MotoSafety: Edge-AI with Learned Temporal Importance for Two-Wheeler Collision Risk Assessment Under Time Pressure
Authors: Sumit S. Shevtekar, Chandresh K. Maurya, Gourab Sil, Subasish Das
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Khandwa Road, Simrol, Indore, 453552, Madhya Pradesh, India · Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Khandwa Road, Simrol, Indore, 453552, Madhya Pradesh, India · Civil Engineering Program, Ingram School of Engineering, Texas State University, RFM 5202, San Marcos, 78666, TX, USA
Powered two-wheeler riders face critical safety challenges in low- and middle-income countries, yet limited studies exist on how cognitive stressors such as Time Pressure influence collision risk. We address this gap by introducing a comprehensive dataset consisting of over 129,000 labeled multivariate time-series feature windows, gathered across 153 simulator rides from 51 participants under No, Low, and High TP scenarios. Across each sequence, we capture 64 distinct attributes covering vehicle motion, rider control actions, spatial proximity, and rule compliance indicators. Using this dataset, we introduce MotoSafety, a new edge-AI framework built on the Learned Temporal Importance (LTI) concept. MotoSafety achieves 94.97% accuracy and 99.33% ROC AUC, outperforming ten baselines, including TimesNet and LLM4TS, and achieves 0.039 MSE and 0.094 MAE for forecasting (4.4x lower error than Time-LLM and iTransformer). With only 1.15M parameters and 0.135 ms latency, it is suitable for edge deployment on low-cost CPU hardware. Using ground truth TP as an inductive bias improves accuracy from 94.09% to 94.97%, while predicted TP achieves 94.82%. Using only 21 IMU+GPS features, it achieves 93.91% accuracy, indicating practical deployment. Beyond PTW safety, the architecture shows better transferability to human activity (97.66%) and clinical (99.65%) domains. This lightweight framework advances PTW collision risk assessment, supporting the Safe System Approach for Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Speeding, Incorrect junction/intersection speed, Speed violations on speed breakers, Gap maintenance errors, Hazardous overtaking, Unsigned turns, Lane misuse, Driving on the wrong side, Handbrake use while moving, Riding the clutch, Faulty gear shift order, Improper clutch release, Shifting without clutch engagement, Proper gear selection before start, Gradual clutch engagement
15
Traffic Infractions
White line violations, Yellow line crossings, Stop line breaches, Signal jumping, Entering no-entry zones, Illegal U-turns, Parking infringements
7
Temporal Context
Time stamp, Time Pressure condition (0=HTP, 1=LTP, 2=NTP)
2
Table 3: Overview of simulator-derived features and their categories
Figure 6: The proposed MotoSafety architecture.
Module
Complexity
Dilated CNN encoder (×3 branches)
O(L⋅k⋅C)
Bi-LSTM (2 layers)
O(L⋅H2)
TIP scoring + weighted sum
O(L⋅H)
Gated fusion + SE block
O(1) (fixed-size input)
Multi-head attention (post-pooling)
O(1) (fixed-size input)
MotoSafety total
O(L)
Table 4: Per-module computational complexity. L : sequence length, C : feature channels, H : hidden dimension, k : kernel size.
Component
Setting
Classification Model
Input sequence length
96 timesteps (960 ms)
Feature dimension
64
CNN hidden channels
32 per branch, 64 fused
BiLSTM hidden dimensions
128 (bidirectional)
Total model parameters
∼ 1.15 million
Table 5: Training configuration for MotoSafety classification and forecasting models.
Feature
NTP
LTP
HTP
Speed (km/h)
33.12 ± 19.42
39.69 ± 21.67
49.00 ± 26.48
Sudden braking
1.32 ± 2.54
1.38 ± 2.36
1.80 ± 2.01
Dangerous overtaking
1.07 ± 1.18
1.21 ± 1.27
1.36 ± 1.52
Headway distance (m)
8.99 ± 14.38
8.20 ± 14.34
7.75 ± 13.88
Table 6: Behavioral differences across TP: NTP/LTP/HTP (Mean ± Std).
