@article{findley_nye_lattimore_swain_bhat_foley_2020, title={Safety effects of parking maneuvers}, volume={69}, ISSN={["1873-5517"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.trf.2020.02.002}, abstractNote={Parking maneuvers, particularly a vehicle’s maneuver for entering and leaving a parking space, have varying rates of use and safety impacts. In this effort, crash data were collected for parking lots in the vicinity of a university campus and compared to observational parking position data. The campus was selected for this study because a change in the parking enforcement process was expected to (and did) change parking maneuver choices. When entering and leaving a parking space, three maneuver options exist for drivers: (1) forward, (2) reverse, and (3) pulling through an adjacent parking space. When specifically entering a parking space, the maneuver options become: (1) pull-in, (2) back-in, and (3) pull-through. When leaving the parking space, the maneuver options become: (1) pull-out, (2) back-out, and (3) pull-through. This study found that the pull-in/back-out vehicle maneuver’s percentage of total crashes was greater than the percentage of vehicles that were actually observed to use the same maneuver. The analysis from this study implies that the pull-in/back-out parking maneuver is more likely to result in a collision and therefore, is associated with a higher crash risk. Further analysis of North Carolina’s parking related fatal and serious injury crashes found that vehicles backing out of parking spaces was overwhelmingly the main cause for these serious injuries. 90% of North Carolina’s parking related fatal and serious injuries occurred during a back-out maneuver. Overall, this study concludes that the back-in/pull-out parking maneuver is safer than the pull-in/back-out maneuver and is the recommended approach to 90° parking.}, journal={TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART F-TRAFFIC PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR}, author={Findley, Daniel J. and Nye, Timothy S. and Lattimore, Elizabeth and Swain, Graham and Bhat, Sharath Kumar Parameshwar and Foley, Burke}, year={2020}, month={Feb}, pages={301–310} }
 @article{cunningham_findley_hovey_foley_smith_fowler_chang_arnold_hummer_2016, title={Improved Asset Management and Inventory Development through Sample Analysis and Vendor-Client Communication}, volume={22}, ISSN={["1943-555X"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84958576470&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000260}, abstractNote={AbstractThis study compared output from mobile inventory data collection vehicles to manually collected data techniques with a focus on two-way communications primarily through the submission of a sample data set to be analyzed prior to the submission of a full data set. The interim submittal and feedback to the vendors based on that resulted in a marked improvement in data quality for 5 of the 28 assets studied. After feedback, it is apparent that highway data collection vendors can accurately locate the vast majority of assets, with the primary exception being those that are occluded by vehicles or surrounding landscaping, such as those assets in the median. Along with the locations of assets, vendors showed promise at collecting many of the feature descriptions such as asset type and condition. Many of the elements (location, type, etc.) for a particular asset type that created collection difficulty were only problematic for a particular vendor, which suggests that further improvements may be achieved ...}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS}, author={Cunningham, Christopher M. and Findley, Daniel J. and Hovey, Kyle and Foley, Paul Burke and Smith, Jessica and Fowler, Tyler and Chang, Jeff and Arnold, Jonathan and Hummer, Joseph E.}, year={2016}, month={Mar} }