Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 26, No. I. pp.

49-56, 1995
Pergamon Copyright Q 1995 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd
Frintedin the USA. All rights reserved
0022-4375/95 $9.50 + .I0

0022-4375(94)00024-7

Factors Affecting Drivers Choice of Speed on

Roadway Curves

George Kanellaidis

Vehicle speeds depend on factors relating to drivers, vehicles, and the

roadway environment. Operational studies show that curvature is the
roadway element that is most successful in predicting vehicle speeds. If,
however, a causative explanation of drivers behavior is sought, then attitude
surveys are more appropriate than traffic observations. This paper features a
survey of 207 Greek drivers who were asked to rate 14 elements of the road
environment as to how importantly these influence their choice of speed on
interurban road curves. A comparison of responses between drivers who
claimed to obey speed limits (nonviolators) and those who claimed not to
(violators) shows that the latter gave significantly lower ratings to all types of
signing and were generally less restricted by roadway elements in choosing
their speed. Factor analysis of the data indicates that speed choice on curves
can be described by four road-environment factors: separation of opposing
traffic; cross-section characteristics; alignment; and signing. Separate analyses
show that nonviolators are primarily influenced by the signing factor in
choosing their speed on curves, while violators speed is chiefly determined
by the road-layout factor. These findings suggest that speed reduction, where
necessary, could be brought about by provision of reliable signing as well as
safe and consistent low-speed alignment. The four factors identified by the
analysis correspond to the findings of driver-behavior studies, indicating that
attitude surveys can be used as a reliable aid in forming and evaluating
relevant policies, whether at a local or a strategic level.

INTRODUCTION this freedom, which is not found in other

Car travel is associated with the freedom it
offers to travelers in choosing when, by which
route, and how fast they will travel. The car
culture of todays world (Marsh & Collett,
1986) can be attributed, to a large extent, to
George Kanellaidis is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Transportation Planning and Engineering at
the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA). He
received his PhD in Transport&ion from the NTUA in
1984. His research interests include highway geometric
design, human factors in transportation, and traffic safety.
means of transport. For business or commut-
ing trips in particular, minimizing travel time
seems to have priority over other objectives;
hence the incentive to drive faster. Speed also
appears to have an intrinsic value (Hale,
1990) for many people, who simply want to
drive fast for the excitement it offers, regard-
less of trip purpose.
Still, there are various limits to attainable
speeds. Technical limits are determined by a
vehicle engines horsepower. Speeds on
curves should not exceed certain values above
which the risk of running off road is greatly

