Poll
And this isn't confusing?
You have 4 different light phases when pedestrians could be crossing.
I have seen the sign "Stop On Red" being fairly common. And since a flashing red is still red, that's why traffic continues to remain stopped.
Correct. Please see below for the applicable rules.
pedestrians will cross: They cannot cross until the light has turned solid red.
pedestrians crossing: pedestrians are in the traffic lanes, pedestrians have started crossing.
pedestrians may be crossing: pedestrians may be in the traffic lanes, pedestrians may not be finished crossing.
there are only two phases where pedestrians are allowed to enter the traffic lanes.
That sign ("Crosswalk / Stop On Red / Proceed on Flashing Red When Clear") is actually approved by FHWA as a clarification/interim approval to the 2009 MUTCD. Even still, that doesn't convey the full message that each car is supposed to stop during the flashing red--that sign can be interpreted as you can go through during flashing red without stopping as long as the peds are cleared.
Or just used a Pelican crossing concept instead. That makes the most sense with the concept the HAWK signals are trying to convey...not sure why the wheel was reinvented here...
There should only be one phase when pedestrians are allowed to enter the traffic lanes: When THEY have a walk signal. Remember...the traffic light is guidance for traffic, so that's not what the pedestrian goes by (a well placed signal may never be seen by the pedestrian, because their focus should be on the walk/don't walk signal). You can't have a White Walk Signal while cross traffic has a yellow light because peds have the right of way. A yellow light doesn't require traffic to stop, and they aren't expecting pedestrians to enter the crosswalk at that point. Yellow signals are used primarily to indicate the signal will be turning red. So, when peds have a walk signal, motorists should have a red stop signal. As the pedestrian signal moves to a countdown/flashing red, that's when the traffic signal should turn to flashing red.
These two statements are not contradictory. There are four HAWK phases in your scheme during which pedestrians could be crossing. Up from three in the Original.
Meanwhile, the only difference in your scheme between "no pedestrians nearby" and "watch out for pedestrians" is how fast a light is flashing–requiring people both to know the difference in meaning and also to count how many seconds there are between blinks.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience. But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well. I agree that uniformity is important here.
It looks like they had attempted to put the exit legs' crosswalks farther downstream than the entry legs' crosswalks (approx. 100—110 feet from the circulating lanes). This is obviously a good, thing, but apparently not good enough. I was unable to find any specific FHWA recommendation on how far from the circulating lanes to put a crosswalk; do you know if this exists? I actually think anywhere on the splitter island is too close, but that's just a gut feeling. Mid-block crosswalks would be my preference at roundabout locations.
I'm pretty sure tradephoric is a politician. They are the only ones that can derail a conversation with a sole exception, and tell others that the entire discussion must end until this one exception is fixed.
LG-H871
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6111816,-81.1918464,3a,75y,344.14h,78.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPTJ5hcwVvsrjiHARwSk3mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A dark signal is SUPPOSED to be treated as a stop sign supposedly (rarely happens), thats another reason I don't like the HAWK defaulting to dark. i'd want the signals to look like the emergency ones, perhaps with the added flashing red phase. (Some emergency signal installations use red signal housing in other states, and I've seen lots of Florida ones with an 8 inch bottom flashing yellow segment)
Another thing I've seen in Orlando is the fluorescent yellow being used as the retroreflective border around signals for schools (instead of the standard yellow warning color), they could be used on HAWKs or pedestrian signals as well?
It's a false sense of security. Pedestrians see the WALK indication and may assume it's safe to cross yet about 1/3 of drivers are ignoring the solid red indication at the HAWK. Just imagine if 1/3 of drivers blew through red lights at a typical intersection and how safe that would be for pedestrians and or other motorists (and i'm not talking about running a red light that was still "pink"... i'm talking about blowing through a solid red light that has been red for a while). The HAWK has a horrid compliance rate at the exiting leg of a roundabout. At some point you are better off with no traffic control device at all.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7134687,-86.6269973,3a,59y,352.49h,94.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDZ4zBFG2WQxKT-AswxiMyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I've also seen a few up in New Jersey, though typically with an 8 inch flashing yellow indication at the bottom.
1/3rd? lol. Looks like more than 50% here. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMoDfLcWSE
Note that during many of the solid reds, no one was crossing. Guess the news station had to constantly press the walk button for no reason to get the story they wanted. That doesn't help people's attitutes and knowledge for these lights when people press the button without actually walking across the intersection.
WOW. That is a lot of people just blowing through that solid red HAWK at the end of that video... and that's not even at the exiting lane of a roundabout. The driver's mentality seems to be.. "well if i don't see a pedestrian in the crosswalk, I'm not stopping".
I sometimes attribute that to the "following the leader" syndrome. If one person did it, then we can all do it. I've seen motorists do that at standard intersections - if one person goes thru a red by mistake (often times, they see the green arrow light up and for whatever reason think they got the green light), then the next person or two or three go thru as well, as if they're not even paying attention.
It appeared a few of the cars in the video actually slowed down at least, or even stopped. Since the video doesn't actually show the motorist at the stop line, we can't see what they actually did. None of that excludes the fact that the motorist should have remained stopped though at the solid red.
And the flashing red - being that the sign says "STOP ON RED", it's hard to fault the driver for not moving when the lights are still flashing red. The sign is incomplete.
Utah has a much better version of the sign that I wish FHWA would have used as a basis for the sign in the interpretation. See Page 498/587 of the 10 MB Utah Standard Highway Signs Supplement pdf (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=13202015905895727)
That Utah sign is a bit of improvement in the overall instruction, but it is much more to process. "STOP / on flashing / red (red ball) / proceed if clear" does give a clearer message though.
I'd just be happy to switch to a Pelican crossing. I don't see the need for each successive car to stop if pedestrians have already cleared...
I think that's brilliant and a whole lot safer.
For all mid-block signalized crossings (and crossings where the side street is one-way away from the main street), follow the pelican crossing:
MAIN: GREEN - YELLOW - RED - FL YELLOW - GREEN (with short "all-red" phases at each red to green phase)
SIDE: DW - DW - WALK - FDW - DW
The safest part is that it meets driver expectations when they see a green light, they know that the light may eventually turn yellow and red. The city of Los Angeles mid-block crossings are somewhat similar, except that the FL YELLOW is replaced with FL RED, but to your point the FL YELLOW makes more sense as at this point in the crossing, there are likely no pedestrians left to cross. (In my experience, the vast majority of peds cross at the beginning of the crossing and usually cross faster than the 3 ft/sec timing that keeps cars waiting for the light to turn green. Hence the stale red light that is better replaced with a flashing yellow assuming that there are no cars on the side street crossing.)
I beleive that modified signals should be outlawed at regular intersections. There are some HAWKS out there at regular intersections where main street faces a HAWK and side street peds have a ped crossing and side street vehicles face a stop sign. These are designed to stop main street traffic without inducing side street traffic with green lights.
Here is one in DC at Connecticut/Northampton just south of the Chevy Chase Circle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9658337,-77.0758445,3a,75y,270.08h,91.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sua4eBrwuc8U95DzLuDLSzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
These are wrong. If there is heavy pedestrian traffic at such an intersection, regular traffic signal should be installed, but side street traffic should be controlled to force side street traffic to turn right on the main street. (And maybe add a warning sign that side street does not see a green light at every traffic cycle since likely there is no side street sensor other than the pedestrian button at such crossings.)
In short, if you want drivers to absolutely stop for peds at a crossing, and you are going to put in some types of signal the drivers need to see both a red light and a green light somewhere in their cycle. The green light doesn't merely tell the drivers to go, it also warns them that this light may eventually turn yellow and red. Dark signaled HAWKS or constant flashing yellows [at modified firehouse signals that are HAWK substitutes in MD and other states] fail to communicate to drivers that the light may eventually turn red, which is why they don't stop, like in the video forwarded by rickmastfan67.
The setup in that video is very peculiar. The near-side signals are two-head red and amber displays (no idea how they work), and no far side mast/post signals are used, period. This is extremely unusual for California, even at unique setups. Even some of the HAWKs in Washington (https://goo.gl/NSyvxD) have supplemental signals.
San Bruno intersection in question: https://goo.gl/hRmHrw
(https://i.imgur.com/H4JSTYb.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTHnDhkTV8c
This one is set up not correctly.
This is beyond inane. Talk about fixing something that isn't broken, this is way more confusing than a standard 3-section signal.
Which brings me back to my huge problem with HAWKs–every signal indication they convey could be conveyed far more intuitively with a standard 3-head signal–Bottom light flashes amber in rest mode; middle amber light comes on when actuated, then red, then flashing red and back to rest mode. HAWKs are reinventing the wheel.
Why should it? It's not even a year old, and barely over a page and a half long.
For the record, it's kind of become a generic HAWK thread.
As you know, Tucson normally has my admiration. but I don't know if I can ever forgive them for inventing this signal. I appreciate somebody trying to come up with a signal that doesn't require drivers to remain stopped throughout the entire walk signal, but I don't know if the HAWK is an ideal middle ground.
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
You can't just double at that point lol.
