MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051964153 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2011.624143

Bull Bars and Vulnerable Road Users

2012· review· en· W2051964153 on OpenAlexafffund
Ediriweera Desapriya, J. M. Munro Kerr, D. Sesath Hewapathirane, L.D.C. Peiris, Bikaramjit Mann, Nayomi Gomes, Kavindya Peiris, Giulia Scime, Jennifer Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsCochrane LibraryGrey literatureMEDLINEDocumentationSystematic reviewPedestrianPoison controlInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthMedicineMedical emergencyForensic engineeringComputer scienceMeta-analysisEngineeringTransport engineeringPolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Pedestrian injuries are a leading cause of the global death and injury burden, accounting for 65 percent of the 1.2 million annual road deaths. The purpose of this brief literature review is to examine whether bull bars, a rigid aftermarket accessory fitted to the front end of passenger vehicles, increase the risk of severe and fatal injuries to vulnerable road users in the event of a collision. METHODS: Applicable peer-reviewed research, review papers, and grey literature were identified from a search of MEDLINE; the Transportation Research Board (TRB) database composed of Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) and International Transport Research Documentation (TRID) databases; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Google Scholar. The following search terms were used: "bull bars" OR "nudge bars" OR "sahara bars" AND "pedestrians" OR "vulnerable road users" for 1948 to March 1, 2011. A secondary set of search terms was also included "bull bars" OR "nudge bars" OR "sahara bars" OR "vehicle frontal protective systems" AND "pedestrians" OR "vulnerable road users" for 1948 to March 1, 2011. RESULTS: Neither the MEDLINE search nor the Cochrane Review search returned any relevant literature. The TRID search returned 19 research articles, 9 of which were included. Searches using Google Scholar returned 110 items, of which 21 were included in the present review after excluding patents and citations. Seven of the articles from TRID were also found in the Google Scholar search, resulting in 23 unique articles being included in this review. The studies used included 12 real-world studies, 3 computer modeling studies, and 8 laboratory testing studies. Very few studies examined the road safety of pedal-cyclists and motorcyclists; therefore, we focused solely on studies examining pedestrian safety. CONCLUSIONS: The literature reviewed in this study indicates that vehicles fitted with bull bars, particularly those without deformable padding, concentrate crash forces over a smaller area of vulnerable road users during collisions compared to vehicles not fitted with a bull bar. Rigid bull bars, such as those made from steel or aluminum, stiffen the front end of vehicles and interfere with the vital shock absorption systems designed in vehicle fronts. These devices therefore significantly alter the collision dynamics of vehicles, resulting in an increased risk of pedestrian injury and mortality in crashes. This literature review shows that bull bars do indeed increase the severity of injuries to vulnerable road users in the event of a collision and highlights the need for current traffic safety policies to reflect the safety concerns surrounding the use of bull bars.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207