## 4 Results and Analysis  
### Length of the Transition Area  
Statistically obtained vehicle speeds and driving workloads of the three work zones with different areas are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The trends of their changes are shown in Figure 6 (taking the \(2\to 1\) work zone transition area length of 120 m as an example), and their distributions are shown in Figure 7. It is shown that the vehicle speeds in the different areas had a normal distribution (S-W normality test), and the driving workloads had a log-normal distribution (K-S test). At the beginning of the experiment, the participants were more excited and their initial driving workloads were higher. After driving onto the experimental road, on which the road conditions of the standard freeway section (S) were good and the speed limit was lower (80 km/h), participants generally maintained a speed slightly higher than the speed limit, and their driving workloads gradually stabilized. After approaching the work zone, the participants noticed the sign for the advance warning area (A), and their driving workloads increased, while the road conditions remained unchanged, speed limit further decreased, and the overall vehicle speed only slightly decreased. The speed dispersion increased (11.80), and the speed limit compliance rate further decreased (8.52%) due to differences in the participants' personalities and driving styles. Until they arrived at the middle of the advance warning zone (A), participants were affected by the changing road and traffic conditions in the transition area (B); once again, they reduced their speed to match the speed limit (60 km/h), and their driving workloads began to significantly \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Area** & **Maximum** & **Minimum** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Higher-Risk Ratio** & **High-Risk Ratio** \\ \hline S & 0.03584 & \(-\)0.00588 & 0.00614 & 0.00709 & 5.68\% & 0.00\% \\ A & 0.03715 & \(-\)0.00541 & 0.00661 & 0.00720 & 3.87\% & 0.00\% \\ B\({}_{80}\) & 0.15684 & \(-\)0.00105 & 0.01793 & 0.01987 & 17.15\% & 3.69\% \\ B\({}_{120}\) & 0.10358 & \(-\)0.00245 & 0.01354 & 0.01350 & 11.44\% & 0.88\% \\ B\({}_{160}\) & 0.09735 & \(-\)0.00304 & 0.01302 & 0.01342 & 11.20\% & 0.73\% \\ B\({}_{200}\) & 0.09555 & \(-\)0.00320 & 0.01259 & 0.01340 & 11.16\% & 0.70\% \\ C & 0.08032 & \(-\)0.00780 & 0.00794 & 0.01034 & 5.51\% & 0.51\% \\ D & 0.04206 & \(-\)0.00295 & 0.00697 & 0.00742 & 3.62\% & 0.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Driving workload statistics for different areas in the work zone. Figure 6: Changes in vehicle speed and driving workload in the work zone (taking the \(2\to 1\) work zone transition area length of 120 m as an example). Figure 7: Distribution of vehicle speed and driving workload in different areas of the work zone. (a) Vehicle speed and (b) driving workload. increase. Subsequently, when participants drove into the activity area (C), the number of lanes decreased, participant stimulation due to the road and traffic conditions decreased, their driving workloads rapidly decreased, they generally kept their speed consistent with the speed limit (60 km/h) when crossing through the activity area (C), and their speed dispersion was low (9.22). At the end of the activity area (C), the change in the number of lanes gave a small amount of stimulation to the participants, who developed an escape mentality and wanted to escape the work zone as soon as possible, leading to a small increase in both vehicle speed and driving workload. Speeding was observed in different areas, and participants' speed limit compliance rates were generally low (8.52-59.84%). On the experimental road, the transition area had the greatest impact on vehicle speed and driving workload, and the impact was different between transition area lengths. In order to analyze the impact of the transition area length, the differences in vehicle speed and driving workload for different transition area lengths and their adjacent areas are shown in Tables 6 and 7.