Another thing you could do is have a three-section signal, but make the bottom a flashing yellow instead of green (similar to a flashing yellow arrow). The middle solid yellow would be to emphasize a change from flashing yellow to solid red. I see it working like this:
flashing yellow --> solid yellow --> solid red --> flashing red --> flashing yellow --> etc...
I thought about that as well, but that's just a US emergency signal (Canada uses two orbs). Typically the bottom orb is 8-inch and the top two 12-inch.
One issue that I thought of overnight was that drivers may stop for people waiting to cross even on flashing yellow. Flashing beacons at crosswalks, like these (https://goo.gl/JQVhKK) that flash 24/7, others that flash when a button is pushed, or RRFBs, specifically use flashing yellow indications to get drivers to stop and give way to peds waiting to cross. Thing is, we wouldn't want drivers stopping on flashing yellow, since it will go red for peds when they push the button.
I think this is why I'd still prefer a flashing green indication.
FTFY.
Haha yeah I wouldn't call them textbook MUTCD at all, but they are not normally too crafty. They have great signal placement, but they lack innovation overall. The sheer number of fully protected lefts in CA in maddening. I feel like they treat every road the same when no two roads are.
I'd prefer this to a HAWK any day. It is the same basic function as a HAWK, without the unusual display configuration of a HAWK, and it seems much more intuitive (not needing explanatory signs).
Although I still think a Pelican crossing would be superior to both.
Absolutely not. Flashing yellow means the cross street has flashing red, and more importantly, flashing yellow cannot suddenly turn to solid red. (Note the car at 0:19 in the video.)
I also believe that flashing green should only be used where there is no cross street, although there is no official standard for this yet.
I'm sure that was in error. If someone contacts the city, I bet they'd fix it.
Car at 0:19 doesn't do anything wrong. I don't see an NTOR sign. On the other hand, that "Stop on Red" sign is rather redundant.
I quite like this signal. Interesting to see a new install of flashing green. I thought the MUTCD disallowed them.
I don't see why. BC's flashing greens are used any time the crosswalk is ped-activated, regardless if there's a cross-street. Further, the heaviest crosswalks are usually at intersections, where these would be most helpful.
The car clearly didn't come close to stopping on red.
Delaware used flashing green at intersections where the cross street had a flashing red. The intent was that cars at the flashing red could go when it was safe to do so. The flashing green warned drivers that there could be cross traffic, and that the light could go from flashing green to either steady green or steady yellow (I forget which) then to steady red, giving cross traffic a steady green if the traffic was waiting there too long.
They eventually did away with them - too many accidents. I don't think any have existed for years in Delaware.
Delaware's a state where they try different things. They still use a flashing red left arrow, which much of the country now has as a flashing yellow arrow. They're also one of the few that allow open alcohol containers in the vehicle as long as the driver isn't the one drinking.
No stop line visible in the video, so no way to be sure.
I'm not sure if it's fair to blame the flashing green for any danger. It's entirely possible that a full signal should have been used at those intersections instead. After all, it's just an intersection with a stop sign.
I seem to remember reading about that open container law when I was in Rehoboth last August. Reminds me of NOLA.
Flashing yellow does not automatically mean that a cross street has any particular indication–it means proceed with caution and yield if necessary. It just so happens that traditionally a flashing yellow typically encounters flashing red on a side street.
Flashing green is prohibited in MUTCD 4D.04 (Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications), paragraph 3: "D. A flashing green signal indication has no meaning and shall not be used." I'm really curious how this got implemented...
I don't mind the flashing green used in this video...but what difference would it make if it were a steady green instead?
In some eastern Canadian provinces, it indicates or used to indicate a protected left turn, and in BC it's the rest indication for a signalized pedestrian crossing where vehicular cross traffic is unsignalized. There is a pretty fatal misinterpretation that can result from the multiple meanings of this indication, so the US said "screw this mess" and banned it entirely.
There's a couple things I've come to appreciate in regards to how BC uses them: it's a helpful reminder to watch for cross-traffic, as flashing greens are very often used at three or four way intersections. If these were solid green lights, it might give the impression that someone was running a red light. It's also a reminder that the light is not part of a sequence, and could change at any time (though it does go solid green briefly before yellow>red).
To the best of my knowledge, the "protected" meaning (limited to Ontario, IIRC) has long since been abandoned in favor of using green arrows, either flashing or solid (provincial choice). Some installations remain, but are hard to come by.
There are a bunch of "protected" blinking green lights in Montréal.
Maybe they're waiting to finish road construction before replacing them? :)
iPhone
Just to clarify, the image I posed was an FHWA image from "Washington" (which "Washington" wasn't specified).
Here's the site of the ticket: https://goo.gl/maps/DiSauNF7HcE2
Obviously, under bog-standard HAWK, what he says he did was perfectly legal, despite local custom being to remain stopped through the flashing red phase.
When I go down in a few days, I'm going to take a look at the ticket and see how long he has to resolve the ticket. (My father has always been...scattered and disorganized. That hasn't improved since my mother passed a couple of years ago. I've taken over my mother's old job of paying bills, doing "paperwork stuff"....). Most likely I will end up just paying it, but if I can get him a court date that aligns with my travel schedule...then we might fight it.
If you do fight the ticket, you'll want to first look at the vehicle codes for your state, specifically for the statute(s) he was cited under, and be sure of your position. The national MUTCD text isn't exactly clear that it is ok to proceed on flashing red after a stop–that connect might be available via other documents on the MUTCD/FHWA website or maybe through local news articles covering the new installations in the area.
The best thing you can provide us: The statute number provided on the ticket. That'll tell us exactly what he was cited for. If the officer provided any commentary on the ticket, that'll help as well. For example - if he was actually cited for failing to stop at the stop line, or for not allowing the pedestrians to completely clear the intersection, he would need to fight this in a different manner.
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-55/chapter-8/55-8-112/ This describes the law in TN for a flashing red light (they used 'rapid intermittent flashing' for some reason). The important part here: "the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign".
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/traffic-engineering/tdm-2018/TDOT%20Traffic%20Design%20Manual_Report_Chapter%2013_Aug2018.pdf Page 1 provides a summary of the HAWK signal for Tennessee.
What's unfortunate here is the signage, and this is a MUTCD issue. The signage says Stop on Red. It doesn't say traffic may proceed on flashing red. Worse, and roadfro is absolutely accurate: The MUTCD never says traffic can proceed on flashing red. It simply terms it as a pedestrian clearance interval. What's also unfortunate is that there doesn't appear to be a statute, rule or any other guidance as to a HAWK signal's flashing red signal. The statute I cited above may be the best way to go about it.
So it's going to be up to the officer and judge's discretion here if you do try to fight it. If you can find something written by the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee, or Federal Government in regards to a HAWK signal, it's an ounce of gold towards helping your position (it's not solid gold, but it'll definitely help).
Thanks, and understood. I had that information, but appreciate the suggestions. My intent in telling about my father's recent run in with a traffic cop was to provide a backstory on why I came across the picture of that sign from the FHWA website.
I'm not certain what he was cited for. I'll see the ticket for myself in a few days, and I'll go from there. Mostly, I was sitting in a hotel, somewhat bored, but not really in the mood to go out wandering in the snow, and so I took the opportunity to kill some time.
And, FWIW, my read is that the key statutes at the state level are TCA 55-8-112, with TCA 55-8-145 as an example of how 55-8-112 extends to wigwag-style flashing red lights. (Flashing red lights at railroad crossing = stop and proceed only if/when safe.) That creates a reasonable expectation that a driver may proceed after coming to a complete stop if the crossing is clear given the ambiguity of the posted sign.
Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe". However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.
The nature of when a school bus' flashing red lights are used imply that it is not safe when the lights are flashing, making the distinction between flashing and steady red lights moot.
Are you telling me that I can cross a railroad against flashing red lights, so long as that crossing is not equipped with stop arms?
When safe to do so. Those lights can malfunction on occasion.
Flashing yellow means that you have priority if continuing straight, which is not the case here.
The one and only time I had to stop at an RRFB crosswalk, the driver in front of me refused to go again until it stopped flashing–even though the pedestrians were long gone by then. So it had the same problem I've witnessed at HAWKs.
THere are many steps that a DOT can take to make a pedestrian crossing safer. Extending the curb into the street to make the crossing distance shorter is one. Putting in an island so that peds can cross one direction at a time and wait in the middle for traffic to clear is another.
Those two above steps are somewhat passive in their approach. Pedestrians are given better opportuinities to cross, but at the end of the day, this is still the idea that a ped will cross only when the approach is clear, or if they are lucky enough to grab a driver's attention to stop for them.
A traffic signal is something different. Knowing that there may not be a natural break in traffic (especially on two-way streets), the DOT has to put in a signal to actually stop the traffic. (Hence it is more active approach to ped safety rather than a passive approach of narrowing the crossing.) The stopped traffic will allow for the peds to cross. [Of course, people do run red lights, so there is no guarantee, you still have to make sure that they stop.]
In my view, the bigger problem in a HAWK isn't that drivers are just waiting on the flashing red, even when the peds have cleared the intersection, it's that drivers just blow by the signal in the first place. A standard RYG signal has much better compliance rate (not perfect of course) at having the driver stop than a HAWK. I believe the reason for this is the driver's expectation - a green signal is to go, a yellow signal is a warning that a red is coming. Greens do not stay green forever, they could eventually be red. Flashing yellow does not have this same notion, as there are many flashing yellows all over the place that mean caution, but don't necessarily lead to an eventual red light.
