Table 1. Selected Studies on Crash Frequencies/Rates Authors/Year Methodology Crossing controls Key findings STOP signs vs. STOP 46.95% lower Millegan et al., 2009 Negative binomial Crossbucks crash rates STOP signs less not “did stop” and on “stopped STOP signs vs. crossing” behaviors Yan et al., 2010 Logistic regression Crossbucks STOP signs higher crash rate reductions at higher volume crossings Hierarchical STOP signs varying crash STOP vs. Yan et al., 2010 regression rate reductions at different Crossbucks model conditions STOP signs 60% higher crash rates by STOP signs vs. comparison Raub, 2006 Descriptive statistics Crossbucks STOP signs 28% higher crash rates by comparison Mok and Savage, Active vs. passive Active controls Lower Negative binomial 2005 controls crash frequencies Gates 4.1 crashes per 10 Active (gates and MCV flashing lights) vs. Flashing lights 5.1 crashes Raub, 2009 Descriptive statistics passive controls (STOP per 10 MCV and Crossbuck signs) STOP signs 37.4 crashes per 10 MCV Park and (vs. passive signs) Poisson regression Gates vs. passive signs Saccomanno, 2005 CMF = 0.34
Table 1. Selected Studies on Crash Frequencies/Rates Authors/Year Methodology Crossing controls Key findings Millegan et al., 2009 Negative binomial STOP signs vs. Crossbucks STOP 46.95% lower crash rates Yan et al., 2010 Logistic regression STOP signs vs. Crossbucks STOP signs less “did not stop” and “stopped on crossing” behaviors STOP signs higher crash rate reductions at higher volume crossings Yan et al., 2010 Hierarchical regression model STOP vs. Crossbucks STOP signs varying crash rate reductions at different conditions Raub, 2006 Descriptive statistics STOP signs vs. Crossbucks STOP signs 60% higher crash rates by comparison STOP signs 28% higher crash rates by comparison Mok and Savage, 2005 Negative binomial Active vs. passive controls Active controls Lower crash frequencies Raub, 2009 Descriptive statistics Active (gates and flashing lights) vs. passive controls (STOP and Crossbuck signs) Gates 4.1 crashes per 10 MCV Flashing lights 5.1 crashes per 10 MCV STOP signs 37.4 crashes per 10 MCV Park and Saccomanno, 2005 Poisson regression Gates vs. passive signs (vs. passive signs) CMF = 0.34