> ARR No.

126
:u ';N
<0
:u .,...
z 0
~ Z
~ a::
N a::
0) ct

ISSN 0518 - 0728

Speeds on Curves:
Side Friction Factor Considerations
J.R. McLean

mg _ _ _ ----- ---- - - -

AUSTRALIAN ROAD RESEARCH BOARD

RESEARCH REPORT
 AUSTRAUAN ROAD RESEARCH BOARD

REPORT SUMMARY
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

is to document the development of the design side friction factor values adopted for the NAASRA (1980) Interim
Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads.

THIS REPORT SHOULD INTEREST

those concerned with geometric road design and the relationships between road alignment and driver behaviour.

THE MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT ARE

On curves with a speed standard less than 90 lan/h, drivers typically develop side friction factors considerably in excess of
the values assumed for traditional geometric design practice. This anomaly can be removed by re-defining curve design speed
so that it represents an estimate of the 85th percentile curve speed, and deriving limiting design values of side friction factor
from observed driver behaviour.

AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE WORK REPORTED, THE FOLLOWING ACTION IS RECOMMENDED

The side friction factor design values and associated curve speed prediction relations be used as a basis for alignment design
which is consistent with actual driver behaviour.

RELATED ARRB RESEARCH

P359 - Analysis of Rural Road Traffic Operations
ASH - NAASRA Geometric Standards and Policy Review

--------------------------------
McLEAN, J.R. (1983) : SPEEDS ON CURVES: SIDE FRICTION FACTOR CONSIDER-
ATIONS. Australian Road Research Board. ARR No. 126. 16 pages including 11 figures
and 6 tables.
-----------------------------------------
KEYWORDS : Speed/bend (road)/alignment/degree of curvature/design speed/skidding
resistance/friction
ABSTRACT : Observed speeds on rural road curves in the lower speed standard range have
been found to be in excess of the assumed design speed, and it has been suggested that an
alternative design procedure, based on the predicted 85th percentile speed, be developed
for these curves. Within this context, an examination is made of the side friction factor
basis of current curve design standards, and the relationships between current design
values of side friction, available friction, and the values typically utilised by drivers. It is
CUT OUT INFORMATION found that the driver behaviour interpretation of the side friction factor-design speed
relationship cannot be substantiated by empirical evidence, and that the side friction
RETRIEVAL CARD . ........ . values actually utilised are often greatly in excess of the design values. Empirical data
are used to develop an alternative set of design friction factor values, more in keeping with
current driver behaviour, which can be used in conjunction with predicted 85th percentile
curve speeds. It is argued that the proposed values should be treated as maxima, and that
the object of alignment design, in terms of the side friction criterion, should be to produce
alignments based on driver behaviour, such that the 85th percentile driver does not utilise
side friction factors in excess of the design values.

'"'liii~immr
0003990 "Non IRRD Keywords
 Austral ian Road Research Board
Research Report ARR No. 1 26

AUSTRALIAN POAD
RESEARCH BOARO
25 MAY 1933

LIB8ARY

SPEEDS ON CURVES: SIDE FRICTION FACTOR

CONSIDERATIONS

by
J.R. McLEAN
Principal Research Scientist
Australian Road Research Board

Australian Road Research Board

500 Burwood Highway, Vermont South
Victoria 3133, Australia
March 1983
 Research Report ARR No. 1 26

The ARR series of reports was created by the Board to quickly and economically reproduce the conclusions of
road and road transport research subjects for those associated with roads and the road transport industry. Unlike
other technical publications produced by the Australian Road Research Board, ARR reports are not reviewed by
referees or ARRB Directors.
Although this report is believed to be correct at the time of its publication, the Australian Road Research Board
does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of the information contained in it. Peo-
ple using the information contained in the report should apply, and rely upon, their own skill and judgment to the
particular issue which they are considering .
Reference to, or reproduction of this report must include a precise reference to the report.

ISBN 0 86910 102 1 Report

ISBN 0 86910 103 X Microfiche
ISSN 0518 - 0728
 Research Report ARR No.1 26

CONTENTS.
ABSTRACT

NOTATION

1. INTRODUCTION

2. TRADITIONAL APPLICATION OF SIDE FRICTION

FACTOR VALUES IN CURVE DESIGN STANDARDS
2.1 Basis of Curve Design Standards
2.2 Interpretation of the Side Friction Factor-Design Speed
Relationship 2

3. CRITICISMS OF THE SIDE FRICTION FACTOR

CRITERION 2
3.1 The Design Speed Assumption 2
3.2 Assumptions in the Design Equation 3
3.3 ' Side Friction Factor-Speed Relationsh ip and Driver
Behaviour 3

4. PROPOSED APPROACH TO SIDE FRICTION

DESIGN 3

5. PAVEMENT SKID RESISTANCE 4

6. SIDE FRICTION FACTORS EMPLOYED IN

PRACTICE 4
6.1 Side Friction Factors Computed from Observed Speeds 4
6.2 In-Vehicle Measurements of Lateral Acceleration 6
6.3 Relationships Between Observed Values. Actual Friction
Demand and Design Values 8

7. DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN VALUES 8

7.1 Rationale of Approach 8
7.2 Consideration of the Side Friction Factors-Speed Plot 9
7.3 Distributions of Utilised Side Friction Values 11
7.4 Consistency with Traditional Standards 11
7.5 Proposed Design Values 11

8. DISCUSSION 11
8.1 Basis of Proposed Values 11
8.2 Minimum Curve Radius 14
8.3 Safety Margin 14

9. CONCLUSIONS 16

REFERENCES 16
 NOTATION

lateral acceleration (g) R curve radius (m)

e curve superelevation (m/m) skid number

side friction factor side force coefficient

side friction factor assumed for v speed (m/s)