So then, if we want to improve the odds of cars stopping, put in something that resembles a regular traffic signal. RYG. THe only proper modification, IMO, is that part of the red phase can shift from solid red to flashing red, to allow cars to proceed if the pedestrians have cleared the intersection (each car would still be required to make a full brief stop, before proceeding until the signal turns green). IF they don't, they will cause a small delay, but they won't impact safety.
Such has been done in Los Angeles, and it seems to properly balance pedestrian safety with minimizing traffic delay. I also hope that such a signal can be installed with much less severe warrants than a regular signal, since the delay on the main street is rather minimal.
This is also been the case in New Hampshire, specifically in Concord (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1745033,-71.5291041,3a,75y,357.55h,83.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scVi3ZGf2_e4WWzELrFLDCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Epping (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.032491,-71.0725309,3a,75y,17.3h,89.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYOgXG2L7x7fxHxP7iz4uuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYOgXG2L7x7fxHxP7iz4uuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D207.26443%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), Londonderry (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,147.05h,87.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D86.65785%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), and Meredith (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6616706,-71.4940203,3a,66y,65.77h,88.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg3piATr8-cpt5WsilTAELQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (there is another one in Meredith on US-3 between Dover and Lake Rd). Many NH drivers just remain stopped during the flashing red interval, especially when there is a State Trooper nearby (this happened recently in Epping). Some drivers, mostly Massachusetts drivers, honk at the lead driver(s) during the flashing red phase. Most drivers in Massachusetts seem to understand what to do at PHB/HAWK signals, albeit most roll through the flashing red phase w/o a complete stop.
I should mention that the speed limit on where the PHB/HAWK signals were installed in NH was 65 km/h (40mph), with the exception of the two Meredith signals being 50 km/h (30mph). At one time in Londonderry (NH 28), a lorry (tracter-trailer) almost got rear-ended by a car not paying attention and following too close, and when I tried to cross, two drivers travelling about 80-90 km/h (50-55 mph) blew the solid red when my WALK signal was on for well after three seconds, and had to wait for those drivers at the kerb to pass before I could safely cross.
Also, how does preemption work at PHB/HAWK, or standard R-Y-G (or FY) pelican crossing? Found these near Quincy, Massachusetts near the Quincy College:
Hancock St near Quincy College (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2517696,-71.0035878,3a,32.6y,267.64h,110.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHoNVCPvFbmiwclBpXesCpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Second Hancock St location (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2506537,-71.0028259,3a,15.5y,204.61h,101.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6GQIHDrQv1u2n7DtLJCTog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Or we can use the same laws, and just use a steady red light. Because in your example, alternating red lights means go would mean no one needs to stop and stay stopped for school buses.
Correct, the laws should be consistent.
I think a school bus would have its own rules, since it is a vehicle, not a stationary signal. The flash is just meant to get your attention.
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
I've seen differing treatments for drawbridges. Some are controlled by RYG signals. Some are controlled by signals that are similar to R/R crossings.
If a HAWk is placed at an intersection, then it should be treated no differently than a regular red orb signal, so I think RTOR should be generally allowed at HAWKs.
Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that. I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so. I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:
It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down. But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing. The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".
HAWKs were really meant to be for mid-block crossings. I don't think they should be placed adjacent to an intersection and a signal should be used instead.
However, it appears in the MUTCD that there is a different, lower threshold for the installation of HAWK beacons than the traffic signals warrants for pedestrian volumes.
iPhone
iPhone
iPhone
In theory, if the gates are down, you can't go thru the gates. In order to go around the gates, you will need to cross the yellow line, which is illegal as well, especially if it's a double yellow or no passing on your side of the road.
If there's an obvious problem with the gates you may not have a choice other than to go around them though. But if you *think* there's a problem with the gates, you go around them and a train is approaching, then you're going to lose.
Think of a single-track railroad. The train finishes crossing the road, but the signal won't stop flashing for another 20 seconds or whatever. How is it unsafe to cross the railroad? You can clearly see no train is following on that one's heels, and obviously no train is coming from the other direction because it's a single track.
For what it's worth, the law in Massachusetts states you can't go until the light stops flashing. The law in New Jersey has no such stipulation.
iPhone
I suppose that depends on how the phrase "until permitted to proceed" is construed. The actual vehicle code (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.251) doesn't mention having to wait for the light to stop flashing, but it does include that phrase.
Here is a GSV of the State St drawbidge in Chicago. The drawbridge signal has a 5-stack all red orbs.
It seems that the drawbridge closing is independent of the nearby signals (at Wacker Dr.) Drawbridge signal is red, even though the signal on State at Upper Wacker is green.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8866561,-87.627903,3a,75y,6.88h,78.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIZat4v05dUcgCnZ30N-jGg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Looks like the centre (median) signal has been removed. Does the bridge not open or close (to traffic) as it used to?
1. That's a warning sign, which means it is not regulatory in nature.
2. I cannot find any such restriction in the Indiana state laws. As a matter of fact, I don't even see a law prohibiting a driver from going around lowered gates: pedestrians yes, but not vehicles. :crazy: Below is the applicable statute.
Maine and New Hampshire have a similar law to Indiana's as well, minus the going around a lowered gate in Maine...
By "stop signs" in NH's law, that is also implying flashing red lights and gates, correct? I don't see anything in this NH law mentioning anything with gates, although RSA 265:12 does mention it in part II.
Tis the fate of too many HAWK signals. I have no solid evidence, but anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to weigh heavily in their favour -- people just don't seem to get their nuances.
Also, about 8 kilometres or 5 miles from campus near Exit 6 on the Spaulding Turnpike, the intersection of US 4 and Boston Harbor Rd was converted into a roundabout, which also meant the existing ped signals and crosswalk when the intersection was signalised was converted to HAWK. That crosswalk is literally <50 m (55 yds) from the entry/exit of the roundabout and I've seen many people blow the solid and flashing red without even slowing down, especially from drivers exiting the roundabout.
Any statistics on the compliance rate and crash data of HAWK's (or any crosswalks) at roundabouts? Always thought that crosswalks near the entry and exit of roundabouts were a recipe for disaster...
Here's an image of the US-4 and Boston Harbor Rd roundabout if you're curious, 29 September 2019:
(https://i.ibb.co/zbzgntK/IMG-5744-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gwx8jcs)
HAWKs are no different from other signals as to what the phases mean (except that dark signals are to be ignored entirely, since there's no conflict like there is at a normal signal).
As for #1, a solid red cannot be preceded by a flashing yellow; this is true whether it's a normal cycle, a RYG pedestrian signal, a time-of-day change, or a HAWK signal.
As for #2, a flashing red is a flashing red.
An RRFB really isn't a replacement for a HAWK beacon. If it doesn't have a red light legally requiring vehicles to stop, it's not in the same category. If you've ever lived somewhere with an aggressive driving culture where vehicles simply do not yield to pedestrians, you understand why.
Old fashioned three-head signals are the solution and there's no reason the US should be so allergic to them.
All of this brings up an interesting issue. In Great Britain where the PELICON (a.k.a. Pelican Signal) originated, these signals are no longer permitted in new applications. Instead, the newer "Puffin signal" places the pedestrian signal heads on the same side of the road as the request button. My impression is that the "Puffin" solution reduces some of the issues related to the timing of pedestrian cycle (ergo, mobility-impaired pedestrians don't get part-way into the intersection before the time starts to count down). I haven't seen this issue discussed anywhere in the United States.
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.
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.
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.google.com/maps/@34.0487971,-118.2410097,3a,32.6y,122.89h,90.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIbC7wFTAC9A6yPtUJglA9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XGeAJT8utw
100% this.
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).
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...
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917711,-71.3993541,3a,75y,335.69h,80.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOpMC_TDTYs-qIJ8ijXkjyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0325916,-71.0724972,3a,90y,11.44h,80.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDaUQ_epyNDczqXWPGxbKUw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), what is essentially a 5-way intersection, much of the same behaviour happens as in Londonderry.
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.
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
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.
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?
Yup engineers love to get caught in these circular argument traps. "We cant do that because we cant do that"
Simple solution, paint them PINK or PURPLE.
To play the Devil's advocate...
If this beacon (https://goo.gl/maps/tA8L8TC3Q4JgMLkU7) 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 (https://goo.gl/maps/egZf9NJVo5auKzRaA)), 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.
What should be done in this situation? I say put a normal three-head signal on the main street with solid red, solid yellow, and flashing yellow. And a red flasher for the side street. No flashing on the main street. Just stop or go.
If you listened to some people on this forum, making someone stay stopped for 15 seconds to let a pedestrian cross is such a serious fault that it should be considered above every other factor when signalizing (or should I say beaconizing) a pedestrian crossing.
The fact is, there is only a certain level of complexity in signal operations that will be reliably understood by the public–especially in a country like ours with incredibly lax driver licensing requirements. It would be nice if we could incorporate a flashing red phase into these installations, but in my opinion, we can't. When you install a HAWK at an intersection, that intersection is now operating in a totally different way from any other intersection, yet there is no education or legal clarification to match this.
