Exploring the Effects of Signs’ Design and In-Vehicle Audio Warning on Driver Behavior at Flashing-Light-Controlled Grade Crossings: A Driving Simulator-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex environment at grade crossings and the severe collision consequences give rise to the concern of safety condition at crossings among traffic control authorities. Optimizing conventional devices and applying emerging technologies are worthwhile measures to improve the safety conditions at grade crossings. In this study, a flashing-light running (FLR) warning system was proposed to reduce crossing violation and improve performances of drivers at flashing-light-controlled grade crossings (FLCGCs). Forty-four fully licensed drivers aged between 30 and 48 years participated in a driving simulator study to investigate the efficacy of two countermeasures of the system: proposed design of signs and pavement markings (PSM) for grade crossing, and two-stage in-vehicle audio warning (IVAW) technology. A range of flashing light trigger timing and two foggy conditions were designed in this experiment to test the system applicability. Drivers’ gender and vocation were considered as well to examine drivers’ adaptation to the new proposed system. Five variables were collected and analyzed in this study to investigate the effectiveness of the system, i.e., drivers’ compliance, approaching mean speed, brake reaction time, deceleration, and red-to-crossing time. Results showed that drivers’ driving performances were improved in both PSM only condition and PSM + W condition. The FLR warning system could eliminate the negative effects of foggy weather and reduce gender differences in driver behaviors to some extent. These findings suggested that the FLR warning system has a potential to reduce the probability of grade crossing collisions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".