Work zone intrusion alarm effectiveness.
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.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Work zone intrusion alarm effectiveness.

Filetype[PDF-141.81 KB]

  • English

  • Details:

    • Creators:
    • Corporate Creators:
    • Publication/ Report Number:
    • Resource Type:
    • Geographical Coverage:
    • 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.

    • Format:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at

    Version 3.26