual performance may be evaluated on the
basis of: the distance at which objects on the road can be perceived
under given lighting conditions; the speed at which an object on the
road is detected; revealing power, which is the percentage of objects
detectable at each point on the road in the case of a given lighting
installation; as well as noticing relative movement, e.g. noticing
changes in the angular dimensions of the rear of the preceding car (Van
Bommel, 2014; Van Bommel and De Boer, 1984).
In the following research, the drivers’ visual performance was
evaluated on the basis of the drivers’ reaction time to simulated, po-
tentially dangerous, road incidents. A sudden appearance of an obstacle
(a human, a dog or a ball) on the road was such a situation.
A car driving simulator built in the laboratory during the past re-
search project was used for such an experiment. The major components
of the simulator included: the vehicle’s cabin, the display system, the
screen and the control system. While driving, the simulation image was
displayed on a 5.3 m × 2.9 m screen. Additionally, a real LED billboard
module - 1.54 m × 1.15 m - was placed in the laboratory test bed. In the
laboratory test bed geometry, the module used corresponded to a bill-
board of a maximum size of around 30 m2, operating in real conditions.
In the lab, the effect of expanding advertising was simulated by in-
creasing the image displayed on the LED screen with speed, depending
on the virtual speed of the car.
A drawing of the lab setup is shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The appearance
of the driving simulator is shown in Fig. 3 and the cabin’s interior is
shown in Fig. 4.
The calibration of the image of the displayed road and its immediate
vicinity, with regard to the distribution of luminance, was done on the
basis of research carried out by Zalesinska and Wandachowicz (2013).
This allowed to achieve visual conditions similar to those found on a
city road at night (Zalesinska and Wandachowicz, 2014). According to
the selection of lighting classes (CEN/TR 13201:2014-1) for urban
traffic, the M2 lighting class was adopted. The projected luminance of
the road was 1.5 cd/m2. The simulator's software allowed to create
various routes through the virtual city. An example of the image dis-
played during the simulation is shown in Fig. 5; Fig. 6 shows an ex-
ample of the luminance distribution on the projected image.
Logitech racing wheel drivers with software, which cooperated with
the simulator software, were used to simulate the car drive through a
virtual city (making turns, speeding, braking, etc.). During the study,
the total reaction time (notice time, decision time and decision execu-
tion time) was measured from the time that the obstacle was generated
on the road until there was a feedback signal from the racing wheel
caused by turning the wheel and braking, or no reaction and collision
with the obstacle. The control system in the PC recorded the drivers’
times of reaction to road incidents. The precision of the drivers’ reaction
time measurement was 10 ms.
During the tests, a human, a dog and a ball served as obstacles on
the road forcing drivers to perform a braking manoeuvre or pass the
object. The luminance and size of the obstacles guaranteed that they
would be noticeable during normal driving (without illuminated ad-
vertising on the roadside). The colouring of the human's clothing was
changed at random, while the colour of the dog and the colours of the
ball remained the same each time. The luminance of obstacles and,
above all, the contrast of the luminosity of the obstacle with the road, as
well as their size, were large enough to allow these objects to be noticed
3
Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
on the road without much problem. Although each of the obstacles used
was of a different type, during the calibration of the simulator
(Zalesinska, 2014, Zalesinska and Domke, 2014), there were no sig-
nificant differences in the reaction times of the drivers to the sudden
appearance of these objects on the road. The appearance of the ob-
stacles is shown in Fig. 7.
5. Laboratory test
5.1. Preparation of the experiment
The evaluation of the impact of an LED billboard on the drivers’
visual performance was carried out for 4 sizes of displayed advertise-
ments - 100% (1.54 m × 1.15 m), 50% (1.15 m × 0.77 m), 25%
(0.77 m × 0.58 m) and 12.5% (0.58 m × 0.38 m) of the entire area of
the billboard in the test bed (Fig. 8.); at three levels of luminance -
200 cd/m2, 400 cd/m2, 800 cd/m2; and two locations of the device in
relation to the road; two angles between the centre of the LED screen;
and the main axis of the road was 33° and 44°, respectively. The 44°
angle is the highest value that can be achieved on the test bed, whereas
33° results from the minimal distance at which the billboard does not
obstruct the view of the sidewalk on the displayed simulation.
Based on the results of pilot studies (Zalesinska, 2015a, 2015b), it
was decided that the analysis of the impact of the advertising space
occupying 100% of the LED screen for an angle of 33° relative to the
main road axis was omitted during the research. The results of the pilot
studies showed that the average reaction time of drivers in this case was
definitely longer than in other cases. Since the aim of the above ex-
periment was to set the maximum permissible parameters, which do not
significantly affect the visual performance of the drivers, the worst case
had already been eliminated at the outset. In this way, the number of
volunteers and the time needed for testing was reduced. Finally, with
the billboard placed at an angle of 44° in relation to the road, tests were
carried out for all 4 sizes – 100%, 50%, 25% and 12.5% - and all lu-
minance (0 cd/m2, 200 cd/m2, 400 cd/m2, 800 cd/m2) levels of adver-
tisements. For the angle of 33°, only the impacts of three sizes of
commercials - 50%, 25% and 12.5% - and luminance levels, were
analysed. A total of 21 different cases were analysed. All the analysed
cases related to changes in the luminance, LED screen location and the
size of the image displayed on the LED screen are shown in Fig. 9. The
drivers’ reaction times related to the sudden appearance of an obstacle
on the road with non-illuminated advertising (L = 0 cd/m2) were al-
ways treated as reference points in the assessment of the impact of the
examined parameters on visual performance; therefore, they were not
treated as another analysed case.
The distance from the surface of the screen to the observer was
practically constant in the laboratory test bed. In reality, the billboards
are placed at various distances from the road. Solid angles in the ster-
adian, and additionally horizontal and vertical angles in degrees at
which the displayed advertisements are visible, were calculated in
order to relate the size of the billboard with the distance from the ob-
server. For an advertisement occupying 100% of the screen, the solid
angle was 0.08 sr, the horizontal angle was 18.2° and the vertical angle
was 13.0°, for 50% accordingly: 0.04 sr, 13.6°, 8.7°, for 25%: 0.02 sr,
9.1°, 6.5°, and for 12.5%: 0.01 sr, 6.9°, 4.3°.
All advertisement sizes were displayed on the same device.
Therefore, with the advertising surfaces occupying less than 100% of
the screen, in each case, there was a dark area of the turned-off part of
the device appearing around the bright image. The dark area sur-
rounding the bright advertisement increased its contrast together with
its immediate surroundings and thus created less favourable conditions
for the drivers. Nevertheless, the results obtained under these condi-
tions provide a better basis for determining the minimum luminous
surface area from the point of view of the impact on road safety.
The drivers’ task during the experiment was to cover a specific
section of road through a virtual city in conformance with road traffic
M. Zalesinska Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Drawing of the lab setup – view from the top.

