Effects of intersection field of view on emergent collision avoidance performance at unsignalized intersections: analysis based on driving simulator experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Proper intersection sight distance can effectively lower the possibility of intersection accidents. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (2011) provide a series of recommended dimensions of intersection sight triangles for uncontrolled and stop/yield‐controlled intersections. However, in reality, although the actual intersection design for unsignalized intersections satisfies the requirements of sight distance and clear sight triangle in American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' guideline, there are still a large number of crashes occurring at unsignalized intersections for drivers running stop/yield signs or failing to slow down. This paper presents a driving simulator study on pre‐crash at intersections under three intersection field of view (IFOV) conditions. The aim was to explore whether better IFOVs at unsignalized intersections improve their emergent collision avoidance performance under an assumption of valid intersection sight distance design. The experimental results show drivers' ability to identify potential hazards to be significantly affected by their IFOVs. As drivers' IFOV improved, drivers were more likely to choose braking actions to avoid collisions. Better IFOVs were also associated with significant increases in brake time to intersection and significant reductions in deceleration rate and crash rate, thus leading to a lower risk of traffic crash involvement. The results indicate that providing a better IFOV for drivers at intersections should be encouraged in practical applications in order to improve drivers' crash avoidance capabilities. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".