What's even more fun with that one? Just go back to the Aug '18 imagery there. They had the lights facing the opposite way then.
https://goo.gl/maps/Xnf4zppBYymFNnK87
As you already mentioned, however, it only goes against MUTCD recommendations. It doesn't actually violate any shall verbiage.
In fact, language throughout Chapter 4F includes the phrase "major street" (nine instances), which suggests to me they assumed some HAWKs would be installed in locations that also have minor street approaches. §4F.03 ¶04 even specifically provides an option for HAWKs installed "adjacent to a roundabout".
It's actually ten instances of "major street" (one instance is hyphenated). But in all those instances, the context is really about the one street. The phrase "minor street" is not used, and the phrase "side street" is only used in the quoted context above about the beacon should be at least 100 feet from side streets. That makes me think that installations at side streets were not envisioned.
The "adjacent to a roundabout" provision is intriguing (the ped heads can be dark in a specifically studied circumstance), but there's no other mention of locating a HAWK at roundabouts. But HAWKs at roundabouts are a different animal than a HAWK at a traditional intersection.
Well thats illegal, drivers are not to look at pedestrian signals
Where is that illegal?
Good question, and even if true, how are we going to prevent people from looking at things? LOL
Embed the ped signals in the sidewalk pavement, with louvres. Might not work so well in Calgary.
The flashing yellow phase on a HAWK means you need to slow down and prepare to stop. Not that you need to slow down and stop. It's basically like a flashing green ball on a Mexican stoplight.
The solid yellow phase is treated like a yellow light at a normal traffic light.
By the way... For all of you Wikipedia editors out there... The article about HAWK beacons has some incorrect information about emergency-vehicle hybrid beacons. See below.
However, the very MUTCD that is linked to in the reference states otherwise.
Chicago Mayor Emanuel once said how great it was that pedestrian signals were countdown style so drivers could see how long they had before the yellow light so they would not get caught by the red light cameras. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-pedestrian-countdown-timers-red-light-camera-perspec-zorn-0304-jm-20150303-column.html
Whether it is what drivers are supposed to be doing, it is what people do as consequences of design like short yellows at camera intersections or HAWKs at intersections where the side street could use the WALK signal to see more clearly that the main drag has red.
You will not see new HAWKs in Region 3 (Central NY). Region 3 has determined other safety measures are more effective, per my understanding.
I am a big fan of FYAs.
Exactly. If the pedestrian countdown is at 0, why the hell do you still have the flashing phase?
It would appear to be the first example of a pre-green signal in the US! Aka, "clutch-in" time.
I'm not usually too bothered by short yellows unless there's a camera; it's definitely very short, though. But then it doesn't seem Somerville quite gets the idea with the HAWK to begin with, so I guess we'll have to excuse them.
iPhone
Which is what the 3 seconds after the countdown timer reaches 0 is supposed to be...
All I see in that video is a couple of pedestrians not even waiting for their light to change before starting to cross (that's another thing I seem to observe a lot with HAWKs) and then several cars and bikes being held up for quite a bit by the extended double red. I hate having to come to a full stop and wait at pedestrian signals when nobody is even there and I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment.
iPhone
From a traffic control systems perspective, I think it would be more electrically complex if the beacons displayed different red aspects at the same time, and for no real benefit.
If a standard RYG signal at the same pedestrian crossing went from solid red to flashing red, then I have a suspicion a lot of drivers would likewise remain stopped until the flashing red phase ended.
What is your preferred solution to yellow trap?
HAWKs are up for debate, but I disagree with your take on FYAs. I think they're pretty clear and useful. Were doghouses/5-light towers okay too? Yes. But FYAs are even better.
I'm not personally convinced of that. Drivers are quite well trained that a single flashing red means "stop then proceed when clear". The wig-wag double-flashing red, on the other hand, does not have such a meaning.
PHBs are less popular
iPhone
MUTCD 4F.02 Paragraph 03 Item A mandates at least two faces for each approach to the Hawk.
I don't see a mandate in the MUTCD for "left right left right" versus "outer inner outer inner". Maybe there's a bit for guidance on this in some of the other electrical guidelines - one of the ITE ones and/or NEMA perhaps?
I think it's just sloppy wiring. Sometimes we see the same thing with railing crossings, where it varies between alternating and left-right. In my opinion, they should be uniform, left-left, right-right.
Anywhere else you do see a wigwag style red, like a school bus or a railroad crossing, it means stop and stay put until the lights go dark. A HAWK somehow took that same pattern and made it mean something else. It seems like both reds flashing together would be better really.
They made it impermissible to have horizontal pairs of red flashing balls alternate at an intersection because it could be confused with a railroad crossing, then introduced a new thing that has alternating horizontally-aligned red flashing balls. Nuts!!
Having both reds flash together would be better, and so would having the yellow flash at all times. A dark signal is supposed to equate to an all-way stop.
Although, drivers seem accustomed to these weird phases here in the birthplace of the HAWK.
left right left right like a railroad crossing in which going means deaths so you know, very intuitive
No, it's not intuitive at all. The flashing red phase of a HAWK functions as a typical flashing red; you can go once it's clear. Drivers are trained to stop entirely until the phase ends on a railroad crossing, and you're not supposed to do that at a HAWK. (Some states do treat railroad crossings without gates as typical flashing reds where you can go after the train passes, but few people know this.)
And also the same pattern for a school bus as well displaying their red lights, similar to a level/railroad crossing?
Why stop there? Flashing red lights in general should have the same meaning everywhere.
Two stoplights flashing red on a mast arm means stop and proceed (flash mode), and two lenses in the same stoplight on a mast arm means stop and proceed (HAWK), but two lenses on a railroad signal mean stop and stay (wigwag).
Well, that was vague.
Here is the specific location: https://goo.gl/maps/kWQoVka4t4pyXoSQ6
You're nuts. You missed that this is in the UK or Ireland..
To be fair, the "another train coming" sign is on the wrong side of the road. You'd never see a sign like that on the left side of a 2-lane road in the US, would you?
You are correct, that the "Another Train Coming" sign would be placed on the right side here in the United States, but the placement of that sign is to warn someone running around the gates (in the opposite lane not to enter the crossing. Assuming that the offending vehicle is passing a string of traffic waiting at the extended gate, it is placed and aimed correctly. But I strongly believe that any "Another Train Coming" sign that is placed on the opposite side of the road should be aimed at the second car behind the gate (ergo, about 30 feet in front of the gate tip). After many years of discussion here in the United States, the "Another Train Coming" sign is finally getting formalized in the most recent MUTCD changes. (I haven't bothered looking this up yet, but this subthread has got my attention).
I wonder if this is a test application. One of the issues at many urban grade crossings is that a railroad employee (typically the brakeman, sometimes the conductor) needs to manually flag the crossing. In some cities, it has been difficult for the [flagger] to step out into traffic because of aggressive drivers who don't want to wait (and know that they don't have to if they get in the crossing before the [flagger] that just got out of the locomotive (or caboose, in certain cases). In that case, a HAWK signal serves the purpose of protecting the [flagger] and once the train is on the move, the HAWK signal is irrelevant. In gentler cities where traffic was light enough, the [flagger] simply rode out on the front of the locomotive and waved traffic to a stop before the train crossed.
Well, it's on the "other" side, not the wrong side.
You wouldn't also see white lines separating the flow of traffi in the US, or gates just on the "wrong side" either.
Although we have so many signs here I'm the US on the wrong side anyway, sometimes it's tough to tell.
From FHWA's interpretation ""4(09)-2(I) - Hybrid Beacons Adjacent to Grade Crossings" (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_2.htm):
Maybe the correct solution, then, is to use LEDs to create a wig-wag-like animation for railroad crossings, where the light moves in an arc like a wig-wag does.
Do we? The only signs I routinely see on the left on two-way streets in the US are the "no passing zone" ones and those yellow signs with chevrons/arrows that they use on sharp enough curves.
If you're looking for a real-world example of this, there are at least (https://goo.gl/maps/VYoaodDBDwPwqjcF7) two of them (https://goo.gl/maps/BiJHCoR2xFeAhq7n9) in Salt Lake City.
My bad; I thought this was the Zug Island Road crossing. The Google Maps link wasn't working for me at the time. I withdraw my comments.
The L.A. signal is probably the best implementation of pedestrian signal.
As stated above, easy to understand and definitely meets expectations.
These are only installed in mid-block (or equivalent)* situations. A full intersection should get a full signal to avoid confusion with respect to side street traffic.
They are fail-safe. To the extent that they are not a standard RYG, and to the extent that a driver may be confused, the confusion will cause a driver to wait until the green. Delaying traffic, not injuring pedestrians.
My one recommendation would be to start with a brief, 5 second, solid red phase. Many of these are so old that I believe the technology didn't allow for a solid red sequence followed by a flashing red sequence. Technology now certainly allows it, as we can see with HAWKs, so these signals should also be modified to allow for a brief solid red at the beginning of the pedestrian crossing.
