TECHBRIEF Investigating Improvements 

to Pedestrian Crossings with 

an Emphasis on the 

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing 

Beacon

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-15-044

FHWA Contact: Ann Do, HRDS-30, (202) 493-3319, 

ann.do@dot.gov

This document is a technical summary of the 

Federal Highway Administration report Investigating 

Improvements to Pedestrian Crossings with an Emphasis 

on the Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (FHWAHRT-15-043). 

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this research effort was to improve pedestrian 

safety at urban and suburban crossing locations by identifying and evaluating low- to medium-cost pedestrian 

treatments. The treatments were to have the potential to 

reduce pedestrian crashes at both midblock and intersection locations. While several treatments were considered 

during early efforts of this project, later tasks focused on 

the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB). The RRFB 

has received extensive national attention because of high 

yielding rates observed at multiple installations, and several studies have found increased driver yielding after 

installing this device. 

The key research effort for this study included a closedcourse study and an open-road study. The objectives of 

the closed-course study were as follows:

• Determine whether the shape, size, and placement of 

flashing beacons/light-emitting diodes (LEDs) affect 

sign legibility distances and object detection. 

• Determine driver ratings of disability glare for 8-inch 

circular beacons and LED-embedded signs using a 

rapid flash pattern.

Research, Development, and 

Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

www.fhwa.dot.gov/research
2

• Identify up to two assemblies for field 

evaluation to be conducted following 

the conclusion of the closed-course 

tasks.

The objectives of the open-road study were 

as follows:

• Determine whether drivers yielded 

differently to circular or rectangular 

beacons when used with a rapidflashing pattern.

• Determine to what extent, if any, 

a driver is more likely to yield to a 

pedestrian when the rapid-flashing 

beacon is activated than when it is not 

activated.

• Determine whether vehicle traffic 

volume affects driver yielding.

INTRODUCTION

Several methods have been used to 

emphasize the presence of a pedestrian in 

a crossing, including methods with beacons or embedded LEDs. A device that has 

received national attention is the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon. On July 16, 

2008, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) provided interim approval (IA-11) 

for the optional use of the RRFB.(1) FHWA 

approved the use of this device at pedestrian and school crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches. As defined in IA-11, “An 

RRFB shall consist of two rapidly and alternately flashing rectangular yellow indications having LED-array based pulsing light 

sources, and shall be designed, located, and 

operated in accordance with the detailed 

requirements specified [within the interim 

approval].”(1)

The Signals Technical Committee of the 

National Committee on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (NCUTCD) makes recommendations to FHWA regarding the provisions of Part 4 of the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). They are 

interested in research and/or assistance in 

developing material on the RRFB for inclusion in future editions of the MUTCD. Earlier 

research studies did not address certain 

issues that the Signals Technical Committee 

believes to be important to crafting language suitable for creating a uniform standard. The Signals Technical Committee 

sought advice on several issues, including 

the following: 

• Do the housings have to be rectangular? 

• Will circular-shaped housings achieve 

the same effect?

As a result of FHWA providing interim 

approval (IA-11) for the optional use of RRFBs 

and the NCUTCD’s interest in addressing 

issues such as beacon shape, this research 

focused on RRFBs and circular rapid-flashing beacons (CRFB). 

METHODOLOGY

Early Tasks

Efforts within the initial phase of this project included a comprehensive literature 

review of pedestrian treatments being used 

at unsignalized intersections. A review of 

pedestrian crash datasets was conducted 

to document the characteristics, circumstances, and contributing factors for crashes 

at midblock pedestrian crossings and to 

assess the suitability of these databases for 

any safety evaluations to be conducted in 

the research. 

Pedestrian crash data from a variety of 

sources were reviewed—including data 

from the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System (FARS), and General Estimates 
3

System, and from the State datasets of 

California, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Texas, and Washington—to document the 

characteristics, circumstances, and contributing factors for crashes at midblock pedestrian crossings. The FARS data included 

only pedestrian fatalities; the other datasets 

included pedestrian crashes of all severity levels. Key findings from the datasets 

include the following:

• The proportion of total pedestrian 

crashes that occurred at midblock 

locations ranged from 29 to 73 percent.

