An explorative study on the sufficiency of the Irish road regulations for powered mobility users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to explore the sufficiency of the current Irish road regulations for powered mobility users when compared to those of UK, Sweden, South Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and gather user perspectives of powered mobility users of clients within the Dublin North Central area of the HSE and IWA (Irish Wheelchair Association) service users.This study used mixed methodology to gather user preferences and opinions from participants from the community and IWA service users and liaised with government transport officials of 5 other countries to compare their published road regulations for PM users with those of Ireland. The study results confirm and validate the hypothesis that the current Irish regulations for powered mobility users are highly deficient when compared to some other countries and that clear regulations are urgently required and submitted 10 key initial recommendations to the Department of Transport in March 2013. Recommendations were made to introduce legislation in specific areas of classification, status of user, driving location, registration/ licensing/ insurance requirements, speed limits, legal implications for rash/ negligent driving and for the new legislation/ road regulations to be made available to the public as soon as possible. Recommendation has also been made to the RSA Statistics department to immediately commence collection of separate collision data involving powered mobility vehicles in Ireland for future policy development in this field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".