design
v speed (kmlh)
side friction factor appropriate to 85th percentile speed (km/h)
the 85th percentile speed
g acceleration due to gravity design speed values currently
(m/SfO!c 2 ) applied (kmlh)
ARR No . 126
1. INTRODUCTION
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Project
200 (Speeds on Curves) was directed at investigat-
ing the relationships between vehicle operating
speeds and the geometric properties of curves on
two-lane roads. Data collected during the course of
the study included vehicle spot speeds (curve and
approach) and road geometry measured on 72 curves
with design speed standards nominally in the range
40 to 120 km/h . Where possible, separate speed
studies were made for each direction of travel with
each direction being considered as a separate study
site. A total of 120 sites resulted .
McLean (1981) described how the data were
analysed to produce a family of curve speed predic-
tion relations for 85th percentile car speeds, and sug-
gested that these be used as a basis for design stan-
dards for low-speed al ignments (less than 90 km/h).
This report exam ines the side friction factor (f)
basis of curve design standards and the relationships
between design values of (, available friction, and the
(values typically uti lised by drivers. Side friction fac -
tors computed from the measured curve speeds and
geometric parameters are used as the basis for a set
of design values, consistent with current driver
behaviour, which can be used in conjunction with the
predicted 85th percentile speeds.
The curve speed prediction relations and the
associated set of side friction factor design values
have been adopted for the NAASRA (1980) Interim
Guide to the Geometric Design of Rural Roads .
2. TRADITIONAL APPLICATION OF
SIDE FRICTION FACTOR VALUES IN
CURVE DESIGN STANDARDS
2.1 BASIS OF CURVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Minimum curve design standards are based on two
criteria :
(a) ensuring that the side friction demand is not ex-
cessive for the design speed; and
(b) ensuring that the available sight distance is
adequate for the design speed.
This report is concerned solely with the first criterion.
The (criterion is based on the force balance for a
pOint mass on a superelevated surface travelling at
constant speed along a circular arc. With small angle
approximations, the force balance yields the equa-
tion :
(1)
or
e + f = V2 / 127 R (2)
This is the design equation used for the derivation of
minimum curve standards satisfying the ( criterion .
However, the values of certain parameters need to be
set for application of the equation.
1
Safe vehicle operation on alignment features is
very speed dependent, and the design speed concept
has evolved as a basis for alignment design. Design
speed was originally defined as 'the maximum
reasonably uniform speed which would be adopted by
the faster driving group of vehicle operators, once
clear of urban areas ' (Barnett 1936) , but is now used
more as a means of 'matching ' alignment elements
(McLean 1978) . However, an implicit assumption of a
design vehicle travelling at the design speed is re-
tained in the application of the concept. Values of
design speed ranging from 40 to 130 km/h, in 10 km/h
increments, are typically used in the derivation of
curve design standards from eqn (2) .
The National Association of Australian State
Road Authorities (NAASRA) (1970 and 1973) give
design values of (as a decreasing function of design
speed as shown in Fig. 1. These are typical of the
design values found in most design manuals and
guides, and are referred to in this report as the 'tradi-
tional ' design values . The basis of these functions is
discussed in the next sub-section.
Maximum values of superelevation are based on a
number of considerations including the stability of
slow moving, high centre of gravity vehicles, the
lengths required for superelevation transitions, and
appearance. A target maximum value of 0.06 m/m is
advised in NAASRA (1973), with values as high as
0.10 in difficult situations and 0.12 in severe terrain.
With the controlling values of design speed, side
friction factor and superelevation fixed as described
above, eqn (2) can be used to derive minimum curve
radii as a function of design speed. The values so
derived in NAASRA (1973) are shown in Table I. It
should be noted that there is a certain arbitrariness in
the (-design speed relationship, so that it would be
equally valid to arbitrarily assign design values of
radius and superelevation without reference to eqn
(2) or the relationships shown in Fig. 1.
When curves are provided with radii greater than
the general minimum pertaining to the design speed,
the normal practice is to reduce superelevation
below the general maximum, but not to an extent cor-
responding to the increase in radius. Thus , vehicles
travelling at the design speed on above minimum
radius curves will be operating with f values below
those shown in Fig. 1.
30 _ _ _ Intersection
__ Rural Road
\
\
\
\ ,,
"
~
en 10
oL-__-L__~____~--~---=~~~--~
02040
Design Speed (km/ h)
Fig. 1 - Relationship between design values of side friction
factor and design speed (NAASRA 1970 and 1973)
2 ARR No. 126

TABLE I
MINIMUM RADIUS OF HORIZONTAL CURVES BASED ON
SUPERELEVATION AND SIDE FRICTION REQUIREMENTS
(from NAASRA 1973)

Minimum Radius (m)

Design
Speed Mountainous General Flat
(kmlh) Terrain Maximum Terrain
e = 0.12 e = 0.10 e = 0.06
40 40 45 50
50 70 75 90
60 105 110 130
70 145 155 185
80 195 210 (g55)
90 255 280 340
100 330 360 440
110 400 435 530
120 495 540 670
130 785