Models
MotoSafety
Time-LLM
iTransformer
PatchTST
Metric
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
96
0.033 ± 0.005
0.082 ± 0.007
0.136
0.148
0.161
0.237
0.188
0.208
192
0.037 ± 0.006
0.086 ± 0.008
0.145
0.153
0.170
0.246
0.205
0.223
336
0.041 ± 0.006
0.097 ± 0.010
0.192
0.215
0.177
0.258
0.227
0.272
720
0.045 ± 0.007
0.111 ± 0.012
0.212
0.293
0.183
0.262
0.267
0.338
Avg
0.039
0.094
0.171
0.210
0.173
0.251
0.222
0.260
Table 7: Multivariate long-term forecasting results (mean ± std over 5 runs). Input lookback length L=96 . Forecast horizons H∈{96,192,336,720} . Avg is averaged over all four prediction horizons.
Model
Acc. (%)
Prec.
Rec.
F1-Score (%)
AUC (%)
Mean ± Std
Result
Result
Mean ± Std
Mean ± Std
RF
84.93±0.16∗∗∗
85.24
84.87
85.02±0.23∗∗∗
93.68±0.31∗∗∗
CNN
90.19±0.11∗∗∗
93.82
80.68
86.74±0.21∗∗∗
97.62±0.22∗∗∗
RNN
90.94±0.12∗∗∗
83.41
96.38
89.43±0.32∗∗∗
97.27±0.34∗∗∗
LLM4TS
90.06±0.14∗∗∗
90.58
83.23
86.81±0.31∗∗∗
97.31±0.42∗∗∗
Informer
93.61±0.07∗∗∗
89.72
94.88
92.21±0.22∗∗
99.12±0.21∗∗
Table 8: Comparison of model performance (mean ± standard deviation over 5 runs). We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Holm–Bonferroni adjustment to determine statistical significance ( α=0.05 ). Significance is denoted by: ∗∗∗p<0.001 , ∗∗p<0.01 , ∗p<0.05 . All baseline models were compared against the proposed MotoSafety framework.
Horizon H
Time (s)
MSE
MAE
96
0.96
0.033 ± 0.005
0.082 ± 0.007
192
1.92
0.037 ± 0.006
0.086 ± 0.008
336
3.36
0.041 ± 0.006
0.097 ± 0.010
720
7.20
0.045 ± 0.007
0.111 ± 0.012
Table 9: Forecasting performance by prediction horizon (mean over 5 runs)
Model
Accuracy (%)
AUC (%)
Without TP Feature
94.09±0.04
99.10±0.01
With Predicted TP Feature
94.82±0.02∗∗∗
99.24±0.01∗∗∗
With Ground Truth TP Feature
94.97±0.01∗∗∗
99.33±0.01∗∗∗
Table 10: Performance comparison of MotoSafety showing improvement from adding TP features. Significance markers indicate improvement over the Without TP baseline: ∗∗∗p<0.001
True / Predicted
0: HTP
1: LTP
2: NTP
0: HTP
8878
229
163
1: LTP
76
7326
568
2: NTP
82
1661
6859
Table 11: Confusion matrix (raw counts) for TST-based TP prediction.
Figure 7: Confusion matrix of MotoSafety predictions on the main PTW simulator dataset under TP.
Figure 18
Dataset
Details
Safety Domain
Application
Country
MST
Prior Work Accuracy
Proposed Dataset
PTW Simulator with GT TP
PTW Safety
Collision Prediction
India
94.97
–
[ 41 ]
PTW High-Fidelity Simulator
PTW Safety
Collision Prediction
Germany
99.49
91.0 [RF, GB [ 42 ] ]
[ 4 ]
PTW Real Time Fall Event Data
PTW Safety
Fall Detection
France
96.10
91.59 [DT [ 8 ] ]
[ 40 ]
Human Activity Recognition
Human Safety
Activity Recognition
Italy
97.66
83.35 [K-means + NB [ 14 ] ]
[ 50 ]
Wearable-Sensor Movement
Human Clinical Safety
Exercise Quality Assessment
Turkey
99.65
88.65[MTMM-DTW [ 49 ] ]
Table 12: Cross-Safety-Domain Evaluation of MotoSafety Accuracy (%) and Prior Work Accuracy (%). MST: MotoSafety.
Variant
Accuracy (%)
Δ Acc.
Full Model
94.97
–
No BiLSTM
90.42
−4.55
No SE Block
91.24
−3.73
No Attention
90.78
−4.19
No CNN Branch
92.66
−2.31
No Gated Fusion
92.90
−2.07
Table 13: Ablation Study of MotoSafety Components.
Pooling Strategy
Accuracy (%)
AUC (%)
Mean-pooling
92.23 ± 0.15
98.80 ± 0.22
Max-pooling
93.41 ± 0.12
99.11 ± 0.18
Last-timestep
92.87 ± 0.14
98.97 ± 0.20
TIP
94.97 ± 0.08
99.33 ± 0.30
Table 14: Comparison of MotoSafety with TIP against standard fixed temporal-pooling strategies (mean ± std over 5 runs).
