Conflict Risk Assessment Between Pedestrians and Right-Turn Vehicles: A Trajectory-Based Analysis of Front and Rear Wheel Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Right-turning vehicles at intersections permitting right turn on red (RTOR) frequently conflict with pedestrians, posing significant safety risks. Existing studies often simplify vehicle trajectories by treating vehicles as centroid points, ignoring the spatial disparities between pedestrians and vehicles. To address this gap, we propose a conflict risk assessment framework based on front and rear wheel trajectories (FRWTs), which accounts for the dynamic differences in vehicle segments during turns. First, we partition vehicles into four segments (inner/outer and front/rear wheels) and develop a trajectory prediction model to quantify risk variations across these segments. Our analysis reveals that the inner front wheel poses the highest collision risk due to its speed, trajectory curvature, and pedestrian proximity. Next, we introduce three conflict interaction modes—hard interaction, no interaction, and soft interaction—and evaluate the applicability of conflict indicators (e.g., Time to Collision (TTC) and Post-Encroachment Time (PET)) under each mode. Using a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classification algorithm, we classify risk severity with high accuracy: 96% for hard interaction, 96% for no interaction, and 97% for soft interaction modes when TTC-PET dual indicators are employed. Our findings demonstrate that FRWT-based modeling significantly improves conflict risk assessment accuracy compared to centroid-point approaches. This work provides actionable insights for proactive traffic safety management and supports the development of targeted conflict mitigation strategies at RTOR intersections.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".