Office of Operations
21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies

Public Perception of Safety Messages and Public Service Announcements on Dynamic Message Signs in Rural Areas

Appendix C. Odds Ratio Graphs for Evaluation of Hypotheses

This section includes graphs of odds ratios for each site from the evaluation of select hypotheses. Figure C-1 through Figure C-4 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the awareness hypothesis of observing an actual safety message and/or PSA on a DMS.

Figure C-1. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 10 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Nevada.
Figure C-1. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Nevada.

Figure C-2. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 10 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-2. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-3. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 10 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Kansas.
Figure C-3. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Kansas.

Figure C-4. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 10 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Missouri.
Figure C-4. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Awareness Hypothesis of Observing an Actual Safety Message and/or PSA on a DMS in Missouri.

Figure C-5 through Figure C-8 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the understanding hypothesis on travelers understanding the listed message.

Figure C-5. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 12 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Nevada.
Figure C-5. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Nevada.

Figure C-6. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 12 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-6. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-7. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 12 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Kansas.
Figure C-7. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Kansas.

Figure C-8. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 12 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Missouri.
Figure C-8. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Understanding of the Listed Message in Missouri.

Figure C-9 through Figure C-12 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the understanding hypothesis on whether the message is understandable.

Figure C-9. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 14 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Nevada.
Figure C-9. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Nevada.

Figure C-10. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 14 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-10. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-11. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 14 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Kansas.
Figure C-11. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Kansas.

Figure C-12. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 14 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Missouri.
Figure C-12. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Understanding Hypothesis on Whether the Message is Understandable in Missouri.

Figure C-13 through Figure C-16 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the behavior hypothesis on whether safety-related DMS cause drivers to slow down.

Figure C-13. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 16 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Nevada.
Figure C-13. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Nevada.

Figure C-14. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 16 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-14. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-15. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 16 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Kansas.
Figure C-15. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Kansas.

Figure C-16. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 16 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Missouri.
Figure C-16. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on whether Safety-Related DMS Cause Drivers to Slow Down in Missouri.

Figure C-17 through Figure C-20 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the behavior hypothesis on whether travelers do anything differently after seeing the safety or PSA message.

Figure C-17. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 18 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Nevada.
Figure C-17. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Nevada.

Figure C-18. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 18 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-18. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-19. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 18 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Kansas.
Figure C-19. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Kansas.

Figure C-20. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 18 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Missouri.
Figure C-20. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Doing Anything Differently after Seeing the Message in Missouri.

Figure C-21 through Figure C-24 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the behavior hypothesis on whether safety-related DMS messages cause changes in driving behavior.

Figure C-21. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 20 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Nevada.
Figure C-21. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Nevada.

Figure C-22. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 20 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-22. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-23. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 20 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Kansas.
Figure C-23. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Kansas.

Figure C-24. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 20 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Missouri.
Figure C-24. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Behavior Hypothesis on Whether DMS Messages Cause Changes in Driving Behavior in Missouri.

Figure C-25 through Figure C-28 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the opinions hypothesis on traveler agreement that the identified message is appropriate.

Figure C-25. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 22 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Nevada.
Figure C-25. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Nevada.

Figure C-26. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 22 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-26. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-27. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 22 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Kansas.
Figure C-27. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Kansas.

Figure C-28. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 22 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Missouri.
Figure C-28. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Agreement that the Identified Message is Appropriate in Missouri.

Figure C-29 through Figure C-32 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the opinions hypothesis on traveler agreement that the identified message raised their awareness of the issue.

Figure C-29. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 24 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Nevada.
Figure C-29. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Nevada.

Figure C-30. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 24 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-30. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-31. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 24 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Kansas.
Figure C-31. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Kansas.

Figure C-32. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 24 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Missouri.
Figure C-32. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis that the Identified Message Raised their Awareness of the Issue in Missouri.

Figure C-33 through Figure C-36 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the opinions hypothesis on the best way to communicate safety-related information.

Figure C-33. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 26 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Nevada.
Figure C-33. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Nevada.

Figure C-34. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 26 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-34. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-35. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 26 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Kansas.
Figure C-35. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Kansas.

Figure C-36. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 26 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Missouri.
Figure C-36. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on the Best Way to Communicate Safety-related Information in Missouri.

Figure C-37 through Figure C-40 present the odd ratios for each study corridor for the opinions hypothesis on message types that should be displayed on DMS.

Figure C-37. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 28 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Nevada.
Figure C-37. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Nevada.

Figure C-38. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 28 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Minnesota/Wisconsin.
Figure C-38. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Minnesota/Wisconsin.

Figure C-39. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 28 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Kansas.
Figure C-39. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Kansas.

Figure C-40. Graphical depiction of the data in Table 28 on the Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits for the Traveler Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Missouri.
Figure C-40. Graph. Odds Ratios with 95 Percent Confidence Limits –
Opinions Hypothesis on Message Types that should be Displayed on DMS in Missouri.
Office of Operations