Safety Evaluation of Stop-Sign Mounted Beacons—A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Agencies in Iowa have utilized both overhead flashing beacons and stop-sign mounted beacons. Although several studies have shown that overhead flashing beacons are effective, some concerns have been raised about driver confusion. The main concern is that a driver may interpret a multiface flashing beacon with a red indication for their approach as an all-way stop control. As a result, the Iowa DOT has been advocating use of stop-sign mounted beacons rather than overhead flashing beacons. Since little information is available about this countermeasure, data for intersections with (treatment) and without (control) stop-sign mounted beacons were identified and a cross-sectional analysis conducted (due to few confirmable installation dates). Rural stop-controlled intersections with stop-sign mounted beacons in Iowa (USA) were identified (40 in total). Intersection characteristics such as number of approaches, intersection angle etc. were extracted. Additionally, characteristics of individual approaches such as roadway surface (gravel/paved), advanced stop-sign rumble strips, and advance signing were recorded. One or more control locations were manually selected for each treatment intersection based on matching roadway configuration, presence of lighting, advance stop line rumble strips, number of approaches, channelization, traffic volume, and proximity. Propensity scores were estimated to match 40 control locations for comparison. Negative binomial models for different injury combinations at nighttime and daytime were developed with an indicator variable for presence and absence of stop-sign mounted beacons. Presence of stop-sign mounted beacons was associated with a 5% - 54% reduction in nighttime crashes. Injury nighttime crashes decreased by 54% and total nighttime crashes reduced by 18%.