Towards ‘Vision-Zero’ in Road Traffic Fatalities: The Need for Reasonable Degrees of Automation to Complement Human Efforts in Driving Operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human factors play a huge role in road traffic safety. Research has found that a huge proportion of traffic crashes occur due to some form of human error. Improving road user behavior has been the major strategy that has been emphasized for improving road traffic safety. Meanwhile, despite the training efforts, and testing for drivers, the global status of road traffic safety is alarming. This research highlights the seriousness of human factors on road traffic safety and provides actionable strategies to greatly reduce the negative impact of human factors on road traffic safety. Motor vehicle safety data that were made available online by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics were reviewed to evaluate the severity of traffic collisions. To evaluate the extent of human factors in motor vehicle traffic fatalities, data for Canadian motor vehicle traffic collision statistics were reviewed. The study confirms that human factors (such as driver distraction, fatigue, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol etc.) play a huge role in road traffic fatalities. The need for a reasonable degree of automation to help reduce the impacts of human factors on road safety and recommendations aimed at providing widespread support for a reasonable degree of automation systems in driving tasks are presented. Actionable strategies that can be implemented by policymakers to reduce global road traffic fatalities are also presented.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".