Sight Distance of Automated Vehicles Considering Highway Vertical Alignments and Its Implications for Speed Limits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most existing road infrastructures were constructed before the emergence of automated vehicles (AVs) without considering their operational needs. Whether and how AVs could safely adapt to as-built highway geometry are questions that remain inconclusive, and a plausible concern is a challenge from vertical alignments. To fill this gap, this study uses a virtual simulation to investigate the available sight distance (ASD) of AVs on vertical alignments subject to the current highway geometric design specification and its implications for speed limits. According to the scenario generation framework, several scenarios featuring vertical geometric elements and lidar sensors were created and tested. Moreover, the maximum speed for adequate ASD is calculated to determine the AV speed limit, considering safe sight distance and speed consistency requirements. The results indicate that crest curves are not disadvantaged in ASD compared with either sag curves or tangent grades. Only equipped with multichannel lidar and advanced perception algorithms enabling a lower detection threshold would a level 4 AV be compatible with the as-built vertical alignment with a design speed (Vd) of 100 km/h. However, a level 3 AV can only adapt to the vertical profile withVd= 60 km/h. The findings of this study should be of interest to the road-oriented operational design domain and support road administrators in regulating AV safe speeds.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".