INTERSECTION CONTROL AND ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE IN RURAL MICHIGAN

A study has been conducted in selected counties of Texas, New York, and Florida to investigate the use and need for stop control at low volume intersections. The findings of the study were as follows: (1) stop signs do not reduce accident experience at low volume intersections, and (2) stop signs are being used even where there is adequate sight distance. However, the sample size in this study was small--only 140 intersections. This article reports on a similar, but more extensive, study conducted in rural Michigan. In the Michigan study sample of almost 900 low volume nonsignalized intersections, 96 percent were stop controlled. Other findings from the Michigan study are as follows: (a) stop signs are being used where there is adequate sight distance; (b) there is no relationship between the number of approaches on the minor roadway and accident experience for major volume under 1,000 vpd; and, (c) accident experience at stop controlled intersections is neither better nor worse than at uncontrolled intersections under 1,000 vpd. The findings of the Michigan study substantiated those of the Texas, New York and Florida study. The results of both studies suggest that the extensive use of stop control at rural intersections may not be necessary.