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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17063974)

  • 1. Test road experiment on imminent warning rear lighting and signaling.
    Wierwille WW; Lee SE; DeHart MC; Perel M
    Hum Factors; 2006; 48(3):615-26. PubMed ID: 17063974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using naturalistic driving study data to investigate the impact of driver distraction on driver's brake reaction time in freeway rear-end events in car-following situation.
    Gao J; Davis GA
    J Safety Res; 2017 Dec; 63():195-204. PubMed ID: 29203019
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Applying visual attention theory to transportation safety research and design: evaluation of alternative automobile rear lighting systems.
    McIntyre SE; Gugerty L
    Accid Anal Prev; 2014 Jun; 67():40-8. PubMed ID: 24607593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving.
    Scott JJ; Gray R
    Hum Factors; 2008 Apr; 50(2):264-75. PubMed ID: 18516837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Heavy-truck drivers' following behavior with intervention of an integrated, in-vehicle crash warning system: a field evaluation.
    Bao S; LeBlanc DJ; Sayer JR; Flannagan C
    Hum Factors; 2012 Oct; 54(5):687-97. PubMed ID: 23156615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator.
    Lee JD; McGehee DV; Brown TL; Reyes ML
    Hum Factors; 2002; 44(2):314-34. PubMed ID: 12452276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Modeling rear-end collisions including the role of driver's visibility and light truck vehicles using a nested logit structure.
    Abdel-Aty M; Abdelwahab H
    Accid Anal Prev; 2004 May; 36(3):447-56. PubMed ID: 15003590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Types and characteristics of ramp-related motor vehicle crashes on urban interstate roadways in Northern Virginia.
    McCartt AT; Northrup VS; Retting RA
    J Safety Res; 2004; 35(1):107-14. PubMed ID: 14992851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Road safety from the perspective of driver gender and age as related to the injury crash frequency and road scenario.
    Russo F; Biancardo SA; Dell'Acqua G
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2014; 15(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 24279963
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The influence of rear turn-signal characteristics on crash risk.
    Sullivan JM; Flannagan MJ
    J Safety Res; 2012 Feb; 43(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 22385741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Evaluation of a sudden brake warning system: effect on the response time of the following driver.
    Isler RB; Starkey NJ
    Appl Ergon; 2010 Jul; 41(4):569-76. PubMed ID: 20034608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies.
    Markkula G; Engström J; Lodin J; Bärgman J; Victor T
    Accid Anal Prev; 2016 Oct; 95(Pt A):209-26. PubMed ID: 27450793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How safe is tuning a radio?: using the radio tuning task as a benchmark for distracted driving.
    Lee JY; Lee JD; Bärgman J; Lee J; Reimer B
    Accid Anal Prev; 2018 Jan; 110():29-37. PubMed ID: 29101787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Brake lamp detection in complex and dynamic environments: recognizing limitations of visual attention and perception.
    McIntyre S; Gugerty L; Duchowski A
    Accid Anal Prev; 2012 Mar; 45():588-99. PubMed ID: 22269546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Validating a driving simulator using surrogate safety measures.
    Yan X; Abdel-Aty M; Radwan E; Wang X; Chilakapati P
    Accid Anal Prev; 2008 Jan; 40(1):274-88. PubMed ID: 18215559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Driving with a partially autonomous forward collision warning system: how do drivers react?
    Muhrer E; Reinprecht K; Vollrath M
    Hum Factors; 2012 Oct; 54(5):698-708. PubMed ID: 23156616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Front-to-rear crashes involving two vehicles with severe driver injury.
    Viano DC; Parenteau CS
    Traffic Inj Prev; 2012; 13(1):55-60. PubMed ID: 22239144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Fleet study evaluation of an advance brake warning system.
    Shinar D
    Hum Factors; 2000; 42(3):482-9. PubMed ID: 11132809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The relative odds of involvement in seven crash configurations by driver age and sex.
    Bingham CR; Ehsani JP
    J Adolesc Health; 2012 Nov; 51(5):484-90. PubMed ID: 23084170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Determining the potential safety benefit of improved lighting in three pedestrian crash scenarios.
    Sullivan JM; Flannagan MJ
    Accid Anal Prev; 2007 May; 39(3):638-47. PubMed ID: 17126278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.