Features
Accuracy (%)
3
80.22
5
83.11
7
88.78
9
90.16
21
93.91
All 64 (simulator)
94.97
Table 15: MotoSafety accuracy with real-bike features (IMU+GPS).
A. MotoSafety Efficiency & Deployability
Metric
Value
Significance
Total Parameters
1,149,048
Low Complexity
Model Size
4.38 MB
Edge-ready Storage
Throughput
>7,400 s/sec
High-speed Inference
Arch. Complexity
O(L)
Linear Scalability
Edge-AI Deployability
Yes
Suitable for wearable
Table 16: MotoSafety Efficiency Metrics and Comparative Latency.
Two-wheelers account for a disproportionately high share of road fatalities in the Global South. Research on two-wheeler rider behavior, however, lags far behind four-wheelers, where multimodal datasets have driven major advances in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). To address this gap, we present the MOtorized TwO-wheeler Rider (MOTOR) dataset, the first large-scale, multi-view, multimodal resource dedicated to two-wheelers in dense, unstructured traffic. MOTOR comprises 1,629 sequences (25+ hours of video data) collected from 16 riders and integrates synchronized front, rear, and helmet videos, rider eye-gaze from wearable trackers, on-road audio, and telemetry (GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope). Rich annotations capture traffic context, rider state, 12 riding maneuvers spanning conventional and unconventional behaviors, and legality labels (Legal, Illegal, Unspecified). We benchmark rider behavior recognition and maneuver legality classification using state-of-the-art video action recognition backbones (CNN and Transformer-based), extended with multimodal fusion, and find that combining RGB, gaze, and telemetry consistently yields the best performance. MOTOR thus provides a unique foundation for advancing safety-critical understanding of two-wheeler riding. It offers the research community a benchmark to develop and evaluate models for behavior analysis, legality-aware prediction, and intelligent transportation systems. Dataset and code is available at https: //varuniiith.github.io/MOTOR-Dataset/
Varun A. Paturkar, Shankar Gangisetty, C. V. Jawahar
Accident anticipation aims to recognize anomalous driving cues before a crash while avoiding false alarms during normal driving. Existing approaches typically formulate this task as binary classification, focusing on whether an accident will occur rather than when it will occur. We propose PRE-ACT, a framework that models accident risk as a continuously evolving signal that increases as the crash approaches. By explicitly enforcing temporal ordering and distance-to-accident awareness, our method progressively raises risk while suppressing premature alarms, leading to significant improvements on MM-AU subsets and Nexar. We further introduce a Separation Score to evaluate the global behavior of predicted risk curves beyond local temporal windows. Code and visualizations are available at https://github.com/giddyyupp/PRE-ACT.
Samet Hicsonmez, Eray Çakar, Nermin Samet +1
Independent Researcher, Paris, France · Department of Computer Engineering, KUIS AI, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey · Valeo.ai, Paris, France
Collision rate remains a dominant metric for evaluating autonomous driving trajectory safety, but its binary nature obscures substantial safety differences among collision-free trajectories. Existing surrogate-safety metrics provide finer-grained assessments, yet often trade off physical interpretability against adaptivity to interaction context. We introduce FutureRisk, a continuous metric that quantifies the latent future risk of a trajectory by how closely and persistently its realized interactions approach unsafe states. At its core, our Context-Adaptive Risk Model (CARM) combines a context-dependent safety-time distribution with an independently supervised critical-event-time distribution. Its safety criterion is bounded around a closed-form physical prior, while a bounded residual provides additional adaptation without abandoning this physical anchor. Experiments on DeepAccident and Bench2Drive show that FutureRisk achieves stronger agreement with native collision labels than existing surrogate-safety measures, discriminates risk among collision-free trajectories, and transfers zero-shot across datasets. Comparisons across four planners further show that FutureRisk reveals safety differences hidden by binary collision outcomes. Together, these results establish FutureRisk as a fine-grained, interpretable, and context-adaptive metric for trajectory safety evaluation. Code is available at https://github.com/Xuewen2025/safety-evaluation.
Xuewen Luo, Linlian Jiang, Bo Yu +3
Xuewen Luo and Bo Yu are with the University of Utah. · Linlian Jiang, Xinxin Zuo, and Yang Wang are with Concordia University. · Fan Ding is with Monash University.