Matching Items (2)
Description
States nationwide have implemented "Move Over Laws" to try and increase roadway safety, yet even with these laws, hundreds of people are killed each year while working in and roadways. In Arizona, the "Move Over Law" requires drivers approaching a stopped vehicle displaying flashing lights to "move over" or "slow down." However, not everyone complies with this enacted law, and the purpose of this study is to observe how approaching drivers behave when presented with various scenarios. Scenarios involved the use of different police car types (marked or unmarked), light displays (no lights, hazards, or emergency lights), and the advertisement of Arizona's "Move Over Law" (signboard or no signboard). Associated risk varied with each scenario, and according to rational choice theory, a driver's behavior should minimize risks and maximize benefits. Under the hypothesis that police presence impacts driving behavior, the expectation was that driver compliance through "moving over" and/or slowing down would be highest when a marked police car or emergency lights were used. Also hypothesized was that awareness impacts compliance with the thought that increasing awareness by using a signboard would increase "move over" percentages and decrease speeds. From the test site along State Highway 260 in Payson, Arizona, the results indicate that car type and light display impact driving behavior. The use of the marked car or emergency lights generally had higher adjusted compliance, higher "move over" percentages, and lower speeds than when the unmarked car or no lights were tested. Looking at how awareness influences behavior, the use of the signboard had a greater impact when the unmarked car was used as opposed to the marked car. Based on the results, both hypotheses were supported.
ContributorsBathke, Kyle (Author) / Angilletta, Michael (Thesis director) / Fey, Richard (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
This thesis seeks to defend transitivity as a rational constraint on preferences against two putative counterexamples to transitivity. This thesis is divided into three sections. In the first section, I consider two famous and popular arguments in defense of transitivity and argue they are insufficient to adequately defend transitivity. I then outline a desiderata for successful arguments in defense of transitivity and identify some basic assumptions I will be making throughout the thesis. In section two, I consider the first putative counterexample to transitivity: Quinn’s Puzzle of the Self-Torturer. I offer two plausible interpretations of Quinn’s puzzle and argue that both fail. One because it does not genuinely induce intransitive preferences, and the other because the situation it requires is logically impossible. I conclude this section by defending my arguments against known objections in the literature. Finally, in the third section, I consider a counterexample to transitivity from Larry Temkin that has received little attention in the literature. I argue that while the initial counterexample is unpersuasive it can be augmented and made into a more forceful argument. I then argue that this improved counterexample fails due to some erroneous assumptions prevalent in the literature on incomparability. I conclude the thesis with a brief summary and some closing remarks.
ContributorsCalloway, Carson (Author) / Armendt, Brad (Thesis advisor) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Pinillos, Nestor (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015