2.2 INTERPRETATION OF THE SIDE FRICTION 3. CRITICISMS OF THE SIDE

FACTOR-DESIGN SPEED RELATIONSHIP
There appears to be confusion in the standard design
texts regarding the '-speed design relationship in that
it is regarded, alternatively, as a design criterion , or
as an explanation of driver behaviour.
The design criterion interpretation is based both
on providing a factor of safety over actual pavement
friction and on providing comfortable travel condi-
tions for drivers (AASHO 1965). The skid resistance
of pavements tends to decrease with increasing
speed in a manner similar to the design relationship,
but is consistently in excess of the design' values so
that a safety margin is provided. The provis ion of
comfort is based on the claim that drivers or
passengers will experience discomfort from 'values
greater than the design values.
The driver behaviour interpretation assumes that
drivers adjust their speed according to the comfort
criterion represented by the '-speed relati onsh ip .
This reasoning is implicit in the NAASRA (1973)
statement that: 'The maximum value of , which most
drivers will tolerate in negotiating a curve range from
0.19 at 40 km/h to 0.11 at 130 km/h' . Similar reason-
ing is used in NAASRA (1 970) to justify the higher
values of ' for intersection design, viz. 'it is found that
drivers turning on curves of small radius at intersec-
tions will accept a lower degree of comfort'.
The emphasis on a comfort criterion appears to
have been adopted from railway engineering practice,
where passenger comfort was an important con-
sideration in the setting of curves. It was proposed as
a basis for road curve design by Barnett (1936)
following field tests on volunteer subjects, and was
subsequently adopted by AASHO. However, the sup-
posedly 'comfortable' design values were not
checked against actual driver behaviour.
FRICTION FACTOR CRITERION
Criticisms of the 'criterion as applied to curve design
standards fall into three categories :
(a) the design speed assumption.
(b) the constant radius assumption and the point
mass equation , and
(c) the '-speed relationship as a representation of
driver behaviour.
3.1 THE DESIGN SPEED ASSUMPTION
Application of eqn (2) and the '-speed relationship
(Fig. 1) is only truly valid for a vehicle travelling at, or
below, the design speed. While this may be a
reasonable approach in railway engineering, where
the maximum speed for each curve is stipulated, there
is no guarantee that drivers are either aware of, or
drive at, the design speed.
The results of Project 200 have shown that actual
vehicle operating speeds tend to vary along the road ,
and are often quite inconsistent with the design speed
(McLean 1981) . In particular, curves based on design
speeds below about 90 km/h are consistently driven
at speeds in excess of the design speed.
The latter point is recognised in AASHO (1965)
to justify the use of very conservative design values
of 'for the lower range of design speeds: 'The lower
rates at the low speeds are desirable since drivers
tend to overdrive low design speed highways'. The
NAASRA (1973) design va lues at low design speeds
are less conservative.
ARR No. 126
3.2 ASSUMPTIONS IN THE DESIGN EQUATION
Equation (2) assumes that a vehicle acts as a point
mass travelling at constant speed on a constant
radius . In fact , the driverlvehicle is a complex
dynamic system which will seldom be in a fixed, or
steady-state , condition.
The ability , or inability, of the driver/vehicle
system to maintain lateral positioning within the lane
is of specific relevance here. It is not possible for a
driver to steer a vehicle perfectly. Even if it were, en-
vironmental disturbances such as road surface ir-
regularities constantly act on a road vehicle , causing
it to deviate from its path. While traversing a curve, a
driver must also adjust the position of the vehicle
within the lane, so that deviations from a constant path
radius are required.
This problem has been investigated experimen-
tally by Glennon and Weaver (1971) . They found that
vehicle paths on curves with radii ranging from 250 to
875 m were such that, at some point along the curve,
vehicle path curvature was more severe than that of
the curve, and that the discrepancy between minimum
path radius and curve radius increased with increas-
ing curve radius. Thus, the actual maximum ( ex-
perienced by a vehicle traversing curve will generally
be greater than that indicated by eqn (2), and the dis-
crepancy will tend to be greater for larger radius, or
higher speed curves . Good and Joubert (1977) found
that, for substantial deviation angles (more than 90 0 )
and strong constraints on drivers' lateral positioning,
this relationship extends to curves of lower radius (18
to 116 m). However, for low radius curves with
smaller deviation angles, or with room for lateral
manoeuvring, drivers tend to 'cut the corner' such that
the actual maximum (is smaller than that given by eqn
(2) .
McLean (1974) suggested that , when ( is com-
puted from observed speeds and eqn (2), the
difference between minimum vehicle path radius and
curve radius may account for part of the observed
trend of decreasing (with increasing speed.
3.3 SIDE FRICTION FACTOR-SPEED RELATIONSHIP
AND DRIVER BEHAVIOUR
As a consequence of its driver behaviour studies, the
Human Factors Research Group at the University of
Melbourne has been critical of the (-speed relation-
ship as an interpretation of driver curve speed
behaviour (Good, Rolls and Joubert 1969; Good
1975; Good and Joubert 1977; Good and Sweatman
1976) . There would appear to be two major objec-
tions.
(a) There is no empirical evidence that drivers res-
pond to actual, or subjectively predicted (in the
selection of curve speed, rather than some
other parameter.
(b) Owing to the inter-relationship between speed,
curve geometry and ( (eqn(2)), attempts to
represent driver behaviour as an (-speed rela-
tionship may cloud the more fundamental issue
of driver speed behaviour and road conditions
(including curve geometry) .
The failure of superelevation to appear as a
statistically significant variable in the regression
analysis of the Project 200 curve speed data (McLean
1981) supports the argument that (does not have a
3
direct bearing on driver curve speed selection
behaviour.
Good and Sweatman (1976) proposed a number
of alternative models for driver speed behaviour on
curves, but lacked the necessary empirical data to
test these models. They considered that an (-speed
interpretation of driver speeds on curves could lead
to erroneous conclusions, and argued that (be tre-
ated as an outcome of driver behaviour rather than as
an explanation for it.
4. PROPOSED APPROACH TO SIDE
FRICTION DESIGN
Despite the criticisms of the ( approach to curve
design standards, designers still consider that ( is
both a necessary and valid design criterion. They
argue that the difference between (and the actual
tyre/pavement friction available is the most important
factor affecting safe vehicle operations on curves.
Furthermore, as maintenance of pavement skid resis-
tance is outside their realm, geometric design must
focus on the friction demand, or side friction factor,
contribution to the difference. In effect, the criticisms
given in the previous section do not invalidate the
safety margin interpretation of the design f-speed
relationship .
If (is to remain as a fundamental curve design cri-
terion, recent driver behaviour studies suggest that it
should be based on a different conceptual framework
from that traditionally employed. In particular, (de-
mand should be seen as an outcome of driver
behaviour rather than as a representation of it. The
objective of alignment design for the (criterion is,
then, to ensure that the design driver (some chosen