Spring 1995Nolume 26hVumber I 49

 increased. Speed may be further constrained
by the drivers themselves, in choosing to
drive at a speed they consider safe and com-
fortable. Models for estimating limiting
speeds as a function of the above parameters
have been developed (Elkins & Semrau,
1988). In addition to these factors, authorities
often consider it desirable to impose limits on
vehicle speeds in order to reduce such adverse
effects as: (a) probability and severity of
crashes; (b) noise; (c) pollution; and (d) fuel
consumption (Transportation Research Board
[TRB], 1984; Hale, 1990).
If speed is to be controlled, the main two
options (Hale, 1990) are: (a) to take the
choice of speed away from the driver (e.g.,
through use of automatic speed-governing
devices or built-in limits in engine design); or
(b) to indirectly influence speed and driving
behavior in general via the drivers them-
selves. Obviously the former approach will
have to overcome considerable hurdles, since
it will involve restrictions on driver (and
motor-industry) freedom. The latter option
will require thorough research into the factors
affecting choice of speed.
Car travel involves an interaction between
driver, vehicle, and road environment; in a
similar fashion, a drivers free speed (defined
as the speed chosen in the absence of other
traffic) depends on characteristics of these
three factors. As conventional driver-behavior
research usually involves observation of mov-
ing vehicles, it is not easy to take note of driv-
er and vehicle characteristics. Indeed, it is not
possible to know the personal or socioeco-
nomic characteristics of drivers; nor can the
engines horsepower and condition be deter-
mined by a simple observation. Only vehicle
type can be accounted for (e.g., in producing
separate speed-prediction relationships for
cars and trucks). Typically, research has aimed
to identify correlations between operating
speeds and road-design characteristics, treat-
ing the effect of the other two factors as ran-
dom variation.
Curvature is the design element most con-
sistently found to be correlated to operating
speeds. Although it has been argued (McLean,
1979, 1981; Yagar & van Aerde, 1983) that
operating speeds are affected by the character-
istics of a preceding section of road, recent
50
research (e.g., Lamm, Guenther, & Choueiri,
1992) focuses on producing speed-prediction
formulae for individual curves. These relation-
ships have the advantage of being both simple
and of sufficient predictive power (R2 ranging
generally from .75 to .95). They have the gen-
eral form of Vss = a - j3(l/R), where Vss is the
85th-percentile speed, R is the curve radius,
and cx and /3 are parameters (Taragin, 1954;
Lamm & Choueiri, 1987). Some linear equa-
tions include powers of (l/R) as additional
regressors: for example, ( 1/R)2 (McLean,
1981) or (lIR).5 (Kanellaidis, Golias, &
Efstathiadis, 1990). Recent studies (Lamm et
al., 1992) have also produced exponential rela-
tionships of the type Vss = a + P.e-YDC, where
DC is degree of curve (proportional to l/R).
Lane width is also generally found to influ-
ence speeds; however, there is only a narrow
range of possible lane widths, and thus it is
often more convenient to produce different
relationships for various lane or carriageway
widths (Lamm & Choueiri, 1987; RAS-L-1,
1984) or for different types of road, such as 2-
lane, 4-lane single, or dual carriageway
(Gambard & Louah, 1986; Mintsis, 1988).
Certain other elements are usually found to
be correlated to curvature. These include sign-
ing (Lamm & Choueiri, 1987), superelevation
rate (Lamm, Choueiri, Hayward, & Paluri,
1988), and sight distance (Taragin, 1954). The
effect of the above elements on speeds cannot
be easily quantified. In addition, there is no
universal agreement on the exact effect of gra-
dient on speeds. Gambard and Louah (1986)
found that Vg5 is unvaried on downgrade sec-
tions, while average speeds decrease; Yagar
and van Aerde (1983) showed, on the other
hand, that average speeds are significantly
increased on downgrades. In both studies,
speeds were found to decrease on upgrades.
Other studies (e.g., Reinfurt, Zegeer, Shelton,
& Neuman, 1992) show no significant effect
whatsoever of gradient on speed.
Typically, research has focused on observa-
tions of driver behavior; however, if one is
interested in the reasons behind speed choice,
conventional measurements are not sufficient.
Correlations between speed and predictor
variables do not necessarily offer causative
explanations of speed choice. Use of attitude
surveys can help provide some answers to
Journal of Safety Research
why car drivers choose certain speeds in cer-
tain situations, as well as to how effectively
their speed choice could be influenced.
Carefully designed interviews that focus on
minimizing biases can ensure that expressed
attitudes will give a fairly accurate picture of
true attitudes (Myers, 1983). It should not be
forgotten, however, that the aim is to affect
drivers behavior. Influencing attitudes may or
may not bring about the desired change, since
the link between attitudes and behavior is far
from straightforward.
The objective of this paper is to investigate
the factors determining choice of speed on
interurban road curves, as seen from the
drivers viewpoint, as well as to assess their
relative importance. In addition, an attempt is
made to examine whether drivers attitudes
toward speed limits are associated with differ-
ences in the above factors and to suggest
effective means to influence choice of speed.
DATA COLLECTION
Data were collected through the comple-
tion of a specially-prepared questionnaire.
Copies of the questionnaire were distributed
to a sample of randomly-selected drivers to
be completed in the absence of any interview-
er and to be collected by a specific date. Two
hundred and seven fully completed question-
naires were collected in this way. The issues
addressed were the following: (a) drivers
attitudes toward speed-limit violations; (b)
self vs. other analysis of reasons for speed-
ing; and (c) road-environment factors that
affect choice of speed, in the drivers view.
The results regarding Parts a and b of the sur-
vey are dealt with in a separate paper
(Kanellaidis, Golias, & Zarifopoulos, 1995).
This paper focuses on speed-choice factors on
interurban-road curves. In addition to the
analysis carried out for the full sample, sepa-
rate analyses were made for those who stated
that they obey speed limits always or most
of the time (a subgroup labelled nonviola-
tars for ease of reference) and those who
stated that they seldom or never obey
limits (violators for short).
Fourteen elements of the road environment,
for which there was evidence in literature of
being related to vehicle speeds, were selected
for the questionnaire and coded El to El4
(Table 1). Respondents were asked to rate
each element on a 0 to 10 scale, showing its
importance, in their view, in influencing speed
choice on curves. Zero stood for no impor-
AND ANALYSIS tant influence on speed choice and 10 for
very important influence on speed choice.
Table 1 also shows the mean ratings for the
14 elements. They all exceed 5.0. On top of
the list are sight distance, pavement condition,
sharp curvature, and additional warning sign-
ing, all rated above 8.0 on average. Least
decisive are existence of free roadside space
and speed-limit signing.
Of the four top-rated elements, curvature,
sight distance, and additional warning signing
have also emerged in driving-behavior studies

TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION. MEAN RATINGS AND RANKS OF DESIGN ELEMENTS AFFECTING SPEED CHOICE ON
ROADWAY CURVES

Element (code) Description of element Mean RatlnQ Rank

El Pavement condWon 8.34 2

E2 Number of traffic lanes 7.11 10
E3 _.........,.,. Lane width 6.72 12
E4 .._._.... Existence of free roadside space 5.62 14
E5 Existence of median 7.60 6
E6 Existence of safety barrwrs 7 44 7
E7 .:: :::::: Sharp curvature 8.31 3
E6 Standard curve-warning signmg 7.78 5
E9 Additional warnmg signing 8.09 4
El0 Speed-limit slgnmg 5.78 13
El1 SuperelevatIon 7.33 8
El2 Sight distance 8.64 1
El3 :: ::: Length of curve 7.23 9
El4 ...,.., Gradient 7.06 11

Spring 1995Nohne 26/Nutnber I 51

(Taragin, 1954; Lamm & Choueiri, 1987) as
significant determinants of speed. As the latter
two are collinear to curvature, the attitude sur-
vey seems to confii the role of curvature as a
primary determinant of operating speeds.
Pavement condition does not usually show up
in speed behavior studies, probably because it
is assumed to be standard throughout the road
network. It should be noted that pavement con-
dition is a broad term that implies skid resis-
tance as well as surface discontinuities, rough-
ness, and quality of ride. Elkins and Semrau
(1988) did identify pavement roughness as a
speed limiting factor, by using a present ser-
viceability rating in the formula for determining
the maximum allowable ride severity speed.
For violators and nonviolators alike (Table 2),
sight distance was the highest-rated variable,
with identical mean ratings for both groups
(8.64). However, for nonviolators four other ele-
ments are rated above 8.0 on average; these are:
curvature, additional warning signing, standard
bend-warning signing, and pavement condition.
For the average violator, only curvature and
pavement condition were rated higher than 8.0.
Table 2 also shows the results of normal
tests for comparing the two groups ratings.
Significant differences are observed in all
three signing-related variables, and also in gra-
dient, where all four are rated higher by non-
violators. On the whole, nonviolators tend to
give higher ratings to most elements than do
violators (overall rating average for nonvi-
olators is 7.55; for violators it is 7.02); this
implies that drivers who dont obey speed lim-
its probably feel less constrained by the road
environment in selecting their speed on curves.
Spearmans rank correlation test (Daniel,
1990) showed that the rankings resulting from
the group averages of variables are signifi-
cantly correlated; Spearmans rank-correlation
coefficient (rho) is .84, which is statistically
significant at a = 0.01. Therefore, the evalua-
tion of speed determinants is not radically dif-
ferent between violators and nonviolators.
As it was aimed to determine the dimen-
sions of thought* regarding drivers speed
choice, factor analysis (Norusis, 1988) was
the preferred procedure because it gives the
possibility of reducing a large number of vari-
ables to a smaller number of principal factors.
Each variable can then be expressed as a lin-
ear function of these factors. The coefficients
of the factors in the (standardized) regression
equation are known as the factor loadings. As
the number of factors is lower than that of the
original variables, it is typical for a factor to
have high loadings on a number of variables;
it can then be said that the factor is associated
to these variables.
The suitability of the data for factor analysis
was first established by two standard tests: the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KM@ measure of sam-
pling adequacy, and Bartletts test of sphericity
(a chi-squared test). If KM0 > 0.5and
p(=2) c 0.01, the sample is suitable for factor
analysis. Both tests (see Table 3) gave satisfac-
tory results and thus the analysis proceeded.

TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF DESIGN ELEMENT RATINGS FOR NONVIOLATORS VS. VIOLATORS

Average Rating

Element Non-violators Violators Difference Z-statistic

El ............... 8.21 8.58 -0.37 -1.42

E2 .............. 7.16 7.01 0.15 0.41
E3 .............. 6.83 6.52 0.31 0.86
E4 .............. 5.85 5.21 0.64 1.54
E5 .............. 7.51 7.77 -0.26 -0.64
E6 .............. 7.55 7.25 0.30 0.72
E7 .............. 8.40 8.16 0.25 0.85
E8 ............. 8.30 6.82 1.48 4.27 l

E9 .............. 8.35 7.62 0.73 2.21 f

El0 ............. 6.72 4.06 2.66 6.83 l

El1 ............. 7.43 7.16 0.27 0.76

El2 ............. 8.64 8.64 -0.002 -0.01
El3 ............. 7.42 6.88 0.54 1.62
El4 ............. 7.34 6.55 0.79 2.35 l

(): significant at a =0.05

52 Journal of Safety Research

 TABLE 3
TESTS OF SUITABILITY FOR FACTOR ANALYSIS

Kaser-Meyer-Olkin (KM01 measure of Bartletts test of sphericity

Sample analyzed sampling adequacy [PIXH

Full sample (N =207) 0.741 0.000

Nonviolators (N = 134) 0.679 0.000
Violators IN =73) 0.738 0.000

The standard method of principal-compo- ings on the road layout factor; pavement con-
nents analysis was followed. For the full sam- dition and hazard signing have fairly high
ple of 207 drivers (making no distinction loadings on that factor, and loadings of the
between violators and nonviolators) four fac- same order (approximately 0.5) on Factors 2
tors were identified, explaining 62% of the and 3 respectively. One can therefore assume
total variance (Table 4). Moderate or high fac- that road layout is the factor of prime impor-
tor loadings have been underlined in the table tance in determining drivers choice of speed.
to show which variables are associated with Since four factors emerged as significant
each factor. Factor 1 features road layout for the full sample, it was attempted to pro-
elements, in particular sight distance and cur- duce the same number of dimensions in sepa-
vature. Factor 2 can be labelled cross-section rate analyses for violators and nonviolators.
characteristics. Factor 3 is associated to The factors extracted for the two subgroups
signing. And Factor 4 to separation of op- are similar to those identified in the analysis
posing traffic. for the full sample: (a) road layout, (b) cross-
Presented in bold type are the loadings of section characteristics, (c) signing, and (d)
the four highest-rated elements (El-pavement separation of opposing traffic. In both sam-
condition, ET-sharp curvature, E9-additional ples, the four factors explained over 60% of
warning signing, and E12-sight distance on the total variance (60.5% for nonviolators,
curve). These were considered for a qualita- 64.8% for violators).
tive comparison of the factors importance; A comparison of factors for the two groups
the factors associated with most or all of these was attempted, again in a qualitative fashion,
elements (bold and underlined loa$ngs) may by considering each groups four highest-rated
be seen as being of prime importance in deter- variables. Since for nonviolators (Table 5)
mining choice of speed. It can be seen that variables E7, E8, E9 and El2 were the highest-
sight distance and curvature have high load- rated ones, it can be said that the signing factor

