OBSERVATIONAL STUDY FOR DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE

OF VEHICLES COMPLETELY STOPPING AT A STOP-SIGN

INTERSECTION

Submitted to:
Dr. Tom Dingus

Submitted by: Group 6

Raj Kishore Kamalanathsharma
Nopadon Kronprasert
(Venkateshwar Reddy Dhomadugu)

National Capital Region, Virginia Tech

December, 2009

This study is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the CEE4684
Transportation Safety course at the Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Virginia
Tech in Fall Semester 2009.
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

OBSERVATIONAL STUDY FOR DETERMINING THE PERCENTAGE OF

VEHICLES COMPLETELY STOPPING AT A STOP-SIGN INTERSECTION

Raj Kishore, Nopadon Kronprasert, (Venkateshwar Reddy)

Group 6
Virginia Tech, National Capital Region

ABSTRACT

Approximately, a whopping 700,000 police-reported vehicular crashes occur at stop-

signs each year and 77% of these involve stop-sign violation. Crash statistics shows that in the
year 2000, there were more stop-sign crashes than crashes at signalized intersections. Failure to
stop at a stop-sign has been a serious enforcement issue as well as a safety issue.

For an all-way stop-sign intersection, safety issue arises out of whether the vehicles
completely stops or just do a rolling-stop. Accordingly, the vehicle behavior at a stop sign can be
categorized into a complete stop, a rolling stop and no-stop. One of the methods used in
quantifying this behavior is the percentage of vehicles in the general traffic which stops, roll-
stops or which does not stop. In some studies, the duration of a stop (either complete or rolling)
is also used as a measure. These measures are important on various aspects such as safety
surrogate studies, deciding on many stop-sign intersection features as well as in inputting
vehicular behavioral parameters in micro-simulation packages.

This project deals with the observational study done in an all-way stop sign intersection
of Northern Virginia for determining the percentage of vehicles completely stopping, roll-
stopping as well as which doesn’t stop at a stop-sign. Observations for peak and off-peak hours
are done and values such as vehicle class, traffic situation, driver characteristics are also recorded
for an in-depth analysis. This observational study is important since it can find answers to
questions like which class of vehicles/drivers are likely to completely stop at the stop sign.

Other aspects of the project include:

1. Observations were done for peak and off-peak hours.
2. Vehicle class, occupancy, turn data as well as arrival pattern of vehicles were recorded.
3. Age-class and sex of the driver were noted.
4. Presence of conflicting vehicles and pedestrians was also observed.

ii
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
PURPOSES OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................ 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 6
OPERATIONAL FACTORS.......................................................................................................... 7
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 8
STUDY METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 10
DATA ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................... 10
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 15
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 17
RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 18
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 18
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................... 21

iii
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Stop Time at Stop Signs With and Without Competing Traffic........................................ 6
Table 2 Classification of Operational Factors ................................................................................ 7
Table 3 Cross-Tabulation and Chi-Square Test of Stopping Behavior ........................................ 16
Table 4 Summary of Chi-Square Test for Each Independent Variable ........................................ 17

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2 Intersection Layout.......................................................................................................... 9

iv
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

INTRODUCTION

An all-way stop-sign intersection is where the vehicles from all approaches are supposed to stop
[10]. But the word “stop” varies from person to person as well as time to time. For some drivers,
it means a complete stop where the speed of vehicle will become zero at least for an instance.
For some others, it means a reduction in speed nearing to zero which will allow them to carefully
look at other approaches for conflicting pedestrians or vehicles. For a small percentage of
drivers, stop sign just serve as a warning and they just slow down their vehicle [1]. Hence there
are various meanings for a stop-sign and an all-way stop-sign intersection raises quite a number
of safety issues.

