Research Reports
Parent: Safe Transportation Research & Education Center
eScholarship stats: Breakdown by Item for December, 2024 through March, 2025
| Item | Title | Total requests | Download | View-only | %Dnld |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64h2s9cj | Evaluate the Safety Effects of Adopting a Stop-as-Yield Law for Cyclists in California | 162 | 45 | 117 | 27.8% |
| 01t1w86c | Safe Routes for Older Adults | 131 | 14 | 117 | 10.7% |
| 0jq5h6f5 | Evaluating Research on Data Linkage to Assess Underreporting of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Injury in Police Crash Data | 126 | 25 | 101 | 19.8% |
| 5455454c | Safe Routes to School Safety and Mobility Analysis | 116 | 17 | 99 | 14.7% |
| 3fh5q4dk | Oakland Chinatown Pedestrian Scramble: An Evaluation | 106 | 6 | 100 | 5.7% |
| 2n83w1q8 | Effectiveness of a Commercially Available Automated Pedestrian Counting Device in Urban Environments: Comparison with Manual Counts | 91 | 18 | 73 | 19.8% |
| 50m064zp | Space Syntax: An Innovative Pedestrian Volume Modeling Tool for Pedestrian Safety | 84 | 9 | 75 | 10.7% |
| 6gd9s0bf | Creating an Inclusive Bicycle Level of Service: Virtual Bicycle Simulator Study | 77 | 10 | 67 | 13.0% |
| 8qz8m4fz | Space Syntax: The Role of Urban Form in Cyclist Route Choice in Central London | 74 | 23 | 51 | 31.1% |
| 8m59g6vx | Ten Years Later: Examining the Long-Term Impact of the California Safe Routes to School Program | 68 | 8 | 60 | 11.8% |
| 11q5p33w | Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection | 65 | 37 | 28 | 56.9% |
| 57s5214g | A Comparative Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Around University Campuses | 65 | 19 | 46 | 29.2% |
| 88w8b8g3 | False Alarms and Human-Machine Warning Systems | 64 | 4 | 60 | 6.3% |
| 3zn9f4cr | Effects of Weather Variables on Pedestrian Volumes in Alameda County, California | 62 | 20 | 42 | 32.3% |
| 0p27154n | Estimating Pedestrian Accident Exposure: Automated Pedestrian Counting Devices Report | 61 | 21 | 40 | 34.4% |
| 5kn520zb | San Francisco PedSafe II Project Outcomes and Lessons Learned | 61 | 36 | 25 | 59.0% |
| 0c00b1j2 | Factors Associated with Hit-and-Run Pedestrian Fatalities and Driver Identification | 58 | 24 | 34 | 41.4% |
| 1h52s226 | Driver/Pedestrian Understanding and Behavior at Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks | 58 | 13 | 45 | 22.4% |
| 6n00x12d | Evaluation of Injury Severity Updates in California Collision Data | 58 | 1 | 57 | 1.7% |
| 8p7283gg | Assessing and Addressing the Mobility Needs of an Aging Population | 58 | 9 | 49 | 15.5% |
| 2g612244 | Health Impacts of the School Commute | 56 | 7 | 49 | 12.5% |
| 37m6x95t | Safe Routes to School Local School Project: A health evaluation at 10 low-income schools | 54 | 9 | 45 | 16.7% |
| 1m07078c | Traffic Safety in Communities of Color | 53 | 22 | 31 | 41.5% |
| 2nc3v9b0 | Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Strategies for UC Berkeley Campus and Periphery: Recommendations for Implementation | 52 | 13 | 39 | 25.0% |
| 5sm444jz | Develop a Plan to Collect Pedestrian Infrastructure and Volume Data for Future Incorporation into Caltrans Accident Surveillance and Analysis System Database | 52 | 13 | 39 | 25.0% |
| 61n3s4zr | Pedestrian Volume Modeling for Traffic Safety and Exposure Analysis: The Case of Boston, Massachusetts | 52 | 14 | 38 | 26.9% |
