Study Details

Study Title: Safety Impacts of a Statewide Centerline Rumble Strip Installation Program

Authors: Kay et al.

Publication Date: JAN, 2015

Abstract: Lane departure events result in the majority of all traffic fatalities in the United States, a problem that is particularly pronounced on high-speed undivided highways, which are prone to cross-centerline crashes. A common countermeasure to reduce such crashes involves the installation of centerline rumble strips (CLRS), which provide an audible and tactile warning to alert drivers of an impending lane departure event. This study assessed the safety impacts of a statewide CLRS implementation program conducted in Michigan between 2008 and 2010. This program included the installation of more than 5,000 miles of CLRS, covering the majority of the rural non-freeway highways maintained by MDOT. Shoulder rumble strips (SRS) were installed in combination with the CLRS at locations with paved shoulders of at least 6 ft in width. The empirical Bayes method was utilized to assess the effectiveness of more than 4,200 miles of centerline rumble strips that were installed along two-lane highways. CLRS were found to reduce target cross-centerline crashes by 27.3 percent and by 32.8 percent when used in combination with SRS. In addition to these overall reductions, rumble strips were also effective in reducing crashes under adverse pavement conditions, as well as crashes involving passing maneuvers and impaired driving. This study also provided important insights into the necessary methods for identification of correctable target crashes through a comprehensive manual review of over 72,000 crash report forms. This review found that approximately 10 percent of target crashes were misclassified in the statewide crash database due to coding errors.

Study Citation: Kay, J, P.T. Savolainen, T.J. Gates, T.K. Datta, J. Finkelman, and B. Hamadeh. "Safety Impacts of a Statewide Centerline Rumble Strip Installation Program". Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 15-0179, Washington, D.C., (2015).


CMFs Associated With This Study

Category: Roadway

Countermeasure: Install centerline and shoulder rumble strips

CMF CRF(%) Quality Crash Type Crash Severity Roadway Type Area Type
0.828 17.2 4 Stars All All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.672 32.8 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.444 55.6 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Wet road,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.954 4.6 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.643 35.7 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.601 39.9 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.486 51.4 3 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other K Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.675 32.5 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other A Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.463 53.7 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other B Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.648 35.2 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other B Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.715 28.5 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other O Principal Arterial Other Rural

Countermeasure: Install centerline rumble strips

CMF CRF(%) Quality Crash Type Crash Severity Roadway Type Area Type
0.842 15.8 4 Stars All All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.727 27.3 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.471 52.9 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Wet road,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.986 1.4 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.572 42.8 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.712 28.8 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other All Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.558 44.2 3 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other K Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.68 32 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other A Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.607 39.3 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other B Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.721 27.9 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other B Principal Arterial Other Rural
0.838 16.2 4 Stars Angle,Head on,Rear end,Sideswipe,Single vehicle,Other O Principal Arterial Other Rural