DOCSLIB.ORG

The Psychosocial Factors Influencing Aggressive Driving Behaviour

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Psychosocial Factors Influencing Aggressive Driving Behaviour The Psychosocial Factors Influencing Aggressive Driving Behaviour Sharon Rosemary O’Brien Bachelor of Social Science, Bachelor of Psychology (Honours) A thesis submitted as fulfilment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queensland University of Technology Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) School of Psychology & Counselling Brisbane, Australia. 2011 i Key Words Aggressive driving, road rage, aggression, young drivers, driving, road safety, stress, psychopathology, emotions, threat, negative attributions. ii iii Abstract Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions iv about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self- reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in v speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently vi ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self- reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of State Speed Laws
    DOT HS 810 826 August 2007 Summary of State Speed Laws Tenth Edition Current as of January 1, 2007 This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers' names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................................iii Missouri ......................................................138 Alabama..........................................................1 Montana ......................................................143 Alaska.............................................................5 Nebraska .....................................................150 Arizona ...........................................................9 Nevada ........................................................157 Arkansas .......................................................15 New
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6.4 – Dangerous Emotions - Lesson Plan
    MONTANA TEEN DRIVER CURRICULUM GUIDE Module 6.4 – Dangerous Emotions - Lesson Plan Student Objectives: The student explores how the senses are used while driving. The student develops an understanding of how emotions affect the driving task and ways to manage emotional situations while driving. The student develops an understanding of how temporary and permanent disabilities may affect the driving task and ways to compensate while driving. The student is expected to describe: a) how the senses for touching, hearing, smelling, and seeing are used while driving; b) emotions and their effect on driver behavior; c) ways to control emotions while driving; d) temporary and permanent disabilities that may affect the driving task; e) actions drivers can take to compensate for disabilities while driving. The student describes aggressive behaviors and how driver errors lead to aggressive driving behaviors by the driver and other drivers that can escalate to road rage; evaluates individual anxieties that can lead to aggressive driving; recognizes strategies drivers can adopt to reduce conflict; and describes how to apply anger management techniques to prevent aggressive driving that can lead to road rage. The student is expected to: a) describe aggressive driving behaviors that can lead to road rage; b) describe driver errors that can lead to aggressive driving behaviors; c) describe an individual’s anxieties that can lead to dangerous driving behaviors; d) develop strategies to reduce conflicts while driving; e) develop and use anger management techniques to prevent aggressive driving and road rage. Materials Needed: 1. Module 6.4 PowerPoint Presentation 2. Module 6.4 Fact and/or Work Sheets (printed for each student) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggressive Driving
    T H E CQResearcherPUBLISHED BY CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC. Aggressive Driving Can road designers and police calm motorists down? he explosive anger that leads drivers to sometimes deadly road disputes, often termed “road rage,” has dramatized the rise in aggressive driving. Two-thirds of last year’s Tmore than 41,000 auto deaths are blamed on aggressive I driving — such as speeding, cutting off other motorists N and tailgating. In several states, police are beefing up THIS ISSUE S THE ISSUES ........................... 651 enforcement, and legislators are calling for tougher I BACKGROUND ..................... 660 penalties. Several cities are installing traffic-calming D CHRONOLOGY ..................... 661 measures like narrowed streets to slow down drivers. But E CURRENT SITUATION ........... 664 citizens in much of the nation must battle entrenched AT ISSUE ................................ 665 state highway bureaucracies, whose road standards make OUTLOOK............................. 666 roads as fast as possible for cars — often at the expense BIBLIOGRAPHY .................... 668 of walkers, bicyclists and livable communities. THE NEXT STEP .................... 669 CQ July 25, 1997 • Volume 7, No. 28 • Pages 649-672 Formerly Editorial Research Reports AGGRESSIVE DRIVING T H THE ISSUES OUTLOOK CQE Researcher July 25, 1997 • Is aggressive driving a Legislative Initiatives Volume 7, No. 28 651 major safety hazard? 666 State and federal laws • Do government focus on punishing bad EDITOR transportation policies drivers, but some experts Sandra Stencel favor motorists over call for more emphasis on pedestrians? motivating young drivers MANAGING EDITOR to be courteous. Thomas J. Colin ASSOCIATE EDITORS BACKGROUND Sarah M. Magner SIDEBARS AND Richard L. Worsnop Societal Stress GRAPHICS 661 Aggressive driving has STAFF WRITERS been blamed on competi- Charles S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporting Road Rage Incidents to Police
