## 4 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_ALL}\) & \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) & \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_b}\) & \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_s}\) & \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_s}\) & \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_s}\) & \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & \(r_{D,NB\_s}\) \\ \hline
**(veh/km)** & & **(veh/km)** & & **(veh/km)** & & **(veh/km)** & & **(veh/km)** & & **(veh/km)** & & **(veh/km)** & \\ \hline
6.0 & 4.1\% & 6.0 & 4.2\% & 6.0 & 4.5\% & 6.0 & 4.6\% & 6.0 & 4.2\% & 6.0 & 4.4\% & 6.0 & 4.5\% \\
8.7 & 5.4\% & 8.6 & 6.0\% & 8.6 & 7.0\% & 8.6 & 7.1\% & 8.7 & 5.9\% & 8.7 & 6.4\% & 8.6 & 7.0\% \\
11.4 & 9.3\% & 11.4 & 9.2\% & 11.4 & 9.6\% & 11.3 & 9.7\% & 11.4 & 9.2\% & 11.4 & 9.4\% & 11.3 & 9.5\% \\
14.3 & 12.9\% & 14.2 & 12.9\% & 14.4 & 13.5\% & 14.4 & 13.7\% & 14.3 & 13.0\% & 14.4 & 13.4\% & 14.3 & 13.2\% \\
17.3 & 15.6\% & 17.3 & 16.0\% & 17.2\% & 17.2\% & 17.7 & 18.3\% & 17.4 & 16.5\% & 17.4 & 16.8\% & 17.4 & 16.8\% \\
20.7 & 20.9\% & 20.8 & 21.1\% & 20.6 & 22.5\% & 20.8 & 23.3\% & 20.8 & 21.5\% & 20.7 & 21.7\% & 20.7 & 22.0\% \\ \hline
13.1 & 11.4\% & 13.1 & 11.6\% & 13.0 & 12.4\% & 13.1 & 12.7\% & 13.1 & 11.7\% & 13.1 & 12.0\% & 13.1 & 12.1\% \\ \hline \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**(veh/km)** & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
6.0 & 2\% & & 10\% & & 13\% & & 2\% & & 7\% & 9\% \\
8.7 & 11\% & & 28\% & & 30\% & & 8\% & & 19\% & 28\% \\
11.4 & -1\% & 3\% & & 4\% & & -1\% & & 1\% & 1\% & 1\% \\
14.3 & 0\% & & 9\% & & 7\% & & 1\% & 4\% & & 3\% \\
17.3 & 3\% & & 10\% & & 17\% & & 6\% & 7\% & 8\% \\
20.7 & 1\% & & 8\% & & 12\% & & 3\% & 4\% & 5\% \\ \hline
13.1 & 2\% & & 9\% & & 12\% & & 3\% & 6\% & 7\% \\ \hline \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**(veh/km)** & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
6.0 & & 2\% & & 10\% & & 3\% & & 7\% & 9\% \\
8.7 & & 11\% & & 28\% & & 30\% & & 8\% & 19\% & 28\% \\
11.4 & -1\% & & 3\% & & 4\% & & -1\% & 1\% & 1\% \\
14.3 & 0\% & & 9\% & & 7\% & & 1\% & 4\% & 3\% \\
17.3 & 3\% & & 10\% & & 17\% & & 6\% & 7\% & 8\% \\
20.7 & 1\% & & 8\% & & 12\% & & 3\% & 4\% & 5\% \\ \hline
13.1 & 2\% & & 9\% & & 12\% & & 3\% & 6\% & 7\% \\ \hline \(k_{\text{sc}}\) & & & & & & & & & & \\
**(veh/km)** & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
6.0 & & 7\% & & 10\% & & 0\% & & 5\% & 6\% \\
8.6 & & & 16\% & & 18\% & & -3\% & & 7\% & 16\% \\
11.4 & & 4\% & & 5\% & & 0\% & & 2\% & 2\% \\
14.2 & & 4\% & & 6\% & & 1\% & 3\The graph in Figure 7a shows that the total relative delay \(r_{D,Sc}\) was higher than the reference value when considering weather conditions and knowing the distribution of the traffic flow rate in lanes. When comparing the average values (\(k_{Sc}\approx 13.0\) veh/km), the relative delays were 2% to 12% higher in all cases (Table 1); however, at the approximate value of traffic flow density of 12 veh/km, this difference decreased again. The differences were similar for all simulation scenarios in the same size class up to a density of 14 veh/km. At maximum traffic flow rate and density of just over 20 veh/km, which we simulated in the sixth time interval, relative delays increased again to 1% in dry weather conditions, from 3% to 5% in wet conditions, to 8% in poor visibility, and up to 12% in snowy conditions. Generally, results of the paired \(t\)-test indicated that there is a non-significant medium difference between \(r_{D,NB\_ALL}\) (\(\mu=11.4\), \(\sigma=6.4\)) and \(r_{D,NB\_d}\) (\(\mu=11.6\), \(\sigma=6.4\)), \(t=1.9\), \(p=0.060\). Otherwise these is a significantly large difference between \(r_{D,NB\_ALL}\) and non \(r_{D,NB\_d}\), e.g., \(r_{D,NB\_S}\) (\(\mu=12.7\), \(\sigma=7.1\)), \(t=3.5\), \(p=0.009\). The graph in Figure 7b presents \(r_{D,Sc}\) as a function of traffic flow density for the scenario without special traffic management measures (\(NB\_ALL\)) and with the measure \"overtaking ban for HGVs\" (\(WB\_c\)), but with knowledge of the lane speed distribution functions for different weather conditions and different vehicles.