Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was presented at the session titled 'Risk management in the roads sector - safety management'. It is noted at the outset that the bicycle is now recognized as a legitimate transportation mode, especially in the context of sustainable transportation systems. However, bicycle facilities need to provide the cyclists using them with a high level of safety. Unexpected, abrupt changes in horizontal and vertical geometry and cross-section pose a hazard to cyclists. Such hazards can be minimized through a safety audit or at the initial design phase by following good design practice. A safety audit of the existing bicycle facilities in Calgary, Alberta was undertaken as a case study to determine the relative safety of different bicycle facilities. Due to the many kilometres of bicycle facilities within the City of Calgary there are many examples of safe and unsafe situations, and locations where mitigation measures have improved safety. Lateral clearance, vertical clearance, sight distance, grades, pathway/street furniture, lighting, directional signage, pathway/roadway width, and ride quality were all reviewed as part of the audit. These design elements formed the basis of the field investigation that was undertaken as part of the safety audit. Each of these design elements has the potential to either increase or decrease the safety to a cyclist depending on the situation. The principles and guidelines of what constitutes a comprehensive safety audit for bikeway systems are outlined. Criteria for the development of checklists for the safety audit process are provided along with a discussion of the importance of an ongoing monitoring process for bikeway systems within the framework of a risk management strategy. For the covering abstract of this conference see ITRD number E200883. (A)
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".