This document is divided into seven parts.
Part I, “Introduction,” explains why human factors guidance is useful and provides an overview of how to use the document and take advantage of its features.
Part II, “Bringing Road User Capabilities into Highway Design and Traffic Engineering Practice,” discusses road users and how to take their needs into account. It includes two short chapters that describe the human factors approach to roadway design, present basic principles and methods, and provide key information about fundamental road user capabilities.
Parts III, IV, V, and VI present the actual guidance statements within this document, as follows: Part III, “Human Factors Guidance for Roadway Geometric Elements,” is organized around specific roadway location elements, such as curves, intersections, roundabouts, and interchanges. Part IV, “Special Design Considerations,” considers unique design issues related to roadway speed, design for rural and urban environments, design of work zones, rail-highway crossings, and lighting. Part V, “Human Factors Guidance for Traffic Engineering Elements,” addresses traffic engineering elements, such as fixed signage, changeable message signs, and markings. Part VI, “Human Factors Guidance for Vulnerable and Older Road Users,” addresses the particular needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and older road users. The guidance among many of these chapters is interrelated, and the chapter sections link to one another.
Part VII, “Additional Information,” presents tutorials and provides other information that may be useful when using the HFG, such as References, an Index, and a Glossary.
In the PDF or online version of this document, blue-colored text will provide links to other pages or positions in the document.
In the HFG, a two-page format is used to present the individual human factors guidelines provided in Chapters 5 through 26. Each two-page guideline includes the following elements:
A sample guideline, with key features highlighted, is shown in Figure 2-1; a detailed description of the presentation format of the guidelines follows.
The guideline title is indicated by centered, bold type at the top of the left-hand page.
This subsection briefly defines the guideline and provides basic information about the roadway design parameters and the guideline. For example, this subsection might provide the unit of measurement (e.g., visual angle, meters, foot-lamberts) for the guideline or the equations for the derivation of certain parameters.
This subsection presents a design guideline, either as a point value, a range, or an explicit recommendation. The guideline is always presented prominently and is enclosed in a blue box that is centered on the page. In some cases, the guideline is presented qualitatively in general terms (e.g., “If the operating speed of a roadway is substantially higher than the design speeds, increasing the sight distance to compensate for higher traveling speeds may be appropriate.”). However, in most cases, the design guideline is presented quantitatively (e.g., the table presented in “Determining
The left-hand page has a guideline title, introduction, design guideline, bar scale rating, figure table or graphic, and page number. The right-hand page has an abbreviated handbook title (both pages), abbreviated chapter title (both pages), revision version (both pages), discussion, design considerations, cross-references, references, and page number.
Passing Sight Distance” on page 5-10, which quantifies the passing sight distance for vehicles traveling at different speeds).
Not all topics that are important to roadway design and traffic operations have been studied to the same extent or with the same research methodologies. For some design topics, enough empirical data exist to provide well-supported guidelines in the HFG, and the use of expert judgment is minimal. For others, empirical data have provided only the foundation for a decision about what the design guideline should be, but experience and judgment have been used to determine the final guideline. For yet other topics, little or no empirical data were available, and the guideline was based primarily on the expert judgment of the guideline developer.
To aid highway designers and traffic engineers in better understanding the underlying data and in making design trade-offs, individual guidelines have been rated according to the relative contributions that empirical data and expert judgment have each made to the guideline.
Specifically, each guideline has been rated along a continuum, with each guideline falling somewhere between “Based Primarily on Expert Judgment” and “Based Primarily on Empirical Data.” These terms are defined below.
Based Primarily on Expert Judgment. Little or no empirical data were used to develop this guideline. Expert judgment and design convention were used to develop this guideline.
Based Equally on Expert Judgment and Empirical Data. Equal amounts of expert judgment and experimental data were used to develop this guideline. There may have been a lack of consistency in the research findings, necessitating greater reliance on expert judgment. Or, research may have been lacking in this area, necessitating the interpretation of research results from related content domains for use in this context.
Based Primarily on Empirical Data. The guideline is based on high-quality and consistent data sources that apply directly to the guideline. Empirical data from highly relevant content domains (e.g., transportation human factors, driver performance data) were primarily used to develop this guideline. Little expert judgment was required to develop this guideline.
This subsection provides a figure, table, or graphic to augment the guideline. This figure, table, or graphic provides “at a glance” information considered to be particularly important to the conceptualization and use of the guideline. It provides a visual representation of the guideline (or some aspect of the guideline) that may be difficult to grasp from the design guideline itself, which is quantitative and text-based. This figure, table, or graphic may take various forms, including a drawing that illustrates a generic application of a guideline or a particular design issue, a flowchart outlining measurement procedures for the guideline, a table summarizing the guideline, or schematic examples of specific design solutions.