• Of the midblock crashes, 0.7 to 

5.0 percent occurred at midblock 

crosswalks.

• FARS data indicate that nearly onethird of the midblock pedestrian 

fatalities that do not occur at midblock 

pedestrian crosswalks occurred near 

midblock pedestrian crosswalks. 

(None of the other datasets included a 

category for pedestrian crashes near, 

but not at, a pedestrian crosswalk.)

Closed-Course Study

The closed-course study was designed to 

investigate the ability of a driver to detect 

an object (box, trash can, or pedestrian) 

placed about 3 ft beyond a beacon assembly 

for different combinations of beacon shape 

(circular or rectangular), size (8 or 12 inches 

in diameter for the circular), and placement 

(above or below sign). Participants drove 

two laps, and the signs and objects were 

changed between laps. 

One of the objectives of the closed-course 

research effort was to identify assemblies 

for open-road evaluation. It should be 

emphasized that the variables measured in 

the closed-course study are not surrogates 

for driver yielding, which was measured 

in the open-road study. Legibility distance, 

detection distance, and discomfort glare 

were used to help the research team determine which assemblies had the best potential for study in an open-road environment.

The study included 71 participants approximately evenly distributed among males 

over 55 years, females over 55 years, males 

under 55 years, and females under 55 years. 

Within each of those demographic groups, 

researchers sought an even distribution 

between those who drove during the day 

and those who drove at night and between 

those who drove Lap A first and those who 

drove Lap B first. Each participant drove the 

course twice, with a pause between laps 

for the field crew to switch the signs and 

objects. After the participants completed 

the driving portion of the study, they were 

directed to the discomfort glare portion of 

the study. 

The tasks for the participants while driving 

the route were to indicate when they could 

first perform the following actions:

• See warning lights.

• See road signs.

• Read the words or identify the symbol 

on the road signs.

• See objects (box, trash can, or 

pedestrian). 

As soon as the driver said “lights,” “sign,” or 

“object,” or read the words/numbers/symbol 

on a road sign, the experimenter pressed a 

key on the laptop computer, which placed a 

mark in the file to indicate an event. 

At the beginning of the discomfort glare 

study, researchers asked the participants to 

park 250 ft away from the first sign. After 
4

the participant parked the vehicle, researchers turned on the beacon and asked the participant to indicate whether the brightness 

(more formally known as luminous intensity) of the light is comfortable, irritating, or 

unbearable, defined as follows:

• Comfortable—the glare is not annoying 

and the device is easy to look at.

• Irritating—the glare is uncomfortable; 

however, the participant is still able to 

look at it without the urge to look away.

• Unbearable—the glare is so intense 

that the participant wants to avoid 

looking at it.

After the participant rated the first level, 

a technician increased the brightness. This 

process continued until the participant indicated that the brightness was unbearable 

or the technician reached level 6 on the 

controller, which was the highest setting for 

the device. This process was then repeated 

at 150 ft for sign 1, 250 ft for sign 2, and 

150 ft for sign 2.

Open-Road Study

Because of the common use of the RRFB 

below the pedestrian crossing sign, it was 

considered the baseline device and was 

selected for inclusion in the open-road 

study. The suggested alternative was the 

12-inch circular beacons located below the 

sign. During the closed-course study, the 

circular treatment had longer sign legibility distances during the night and longer 

object detection distances during both day 

and night as compared with other assembles. The open-road study was designed 

to investigate (a) whether drivers yield differently to circular or rectangular beacons 

when used with a rapid-flashing pattern, (b) 

whether a driver is more likely to yield to 

a pedestrian when the rapid-flashing beacon is activated than when it is not activated, and (c) whether vehicle traffic volume affects driver yielding. Table 1 lists the 

characteristics of the 12 sites located in four 

Site

Posted 

Speed Limit 

(mi/h)

Total 

Crossing 

Distance (ft)

Crossing 

Distance to 

Refuge (ft)

Calculated 

Daily Traffic 

(veh/day)

Advance 

Yield Lines?

