Incorporating Speed in a Traffic Conflict Severity Index to Estimate Left Turn Opposed Crashes at Signalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigorous evaluation of implemented safety treatments, especially for innovative treatments and those targeted at rare crash types, is challenging to accomplish with conventional crash-based analyses. This paper aims to address this challenge for treatments at urban signalized intersections by providing a methodology that uses surrogate measures of safety obtained from video analytics to predict changes in crashes. To develop this approach, left turn opposed traffic conflicts based on post-encroachment times, along with corresponding conflicting vehicle speeds, are first measured from video observations at signalized intersections. The conflicts are then classified into three severity levels using a risk score function defined by these measures. Multiple linear regression models are developed to relate left turn opposed crashes at the same intersections in the period 2009–2014 to the correspondingly classified conflicts. The results show strong relationships between the classified conflicts and crashes (adjusted [Formula: see text] of 85% and 94% for total and fatal/injury crashes, respectively). The results also reveal that the contribution of conflicts to the risk of crashes varies based on speed dimension of their severity, suggesting that neglecting speed as a factor in conflict severity levels may be at the expense of losing meaningful information. The models can be applied to estimate the change in crashes following a safety treatment by observing, through video analytics, the change in conflicts and speeds and using the crash-conflict-speed model. The methodological approach is viable for quickly evaluating all treatments and, in particular, innovative ones for which knowledge on safety effects is sparse or non-existent.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".