regulations. The driver was obliged to drive at a speed of no more than
50 km/h. At this speed, the stopping distance is about 34 m (Lozia and
Wolinski, 2010), and this was also the virtual distance of the obstacle in
front of the car. However, if the driver drove faster, for example,
90 km/h, the obstacle appeared at a distance of about 84 m in front of
the car and, if slower, e.g. 20 km/h - at a distance of about 10 m.
The visual performance was assessed on the basis of the observer's
reaction time to the emergence of an obstacle on the road in a situation
where there was an illuminated LED screen on the shoulder of the road
with a specific luminance and area as well as a non-illuminated LED
screen (L = 0 cd/m2).
In order to reduce the measurement uncertainty, ten obstacles were
placed on each route, for which the driver’s reaction time was con-
sidered, and six obstacles whose purpose was to distract the driver were
not taken into account when analysing the results.
In the beginning, each observer was informed about the objective
and method of conducting the experiment. Then, the test route was
taken, followed by the main routes. Each observer had to cover five

Fig. 2. Drawing of the lab setup – view from the side.

4
M. Zalesinska Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. An example of the luminance distribution on the projected image.

several-minute routes. The practice route was only with obstacles and
there were three routes with illuminated billboards. A total number of 5
routes was established during the calibration of the test stand
Fig. 3. The driving simulator built at the laboratory.
(Zalesinska and Domke 2014, Zalesinska 2014) as being optimal both in
terms of maintaining the well-being of the drivers (lack of fatigue and
tiredness during the experiment) and in organisational terms, as it was
possible to obtain partial reaction times for 3 analysed cases at the same
time (variables: luminance, size, position).
To eliminate the impact of the order of routes on the results of the
measurement, the test participants drove along the proper routes in a
different order each time. In order to minimise the impact of additional
factors, such as accidental braking and looking at the speedometer
while an obstacle appeared on the road, times that excessively differed
from the average were eliminated. The selection of results was done on
the basis of the average reaction time of a given observer to the ap-
pearance of an obstacle with the billboard's luminance at zero. It was
assumed that further analysis would only use results whose maximal
difference in relation to the average reaction time did not exceed 1.96 -
the value of standard deviation of a given observer. Therefore, the
application of a standard deviation expansion factor of 1.96 means a
significance level of α = 0.05.

5.2. Characteristics of the examined group

Fig. 4. Interior of the car simulator passenger compartment.

