International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 1753–1765 | Cite as

Performance Comparison of Various Chicane Types: A Driving Simulator Study

  • Metin Mutlu AydinEmail author
  • Banihan Gunay
  • Kadir Akgol
Research paper


Urban streets are becoming noisy, less safe and unattractive places due to high traffic volumes and vehicular speeds. Especially, high speeds causes many problems such as traffic accidents, noise, etc. To prevent these problems and negative effects of speeding, traffic calming measures have been widely used in many developed countries. In this study, the effectiveness of ten most common chicane types on speed limit compliance were examined by comparing and ranking chicanes according to their performance. For this purpose, a “Safety Index” was developed and an Ordinary Least Square Regression analysis was performed to identify safest chicane types for undivided two-lane and divided four-lane roads by using various parameters. Additionally, statistical tests were conducted to determine the most important driver characteristics of drivers before and inside the chicanes. For the analyses, all necessary data were obtained from the driving tests of 106 volunteers using a driving simulator. For the simulation scenarios, Akdeniz University’s (Antalya/Turkey) campus roads were selected as a case area. The results showed that Chicane Types 2 (CT-2) and 7 (CT-7) have the highest Safety Index values (0.69 and 0.98) and they were found to be the most proper CTs for the undivided and divided roads, respectively. From the statistical tests, it was also found that education level, gender and driving license duration were found to be the statistically significant parameters on speed choice for the most proper chicane types. Additionally, it was concluded that the most important driver characteristics are determined as age (has a negative effect) and gender (to be male has a positive effect) of drivers before and inside the chicanes. All these findings show that the investigation of different CTs has a great potential to reduce speeds and ensure safety in urban minor roads to limit vehicle speeds.


