Active Road User Interactions With Autonomous Vehicles: Proactive Safety Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to conduct a thorough assessment of pedestrian and cyclist safety in autonomous vehicle (AV) environments. To that end, the study utilized AV sensor data of over 1,500 driving hours from five sources in Canada, the United States, and Singapore. The sensor data were used to extract conflicts between AVs and active road users. The conflicts were then processed to develop accurate estimates of AV collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists based on the extreme value theory. Further in-depth assessments were conducted on the identified conflicts, by type and location, to highlight potential issues leading to risky conflicts. The results showed that the total number of predicted AV collisions involving active road users was 2.17 collisions per million AV kilometers travelled. Collisions involving pedestrians were slightly higher than those involving cyclists. Also, collisions in clear weather conditions slightly exceeded collisions in adverse weather conditions, although the difference was not statistically significant. The relative risk of collisions was developed for both pedestrian and cyclist conflicts per AV movement type. The results showed that for pedestrians, interactions with right-turning AVs are the riskiest, while interactions with left-turning AVs are the riskiest for cyclists. A thorough analysis of conflicts revealed many issues, including a higher tendency for pedestrian violations when interacting with AVs, aggressive AV behavior (particularly when interacting with pedestrians while making a right turn), AVs struggling to predict the path of cyclists (mainly because of cyclist violations), and AVs failing to interpret pedestrian intentions in some cases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".