All tests were performed on a group of 175 volunteers. However,

due to a high number of possible variants for analysis (21 cases), the
volunteers were divided into 7 groups, each group consisting of 25

Fig. 5. An example of simulation on the screen.

5
M. Zalesinska
Fig. 7. The appearance of the obstacles used in the research.
Fig. 8. An example of an advertisement with 100% and 25% of the area of the LED screen.
Fig. 9. A list of cases analysed during the research.
people. Three cases that differed in the luminance of advertisements
displayed on the LED screen, the size of the advertisements and the
location of the LED screen in the driver's field of view, were analysed
within each group. Thus, each average reaction time was determined on
the basis of the rides of 25 people with 10 obstacles on each route,
which were subject to further evaluation, giving 226–242 results in
each case.
6
Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
The average age of the tested individuals was 23.1 (SD = 0.9 year).
All test subjects were holders of passenger car driving licenses. Most of
them had a driving license for 3 or 4 years and declared good passenger
car driving skills. Moreover, most of the test participants declared that
they drive in a city at least several times a week, for a total of at least
1 h.
5.3. Results and analysis
The study on the impact of the area and luminance of an LED screen
on the drivers' visual performance was conducted according to the
previously described procedure.
The obtained partial results (for “N” results in each case) were used
to determine the average reaction times (tav) for the tested group of
observers. The standard deviation (SD) and confidence interval (CI)
were calculated for a significance level of α = 0.05. The determined
parameters are shown in Table 1.
A graphical interpretation of the relation of the observers' reaction
times to the level of luminance of an LED billboard for the examined
areas of advertisements displayed on the screen and the assumed lo-
cation of the screen in relation to the road is shown in Fig. 10.
The research on the influence of the luminance and size of adver-
tisements displayed on a LED billboard as well as the impact of the
M. Zalesinska Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Results of the measurement of the average reaction times of observers to the appearance of an obstacle on the road, along with the basic experiment’s descriptive statistics.

Billboard's luminance Analysed parameter Angle locations of the device in relation to the road

33° 44°

Areas of advertisements displayed on the screen

12.5% 25% 50% 12.5% 25% 50% 100%

2
0 cd/m tav [ms] 769 754 758 762 769 749 757
SD [ms] 57 71 102 91 69 75 88
CI [ms] 769 ±7 754 ±9 758 ± 13 762 ± 12 769 ±9 749 ±9 757 ± 11
N [pcs.] 226 228 227 234 235 238 238
200 cd/m2 tav [ms] 783 837 853 757 807 818 830
SD [ms] 78 67 84 87 103 92 82
CI [ms] 783 ± 10 837 ±8 853 ± 11 757 ± 11 807 ± 13 818 ± 12 830 ± 10
N [pcs.] 227 240 235 236 236 240 242
2
400 cd/m tav [ms] 795 852 869 763 811 820 842
SD [ms] 87 81 73 89 98 101 103
CI [ms] 795 ± 11 240 ± 10 869 ±9 763 ± 11 236 ± 13 240 ± 13 242 ± 13
N [pcs.] 237 240 231 235 232 239 241
800 cd/m2 tav [ms] 851 878 889 774 837 856 877
SD [ms] 92 83 86 82 105 110 90
CI [ms] 851 ± 12 878 ± 11 889 ± 11 774 ± 11 837 ± 14 856 ± 14 877 ± 11
N [pcs.] 234 231 229 228 229 234 240

