Search

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper underscores the significance of safety and reliability in the realm of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technologies, and how regulations play a pivotal role in ensuring their responsible use. We have analyzed safety incidents and trends both in Canada and globally, noting a decline in incidents attributed to enhanced regulations. Our comparative analysis of different UAV technologies identified batteries as the most reliable power supply, Global Navigation Satellite System as the most effective navigation system, and light detection and ranging as the optimal optical sensor due to regulatory compliance and system redundancies. We also examined the regulatory framework in Canada, comparing it with the risk-based approach of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and the efforts of Joint Authorities for Rule-making on Unmanned Systems towards global harmonization. Furthermore, we highlighted emerging trends in automation and flight control technologies, with a focus on European regulations shaping UAV automation trends. In conclusion, by adhering to best practices from other regulatory bodies, embracing emerging trends, and adopting a risk-based approach, Canada can promote the growth of the UAV industry while ensuring safety and reliability in UAV technologies.

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Geotechnical Journal is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper evaluates the accuracy of three commonly used models that predict accidents on two-lane, rural, arterial highways. The retrospective evaluation compared model outputs with empirical collision results for a sample of highway sections in the Province of New Brunswick. The analysis determined historical accident rates, identified key predictive variables, and compared the observed results with estimates from each safety model. All three models were found to significantly overestimate accident frequencies on the highway sections under study. The model generally employed in New Brunswick, MicroBENCOST, was found to yield the highest errors in estimated collisions. These findings suggest that the benefits from accident reduction are generally overestimated on highway improvement projects analyzed with these accident prediction models. Cet article évalue la précision de trois modèles couramment utilisés pour la prédiction d'accidents sur les autoroutes à deux voies; rurales et les avenues. L’évaluation rétrospective à comparé les résultats des modèles aux résultats empirique de collision pour un échantillon de sections d'autoroutes dans la province du Nouveau-Brunswick. L’analyse a permis de déterminer le taux historique d'accidents, a identifié les principales variables prédictives et à comparé les résultats observés aux estimations de chaque modèle de sécurité. Il a été trouvé que les trois modèles sur-estiment significativement les fréquences d’accidents sur les sections d’autoroutes étudiées. Il a été trouvé que le modèle généralement employé au Nouveau-Brunswick, MicroBENCOST, produit les erreurs les plus élevées pour l’estimation des collisions. Ces résultats suggèrent que les avantages dûs à la réduction des accidents sont généralement sur-estimés dans les projets d'amélioration des routes analysés avec ces modèles de prédiction des accidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Environmental Reviews is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)