Assumed driver braking performance in emergency situations is not consistent in the published literature. A 1955 study stated that in an emergency situation “it is suspected that drivers apply their brakes as hard as possible.” This idea differs from a 1984 report that states drivers will “modulate”their braking to maintain directional control. Thus, additional information is needed about driver braking performance when an unexpected object is in the roadway. In this research driver braking distances and decelerations to both unexpected and anticipated stops were measured. The study design allowed for differences in vehicle handling and driver capabilities associated with antilock braking systems (ABS), wet and dry pavement conditions, and the effects of roadway geometry. Vehicle speeds, braking distances, and deceleration profiles were determined for each braking maneuver. The research results show that ABS result in shorter braking distances by as much as 30 m at 90 km/h. These differences were most noticeable on wet pavements where ABS resulted in better control and shorter braking distances. Braking distances on horizontal curves were slightly longer than on tangent sections; however, they were not large enough to be of practical significance. Maximum deceleration during braking is independent of initial velocity, at least in the range of speeds tested. Differences were noted in individual driver performance in terms of maximum deceleration. Although maximum deceleration was equal to the pavement’s coefficient of friction for some drivers, the average maximum deceleration was about 75 percent of that level. Overall, drivers generated maximum decelerations from 6.9 to 9.1 m/s2. The equivalent constant deceleration also varied among drivers. Based on the 90-km/h data, 90 percent of all drivers without ABS chose equivalent constant decelerations of at least 3.4 m/s2 under wet conditions, and 90 percent of all drivers with ABS chose equivalent constant deceleration of at least 4.7 m/s2 on dry pavements.

One of the most important requirements in highway design is the provision of adequate stopping sight distance at every point along the roadway. At a minimum, this sight distance should be long enough to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Stopping sight distance is the sum of two components–brake reaction distance and braking distance. Brake reaction distance is based on the vehicle’s speed and the driver’s perception–brake reaction time (PBRT). Four separate, but coordinated, driver braking performance studies measured driver perception–brake response to several different stopping sight distance situations. The results from the driver braking performance studies suggest that the mean perception–brake response time to an unexpected object scenario under controlled and open road conditions is about 1.1 s. The 95th percentile perception–brake response times for these same conditions was 2.0 s. The findings from these studies are consistent with those in the literature: that is, most drivers are capable of responding to an unexpected hazard in the roadway in 2.0 s or less. Thus, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ perception–brake response time of 2.5 s encompasses most of the driving population and is an appropriate value for highway design.

Traffic control devices are intended to promote safe and uniform operation of motorized and nonmotorized traffic using the roadway. Motorists rely on traffic control devices to provide information about traffic laws and regulations, to identify potential roadway hazards, and to provide information to help them find their desired destinations. However, traffic control devices serve little purpose if they are not understood by a significant proportion of the driving population. The findings and recommendations of a 5-year research study conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute to assess and improve motorist understanding of traffic control devices are presented. Phase I of the project was devoted to several evaluations of 52 devices, administered to 2,414 Texas drivers. Phase II of the project was devoted to the development and evaluation of alternative designs for 10 traffic signs identified in Phase I that exhibited potential for driver misunderstanding. The Phase II evaluations included four focus groups, an initial statewide survey of 747 Texas drivers, and a follow-up survey of 212 drivers. The results of all evaluations were analyzed to distinguish significant comprehension difficulties. Recommendations for each device were based on these results and include retaining the current standard design because of adequate comprehension levels, modifying the design or use of the device to increase comprehension levels, or conducting further research to better understand driver comprehension difficulties.