Is the RRFB Dead?

[DaBigE]

FHWA terminated the interim approval for the RRFB yesterday: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/mutcd_news.htm

All highway agencies, including those agencies that previously received the FHWA's approval to use rectangular rapid flashing beacons under Interim Approval 11, are prohibited from installing any new rectangular rapid flashing beacons.  However, any existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons that are already installed may remain in place until they reach the end of their useful service life.

At least for the time-being, no more can "legally" be installed. I'm guessing this will start a new round of legal challenges, as this seems to effectively kill the business of the patent holder.

[Brandon]

LOL!  This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.

[vdeane]

LOL!  This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.

If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.

[TXtoNJ]

Good. They were confusing as to whether they were advisory or mandatory signals.

[paulthemapguy]

YES!! This is a huge victory for me, because I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights.  All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely.  I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.  THEY'RE NOT SAFE

[kphoger]

I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. ... I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.

Unlikely, unless you told them about it.   

[SectorZ]

YES!! This is a huge victory for me, because I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights.  All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely.  I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.  THEY'RE NOT SAFE

Not to mention epileptics (and before anyone says they shouldn't be driving, they're entitled to be passengers).

[hbelkins]

YES!! This is a huge victory for me, because I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights.  All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely.  I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.  THEY'RE NOT SAFE

No. From the memorandum:

he MUTCD prohibits patented devices from experimentation, IA, or inclusion in the MUTCD.5  The FHWA has learned of the existence of four issued U.S. patents, and at least one pending patent application, covering aspects of the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) device originally approved under IA-11 of July 16, 2008.

The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.

[MNHighwayMan]

The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.

I think the difference might be that patented ≠ proprietary, at least in the eyes of bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure you can't patent a font. Though, the difference in practice is splitting hairs...

[jakeroot]

The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.

I think the difference might be that patented ≠ proprietary, at least in the eyes of bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure you can't patent a font. Though, the difference in practice is splitting hairs...

Pretty sure you're right. Font makers generally make money from licences. Clearview's downfall was mostly unrelated, but it was an undeniable negative.



I doubt this IA termination will last. Once the creator of the RRFB realises he shot himself in the ass, he'll pull the patent. You can't make money if agencies can't use your device. I'll be looking out for the old-fashioned 12-inch flashing amber bulbs in the mean time. I've only seen RRFBs installed here in Washington for several years now.

If the IA isn't brought back, I'd be pretty sad. I really like the RRFB. They provide a very unique warning indication that was only used for crosswalks. You'd know it was a crosswalk without having to look at the warning sign. Needless to say, I've gotten used to flashing amber bulbs (used on warning signs) to mean either signal ahead, or school zone. Now they can mean "pedestrian crossing"? Booooo.

Interested to see what the TAC thinks of this. I've seen RRFBs in Vancouver, BC (never in lieu of a flashing green signal, though -- just mid-block crossings). And they've apparently been installed in Alta as well.

[Brandon]

LOL!  This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.

If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.

Which is fine.  HAWKs are what they should gone for in the first place.

[lordsutch]

The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.

Under federal copyright law, while the type foundry that created Clearview holds copyright over the "software" (i.e. the TrueType/OpenType/whatever) instructions that generate the font, and can trademark the name, they do not hold copyright or any other intellectual property rights over the design itself. Hence why, for example, the Roadgeek 2005 fonts that replicate the design of Clearview may be freely used and redistributed under their copyright holder's license, and the Clearview people can't really do anything about it, unless they can show the Roadgeek 2005 outlines were copied from the TTF/OTF of Clearview - so, for example, tracing a 1000 pt rendering of the glyphs in Clearview and distributing the results is perfectly legal. Even the metrics, kerning, etc. of a proprietary font can legally be replicated exactly as long as it isn't done by copying the "software" directly.

That's also why the FHWA series cannot be copyrighted, as a federal government work, but designs based on them (Interstate and Overpass, for example) can be. Or why almost every big foundry has a clone of Times and Helvetica and a bunch of other "standard" typefaces with minuscule variations that are invisible except to the trained eye.

[Pink Jazz]

The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.

I think the difference might be that patented ≠ proprietary, at least in the eyes of bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure you can't patent a font. Though, the difference in practice is splitting hairs...

Pretty sure you're right. Font makers generally make money from licences. Clearview's downfall was mostly unrelated, but it was an undeniable negative.



I doubt this IA termination will last. Once the creator of the RRFB realises he shot himself in the ass, he'll pull the patent. You can't make money if agencies can't use your device. I'll be looking out for the old-fashioned 12-inch flashing amber bulbs in the mean time. I've only seen RRFBs installed here in Washington for several years now.

If the IA isn't brought back, I'd be pretty sad. I really like the RRFB. They provide a very unique warning indication that was only used for crosswalks. You'd know it was a crosswalk without having to look at the warning sign. Needless to say, I've gotten used to flashing amber bulbs (used on warning signs) to mean either signal ahead, or school zone. Now they can mean "pedestrian crossing"? Booooo.