preliminary analysis of the research showed that the average reaction

times for this case were close to the average reaction times for the 25%
size at an angle of 33° - the max. difference amounting to 10 ms (see
Fig. 10) and were in the range of the upper all values of the obtained
average reaction times. Therefore, this case will have a similar effect on
the visual performance of drivers. In order to determine the parameters
of the LED billboard, it was not necessary to analyse this case. The
elimination of this parameter significantly simplified the statistical
analysis, especially the post hoc analysis. Finally, a system consisting of
two billboard positions, three sizes of the image displayed and four
luminance levels (2 × 3 × 4) was analysed. Due to the fact that, each
time, the same drivers were driving on the same routes where the ad-
vertisement of the same size was displayed at the same position of the
LED screen, but with different luminance, ANOVA with Repeated
Fig. 10. The relation of the observers’ average reaction time to the luminance of the LED
Measures was used for the analysis, where luminance constituted a
billboard for the examined areas of image displayed on the screen and two locations of
the billboard, the solid line - location at an angle of 33°, the dotted line – location at an factor for repetitive measurements, and the image size and the position
angle of 44°. of the LED screen were intergroup factors.
Multivariate tests for repeated measurements (Wilks, Pillai,
Hotelling, Roy) were implemented in the variance analysis of the
position of the advertisements in the field of view of the drivers on the
analysed system. The p-values obtained for the comparisons tested in
visual performance of the drivers was carried out on a selected group of
each case were consistent, thus confirming the assumption of the var-
volunteers. In each analysed case (with the same parameters of lumi-
iance sphericity and the possibility of further analysis using the ANOVA
nance, size, and location of the LED screen), the average values, stan-
with the Repeated Measures method.
dard deviations and confidence intervals for a confidence level of 0.95,
The results of the variance analysis presented in Table 2 clearly
were determined (see Table 1). The differences between the average
indicate the statistically significant (S) influence of luminance on the
values obtained for each case varied between a few and a dozen per-
respondents' reaction times. Differences in the reaction times of the
cent. Therefore, in order to assess the influence of the test parameters
observers depend on changes in luminance images in 36% of cases
on the visual performance of drivers, it was necessary to evaluate the
(effect size - 36%). Based on this analysis, it is also possible to state
statistical significance of the obtained differences. The multivariate
there were double interactions occurring between the analysed factors
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to assess the sig-
and that no triple interaction took place. A statistically significant
nificance of differences. The statistical analysis was carried out on both
the main effects, e.g. luminance, the size of the image displayed and the
position of the LED screen in the field of view of the drivers as well as Table 2
the interactions between the main effects. Results of the variance analysis for repeated measurements.
The experiment assessed the influence of the positions of two LED
Effect df F-statistic P-value η2 Significant
screens on the main viewing direction (angles of 33° and 44°), three
sizes of an image displayed on a billboard for an angle of 33° (12.5%, luminance 3 82.09 p < 0.001 0.36 S
25%, 50%) and four sizes for an angle of 44° (12.5%, 25%, 50%, 100%) size 2 15.14 p < 0.001 0.17 S
location 1 20.52 p < 0.001 0.12 S
as well as a total of four levels of image luminance (non-illuminated
luminance*size 6 8.00 p < 0.001 0.10 S
advertisement – 0 cd/m2 as well as 200 cd/m2, 400 cd/m2, 800 cd/m2). luminance *location 3 7.27 p < 0.001 0.05 S
However, the case in which the displayed image occupied 100% of the size*location 2 0.20 0.817 < 0.01 NS
area of the LED screen was omitted in the statistical analysis. The luminance*size*location 6 1.19 0.313 0.02 NS

