HAWK Thread

[kphoger]

So what to make of all of this?  It seems that there is still significant driver confusion with regard to HAWK signals.

That may indeed be the case, but it's not a conclusion I can draw from this specific story.

You said yourself that nobody's even sure if the jogger had activated the HAWK beacon at all.

Nearby residents mentioned having had close calls, even when the beacon is activated.  Well, I've personally had close calls when crossing the street in a marked crosswalk with a lit WALK signal at a stoplight-controlled intersection, on multiple occasions–but that doesn't mean there is still significant driver confusion with regard to regular stoplights and crosswalks.

Old fashioned three-head signals are the solution and there's no reason the US should be so allergic to them.

As long as there is a phase that allows drivers to proceed immediately when the path is clear, then yes.  But, with normal steady R-G-Y phases, it's not really equivalent.

[Big John]

Old fashioned three-head signals are the solution and there's no reason the US should be so allergic to them.

As long as there is a phase that allows drivers to proceed immediately when the path is clear, then yes.  But, with normal steady R-G-Y phases, it's not really equivalent.

Does California still have a flashing red signal for those?

[fwydriver405]

Old fashioned three-head signals are the solution and there's no reason the US should be so allergic to them.

As long as there is a phase that allows drivers to proceed immediately when the path is clear, then yes.  But, with normal steady R-G-Y phases, it's not really equivalent.

Does California still have a flashing red signal for those?

You mean this kind of phasing? Not sure if the LA "PED XING" signals even have a steady red during the WALK phase. This is on 2nd St in Little Tokyo in Los Angeles CA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XGeAJT8utw

[Big John]

^^ Yes, that phasing.

[jakeroot]

I find it incredibly irritating that the "old style" LA crossing isn't the standard for signalized crossings everywhere: no blank displays, no stupid wig-wags, no enormous signs explaining everything; just regular phasing that everyone understands and would see on a regular basis.

The fact that the HAWK won out over this is astounding to me. Even LADOT is installing HAWKs now, even though they are already invented a far superior design decades ago. It's this kind of stuff that truly makes me question some engineers. Or whoever is running the show.

[SignBridge]

I think there are two factors driving the installation of HAWK signals. One is they are probably far cheaper to design/build than conventional signals so traffic agencies like it for that reason. And I wonder if maybe many traffic engineers are thinking too much like educated engineers, and not realizing how dumb the general public is. Maybe they don't understand that the average idiot driver on a cell phone won't understand what it is or how it works and what they're supposed to do in response to it.

Heck, I'm an educated driver and even I find it confusing compared to a regular traffic light.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

I feel like the main idea of the HAWK came from a huge aversion to updating the MUTCD signal warrants. It's not ok to alter the signal warrants even when there is a clear need to do so, so instead they invented a signal that's not a signal (a "beacon"). From an engineering and legal perspective the whole concept is shoddy and stupid, but it can be done because it's considered a new device in a separate part of the MUTCD and they don't need to go back and revise the scriptures.

[roadfro]

I find it incredibly irritating that the "old style" LA crossing isn't the standard for signalized crossings everywhere: no blank displays, no stupid wig-wags, no enormous signs explaining everything; just regular phasing that everyone understands and would see on a regular basis.

100% this.

I think there are two factors driving the installation of HAWK signals. One is they are probably far cheaper to design/build than conventional signals so traffic agencies like it for that reason.

There should be no discernible difference in design and installation of a HAWK crossing versus something like what LA used to install as depicted above. Both have the same amount of hardware and signal/beacon display sections, both need a signal controller, etc. There might be a slightly smaller operational cost for the HAWK because the default state doesn't have anything illuminated for the vehicles, so it may lead to less electricity usage and less replacement of bulbs since you don't have a steady green displaying most of the time (but that savings may be modest at best).

I feel like the main idea of the HAWK came from a huge aversion to updating the MUTCD signal warrants. It's not ok to alter the signal warrants even when there is a clear need to do so, so instead they invented a signal that's not a signal (a "beacon"). From an engineering and legal perspective the whole concept is shoddy and stupid, but it can be done because it's considered a new device in a separate part of the MUTCD and they don't need to go back and revise the scriptures.

You might be on to something. I think they adopted this in part because they could call this a beacon and install it easily at mid-block, non-intersection locations. Therefore, you don't have to rely on signal warrants for pedestrian crossings.

However, I think FHWA could have easily adopted an operation similar to LA's for this application and reworked aspects of the MUTCD to accommodate. It would have been much better to adopt a traditional signal head with known operational characteristics that drivers already (should) understand.

