Traffic-Calming Measures and Road Traffic Collisions and Injuries: A Spatiotemporal Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traffic-calming measures (TCMs) are physical modifications of the road network aimed at making the roads safer. Although researchers have reported reductions in numbers of road crashes and injuries tied to the presence of TCMs, such studies have been criticized for their pre-/post- designs. In this study, we aimed to complement our knowledge of TCMs' effectiveness by assessing their impact using a longitudinal design. The implementation of 8 TCMs, including curb extensions and speed humps, was evaluated at the intersection and census tract levels in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was fatal or serious collisions among all road users. Inference was performed using a Bayesian implementation of conditional Poisson regression in which random effects were used to account for the spatiotemporal variation in collisions. TCMs were generally implemented on local roads, although most collisions occurred on arterial roads. Overall, there was weak evidence that TCMs were associated with study outcomes. However, subgroup analyses of intersections on local roads suggested a reduction in collision rates due to TCMs (median incidence rate ratio, 0.31; 95% credible interval: 0.12, 0.86). To improve road safety, effective counterparts of TCMs on arterial roads must be identified and implemented.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".