Drivers’ Dilemma at High-Speed Unsignalized Intersections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At unsignalized intersections, drivers typically reject smaller gaps and accept larger gaps in traffic. However, drivers experience a dilemma or confusion over a wide range of gaps, since incorrect decisions by them can lead to crashes. The present study quantifies the drivers’ dilemma at high-speed unsignalized intersections. Traffic data on gap size (temporal and spatial), driver’s decision (acceptance or rejection), the waiting time of the offending vehicle, the offending and conflicting vehicle types, and the speed of the conflicting vehicle are extracted from recorded video. The decisions by drivers to accept or reject gaps are modeled as a function of the gap size, the waiting time of the offending vehicle, and the speed of the conflicting vehicle using binary logit regression. The results reveal that the probability of rejection decreases as the gap size and waiting time of the subject vehicle increases. On the contrary, as the speed of the conflicting vehicle increases, the probability of rejection increases. The length and location of the dilemma zone were investigated using vehicle type, right-turning movement, and the speed of the conflicting vehicle, and a significant effect was noted. Moreover, the length and location of the dilemma zone are analytically quantified based on drivers’ compliance with a driver assistance system (DAS). The length of the dilemma decreases as the proportion of drivers’ compliance with the DAS increases. Further, the location of the dilemma zone shifts upstream of the intersection with an increase in drivers’ compliance with the DAS.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".