7
M. Zalesinska
Fig. 11. Average and 95% confidence intervals for the reaction times of the drivers for
luminance of the image displayed and position of the LED screen relative to the main
direction of observation.
interaction occurred between the luminance and the size of the image
displayed as well as the luminance and the position of the LED screen in
the field of view of the drivers. This means that the impact of these
correlations on visual performance was significant.
By analysing the simultaneous effect of luminance and the position
of the LED screen in the field of view of the drivers, it is possible to state
a faster increase in the reaction time to the sudden emergence of an
obstacle on the road with an increase in the advertisement luminance
for the location of the billboard at an angle of 33° relative to the main
direction of observation when compared to the location at an angle of
44°. This indicates that the location of the billboard, which is closer to
the road, significantly decreases the visual performance of the drivers,
compared with the location further away from the road, irrespective of
the considered luminance level. Even an 800 cd/m2 luminance at an
angle of 44° does not cause a decrease of the driver’s visual performance
as in the case of a 200 cd/m2 luminance at an angle of 33° (see Fig. 11).
By analysing the simultaneous effect of luminance and the size of
the image displayed on the LED screen on the reaction times of the
drivers, it can be stated that the smallest image size, irrespective of the
luminance of the image displayed, had the smallest effect on the in-
crease in the reaction time of the observers. For an advertisement dis-
played on an area of 12.5% of the total area of the LED screen, even an
800 cd/m2 luminance gave shorter reaction times than a 200 cd/m2
luminance on an area of 25% and 50%. In addition, for the 12.5% area,
the slowest increase in time was recorded with a luminance increase
from 0 cd/m2 to 200 cd/m2, compared with the remaining advertising
sizes and luminance changes. This means that, in this case, the smallest
impact of the illuminated advertisement with 200 cd/m2 luminance on
the drivers’ visual performance was minimised. Other luminance
changes, irrespective of the size of the image, have a similar effect on
the extension of reaction time (the curves in Fig. 12 are nearly parallel),
while the luminance increase from 200 cd/m2 to 800 cd/m2, irrespec-
tive of the size of the image displayed, results in a comparable reaction
time extension (35 ms for 12.5%, 40 ms for 25%, and 35 ms for 50%).
The analysis of the size of the image displayed and the location of
the LED screen in the field of view of the drivers showed a significant
effect of both parameters on the reaction time of the drivers to the
sudden emergence of an obstacle on the road. However, the impact of
image size on the reaction times of observers was stronger (17%) than
the location of the LED screen (12%). There was no statistically sig-
nificant interaction occurring between those parameters (see Table 2).
In order to determine the permissible luminance and area for an
LED billboard, which do not pose a significant threat to the urban road
traffic safety, cases for which the average reaction times are not
8
Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 12. Average and 95% confidence intervals for the reaction times of the drivers for the
luminance of the image displayed and the size of the image displayed on the LED screen.
statistically different are important. For this purpose, a post hoc ana-
lysis was performed. The Newman-Keuls procedure was used to analyse
the differences at various levels of luminance. The results of the ana-
lysed cases with no statistically significant differences (the same effect
on visual performance) are summarised in tables 3 and 4. There were
differences in the average reaction times of observers in the remaining
cases p < α (statistically significant difference).
Based on multiple applied comparisons, there are no statistically
significant differences between the average reaction times when the
LED screens did not display the advertisements (L = 0 cd/m2), irre-
spective of the position of the device in the field of view of the drivers
(see Table 3) and the measuring series for which the size of the dis-
played image was subsequently changed (see Table 4). No statistically
significant difference at the significance level of α = 0.05 indicate the
same influence of laboratory workstation components on the visual
performance of the examined drivers (e.g. driving route design, pre-
sence of the LED screen in the field of view of the drivers, driving si-
mulator service). The post hoc analysis also showed no statistically
significant differences between 200 cd/m2 and 400 cd/m2 luminance
values for the angle of 33° and also for the angle of 44° (see Table 3) as
well as all screen sizes (see Table 4).
On this basis, it can be stated that the image luminance of 200 cd/
m2 and 400 cd/m2 had the same effect on the visual performance of the
observers irrespective of the size of the image displayed.
There was also no statistically significant difference between the
average reaction times relative to the non-illuminated LED screen
(L = 0 cd/m2) and the luminance values of 200 cd/m2 and 400 cd/m2
for the image size of 12.5% (see Table 4). On this basis, it is possible to
conclude that there is no impact of 200 cd/m2 and 400 cd/m2 lumi-
nance values of advertisements occupying 12.5% of the total area of the
LED screen at the laboratory workstation on the increase of the reaction
time of the observers and thus the decrease of their visual performance
irrespective of the position of the billboard in the field of view of the
Table 3
Post hoc comparisons for the interaction of luminance and location.
Interaction P-value
Location*luminance Location*luminance
33º * 0 cd/m2 44º * 0 cd/m2 0.841
33º * 200 cd/m2 33º * 400 cd/m2 0.066
44º * 800 cd/m2 0.790
44º * 200 cd/m2 44º * 400 cd/m2 0.629
33º * 400 cd/m2 44º * 800 cd/m2 0.186
M. Zalesinska Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 4 conclude that a significant reduction in the visual performance of the

