Citation

Stockton WR, Mounce JM, Walton NE. Transp. Res. Rec. 1976; 597: 26-32.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1976, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences USA, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Existing standards and guidelines for the application of signs and markings are unsuited and inefficient for use on low-volume rural roads (roads with less than an average of 400 vehicles/day). To alleviate this inadequacy, several potentially hazardous situations were evaluated to asertain actual needs for signs and markings as they relate to economy and safety. These evaluations were based on recent research and on probability of conflict analyses with regard to the needs for signing and marking of intersections, horizontal curves, and sections of inadequate passing sight distance. The research revealed that more efficient intersection control can be attained from the careful application of stop signs and crossroad warning signs based on approach speed, sight distance, and combined intersecting volumes. Treatment of horizontal curves can be made more efficient through the application of more stringent guidelines without adversely affecting safety. Striping of no-passing zones was found to be very inefficient in most instances because the probability of conflict in these situations is virtually nil; guidelines for alternative treatments are presented. Overall, the authors felt that application of guidelines suited to the rural context would result in savings in time, money, and frustration on the part of responsible agencies.