Analyzing the behavior of vehicles at a stop-sign intersection is inevitable for traffic-safety

studies as well as transportation efficiency studies. The behavior of vehicles at a stop-sign
intersection can be studied using two measures, one being the percentages of vehicles stopping,
roll-stopping and not stopping at a stop sign and the other being the duration of stop (either
complete or roll-stop). Percentage of vehicles stopping, roll-stopping and not stopping at a stop
sign depends on several factors and is mainly associated with studies related to transportation
safety. Duration of stop also depends on the same factors but this measure is used for
understanding traffic behavior at a particular location and time to modify micro-simulation
parameters.

This report deals with an observational study to estimate the proportion of vehicles which
completely stop or roll-stop or do not stop at the stop-sign of an all-way stop-sign intersection.
Observations will be done for an hour during peak and off-peak hours and the study area was
West Falls Church in Northern Virginia. Since the study area includes a feeder to a metro station,
the subjects were cosmopolitan in nature.

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

Unlike a signalized intersection where each vehicle has its own right-of-way and protected time
to turn, an all-way stop-sign intersection relies on the drivers to choose the right-of-way as well
as time at which they should proceed among themselves. Many at times, this raises a safety
concern and especially when the driver population is cosmopolitan in nature [3]. Some drivers
decide to completely stop, whereas some others just slow down scanning other conflicting
pedestrians and vehicles. There is also another group of drivers who doesn’t stop either because
of urgency, or their aggressive behavior, or because they are confident of the situation or they
just miss to see the stop-sign.

This study quantifies the driver behavior of Northern Virginia at an all-way stop sign
intersection. It is an observational study to determine the percentage of vehicles which
completely stop, roll-stop or does not stop at a non-signalized intersection near West Falls
Church Metro station. This study also takes into account independent variables such as driver
demographics, vehicle occupancy etc as well as dependent variables such as conflicting or non-
conflicting movements of pedestrians or other traffic.

5
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

The results of this study can draw conclusions regarding the safety of the study intersection as
well as a general traffic behavior of the people in this area. The same stop-sign intersection may
and may not pose serious safety threats for varying demographics, vehicle mix as well as time of
day. Apart from turn volumes, these factors should also be taken into account when choosing
between a signalized and non-signalized intersection.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Stop signs require the vehicles to “stop” regardless of presence of conflicting vehicles or
pedestrians. They are the most common type of intersection in the United States [2]. A plenty of
researches have been done so far regarding the performance, efficiency and safety of an all-way
stop-sign intersection. The Fatality Analysis and Reporting System Web-based Encyclopedia
maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that nearly 700,000
police-reported crashes occur annually at stop-sign intersections [9]. Among these, stop-sign
violations account for around 70% of the crashes [4].

Surveys done by Pietrucha et. al. (1990) showed that around 71% of stop-sign violators did so
because they were confident about the absence of any conflicts [7]. Studies by Retting et. al.
(2003) defines the correlation between age and stop-sign running. They said that drivers younger
than 18 and older than 64 are more likely to miss or run a red-light than others [4]. There have
also been studies regarding the correlation between race or ethnicity with stop-sign violations
[5]. Harper et. al. (2000) studies shows that a cosmopolitan driver group shows more traffic
indecency than a non-Hispanic white motorist’s community [8].

There have also been studies regarding the confusion caused by the rapid arrival of vehicles at
all-way stop-sign intersections. Studies by Preusser et. al. (1998) shows that drivers aged 65 and
above are 2.3 times more at risk at an all-way stop sign intersection when compared to the 1.3
times more at risk in other situations. Drivers aged 85 yrs and older are 10.6 times more at risk at
a stop-sign intersection [6].

Many simulation tools have come up with driver behaviors at a stop sign. The following table
shows the stop time at stop signs with and without competing traffic [11]

Table 1 Stop Time at Stop Signs With and Without Competing Traffic
Percentage (%) No competing traffic (sec) With competing traffic (sec)
45.0 0.00 0.50
25.0 0.25 0.75
15.0 0.50 1.00
10.0 0.75 1.25
5.0 1.00 1.50

Observational studies such as this one can help in modifying these parameters for more realistic
micro-simulations.

