道路交通碰撞时环境光照水平分类不正确

S. Fotios, C. Robbins
{"title":"道路交通碰撞时环境光照水平分类不正确","authors":"S. Fotios, C. Robbins","doi":"10.1177/14771535211069028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ambient light level, one of the items recorded by police investigating a road traffic collision (RTC) was previously suggested to be incorrectly recorded in 5%–15% of cases. Significant erroneous categorisation of ambient light level, as suggested by the latter estimate, may lead to incorrect conclusions being drawn about the impact of light on RTCs which is critical where such data inform transport policy decisions. This study investigated the accuracy with which ambient light level was recorded in comparison to that determined using solar altitude at the time, date and location of the RTC. Data were drawn from the STATS19 database of RTCs in the UK for the period 2005 to 2015. Ambient light level was incorrectly reported in 103 021 (5.79%) of the 1 779 903 RTCs in that period. The percentage of errors was greater for RTCs occurring after dark than in daylight, and for RTCs where the scene was not attended by a police officer than those that were attended: ambient light level was incorrectly categorized in 8.72% unattended RTCs in darkness. The highest percentage of errors (57%) occurred within civil twilight; if these are omitted the overall percentage reduces to 2.81%, a similar error rate to that available for the determination of RTC location.","PeriodicalId":269493,"journal":{"name":"Lighting Research & Technology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incorrect categorisation of ambient light level at the time of a road traffic collision\",\"authors\":\"S. Fotios, C. Robbins\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14771535211069028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ambient light level, one of the items recorded by police investigating a road traffic collision (RTC) was previously suggested to be incorrectly recorded in 5%–15% of cases. Significant erroneous categorisation of ambient light level, as suggested by the latter estimate, may lead to incorrect conclusions being drawn about the impact of light on RTCs which is critical where such data inform transport policy decisions. This study investigated the accuracy with which ambient light level was recorded in comparison to that determined using solar altitude at the time, date and location of the RTC. Data were drawn from the STATS19 database of RTCs in the UK for the period 2005 to 2015. Ambient light level was incorrectly reported in 103 021 (5.79%) of the 1 779 903 RTCs in that period. The percentage of errors was greater for RTCs occurring after dark than in daylight, and for RTCs where the scene was not attended by a police officer than those that were attended: ambient light level was incorrectly categorized in 8.72% unattended RTCs in darkness. The highest percentage of errors (57%) occurred within civil twilight; if these are omitted the overall percentage reduces to 2.81%, a similar error rate to that available for the determination of RTC location.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lighting Research & Technology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lighting Research & Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14771535211069028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lighting Research & Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14771535211069028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

环境光照水平是警方调查道路交通碰撞(RTC)时记录的项目之一,此前认为在5%-15%的案件中记录错误。根据后一项估计,环境光照水平的严重错误分类可能会导致得出关于光照对交通运输中心影响的错误结论,这对于这些数据为交通政策决策提供信息至关重要。本研究调查了记录环境光照水平的准确性,并将其与使用RTC时间、日期和地点的太阳高度确定的结果进行了比较。数据来自2005年至2015年期间英国rtc的STATS19数据库。在该期间,在1779903个rtc中,103 021个(5.79%)报告的环境光照水平不正确。发生在天黑之后的rtc比发生在白天的rtc,发生在现场没有警察在场的rtc比发生在现场有警察在场的rtc的错误率更高:8.72%的黑暗中无人值守的rtc被错误地分类为环境光水平。最高的误差率(57%)发生在民用暮光;如果省略这些,则总体错误率将降至2.81%,与确定RTC位置的错误率相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Incorrect categorisation of ambient light level at the time of a road traffic collision
Ambient light level, one of the items recorded by police investigating a road traffic collision (RTC) was previously suggested to be incorrectly recorded in 5%–15% of cases. Significant erroneous categorisation of ambient light level, as suggested by the latter estimate, may lead to incorrect conclusions being drawn about the impact of light on RTCs which is critical where such data inform transport policy decisions. This study investigated the accuracy with which ambient light level was recorded in comparison to that determined using solar altitude at the time, date and location of the RTC. Data were drawn from the STATS19 database of RTCs in the UK for the period 2005 to 2015. Ambient light level was incorrectly reported in 103 021 (5.79%) of the 1 779 903 RTCs in that period. The percentage of errors was greater for RTCs occurring after dark than in daylight, and for RTCs where the scene was not attended by a police officer than those that were attended: ambient light level was incorrectly categorized in 8.72% unattended RTCs in darkness. The highest percentage of errors (57%) occurred within civil twilight; if these are omitted the overall percentage reduces to 2.81%, a similar error rate to that available for the determination of RTC location.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Defining daytime in the day-dark approach to measuring the pedestrian reassurance of road lighting Editorial: The many faces of sustainability in lighting research Recommendations for light-dosimetry field studies based on a meta-analysis of personal light levels of office workers Opinion: Embracing ‘anthropogenic’ over ‘artificial’ light at night Opinion: The role of outdoor lighting with pedestrian reassurance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1