Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Factors Affecting Drivers' Choice of Speed On Roadway Curves
Factors Affecting Drivers' Choice of Speed On Roadway Curves
49-56, 1995
Pergamon Copyright Q 1995 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd
F’rintedin the USA. All rights reserved
0022-4375/95 $9.50 + .I0
0022-4375(94)00024-7
George Kanellaidis
TABLE 1
DESCRIPTION. MEAN RATINGS AND RANKS OF DESIGN ELEMENTS AFFECTING SPEED CHOICE ON
ROADWAY CURVES
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF DESIGN ELEMENT RATINGS FOR NONVIOLATORS VS. VIOLATORS
Average Rating
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 group’s 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)
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
(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)