* Equivalent situations. Treated as mid-block but still have some element of cross-traffic to be concerned with:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0572807,-118.2404379,3a,75y,255.22h,81.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st1kDYE-8PyhJyRgIVGtQOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Spring St at US 101 NB exit ramp. On Spring Street, just south of the crosswalk, there is an exit ramp from the freeway that meets Spring. All traffic from the exit ramp faces a stop sign and all must turn right. Having used this ramp, I can tell you that a full signal would be helpful to give the exit traffic a protected phase. It is difficult to make this right, and the stop and go feature of the flashing red actually makes it harder for cross-street rights, since the available gap time is shorter.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0885889,-118.3778148,3a,37.5y,64.29h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siFGNYZlF8RAAePSP0YPKYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
West Knoll Dr at Santa Monica Blvd. While this is in West Hollywood, the signal operates in a simila fashion to the LADOT standard. Again, we have a cross street that only allows for RIRO, that is just after the cross walk. So with respect to SM Blvd traffic, this is a mid-block location, and the side street, being downstream from the crosswalk, doesn't really interact with the pedestrians that are crossing SM Blvd. So this is an appropriate way to turn a T intersection with a small street into an intersection that is appropriate for the (better version of the) HAWK signal. Obviously, West Knoll Dr has less traffic than the US 101 off-ramp, so I don't believe there is any general warrant for a signal here, other than for pedestrians.
I would even venture to say that more intersection should be designed this way. If the main street has significant pedestrian draw, certain side streets, that don't warrant a vehicular signal, should be transfomed into RIROs (especially at T-intersections). Provide a cross-walk that is upstream from the side street, and have the crosswalk controlled by an LADOT Ped XING signal. You provide a safe crossing at every intersection, while avoiding major delays that would be induced on the main street with a full signal at every intersection. You also minimize side street interaction, which HAWKS and LADOT Ped XING signals are not really designed to address.
Take a look at this intersection of 24th/Pine in Bakersfield. One thing that should be pointed out is that the pedestrian crossing is a Z-shaped crossing. You cross the south side of 24th on the west side of Pine, then walk "across" Pine along the 24th median, and then cross the north side of 24th on the east side of Pine. If the southside of the intersection were reopened (GSV currently shows a cul-de-sac), it would ensure that the right turn movements of Pine onto 24th would all be downstream of the pedestrian crossing. So the crosswalk would not interfere with any side street movements. So other than the general problems with HAWKs, this is a good design for a pedestrian crossing signal, even if there is no warrant for Pine street auto traffic. [My prefernce is the L.A. style RYG signal.]
The bus on GSV reminds me that this would be a great place for a bus stop. If someone lives in this neighborhood and is taking the bus, they will have to cross 24th street at least once (either on their outgoing trip or on their return trip). A bus stop necessarily will create a pedestran crossing demand and bus stops should be placed in locations where pedestrian crossing is made safer.
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Kphoger, the difference is that the stoplight warning beacon is just an advisory/caution beacon. Whereas the HAWK is a regulatory signal just like a normal traffic light, so in my opinion the FHWA shouldn't be calling it a beacon. They define it as a beacon because it doesn't meet their definition of a traffic control signal which operates continuously alternating the right-of-way between at least two approaches.
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
Around here, people don't stop at dark signals if it's clearly the priority road.
A new Hawk signal went in at a trail crossing near my house, which was the first in the immediate area. On Nextdoor from the chats you thought it was going to be the end of the world. However once it was activated the controversy disappeared, the drivers quickly adjusted, and the crossing is now working well. Before the Hawk went in there was a constant issue with pedestrians crossing without yielding to oncoming traffic and with cars suddenly stopping at the trail crossing for no reason. Now everybody is happy. These things actually work.
I think the general public has adapted to FYAs because of their widespread use. But I digress.
The only HAWKs I know of in New York are in the Buffalo area. There are maybe a half dozen including a NYSDOT install on NY 324 in Amherst (http://newyorkroutes.net/images/photos/routes/324/324-10.jpg).
Then you have these (http://newyorkroutes.net/images/misc/watkins.JPG) which I'm guessing is more of a beacon. I know of two...this one in Watkins Glen and another in Malone.
Does R3 share the same general sentiment as the rest of the state?
Nobody expects the general public to care about the beacon/signal thing. The HAWK was intentionally designed to fall under "beacon" rules because if it fell under "signal" rules it would be subject to signal warrant requirements. Those warrant requirements are, I believe, precisely why a lot of cities couldn't install standard R-Y-G ped signals before the HAWK was invented (around here, the only places I've seen them are immediately adjacent to schools).
I'm guessing either Los Angeles doesn't care about the signal warrants because they have the political clout to not particularly care what FHWA/NCUTCD wants, authority granted by the state of California or the California MUTCD to ignore the federal signal warrants, or enough traffic to more consistently meet the signal warrants than other cities do.
Obviously the real solution is to correct the signal warrants to make R-Y-G signals for pedestrians easier to legally install, but hell, we're, what, a year overdue as it is for MUTCD 11e now?
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just add a line to the 2009 MUTCD that made HAWK-eligible crosswalks warrant a traffic signal? That's always what's bothered me about them.
Has this actually happened, anywhere, ever? Or are you inventing a hypothetical problem that doesn't really exist?
Rear-end crashes happen all over the place, of course, and HAWK locations are no exception. But are you aware of any rear-end crash at a HAWK crossing that was due to the specific reason you stated? Even if such has happened, the benefits provided by having the signal dark until activation may outweigh that.
Meanwhile, the FHWA asserts:
A preliminary report from back when HAWKs were introduced in Phoenix indeed showed a reduction in the total number of rear-end crashes and basically no change in the total percentage. Details are shown below:
I'm personally sold on the opposite problem: virtually no one stops at dark HAWK signals (because they shouldn't). This is good, of course, as they shouldn't. But is it potentially training drivers that not all dark signals require a stop? And when I say "signals", I mean things that are overhead or on the edge, and that light up with colors to indicate what to do...I assume that's how most drivers interpret it, anyways.
I don't like the dark signal rule anyway.
For example, if a new signal is going in, most agencies either turn the signals away from the road or put bags over the signals. However, if I'm driving at 55 mph after dark, then it is not apparent if the signal is turned, bagged, or simply not functioning. (And yes, this came up for me. There's a specific signal I'm thinking of in my area that was recently installed along a 55mph stretch of road, and I couldn't tell until I was practically right under it.)
Please be careful highlighting the data. It is likely that most of the incident/crash data related to "rear-end collisions" are unrelated to activation of the HAWK signal. As with all safety data studies, the entirety of the data is used to calculate any trends. But that doesn't mean that the "trend" is related to "causal changes" (in this case, implementation of a bunch of HAWK signals).
The specific data itself is suspect. IR means intersection-related data, whereas ISN means collision data flagged with the same intersecting street name (which should include data from that same intersection). But I'm presuming that many of the HAWK applications were mid-block, meaning that there is an inexact correlation between the data and the HAWK applications.
What is quite important from this data is shown in the line above the highlighted one. Overall pedestrian-related collisions from nearby locations (ISN) dropped from 27 (roughly 4% of the total) to 4 (roughly 1% of the total) after installation of over 60 HAWK installations in Tucson prior to the year 2006. Table 4 indicates that is an 83% drop over the study period. That data is influenced by the HAWK installations, but doesn't necessarily correspond to the HAWK installations themselves. Note that there was also a drop in pedestrian-related collisions at signalized intersections. Table 4 in the FHWA document indicates that there was an 18% drop in pedestrian-related collisions at signalized intersections (IR) over the same period. (Some of that may have been impacted by HAWK installations as well, so don't go down a tangent there either).
Anyhow, the data is sufficient to demonstrate a significant decline in pedestrian collisions near HAWK installations. But I doubt that anything else can be directly concluded from this study data.
My preference would definitely be for fewer dark signals. But then, I don't know what rule we could implement in its place. Or what actions could be taken to ensure we never have dark signals; HAWKs and ramp meters certainly aren't helping the situation.
Agreed.
How many drivers are getting rear-ended at dark ramp meter signals because they thought it was a non-working stoplight?
I don't disagree, but I'm pointing out that that difference in operation is intentional to snake through a loophole in the rules.
Possibly...but I think there's some conservatism toward watering down the signal warrants, lest cities use signals for speed control. (They already have that problem with stop sign warrants.)
The trend toward reflective backplates makes dark signals more obvious in the dark. Although you still have no way of knowing if they're bagged or not (unless they put the bag over the backplate too, which I've never seen). At least it still shifts the balance more toward "fail safe" than "fail deadly".
:)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b448c4bd0e6486684d5809dd0c1f1ad5460cad27/c=0-254-4928-3026/local/-/media/Greenville/2015/03/17/B9316623103Z.1_20150317153835_000_GU0A8EMST.1-0.jpg)
I don't actually consider it to be a "fail safe", though, anyway. If I'm driving on a 55mph road (in the specific case I'm thinking of, in fact, it's in farmland between towns) and I come across a dark signal, I'm probably just going to assume it's a new installation and isn't operational yet. It would actually take a fair level of certainty otherwise to make me come to a stop.
Here's a yellow diamond shaped sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/HrwLc6FSPTCVxLy7A) I suppose they could put a yellow flashing light on top, if that would make you happy.
I would say bagging the entire signal, backplate and all, is more common in my area than not. Both BC and WA.
