Using Macrolevel Collision Prediction Models in Road Safety Planning Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the use of several recently developed macrolevel collision prediction models (CPMs) in two road safety planning applications. Data from several urban neighborhoods in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) in the province of British Columbia, Canada, were used to present and test model-use guidelines in two road safety planning applications. In the first case study, an areawide traffic calming collision modification factor was estimated for GVRD urban areas, for “total” and “severe” collisions, to be in the range of –0.40 and –0.39, respectively. In the second case study, four neighborhood network structures were evaluated, and two test networks that appeared safer than conventional grid and cul-de-sac neighborhood street patterns were revealed, mostly because of the increased use of three-way intersections. Moreover, cul-de-sac networks appeared to be much safer than grid networks, by nearly three to one. The results suggested that the models and model-use guidelines could complement and enhance traditional road safety improvement programs and could provide new and improved empirical tools for planners and engineers to do road safety planning. It is hoped that development of guidelines for macrolevel CPM use will facilitate improved decisions by community planners and engineers and, ultimately, neighborhood traffic safety for residents and other road users.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".