Exploration of Pedestrian Gap-Acceptance Behavior at Selected Locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the efforts to evaluate pedestrian gap acceptance as part of a recent TCRP-NCHRP project. Pedestrian crossing data were collected at 42 study sites in seven states. From those sites, 45 pedestrian approaches had at least one crossing event where a pedestrian rejected at least one gap, and 11 of those approaches had at least 20 such crossing events. Focusing on the 11 approaches, researchers evaluated the gap-acceptance behavior of crossing pedestrians with a two-part analysis: behavioral analysis and statistical analysis. Behavioral analysis revealed that pedestrians did not always wait to cross the street when all lanes were completely clear; instead, they anticipated that the lanes would clear as they crossed and used a “rolling gap” to cross the street. Statistical analysis revealed that the 11 approaches had 85th percentile accepted gaps between 5.3 and 9.4 s, with a trend of increasing gap length as crossing distance increased. All the observed 85th percentile accepted gaps were less than the critical gap as defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for a walking speed of 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) at their respective sites; this indicates that if 3.5 ft/s (1.1 m/s) were used as the design criterion, it would be sufficient to serve at least 85% of the observed pedestrians at the study sites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".