    Reporting Road Rage Incidents To Police Gratulant Nolan gats very anonymously while Salman remains benthic and cirrhotic. Unconsentaneous Renato reproach very glisteringly while Pail remains revealing and peaceable. Autochthonous and ameliorating Abdulkarim never wisps ravishingly when Ev concentrated his steppe. Aggressive Driving Fact Sheet Texas Department of Insurance. How to use bad driving Driving Test. How do I impose a dangerous or erratic vehicle perform the highway. You would avoid road town or ammunition the agree that anger and grow by putting distance. No scruples to indicate a commercial post data to be out your district court in a driver may need to altercations, videos from comics from verified sources. Road attack Is Speeding Up in Houston Houstonia Magazine. Get city club of a license plate of motor vehicles, who happen and reload this for? We hope to fear this hotline as an additional tool to strait and report. Aggressive Driving Arizona Department is Public Safety. Police contract for Louisiana vehicle involved in MS road to death report. Call listen on blood cell counter or go retrieve a public location. How to future incidents are shown by a risk of our roads safe distance from anywhere and consider this? Police made up online form for reporting road-rage incidents amid law revisions July 1 2020 Mainichi Japan An image like a poster promoting regulations and. According to the Dickson City hospital Department a dizzy rage incident that turned into the assault occurred around 415 pm on Saturday The. Nexar to hold back to jump to police to those who showed a judge will follow you.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation
    TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES SERIES December 2010, No. 35 Traffic Safety and Public Health: State Legislative Action 2010 By Melissa A. Savage and Anne Teigen Summary Occupant Protection. At least 26 states considered bills to strengthen seat belt laws in 2010. These proposals included efforts to enact primary enforcement of existing seat belt laws and changing requirements for child restraint use. Impaired Driving Issues. In 2010, lawmakers in 46 states introduced more than 300 bills related to impaired driving. They considered legislation related to stricter penalties for high blood alcohol concentration (BAC), ignition interlocks, breath tests and treatment. Distracted Driving. Since 2000, legislatures in every state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have considered legislation related to distracted driving and driver cell phone use. In 2010, legislators in 40 states considered 181 driver distraction bills. Driver’s Licensing. Each year, state legislatures debate hundreds of bills relating to various aspects of driver licensing, including REAL ID, unlicensed driving, older drivers and teen drivers. In 2010, 40 states debated more than 200 bills relating to drivers licensing. Aggressive Driving. Laws in 10 states penalize aggressive drivers. Hand gestures, shouting, CONTENTS speeding, tailgating, driving on the shoulder, weaving in and out of traffic, or any Summary .................................. 1 combination of these activities may fall within the definition of aggressive driving. Introduction .............................. 2 Occupant Protection .................. 2 Speed Limits. In 2010, 21 states considered bills regarding speed, including increased Impaired Driving ...................... 4 fines for speeding, setting speed limits, and punishing serious speeding offenders. Distracted Driving ..................... 8 Driver Licensing ...................... 10 Automated Enforcement. Because law enforcement agencies struggle with limited Aggressive Driving ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Aggressive Driving: Research Update
    Aggressive Report cover final quark 4/2/09 1:37 PM Page 1 Car crashes rank among the leading causes of death in the United States. Aggressive Driving: Research Update April, 2009 607 14th Street, NW, Suite 201 Washington, DC 20005 AAAFoundation.org 202-638-5944 Overview Aggressive driving is a major concern of the American public, ranking at or near the top of traffic safety issues in national surveys of motorists. However, the concept of aggressive driving is not well defined, and its overall impact on traffic safety has not been well quantified due to inadequacies and limitation of available data. This paper reviews published scientific literature on aggressive driving; discusses various definitions of aggressive driving; cites several specific behaviors that are typically associated