Combination Layout of Traffic Signs and Markings of Expressway Tunnel Entrance Sections: A Driving Simulator Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed the driving simulator and carry out the comparative test which combined three typical signs and markings at the entrance of the tunnel. This test analyzed data from 5 perspectives: speed, lane lateral deviation, lane change behavior, gaze behavior and operating load). The experiment studied the influence of different static facilities on the drivers from changes in driving characteristics, driver's psychological and physiological indicators, and determined the optimal combination of static facility for the tunnel entrance section. And this experiment selected three typical static facility combination settings, and analyzed the impact of different static facility settings on the driving safety of drivers.
The following points need to be considered for further revision.
Firstly, In the real scene, when setting up signs, various safety factors such as structure, line shape, environment, etc. should be considered comprehensively. The paper should consider such issues when simulate the scenarios.
Secondly, the validation to the proposed research method should also be considered with cross-method comparison.
Thirdly, the paper lacks the managerial implication analysis. I advise the author to expand the introduction and conclusion and emphasize the value and contribution for the research.
Author Response
Point 1: Firstly, In the real scene, when setting up signs, various safety factors such as structure, line shape, environment, etc. should be considered comprehensively. The paper should consider such issues when simulate the scenarios.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice. The experiment studied the influence of different static facilities on the drivers from changes in driving characteristics. We explained various safety factors in part 3.2. Experimental design. In order to minimize the impact of alignment on visual signs and markings, flat slope was adopted for the profile. The minimum radius of circular curve was 1000m. The alignment superelevation and structure of signs met the requirements of Chinese spec-ifications. The experimental scene was selected under the conditions of good climate and low traffic density.
Point 2: Secondly, the validation to the proposed research method should also be considered with cross-method comparison.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your advice. This paper only carried out the driving simulation experiment, and the recruited drivers did not cover all age levels. In the follow-up study, drivers of various ages and driving age levels will be recruited to continue the natural outdoor real vehicle test to further verify the driving simulation test results.
Point 3: Thirdly, the paper lacks the managerial implication analysis. I advise the author to expand the introduction and conclusion and emphasize the value and contribution for the research.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your advice. We add the value and contribution for the research in the introduction and conclusion parts. Tunnel entrance section has always been the bottleneck of traffic safety management, and its safety design is very important to reduce traffic accidents and traffic congestion caused by accidents. It is the core content of traffic safety management. The research can provide method support for safety design, safety evaluation and safety improvement of tunnel entrances.
Reviewer 2 Report
- 10 participants maybe not enough for the experiment, please give more detail.
- Some of the Figures are not sharp enough.
- The details of driving behavior data need to be explained.
- More related literature needs to be mentioned, such as Safety of Raised Pavement Markers in Freeway Tunnels Based on Driving Behavior.
- Whether the value of 0 in the table 3 is an exception, give more detail explanation.
- The experimental procedure is not clear enough.
Author Response
Point 1: 10 participants maybe not enough for the experiment, please give more detail.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice. Due to the limited funding for scientific research, we had to reduce the number of samples. The experiment recruited 10 drivers over the age of 23, with an average age of 32.6 and a standard deviation of 4.5. All 10 drivers had an average driving age of 7.3 years and a standard deviation 2.54 years. All 10 drivers were in good health, had adequate sleep, did not drink alcohol, had a driving license( Chinese C1 license) and had a cumulative mileage of more than 100,000 kilometers.The recruited drivers did not cover all age levels. In the follow-up study, drivers of various ages and driving age levels will be recruited to continue the natural outdoor real vehicle test to further verify the driving simulation test results.
Point 2: Some of the Figures are not sharp enough.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your advice. We have replaced the Figures 5,6 and 11.
Point 3: The details of driving behavior data need to be explained.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your advice. We have explained some indicator.
Point 4: More related literature needs to be mentioned, such as Safety of Raised Pavement Markers in Freeway Tunnels Based on Driving Behavior.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised and reorganized the references.
Point 5: Whether the value of 0 in the table 3 is an exception, give more detail explanation.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your advice. It can be seen from the ZH2 vehicle trajectory in Figure 6 that there is no lane change，so the value is zero.