6
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

OPERATIONAL FACTORS

The stop-sign intersection studies are done by pure observation of vehicles at an all-way stop-
sign intersection. In addition to the driver behavior at the stop sign, features such as presence of
conflicting pedestrians or traffic and competing traffic and vehicle type, movement and
occupancy are also noted for an in-depth study. Table 2 shows the operational factors used in this
study.

Table 2 Classification of Operational Factors

Category Variables
Vehicle Approach (EB) Eastbound, Westbound (WB), Southbound (SB), Northbound (NB)
Gender Male (M), Female (F)
Age Teenage (TN), Adult (AD), Elderly (EL)
Vehicle Occupancy 1, 2, more than 2 (>2)
Vehicle Type Passenger Car (PC), (SUV), Bus (B)
Vehicle Movement Left-turn (LT), Through (TH), Right-turn (RT)
Leading vehicle (LP), Following vehicle (FP) of the platoon, Single Vehicle
Arrival Pattern
(SP)
Conflict Type Vehicle-to-Pedestrian, Vehicle-to Vehicle
Stopping Completely Stop (CS), Rolling Stop (RS), No Stop (NS)

The survey sheet used for the observational study is shown in Appendix A. The operational
definitions used in the observation are given below:

1. Gender: The gender of the driver was noted for a cross-tabulated study. The values in the
survey sheet will correspond to M for males, F for females and U, if the observation
cannot guarantee a gender.
2. Age: Since, the observation is from a distance, only an approximation of the age of driver
could be made. Accordingly, the values TN for teenagers, AD for adults and EL for
elderly are used in the survey. The value UN is used when even an approximate category
cannot be made based of observation.
3. Occupancy: The vehicle occupancy is the third field and the value 1, 2 or 2+ corresponds
to the number of people in the vehicle including the driver.
4. Class: The classes of vehicles are categorized into PC, SUV, BUS and OTH. All the
hatchbacks, sedans, coupes, convertibles and similar cars are marked as PC. SUVs
include utility vehicles, crossovers, minivans and wagons. BUS is the value given for
high occupancy vehicles such as commercial buses, shuttle buses and shuttle vans. All
other vehicles are having the value OTH.
5. Movement: This indicates the vehicular direction of movement relative to their approach
and values can be L for left, T for through and R for right.
6. Pedestrians: This field indicates the presence of pedestrians crossing any approach. The
value CROSS stands for presence of pedestrians crossing the direction of movement of
the vehicle. The value PARALLEL stands for presence of pedestrians crossing

7
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

approaches other than the ones taken or to be taken by the vehicle. The value NO
indicates absence of any pedestrians.
7. Vehicle on other approaches: The value of this field tells whether or not, there are
vehicles on other approaches corresponding to a YES or NO.
8. Stop: This denote the final observation of whether the vehicle stopped completely or not.
A complete stop, in this study, is defined as the instance where the vehicle comes to a
complete stop at-least momentarily. A rolling stop is when the vehicle slows down to a
complete stop, but doesn’t completely stop even momentarily. All other situations are
considered as not a stop. The respective field values are COMP, ROLL and NO.

Other global parameters attributable to the entire survey such as the time-range of observation,
intersection considered and weather at the time of survey were also noted.

STUDY AREA

For the observational study, the intersection chosen is the all-way stop-sign intersection in front
of the Virginia Tech Northern Virginia Center (VT-NVC) building.

Figure 1 Study Area

8
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

The approaches are from Haycock Road, I-66 Ramp (and Route 7), West Falls Church Metro
Station (and metro parking lot) and the Northern Virginia Center Visitor Parking Bay. This
intersection is an important connection between the I-66 and the West Falls Church Metro
station. Since, it is not a residential, not a commercial area, the driver group will be a
cosmopolitan one with people from all races, places and traffic cultures.