Number of 

Lanes

Presence of 

Median

AU-01 35 44 44 17,732 No 4 None

AU-02 30 56 22 9,096 No 3 Raised

CS-01 30 48 48 2,130 No 2 None

CS-02 40 60 60 16,496 Yes 4 TWLTL

FG-01 35 84 31.5 23,008 No 4 Raised

FG-02 30 55 21 19,297 No 2 Raised

FG-03 35 76 28.5 14,590 No 4 Raised

MK-04 30 39 39 7,238 No 2 None

MK-05 30 40 40 6,883 No 4 None

MK-06 30 80 31 13,312 No 4 Raised

MK-07 30 98 42 11,401 No 6 Raised

MK-08 30 49 49 10,117 No 4 None

Table 1. Open-road study site characteristics.

TWLTL = Two-way left-turn lane.
5

cities (Milwaukee, WI; Flagstaff, AZ; Austin, 

TX; and College Station, TX) included in the 

study. Figure 1 shows an example of one of 

the CRFBs included in the open-road study, 

while figure 2 shows one of the RRFBs.

RESULTS

Closed-Course Study

The evaluation of the driving portion of 

the study focused on the legibility distance 

for the study assemblies (i.e., the distance 

away from the sign when the participant 

could correctly state the words or symbol on 

the sign), the detection distance to objects, 

and the accuracy of detecting the objects. 

The discomfort glare evaluation focused 

on participants’ ratings of discomfort for an 

LED-embedded sign assembly and two circular 8-inch beacons, each with six different 

levels of intensity. 

Key Findings Regarding Legibility Distance

For the analysis that focused on the legibility distance, which is the distance between 

the sign and the participant when the participant reads the message on the sign, results 

were generally as expected and indicate the 

following:

• The legibility distance for signs during 

the day is greater than the legibility 

distance for signs at night.

• Younger driver legibility distance 

is greater than older driver legibility 

distance, indicating that future studies 

will also need to consider older 

participants.

• The type of assembly was significant at 

night and nearly significant during the 

day, suggesting that the effects of the 

beacons/LEDs on reading the message 

on the sign are more influential during 

nighttime conditions.

Key Findings Regarding Object Detection 

Distance

Box plots were generated to show the 

range of distances at which participants 

detected various objects. Figure 3 shows 

box plots for the daytime data, while 

figure 4 shows the nighttime data box 

plots. The limits of the box plots are at the 

25th and 75th percentiles. The whiskers 

were drawn at 1.5 × the interquartile range, 

and the widths were drawn proportional to 

square root (number of observations). For 

Figure 1. A CRFB included in the open-road study.

Figure 2. An RRFB included in the open-road study.

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
6

Figure 4. Box plot of nighttime object detection distance by upstream condition.

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.

Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute.

Figure 3. Box plot of daytime object detection distance by upstream condition.
7

the analysis focusing on object detection 

distance, results indicated the following: 

• As expected, there is a significant 

difference between day and night object 

detection distances. For example, the 

day detection distance to a pedestrian 

was, on average, 911 ft with a standard 

deviation of 539  ft. At night, the 

pedestrian detection distance was 

quite different, with a mean distance 

of 116 ft and standard deviation of 

93 ft. For comparison, stopping sight 

distance for 35 mi/h is 250 ft and for 

45 mi/h is 360 ft.

• Similar to legibility distance, there was 

a statistically significant difference 

because of age during the daytime, 

although the same finding did not occur 

at night. The nighttime condition seems 

to impede detection to a point that the 

effects of several variables were too 

small to detect in the experiment.

• Certain assemblies were associated 

with shorter object detection 

distances. For daytime conditions, the 

detection distance to an object was 

shorter for RRFB below the sign than 

with 8- or 12-inch circular beacons 

below the sign or with RRFB above 

the sign (statistically significant). 

During the nighttime, the detection 

distance to an object was shorter with 

the RRFB than with the 12-inch circular 

beacon (statistically significant). These 

findings indicate that characteristics 

of the RRFB, such as the light intensity 

or the location of the beacon beneath 

the sign, might negatively affect the 

driver’s ability to see an object.

Key Findings Regarding Object Detection 

Accuracy

For the analysis focusing on the accuracy 

of detecting objects, which considered the 

number of objects missed by the participants, results indicate the following:

• There is a significant difference in the 

probability of missing objects between 

daytime and nighttime conditions. 