This subsection briefly summarizes the rationale behind the choice of the guideline. In particular, the discussion explains the logic, premises, assumptions, and train of thought associated with the development of the guideline. The focus is on a presentation of driver limitations and capabilities deemed relevant to the particular guideline topic. The discussion can take many
forms, including a brief review of applicable empirical studies, references to traditional design practice, or an analysis of relevant information. The discussion is presented primarily to help HFG users understand the guideline and to help them explain or justify the guideline to other members of their respective development teams. Also, because these human factors guidelines are expected to be revised as additional empirical data become available, this subsection will be useful to future developers of the guidelines. In particular, the discussion will enable future guideline developers to determine how new information on road usersʼ capabilities and limitations can (or should) be integrated into the existing guidelines.
For example, the design guideline “Determining Stopping Sight Distance” on page 5-4 has been developed through consideration of experimental data gathered under a range of visibility (good and poor) and vehicle traction (good and poor) conditions. Thus, this guideline is presented as being the sum of driver reaction time plus vehicle deceleration, under a range of visibility/traction conditions. If new driver performance analyses or data for these conditions are obtained (or if new assumptions are made), future design guideline developers will be able to evaluate the quality and applicability of this new information relative to the discussion in the current design guideline “Determining Stopping Sight Distance” and determine what (if any) changes should be made to the design guideline.
This subsection presents special design considerations associated with a particular guideline. These special considerations may include design goals from the perspective of other disciplines (e.g., highway engineering, urban planning, physiology), interactions with other guidelines, special difficulties associated with the guidelineʼs conceptualization or measurement, or special performance implications associated with the guideline.
This subsection lists the titles and page numbers of other chapters or guidelines within the HFG that are relevant to or provide additional information helpful to understanding the current guideline.
In the PDF and online versions of the publication, the cross-references and their page numbers are in blue text and are linked to the other pages.
This subsection lists the references associated with the formulation of the guideline. The reference numbers correspond to the italicized numerals in the text where the references are cited. In the PDF and online versions of the publication, the in-text citation numerals are in blue and link to the references in the Key References section.
A complete list of references for the entire HFG is provided in Chapter 28 of this document.
Tutorials are provided in Chapter 27 of the HFG and address important topics, special issues, and detailed procedures that cannot be provided within the two-page constraints of individual guidelines.
Chapter 28 provides a list of references used in the HFG. A Glossary is provided in Chapter 29. Technical words and phrases are defined in the Glossary and listed in the Index (Chapter 30). Abbreviations are provided in Chapter 31. Also, equations are listed sequentially in Chapter 32.
The HFG can also serve as means to enhance the diagnostic assessment and countermeasure selection processes as described in the Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO, 2010) as well as The Primer on the Joint Use of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and the Human Factors Guidelines (HFG) for Road Systems (Campbell et al., 2018). The Primer in particular presents extensive tutorials on ways to incorporate information in the HFG into the safety analysis process. The Primer provides several examples of how to conduct diagnostic assessment and to select countermeasures using both the HSM and the HFG together.
All of these tools can be used to implement Safe System principles. The SSA does not accept that death and serious injury are natural consequences of using a road system, which informs its approach to creating a road environment that maximizes safety performance (see also Finkel et al., 2020; Signor et al., 2018; Welle et al., 2018). But rather than relying primarily on improving human behavior, this approach seeks to plan, design, and operate a road system that recognizes humans make mistakes, have limited physiological abilities to safely negotiate complex situations, and have a limited tolerance of kinetic energy forces.
William Haddon developed the Haddon Matrix (see Haddon, 1972, 1980) to improve emergency responses for people injured in crashes and provides a technique and tool for looking at factors related to personal attributes, vehicle attributes, and environmental attributes before, during, and after an injury or death. The goal of applying this type of tool is to help the practitioner think about and list the individual road user, vehicle, and environment factors (and any possible interactions) that could contribute to driver confusion, misperceptions, high workload, distraction, or other problems and errors. Research studies and governmental investigations have applied the Haddon Matrix to roadway crash causation to generate ideas on crash prevention and countermeasure implementation.