The presence of Metro station has molded the traffic pattern of this intersection. In addition to a
standard peak period behavior from 6:30AM to 9:00AM, this intersection shows a second peak
period behavior after 9:30AM till 10:30AM. This is because of the HOV restrictions on I-66 till
9:00AM as well as higher peak hour metro rates till 9:30AM. Such a peak hour behavior is also
observed after the evening peak hours.

Unlike residential study areas where the off-peak movement is scarce and unlike commercial
areas where the after-hours movement is scarce, this study area has a justifiable volume of
vehicles even during off-peak as well as after hours and not a considerably heavy volume during
peak hours. This has helped in an easy collection of observation data. The approach which serves
as an entrance/exit to the Northern Virginia Center Visitor Parking Bay is not considered for the
data collection since negligible hourly movement is found from and to this approach.

Figure 2 Intersection Layout

9
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

STUDY METHODOLOGY

The observational study involves observational analysis of the vehicular behavior at the stop
signs of the three approaches. The observation was done simultaneously for the three approaches
by three experimenters. The data described in the operational definitions are collected
accordingly for all the vehicles for 30-minute intervals during both AM peak hours and off-peak
hours. The data is collected purely by observation and values are noted in a datasheet as shown
in Appendix A.

The time periods considered for the observation are as follows:

Peak period: 7:30 – 8:00 a.m.
Off-peak period: 1:30 – 2:00 p.m.

DATA ANALYSIS

The data thus collected through observations are categorized and cross-tabulated based on
various parameters like age category and the gender of the driver, vehicle movement, type, and
occupancy of the vehicle, and arrival pattern and conflict type in each case. Results are shown in
the following sections:

Vehicle Movement:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for various
vehicle movements are given below:

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Vehicle Movement

Vehicle Movement Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
Eastbound - Left-turn 13.2% 11.3%
Eastbound - Through 33.3% 35.7%
Westbound - Through 15.2% 11.5%
Southbound - Left-turn 4.8% 2.6%
Southbound - Right-turn 36.8% 36.4%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

The following pie-charts show the above results in a more easily understandable way. According
to the observations done, The Southbound, left-turners are more likely to stop at the intersection
completely before proceeding, whereas the Eastbound, through vehicles as well as Southbound,
right-turners are the least likely to stop at the intersection completely.

10
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Vehicle Type:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for various
vehicle types are given below:

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Vehicle Type

Vehicle Type Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
Passenger Car 19.8% 16.6%
SUV 14.8% 15.0%
Bus 0.0% 7.1%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

This data shows that passenger cars are less likely to completely stop than SUVs or buses. As the
size of the vehicle increases, stop-signs are becoming more enforcing. Buses show a very less
probability of non-stopping. It may be because buses are driven by trained drivers.

11
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Gender:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for males and
female drivers are given below:

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Gender

Gender Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
Male 18.4% 16.7%
Female 10.5% 8.0%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

The above data is depicted in a pie chart as follows. It shows that female drivers are more likely
to completely stop their vehicles at a stop sign than male drivers.

12
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Age Group:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for drivers of
various age groups are given below:

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Age Group

Age Group Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
Teenage 50.0% 20.0%
Adult 17.8% 16.2%
Elderly 0.0% 6.7%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

As age increases, traffic culture gets better. The results from the observational study show this
trend. Teenage drivers are less likely to stop than elderly drivers. The following pie-charts shows
the probability of stopping in red and not completely stopping in blue.

Arrival Pattern:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for various
types of arrival pattern are given below:

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Arrival Sequence

Arrival Sequence Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
Single-Vehicle Arrival 17.9% 21.7%
Leading Vehicle 8.3% 10.0%
Following Vehicle 19.0% 23.4%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

The following pie-charts show the probability of a vehicle stopping completely at a stop-sign in
red, and of not completely stopping in blue. It shows that the leading vehicle of a platoon are
more likely to stop completely than the case of a single vehicle arrival or a following vehicle in a
platoon.