Didn't I just say that I thought drivers not stopping at dark ramp meters and HAWKs was the bigger issue, not drivers accidentally stopping and getting rear-ended?
My bigger concern remains the entire concept of intentionally dark signals (or "beacons" as they prefer they're called), further cementing, for some, that dark signals of any kind can simply be ignored. Because, well, they can. But not all of them.
In a word, yes. The MUTCD should be adjusted to allow for easier warrants for pedestrian crossing signals. With that said, I have a few caveats.
The pedestrian crossing signal warrants should be easier than that at a regular intersection. But the crossing traffic at such signals should only be for pedestrian use. This means that the crossing should either be mid-block or just in front of a side street that is RIRO. [The side street can only turn right onto main street, and a right turn would not interfere with peds crossing the main street.] In my view, the warrants for this type of pedestrian-restricted signal should be those of a crosswalk. If we can expect a pedestrian to cross at the location without the help of any traffic control device, then adding this type of device would only make such crossing safer. The key is that the flashing red (Los Angeles) or flashing yellow (PELICON) feature would allow traffic to continue, in the same way that traffic would continue at an unsignalized crossing, once the pedestrians are out of the way. A normal traffic signal must meet warrants, because we have to gague the number of vehicles on the side street that need to cross (or turn left) and thus need to stop the flow of traffic on the main street for a considerable period of time. For a pedestrian signal, the amount of time that traffic is stopped would be equivalent to the amount of time that a driver would be doing at an unsignalized crossing, assuming that the driver is giving the pedestrian the appropriate, legal, right of way. In effect, the pedestrian signal doesn't actually change the flow of the main street - it simply makes the pedestrian crossing safer, with the benefit of the red signal.
At the same time, once pedestrian signals are implemented along a corridor, there has to be standards as to their placement. Too many of even these types of signals would degrade traffic. The traffic engineer needs to use their judgment to determine the proper frequency for all types of signals. In Manhattan, it seems that there is a signal every 250 feet - the cross streets are every 1/20 of a mile. And there are signals in Midtown, even when the cross street isn't there. (Example: Madison Ave has no cross streets between 112th and 115th, yet there are two mid block pedestrian signals in the place of 113th and 114th. And like nearly all NYC signals, they are not actuated. They will turn red even if there are no pedestrians present. And these signals do not have a flashing red feature like HAWKs. I cannot anticipate seeing any type of specialized pedestrian signal in NYC any time soon.). For most other cities, perhaps 500 feet is a good standard, and for many suburban roads, I can see the limitation on frequency being anywhere betweeen 1000 and 3000 feet. The key question is how far do we expect pedestrians to walk to a safe crosswalk and site the crosswalks, crossing signals, and bus stops accordingly.
And once the warrants are adjusted, these crossings should be treated as signals, not beacons. Signals with different warrants, since their purpose is ped/bike protection, not vehicular movement. And my strong preference is to avoid intersections (which basically would mean that some side street traffic would take advantage and side street traffic control should only occur with a fully warranted signal) and to use either the Los Angeles or Pelicon variants, which I believe are simply more intuitive and safer than HAWKs. In all cases, the signals should only be activated when a pedestrian pushes the button, and should allow a flashing red or yellow after a few seconds of solid red, to account for faster pedestrians who get out of the way and walk more quickly than 3.5 ft/sec. There is no need to hold up traffic, once the pedestrians are out of the way.
Yes. Sorry, I didn't mean my reply as an argument against you. I was merely pointing out that there are already signal-like installations that go dark where people aren't expected to stop–and yet rear-end crashes aren't happening there.
When do you think this generation began the behavior? I've personally been seeing it for twenty years, which is as long as I've been driving in urban environments.
Kind of begs the question as to why it's not already the law. Isn't there like a boulevard rule that could take its place?
That's about when I began seeing this here, as well. Not all of those drivers are/were young. There just seems to have been a shift in society that the motor vehicle rules apply to everyone else. (Note that is also about the same time that my career got routed over from transportation safety into transportation safety regulation. So I might have gotten old and crotchety at the same time).
I went thru this intersection again today. The traffic light was working now - flashing red in all 4 directions. It's on 14 Mile Road at the exit of a furniture store parking lot; on the side opposite the store there is some new facility but I didn't see the details.
I stopped for the flashing red; most drivers were not stopping.
The problem is that at a number of intersections, which road is the "main" road can be not at all obvious, and the answer may even differ from person to person. Case in point, this intersection in Springfield, Missouri (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.20014,-93.2868518,3a,75y,286.08h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBpSHE73lb4veEx25yTmykA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Which road is the main one? I would say Kimbrough is, but that's because I lived there for a year and used that road enough to get to know the traffic patterns. To someone from another city, it would appear entirely inscrutable. If we were to meet at that intersection and both think we're on the main road . . .
And then there's the problem of what to do when two main roads intersect. You might have a different rule for those instances, but again, it requires everyone passing through the intersection to know, without ever having traveled on the intersecting road, that it is a main road.
I think Europe solves this problem by setting it up so that functioning stoplights legally overrule all other traffic control devices at an interchange, so they can provide supplemental stop/yield/you have priority signage at each intersection. If the stoplight goes kaput, then control of the intersection "falls through" to the supplemental traffic control signage.
Short of that, though, "always stop at an intersection with darkened lights" is the safest option.
Some state laws likewise get a bit wonky when it comes to uncontrolled intersections.
For example, in Maryland, uncontrolled intersections have the typical yield-to-the-right rule–but not if you're entering a paved road from an unpaved road, in which case traffic on the paved road has the right of way no matter which direction it's coming from.
Petition their DOTs to follow the damn MUTCD.
Seriously, "intersection not compliant with the rules causes problems" is not an indictment of the existing rules–it's an illustration of why the existing rules should be followed!
Good idea Scott. BTW it was in many of the photos posted earlier in this thread that we saw those HAWKs at intersections. MY guess based on personal experience with calling any traffic agency's attention to their not following the rec's or standards in the Manual is that you'll get a reply something like: Well the Manual was never intended to substitute for engineering judgment and we feel that based on site conditions, visibility etc, the current installation gives adequate service, bla bla bla, etc.
Lot's of fun. LOL........ BTW, the signal involved in that experience with my county DPW was finally changed a few years later.
Especially if the non-compliant HAWK location is the site of a fatal accident. Oh, wait, that isn't actually happening....
That seems to be my observation too.
FWIW, people are more likely to want to cross the street at intersections, rather than midblock. That is because any pedestrian on the minor street would be added to those on the main street who may need to get over on the other side. Another aspect is that bus stops tend to be on corners for similar reasons. People who live on the side streets will walk to the main street to catch a bus, and they wouldn't unnecessarily want those people to walk an extra half-block. Another issue is parking. Most jurisdictions will have rules prohibiting parking near a crosswalk and near an intersection. Overall, if all the crosswalks are at intersections, as opposed to mid-block, more on-street parking is preserved.
So more people are likely to want to cross the main street at an intersection with a small street, rather than mid-block. But unfortunately, HAWKs are not as safe at intersections as they are at mid-block. They are not meant to control cross-street movements, even though cross-street traffic will take advantage of the stopped traffic for the pedestrians.
Hm. Thanks for sharing that. I'd never seen one used as an emergency signal before.
Still doesn't change my opinion that this is the wrong signal for the situation, though.
Actually it can, it is just optional instead of required...
You are correct, I didn't read down far enough. Thanks for pointing this out. But why the steady red is optional is beyond me.
From that link, it's actually the HAWK that's in the background.
As an aside, zooming out a bit, notice that the emergency signal has the white-on-red "Fire Station 5" 'street name' sign. Totally not MUTCD compliant, but I kinda like it!
Report it as non-compliant.
I wrote to the local DOT and got this response:
The above is the official explanation, but I still don't like it. If drivers are going to come to a complete stop anyway, without a flashing red phase, then why not just put in place a regular traffic signal?
You're saying that HAWK signals are being spec'd and installed by people other than traffic engineers? So who do you think is doing them?
Yes, maybe it creates traffic. This is a city. There's going to be traffic. Maybe inspiring more children to walk will improve the traffic instead.
The issue with those MCDOT HAWKs for me is the lack of a cooldown phase. You can start it right after it just went off, with 0 delay. Probably not great
iPhone
That is not how a HAWK is supposed to be used though. If you want everyone to stop for the entire pedestrian crossing time, just install a regular signal.
Your statement of "how dangerous it is" might be the biggest hyperbole I've seen this month. What makes that any worse than putting in an RRFB or overhead flashing beacon? In my experience, the simple fact that something is flashing is enough to get drivers to pay attention and stop accordingly. And with HAWKs it may be a moot point anyway in a lot of cases since it seems a lot of drivers don't realize you can go after stopping on those flashing reds...
Funny enough, this PHB (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6586164,-70.2948442,3a,75y,98.64h,84.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMTAlSmQwlUJjr2UTox_bHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Portland near Congress @ Lasell replaced a normal RYG signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6587464,-70.2949209,3a,75y,119.74h,79.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1AI9FZdSgDbhFPB0DSSfqg!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i16384!8i8192), however, as of August 2022, the flashing red phase only activates AFTER the W and FDW phase for about 3-7 sec before going dark.
