Exploring the Impact of Rainfall on Vehicle Trajectory Patterns and Sideslip Risk: An Empirical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the sideslip risks of various trajectory patterns, as well as the impact of rainfall on them, is critical for improving road safety. However, the lack of precise classification indicators hampers systematic analysis of the variations in vehicle trajectory patterns. To address this, this study proposes a parameterized classification method for trajectories on curved segments, employing the radius and offset of the trajectory as the primary classification features and dividing the trajectories into nine patterns. These patterns represent variations from smaller to larger radii and inside to outside lane offsets, reflecting different driving behaviors and vehicle stability during vehicle cornering. Concurrently, the friction coefficient utilization rate is used to effectively compare vehicles’ sideslip risk under different weather conditions. Based on this, we construct a framework using computer vision technology for automatically identifying trajectory patterns and measuring sideslip risk. We conducted an empirical study on a highway‐curved segment with high sideslip risk in China and collected two datasets under clear and rainy conditions for analysis. The classification results show that the proposed method can effectively classify trajectories according to nine trajectory patterns. Comparative analysis reveals that vehicle trajectories in both the inside and outside lanes are notably more affected by rainfall compared to the middle lane. Meanwhile, trucks demonstrate a higher susceptibility to rainfall than cars. In addition, the analysis of the sideslip risk for different trajectory patterns discovers several high‐risk patterns. This study provides an effective approach for monitoring and analyzing the sideslip risk on curved segments, thereby contributing to the enhancement of road design and traffic safety management.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".