## 4 Discussion  
The aim of this study was to examine the impact of four types of temporary speed-calming measures on driving behavior and deceleration in the vicinity of an unsignalized intersection on a newly constructed road. Our primary focus was on assessing the efficacy of these temporary speed-calming measures and identifying changes in their associated safety indicators. The results of this study revealed statistically significant findings after installation of anti-collision barrels, traffic-channelizing lane markers, and the combined utilization of these speed-calming measures; these results derived from our analysis of eye movements. Visual focus is the driver's primary means of appraising the upcoming road's geometry and the vehicle's movement relative to its immediate environment [29]. All four speed-calming measures designed in the experiment were of a clear and highly conspicuous color that consistently captured the participants' attention. Focusing one's gaze forward can help drivers to better detect surrounding hazards and prepare for them in advance [30]. When drivers approach intersections, the presence of anti-collision barrels and traffic-channelizing lane markings is likely to effectively attract their attention. Importantly, the implementation of traffic-channelizing lane markings showed a substantial impact on driving outcomes. These findings have the potential for application to other roads of limited width. However, it is worth noting that identifying simulated speed bumps was a relatively challenging task for the participants, as their tactile effects could not be accurately replicated by the simulator. Nevertheless, it was possible to simulate their visual effects. The analysis of driving speed data reveals that the presence of traffic-diverting line markings significantly impacts drivers' behavior and its consequences. The results showed that several (e.g., lines on the road creating the illusion of speed and anti-collision barrels functioning as a bottleneck) measures can significantly reduce speed, which is consistent with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [31]. In addition, in terms of overall effectiveness in reducing vehicle speed, the effect of installing diversion lines alone is not as great as the effect of combining the two measures, which is consistent with the conclusions of [PERSON]'s study [32]. An explanation for this finding is that an increase in the number and nature of external stimuli increases the complexity of drivers' visual perceptions and encourages them to drive in a more cautious manner. In addition, too-low traffic speeds at intersections may lead to congestion. In contrast, the effect of installing a single type of speed-calming measure is acceptable. The results of our analysis of drivers' comfort indicate that speed-calming measures have a significant adverse effect on drivers' comfort, leading to a reduction in driving smoothness. However, it is worth noting that vertical speed bumps are commonly imple \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **Numerical Value** \\ \hline
1. No speed-calming measures & 0.725 \\
2. Anti-collision barrels & 1.382 \\
3. Traffic-channelizing lane markings & 0.903 \\
4. Anti-collision barrels and traffic-channelizing lane markings & 1.820 \\
5. Speed bumps and cross-hatched intersection markings & 1.787 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Acceleration noise in the presence of different speed-calming measures. mented on real roads. This study mainly focused on the impact of speed-calming measures on drivers' visual perceptions and did not include an in-depth assessment of the impact of vehicle vibration (caused by speed bumps in Treatment 5) on drivers' physiological perceptions. Notably, acceleration noise was found to be higher after the installation of measures compared to pre-installation levels within each treatment, highlighting certain drawbacks associated with speed-calming measures such as decreased stability and diminished comfort.