I talked to the firm yesterday who installed this as part of LAP018664.00 (https://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DOT_projects&id=4313538&v=full-archive-2016) and they said this is the first PHB out of two to be installed in the state, the second one being in Lewiston. They said they there's been "severe red light running" ever since it's been converted and they are thinking about either adding more signs and/or getting the police to do some enforcement.
MaineDOT has been adamant to install PHBs for years now, this being one of the reasons why and from what I'm told by the firm, a strange quirk/technicality in Maine's crosswalk law. They've been preferring RRFBs for a while now but starting to be open with PHBs in 2022. Not sure if the steady red during FDW was a Portland, MaineDOT and/or a the firm's designer's decision.
HAWK rebranding? Thought those were always (offically) called Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) per the 2009 MUTCD, unless you're talking about something else.
That's exactly right. There are different standards for the use of a full traffic signal and a HAWK. A full traffic signal has to meet signal warrants. And they cannot be placed in nearly as many places as an unsignalized crosswalk. And in some states there are guidelines as to how close to another signal they can be placed.
A HAWK is designed to make an unsignalized crossing safer for a pedestrian. The HAWK is a beacon, not a signal. It does not have to meet warrants and is designed to encourage proper behavior at an unsignalized crossing.
Let's imagine an unsignalized crossing on a relatively busy road. By law, in most states, a car must yield to a pedestrian, when a pedestrian is crossing the road. The car must stop to let the pedestrian cross and then may proceed once the pedestrian is out of the way. But in reality, it is not always easy to see the pedestrian, and cars don't always stop, so pedestrians usually wait until there is a gap in traffic (either no cars coming, or a car actually stopping for the pedestrian) before making the crossing. And very likely traffic in the opposing direction will also come to a stop, once they see the pedestrian making the crossing.
The HAWK is meant to mimic the ideal behavior. The signal will flash yellow to warn cars to the presence of pedestrians, and then lead to solid yellow to warn of the upcoming red signal. THe red signal will force the cars to stop, so that the pedestrians can safely BEGIN their journey. But after a few seconds (usually at the time when WALK changes to FDW) the red signal becomes a flashing red signal. Since the cars are already stopped, the cars will remain stopping if there are pedestrians still in the crosswalk. But if there are no pedestrians there, the cars may proceed after coming to a solid stop. The HAWK is there to make sure that the cars stop for pedestrians, and not simply stop for a red light that may be longer than necessary, since most pedestrians walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec.
A well designed HAWK will only cause traffic stop long enough to allow the pedestrians to cross, much like the ideal behavior at an unsignalized crosswalk. As such, the red time should be minimal and warrants aren't necessary, since traffic is only stopped vbriefly.
Cities like Seattle will use PHB warrants for half signals. Cities in my area will program PHBs to not include the flashing red phase while FDW is on.
The MUTCD is a document, sure. And it's helpful in many cases, yes. But how good of an engineer are you if you follow it blindly?
iPhone
It sounds like those engineers aren't following the MUTCD. That doesn't make the MUTCD 'wrong'.
- are there many bicyclists that cross here.
- What's the population, high % of school children or elderly?
- Is there a multi threat conflict?
Maybe it makes sense to go to Alt R right when FDW starts, or maybe you do a delay so pedestrians can get into the final lane, or maybe you just go Alt R after the FDW stops. It all depends!
iPhone
iPhone
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
iPhone
I wasn't aware that forcing cars to wait at red lights would do something about the 60 mph wind and 117% humidity here...
Are you saying that drivers frequently run flashing red lights? I'm not sure that I would agree with that. Many drivers do California stops, sure. That is common even here in Japan. But I've never seen intersections where drivers just straight up blow through a flashing red. That's exceptionally unusual.
My family has a car that has an auto-engine stop. There's a button to disable it, but you have to press it each time you start the car. Guess what I do every time I drive it?
Also, I see lots of drivers ignoring NTOR, especially in situations where the prohibition isn't justified due to a lack of sight or very high speeds. So NTOR can end up being a nuisance to those who obey it, and doesn't stop people from ignoring it anyways. NTOR should only be used where it is absolutely justified.
iPhone
iPhone
iPhone
So, you work in the "transpo industry." If you mean a private contractor, I don't see how you would be able to dictate when rights on red are implemented.
I mean, I'd probably be a lot safer if I went around town wearing a football helmet and pads. I'm guessing it wouldn't be very pleasant, though.
Becoming less of an issue with mild hybrid systems becoming more common. Usually nudging the steering wheel kicks the engine back on, though.
Practically speaking, you really should draw a line between failure to completely stop and blowing through a stop condition. Most drivers will still yield to pedestrians under "California stop" conditions and speeds are usually very low (2-5 mph); total failure to even recognize a stop condition is a serious danger as blowing through at-speed could easily kill someone walking/riding/rolling/driving.
For example, at a HAWK, California stops are pretty reasonable. It's usually obvious enough if there is a pedestrian warranting a complete stop (and yield). But blowing through the alternating red without even slowing down is insanely dangerous. I wouldn't personally support solid red at a HAWK unless the latter has become common. Slowing down, looking for danger, and then continuing, is more than reasonable. I assume the Netherlands agrees, as they don't hardly ever use stop signs.
In my experience, drivers don't yield to pedestrians until they actually see one, and they don't start looking for them until they've already entered the crosswalk during their "California stop" routine.
This doesn't mean I'm against less-than-complete stops. It just means people need to learn how to properly yield.
Haha, Not Just Bikes. That guy really hates traffic engineers...
I like Dutch infrastructure, but I don't think all traffic engineers are awful people.
We're able to recommend it. Typically it stays.
Here's a city in Massachusetts that has had a lot of great projects. They want to ban turn on red city wide. They just aren't appropriate in many contexts.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwix0_LEvMX7AhXhMlkFHX3pBHQQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2F2022%2F11%2F08%2Fno-turn-on-red-cambridge%2F&usg=AOvVaw2kp6aJ-Ca1LGL6jhGsqHDR
I think this is a good summary on my thoughts too. I'll still be the odd one out doing complete stops, but as long as everyone slows to 2-5 mph, I think it should be safe enough, as long as no one enters when the flashing lights toggle. While yes that's illegal, it doesn't mean humans won't do that. That's the psychology of traffic engineering!
Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.
This is correct. No solid red, just flashing red.
I believe that the safest ped crossing singal would be teh LA signal modified with a brief solid red phase at the beginning of the crossing. THe solid red will force people to stop to see what is happening, and then after a few seconds, cars can proceed assuming that there are no pedestrians still crossing.
MA is generally a very dense state. So in much of the area, there are significant numbers of people crossing.
NTOR is justified in any significant pedestrian heavy area. While I am not a fan of blanket RTOR prohibitions, I think it is fair to assume that putting in NTOR signs in downtown areas and within walking distance to major transit stations is generally justified for safety reasons.
I think you overstate the prevalence of NTOR in Massachusetts. I just tested 5 random intersections in the Boston area on Google Street View, including several in what appeared to be downtown areas with likely more pedestrian traffic, and found a good handful of Left Turn Yield On Green signs... but zero NTORs. If your math is right, that should have a 0.2% chance of happening.
LOL! I rarely see any 'no-turn-on-red' signage here in Western PA.
Not saying they aren't out there, but PennDOT over on the western side of the state doesn't use them unless really necessary.
That's weird. Did you check for nearside signs?
Data wise the city says they have them posted at 90+% of intersections, but it's possible some have been removed. At least where I live in Arlington, it's No Turn On Red land. Good for when I bike/walk/run, but a bit annoying for when I drive.
Is this what you intended? I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase. Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase. So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.
It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.
Also, even if the one pedestrian crosses on the solid red, the signal still keeps stopping traffic for 30 seconds.
Correct. But the whole purpose of a HAWK beacon is to give peds a protected crossing phase. You can't do that with a simple yellow warning signal. It's either a HAWK or a standard RYG signal. Both of them stop traffic, because that's the whole point of them in the first place. If you don't like that part of it, then it isn't HAWK beacons you don't like, it's protected ped crossing phases at all that you don't like.
As I said, that's no different than a standard RYG signal.
The comparison is between something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/Qqc6vkhPEHRcd43b8) and something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/EykZisKF7B9AJYtr9).
I would imagine that most pedestrians can sort out the difference. One requires you to hit a button and wait for a walk sign, the other just activates some flashing lights.
I thought IA-11 was terminated due to patent issues. Was approval reinstated?
Yes, I'm pretty sure the average pedestrian has learned by now that an orange hand means DON'T WALK, and a white man means 'WALK', and that the average pedestrian can figure out the difference between that setup and an RRFB crosswalk. I mean, the pedestrian isn't even the one facing the traffic signal: drivers are.
No, the difference between a HAWK and an RRFB is that the latter doesn't even have a red light phase at all. They are not equivalent. The equivalent to an RRFB would be a pushbutton-activated flashing yellow beacon–not a HAWK.
Yeah, sorry, I knew that when I posted it. I was just too lazy to look up a location that was in compliance.
I don't see anything saying 60 ft. in the Manual. Sec. 4F.02.04.A reads: The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 ft.from side streets or driveways that are controlled by stop or yield signs.