Haddonʼs epidemiological view of injury (for a summary, see also National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control, 1989; and Haddon, 1972) outlines three phases:
Haddonʼs original matrix included examining contributory factors to these phases according to human, vehicle, environmental, and socioeconomic factors. To augment this approach, Milton and van Schalkwyk (personal communication, January 17, 2022) have developed a framework that considers all road users (e.g., the volume of biking and walking) and the supporting social safety environment. Consistent with the SSA, it includes user mix considerations and interactions between these factors (see also the human factors interaction matrix in Campbell et al., 2018). Table 2-1 shows a modified Haddon Matrix applied to crashes in the Safe System. The HFG can be used to provide knowledge and context for the traffic safety professional to use the modified Haddon Matrix, especially the “Human” column.
This modification of the original Haddon and Human Factor Interaction Matrices (from Campbell et al., 2018) aims to present a framework that more directly considers all road users and the supporting social safety environment. In doing so, these characteristics are highlighted to provide safety professionals an expanded view of the issues related to human factors within the SSA.
Column 1 lists Phases and columns 2 to 7 list Factors, the column headings for which are as follows: Column 2: Human. Column 3: Vehicle. Column 4: Physical Environment / Context. Column 5: Social Environment. Column 6: User Mix Considerations. Column 7: Interactions Between Users. The data for each row are as follows: Row 1, column 1: Pre-event (before the crash occurs) Factors that may increase the likelihood of the crash before the event. Column 2: Driver’s perceptual, cognitive, and physical abilities.. Driver experience. Ability to perceive and react to unexpected events in a driving environment (e.g., understanding the potential for different road users). Alertness/attentiveness. Familiarity with route. Expectations for the environment/facility. Alcohol and drug impairment. Impairment from fatigue. Distraction. Column 3: Maintenance of brakes, tires. Speed of travel. Load characteristics. Size of vehicle. Safety and/or driver assistance features. Type of vehicle (e.g., commercial vehicle, passenger vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, scooter). Column 4: Roadway markings. Divided highways. Roadway lighting. Intersections type and angle. Road curvature. Signage. Walking and biking availability, facility type, separation. Roadway shoulders. Ambient and vehicle lighting. Column 5: Public attitudes on drinking and driving. Impaired driving laws. Graduated licensing laws. Seat belt, helmet, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) laws. Risky behavior prominence. Support for injury prevention efforts. Positive Safety Culture. Equity considerations for lower income (e.g., PPE, driver education., scholarships). Presence of passengers. Column 6: Volume of walking and biking. Type and separation of path/shoulder sidewalk. Route directness. Crossing distance from generators. Reliance on transit, walking, and biking. Lighting Scale. Sense of security of routes. Intersection turning speeds and priorities for operations. Midblock Crossing controls. Intersection type. Speed management. Column 7: Speed setting consistent with user mix. Ability to maintain consistent operating speeds. Choice-making based on road users’ safety and security. Common Behaviors. Education and enforcement. Ability to turn on red, permitted, and protected signals for vulnerable road users (VRUs). Access management. Row 2, Column 1: Event (During the crash) Factors that may influence the injury or severity of the crash during the crash event.. Column 2: Spread out energy in time and space with seat belt and/or airbag use. Child restraint use. Personal Protective Gear. Column 3: Vehicle size (also consider mass and center of gravity). Crashworthiness of vehicle, overall safety rating. Airbags (type and placement). Padded dashboards, steering wheel. Column 4: Guard rails, median barriers, breakaway devices. Presence of fixed objects near the roadway. Roadside embankments. Other road users. Column 5: Seat belts and child restraint, and other PPE laws are followed. Enforcement of occupant restraint laws. Motorcycle and Bicycle helmet laws or use or both are followed and accepted. Column 6: Travel speeds. Vehicle size and type. Design exposure that tends to increase speed or threats during crossing or walking on facilities. Separation of users. Proximity of VRUs to vehicles. Column 7: Speeds resulting in injury. Angle of crash through design and operation. Vision, speed judgment. Protective equipment and restraint use. Crash-worthy roadside hardware and clear zone. Row 3, Column 1: Post-event (After the crash) Factors that may influence the survivability of the crash after the event.. Column 2: Crash victim’s general health status. Age of victims. Column 3: Gas tanks designed to maintain integrity during a crash to minimize fires. Ability to extract injured. Vehicle size, mass, and center of gravity. Column 4: Availability of effective EMS systems. Ability to respond quickly to crash. Distance to trauma care. Rehabilitation programs in place. Column 5: Public support for an emergency, trauma care, and post-crash rehabilitation. EMS training. Column 6: Trauma center availability and proximity. Emergency response. Column 7: Redundancy of system. Ability to respond and transport to care.