How do drivers allocate visual attention to vulnerable road users when turning at urban intersections?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drivers turning at urban intersections pose a high risk to Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), such as cyclists and pedestrians. In vehicle collisions with VRUs, driver attention misallocation is considered a leading contributor. While previous naturalistic studies have examined driver gaze behaviors at intersections, findings are limited to general gaze directions obtained through video analysis, meaning specific areas to which drivers attend cannot be determined. We present a secondary analysis of an on-road instrumented vehicle dataset collected in 2019 which offers eye-tracking and video data from 26 experienced drivers (13 cyclists and 13 non-cyclists). Three coders jointly examined eye-tracking footage from four right-signalized turns (n = 96) to quantify drivers’ glance distributions to various areas of interest, including those most relevant to VRU safety when drivers turn. Individual temporal glance patterns and general attention allocation trends are presented and described. (1) Relevant pedestrians were the top objects of glance irrespective of signal status, and (2) at red light turns, driver attention was heavily skewed toward leftward traffic. This analysis provides a detailed report of driver glance distributions toward scene-specific areas (as opposed to general directions) at urban intersections and discusses how these patterns may influence VRU safety. This study provides important information regarding the human factors challenges of vehicle-VRU collisions and their prevention.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it