Post hoc comparisons for the interaction of luminance and size. drivers was not found at an angle of 44° and advertising size of 12.5%,
regardless of the displayed advertising luminance, together with the
Interaction P-value
angle of 33°, an advertisement size of 12.5% and luminance of 200 cd/
Size*luminance Size*luminance m2 as well as 400 cd/m2. In the other analysed cases, there was a re-
duction in the visual performance of the drivers due to a change in
12.5% * L = 0 cd/m2 25% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.681
luminance, the size of the displayed image and the position of the LED
50% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.610
50% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.592 screen in the driver's field of view.
12.5% * L = 200 cd/m2 12.5% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.676
25% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.735 5.4. Limitations
50% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.573
12.5% * L = 400 cd/m2 12.5%* L = 200 cd/m2 0.388
The visual performance of drivers may be studied in real-life or
12.5% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.405
25% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.471 laboratory conditions. Conducting the experiments in a simulator al-
50% * L = 0 cd/m2 0.275 lows to eliminate numerous additional factors that are found in real
12.5% * L = 800 cd/m2 25% * L = 200 cd/m2 0.485 road conditions, i.e. unpredictable behaviour of other road users, dif-
25% * L = 400 cd/m2 0.288
ferent traffic loads or weather conditions, which may have an impact on
50% * L = 200 cd/m2 0.233
50% * L = 400 cd/m2 0.057 the final result of the experiment. Regardless, the result of the study is
25% * L = 200 cd/m2 25% * L = 400 cd/m2 0.317 largely influenced by the equipment used and the testing method. The
50% * L = 200 cd/m2 0.459 use of a driving simulator in order to study drivers’ visual performance
50% * L = 400 cd/m2 0.194 makes it possible to bring the conditions at which the experiment is
25% * L = 400 cd/m2 50% * L = 200 cd/m2 0.702
carried out significantly closer to the conditions present in a real
50% * L = 400 cd/m2 0.468
25% * L = 800 cd/m2 50% * L = 200 cd/m2 0.165 driving environment, along with the possibility of arranging a poten-
50% * L = 400 cd/m2 0.308 tially dangerous situation for the traffic, e.g. a sudden appearance of an
50% * L = 400 cd/m2 50% * L = 200 cd/m2 0.326 obstacle on the road.
50% * L = 800 cd/m2 25% * L = 800 cd/m2 0.173
However, the fundamental difference between tests conducted in a
driving simulator and real-life conditions is present in the scope of the
drivers. This conclusion is highly important in terms of determining the visual task performed by the driver. In reality, while driving through a
acceptable parameters of LED billboards located in close proximity to city, the driver is rarely focused solely on the road lane and often looks
the roads. at advertisements, pedestrians and shop windows. In the case of ex-
By analysing the remaining results, it can be concluded that statis- periments conducted in a driving simulator, such a situation must be
tically significant differences did not occur between the average reac- enforced by assigning the observer with an appropriate task, e.g.
tion times of the observers in the case of images with 400 cd/m2 for the searching for specific objects in the vicinity of the road. Therefore,
angle of 33° and 800 cd/m2 for the angle of 44° (see Table 3) as well as experiments regarding the driver's visual performance in different
between 800 cd/m2 luminance and occupying 25% and 50% of the total conditions, conducted with the use of a driving simulator, require a
LED screen area either (see Table 4). In addition, the reaction times of correct design of routes and a proper selection of the visual task. In
the drivers relative to the advertisement luminance of 800 cd/m2 and addition, limitations were necessary. In this research, the following
the image size of 12.5% of the LED screen area as well as the levels of limitations were introduced:
200 cd/m2 and 400 cd/m2 of luminance values for image sizes of 25%
and 50% were not significantly different (see Table 4); therefore, they • The tests were carried out for a specified route through a virtual
had the same effect on the visual performance of the observers. city, specially prepared for this research.
Summarising the results of the above analysis, it can be concluded • The test results concerned roads with lighting class M2 (L = 1.5 cd/
that in conditions simulated in the laboratory, both the luminance of m2) and luminance schedules that occur in the driver’s field of view
the displayed images, their size and the location of the advertisement in on built-up areas.
the driver's field of view had a significant impact on the visual per- • The tests were carried out for a minimum angle of the LED screen in
formance of the tested persons. The increase in luminance and the size relation to the main observation direction, amounting to 33°.
of the displayed image as well as the approximation of the LED screen • The measurements of the reaction time were only carried out for
to the main axis of the road resulted in longer reaction times of the static obstacles suddenly appearing on the road.
drivers to the sudden appearance of obstacles on the road. Luminance • The influence of the luminance, size and the location of advertise-
had the greatest influence on extending the reaction time of the drivers ments was assessed solely on the basis of the average reaction time
(η2 = 0.36), while the location of the LED screen in the driver’s field of of the drivers.
view was of the least importance among the tested parameters • Only static images displayed on the LED screen were used during the
(η2 = 0.12). The analysis of the interaction between the examined tests. Animations or video images were not included. The effects of
parameters only showed double interactions between luminance and the colour of the displayed images and the luminance distribution
the size of the advertisement as well as luminance and the position of on the surface of the displayed images were not taken into account.
the LED screen. At the same time, the effect of the luminance of the Only the effect of the average surface luminance of the displayed
displayed image on the average reaction time of the drivers depends on image was analysed.
the simultaneous impact of the size of the displayed image (η2 = 0.10) • The average reaction times were set for observers aged 21–25
to a greater extent than on the location of the LED screen (η2 = 0.05). In (average age: 23).
the considered cases, the impact of the examined parameters was not
always identical. In some situations, the change in the average reaction 6. Conclusion
time, relative to the time obtained with a non-illuminated LED screen,
was so small that no statistically significant difference, and thus no The conducted studies were aimed at assessing the impact of the
effect on the reduction of the visual performance of the observers, could luminance, size and location of LED billboards on the drivers’ visual
be considered. The post hoc analysis enabled to indicate the above- performance and attempted to formulate guidelines on the use of
mentioned cases. Based on the results of this analysis, it was possible to maximal luminance and areas of LED billboards placed close to roads.
For luminance distributions occurring in the driver's field of view