with aggressive driving; and summarizes past research on the individuals or groups most likely to behave aggressively. Since adequate data to precisely quantify the percentage of fatal crashes that involve aggressive driving do not exist, in this review, we have quantified the number of fatal crashes in which one or more driver actions typically associated with aggressive driving were reported. We found these actions were reported in 56 percent of fatal crashes from 2003 through 2007, with excessive speed being the number one factor. Ideally, an estimate of the prevalence of aggressive driving would include only instances in which such actions were performed intentionally; however, available data on motor vehicle crashes do not contain such information, thus it is important to recognize that this 56 percent may to some degree overestimate the contribution of aggressive driving to fatal crashes.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CHAPTER 3. AGGRESSIVE DRIVING and SPEEDING by Kara
    CHAPTER 3. AGGRESSIVE DRIVING AND SPEEDING By Kara Kockelman & Jianming Ma, Modified 10/25/16 (original 10 April 2016) ABSTRACT Purpose: This chapter synthesizes a variety of findings on the topic of aggressive driving, and delivers a suite of strategies for moderating such behaviors. Examples and formal definition of aggressive driving acts are given, along with specific techniques for reducing excessive speed and other aggressive behaviors. Methodology: Key references from the literature are summarized and discussed, and two examples detailing how multi-parameter distributions and models compare with the negative binomial distribution and model are presented. Findings: Speeding is the most common type of aggressive driving and speeding-related crashes represent a high share of traffic deaths. Speeding relates to many factors, including public attitudes, personal behaviors, vehicle performance capabilities, roadway design attributes, laws, and policies. Anonymity, while encased in a vehicle, and driver frustration, due to roadway congestion or other issues, contribute to aggressive driving. Research implications: More observational data are needed to quantify the effects of the contributing factors on aggressive driving. Practical implications: Driver frustration, intoxication, and stress can lead to serious crashes and other traffic problems. They can be addressed, to some extent, through practical enforcement, design decisions, and education campaigns. Key words: Aggressive driving, speeding, traffic law enforcement, roadway safety BACKGROUND Among the many driver errors that are typically at play in pre-crash contexts, aggressive driving is a serious issue, accounting for nearly 7 million crashes every year in the U.S. alone (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2014) and over half of all U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Road Rage: Summary of First-Year Project Activities 6
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. TX-01/4945-1 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date November 2000 UNDERSTANDING ROAD RAGE: SUMMARY OF FIRST-YEAR PROJECT ACTIVITIES 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Carol H. Walters, Valmon J. Pezoldt, Katie N. Womack, Scott A. Cooner, and Report 4945-1 Beverly T. Kuhn 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System 11. Contract or Grant No. College Station, Texas 77843-3135 Project No. 7-4945 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Construction Division Research: Research and Technology Transfer Section September 1999 - August 2000 P. O. Box 5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763-5080 15. Supplementary Notes Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Project Title: Understanding Road Rage 16. Abstract Popular opinion has it that “road rage” is increasingly prevalent and dangerous in the urban driving environment. Whether or not this opinion is true, driver frustration in congested conditions may lead to an increase in aggressive driving, a less intentionally malignant and more common subset of road rage. The potential for significant safety benefits might be realized if transportation professionals had a better understanding of some roadway factors and characteristics of the congested driving environment that induce irritation and perhaps contribute to the frequency of aggressive driving. This report documents the major first-year activities: literature review, focus groups, telephone survey, and development of potential traffic engineering mitigation measures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road Rage and Aggressive Driving Dichotomy: Personality and Attribution Factors in Driver Aggression
