Advancing Road Infrastructure Safety with the Remotely Piloted Safety Cone

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a field validated robotic traffic cone, that utilizes skid-steer mobility, GNSS, RTK, and odometer sensor fusion and visual alarm. By meeting all the requirements, it has an error of <30 cm positioning error and <15 cm tracing error, can detect obstacle within 4 meters. This is a very useful study and could improve work zone related accidents by reducing the exposure of human at a busy construction zone.  

The paper is well-structured, sophisticated, and contributes meaningfully to Infrastructure safety.

1. The study is practical focused, the cone is dimensioned, lit and tested to EU road signaling norms.
2. This study presents three real world case studies and quantitative evidence.
3. This study is multi layer failsafe

Suggestions/Questions:

1. Internal editorial notes remain (e.g., “Authors should discuss the results…”, line 762) and section headers are mis‑numbered.
2. In‑text citations use author‑year; use number instead.
3. Results need to be compared with human cone deployment time.
4. Route deviation boxplots are presented, and could be supported by hypothesis testing
5. Fig 11 to 14 resolutions need to be improved; it was hard to read.
6. Provide acronyms in the main text for all.
7. spell out “IMU”

The study is novel and well executed; addressing the editorial, minor edits listed above will make it suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a design, implementation, and a validation of a Remotely Piloted Safety Cone (RPSC). RPSC demonstrates autonomous mobility with real-time communication capabilities and superior visual signaling. The system integrates multi-sensor inputs, combining GNSS and RTK technologies for centimeter-level positioning accuracy. Equipped with obstacle detection sensors and structural monitoring systems, the RPSC ensures mechanical integrity, operational visibility, and dynamic stability while fully complying with European safety regulations. However, several suggestions could enhance the manuscript's quality.

1. All abbreviations should be spelled out at their first mention, followed by the abbreviated form in parentheses. After the first full definition, subsequent occurrences may use the abbreviated form exclusively. When an abbreviations table is provided, full terms need not be given at first occurrence. We recommend placing the list of abbreviations directly after the abstract to enhance accessibility for readers.
2. The citation formats for References 5 and 6 on page 2 are inconsistent and should be standardized.
3. Page 4 exhibits variations in paragraph spacing. Maintain consistent vertical spacing alignment across all text sections.
4. The text elements in Figure 1 appear undersized, compromising legibility. Please enlarge the font to match the document's visual requirements. Moreover, all figure texts should maintain uniform font sizes throughout the manuscript.
5. The font size in the paragraph below Figure 2 on page 6 appears larger than specified. All text should maintain consistent font size throughout the document.
6. The first citation of Table 2 appears twice on page 6, retain one instance and remove the other.
7. There is a discrepancy between the text on page 7 (claiming Table 3 shows OPU capabilities) and the table's actual content (CPU functions and responsibilities). Please align either the text or table content accordingly.
8. The heading font in section 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 is inconsistent with other sections. Multiple headings throughout the document exhibit typographical variations in both font and formatting. Please conduct a comprehensive review and standardize all headings to maintain uniform stylistic presentation.
9. The term 'ROS2' on page 11 appears in an incorrect font style. Please modify it to conform with the document's typographical standards.
10. The document exhibits inconsistent paragraph formatting on page 13. Please ensure uniform styling throughout.
11. The subsections 'Positioning'、'Navigation' and 'Obstacle Detection' in the Use case of the Conclusion require proper numbering to maintain hierarchical consistency.
12. The final sentence of the navigation section contains missing spaces between 'Software' and 'Table 2'. Please insert the required spacing for proper formatting.
13. The paper only gives the control of one safety cone, if more than one safety cone should be how to realize remote control, please give details.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Lines 10-153 The requirements should be referenced.
2. Lines 157-158 the mentioned law should be referenced.
3. Lines 159-160 the mentioned law should be referenced.
4. Lines 161-164 the mentioned standard should be referenced.
5. Figure 2: The title of the figure should be restructured to explain subfigures (example: Figure 2A linear movement, Figure 2 B....).
6. Every subfigure should be explained properly in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more questions