Predicting Critical Bicycle-Vehicle Conflicts at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous development of urban infrastructure with a focus on sustainable transportation has led to a proliferation of vulnerable road users (VRUs), such as bicyclists and pedestrians, at intersections. Intersection safety evaluation has primarily relied on historical crash data. However, due to several limitations, including rarity, unpredictability, and irregularity of crash occurrences, quantitative and qualitative analyses of crashes may not be accurate. To transcend these limitations, intersection safety can be proactively evaluated by quantifying near-crashes using alternative measures known as surrogate safety measures (SSMs). This study focuses on developing models to predict critical near-crashes between vehicles and bicycles at intersections based on SSMs and kinematic data. Video data from ten signalized intersections in the city of San Diego were employed to train logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) models. A variation of time-to-collision called T2 and postencroachment time (PET) were used to specify monitoring periods and to identify critical near-crashes, respectively. Four scenarios were created using two thresholds of 5 and 3 s for both PET and T2. In each scenario, five monitoring period lengths were examined. The RF model was superior compared to other models in all different scenarios and across different monitoring period lengths. The results also showed a small trade-off between model performance and monitoring period length, identifying models with monitoring period lengths of 10 and 20 frames performed slightly better than those with lower or higher lengths. Sequential backward and forward feature selection methods were also applied that enhanced model performance. The best RF model had recall values of 85% or higher across all scenarios. Also, RF prediction models performed better when considering just the rear-end near-crashes with recalls of above 90%.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".