Practices to Manage Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 3-5
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 3... ...
This research team mea sured the luminance thresholds for various traffic signs in a laboratory setting and determined that the minimum levels would meet the needs of 85% or more of all drivers. In 2004, Carlson and Hawkins (5)
|
From page 4... ...
For this reason, the MUTCD allows for the flexibility to select and modify one or more methods to best fit the needs of each entity. The second and third compliance dates deal with the replacement of existing signs that are below the minimum levels.
|
From page 5... ...
In some situations there were followup bullets points if obtaining additional information was pertinent. The major issues the survey addressed were to identify: • The size and scale of the agency's traffic sign activities, • How proactive the agency has been with sign replacement, • General opinions and apprehensions about the MUTCD retroreflectivity requirements, • How their method complies with the MUTCD and why it was selected, • How their method functions and the major operational advantages, and • Challenges encountered in the implementation process and lessons learned.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.