9
M. Zalesinska
simulated at the test bed, particularly luminance distribution on the
road, a negative impact of the illuminating surface and the position of
the LED screen on the visual performance of the drivers has been in-
dicated.
Areas with a size of over 12.5% and luminance of more than 400 cd/
m2 caused deteriorated visual performance of the observers. Since a
practically identical distance from the observer to the billboard was
maintained throughout the tests, in real conditions, with billboards
located at various distances from the road, the maximal solid angle at
which the billboard may be viewed from the driver’s position would
have to be determined. The analysis of the measurement results leads to
a conclusion that the maximal solid angle at which the observer views
the LED screen's surface, and which will not lead to a significant de-
terioration of the drivers’ visual performance is 0.01 sr (horizontal
angle - 6.3°, vertical angle - 4.3°) at an advertising luminance of 400 cd/
m2. At this angle, the area of the billboard viewed in the laboratory
from the distance of 4.6 m was 0.2 m2, which corresponds to the actual
billboard area of 8.5 m2 observed from a distance of 30 m, or 34 m2
from a distance of 60 m.
Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
I would like to thank all the volunteers for their participation in the
research as well as for their time and willingness to cooperate. I thank
all of my colleagues, especially Krzysztof Wandachowicz, for their va-
luable comments and support during the research.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.005.
References
The South African National Roads Agency Limited and National Roads (SANRAL).
Regulations on Advertising on or Visible from National Roads R.1402/2000.
Government Gazette No 21924 dated 22 December 2000.
Arc of 21 March 1985 - On public roads. Amended in 2016 (pl) Notice of the Speaker of
the Polish Parliament of August 23, 2016. Dz.U. 2016 poz. 1440, §42a http://prawo.
sejm.gove.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20160001440 (accessed 25.02.
2018).
Belyusar, D., Reimer, B., Mehler, B., Coughlin, J.F., 2016. A field study on the effects of
digital billboards on glance behavior during highway driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 88,
88–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.12.014.
Blaszczyk, U.J., 2013. Method for evaluating discomfort glare based on the analysis of a
digital image of an illuminated interior. Metrol. Meas. Syst. 20 (4), 623–634. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2478/mms2013-0053.
Technical Report CEN/TR 13201:2014-1: Road lighting – Part 1: Guidelines on selection
of lighting classes.
Crudall, D., Van Loon, E., Underwood, G., 2006. Attraction and distraction of attention
with roadside advertisements. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38 (4), 671–677. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.012.
Daluge, M.J., DeLong, M., Hanig, L., Kalla, H., Klauer, C., et al., 2011. Outdoor adver-
tising control practices in Australia, Europe, Japan. Report No. FHWA-Pl-10-031,
Washington DC. (accessed 24.02.2017). https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/
pl11023/pl11023.pdf.
Domke, K., Wandachowicz, K., Zalesinska, M., Mroczkowska, S., Skrzypczak, P., 2010.
Assessment of hazards in road traffic caused by large-surface LED billboards. Grant of
City Hall Poznan No. RoM.III/3420-50/10, The Technical Report (pl). Poznan,
Poland.
Domke, K., Zalesinska, M., Wandachowicz, K., Skrzypczak, P., Mroczkowska, S., 2013.
The evaluation of impact of large LED billboards on the drivers’ visual conditions in
road traffic. Research project financed by the ministry of science and higher educa-
tion in 2011-2013, No. N 510 666140. The Technical Report (pl). Poznan, Poland.
Draft Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure and Construction of 27 April 2016 on
the maximum luminance of the surface of the visual information placed on adver-
tising light emitting (pl). https://legislacja.rcl.gov.pl/docs//520/12276611/
12308215/12308216/dokument219295.pdf (accessed 25.02.2018).
Dudek, C.L., 2008. Changeable message sign displays during non-incident, non-roadwork
periods: A synthesis of highway practice. NCHRP Synthesis 383. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Dukic, T., Ahlstrom, C., Patten, C., Kettwich, C., Kircher, K., 2013. Effects of electronic
billboards on driver distraction. Traffic Inj. Prev. 14, 469–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.
10
Accident Analysis and Prevention xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
1080/15389588.2012.731546.
Farbry, J., Wochinger, K., Shafer, T., Owens, N., Nedzesky, A., 2001. Research Review of
Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction
(Final Report). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, Greensboro, USA.
Green, M., 2006. Is the moth effect real? Accid. Reconstr. J. 16 (3), 18–19.
Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., Ramsey, D.J., 2006. The impact of
driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: an analysis using the 100-car naturalistic
driving study data. Report DOT HS 810 594. Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
Lozia, Z., Wolinski, P., 2010. Value relationships of the braking distance and stopping
distance length for car motion various conditions (pl). Autobusy – Technika,
