Accidents involving pedestrians with their backs to traffic or facing traffic: an evaluation of crash characteristics and injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper examines pedestrian anatomical injuries and crash characteristics in back‐to‐traffic and facing‐traffic crashes. Pedestrian crashes involving pedestrians walking along streets (i.e. with their backs to traffic or facing traffic) have been overlooked in literature. Although this is not the most frequent type of crash, the crash consequence to pedestrians is a safety concern. Combining Taiwan A1A2 police‐reported accident data and data from the National Health Insurance Database from years 2003–2013, this paper examines anatomical injuries and crash characteristics in back‐to‐traffic and facing‐traffic crashes. There were a total of 830 and 2267 pedestrian casualties in back‐to‐traffic and facing‐traffic crashes respectively. The injuries sustained by pedestrians and crash characteristics of these two crash types were compared with those of other crossing types of crashes (nearside crash, nearside dart‐out crash, offside crash, and offside dart‐out crash). Odds of various injuries to body regions were estimated using logistic regressions. Key findings include that the percentage of fatalities in back‐to‐traffic crashes is the highest; logistic models reveal that pedestrians in back‐to‐traffic crashes sustained more head, neck, and spinal injuries than did pedestrians in other crash types, and unlit darkness and non‐built‐up roadways were associated with an increased risk of pedestrian head injuries. Several crash features (e.g. unlit darkness, overtaking manoeuvres, phone use by pedestrians and drivers, and intoxicated drivers) are more frequently evident in back‐to‐traffic crashes than in other types of crashes. The current research suggests that in terms of crash consequence, facing traffic is safer than back to traffic. 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".