There are already agencies installing HAWKs at intersections now, which further muddies the application for this device. Would be much better to have full signalization in these cases to reduce ambiguity...

[fwydriver405]

There are already agencies installing HAWKs at intersections now, which further muddies the application for this device. Would be much better to have full signalization in these cases to reduce ambiguity...

PHB's at intersections? I've noticed New Hampshire has installed a few of these kinds of installs at what are 2-way stops...

In Londonderry, at Route 28 and Sanborn Rd - the drivers on Sanborn Rd often get confused on what to do, espeically when the PHB is solid red. Often times, the drivers turning left from EB Sanborn Rd to NH 28 South use this phase to make an easy left. When it flashes, technically it turns into an ALL WAY STOP but the people on 28 just sit there until it goes dark. However, lately I have been seeing a lot of blatant red light runners on 28 at this installation...

In Epping, on Route 125, what is essentially a 5-way intersection, much of the same behaviour happens as in Londonderry.

[Scott5114]

I feel like the main idea of the HAWK came from a huge aversion to updating the MUTCD signal warrants. It's not ok to alter the signal warrants even when there is a clear need to do so, so instead they invented a signal that's not a signal (a "beacon"). From an engineering and legal perspective the whole concept is shoddy and stupid, but it can be done because it's considered a new device in a separate part of the MUTCD and they don't need to go back and revise the scriptures.

Hell, given that most pedestrian signals are installed by municipal governments, who don't get a whole lot of funding from FHWA anyway, they could have just installed R-Y-G pedestrian signals and let FHWA cry about it. It's not like they've done anything to stop local governments from  installing thousands of stop signs that don't meet warrants.

[SignBridge]

Re: the above New Hampshire HAWK Beacons installed at intersections: this is contrary to the MUTCD recommendation that they be erected no closer than 100 ft. to a driveway or unsignalized side street. Note it is listed as a should, not a shall in the Manual so it's not a mandatory standard.

[wanderer2575]

There are already agencies installing HAWKs at intersections now, which further muddies the application for this device. Would be much better to have full signalization in these cases to reduce ambiguity...

In West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, a few roundabouts have HAWK signals (right at the point of the YIELD signs; talk about ambiguity) as a result of lawsuits alleging inadequate pedestrian accessibility.  Not that I've ever seen a pedestrian in West Bloomfield; those folks drive to the mailboxes at the bottom of their driveways.

Example:  https://goo.gl/maps/Ha46u9GqiPweMVLs5

[SignBridge]

Well again, that Michigan installation does not follow the 100 ft. recommendation in the MUTCD. If you were to ask the local traffic engineers about it, my guess is you would get the standard treatment of: "The Manual was never intended to substitute for engineering judgment.......... And we felt that the HAWK installed at that location will give adequate service, etc, etc."

And they could be right. After all they are professional engineers and we are not. They take into account various factors that don't occur to many of us, so it's all good...........I guess. 

[jakeroot]

I'd like to know which engineering judgement decided that things that look just like signals are allowed to not be treated as an all-way stop when dark. That remains one of the more frustrating aspects of HAWKs, at least to me.

Of course, the argument is simple. It's not a signal, it's a beacon. Okay. Well, maybe we can make it look less like a signal? Renton, WA has quite a few HAWKs. All of them have all-yellow backs like most signals in the city, but this one is all yellow, even on the front. Makes it look a little less like a regular signal and more like a beacon:


New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA by Jacob Root, on Flickr

[JoePCool14]

I'd like to know which engineering judgement decided that things that look just like signals are allowed to not be treated as an all-way stop when dark. That remains one of the more frustrating aspects of HAWKs, at least to me.

Of course, the argument is simple. It's not a signal, it's a beacon. Okay. Well, maybe we can make it look less like a signal? Renton, WA has quite a few HAWKs. All of them have all-yellow backs like most signals in the city, but this one is all yellow, even on the front. Makes it look a little less like a regular signal and more like a beacon:


New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA by Jacob Root, on Flickr

You could argue that the T-shape of the lights distinguishes it from RYG signals which are in a straight line (with the exception of doghouses).

[jakeroot]

I'd like to know which engineering judgement decided that things that look just like signals are allowed to not be treated as an all-way stop when dark. That remains one of the more frustrating aspects of HAWKs, at least to me.

Of course, the argument is simple. It's not a signal, it's a beacon. Okay. Well, maybe we can make it look less like a signal? Renton, WA has quite a few HAWKs. All of them have all-yellow backs like most signals in the city, but this one is all yellow, even on the front. Makes it look a little less like a regular signal and more like a beacon:


New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA by Jacob Root, on Flickr

You could argue that the T-shape of the lights distinguishes it from RYG signals which are in a straight line (with the exception of doghouses).