13
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Vehicle Occupancy:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for various
vehicle occupancies are given below:

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Occupancy

Vehicle Occupancy Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
1 19.2% 16.2%
2 17.6% 17.1%
>2 0.0% 5.6%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

These results are represented in the following pie-charts. It shows that a vehicle with no
passengers is less likely to stop completely than a vehicle with more than one passenger.
Vehicles with more than one passenger in our situation represent buses and shuttle services with
trained drivers.

Conflict Type:
The percentages of vehicles stopping and not stopping for peak and off-peak hours for various
conflict types are given below:

14
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Percent of “Not Completely Stop” vs. Conflict Type

Vehicle Occupancy Percent of "Not Completely Stop"
Off-Peak Peak
With Pedestrians 0.0% 3.8%
With Other Vehicles 5.2% 5.7%
No Conflict 36.2% 35.3%
Total 17.1% 15.6%

These results are represented in the following pie-charts. It shows that vehicles are least likely to
stop completely in the absence of any conflicting vehicles or pedestrians. Vehicles are more
likely to stop when there are pedestrians conflict.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

This study analyzes the chi-square statistical test to evaluate the hypotheses whether each
independent variable is statistically independent with the stopping behavior or not.

Hypothesis
H0: “The independent variable is statistically independent with stopping behavior”
H1: “The independent variable is not statistically independent with stopping behavior”

The Chi-square value can be calculated by

χ2 = ∑
(Oi − Ei )2
i Ei

where Oi = the observed value, and

Ei = the estimated value, which is the joint frequency distribution.

The degree of freedom (df) of the cross-tabulation can be calculated by

df = (r − 1)(c − 1)

15
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

where r = number of row, and

c = number of column.

The cross-tabulation of stopping behavior, “Not completely stop (No CS)” and “Completely stop
(CS)” and the calculation of chi-square values of each independent variable are shown in Table
3.
Table 3 Cross-Tabulation and Chi-Square Test of Stopping Behavior

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Vehicle Movement No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
Eastbound - Left-turn 12 88 100 16.14 83.86 100 1.06 0.20
Eastbound - Through 7 13 20 3.23 16.77 20 4.41 0.85
Westbound - Through 11 74 85 13.72 71.28 85 0.54 0.10
Southbound - Left-turn 2 57 59 9.52 49.48 59 5.94 1.14
Southbound - Right-turn 19 33 52 8.39 43.61 52 13.41 2.58
Total 51 265 316 51 265 316 30.24 4

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Vehicle Type No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
Passenger Car 40 186 226 36.47 189.53 226 0.34 0.07
SUV 10 57 67 10.81 56.19 67 0.06 0.01
Bus 1 22 23 3.71 19.29 23 1.98 0.38
Total 51 265 316 51 265 316 2.84 2

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Gender No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
Male 47 225 272 43.90 228.10 272 0.22 0.04
Female 4 40 44 7.10 36.90 44 1.35 0.26
Total 51 265 316 51 265 316 1.88 1

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Age Group No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
Teenage 2 5 7 1.13 5.87 7 0.67 0.13
Adult 48 238 286 46.16 239.84 286 0.07 0.01
Elderly 1 22 23 3.71 19.29 23 1.98 0.38
Total 51 265 316 51 265 316 3.25 2

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Arrival Pattern No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
Single-Vehicle Arrival 25 151 176 28.41 147.59 176 0.41 0.08
Leading Vehicle 4 38 42 6.78 35.22 42 1.14 0.22
Following Vehicle 22 76 98 15.82 82.18 98 2.42 0.47
Total 51 265 316 51 265 316 4.73 2

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Vehicle Occupancy No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
1 33 156 189 30.50 158.50 189 0.20 0.04
2 18 86 104 16.78 87.22 104 0.09 0.02
>2 1 22 23 3.71 19.29 23 1.98 0.38
Total 52 264 316 51 265 316 2.71 2

Observation Estimates Chi-Square

Conflict Type No CS CS Total No CS CS Total No CS CS df
With Pedestrians 1 37 38 6.13 31.87 38 4.30 0.83
With Other Vehicles 9 154 163 26.31 136.69 163 11.39 2.19
No Conflict 41 74 115 18.56 96.44 115 27.13 5.22
Total 51 265 316 51 265 316 51.05 2

16
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Table 4 summarizes the chi-square values and the chi-square tests.