TABLE 4
FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE FULL SAMPLE (207 DRIVERS)

Factor 1 Factor 3 Factor 4

Elements (Road layout) (Signing) (Separation of opposing traffic)

El . A5 .M -.38 -.ll
E2 .._ .12 z5 -.05 .27
E3 .02 .Bz .ll .09
E4 ,..._. -.08 .z .22 .36
E5 .04 .36 -.08 .a4
E6 .,.._. .lO .12 .02 86
E7 .62 .05 .lS .Ol
ES .37 -.07 .24 .04
ES 49 -.14 -62 .18
El0 .._. .04 .21 .24 -.09
El1 &cl .Ol .14 .21
El2 .._._ .Bl -.03 -.Ol .06
El3 _..._ M .30 .35 -.15
El4 .52 .21 .38 .08

Bold type: highest-rated variable

l!nd&&& variables characterizing each factor

Spring 1995Nolume 26Bhmber I 53

 TABLE 5
FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE SAMPLE OF NONVIOLATORS (134 DRIVERS)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Elements (Road layout) (Cross-section characteristics) (Signmg) (Separation of opposing traffic)

El .09 &I .19 .03

E2 . . . -.05 .al -.Ol .25
E3 .07 .Iu -.lO .12
E4 .21 A8 -.30 AZ
E5 -.02 .24 -.07 a6
E6 -.03 03 .06 .a5
E7 .03 .23 xi .02
E8 ,..... .I7 -.02 .25 -.13
E9 . . .30 -.lO _Bl .06
El0 .12 .34 .29 -.16
El1 _55 -.06 .32 .30
El2 A5 -.Ol A6 .ll
El3 . &I .15 .Ol -.12
El4 .._.. 81 .15 .18 -.09

Bold type: highest-rated variable

U.&&n& variables characterizing each factor

(on which El, E8 and E9 have high loadings l Nonviolators seem to be primarily affected
and El2 a fairly high loading) is the most by signing in setting their speed on curves,
important one. On the other hand, violators while for violators road layout appears rela-
(Table 6) were primarily influenced by El, E5, tively more significant.
ET, and E12; for this group, the road-layout l Violators rate signing (whether warning
factor seems to be relatively more important signs or posted speed-limits) and gradient
than others, as it features high loadings for El significantly lower than do nonviolators.
and E12, and a fairly high coefficient for E7.
From the above analysis, differences
between violators and nonviolators can be
summed up as follows: DISCUSSION

l Violators are less restricted by road-environ- Factor analysis of the survey data indi-
ment elements on curves in determining cates that there are four general factors of
their speed. the road environment that influence drivers

TABLE 6
FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE SAMPLE OF VIOLATORS (73 DRIVERS)

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Elements (Road layout) (Cross-section characteristics) (Signing1 (Separation of opposing traffic)

El .,._.. _I3 .04 .ll .09

E2 _. .31 .38 .04 Ji2
E3 .18 M -.02 .28
E4 -.03 -23 .14 .27
E5 .12 .23 .02 911
E6 -.08 .09 .21 _a8
E7 Al .17 _Bl -.lO
E8 .06 -.02 26 .12
E9 ..t.. .14 -.05 81 .22
El0 -.28 .32 .E6 -.12
El1 .._.. .52 19 .36 .04
El2 _. .B4 .02 93 .09
El3 . .._ .19 53 M -.02
El4 .25 .20 Lie? .17

