Effect of Intersection Lighting Design on Drivers’ Perceived Visibility and Glare

Abstract

A systems-level approach to intersection lighting design has shown that illuminating the intersection box increases drivers’ nighttime visual performance. However, for an intersection lighting design to be effective and accepted, it should not only maximize visual performance but also enhance perceived visibility and minimize glare. The goals of this study were to assess the effects of different intersection lighting designs on these two outcomes. Visibility was assessed with respect to a pedestrian, several targets, and an intersection. Perceptions of visibility and glare were measured using Likert scales, with participants exposed to multiple lighting designs on a realistic intersection. Twenty-four participants completed the study, with an equal number of younger (18–35 years) and older (65+) drivers. The lighting design that illuminated the intersection box had the highest levels of perceived target and intersection visibility and the lowest ratings of glare. For the same lighting configuration, a strong positive correlation was also found between perceived target visibility and previous results on target detection distances. In this configuration, perceived visibility plateaued between 7 and 10 lux of mean intersection illuminance. Increased levels of perceived visibility in different conditions were likely a result of size and contrast differences, and the distribution of the luminaires used. These results suggest that illuminating the intersection box has multiple benefits, in that it not only increases visual performance but also increases perceived visibility and reduces glare.

Does the Interaction between Vehicle Headlamps and Roadway Lighting Affect Visibility? A Study of Pedestrian and Object Contrast

“…Visual performance typically plateaued (no increase in visual performance with a corresponding increase in illuminance) between 8 and 12 lux 11/01/2018 illuminance levels. While there was no difference between the three lighting configurations in terms of pedestrian visibility, the Box lighting configuration resulted in higher perceived target and intersection visibility and lower perceived glare [16]. Perceived visibility ratings also plateaued between 8 and 12 lux illuminance levels in this lighting configuration.…”

“…There were five target locations as described in [15] (Figure 1). The simulated pedestrian was same as the pedestrian described in the perceived visibility experiment [16] (Figure 2) and was located at the Near Right location (see Figure 1). Pedestrian location for photometric measurements was moved slightly to the left of the actual location used in the subjective ratings experiment, in interest of saving time and to facilitate capturing of all object locations with a single image.…”

“…Since this move was lateral, the change in the light levels (luminance and illuminance) was minimal. Lighting configurations and illuminance levels were similar to the ones used in the visual performance [15] and perceived visibility experiments [16]. Three lighting configurations were used.…”

“…To address these gaps, two studies were conducted that evaluated the effect of intersection lighting design on visual performance [15] along with perceived visibility and glare [16]. Intersection lighting design here refers to both the part of the intersection illuminated (lighting configuration) and the recommended illuminance level.…”

A Decision Support System for the Safety Evaluation of Urban Pedestrian Crossings

“…It has been also observed that increased intensity of road lighting decreases the number of accidents with pedestrian of 59%. Similarly, increased intensity of roadway lightning and installation of flashing warning signs acts with a reduction of pedestrian crashes of 57% in nighttime and a significant decrease in daytime, about 21%(Zgeer et al, (2006);Nassar et al, (2011);Scott et al, (2012);Bassani et al, (2012);Niaki et al, (2014);Bichicchi et al, (2017);Gibbons at al., (2015);Wei et al, (2016); Bullough et al, (2017 Bullough et al, ( ), (2021;Wang et al, (2018);Gbologah et al, (2019);Bhagavathula et al, (2019Bhagavathula et al, ( ), (2020;Costa et al, (2017), (…”