Table 4 Summary of Chi-Square Test for Each Independent Variable

Variables χ calc
2
df χ 02.10 Test
Vehicle Movement 30.24 4 7.78 χ calc
2
> χ 02.10 Reject H0
Vehicle Type 2.84 2 4.60 χ calc
2
< χ 02.10 Accept H0
Gender 1.88 1 2.71 χ calc
2
< χ 02.10 Accept H0
Age Group 3.25 2 4.60 χ calc
2
< χ 02.10 Accept H0
Arrival Pattern 4.73 2 4.60 χ calc
2
> χ 02.10 Reject H0
Vehicle Occupancy 2.71 2 4.60 χ calc
2
< χ 02.10 Accept H0
Conflict Type 51.05 2 4.60 χ calc
2
> χ 02.10 Reject H0

The statistical tests show that the chi-square value of “conflicting type”, “vehicle movement”,
and “arrival pattern”( χ calc
2
) are greater than the chi-square value at 10% confident level ( χ 02.10 ).
Hence, we can conclude that the presence of conflicting, vehicle movement, and vehicle arrival
pattern are statistically dependent on stopping behavior of vehicle approaching at the
intersection.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The following arguments can be drawn from the results.

• Based on the results, the most contributing factors that cause most drivers completely
stop are the presence of conflict, followed by movement of vehicles, vehicle arrival
sequences, and driver’s age group.
• Vehicles during off-peak period have higher possibility not to completely stop than those
during peak period because of less conflicting movement (either pedestrians or vehicles
from other directions).
• Among different types of movement at the intersection, the through vehicles on
eastbound approach (25.0%) and the right-turn vehicles on southbound approach (25.0%)
have the highest possibility not to completely stop.
• Among different types of vehicle arrivals, the following vehicles are more likely not to
completely stop at the intersection (22.4%) than the leading vehicles in the platoon
(9.5%) and the single vehicle arrival (19.9%). This is because when they approach the
intersection, they have more time to clearly see the entire intersection whether the
vehicles in other directions exist or not.
• Among three age groups of drivers, teenage drivers are the most possible age groups that
would not completely stop at the all-stop intersection (28.6%), compared to adult drivers
(16.8%) and the elderly drivers (4.3%).

17
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

• Among different vehicle classes, buses are the highest vehicle class that completely stops
at the intersection (96.0%), compared to passenger cars (82.3%) and SUVs (85.1%). This
may be because bus drivers are considered as well-trained drivers.
• Male drivers are more likely not to stop at the intersection (17.3%) than female drivers
(9.1%)

RECOMMENDATIONS

From the observations done on the behavior of vehicles at the above-said intersection, following
recommendations are made to enhance safety and efficiency of the intersection.
1. There is clearly a need for stop-bar for all-approaches in addition to the existing
pedestrian crossing. This can prevent rolling-stop behavior and inching.
2. From the observations, it is clear that the following vehicles are less likely to stop
completely when vehicles arrive in platoon than the lead vehicle. The given intersection
is found to have many platoons than individual vehicles feeding. Hence, it is advisable to
add an exclusive left-turn bay on the eastbound approach so that the platoon, if consists
of left-turners and through vehicles, will split.
3. Also, an additional stop-sign on the left median in advisable for east-bound approach
since it is fed from the interstate ramp.

