Engineering Countermeasures for Left Turns at Signalized Intersections: A Review
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Left turn crashes can impact the safety of the drivers due to the speed and angle at which they occur. Left turns are specifically reported to affect older drivers more than the other types of crashes. This paper provides a review of the existing engineering countermeasures that have been evaluated to improve driver safety at left turns. Twentyeight studies on left turn signal displays (protected left turns, flashing yellow arrow, and digital countdown timers), intersection geometry (offset left turn lanes, diverging diamond interchange, roundabouts, exit lanes for left turn, left turn bay extension, and contraflow left turn lanes), and driver warning systems (infrastructure warning systems, and in-vehicle warning systems) are reviewed. Eighteen studies were evaluated in the field, nine in laboratory environments, and one online. All countermeasures demonstrated varying levels of effectiveness. We found protected left turns, roundabouts, and warning systems to be the most effective engineering countermeasures. Advantages and disadvantages of each countermeasure and research shortcomings of the evaluation studies are discussed. Review findings may help practitioners and researchers guide more effective countermeasures for left turns for older drivers.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".