Chicane Driving simulator Safety Speed reduction Traffic calming 



This study was conducted under a research project titled “Investigation of Chicanes from the Viewpoint of Turkish Driver and Road Characteristics” (FBA-2015-225), which was supported by The Research Office of Akdeniz University (BAP). The authors would like to thank BAP for this support. The authors also thank Research Assistant Kadir Mercan and Technician Sedat Alcan for their support in the preparation of the driving simulator environment and software.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (WHO) (2018) Global Status Report on Road Safety. WHO Library Cataloguing in Publication DataGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osler T, Baker S, Long W (1997) A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma 43(6):922–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosman DL, Knuiman MW, Ryan GA (1996) An evaluation of road crash injury severity measures. Accid Anal Prev 28(2):163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cook A, Weddle J, Baker S, Hosmer D, Glance L, Friedman L, Osler T (2014) A comparison of the injury severity score and the trauma mortality prediction model. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 76(1):47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Airaksinen N, Nurmi-Lüthje I, Lüthje P (2016) Comparison of injury severity between moped and motorcycle crashes: a Finnish two-year prospective hospital-based study. Scand J Surg 105(1):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosen E, Stigson H, Sander U (2011) Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accid Anal Prev 43(1):25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Theofilatos A, Graham DJ, Yannis G (2012) Factors affecting accident severity inside and outside urban areas in Greece. Traffic Inj Prev 13(5):458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Theofilatos A, Yannis G (2014) A review of the effect of traffic and weather characteristics on road safety. Accid Anal Prev 2014(72):244–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elvik R, Vaa T, Erke A, Sorensen M (2009) The handbook of road safety measures, 2nd edn. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, BingleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    United Nations (UN) Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2017) World population prospects: the revision, highlights. United Nations, New York, p 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee G, Joo S, Oh C, Choi K (2013) An evaluation framework for traffic calming measures in residential areas. Transp Res Part D Trans Environ 2013(25):68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charlton SG, Baas PH (2006) Speed change management for New Zealand Roads (No. 300). Land Transport New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Molino JA, Katz BJ, Hermosillo MB (2010) Simulator evaluation of low cost safety improvements on rural, two-lane, undivided roads: nighttime delineation for curves and traffic calming for small towns. In: Presented at 89th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bellefleur O, Gagnon F (2011) Urban traffic calming and health literature review. National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, QuebecGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torbic DJ (2012) Design guidance for high-speed to low-speed transition zones for rural highways. TRBs National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 737Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duivenvoorden K, Hogema J, Hagenzieker M, Wegman F (2015) The effects of cyclists present at rural intersections on speed behavior and workload of car drivers: a driving simulator study. Traffic Inj Prev 16(3):254–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sanz A (2008) Calmar el tráfico. Pasos para una nueva cultura de movilidad. Ministerio de Fomento, MadridGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith Jr, DT, Appleyard D (1980) State of the art: residential traffic management (No. FHWA-RD-80-92)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reid E (1990) Traffic calming state of the practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berthod C, Leclerc C (2013) Traffic calming in Québec: speed humps and speed cushions. J Civ Eng Archit 7(4):456–465Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (2007) Guidelines for the design and application of speed humps, Washington, DC. Publication NO RP-038Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joo S, Lee G, Oh C (2019) A multi-criteria analysis framework including environmental and health impacts for evaluating traffic calming measures at the road network level. Int J Sustain Transp 13(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luque R, Castro M (2016) Highway geometric design consistency: speed models and local or global assessment. Int J Civ Eng 14(6):347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jones SJ, Lyons RA, John A, Palmer SR (2005) Traffic calming policy can reduce inequalities in child pedestrian injuries: database study. Inj Prev 11(3):152–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Galante F, Mauriello F, Montella A, Pernetti M, Aria M, D’Ambrosio A (2010) Traffic calming along rural highways crossing small urban communities: driving simulator experiment. Accid Anal Prev 42(6):1585–1594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Womble JE, Bretherton WM (2003) Traffic calming design standards for new residential streets: a proactive approach. ITE J 73(3):50–54Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zech WC, Walker D, Turochy RD, Shoemaker A, Hool J (2009) Effectiveness of speed tables as a traffic calming measure on a college campus street. In: Presented at 88th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bunn F, Collier T, Frost C, Ker K, Roberts I, Wentz R (2003) Traffic calming for the prevention of road traffic injuries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Traffic Inj Prev 9(3):200–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ahn K, Rakha H (2009) A field evaluation case study of the environmental and energy impacts of traffic calming. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 14(6):411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ariën C, Jongen EM, Brijs K, Brijs T, Daniels S, Wets G (2013) A simulator study on the impact of traffic calming measures in urban areas on driving behavior and workload. Accid Anal Prev 61:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kaptein N, Theeuwes J, Van Der Horst R (1996) Driving simulator validity: some considerations. Transp Res Rec 1550:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ariën C, Brijs K, Brijs T, Ceulemans W, Vanroelen G, Jongen EM, Wets G (2014) Does the effect of traffic calming measures endure over time? A simulator study on the influence of gates. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 22:63–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Comte SL, Jamson AH (2000) Traditional and innovative speed-reducing measures for curves: an investigation of driver behaviour using a driving simulator. Saf Sci 36(3):137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blana E, Golias J (2002) Differences between vehicle lateral displacement on the road and in a fixed-base simulator. Human factors. J Hum Fact Ergon Soc 44(2):303–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bella F (2005) Validation of a driving simulator for work zone design. Transp Res Rec 1937:30–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bella F (2008) Driving simulator for speed research on two-lane rural roads. Accid Anal Prev 40(3):1078–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jamson S, Lai F, Jamson H (2010) Driving simulators for robust comparisons: a case study evaluating road safety engineering treatments. Accid Anal Prev 42(3):961–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosey F, Auberlet JM, Bertrand J, Plainchault P (2008) Impact of perceptual treatments on lateral control during driving on crest vertical curves: a driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 40(4):1513–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yan X, Abdel-Aty M, Radwan E, Wang X, Chilakapati P (2008) Validating a driving simulator using surrogate safety measures. Accid Anal Prev 40(1):274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee C, Abdel-Aty M (2008) Testing effects of warning messages and variable speed limits on driver behavior using driving simulator. Transp Res Rec 2069:55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Domenichini L, La Torre F, Branzi V, Nocentini A (2017) Speed behaviour in work zone crossovers. A driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 98:10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Godley ST, Triggs TJ, Fildes BN (2002) Driving simulator validation for speed research. Accid Anal Prev 34(5):589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Räsänen M (2005) Effects of a rumble strip barrier line on lane keeping in a curve. Accid Anal Prev 37(3):575–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Daniels S, Vanrie J, Dreesen A, Brijs T (2010) Additional road markings as an indication of speed limits: results of a field experiment and a driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 42(3):953–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rossi R, Gastaldi M, Gecchele G, Biondi F, Mulatti C (2014) Traffic calming measures affecting perceived speed in approaching bends: on-field validated virtual environment. Transp Res Rec 2434:35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lockwood CR (1997) Using the TRL driving simulator to evaluate traffic calming measures. TRL Report 245, CrowtorneGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Riemersma JBJ, Van Der Horst ARA, Hoekstra W, Alink GMM, Otten N (1990) Validity of a driving simulator in evaluating speed-reducing measures. Traffic Eng Control 31(7–8):416–420Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Turkish Statistical Institute (TUIK) (2017) Traffic statistics. TURKSTAT, AnkaraGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transportation Division, Civil Engineering Department, Engineering and Natural Sciences FacultyGümüşhane UniversityGümüşhaneTurkey
  2. 2.TransportationFreelance AcademicAntalyaTurkey
  3. 3.Transportation DepartmentGiresun UniversityGiresunTurkey

Personalised recommendations