Human Factors Assessment of Distraction, Workload, and Traffic Safety In Relation to Bus Operator Workload During Manual Stop Announcements
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In 2007 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decided that all transit operators should manually call out stops in order to address the problem of accessibility for persons with visual impairments. In response to this requirement a study was carried out to determine the effect on traffic safety of having bus operators make manual stop announcements. Specifically the study was designed to determine whether the manual announcement of stops increased bus operators’ distraction levels to a significant degree, with a resulting adverse impact on operator health and safety and general public safety. An on-road experiment was carried out to compare the current situation in which no stops are announced with two conditions: the manual announcement of only major stops and the manual announcement of all stops. Data were collected on two busy routes with twelve on-duty operators, including six novice and six experienced transit operators. Two miniature cameras and a microphone were installed on the bus; one camera was aimed towards the bus operator and the other was oriented toward the road scene ahead. Five measures were selected to assess safety in relation to making manual bus stop announcements: stop announcement accuracy, glances to the list of stop names, glances to mirrors, subjective ratings of operator workload, and subjective ratings of perceived safety. The number and length of off-forward view glances were used to estimate changes in crash risk. On average, bus operators were able to announce all stops with an accuracy of 79.3%. With respect to the announcement of all stops as compared to no stops, bus operators spent time glancing at the stop name sheet while the bus was in motion (1.24 glances per minute). Some of these glances lasted over two seconds in duration (15.3 long glances per hour). While announcing all stops, bus operators spent less time looking at their mirrors when departing from a bus stop (4.01 vs. 5.06 seconds). Bus operators reported a higher workload when announcing all stops (18.1 vs. 8.8 on a 21-point scale) as compared to announcing no stops. Despite receiving training prior to their test session, and being specifically instructed not to look at the stop announcement sheet while in motion, all operators made glances to the stop name sheet while the bus was in motion. Based on experimental data showing that a two second glance away from the road doubles crash risk, if all operators on all routes were required to announce all stops, in the worst case there could be an increase of 2.8 to 5.6 crashes per year.
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 | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 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 ».