REFERENCES

1. E. Hauer and J Lovell, The safety effect of conversion to all-way stop control, Transportation
Research Record, Vol 1068, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC (1986), pp
103-107.
2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts, 2000 Report No. DOT HS-809-337,
Washington, DC (2002).
3. R. Van Houten and R.A Retting, Increasing motorist compliance and caution at stop-signs,
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 34 (2001), pp. 185-193.
4. R. A Retting, H. B. Weinstein and M.G. Solomon, Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop-
signs in four U.S. cities, Journal of Safety Research, Vol 34, Issue 5 (2003), pp 485-489.
5. E. Rumano, R Vaos and S Tippetts, Stop-sign violations: The role of race and ethnicity on
fatal crashes, Journal of Safety Research, Vol 37, Issue 1 (2006), pp 1-7.
6. D. F. Preusser, A. F. Williams, S. A. Ferguson, R. G. Ulmer and H. B Weinstein, Fatal crash
risk for older drivers at intersections, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 30(2), Mar
1998, pp 151-159.
7. M. Pietrucha, T. Opiela, K. Knoblauch and R. L. Crigler, Motorist compliance with standard
safety control devices, Public Roads 53 (1990) (4).
8. J.S. Harper, W.M. Marine, C.J. Garret, D. Lezotte and S.R. Lowenstein, Motor vehicle crash
fatalities: A comparison of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado, Annals of
Emergency Medicine 36 (2000) (6), pp. 589-596.
9. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis and Reporting System
(FARS), http://www.fars.nhtsa.dot.gov, U.S. Department of Transportation.

18
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

10. Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
2003 Edition, U. S. Department of Transportation.
11. Caliper Corporation, TransModeler Version 2.0 Brochure (2008), Retrieved from the URL:
http://www.caliper.com/PDFs/TransModeler%20Brochure.pdf

19
 CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

APPENDIX A

EXAMPLES OF DATASHEET

Sl Gender Age Occupanc Vehicle Movement Pedestrians Vehicle on Arrival Sequence Stop
No (M/F) (TN/AD/EL) y Class (LT/TH/R (YES/NO) other appr. (SINGLE, (NO/ROLL/
(1,2,+) (PC,SUV, T) (YES/NO) LEAD, COMP)
BUS) FOLLOW)

20
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

APPENDIX B

TYPES OF CONFLICT

Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Conflict

Type SP1: Southbound Right-turn Vehicle vs. Type SP2: Southbound Left-turn Vehicle vs.
Pedestrians Pedestrians

Type EP1: Eastbound Left-turn Vehicle vs. Type EP2: Eastbound Through Vehicle vs.
Pedestrians Pedestrians

21
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Type WP1: Westbound Through Vehicle vs. Type WP2: Westbound Left-turn Vehicle vs.
Pedestrians Pedestrians

Vehicle-to-Vehicle Conflict

Type SV1: Southbound Right-turn Vehicle vs. Type SV2: Southbound Left-turn Vehicle vs.
Westbound Through Vehicle Westbound Through Vehicle

22
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Type SV3: Southbound Left-turn Vehicle vs. Type EV1: Eastbound Left-turn Vehicle vs.
Eastbound Through Vehicle Westbound Through Vehicle

Type EV2: Eastbound Through Vehicle vs. Type WV1: Westbound Through Vehicle vs.
Southbound Left-Turn Vehicle Eastbound Left-Turn Vehicle

23
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Type WV2: Westbound Through Vehicle vs. Type WV3: Westbound Left-turn Vehicle vs.
Southbound Left-Turn Vehicle Eastbound Right-Turn Vehicle

24
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLES OF PHOTOS

Figure B-1: Eastbound

Figure B-2: Southbound

25
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

Figure B-3: Westbound

26
CEE4684: Transportation Safety Final Report - Group 6

APPENDIX D

TIME SCHEDULE OF THE STUDY

Steps Date Milestone

1 Oct 23 Reconnaissance
2 Oct 26 Defining Experiment
3 Nov 2 Literature Review
4 Nov 2 Defining Operation Definitions
5 Nov 16 Complete field experiment
6 Nov 23 Accumulate and Analyze Data
7 Nov 30 Technical Report with conclusions

27