Roadside Safety Study: Inventory and Condition and Risk Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Road authorities are often concerned with roadside safety and their understanding of the condition of their existing roadside safety systems and the identification of potentially hazardous roadside elements or objects. These roadside elements or objects fall under two generic categories: existing but deficient roadside safety systems and/or unprotected roadside hazards including, but not limited to, embankments, watercourses, box-culverts, and bridge rails or walls. According to the Ministry of Transportation’s Ontario Road Safety, Annual Report 2012 [1], in 2012 there were a total of 41 collisions between a motor vehicle and a fixed object resulting in a fatality and another 2,021 resulting in a non-fatal injury. In 2014, Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd., in partnership with Cole Engineering Group Ltd., was awarded an assignment to conduct a roadside safety study of approximately 940 kilometres or predominantly two-lane, rural roadways within a municipality situated in southwestern Ontario. The roadside safety study consisted of taking inventory and conducting a condition and risk assessment of the existing roadside safety systems, identifying unprotected roadside hazards, and developing a prioritized plan for addressing the noted deficiencies thereby assisting the municipality in regards to capital planning and annual maintenance of roadside safety systems. For the assignment, the existing roadside safety systems were inventoried and assessed in terms of condition in addition to identifying any unprotected roadside hazards using a tablet computer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit. The roadside safety systems and roadside hazards were assessed in terms of their conformance to the existing standards set forth in the Ministry of Transportation’s Roadside Safety Manual [2]. Remediation measures to correct any noted deficiencies and non-conformances were provided and include: installation of a new system, extension of an existing system, replacement of an existing system, and removal of an unnecessary system. In addition, a risk score was developed to allow for the accurate prioritization of the remediation measures based upon exposure (to traffic), probability (of collision), and consequence (severity of collision). The municipality will be able to utilize the risk scores in conjunction with the remediation measures to aid in capital planning and annual maintenance of roadside safety systems. On the basis of the review, a total of 469 roadside safety systems, consisting of 304 standalone systems and 165 compound systems were inventoried. The following deficiencies were highlighted: inadequate delineation (94 percent), incorrect mounting height (28 percent), inadequate cable-tension (92 percent), design consistency issues (15 percent), poor rail condition rating (36 percent), poor post condition rating (26 percent), and poor block-out condition rating (12 percent). Approximately 52 percent of the roadside safety systems had an inadequate approach or departure length required to prevent motorists from outflanking the system resulting in the potential for a collision with the roadside hazard. A total of 372 roadside hazards were identified; a majority were situated behind some form of roadside protection while a lesser number (128) remained completely unprotected. The risk score was effective at highlighting the roadside protection systems and/or unprotected roadside hazards that should be first addressed in regards to the municipality’s capital plans moving forward.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».