percentile of the driver population) does not exceed
the design values of (.
Given the complexities of driver/vehicle
behaviour on curves, it is not feasible to base design (
values (for substitution in eqn (2)) on measured pave-
ment skid resistance and an arbitrary safety factor.
However, through experience, drivers have learnt to
operate with their own safety margins. While utilised (
does not appear to have a direct bearing on driver
speed selection, it can be assumed that learnt driver
behaviour includes an appreciation of the bounds on
the friction forces which can reasonably be de -
manded. Thus, the upper range of ( values typically
utilised in practice can form the basis of design (
values which include a subjective safety margin as
applied. by drivers.
Implementation of such an approach requires that
the design (values be based on a realistic assess-
ment of the behaviour and comfort tolerance of
modern drivers, and the pavement skid resistance that
can be anticipated. Attempts to introduce additional
conservatism by designing to low ( values (as per
AASHO 1965) are quite unrealistic when the resultant
alignments are driven faster than the design speed
such that higher (values are used in practice.
McLean (1981) showed that, for design speeds
greater than about 100 kmlh, traditional curve design
practice results in conservative deSigns relative to
the behaviour of the 85th percentile driver. The lower
range of deSign speeds (less than about 90 kmlh)
 4 ARR No . 126
would appear to be the crit ical region where amend-
ment to traditional practice may be necessary. For
this region , it may be more appropriate to define
design speed as the likely 85th percentile speed, and
to base the design criteria on the behaviour of the
85th percentile driver. (The 85th percentile approxi-
mates a point of inflection in the normal distribution
curve, and, as speeds tend to be normally distributed,
is likely to repr~sent the point of diminishing returns
when designing according to a percentile speed
value .)
The remainder of this report exam ines data on
pavement skid resistance and the values of ( ob -
served in practice. The data from Project 200, being
comprehensive and up-to -date observations of the
curve speed behaviour of Australian drivers, are used
to derive a design (-speed relationship which is both
consistent with actual driver behaviour and safe with
respect to likely pavement skid resistance.
5. PAVEMENT SKID RESISTANCE
The foremost requirement of design values for ( is that
they not be excessive in relation to the friction wh ich
a pavement is likely to provide. This section of the
report considers the results of two studies which
have examined available pavement skid resistance.
Pavement skid resistance is usually expressed
as a skid number, friction number, or side force coeffi-
cient. The values quoted, and the term used, are de-
pendent on the method of measurement. However, for
the purpose of the current exercise , these numbers
can be regarded as being approximately equal to the
wet tyre/pavement coeffic ient of friction multiplied by
100.
Country Roads Board (CRB) (1976) reported an
investigation of side friction values for the NAASRA
Review of Road DeSign Standards. As part of this in-
vestigation , an examination was made of curve site
side force coefficient (SFC) data collected from
routine SCRIM testing carried out by the CRB on the
arterial road network of Victoria (see Bethune and
Read (1974) for details of SCRIM testing) . Test
results taken at, or near, the centres of curves were
extracted and grouped according to test speeds at
the same points, with each group covering a 5 km/h
range of test speed. A mean and standard deviation
were computed for the SFCs within each speed
group. The speed of SCRIM on each curve would be
determined by the nominal maximum testing speed
(80 km/h) , road gradients, traffic conditions, or the
safe speed of travel for the vehicle. As the results
were mostly taken from the more lightly-trafficked
rural road network, the test speed would often ap-
proximate the safe travel speed of the curve . The
results of the CRB study for speed groups containing
a significant number of curves (more than 100) are
summarised in Fig. 2. The pOints shown for each group
are the mean SFC values, and the values one and two
standard deviations below the mean.
Kummer and Meyer (1 967) produced a set of
'minimum recommended skid numbers' for American
highways as a function of mean traffic speed. As
shown in Fig. 2, these range from SN = 50 at 16 km/h
to SN = 31 at 130 kmlh . Their recommendations were
derived from a consideration of the technical and
economic feasibility of achieving levels of skid resis-
tance , the likely frictional demands of traffic , and the
exist ing practices within U.S. State Highway Depart-
ments. The recommended values are generally lower
than the target values of skid resistance rec om-
mended in the U.K . by the Ministry of Transport
(1970) .
It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the Kummer and
Meyer (1967) recommended minimum skid resistance
values are consistently below the likely range of SFC
values as measured by the CRB. This can be partly at-
tibuted to the difference in measurement techn iques
for SN and SFC. Skid number is derived from the fric-
t ion force generated by a fully skidding tyre , and, par-
ticularly at high speeds, this tends to be lower than
the side force generated by a tyre operating at the
crit ical slip angle as used for the measurement of
SFC.
The main purpose of Fig. 2 is to illustrate the
range of pavement friction which can be anticipateo
for well maintained rural roads. As the Kummer and
Meyer recommended minimum values appear to
represent a conservative estimate , and as (app roxi-
mates the fri ction actually demanded by the
driverlveh icle , the Kummer and Meyer values might
reasonably be regarded as an upper bound fo r design
values of (.
6. SIDE FRICTION FACTORS
EMPLOYED IN PRACTICE
This sect ion of the report examines the results of a
number of studies which have looked at the (values
actually used by drivers. There is considerable
literature on this topic , and only the more recent in-
ve~tigations carried out on rural roads are con-
sidered here.
6.1 SIDE FRICTION FACTORS COMPUTED FROM
OBSERVED SPEEDS
Taragin (1954) measured speeds of passenger cars,
at the point of minimllm sight distance, for thc in3ide
and outside lanes of 35 curves on rural , two-lane
highways in the U.S. He presented values for the
mean , 90th percentile and 95th percentile for each set
of speed measurements, and the (values correspond-
ing to these speeds as computed from eqn (2) . The
New South Wales Department of Main roads (DMR,
N.SW.) collected similar data during the 1960s, some
of which appeared in DMR, N.SW. (1969) .
McLean (1974) presented plots of 90th percen-
tile f against 90th percentile speed for the Taragin
data, and average ( against average speed for the
DMR data. These are reproduced here as Fig. 3.
Although it was possible to obtain statistically signifi-
cant linear regressions of (against speed (p < 0.05) ,
there was a great deal of scatter in f values . Only
small proportions of the variances could be explained
by the regressions.
The 85th percentile (values for the Project 200
data, as computed by eqn (2) , are shown plotted
against the speeds from wh ich they were derived in
Fig. 4. The line shown as curve 1 on Fig. 4 represents
the linear regression of ( against speed, which was
statistically significant at p < 0.01 . This regression
had an ~ value of 0.58, which is considerably higher
than that obtained for either the Taragin or DMR data.
Curves 2 and 3 are explained in Section 7 of the
report.
ARR No. 126 5

