Operational Performance and Safety Effects of Arterial Weaving Sections (2024)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

67   Campbell, K. W., A. M. Bonacci, J. Shelton, J. J. Exline, and B. J. Bushman. 2004. Psychological Entitlement: Interper- sonal Consequences and Validation of a Self-Report Measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83(1): 29–45. Contractor, A. A., N. H. Weiss, N. T. Kearns, S. V. Caldas, and K. L. Dixon-Gordon. 2020. Assessment of Post- traumatic Stress Disorder’s E2 Criterion: Development, Pilot Testing, and Validation of the Posttrauma Risky Behaviors Questionnaire. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(3), p. 292. EyeTracking. 2019. EyeWorks 3 User Manual. EyeTracking, Inc., Solana Beach, CA. Farah, H., A. Polus, S. Bekhor, and T. Toledo. 2007. Study of Passing Gap Acceptance Behavior Using a Driving Simulator. Advances in Transportation Studies: An International Journal, pp. 9–16. Freuli, F., G. De Cet, M. Gastaldi, F. Orsini, M. Tagliabue, R. Rossi, and G. Vidotto. 2020. Cross-cultural Perspective of Driving Style in Young Adults: Psychometric Evaluation Through the Analysis of the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 73, pp. 425–432. Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. 2022. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/26432. Rossi, R., M. Gastaldi, G. Gecchele, and C. Meneguzzer. 2012. Comparative Analysis of Random Utility Models and Fuzzy Logic Models for Representing Gap-Acceptance Behavior Using Data from Driving Simulator Experiments. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 54, pp. 834–844. Stojmenova, K., and J. Sodnik. 2015. Methods for Assessment of Cognitive Workload in Driving Tasks. In ICIST 2015 5th International Conference on Information Society and Technology (pp. 229–234). Sun, L., L. Cheng, and Q. Zhang. 2021. The Differences in Hazard Response Time and Driving Styles of Violation- Involved and Violation-Free Taxi Drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 82, pp. 178–186. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., M. Mikulincer, and O. Gillath. 2004. The Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory—Scale Construct and Validation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(3), pp. 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1016 /S0001-4575(03)00010-1. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., and V. Skvirsky. 2016. The Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory a Decade Later: Review of the Literature and Re-evaluation of the Scale. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 93, pp. 179–188. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., T. Lotan, and C. G. Prato. 2017. Young Male Drivers’ Risky Driving 15 Months After Licensure—The Role of Intervention, Attitudes Towards Accompanied Driving, and Parents’ Risk. Trans- portation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 51, pp. 73–80. Van Huysduynen, H. H., J. Terken, and B. Eggen. 2018. The Relation Between Self-Reported Driving Style and Driving Behaviour. A Simulator Study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 56, pp. 245–255. Watson, D., L. A. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, pp. 1063–1070. References