These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
28. Fuzzy Surrogate Safety Metrics for real-time assessment of rear-end collision risk. A study based on empirical observations. Mattas K; Makridis M; Botzoris G; Kriston A; Minarini F; Papadopoulos B; Re F; Rognelund G; Ciuffo B Accid Anal Prev; 2020 Dec; 148():105794. PubMed ID: 33032008 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Validation of Essential Acoustic Parameters for Highly Urgent In-Vehicle Collision Warnings. Lewis BA; Eisert JL; Baldwin CL Hum Factors; 2018 Mar; 60(2):248-261. PubMed ID: 29131661 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Vogel K Accid Anal Prev; 2003 May; 35(3):427-33. PubMed ID: 12643960 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Age and gender differences in time to collision at braking from the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study. Montgomery J; Kusano KD; Gabler HC Traffic Inj Prev; 2014; 15 Suppl 1():S15-20. PubMed ID: 25307380 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A new integrated collision risk assessment methodology for autonomous vehicles. Katrakazas C; Quddus M; Chen WH Accid Anal Prev; 2019 Jun; 127():61-79. PubMed ID: 30836293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Smart roadside system for driver assistance and safety warnings: framework and applications. Jang JA; Kim HS; Cho HB Sensors (Basel); 2011; 11(8):7420-36. PubMed ID: 22164025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of traffic safety, based on micro-level behavioural data: theoretical framework and first implementation. Laureshyn A; Svensson A; Hydén C Accid Anal Prev; 2010 Nov; 42(6):1637-46. PubMed ID: 20728612 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of road surface appearance and low friction warning systems on driver behaviour and confidence in the warning system. Kircher K; Thorslund B Ergonomics; 2009 Feb; 52(2):165-76. PubMed ID: 18937091 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Predicting crash-relevant violations at stop sign-controlled intersections for the development of an intersection driver assistance system. Scanlon JM; Sherony R; Gabler HC Traffic Inj Prev; 2016 Sep; 17 Suppl 1():59-65. PubMed ID: 27586104 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Toyota drivers' experiences with Dynamic Radar Cruise Control, Pre-Collision System, and Lane-Keeping Assist. Eichelberger AH; McCartt AT J Safety Res; 2016 Feb; 56():67-73. PubMed ID: 26875167 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Potential safety benefits of intelligent cruise control systems. Chira-Chavala T; Yoo SM Accid Anal Prev; 1994 Apr; 26(2):135-46. PubMed ID: 8198682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Influence of the feedback links of connected and automated vehicle on rear-end collision risks with vehicle-to-vehicle communication. Qin Y; Wang H Traffic Inj Prev; 2019; 20(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 30715915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Intelligent Driving Assistant Based on Road Accident Risk Map Analysis and Vehicle Telemetry. Terán J; Navarro L; Quintero M CG; Pardo M Sensors (Basel); 2020 Mar; 20(6):. PubMed ID: 32235783 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]