80

CRB Observed Values

Mean

60
Mean - 1 s.d.

+'
c:
Q) Mean - 2 s.d.
'u
fQ)
o
u
Q)

...
u
o
u..
Q)
'0
40
en...
...o
Q)
.0
E
::J
Z
:s!
~
en
L Kumme'& Meve,

20

o ~ ____-L______L -____- L______ ~ ____ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~

o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Speed (km/h)

Fig. 2 - A comparison of the eRB (1978) side force coefficient

measurements on curves with the Kummer and Meyer (1987)
recommended minimum values for skid number on rural highways
 6 ARR No. 126

• Taragin (1954) 90%ile

& --- DMR, N.S.W. Average

.. • •
0.30
, •
r2 = 0.16

••
••
~0.20
... •
...u0
cu
u..
c:
, ..
•• •
...u
.
.2
.;:
u..
Q)

. ..
.. • I .t~
"C

en 0.10
•• ,
..•.. ,..•"
. •
••
•

0.00
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Speed (km/h)

Fig. 3 - Plots of side friction factor against the speeds from

which they were derived

6.2 IN-VEHICLE MEASUREMENTS OF LATERAL
ACCELERATION
Accelerometers mounted in vehicles have been used
in a number of studies to gain direct measures of the
lateral acceleration levels employed by test subjects
when negotiating curves. For steady-state condi-
tions, lateral acceleration expressed in units of g can
be approximately related to f via:
a (1 + K)f
y
where K = the static roll sensitivity factor of the vehi-
cle , which is typically about 0.2 rad/g .
Ritchie, McCoy and Weide (1968) recorded
speeds and lateral accelerations for 50 subjects who
drove a 180 km rural course containing 227 curves .
The subjects were instructed to drive 'normally'.
Measurements of lateral acceleration and speed were
grouped into speed cells of 8 km/h . The drivers were
ranked by their overall mean speed for the course and
divided into five groups of ten, with the ten fastest in
group one and the ten slowest in group five . Mean
lateral accelerations were computed for the data in
each speed cell for each driver group. These were
(3) plotted against cell speed, and showed an 'inverse '
relationship. The plots for the faster (group one) and
intermediate (group three) driver groups are shown in
Fig. S.
Herrin and Neuhardt (1974) recorded speed and
lateral acceleration for two groups of ten subjects
ARR No . 126 7

driving over pre-defined routes on two- lane ru ral
roads. The first group repeated a 14 km course con-
taining ten curves (route one) four times . The second
group made two runs over a 22 km course contain ing
15 curves (route two) . On different runs the subjects
were instructed to drive according to either of two
scenarios:
Scenario A - drive as though you are late for an im-
portant interview, and
Scenario 8 - drive as though you are on a leisurely
Sunday afternoon drive .
Data were grouped according to the scenario and, for
the first group of drivers, familiarity with the route . For
each curve within each data group, across driver
means were computed for maximum lateral accelera-
tion and speed . These results are shown plotted in
Fig. 6.
At the anecdotal level , in 1973 the author and a
colleague were required to take a vehicle fitted with
advisory speed data logging equipment (including in-
strumentation for measuring lateral acceleration) on
an interstate journey. On the return trip , the oppor-
tunity was taken to test the performance of the instru-
ments over a protracted period. As the recording
system had been based on a maximum lateral ac-
celeration of 0 .5 g, the la!eral acceleration level was

®
0.50

0.40

•
•
•
_ 0 .30
•
!:!=.

...o •
U
<0
u..
c:
o£o
.;:
u..
I'
Q)

"en 0.20
•
••
• •

0.10

·1·
•
o L -____ ~ ______- L______ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~~ ____ ~ ______ ~

o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Speed (km/h)
Fig. 4 - Plot of 85th percentile f values against the
corresponding 85th percentile curve speed for the ARRB Project
200 data
 8 ARR No. 126
Driver Grou p 1
v= 73.6 km / h
Driver Group 3
0.30
v=64.8 km / h
0.20
:§
.g"
~
Q)
tiu
<I:
~
~ 0.10
..J
0~----~----~----~-----7~--~~-
o 20 40
Speed (km / h)
Fig. 5 - Mean lateral acceleration v. speed for the faster and
intermediate driver groups of Ritchie et al. (1 968)
monitored relative to this value . With the 'steady' driv-
ing required for advisory speed survey data collec-
tion, this value was not exceeded. However, with nor-
mal (for the author and colleague) fast driving , lateral
accelerations in excess of 0.5 g were not infrequent.
6 .3 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN OBSERVED VALUES,
ACTUAL FRICTION DEMAND AND DESIGN VALUES
The values of ( computed from eqn (2) can only pro-
vide an estimate of the actual tyre/pavement friction
being utilised by the vehicle. As discussed pre-
viously, drivers tend to 'cut the corner' on small radius
curves so that the actual friction utilised is less than
that indicated by eqn (2) . On the other hand, for larger
radius curves , maximum vehicle path curvature is
generally in excess of the road curvature, so that the
actual maximum friction util ised is greater than that in-
dicated by eqn (2). As a consequence, the results
shown in Figs 3 and 4 would tend to give an over-esti-
mate of the actual friction utilised for the low speeds,
and an underestimate for the high speeds. These
biases should not affect comparisons between com-
puted values of (and the design criterion . (As eqn (2)
is used both to compute the (values, and to apply the
design criterion, the biases will apply equally in both
cases .)
Provided maximum readings are used, direct
readings of lateral acceleration from vehicle mounted
accelerometers will take account of variations in
vehicle path curvature. However, an additional com-
ponent is introduced into the acceleration reading by
the vehicle roll dynamics. Lateral acceleration read-
ings will typically over-estimate the actual friction
demand by about 20 per cent.
Despite these limitations, the results considered
definitely show that the faster group of drivers often
utilise (values considerably in excess of those used
as a design criterion . This is particularly so for curves
of sufficient severity that the faster drivers negotiate
them at speeds less than about 90 km/h. At higher
speeds, the utilised (values are generally below the
design values.
7. DEVELOPMENT OF
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN VALUES
7 .1 RATIONALE OF APPROACH
Tile Project 200 data provide comprehensive infor-
mation on the ( values actually utilised by current
Australian drivers on rural road curves. These might
reasonably form the basis of a set of design (values
for the anticipated actual curve operating speeds
rather than the traditional design speeds.
As discussed earlier, the critical situation ap-
pears to be curves of speed standard below about 90
kmlh , where the 85th percentile driver tends to
negotiate the curve at speeds in excess of the tradi-
tional design speed and hence, employs ( values
greater than the traditional design values. The effort
has been concentrated on this region, with an attempt
to develop an 85th percentile (value ((ss) appropriate
for the 85th percentile curve speed.
The approaches used have implicitly assumed
that the observed (ss values are an outcome of driver
curve speed behaviour, rather than a determinant of it.
These observed values have been examined with the
object of determining what should be a reasonable
upper limit of , for design purposes at the various
levels of curve operating speed. The view is taken
that the upper range of 'ss values encountered for the
Project 200 data are probably a result of poor align-
ment design, and that, with good design, it should be
possible to keep actual 'ss values to a lower level.
However, it is obviously not possible to keep actual
subscript (' ss ) within the very conservative values
traditionally assumed for design.
There are a number of ways in which the Project
200 data might be used to derive a set of 'ss design
values, and three of these were given detailed con-
sideration:
(a) a consideration of the conventional plot of 'ss
and Vss data computed for each curve study
site ;
(b) the distribution of utilised 'values for curves
grouped according to either traditional curve
speed standards, or observed curve operating
speed; and
(c) the relationship between obse r ved curve
operating speeds, the curve speed standard
based on the current 'criterion, and traditional
standards for radius and superelevation.
ARR No . 126 9