    University of Central Florida STARS HIM 1990-2015 2015 The Road Rage and Aggressive Driving Dichotomy: Personality and Attribution Factors in Driver Aggression Kathryn Elizabeth Schafer University of Central Florida Part of the Psychology Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015 University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in HIM 1990-2015 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Schafer, Kathryn Elizabeth, "The Road Rage and Aggressive Driving Dichotomy: Personality and Attribution Factors in Driver Aggression" (2015). HIM 1990-2015. 611. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses1990-2015/611 THE ROAD RAGE AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING DICHOTOMY: PERSONALITY AND ATTRIBUTION FACTORS IN DRIVER AGGRESSION by K. ELIZABETH SCHAFER A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Major Program in Psychology in the College of Sciences and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2015 Thesis Chair: Peter A. Hancock, D.Sc. Abstract Aggressive driving is not clearly and consistently defined in the literature, neither in terms of the specific behaviors chosen for inclusion nor the degree to which the emotional state of the driver is taken into account. Principally, the aim of this current research is to determine the extent to which aggressive driving and road rage overlap. This will be accomplished primarily by applying two well-supported dichotomies in aggression research: hostile/instrumental and impulsive/premeditated.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoid Aggressive Driving Don’T Provoke, Don’T Be Provoked
    Avoid Aggressive Driving Don’t Provoke, Don’t be Provoked Driving is not a competition. Leave the ego at home. If another driver is acting aggressively, don’t take their challenge. Just back off and live to drive another day. Crash Likelihood The crash What is aggressive driving? Any unsafe driving behavior, performed deliberately and If a likelihood driver had: with ill intention or disregard for safety, can constitute aggressive driving. Examples increased: of aggressive driving behaviors include: A reckless driving violation 114% Speeding in heavy traffic A failure to yield right of way 101% Cutting in front of another driver and then slowing down violation A failure to keep in proper lane 83% Changing lanes without signaling conviction A failure to use/improper Weaving in and out of traffic signal conviction 82% Blocking cars attempting to pass or change lanes A past crash 74% An improper lane/location Tailgating conviction 72% Running red lights An improper pass conviction 70% A reckless/careless/ Using headlights or brakes to “punish” other drivers inattentive/negligent 69% driving conviction An improper or erratic lane Engaging in these hazardous driving behaviors may constitute a criminal offense change conviction 66% of reckless driving. It may escalate into road rage and often results in crashes that An improper lane change 63% involve loss of life and serious injuries. violation An hours-of-service violation 50% The American Transportation Research Institute reports that the likelihood of a An improper turn conviction 49% commercial motor vehicle being involved in a crash increases significantly when the A following too close conviction 46% driver has been convicted of one of these hazardous actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggressive Driving
    U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 61 Aggressive Driving Colleen Laing www.cops.usdoj.gov Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Problem-Specific Guides Series No. 61 Aggressive Driving Colleen Laing This project was supported by cooperative agreement 2007-CK-WX-K008 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office). The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of April 2010. Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. © 2010 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes. www.cops.usdoj.gov ISBN: 978-1-935676-18-8 June 2010 About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i About the Problem-Specific Guide Series The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Nchrp Report 500
    NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP PROGRAM REPORT 500 Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan Volume 1: A Guide for Addressing Aggressive-Driving Collisions TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2003 (Membership as of March 2003) OFFICERS Chair: Genevieve Giuliano, Director and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Vice Chair: Michael S. Townes, Executive Director, Transportation District Commission of Hampton Roads, Hampton, VA Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Commissioner, New York State DOT SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC E. DEAN CARLSON, Secretary of Transportation, Kansas DOT JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America JAMES C. CODELL III, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University LESTER A. HOEL, L. A. Lacy Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia HENRY L. HUNGERBEELER, Director, Missouri DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor and Chairman, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Berkeley RONALD F. KIRBY, Director of Transportation Planning, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT MICHAEL D. MEYER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology JEFF P. MORALES, Director of Transportation, California DOT KAM MOVASSAGHI, Secretary of Transportation, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development CAROL A.
    [Show full text]