Public Roads: A Journal of Highway Research and Development, Vol. 47 No. 3

Rosenbaum, Merton J.; Richter, Richard A.; Fegan, John C.; Lum, Harry; Roberts, King; DiMarco, Richard J.; Allen, R. Wade; Kragh, Brenda C. · 1983 · ROSA P / United States. Government Printing Office

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper reviews historical research regarding the safety and operational effects of replacing STOP signs with YIELD signs at intersections. The study was motivated by the potential for YIELD signs to reduce energy consumption, traffic delay, and air pollution compared to STOP signs, while addressing concerns about whether such replacements compromise safety. The author examines accident experience data from the introduction of the YIELD sign in 1951 through the early 1980s to provide background for a proposed nationwide study by the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The review synthesizes findings from various jurisdictions and studies, including early implementations in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Santa Ana, California; and Berkeley, California, as well as broader analyses from Indiana, Kentucky, Florida, New York, and Texas. The paper also incorporates data on driver compliance rates from 1931 to 1981, severity indexes for different traffic controls, and operational costs related to travel time and vehicle stops. Key metrics analyzed include accident frequency, accident severity, driver behavior (full stops vs. rolling stops), and economic impacts such as highway agency costs and road user savings. The findings indicate that installing YIELD signs at previously uncontrolled intersections consistently reduced accidents. However, results were mixed when YIELD signs replaced existing STOP signs. Accident reductions occurred when YIELD signs controlled lower-volume legs with good sight distance, but accidents increased when YIELD signs were placed on higher-volume legs or where visibility was poor. A 1981 study of 140 low-volume intersections found that control type had no appreciable effect on accident experience, but STOP signs significantly increased travel time and operating costs compared to YIELD signs. Data showed that STOP signs resulted in higher severity indexes and more rear-end collisions than YIELD signs. Economically, converting to YIELD control was always cost-effective, whereas converting to STOP control was not. The paper concludes that many existing STOP signs could be converted to YIELD signs without sacrificing safety, provided specific criteria regarding traffic volume, approach speed, and sight distance are met. The author highlights a lack of comprehensive data to establish clear national guidelines, noting that driver comprehension and compliance remain challenges. Consequently, the Federal Highway Administration proposes a large-scale safety and operational study to determine the scope of the problem and develop standardized criteria for replacing STOP signs with YIELD signs based on solid accident and operational experience.

Key finding

Replacing STOP signs with YIELD signs is generally more cost-effective and reduces travel time, but safety outcomes vary depending on traffic volume distribution and sight distance.

Methodology

review

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• signage environment
• sign visibility legibility
• rail grade crossings
• roadway lighting effects
• perceptual countermeasures
• emergency work zone conspicuity