HAWKs make no sense to me. Consider the red wig-wag phase. On HAWKs, it indicates that you should stop and check if the coast is clear; then you can go (one car at a time). Elsewhere on the roads, a wig-wagging red means to stop immediately and only go when the light stops flashing. Or take the flashing yellow phase. On HAWKs, it's treated like a yellow light at a normal traffic light, meaning you need to slow down and stop. Elsewhere (and where drivers are more likely to encounter yellow flashing beacons), it means to proceed through the intersection with caution. Dark HAWK means go. Dark signal means stop. Pretty much all the HAWK's phases don't reflect what those phases mean elsewhere. Plus for foreigners or color-blind people, their operation is not intuitive. I've said it elsewhere on this forum, but I am honestly grateful that I learned about them on here before encountering one in real life; otherwise, I could've been extremely confused or caused an accident.
HAWKs seem like they try to solve a problem with a [sarcasm]simple[/sarcasm] beacon that adds 3 additional phases just to help pedestrians cross the road a bit safer. My question is, in situations that would normally warrant a HAWK, why not just use a pelican crossing? Surely the hardware is comparable in price and just as easy to program, plus a pelican crossing is easier for drivers to understand. And if you wanted drivers to really take notice of this light, why not make the yellow phase a strobing yellow, and make the wig-wag phase just a simple flashing red?
Part of me honestly wonders if the reason HAWKs have such a high compliance rate is that they are a novelty to drivers which catches their attention more than the average traffic light. If that's so, I would bet that as HAWKs inevitably become more widespread over the next few years and decades, that we'll see steadily declining compliance rates with HAWKs as drivers become more familiar with them and how they operate. I don't think that they are a permanent solution.