Identifying High-Risk Intersections for Walking and Bicycling Using Multiple Data Sources in the City of San Diego
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, demand for active transportation modes such as walking and bicycling has increased. While it is desirable to provide high levels of safety for these eco-friendly modes of travel, unfortunately, the overall percentage of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities increased from 13% to 18% of total road-related fatalities in the last decade. In San Diego County, although the total number of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities decreased over the same period of time, a similar trend with a more drastic change is observed; the overall percentage of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities increased from 19.5% to 31.8%. This study aims to estimate pedestrian and bicyclist exposure and identify signalized intersections with highest risk for walking and bicycling within the city of San Diego, California, USA. Multiple data sources such as automated pedestrian and bicycle counters, video cameras, and crash data were utilized. Data mining techniques, a new sampling strategy, and automated video processing methods were adopted to demonstrate a holistic approach that can be applied to identify facilities with highest need of improvement. Cluster analysis coupled with stratification was employed to select a representative sample of intersections for data collection. Automated pedestrian and bicycle counting models utilized in this study reached a high accuracy, provided certain conditions exist in video data. Results from exposure modeling showed that pedestrian and bicyclist volume was characterized by transportation network, population, traffic generators, and land use variables. There were both similarities and differences between pedestrian and bicycle models, including different spatial scales of influence by mode. Additionally, the study quantified risk incorporating injury severity levels, frequency of victims, distance crossed, and exposure into a single equation. It was found that not all intersections with the highest number of pedestrian and bicyclist victims were identified as high-risk after exposure and other factors such as crash severity were taken into account.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".