0.4 Scenar io A 0.4

Low Famil iar ity
~

c;
s::
.;:0
• •
.~~
~.
~
~
s::
.....
.2
IV
~

~
~
~~
~
~

'*
u 0 .2
U

..
IV
c;;
•••
~ . ~
CII
'ii 0.2
u
u
IV

Scenario A
~

...
CII
IV • ...
CII
IV
High Fam iliarity
...J
...J • Route 2
~ Route 1
~
0 0
0 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
Speed (km/h) Speed (km/h)

0 .4 Scenario B
Low Familiarity

c;
s::
o
.;:
IV
• s::
0
.;:
~

.~ IV
.i 0.2 • ~
~ 0.2
CII ~~ 'ii
u u

·:t.
U u

.....
IV IV
~
~
IV
~
CII
...CII
Scenario B
IV
...J •
~
Route 2 ~
...J
IV

High Famil iarity

Route 1 ~
o ~ __L -_ _ ~_ _~_ _-U~~ __-...J 0
o 40 80 120 0 40 80 120
Speed (km/h) Speed (km/h)

Fig. 6 - Lateral acceleration v. speed as determined by Herrin and Neuhardt (1974)

7 .2 CONSIDER ATI ON OF THE SIDE FRICTION design. As such, it was decided to reject them from
FACTORS- SPEED PLOT considerati on, and recompute the regression equa-
The '85 values corresponding to the observed 85th ti on. This yielded the relationship:
percentile car speeds are plotted in Fig. 4. A linear
regression of , against speed yielded the regression
equation : f85 = 0.584 - 0. 0047 V 85 (5 )

( 2 = 0.60

f 85 = 0.602 - 0.0049 V85 . (4)

which is shown as curve 2 in Fig. 4.

( 2 = 0.58
which is shown as curve 1.
An examination of the data revealed that two of
the '85 values (shown circled in Fig. 4) were ex-
cessively high , and would have been introducing bias
into the regression equation. Such excessive values
were considered to be well beyond the range of
plausible design values , and representative of driver
behaviour which would be avoided by good alignment
A design criterion based on curve 2 would result
in approximately half of the observed '85 values being
considered excessive, and it is unreasonable to ex-
pect alignment design practice to modify driver
behaviour to the extent that all observed values
would fall below the regression line. Raising the line
by an amount equal to the residual standard devi ation
(~O . 0 5), with adjustments for the obvious variation in
residual variance with speed, would seem to provide
a more reasonable criterion. This is the line shown as
curve 3, and the values corresponding to it are given
in Table II.
10 ARR No. 126

TABLE II
POSSIBLE DESIGN VALUES OF f
INDICATED BY A CONSIDERATION OFTHE
PLOT OF OBSERVED f v. OBSERVED SPEED
85th Percentile
Car Curve Speed f ".;
(kmlh)
50 0.425
60 0 .372
70 0 .319
80 0 .265
90 0.212
100 0 .158
110 0.105
120 0 .051

-0.1 o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Side Friction Factor (f)

Fig. 7 - Distribution of side friction factors computed from car

curve speeds observed in ARRB Project 200
ARR No. 126
7.3 DISTRIBUTIONS OF UTILISED SIDE FRICTION
VALUES
The utilised' values were computed for all observed
car speeds, and the distribution of these is shown in
Fig. 7. The wide range of , values actually utilised is
indicated by the difference between the 15th pe rc en-
tile value of 0.030 and the 85th percentile value of
0 .248.
The curve study sites were subsequently
grouped into two sets of 10 kmlh cells, accord ing to
either the traditional curve speed standard, or the ob-
served 85th pe rcent ile car curve speed, and separate
, distributions were determined for each group. These
distributions are shown in Figs 8 and 9 respectively.
The traditional design 'values marked on the distribu-
tions for curve speed standard groupings (Fig. 8) pro-
vide yet further evidence that , on low speed standard
curves, the majorit y of drivers use' values in excess
of those traditionally assumed for alignment design.
If the anticipated 85th percentile car speed is to
be regarded as the speed appropriate for design pur-
poses, then the 85th percentile' values for the dis-
tributions based on observed 85th percent ile curve
speed groupings (Fig. 9) could provide a reasonable
design criterion. The 85th percenti Ie , values for each
observed speed grouping are given in Table III.
TABLE III
85th PERCENTILE f VALUES FROM THE
UTILISED f DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CURVES
GROUPED ACCORDING TO OBSERVED
85th PERCENTILE CAR SPEED
Speed Grouping f H'-,
(kmlh)
50 0 .267
60 0 .336
70 0.317
80 0 .278
90 0 .168
100 0 .103
110 0 .075
It can be seen that for the lowest observed speed
group (50 km/h) the '85 value is inconsistent with
overall trends . This is an artifact of the interaction
between curve geometry, speed and 'value raised by
Good and Sweatman (1 976 ), and the limits on the
curve speed standards covered by the data. The Pro-
ject 200 curve sites had a lower bound on curve
speed standard (40 km/h) . For a number of reasons,
some of the low standard curves were driven at lower
speeds than others (e.g. low standard approaches,
leisurely trip purposes) , giving rise to lower com-
puted , values. The 50 km/h observed speed group
will contain an over-representation of curves driven
slower than the norm, and the distribution of , values
associated with this group will therefore be below
that which could be expected for 50 km/h observed
speed curves based on a wider range of curve stan-
dards.
Given the above , it would be prudent to disregard
the , distribution for the 50 km/h observed speed
group in the selection of 'values for design purposes.
11
7.4 CONSISTENCY WITH TRADITIONAL STANDARDS
The Project 200 data have displayed a reasonably
consistent relationship between observed 85th per-
centile car curve speed and the curve speed standard
as given by the traditional' design criterion . This is
shown in Fig. 10.
If Fig. 10 were regarded as providing a one-to -
one relationship between current curve speed stan -
dard and 85th percentile speed, then there would be a
corresponding relationship between current minimum
curve radius standards (as given in Table I and 85th
percentile speed . The value of '85
appropriate to the
85th percentile speed for maintenance of this consis-
tency is, from eqn (2) :
- e (6)
where e represents the specified maximu m
superelevation.
As a superelevation of 0 .06 is the target maximum
value employed by most Australian State Road
Authorities, this has been used to compute the '85
values given in Table IV.
7.5 PROPOSED DESIGN VALUES
The '85 values for the above three interpretations of
Project 200 data (Tables 1/ to IV) are plotted against
85th percentile speed in Fig. 11. The Kummer and
Meyer (1967) recommended minimum friction values
are also indicated. As discussed in Section 5, these
represent a lower bound estimate of the minimum
pavement friction likely to be encountered and, as
such , are regarded as the upper limit for plausible
design , values .
Considering the plotted points and the Kummer
and Meyer recommended values, the 'reverse S'
shaped curve shown is proposed as a plausible
design' criterion appropriate for predicted 85th per-
centile curve speeds. This proposed criterion is
tabulated for 85th percentile speeds up to 90 km/h in
Table V.
For curve speeds, or standards, above 90 kmlh ,
the concept of designing for a predicted 85th percen-
tile speed is not in keeping with the purpose of high
standard alignments . Here, the objective is to provide
a high level of safety, comfort, and convenience for a
wide range of road users. This is evidenced by curves
based on traditional criteria for speeds of 1 20 kmlh or
greater, on which few drivers attempt to match the
curve speed standard. It is therefore suggested that
the traditional design' values and design speed stan-
dards be retained for design speeds of 100 km/h or
greater.
8. DISCUSSION
8.1 BASIS OF PROPOSED VALUES
The approach used in arriving at the proposed design
'values recognised that there is no absolute criterion
in terms of driver behaviour or comfort . They are
based on evaluations of observed driver behaviour,
12 ARR No. 126

