Safe System Intersection Application for Edmonton Capital Region - Pilot Project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Capital Region Intersection Safety Partnership (CRISP) conducted a pilot project on engineering applications of the Safe System approach. CRISP retained the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) in Melbourne, Australia to lead the project and apply the Safe System road safety philosophy to selected ‘poorly performing’ intersections in the City of Edmonton, Strathcona County and City of St. Albert (CRISP partner jurisdictions). The intent was to highlight differences between a traditional road-safety approach and a Safe System approach which might inform policy development. Safe System is a road safety philosophy believing that an individual’s safety is paramount to any other benefit which the transport network provides. Safe System does not tolerate serious injury and fatal collisions, regardless of the benefits that road users receive. This contrasts with current safety attitudes. For example in 2010 there were 2,227 fatalities and 11,226 serious injuries on Canadian roads that are accepted as a consequence of our transportation system. Despite this philosophical disparity there is evidence that attitudes are changing. MUARC’S literature review found a growing world-wide willingness to consider intersection geometries that emphasise reduced speeds or improved impact angles. Roundabouts in particular are increasingly seen as a reasonable and safer alternative to traffic signals. For this project MUARC applied their Kinetic Energy Management Model (KEMM) to sixteen problematic intersections in the Capital Region. KEMM is a conceptual model for evaluating the transfer of kinetic energy exchanged during a vehicular collision. Given vehicle impact speed and angle KEMM determines the amount of energy received by the human occupants and the likelihood that that energy will cause serious injury or death. KEMM quantified the probability of a fatal or serious injury outcome for the existing geometries of the problematic intersections as well as several alternatives. KEMM also tested the sensitivity of impact speed. The results showed which intersection geometries performed better with respect to risk, and which intersection geometries or treatments can be Safe System compliant. CRISP then sponsored a workshop for local transportation engineers to assess the feasibility of Safe System compliant treatments on the problematic intersections. There was strong interest in many of the treatments, including some innovative and previously untested treatments provided by the MUARC team. One surprising result from the workshop was the reluctance of local engineers to favour reduced speed limits or platform intersections, despite their relatively low implementation cost and strong safety benefits.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,010 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».