Using Deep Learning and Google Street View Imagery to Assess and Improve Cyclist Safety in London
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cycling is a sustainable mode of transportation with significant benefits for society. The number of cyclists on the streets depends heavily on their perception of safety, which makes it essential to establish a common metric for determining and comparing risk factors related to road safety. This research addresses the identification of cyclists’ risk factors using deep learning techniques applied to a Google Street View (GSV) imagery dataset. The research utilizes a case study approach, focusing on London, and applies object detection and image segmentation models to extract cyclists’ risk factors from GSV images. Two state-of-the-art tools, You Only Look Once version 5 (YOLOv5) and the pyramid scene parsing network (PSPNet101), were used for object detection and image segmentation. This study analyzes the results and discusses the technology’s limitations and potential for improvements in assessing cyclist safety. Approximately 2 million objects were identified, and 250 billion pixels were labeled in the 500,000 images available in the dataset. On average, 108 images were analyzed per Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) in London. The distribution of risk factors, including high vehicle speed, tram/train rails, truck circulation, parked cars and the presence of pedestrians, was identified at the LSOA level using YOLOv5. Statistically significant negative correlations were found between cars and buses, cars and cyclists, and cars and people. In contrast, positive correlations were observed between people and buses and between people and bicycles. Using PSPNet101, building (19%), sky (15%) and road (15%) pixels were the most common. The findings of this research have the potential to contribute to a better understanding of risk factors for cyclists in urban environments and provide insights for creating safer cities for cyclists by applying deep learning techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".