Bold type: highest-rated variable

Undarlinad: variables characterlang each factor

54 Journal of Safety Research

choice of speed on interurban road curves.
These are: (a) separation of opposing traffic,
(b) cross-section characteristics, (c) align-
ment, and (d) signing. It is worth noticing
that these dimensions, identified by analysis
of drivers expressed attitudes, correspond,
in a qualitative way, to factors identified
through observations of actual driver behav-
ior. Indeed, most relationships used for pre-
dicting operating speeds take account of the
first three factors, as they constitute relation-
ships of speed versus curvature (Lamm &
Choueiri, 1987) for various road types; the
term road type generally involves factors
(a) and (b) (Gambard & Louah, 1986), and
curvature is a dominant element of the
alignment factor. Besides, there is a con-
siderable amount of empirical evidence (e.g.,
Rutley, 1972; TRB, 1984,) to support the
view that signing does have an effect on
vehicle speeds.
The correspondence between the speed-
choice factors identified in this survey and
those emerging in operational studies sug-
gests that attitude surveys can be used as a
reliable tool in relevant research. They can
provide insight into the reasons behind the
choice of speed, whereas conventional speed
measurements usually produce mere correla-
tions, not causal relationships (Myers, 1983).
For example, the lack of agreement on the
impact of speed limits (TRB, 1984; Yagar &
van Aerde, 1983; Noguchi, 1990), as well as
the otherwise unexplained conflicting findings
regarding the effect of gradient on speeds
(Yagar & van Aerde, 1983; Gambard &
Louah, 1986; Reinfurt et al., 1992), may be
due to differences in attitudes and behavior
between those who obey speed limits and
those who do not.
Drivers ratings and factor analysis results
showed that road layout variables (sight dis-
tance in particular) were the most significant
determinants of speed choice on curves. If
lower speeds are aimed for, modifying the
alignment may be more effective than provi-
sion of signing in reducing speed. Safe low-
speed alignments (e.g., flowing alignments
with sight distances only slightly above mini-
mum values) should be sought in those cases.
It must be emphasized that situations requir-
ing abrupt speed reductions can be avoided by
Spring I99SNolume 26/Number I 55
ensuring consistency of alignment (Federal
Highway Administration, 1981; Lamm et al.,
1992), whether in designing new roads or
improving existing ones.
Signing is a factor of special interest, for a
number of reasons. First, it is usually strongly
correlated to alignment (Lamm & Choueiri,
1987). For example, curve-warning signs are
usually found on tight bends, and thus it can-
not be clear what part of the reduction is
attributable to signing and what to sharp cur-
vature. Second, characteristics such as the
type, placement, and condition of a sign can
vary considerably, making it difficult to pre-
cisely assess the effect of signing as a single
factor. And finally, the present survey shows
that drivers obeying speed limits and those
violating them are affected by signing in dif-
ferent ways regarding speed choice on curves.
The role of signing becomes most important
in cases where the risk viewed subjectively is
less than that viewed objectively (Wright &
Boyle, 1987; Dieleman, 1990; Kanellaidis &
Dimitropoulos, 1994).
If increased acceptance of signing among
violators is to be sought, improvements in
the reliability of signing could be supple-
mented by campaigns emphasizing its im-
portance for road users safety. It was
shown (Kanellaidis et al., 1995) that young,
male, University-educated drivers frequently
using interurban roads should be the target
group of relevant safety campaigns. Due to
the evidence of a self-serving bias in
drivers (McKenna, Stanier, & Lewis, 1991,
Kanellaidis et al., 1995), it is important to
convince individuals that the campaign mes-
sage refers to themselves and not to other
drivers only.
Use of attitude surveys can offer flexibili-
ty in exploring possible driver reactions to
planned schemes at a local level, by helping
identify which options would be potential-
ly successful. In addition, at a strategic
level, it is often desirable to achieve opti-
mum operating speeds, which may well be
different from drivers desired speeds (Hale,
1990). To bridge that gap, knowledge of
factors affecting choice of speed, and also
of attitudes and behavior regarding advi-