TABLE IV
85th PERCENTILE f VALUES BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN OBSERVED 85th PERCENTILE SPEED, CURVE SPEED
STANDARD AND CURRENT RADIUS STANDARDS
Current
Speed fd Vc (85) fHo
Standard (kmlh)
(kmlh)
40 0 .19 51 0 .3 46
50 0 .17 62 0 .294
60 0 .16 72 0.257
70 0 .15 82 0.228
80 0 .14 89 0 .188
90 0 .13 94 0 .147
100 0 .12 97 0 .109
11 0 0 .1 2 100 0 .08 9
1 20 0. 11 103 0 .065

TABLE V
PROPOSED DESIGN f VALUES
APPROPRIATE FOR T HE PREDICTED 85th
PERCENTILE CURVE SPEED
Speed for Ma ximum Side
Design Fric tion
V ... Factor
(kmlh) f "c,
50 0.35
60 0 .33
70 0 .31
80 0 .26
90 0 .18

TABLE VI
MINIMUM RADIUS OF HORIZ ONTAL CURVES BASED ON
PROPOSED MAXIMUM SIDE FRICTION VALUES AND PREDICTED
85th PERCENTILE CURVE SPEEDS
Speed for Minimum Radius (m)
Design
V ~:; e = 0.12 e = 0.1 0 e = 0.06
(kmlh)
50 40 45 50
60 65 65 75
70 90 95 105
80 135 140 155
90 215 230 265
ARR No. 126 13

100

80
~ ,/~ _ _ _ _ __ Speed Standard Grouping
c
0
';:;
"
~
0
>
.."
c

."
0-

u:.
>
.~
-;
E
u"

-0.1 o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Side Frictior:o Factor (f)

Fig. 8 - Distribution of side friction factors computed from observed car curve speeds for curves
grouped according to their design speed standard

-0.1 o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Side Friction Factor (f)

Fig. g - Distribution of side friction factors computed from observed car speeds for curves
grouped according to the observed 85th percentile car speed
14 ARR No. 126

140

120

i:ti •
~
tJ
>
:;:
--E 100
= ..
"tl
3lc.
CI)
•
...
. . •/
/
./
•
...'"c 80
/
.,c.~ /
0

U
GO
~
:::l
. /
/
//

../ .
~c 60
/
/
~ /
GO
Q.
III
IX) /
/
40 //

40 60 80 100 120 140

Curve Speed Standard (km/h) V d

Fig. 1 0 - Relationship between observed 85th percentile car

curve speeds and the curve speed standard

with a view to arriving at what should be reasonable 8.3 SAFETY MARGIN

target maximum values for deSign purposes. While a
number of 'rational ' computations were made as as
aid to interpreting the empirical data, there was an ap-
preciable amount of subjective judgement applied in
arriving at the proposed values. Given this , the author
acknowledges that further adjustments may prove
necessary.
8.2 MINIMUM CURVE RADIUS
The proposed f85 design criterion can be used to
compute minimum curve radii for the predicted 85th
percentile curve speed. These are shown in Table VI
for speeds up to 90 km/h. Because of the difference
between the proposed fvalues and the current design
values , the radii given for a specified 85th percentile
speed are less than those quoted for a traditional
design speed of the same value (Table I) . However,
after allowing for the differences between 85th per-
centile curve speed and traditional speed standard
shown in Fig 10, these minimum radii do not differ
greatly from the traditional standards given in Table I.
This is consistent with the approach taken in the
development of the proposed f85 values.
At a superficial level, it might appear that the pro-
posed f85 values would produce alignments which are
less safe than those based on traditional standards,
due to the apparent reduction in friction safety
margins. This is not the case, as the proposed values
are based on the f values which are actually being
utilised on current alignments. In the lower speed
ranges, attempts to increase safety by nominating
both lower speeds and lower design f values (as per
AASHO 1965) are quite fruitless, as drivers have been
shown to travel the resulting alignments at a speed
greater than the nominated speed standard.
The reality of driver behaviour (for Australian dri-
vers at least) is such that many drivers do operate
with a very small friction safety marg in on low stan-
dard curves. The proposed approach of using f85
values for a predicted 85th percentile curve speed
should lead to safer deSigns, as it would make the
designer more aware of the implications of design
deCisions, particularly for low standard alignments. It
also provides quantitative evidence of the need to
maintain pavement skid resistance on such roads.
ARR No. 126 15