Point 6: The experimental procedure is not clear enough.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your advice. We add the part 3.4 Experimental procedure. In order to avoid the influence of the driver on the operation proficiency of the simulator, let the driver operate the simulator in the scene of the simulator for 20 minutes. During the formal test, ZH1~ZH3 scenes are played randomly, and each tested driver shall traverse three scenes.
Reviewer 3 Report
Some of my concerns regarding this paper are as follows:
- The write-up of the paper needs significant improvement. i.e. the abstract should be more clear
- Figure text is not clear (fig 2 and fig 3)
- The problem description is not clear. the authors are advised to describe the considered problem in a separate section.
- The computational time of simulator should be mentioned in the manuscript.
- The conclusion should be concise and more clear.
- The format of the paper should be rechecked.
Author Response
Point 1: The write-up of the paper needs significant improvement. i.e. the abstract should be more clear
Response 1: Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised and updated the part abstract as follows：
To determine a better combination of signs and markings on expressway tunnel entrance section, three types of typ-ical signs and markings were compared and tested from five indicators: speed, lane lateral offset, lane change be-havior, fixation behavior, and operating load, using a driving simulator. The results identified that the obvious no overtaking and speed limit signs, combined with the red thin layer paving, had the most influence on the driver's speed choice, and it showed the highest fixation frequency of static facilities, the longest average distance from the completion point of the lane change to the entrance, and the longest average lane change distance could help the driver to pass through the tunnel entrance section more smoothly. The location of the static facilities should be de-signed within 3s in front of the tunnel entrance to 3s after entering the tunnel as the area where the driver's relative viewpoint changes. Improper combination of warning signs and deceleration measures will affect the driver's judg-ment, causing negative effects such as premature lane change and increased operating load. The research results can provide the design basis and reference for the combination setting of safety signs and markings on tunnel entrance section.
Point 2: Figure text is not clear (fig 2 and fig 3)
Response 2: Thank you very much for your advice. We have replaced the Figures 2 and 3. Figures 2 and 3 mainly show the length of the experimental section that the length of the tunnel on the section was 680m and the bridge section was 800m.
Point 3: The problem description is not clear. the authors are advised to describe the considered problem in a separate section.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised the problem description as follows：
How to improve the transition environment of tunnel entrance mainly depends on how to provide accurate information of tunnel entrance, so it is very important to use and set up the marking line.
Due to the limitation of route selection in mountainous areas of China, there are a certain number of road sections at the entrance of tunnels that need to set up corresponding signs and marks to remind and warn drivers, for the traffic static facilities at the entrance of tunnel, the Chinese code mainly stipulated the setting requirements of tunnel information signs. The signs and lines used in actual projects are various, and the results are mixed Therefore, this paper selects three typical combination of signs and marks for Comparative Test, and analyzes the combination setting method of signs and marks for the entrance section of expressway tunnel in mountainous area.
Point 4: The computational time of simulator should be mentioned in the manuscript
Response 4: Thank you very much for your advice. We have already mentioned in lines 135-140：
The experiment used Tongji University's 8-DOF driving simulation platform, and the platform was equipped with SCANeR™ studio software, as shown in Figure 1, which simulated a driving scene with a refresh rate of 60Hz through five projectors with a resolution of 1000×1050, and the perspective could reach 250°×40°. The experi-menter was in a full-sized MEGANA III car cab, and all dynamic feedback was provid-ed by an 8-DOF power system under the cab. The platform collected data at a frequency of 20Hz.
Point 5: The conclusion should be concise and more clear.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised and updated the part conclusions as follows：
The research results can provide the design basis and reference for the combination setting of signs and markings on the tunnel entrance section. It is an effective method to carry out signs and markings safety design and evaluation by driving simulation experiment method, which can be extended and used for reference in construction, reconstruction, expansion and maintenance of highway safety improvement projects.
Point 6: The format of the paper should be rechecked.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your advice. We have checked the format of the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made the relevant revisions based on the previous comments. The paper now is fine and recommened to be accepted by the journal.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors made the relevant revisions based on the previous comments. The paper now is fine and recommened to be accepted by the journal.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have addressed my comments, sincerely. Hence, I recommend its acceptance.
