Road safety barriers: international experiences and new directions for Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian road fatalities may have halved since 1990, but all is not well. Australian fatality reduction has plateaued where our international peers see continued decline (BITRE, 2014-1). Serious injuries from road traffic accidents have been suggested to be on the rise (ITF, 2014). And if you’re a crash statistic in Australia – you’re three times more likely to be a fatality than in the UK, Canada, Germany or Sweden (BITRE, 2014-2). So are there lessons to be learnt from abroad? Australian road safety experts agree better infrastructure, and specifically road safety barriers, are part of the new solution (BITRE, 2014-3). This paper focusses on European (EN1317 compliant) safety barriers, which are lesser known in Australia than NCHRP-MASH compliant barriers. We present European experiences and state-of-the-art development directions that may help Australian road designers, specifiers and authorities make roads safer. We suggest EN1317 compliant barrier systems offer a good direction for greater injury reduction on Australian roads, with economic incentives compared to other options.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".