Eksploatacja, Systemy Transportowe 6, 1–7.
Molino, J.A., Wachtel, J., Farbry, J.E., Hermosillo, M.B., Granda, T.M., 2009. The Effects
of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and
Distraction: An Update. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-09-018, Georgetown, USA. .
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), 2008. Criteria for Regulating
Off-Premise Changeable Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) in New York
State, https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/real-estate/repository/cevms-
criteria-for-website.pdf (accessed 04.04.2017).
An ordinance No. 2017-05-04-0297, § 1(Att. 1), adopted May 4, 2017, Chapter 28 "Sign”,
Article IV - Erection and Maintenance Regulations, San Antonio, Texas. https://www.
municode.com/library/tx/san_antonio/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_
CH28SI (accessed 14.09.2017).
Porsch, T., Walkling, A., Uberschar, A., Schmidt, F., Schierz, C., 2014. Measurement of the
threshold increment (TI) in road lighting based on using ILMD. In: Proceedings of CIE
2014 Lighting Quality & Energy Efficiency. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (accessed
06.06.2017). http://www.technoteam.de/publikationen/2010_2014/index_ger.
html.
Rob, G., 2007. Predicting the effects of disability glare on driving performance. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in
Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. July 9-12, 2007, Stevenson,
Washington. (accessed 06.06.2017). http://drivingassessment.uiowa.edu/DA2007/
PDF/009_Gray.pdf.
Roberts, P., Boddington, K., Rodwee, L., 2013. Impact of Roadside Advertising on Road
Safety, Austroads Research Report. Publication No. AP-R420-13, Sydney. .
Smiley, A., Persaud, W., Bahar, G., Mollett, C., Lyon, C., Smahel, T., Kelman, W.L., 2005.
Traffic safety evaluation of video advertising signs. Transp. Research Rec. J. Transp.
Res. Board 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1937-15. No. 1937, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/239280508_Traffic_Safety_Evaluation_of_Video_
Advertising_Signs (accessed 15 January 2017).
Speirs, S., Winmill, A., Kazi, T., 2008. The impact of roadside advertising on driver dis-
traction. Final Report, WSP Development and Transportation England.
Tantala, M.W., Tantala, A.M., 2009. An update of a study of the relationship between
digital billboards and traffic safety in Cuyahoga county, Ohio. Report Prepared for
The Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE) in
Washington. Tantala Associates LLC, Philadelphia, USA Printed by.
Tantala, M.W., Tantala, A.M., 2010. A study of the relationship between digital billboards
and traffic safety in Henrico county and Richmond, Virginia. Report Prepared for The
Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education (FOARE) in
Washington. Tantala Associates LLC, Philadelphia, USA Printed by.
Van Bommel, W., 2014. Road lighting. Fundamentals, Technology and Application.
Springerhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11466-8.
Van Bommel, W., De Boer, J., 1984. Road Lighting (pl). Publishing House of
Communication and Communications, Warsaw.
Van den Berg, T., Van Rijn, L.J., Kaper-Bongers, R., Vonhoff, D.J., Völker-Dieben, H.J.,
Grabner, G., Nischler, C., Emesz, M., Wilhelm, H., Gamer, D., Schuster, A., Franssen,
L., De Wit, G.C., Coppens, J.E., 2009. Disability glare in the aging Eye. Assessment
and Impact on Driving. J. Optom. 2 (3), 112–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.3921/
joptom.2009.112.
Wachtel, J., 2009. Safety impacts of the emerging digital display technology for outdoor
advertising signs. Final Report, NCHRP Project 20-7 (256). California.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), 1994. District 2, Freeway Operations
Unit. Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study: Impacts of an
Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic. Wisconsin 1994. The doku-
ment cytated by J. Wachtel in Final Report NCHRP Project 20-7 (256), 2009,
California.
Zalesinska, M., 2014. Study of visual performance of drivers in laboratory conditions.
Comput. Appl. Electr. Eng. 12, 560–571 ed. by Ryszard Nawrowski.
Zalesinska, M., 2015a. Laboratory test of the impact of the area of an LED billboard on
drivers’ visual performance. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny 4, 197–200.
Zalesińska, M., 2015b. The pilot studies of the impact of LED billboard position relative to
the road on driver’s visual performance (pl). In: Proceedings Conference Technika
Swietlna’2015. 19-20.11.2015, Warsaw, Poland. pp. 294–303.
Zalesinska, M., Domke, K., 2014. Criteria and conditions of research of drivers visual
performance with the application of the driving simulator. In: Proceedings
Conference LUMEN V4' 2014. 8-10.10.2014. Visegrád, Hungary. pp. 285–292.
Zalesinska, M., Wandachowicz, K., 2012. The research of outdoor billboards with light
emitting diode using luminance measuring camera. Acad. J. Electr. Eng. 69, 275–282
Poznan University of Technology.
Zalesinska, M., Wandachowicz, K., 2013. Examination of luminance distributions in the
field of vision of drivers in locations with LED billboards. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny
8, 249–252.
Zalesinska, M., Wandachowicz, K., 2014. Reconstitution in the laboratory luminance
distributions occurring in the field of driver’s vision (pl). Przeglad Elektrotechniczny
1, 277–280.