The proximity of the proposed '85 values at low
speeds to the Kummer and Meyer recommended
minimum pavement friction values (Fig. 11) must
cause concern . However, there are a number of fac-
tors which serve to increase the actual safety margin
over that shown.
(a) Fig. 2 shows that the Kummer and Meyer values
are more than two standard deviations below
the mean friction values on curves measured by
CRB on routine SCRIM surveys.
(b) The Kummer and Meyer values are based on
mean traffic speed, as opposed to the 85th per-
centile speed considered in this report. Adjust-
ments for this would cause the Kummer and
Meyer curve shown in Fig. 11 to be displaced to
the right.
(c) On low standard curves with reasonable pave-
ment width, drivers tend to 'cut the corner', so
that the actual friction utilised is less than the'
value computed from eqn (2).
At the high speed end, the safety margin is more
than adequate to allow for the difference between
minimum vehicle path curvature and road curvature .

•
0.40

• Kummer & Meyer

recommended minimum
{ pavement friction

0.30
A''\

-
It)
co
AV,+

,
Proposed
design
values

0.20
'\ ,

• From Section 7.2 (Table II)

\. ,
0.10 + From Section 7.3 (Table III)

From Section 7.4 (Table IV)

\. ,

A "'.

o
o 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
85th Percentile Curve Speed (km/h)

Fig. 11 - Relationships between f", and 85th percentile speed

as a basis for a proposed design criterion
16
9. CONCLUSIONS
A review of design practices relating horizontal curve
design to side friction has found some confus ion in
the interpretation of the traditional ' -design speed
relationship . This appears to have arisen because the
relationsh ip is treated both as a design criterion and
as an explanation of driver speed behav iour. Studies
of driver behav iour have found that this latter in -
terpretation cannot be substantiated and that , for
design purposes, 'values should be seen as an out-
come of driver speed behaviour, rather than as a
determinant of it.
Observational studies have found that drivers fre-
quently utilise , values much greater than those
assumed for design, particularly on low speed stan-
dard curves . Values in excess of 0.4 are not uncom-
mon.
REFERENCES
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY
OFFICIALS (1965). A policy on geometric design of
rural highways. (AASHO Washington .)
BARNETT, J. (1936). Safe side friction factors and
superelevation design Highway neseart:h Board.
Proc . Annu . Meet., 16, pp. 69-80.
BETHUNE, J.D. and READ , K. (1974) . Road surface
and skid resistance testing vehicle . Proc . 7th ARRB
Conf. 7(7) , pp. 380-90.
COUNTRY ROADS BOARD (1976). The investigation
of f:>ide-fricliun . Report to the NAASRA Review of
Road Design Standards.
DEPARTMENT OF MAIN ROADS , NEW SOUTH WALES
(1969) . The behaviour of drivers on horizontal curves .
Main Roads 34(4) , pp. 127-8.
GLENNON, J.A. and WEAVER , G.D. (1971) . The rela-
tionship of vehicle paths to highway curve design.
Texas Transp. Inst., Texas A&M Univ., Research Rep .
134-5.
GOOD, M.C. (1975) . Road curve design : An historical
review of the development of design standards for
horizontal alignment. Rep. HF 25. Human Factors Res.
Group . Dept. Mech. Eng ., Univ. Melbourne . Also
Australian Road Research Board. Special Report , SR
No. 15, 1978.
---------- and JOUBERT, P.N. (1977) . Driver-vehicle
behaviour in restricted-path turns. Ergonomics 20(3) ,
pp. 217-48.
GOOD, M.C. and SWEATMAN, P.F. (1976) . Driver
strategies on road curves. Proc. 16th FISITA Cong .,
pp . 6-87 to 6-96.
ARR No. 126
The ARRB speeds on curves data showed that ,
for curves with speed standards less than about 90
km /h, 85th percentile speeds and the assoc iated'
values utilised tend to be in excess of those typically
assumed for design. For curves of higher standard,
driver behaviour tends to be conservative relative to
the design assumptions. In keeping with this finding ,
the ARRB data have been used to develop a set of
design 'values appropriate for the predicted 85th
percentile speeds of curves with speed standards of
90 km / h or less. It is suggested that the traditional
criteria be retained for design speed standards in ex-
cess of 90 km/h .
It is argued that the proposed values be treated
as maxima, and that the object of alignment design, in
terms of the 'criterion, should be to produce align-
ments such that driver behaviour will not lead to the
85th percentile driver utilising r values in excess of
the design criterion .
GOOD, M.C., ROLLS , K.J. and JOUBERT, P.N. (1969) .
Driver-vehicle behaviour in free-path turns. Transp.
Res. 3, pp. 43-68.
HERRIN, G.D. and NEUHARD1 , J.B. (1974) . An empiri-
cal model for automobile driver horizontal curve
negotiation. Human Factors 16(2), pp. 129-33.
KUMMER , HW. and MEYER, W.A . (1967). Tentative
sk id-resistance requirements for main rural highways.
Nat. Coop . Highw. Res . Program. Rep . 37.
McLEAN , J.R. (1974) . Driver behaviour on curves - a
review. Proc . 7th ARRB Conc. 7(5), pp . 129-43.
---------- (1981). Driver speed behav iour and rural
road alignment design . Traffic Eng. Control 22(4), pp.
208-11 .
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN STATE
ROAD AUTHORITIES . (1970) . Guide to traffic
eng ineering practice . (NAASRA: Sydney.)
---------- (1973) . Policy for geometric design of rural
roads (Metric Units) . (NAASRA: Sydney.)
---------- (1980) . Interim guide to the geometric
deSign of rural roads. (NAASRA: Sydney.)
RITCHIE, M.L., McCOY, W.K . and WELDE, W.L.
(1968) . A study of the relat ion between forward
ve locity and lateral acceleration in curves during nor-
mal driving . Human Factors 10(3), pp . 255-8.
TARAGIN, A. (1954) . Driver performance on horizontal
curves . Proc. Highw. Res. Board 33, pp. 446-66.
UNITED KINGDOM MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
(1970). Report of the Committee on Highway Mainte-
nance . (HMSO: London .)