Authors: Iman Mahdinia, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Researcher, SafeTREC, University of California, Berkeley; Julia B. Griswold, Ph.D., Director, SafeTREC, University of California, Berkeley; Rafael Unda, Graduate Student Researcher, SafeTREC, University of California, Berkeley; Soheil Sohrabi, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Researcher, SafeTREC, University of California, Berkeley; Offer Grembek, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, SafeTREC, University of California, Berkeley.
Abstract:
The escalating number of injuries and fatalities among cyclists is a pressing safety concern. In the United States,
communities are actively seeking strategies to boost cyclist safety, with some states implementing bike-specific policies,
such as stop-as-yield laws, to support cyclists. Stop-as-yield laws allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. The laws
are not yet widely implemented, and their potential safety impact is a subject of debate among transportation experts and
advocates. This study investigates how stop-as-yield laws can positively or negatively affect safety and provides insights
and guidelines for California policymakers and safety practitioners if the law passes in California. We collected cyclist data
from five states that have enacted stop-as-yield laws—Idaho, Arkansas, Oregon, Washington and Delaware—and data
from some of their contiguous states without such legislation. Using an observational before-after study with comparison
groups at the state level, the research examined changes in cyclist crash frequencies after the laws were implemented.
Additionally, a random-effects negative binomial regression model with panel data was employed to estimate a law’s
overall impact. The results did not indicate a significant change in cyclist crashes among the states with stop-as-yield laws.
Read the report: https://doi.org/10.7922/G2M9070W