Welcome to ROSA P | Work zone intrusion alarm effectiveness. - 18451 | US Transportation Collection
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Work zone intrusion alarm effectiveness.
  • Published Date:
    2010-09-01
  • Language:
    English
Filetype[PDF-141.81 KB]


Details:
  • Creators:
  • Corporate Creators:
  • Publication/ Report Number:
    NJ-2010-004
  • Resource Type:
  • Geographical Coverage:
  • OCLC Number:
    729577832
  • NTL Classification:
    NTL-OPERATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS-OPERATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS ; NTL-OPERATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS-Traffic Control Devices ; NTL-OPERATIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS-Traffic Flow ; NTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Highway Safety
  • Format:
  • Abstract:
    16. Abstract

    The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) commissioned a study to evaluate how

    effective a work zone safety device known as the “SonoBlaster!® Work Zone Intrusion Alarm” would be

    in protecting maintenance workers from injury caused by vehicles that breach the work zone, and how

    well it would be accepted by workers. The device is mounted on a traffic cone and when impacted by a

    vehicle, emits an alarm that provides advance warning to allow workers to react to avoid the intruding

    vehicle. The device also alerts the driver who may be drowsy or distracted, who can respond by

    braking or steering out of the work zone, or both actions.

    In a pilot test of the device, SonoBlaster!®-equipped traffic cones were used with standard cones to

    close a lane of traffic for maintenance work. Two impact simulations were performed resulting in

    sounding of the alarm, as no impacts occurred from traveling vehicles. The alarm’s sound volume and

    duration were satisfactory during normal traffic conditions for distances of at least 200 ft, including

    when ear protection was worn, but no conclusion could be made about hearing the alarm during jack

    hammer operations. Employees indicated that several set-up procedures were difficult. Moreover, in

    multiple instances the alarm fired when the control knob was in the locked, unarmed position.

    Additional field trials could not be scheduled. However, NJDOT believes that problems with quality

    control and reliability, combined with the cost of the alarm, raise doubts about the desirability of and

    benefits to be gained from deploying the device on NJDOT maintenance jobs.

  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Supporting Files:
    No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like:
Submit Feedback >