What was not expected was the 

magnitude of the difference. Overall, 

during the day, participants missed 

pedestrians/trash cans 1 time out of 23, 

while the miss rate at night was more 

frequent, with participants missing 1 in 

5 pedestrians/trash cans. 

• For both daytime and nighttime 

conditions, the shape of the beacon 

did not matter; a similar probability 

of missing the object was present 

whether the beacons were circular or 

rectangular.

• The location of the beacons (above or 

below the sign) was significant during 

the day but not at night. During the day, 

participants were less likely to miss an 

object when the beacons were above 

the sign.

Key Findings for Discomfort Glare Study

The data show that for all devices at all 

distances, the percentage of participants 

indicating that the brightness of the lights 

from the beacons/LEDs is comfortable goes 

down as brightness increases, and the percentage of participants indicating that the 

discomfort glare is unbearable increases as 

brightness increases. These findings indicate that agencies should focus on meeting 

minimum intensity and place less emphasis 

on obtaining the brightest devices possible.

Direction for Open-Road Study

Based on the findings from the closedcourse study and primarily on the object 

detection distance results, two assemblies 

were selected for testing on the open road: 

rectangular beacons located below the sign 
8

and the 12-inch circular beacons located 

below the sign.

Open-Road Study

Both rectangular beacons and circular beacons were installed at the 12 sites. In half of 

the sites, the circular beacons were installed 

first, while the rectangular beacons were 

installed first in the other half of the sites. 

The same flash pattern was used regardless of whether the beacons were circular 

or rectangular. The research team used a 

staged pedestrian protocol to collect driver 

yielding data to ensure that oncoming drivers receive a consistent presentation of 

approaching pedestrians. 

Shape

Because a previous study that included 

RRFBs found that posted speed limit, 

crossing distance, and city influenced 

driver yielding, the initial analyses were 

conducted with those variables along with 

ADT, treatment rotation order, and beacon 

shape.(2,3) An indicator variable for nighttime conditions was included in the final 

model to determine whether nighttime 

results were significantly different from 

daytime results. Average daytime yielding 

was 63 percent for CRFBs and 59 percent 

for RRFBs, suggesting that there are only 

minor, if any, differences between the two 

beacon shapes. The results from the generalized linear mixed model also indicate 

that there are no significant differences 

between the two beacon shapes. 

Brightness

For a subset of the sites, the brightness of 

the beacons was measured. For those sites, 

there is evidence of an increasing yielding 

rate with increasing intensity at night. The 

trend is in the same direction during the 

day but with a smaller magnitude that the 

analysis found statistically insignificant.

Activation of Beacon

An analysis was also conducted to determine the extent to which the presence of 

a flashing beacon influences driver yielding. Driver yielding rates were compared 

between pedestrian crossings when a beacon was and was not activated. The analysis 

included RRFBs and CRFBs, staged pedestrians and non-staged pedestrians, and 

daytime study periods. The results of 

the analysis concluded that a driver is 

3.7 times more likely to yield when the 

beacon is activated than when the beacon 

is not activated. 

Traffic Volume

Based on observations of driver behavior 

during the data collection, the research 

team conducted an analysis to determine 

whether driver yielding was influenced 

by other vehicles in the traffic stream. The 

objective of the analysis was to evaluate 

the relationship between traffic volume and 

driver yielding rate. The results of the analysis concluded that traffic volume was not 

significant, suggesting that driver yielding 

behavior was not influenced by traffic volume present at the sites.

CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION

In conclusion, the results of the study show 

that the shape of a yellow rapid-flashing 

beacon does not have an impact on whether 

a driver yields to a pedestrian. The study 

also revealed that a driver is nearly four 

times as likely to yield when a beacon has 

been activated as when it has not been activated. Other variables that had an impact 

on driver yielding include beacon intensity (for nighttime) and city. (Yielding was 

higher in Flagstaff compared with the other 

cities included in the study.) Several studies 

have found increased driver yielding after 

installing CRFBs/RRFBs, as summarized in 

table 2 and table 3. The findings from this 

FHWA study are also included in table 2.
9

Study Number of Sites Driver Yielding1 Unique Characteristics of Study

2010 FHWA(4) 22 (most in St. 

Petersburg, FL) 72 to 96 percent (staged2

) Original study that included data for 

multiple years

2009 FHWA(5) 2 (Miami, FL) 55 to 60 percent daily (staged)

66 to 70 percent (staged)

