Evaluation of Protected Left-Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals Effects on Pedestrian Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedestrian safety is an important public health issue for the United States, with pedestrian fatalities representing approximately 16% of all traffic-related fatalities in 2016. Nationwide, transportation agencies are increasing their efforts to implement engineering-based improvements that increase pedestrian safety. These agencies need statistically rigorous crash modification factors (CMFs) to demonstrate the safety effectiveness of such countermeasures, and to apply in benefit–cost analyses to justify their implementation. This study focused on developing CMFs for two countermeasures that show promise for improving pedestrian safety: protected or protected/permissive left-turn phasing, and leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs). Data were acquired from four North American cities that had installed one or both of the countermeasures of interest: Chicago, IL; New York City, NY; Charlotte, NC; and Toronto, ON. The empirical Bayes before–after study design was applied to estimate the change in expected crash frequency for crashes following treatment. The protected left-turn phasing evaluation showed a benefit in reducing vehicle–vehicle injury crashes, but did not produce statistically significant results for vehicle–pedestrian crashes. For those crashes a disaggregate analysis did reveal that this treatment could be especially beneficial where pedestrian volumes exceed 5,500 per day. The LPI evaluation showed a statistically significant reduction in vehicle–pedestrian crashes with an estimated CMF of 0.87.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".