Enhancing Pedestrian Safety - Lessons Learned from Calgary's RRFB Pilot
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Pedestrians are the most vulnerable road users in transportation system. In 2013, Calgary witnessed 348 casualty (fatal and injury) collisions involving pedestrians. Accommodation of pedestrians at crosswalks in a safe and interactive manner has always been a great challenge. Amid the growing use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) in the United States after FHWA approval (FHWA, 2008), there has been a significant amount of research conducted on the effectiveness of this device and technical specifications. However, there is very limited information in the Canadian context simply because of the lack of use of this device in Canada. The City of Calgary provided a research platform by piloting these devices at eight locations in 2012 to evaluate motorists’ yielding behavior to pedestrians and the reliability of RRFB’s solar powered battery system in Canadian weather. Following the encouraging study results presented to the City Council, Calgary decided to expand the RRFB installation to 25 locations by 2015. In tune with the ‘Vulnerable Road User Safety Strategy’; one of the 11 strategies identified in Calgary Safer Mobility Plan 2013-2017, this device is expected to help in reducing pedestrian related collisions at crosswalks. Before-after studies conducted within the City for RRFB devices indicated that the level of motorists’ yield compliance to pedestrians increased significantly at pedestrian crossings from lower to mid 80% to over 95% in most cases. It was concluded that given the significantly lower installation cost (approximately 1/3rd) compared to overhead flashers and yet similar results on yield compliance by motorists, this device could provide a cost-effective solution to improve pedestrian safety at crosswalks (both intersections and mid-block locations). The rapid flashing pattern of RRFBs appears to be very effective in catching driver’s attention thereby increasing motorists’ yield compliance to pedestrians at crosswalks. Increased yield compliance at significantly low cost provides an opportunity to overcome budget constraints. Versatile nature of this device with options to power by solar batteries or by connecting to permanent power grid provides a perfect opportunity to use this device in various climatic conditions, especially in Canadian context. This paper presents the results of the before-after studies, lessons learned on the performance, powering the device and next steps for the use of this device. With the recent TAC approval of RRFB as a traffic control device, this device is expected to be used widely across Canada once the warrant process has been established.
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 | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 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) | 0,001 | 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 ».