BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

András Bálint

András Bálint contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Applications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

An analysis of European crash data and scenario specification for heavy truck safety system development within the AEROFLEX project

Heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are involved in 4.5% of police-reported road crashes in Europe and 14.2% of fatal road crashes. Active and passive safety systems can help to prevent crashes or mitigate the consequences but need detailed scenarios to be designed effectively. The aim of this paper is to give a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of HGV crashes in Europe. The analysis is based on general statistics from CARE, results about trucks weighing 16 tons or more from national crash databases and a detailed study of in-depth crash data from GIDAS. Three scenarios are identified that should be addressed by future safety systems: (1) rear-end crashes with other vehicles in which the truck is the striking partner, (2) conflicts during right turn maneuvers of the truck and a cyclist and (3) pedestrians crossing the road perpendicular to the direction of travel of the truck.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Multitasking additional-to-driving: Prevalence, structure, and associated risk in SHRP2 naturalistic driving data

This paper 1) analyzes the extent to which drivers engage in multitasking additional-to-driving (MAD) under various conditions, 2) specifies odds ratios (ORs) of crashing associated with MAD compared to no task engagement, and 3) explores the structure of MAD, based on data from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study (SHRP2 NDS). Sensitivity analysis in which secondary tasks were re-defined by grouping similar tasks was performed to investigate the extent to which ORs are affected by the specific task definitions in SHRP2. A novel visual representation of multitasking was developed to show which secondary tasks co-occur frequently and which ones do not. MAD occurs in 11% of control driving segments, 22% of crashes and near-crashes (CNC), 26% of Level 1-3 crashes and 39% of rear-end striking crashes, and 9%, 16%, 17% and 28% respectively for the same event types if MAD is defined in terms of general task groups. The most common co-occurrences of secondary tasks vary substantially among event types; for example, 'Passenger in adjacent seat - interaction' and 'Other non-specific internal eye glance' tend to co-occur in CNC but tend not to co-occur in control driving segments. The odds ratios of MAD compared to driving without any secondary task and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals are 2.38 (2.17-2.61) for CNC, 3.72 (3.11-4.45) for Level 1-3 crashes and 8.48 (5.11-14.07) for rear-end striking crashes. The corresponding ORs using general task groups to define MAD are slightly lower at 2.00 (1.80-2.21) for CNC, 3.03 (2.48-3.69) for Level 1-3 crashes and 6.94 (4.04-11.94) for rear-end striking crashes. The results confirm that independently of whether secondary tasks are defined according to SHRP2 or general task groups, the reduction of driving performance from MAD observed in simulator studies is manifested in real-world crashes as well.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Safety benefit assessment of autonomous emergency braking and steering systems for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians based on a combination of computer simulation and real-world test results

Cyclists and pedestrians account for a significant share of fatalities and serious injuries in the road transport system. In order to protect them, advanced driver assistance systems are being developed and introduced to the market, including autonomous emergency braking and steering systems (AEBSS) that autonomously perform braking or an evasive manoeuvre by steering in case of a pending collision, in order to avoid the collision or mitigate its severity. This study proposes a new prospective framework for quantifying safety benefit of AEBSS for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians in terms of saved lives and reduction in the number of people suffering serious injuries. The core of the framework is a novel application of Bayesian inference in such a way that prior information from counterfactual simulation is updated with new observations from real-world testing of a prototype AEBSS. As an illustration of the method, the framework is applied for safety benefit assessment of the AEBSS developed in the European Union (EU) project PROSPECT. In this application of the framework, counterfactual simulation results based on the German In-Depth Accident Study Pre-Crash Matrix (GIDAS-PCM) data were combined with results from real-world tests on proving grounds. The proposed framework gives a systematic way for the combination of results from different sources and can be considered for understanding the real-world benefit of new AEBSS. Additionally, the Bayesian modelling approach used in this paper has a great potential to be used in a wide range of other research studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access