Pavement markings such as single and\ndouble divider lines, edge lines, crosswalks, and bike lane markings are\ncritical in guiding roadway users. However, pavement markings can also lead to\ncatastrophic crashes for motorcyclists and bikers when they are wet or icy. This\nstudy evaluated three different pavement marking materials in dry, wet, and icy\nconditions, in the laboratory and in the field, to help improve rider safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For laboratory testing, the researchers chose three different pavement marking\nmaterials after a careful review of state specifications and common practice on\nthe Washington State University campus. Evaluated were waterborne paint,\npreformed fused thermoplastic, and cold applied pre-formed tape surfaces. These\nwere compared with a neat concrete slab by using a British Pendulum Tester\n(BPT) in dry, wet, and icy conditions. Two different rubber sliders on the BPN\nwere used to simulate different users: a pedestrian slip rubber and tire slip\nrubber. The frictional properties were recorded as a British Pendulum Number\n(BPN). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The laboratory test results\nshowed that the paint and thermoplastics produced lower BPN values than the\nneat concrete surface. However, the centerline striping that was tested showed\nhigher frictional properties than the neat concrete surface because of the\ncontours and surface macrotexture of the tested striping. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
For field testing, two\nlocations with painted markings on the WSU Pullman campus were chosen for\ntesting. Each location was evaluated by using the BPT, and then two bicyclists\nrode over the markings in a variety of ways in dry and wet conditions. A devised\nsafety scale allowed the riders to evaluate the field markings. The results\nshowed that riders generally felt safe while riding in a straight line over the\npavement markings. Most of their unsafe ratings occurred during wet testing and\nas the cyclists turned and braked over the pavement markings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In comparing the BPN values from\nthe laboratory and field testing, the laboratory values were typically higher.\nThis was most likely due to the fact that beads were present on the laboratory\nmarkings and not on the field markings. The authors concluded that centerline\nstriping showed the most promising frictional properties. Although paint and\nthermoplastics had lower frictional properties than those of the neat concrete\nsurface, the use of beads helped improve the laboratory values over the field\ntesting values. Through more testing, a better understanding of BPN values and\nbetter correlation between them and rider safety can be determined to evaluate\npavement markings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n