Bicycle-Specific Traffic Signals: Results from State-of-the-Practice Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster presents the results of a survey of North American jurisdictions with known installations of bicycle-specific traffic signals and a review of available engineering guidance. Surveys were sent to agencies in 21 jurisdictions (19 in the United States and two in Canada) that requested detailed engineering aspects of the signal design such as placement, mounting height, lens diameter, backplate color, type of actuation, interval times, use of louvers, and performance. We reviewed guidance documents produced by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO); American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); Transportation Association of Canada (TAC); the CROW design manual for bicycle traffic; and the Canadian, U.S. and Californian manuals on uniform traffic control devices. Responses were received for 63 intersections and 149 separate signal heads. The survey results highlight the current treatments and variations of similar designs. A subsequent review of the documents generally revealed consistent guidance with regard to the design of bicycle-specific traffic signals. The guidance on bicycle signals has grown substantially in recent years, and it is likely that there will be less variety in future designs.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it