Developing evasive action‐based indicators for identifying pedestrian conflicts in less organized traffic environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary There has been a growing interest in using surrogate safety measures such as traffic conflicts to analyse road safety from a broader perspective than collision data alone. This growing interest has been aided by recent advances in automated video‐based traffic conflict analysis. The automation enables accurate calculation of various conflict indicators such as time‐to‐collision and post‐encroachment time. These indicators rely on road users getting within specific temporal and spatial proximity from each other and therefore assume that proximity is a surrogate for conflict severity. However, this assumption may not be valid in many driving environments where close interactions between road users are common. The objective of this paper is to investigate the applicability of time proximity conflict indicators for evaluating pedestrian safety in less‐organized traffic environments with a high mix of road users. Several alternative behavioural conflict indicators based on detecting pedestrian evasive actions are recommended to better measure traffic conflicts in such traffic environments. These indicators represent variations in the spatio‐temporal gait parameters (step length, step frequency and walk ratio) immediately before the conflict point. A highly congested shared intersection in Shanghai, China, with frequent pedestrian conflicts is used as a case study. Traffic conflicts are analysed with the use of automated video‐based analysis techniques. The results showed that evasive action‐based indicators have higher potential to identify pedestrian conflicts and measure their severity in high mix less organized traffic environments than time proximity measures such as time‐to‐collision and post‐encroachment time. 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".