| 47t386cn | Gap acceptance for vehicles turning left across on-coming traffic: Implications for Intersection Decision Support design | 50 | 8 | 42 | 16.0% |
| 5ss288j8 | Identifying Factors that Determine Bicyclist and Pedestrian-Involved Collision Rates and Bicyclist and Pedestrian Demand at Multi-Lane Roundabouts | 50 | 11 | 39 | 22.0% |
| 7xn8m790 | Driver/Pedestrian Understanding and Behavior at Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks | 50 | 2 | 48 | 4.0% |
| 01p1d923 | Evaluation of Traffic and Environment Effects on Skid Resistance in California | 49 | 11 | 38 | 22.4% |
| 0201j0v2 | Intersection Decision Support Project: Taxonomy of Crossing-Path Crashes at Intersections Using GES 2000 Data | 48 | 10 | 38 | 20.8% |
| 10d0x1z7 | Dynamic Programming-based Pedestrian Hotspot Identification Approach | 46 | 7 | 39 | 15.2% |
| 1fx5g427 | Traffic Safety Among Latino Populations in California: Current Status and Policy Recommendations | 44 | 5 | 39 | 11.4% |
| 4n66p1rx | Driver and Pedestrian Behavior at Uncontrolled Crosswalks in the Tahoe Basin Recreation Area | 44 | 8 | 36 | 18.2% |
| 8978m2pn | Prehospital Response Time and Traumatic Injury—A Review | 43 | 2 | 41 | 4.7% |
| 9cn8d3nq | Pedestrian Volume Modeling for Traffic Safety and Exposure Analysis: | 43 | 12 | 31 | 27.9% |
| 0001n47j | Airports and Bicycles: what are the obstacles and incentives for operators 1 to improve bicycle access? | 41 | 11 | 30 | 26.8% |
| 0077b2vr | Safety and Other Impacts of Vehicle Impound Enforcement | 41 | 18 | 23 | 43.9% |
| 380855q6 | Pilot Models for Estimating Bicycle Intersection Volumes | 41 | 16 | 25 | 39.0% |
| 38z4d12n | Building a Highway Linear Referencing System from Preexisting Reference Marker Measurements for Transportation Data Management | 41 | 3 | 38 | 7.3% |
| 5498x882 | The Continuing Debate about Safety in Numbers—Data from Oakland, CA | 41 | 2 | 39 | 4.9% |
| 38v7z45z | Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Effects of the California Safe Routes to School Program | 40 | 5 | 35 | 12.5% |
| 0d48w4gz | Association between Roadway Intersection Characteristics and Pedestrian Crash Risk in Alameda County, California | 39 | 17 | 22 | 43.6% |
| 3nr8h66j | A Pilot Model for Estimating Pedestrian Intersection Crossing Volumes | 38 | 23 | 15 | 60.5% |
| 8455h5gq | Gap acceptance for vehicles turning left across on-coming traffic: Implications for Intersection Decision Support design | 38 | 12 | 26 | 31.6% |
| 208349wf | Pedestrian Counting Methods at Intersections: a Comparative Study | 37 | 13 | 24 | 35.1% |
| 3qk7z3br | Observational Study of Cell Phone and Texting Use Among California Drivers 2015 and Comparison to 2011 through 2014 Data | 37 | 5 | 32 | 13.5% |
| 8kb9s9wt | The Impact of COVID-19 on the Mobility Needs of an Aging Population in Contra Costa County | 37 | 1 | 36 | 2.7% |
| 1cm7z3rd | Safety Performance of High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Facilities: Evaluation of HOV Lane Configurations in California | 36 | 15 | 21 | 41.7% |
| 8j8685jt | Estimating Pedestrian Accident Exposure: Protocol Report | 36 | 20 | 16 | 55.6% |
Note: Due to the evolving nature of web traffic, the data presented here should be considered approximate and subject to revision. Learn more.