sory and mandatory speed signs, will be of
great importance.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wishes to acknowledge the con-
tribution of Ioannis Dimitropoulos to the com-
pletion of this paper.
REFERENCES
Daniel, W. W. (1990). Applied nonparametric statistics.
Boston: PWS-KENT.
Dieleman, I. R. (1990). Road safety policy: Man and safety
on the threshold of the 21st century. Brussels: AIB.
Elkins, G. E., & Semrau, .I. (1988). Development of limiting
velocity models for the highway performance monitoring
system (Transportation Research Record No. 1195).
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Federal Highway Administration. (1981). Highway geo-
metric design consistency related to driver expect-ancy
(Vols. II & III, Final report). Washington, DC: Author.
Gambard, J. M., & Louah .I. (1986). Free speedas afunction
of road geometrical characteristics. Paper presented at
the PTRC Annual Meeting, Brighton, England.
Hale, A. R. (1990). Safety and speed: A systems view of
determinants and control measures. IATSS Research,
14( 1). 59-65.
Kanellaidis, G., & Dimitropoulos, I. (1994). Subjective and
objective evaluation of risk on roadway curves. Traffic
Engineering and Control, 35(7/S), 45 l-454.
Kanellaidis, G., Golias, J., & Efstathiadis, S. (1990).
Drivers speed behaviour on rural road curves. Traflc
Engineering and Control, 31(7), 414-415.
Kanellaidis, G. Golias, J., & Zarifopoulos, K. (1995)
A survey of drivers attitudes toward speed limits vio-
lations. .&ma1 of Safety Research, 26(l), 3 l-40.
Lamm. R.. & Choueiri. E. M. (1987). Recommendations for
evaluating horizontal design consistency based on
investigations in the State of New York (Transportation
Research Record No. 1122). Washington, DC: Transport-
ation Research Board.
Lamm, R, Choueiri, E. M., Hayward, J. C., & Paluri, A.
(1988). Possible design procedure to promote de-
sign consistency in highway geometric design on two-
lane rural roads (Transportation Research Record
No. 1195). Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
56
Lamm, R., Guenther, A. K., & Choueiri, E. M. (1992).
Safety module for highway design. Paper presented at the
TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Marsh, P., & Collett, P. (1986). Driving passion-The
psychology of the car: London: Jonathan Cape Ltd.
McKenna, F. P., Stanier, R. A., & Lewis, C. (1991). Factors
underlying illusory self-assessment of driving skill in
males and females. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
23( 1). 45-52.
McLean, J. R. (1979). An alternative to the design speed
concept for low-speed alignment design (ARRB
[Australian Road Research Board] Internal Report 200-
5A). Vermont, South Australia: ARRB.
McLean, J. (1981). Driver speed behaviour and rural road
alignment design. Traffic Engineering and Control,
22(4), 208-211.
Mintsis, G. (1988). Speed distributions on road curves.
Traffic Engineering and Control, 29(l), 21-27.
Myers, D. G. (1983). Social psychology. Tokyo: McGraw-
Hill.
Noguchi, K. (1990). In search of optimum speed: From
;he users viewpoint. IATSS (International Association of
Trafjc and Safety Sciences), 14(l), 66-75.
Norusis, M. J. (1988). SPSS/PC+ v.2.0 manual, advanced
statistics. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
RAS-L-l. (1984). Guidelines for the design _ of roads
(German Road and Transportation Research Association
[FGSV], Committee 2.3, Geometric Design Standards
[translated from German]). Cologne, Germany: FGSV.
Reinfurt, D. W., Zegeer, C. V., Shelton, B. J., & Neuman, T.
R. (1992). Analysis of vehicle operations on horizontal
curves (Transportation Research Record, No. 1318).
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Rutley, K. S. (1972). Advisory speed signs for bends (TRRL
LR 461). Crowthorne, UK: Transport and Road Research
Laboratory.
Taragin, A. (1954). Driver performance on horizontal
curves. Paper presented at the Highway Research Board
33rd Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Transportation Research Board [TRB]. (1984). 55: A decade
of experience (Transportation Research Board Special
Report No. 204). Washington, DC: Author.
Wright, C. C., & Boyle, A. J. (1987). Road accident
causation and engineering treatment: A review of some
current issues. Traffic Engineering and Control, 28(9),
475-483.
Yagar, S., & van Aerde, M. (1983). Geometric and en-
vironmental effects on speeds of 2-lane highways.
Transportation Research, 17A(4), 3 15-325.
Journal of Safety Research