Day and night

2009 Florida(6) 1 (St. Petersburg, FL) 35 percent overall

54 percent activated3 Trail crossing

2011 Texas(7) 1 (Garland, TX) 80 percent (staged) School, overhead

2011 Oregon(8) 3 (Bend, OR) 74 to 83 percent (staged) 2 sites had 45-mi/h posted speed limit

2013 California(9) 2 (Santa Monica, CA) See table 3. 2 sites where the RRFB and CRFB were 

rotated (data available for a third rotation 

where back plates were changed)

2013 Calgary(10) 6 (Calgary, AB, Canada) 98 percent (staged) Before installing RRFBs, the yielding was 

83 percent (type of before treatment not 

provided)

2014 Michigan(11) 1 (South Lyon Township, 

MI)

69 percent (staged) Comparison with no signs (20 percent), 

gateway in-street signs (80 percent), 

combination of gateway and RRFBs 

(85 percent)

2014 Texas(2,3) 22 (most in Garland, TX) 34 to 92 percent (staged) Significant variables: city, posted speed 

limit, crossing distance, one/two way

2014 FHWA (this 

study)

12 daytime and 4 

nighttime (Austin and 

College Station, TX; 

Flagstaff, AZ; Milwaukee, 

WI)

Daytime (staged):

RRFG: 22 to 98 percent

CRFB: 36 to 95 percent

Nighttime (staged):

RRFB: 53 to 95 percent

CRFB: 52 to 89 percent

Study compared yielding to beacon with 

circular and rectangular shapes.

Data were collected at night.

1

Range provided shows the average driver yielding for the sites included in the study as reported by the authors. See study 

references for details regarding study methodology and whether the findings are significant.

2

Staged pedestrian was used to collect the data.

3

Finding reported for when the device was activated (i.e., pedestrian pushed the pushbutton).

FHWA = Federal Highway Administration.

RRFB = Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon.

CRFB = Circular rapid-flashing beacon.

Table 2. Overview of driver yielding results from several RRFB studies.

Shape Light Range when activated1,2 Range when not activated1

RRFB Day 80–85 percent 58–73 percent

CRFB Day 63–92 percent 57–83 percent

RRFB Night 80–95 percent 35–60 percent

CRFB Night 65–90 percent 35–80 percent

RRFB Dusk 80–85 percent 65–85 percent

CRFB Dusk 55–100 percent 20–75 percent

Table 3. Overview of driver yielding results from 2013 California study.(9)

1

Staged pedestrian was used to collect the data.

2

Findings reported for when the device was activated (i.e., pedestrian pushed the pushbutton).

RRFB = Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon.

CRFB = Circular rapid-flashing beacon.
10

The brightness of the beacons can help draw 

a driver’s attention to a device and the area 

around the device. It can also result in drivers looking away from the device because 

the brightness is irritating or unbearable. 

As the brightness of the beacons on a traffic 

control device increases, the probability of 

a driver indicating that the discomfort glare 

is unbearable increases. When the discomfort glare is unbearable, drivers are more 

likely to divert their eyes away from the discomfort, which might result in drivers missing the identification of conflicts or hazards located near the glare source. Further 

research is needed to identify appropriate/

maximum brightness for RRFBs. Guidance 

is also needed on whether to dim these 

devices during low light conditions and, if 

so, by how much.

The closed-course study demonstrated 

that fewer objects were missed when the 

beacons were located above the sign. 

It also found that both the daytime and 

nighttime detection distance was shorter, 

which is less desirable, to objects beyond an 

assembly with two rectangular beacons 

below the sign as compared with other 

selected assemblies. Therefore, based on 

these findings, having the rectangular beacons located above the sign rather than 

below the sign should be studied in an 

open-road setting.

REFERENCES

1. Furst, A. (2008) MUTCD—Interim 

Approval for Optional Use of 

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons 

(IA-11), Memorandum, Federal Highway 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, July 16, Washington, DC.