Interested to see what the TAC thinks of this. I've seen RRFBs in Vancouver, BC (never in lieu of a flashing green signal, though -- just mid-block crossings). And they've apparently been installed in Alta as well.

The Canadian MUTCD has no restriction against patented traffic control devices and approves of RRFBs in its 2014 edition.

[paulthemapguy]

I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. ... I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.

Unlikely, unless you told them about it.   

The last sentence:

I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.

was mainly in reference to the previous sentence:

All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely.

I also figure they may be seizure-inducing.  There's a reason they put warnings on movies and video games with rapidly flashing lights in them.

[Hurricane Rex]

I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.

[jakeroot]

I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.

Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.

[Hurricane Rex]

I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.

Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.

At most yes, there is one in Sherwood that still has the general flashing light and one with a circular version of this. That was installed 10 years ago though.

[jakeroot]

I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.

Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.

At most yes, there is one in Sherwood that still has the general flashing light and one with a circular version of this. That was installed 10 years ago though.

Does it flash non-stop, or only when prompted?

I forgot to mention earlier, but there are flashing amber orbs at crosswalks in Washington, but they are used overhead, and flash non-stop (example here and here) (the second example is ancient). As far as I know, the style the RRFB replaced (side-mounted, and flash only when prompted) were completely superseded by the RRFB. In my head, I can picture an example, but I cannot remember where it was (or where it would be).

[Hurricane Rex]

I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.

Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.

At most yes, there is one in Sherwood that still has the general flashing light and one with a circular version of this. That was installed 10 years ago though.

Does it flash non-stop, or only when prompted?

Only when prompted.

[UCFKnights]

Another alternative I've seen is the signs with integrated LEDs flashing around the borders:
https://www.grainger.com/product/3YPG9?cm_mmc=PPC:+Google+PLA&s_kwcid=AL!2966!3!50916684477!!!g!63266792877!&ef_id=VO7-8gAAAMPq6jut:20171224125943:s&kwid=productads-adid^50916684477-device^c-plaid^63266792877-sku^3YPG9-adType^PLA

I personally agree the flashing orb is overused for too many things, and I dislike the HAWK, so I hope the RRFB comes back or something like this takes it over. (Note I've seen this to emphasize other signs as well, with different color LEDs, including stop with red LEDs and speed limit with white LEDs)

[jakeroot]

^^
I've only seen flashing blue-red LEDs embedded in the "YOUR SPEED" display, never a separate panel.

[Pink Jazz]

What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.

[jakeroot]

What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.

Puyallup, Washington has at least two examples:

https://goo.gl/uf7aDR
https://goo.gl/V2oB5y

More recent mid-block crossings have been RRFB's. I don't mind the in-ground lights. They're a fine alternative to the RRFB, although certainly more expensive to install, and maintain/repair.

[roadfro]

I am discouraged by this removal of RRFBs from interim approval. In my area, these beacons have been the one tactic tried that actually has helped increase driver compliance with yielding to pedestrians in uncontrolled crosswalks. They attract attention better than typical beacons or flashing LED's in sign borders, and the attempts at in-roadway warning lights have been either ineffective or difficult to maintain such that all of them in the Reno area have been removed.

What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.

They're still acceptable. On the MUTCD's Interim Approvals page, where there is the information about RRFBs and their removal, the FHWA links to a document that shows other treatments for uncontrolled crosswalks, and in-roadway warning lights are one of the items mentioned. In fact, there is a whole (rather short) chapter of the MUTCD dedicated to these–Chapter 4N–in which use at unmarked crosswalks is described as the only real approved use of them. So it would take a future rule-making action to disallow in-roadway warning lights (i.e. FHWA would need to remove in-roadway warning lights from the next version of the MUTCD).

[UCFKnights]

I am discouraged by this removal of RRFBs from interim approval. In my area, these beacons have been the one tactic tried that actually has helped increase driver compliance with yielding to pedestrians in uncontrolled crosswalks. They attract attention better than typical beacons or flashing LED's in sign borders, and the attempts at in-roadway warning lights have been either ineffective or difficult to maintain such that all of them in the Reno area have been removed.

What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.

They're still acceptable. On the MUTCD's Interim Approvals page, where there is the information about RRFBs and their removal, the FHWA links to a document that shows other treatments for uncontrolled crosswalks, and in-roadway warning lights are one of the items mentioned. In fact, there is a whole (rather short) chapter of the MUTCD dedicated to these–Chapter 4N–in which use at unmarked crosswalks is described as the only real approved use of them. So it would take a future rule-making action to disallow in-roadway warning lights (i.e. FHWA would need to remove in-roadway warning lights from the next version of the MUTCD).

The in road ones here have been removed as well. I drove by one frequently, and walked one a bit quite as well... I really didn't like them. In the vehicle, you could only see it if there weren't other cars in front of you, and generally only really stood out at night. As a pedestrian, I felt they gave a false sense of security, they looked cool and looked like they highlighted you in the crosswalk, but really didn't. The only time I felt it was actually useful was for night time when there was very, very light traffic, and even then, it'd be a lot smarter for the pedestrian to let the vehicle go first and wave them on then to trust it.