We can as roadgeeks, yes. But to the public, I doubt most could distinguish a difference. Plus, T-shaped signals do exist. I don't know of an example near me, but double red signals are a thing.

[kphoger]

I'd like to know which engineering judgement decided that things that look just like signals are allowed to not be treated as an all-way stop when dark. That remains one of the more frustrating aspects of HAWKs, at least to me.

Side note...   Pet peeve...   You don't have to stop at a stoplight that's dark as long as the signals are turned away from the road or covered up.  Great, but how can you tell that such is the case after dark?  Especially how can you tell if they've been covered by black plastic?

[SignBridge]

Jakeroot and Kphoger; I agree with you guys. The HAWK signals being dark is in direct conflict with the Manual's policy that signals must never be completely dark, one color or another has to be lit. And as far as the engineers calling it a beacon instead of a signal, well that's a joke. 'Cause no way the public knows the difference. That is definitely an issue.

The only "signals" that I know of that are normally permitted to be dark are railroad crossings and I believe some drawbridge signals that are a vertical wig-wag version of a railroad signal. There is also an Emergency Vehicle-Hybrid Beacon similar to the HAWK that is kept dark between activations. And let's not forget Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals too.

[jamess]

I feel like the main idea of the HAWK came from a huge aversion to updating the MUTCD signal warrants. It's not ok to alter the signal warrants even when there is a clear need to do so, so instead they invented a signal that's not a signal (a "beacon"). From an engineering and legal perspective the whole concept is shoddy and stupid, but it can be done because it's considered a new device in a separate part of the MUTCD and they don't need to go back and revise the scriptures.

Yup engineers love to get caught in these circular argument traps. "We cant do that because we cant do that"

[rickmastfan67]

I'd like to know which engineering judgement decided that things that look just like signals are allowed to not be treated as an all-way stop when dark. That remains one of the more frustrating aspects of HAWKs, at least to me.

Of course, the argument is simple. It's not a signal, it's a beacon. Okay. Well, maybe we can make it look less like a signal? Renton, WA has quite a few HAWKs. All of them have all-yellow backs like most signals in the city, but this one is all yellow, even on the front. Makes it look a little less like a regular signal and more like a beacon:


New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA by Jacob Root, on Flickr

Simple solution, paint them PINK or PURPLE.

[MASTERNC]

It looks NJ might be using HAWK signals...for a firehouse.  I saw new signals covered up on US 206 south of Bordentown.  The accompanying signage said to stop on flashing red.

[SignBridge]

As I noted in my above post, it might be an Emergency Vehicle-Hybrid Beacon which is similar to a HAWK Beacon. See the MUTCD Section 4G.04, on page 514.

[kphoger]

Jakeroot and Kphoger; I agree with you guys. The HAWK signals being dark is in direct conflict with the Manual's policy that signals must never be completely dark, one color or another has to be lit. And as far as the engineers calling it a beacon instead of a signal, well that's a joke. 'Cause no way the public knows the difference. That is definitely an issue.

The only "signals" that I know of that are normally permitted to be dark are railroad crossings and I believe some drawbridge signals that are a vertical wig-wag version of a railroad signal. There is also an Emergency Vehicle-Hybrid Beacon similar to the HAWK that is kept dark between activations. And let's not forget Freeway Entrance Ramp Control Signals too.

To play the Devil's advocate...

If this beacon were dark, do you really think drivers should come to a complete stop?  I'm guessing not, because you know as well as I do that drivers distinguish between beacons and stoplights all the time.

Which brings up an interesting question...  Where mid-block crosswalks are controlled by a standard RYG stoplight (here, for example), are all drivers required to stop when they're dark due to power outage?  It seems to me that there should be a distinction in the law between intersections and mid-block crosswalks when it comes to dark signals, but I suspect there isn't.

[PurdueBill]

This half the HAWK on one side of the intersection, half on the other takes the cake for inappropriate HAWKs at intersections.  Can you imagine being on the side street at the STOP sign, used to seeing a flashing Don't Walk meaning that cross traffic would have a red light and pulling out, only to meet someone proceeding on the wigwag red?  Madness! 
West Lafayette was dying to get SR 26 off this stretch so they could install stuff like this. 

[SignBridge]

That's a total mis-application of the HAWK signal. Trying to use it as an intersection signal, though the MUTCD recommends they not be installed within 100 ft. of an intersection. Also in this case the heads are positioned across the intersection, which is not normal for a HAWK. It should be at the first crosswalk, though the Manual does not specifically say that. The Manual assumes the signal to be at a mid-block location, not an intersection.