2. Fitzpatrick, K., Iragavarapu, V., Brewer, 

M.A., Lord, D., Hudson, J., Avelar, R. and 

Robertson, J. (2014), Characteristics of 

Texas Pedestrian Crashes and Evaluation 

of Driver Yielding at Pedestrian 

Treatments, FHWA/TX-14/0-6702-1.

3. Fitzpatrick, K., Brewer, M., and Avelar, R. 

(2014) “Driver Yielding to Traffic Control 

Signals, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, and 

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons in 

Texas,” Transportation Research Record: 

Journal of the Transportation Research 

Board, No. 2463, Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, DC.

4. Shurbutt, J., and Van Houten, R. 

(2010), Effects of Yellow Rectangular 

Rapid-Flashing Beacons on Yielding at 

Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks, 

Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-043, 

Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC.

5. Pécheux, K., Bauer, J., and McLeod, P. 

(2009), Pedestrian Safety Engineering 

and ITS-Based Countermeasures 

Program for Reducing Pedestrian 

Fatalities, Injury Conflicts, and Other 

Surrogate Measures Final System 

Impact Report, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC.

6. Hunter, W.W., Srinivasan, R., and Martell, 

C.A. (2009), Evaluation of the Rectangular 

Rapid Flash Beacon at a Pinellas Trail 

Crossing in St. Petersburg, Florida, 

Florida Department of Transportation, 

Tallahassee, FL.

7. Brewer, M.A., Fitzpatrick, K., Larson, 

G.W., and Minter, H. (2011), Beforeand-After Study of the Effectiveness of 

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons 

used with School Sign in Garland, 

Texas, Technical Memorandum to City of 

Garland Department of Transportation, 

Texas Transportation Institute, College 

Station, TX.
11

MAY 2015 FHWA-HRT-15-044

HRDS-30/05-15(WEB)E

Researchers—This study was performed by Kay Fitzpatrick, Raul Avelar, Ingrid Potts, Marcus Brewer, 

James Robertson, Chris Fees, Jessica Hutton, Lindsay Lucas, and Karin Bauer. For more information 

about this research, contact the Principal Investigator of the study, Dr. Kay Fitzpatrick, Texas A&M 

Transportation Institute, 2935 Research Parkway, College Station, TX 77845-3135, 

k-fitzpatrick@tamu.edu.

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct 

distribution is being made to the Divisions and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained from the FHWA Product Distribution Center by e-mail to 

report.center@dot.gov, fax to (814) 239-2156, phone to (814) 239-1160, or online at

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research.

Key Words—Rectangular rapid-flashing beacon, circular rapid-flashing beacon, RRFB, CRFB, 

pedestrian crossing, driver yielding to pedestrians, discomfort glare, object detection distance

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability 

for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse 

products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because 

they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement—The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides highquality information to serve the Government, industry, and public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, 

and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and 

processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

8. Ross, J., Serpico, D., and Lewis, R. 

(2011), Assessment of Driver Yielding 

Rates Pre- and Post-RRFB Installation, 

Bend, Oregon, Oregon Department of 

Transportation, Salem, OR.

9. Morrissey, S. (2013), Circular Rapid 

Flashing Beacons—Santa Monica, CA, 

Final Report for FHWA Item 4(09)-8(E), 

last accessed July 31, 2014, http://www.

dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/

ctcdc/exp/2013-04-24_Final_rpt_4(09)-8.

pdf.

10. Domarad, J., Grisak, P., and Bolger, J. 

(2013), Improving Crosswalk Safety: 

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons 

(RRFB) Trial in Calgary, Canada Institute 

of Transportation Compendium, 

available at: http://www.cite7.org/

conferences/compendium/2013_

Pedestrian_ImprovingCrosswalkSafety.

pdf.

11. Bennett, M.K., Manal, H., Van Houten, 

R. (2014), “A Comparison of Gateway 

In-Street Sign Configuration to Other 

Driver Prompts to Increase Yielding to 

Pedestrians at Crosswalks” Journal 

of Applied Behavior Analysis, available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

doi/10.1002/jaba.103/full.