Prediction of traffic sign vandalism that obstructs critical messages to drivers

    Majid Khalilikhah Affiliation
    ; Kevin Heaslip Affiliation


A critical deficiency in any one or a combination of three transportation system characteristics: the driver, roadway, or vehicle can contribute to an elevated crash risk for the motoring public. Traffic signs often convey critical information to drivers. However, traffic signs are only effective when clearly visible and legible. Traffic sign vandalism that is exclusively the results of humans causes both sign legibility and visibility to deteriorate. Transportation agencies spend a significant amount of money to repair or replace vandalized signs. This study was conducted to identify which traffic signs are more vulnerable to vandalism. To do this, a mobile-based vehicle collected data of over 97000 traffic signs managed by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDoT), US. The vandalized signs were identified by a trained operator through inspection of daytime digital images taken of each individual sign. Location data obtained from online sources combined with the traffic sign data were imported into ArcGIS to acquire localized conditions for each individual sign. According to the chi-square test results, the association between vandalism and traffic sign attributes and localized conditions, including background color, size, mount height, exposure, land cover, and road type was evident. After employing the random forests model, the most important factors in making signs vulnerable to vandalism were identified.

First published online 01 March 2017

Keyword : transportation infrastructure, traffic sign vandalism, mobile-based data collection, mobile LiDAR, digital imaging, geographic information system, random forests

How to Cite
Khalilikhah, M., & Heaslip, K. (2018). Prediction of traffic sign vandalism that obstructs critical messages to drivers. Transport, 33(2), 399-407.
Published in Issue
Jan 26, 2018
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Balali, V.; Golparvar-Fard, M. 2015. Segmentation and recognition of roadway assets from car-mounted camera video streams using a scalable non-parametric image parsing method, Automation in Construction 49(A): 27–39.

Baratian-Ghorghi, F.; Zhou, H.; Jalayer, M.; Pour-Rouholamin, M. 2015. Prediction of potential wrong-way entries at exit ramps of signalized partial cloverleaf interchanges, Traffic Injury Prevention 16(6): 599–604.

Boggs, W.; Heaslip, K.; Louisell, C. 2013. Analysis of sign damage and failure: Utah case study, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2337: 83–89.

Borowsky, A.; Shinar, D.; Parmet, Y. 2008. Sign location, sign recognition, and driver expectancies, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 11(6): 459–465.

Breiman, L.; Cutler, A. 2007. Random Forests. Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley. Available from Internet:

Bullough, J. D.; Skinner, N. P.; O’Rourke, C. P. 2010. Legibility of urban highway traffic signs using new retroreflective materials, Transport 25(3): 229–236.

Chadda, H. S.; Carter, E. C. 1983. Sign vandalism: time for action-now, ITE Journal 53(8): 16–19.

DoT. 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Department of Transportation (DoT), Federal Highway Administration, US. Available from Internet:

Ellis, R.; Houten, R.; Kim, J.-L. 2007. In-roadway “yield to pedestrians” signs: placement distance and motorist yielding, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2002: 84–89.

Ellison, J. W. 1996. “Stop and think”: a campaign against traffic vandalism, in Compendium of Technical Papers for the 66th ITE Annual Meeting, 15–18 September 1996, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, 259–260.

Evans, T.; Heaslip, K.; Boggs, W.; Hurwitz, D.; Gardiner, K. 2012. Assessment of sign retroreflectivity compliance for development of a management plan, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2272: 103–112.

Harris, G. 1992. Engineering Study for Reducing Sign Vandalism. Final Report. Highway Research Advisory Board Project HR-246. Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, Iowa, US. Available from Internet:,/a>

James, G.; Witten, D.; Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R. 2013. An In-troduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R. Springer. 426 p.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K. 2016a. Important environmental factors contributing to the temporary obstruction of the sign messages, in TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 10–14 January 2016, Washington, DC, US, 1–13.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K. 2016b. GIS-based study of the impacts of air pollutants on traffic sign deterioration, in TRB 95th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 10–14 January 2016, Washington, DC, US, 1–15.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K.; Hancock, K. 2016. Traffic sign vandalism and demographics of local population: a case study in Utah, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 3(3): 192–202.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K.; Louisell, C. 2015a. Analysis of the effects of coarse particulate matter (PM10) on traffic sign retroreflectivity, in TRB 94th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 11–15 January 2015, Washington, DC, US, 1–16.

Khalilikhah, M.; Heaslip, K.; Song, Z. 2015b. Can daytime digital imaging be used for traffic sign retroreflectivity compliance?, Measurement 75: 147–160.

Ma, J.; Smith, B. L.; Fontaine, M. D. 2016. Comparison of in-vehicle auditory public traffic information with roadside dynamic message signs, Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 20(3): 244–254.

Moeur, R. C. 2014. Manual of Traffic Signs. Available from Internet:

Moisen, G. G. 2008. Classification and regression trees, in S. E. Jørgensen, B. D. Fath (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Ecology, 582–588.

MRLC. 2011. National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011). Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium. Available from Internet:

Mueller, G. 1995. Sign Vandalism Detection. Report No SPR-UAF-92-22F. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, US. 21 p. Available from Internet:

Oshiro, T. M.; Perez, P. S.; Baranauskas, J. A. 2012. How many trees in a random forest?, Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition 7376: 154–168.

Perkins, D. D; Barton, M. J. 1997. Traffic Signing Handbook. Chapter 15. Vandalism Control. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC, US, 227–236.

Picha, D. 1997. Texas sign vandals still leaving mark, Texas Transportation Researcher 33(2): 6–7.

R Development Core Team. 2014. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available from Internet:

Ré, J. M.; Carlson, P. J. 2012. Practices to Manage Traffic Sign Retroreflectivity. TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 431. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, US. 44 p. Available from Internet:

Rebollo, J. J.; Balakrishnan, H. 2014. Characterization and prediction of air traffic delays, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 44: 231–241.

Smith, D.; Simodynes, T. 2000. Sign vandalism – an estimate of the national cost, in Mid-Continent Transportation Symposium 2000, 15–16 May 2000, Ames, Iowa, US, 245–248. Available from Internet:

Stanić, B.; Vujin, D. 2005. New aesthetics of the city – design of cyclists traffic signs, Transport 20(6): 257–264.

Strawderman, L.; Rahman, M. M.; Huang, Y.; Nandi, A. 2015. Driver behavior and accident frequency in school zones: assessing the impact of sign saturation, Accident Analysis & Prevention 82: 118–125.

Utah AGRC. 2015. Most Popular Datasets. Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (AGRC). Available from Internet:

VDoT. 2011. Virginia Standard Highway Signs. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT). 208 p. Available from Internet:

Ye, F.; Carlson, P. J.; Brimley, B. K. 2014. Applying the sign luminance computation model to study the effects of other vehicles on sign luminance, Transport 29(2): 115–124.