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
Intersections have too much going on
I wonder on the Kansas example of an intersection HAWK when the blank-out No Right Turn sign turns off. One would assume it's on during the steady red light, but does it turn off during the flashing red? If not, that's a lot of sitting to wait. (One would think it must only light during the steady red, but the cynic in me thinks it may do otherwise.)
Exactly my thought. The real issue is you don’t want to create an intersection where some approaches are signalized and others are not. If I’m turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK…can I go if it’s clear of peds? Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they’re being held by a double red, but it’s actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.
If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.
Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.
I feel like half signals can be executed well if the thru direction is shown flashing yellow by default, which changes to red, then flashing red, if a pedestrian activates the crosswalk. You'd need a couple "stop here on flashing red" signs on either side of the half-signaled intersection.
If you're worried about the cross street, additional heads can be installed to stop cross-street traffic as you see fit.
Half signals get a bad rap, not because they're a bad idea, but because they're executed wrong.
I also think the HAWK is redundant; just use a standard RYG signal, where red turns to flashing red before turning green (or flashing yellow at half-signaled intersections). It held up fire station entrances for years, what's the issue with using it for crosswalks?
Yes. You're not facing thesignal beacon, therefore it does not apply to you. Yield to pedestrians, proceed to turn.
Just like any four-way stop. The other person might start going at the same time as you. This happens all the time. No big deal.
To my knowledge, the HAWK was created specifically to be a beacon, and the warrants for beacons are much easier to meet, compared to full traffic signals.
Half signals are unique; don't mistake that for confusing. Drivers who do not drive in areas where they are common (such as Seattle) may find them unusual, but I shall imagine almost all drivers are able to work out what is happening within a few moments, and can successfully maneuver through them. The point, though, is to improve pedestrian safety, and I think half signals in this way have actually proven to be very successful in reducing pedestrian crashes. Don't look at them as being tools for helping drivers, but tools for helping pedestrians. They may be an oddity for drivers, but they are mostly to aid pedestrians.
For the most part, a HAWK or even a half-signal is significantly cheaper to install and operate than a full signal. For starters, you don't need to have any signal faces for the side street direction. You also don't need to have any detectors (inductance loops or optical) for side street traffic. The only input to change the operation of the signal from its normal state (favoring main street traffic) is the pedestrian push button that activates the cycle change.
That being said, there are definitely some issues that I see with operating them at an intersection rather than midblock. Side street traffic can take advantage of the stopping of main street traffic to make going straight or going left easier, but they shouldn't rely on that because the signal will only change in the presence of pedestrians. Also, that pedestrian signal walk is not the equivalent of side street green, because pedestrians crossing parallel to the main street continue to have right of way and main street traffic may be allowed to proceed with the flashing red during the FDW phase (and in some iterations even during the walk phase). It is also true that the side street traffic does not have a direct view of the signal face of the main street, so they may have no knowledge of the upcoming change from solid red to flashing red to no signal. This doesn't seem safe.
When an intersection is signalized (or beaconized, I guess when talking of HAWKs) we are used to the following iterations where one street has right of way over the other:
[Generic cases, not specialized cases like signals with arrows or split-phasing]
Green orb / red orb. One direction may go straight, or turn left (yielding to oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians), or turn right (yielding to parallel pedestrians). The other direction may not proceed or turn left, but may turn right on red (after full stop yielding to one direction of cross-traffic and perpendicular pedestrains).
Flashing yellow / flashing red. The signalized equivalent to the no stop / stop sign. One direction may go straight, or turn left (yielding to oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians), or turn right (yielding to parallel pedestrians). In all cases, this traffic must also yield to perpendicular pedestrians - who may be unlikely to cross if this street is busy and they view the crossing as dangerous, but nontheless perfectfully legal sor such pedestrians to cross. The other direction may go straight (after full stop and yielding to two directions of cross-traffic and perpendicular pedestrians), turn left (after full stop and yielding to two directions of cross-traffic, perpendicular pedestrians, parallel pedestrians, and oncoming traffic), and turn right (after full stop yielding to one directions of cross-traffic, perpendicular pedestrians, and parallel pedestrians).
But hybrid combinations of the above do not seem especially safe or desirable. If one sees a green orb, does one expect cross traffic to potentially proceed straight across the intersection as can happen at a half-signal? If one experiences the different phases of a HAWK signal, designed to release traffic after a fast pedestian has crossed, but still requiring a full stop at the flashing red phase to account for a possible slow/late pedestrian, does one scan the side street for cars before proceeding, or would they proceed simply upon seeing no pedestrians crossing?
By design, the HAWK was meant to address a mid-block crossing. It does a decent job of this (although there are some even better iteraions like the Los Angeles style mid-blog RYG with flashing red phase).
The HAWK was not meant to address an intersection crossing, because it does not have a signal face for the side street.
Could a HAWK-like signal be designed for the potential of an intersection crossing? Yes. Imagine the following signal sequence:
MAIN / SIDE
Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK [Rest]
Solid Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK
Solid Red / Green - WALK
Solid Red / Yellow - WALK
Flashing Red / Flashing Yellow - FDW
Flashing Red / Yellow - DONT WALK
Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK [Rest]
Yet despite this possibility, a full regular signal would seem to be far more intuitive and simpler for most drivers. If we want sides street drivers to cross when the pedestrians do, just give them a green light as opposed to having them guess what the indication of the main street signal is based on the pedestrian signal. The worst conflict point for both a HAWK and a half signal is what happens when main street signal is allowed to be released on the basis that most pedestrains are clear of the intersection. The main street drivers are only scanning for pedestrians before proceeding - it is harder for them to look out for side street cross-traffic.
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
This definitely should just be a signalized intersection. assuming pedestrian volumes justify all this. You have both roundabout and signal present without reaping the benefits of either. Stupid.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
That's a huge assumption. If a study determines there is little to no pedestrian volume, you construct the roundabout and then also include the HAWKs to keep the legal beagles happy.
The root cause, certainly, is unqualified use of roundabouts. Piling up another messy design element on top of that... Well, lets look on a bright side - maybe this would bring some realizations about good and bad design approaches.
HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.
I know that. My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration. RCOC determined that roundabouts were the best traffic solution at these intersections. So instead of returning the intersections to traditional signals, RCOC opted to keep the roundabouts and install (unused) HAWKs to keep the lawyers at bay.
And again - may not be the case since area seem to build up as a low pedestrian type of neighborhood, but future-proofing may be the consideration
You said that point was irrelevant.
If that's how you comprehend what I said, I give up.
The ped/bike path is the path on the asphalt.
The ramp is coming from the Parkway, where they are definitely prohibited. Which is why the crosswalk is located where it is. Although they should have some sort of barrier between the travel lanes and the ped/bike path.
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
https://tinyurl.com/2bgtaja9
Using LMGTFY? You are hereby declared guilty of Olive Garden behavior. Your punishment is to eat breadsticks until you reach the end of them.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) issues its final rule that provides minimum guidelines for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. These guidelines, once adopted, would ensure that facilities used by pedestrians, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, constructed or altered in the public right-of-way by Federal, state, and local Governments are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. When the guidelines are adopted, with or without modifications, as accessibility standards in regulations issued by other Federal agencies implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act, compliance with those enforceable accessibility standards is mandatory.
The final rule is effective September 7, 2023.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way
Specifically:
Each multi-lane segment of the roundabout containing a crosswalk shall provide a crosswalk treatment consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
and
Crosswalks at multi-lane channelized turn lanes shall provide treatments consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/technical.html#r30642-crosswalk-treatments
Any agency worth the paper they print on would have started incorporating the requirements into plans at least 2 years ago. The rules have been under development for an extremely delayed period of time.
Discussion on this forum goes back over a decade
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9139.msg212781#msg212781
Except some of the rules changed from the previous draft version, requiring some of the previous fixes to be revisited.
I also recall hearing that some of the PROWAG requirements require adoption by FHWA.
The punishment is greatly disproportionate to the crime...but message received.
That is correct, the rules are in an awkward place where they are final and published but still need to be adopted by FHWA and DOJ and in turn incorporated into the MUTCD.
However, most agencies are following the rules now because not doing so will likely create liability.
One of the benefits of a roundabout is reduced costs, including electricity costs. Unless there's lighting at the roundabout (which there often is), this will greatly increase the costs of constructing and continued maintenance/utility costs at a roundabout.
Ultimately, this will: Reduce the benefits of considering a roundabout as an option when upgrading the intersection, or eliminating crosswalks partially or fully at a roundabout.
Correct
Roundabouts have three major benefits. Lower cost of operations, improved safety (no t-bone collisions) and improved traffic flow.
Unfortunately, the improved traffic flow negatively impacts pedestrian safety, as too many american drivers blatantly break the law and fail to stop for pedestrians. So with this change, safety will be improved for pedestrians at the potential expense of traffic throughput and added maintenance costs.
Roundabouts will still be worth building for the safety improvements. Also, in areas with little pedestrian traffic, there really wont be a cost in traffic capacity since the signal only gets activated on demand.
Yes actually, it is.
Its one of the larger changes so I'm sure it will be.
The other big cost driver for agencies is no more orphaned bus stops. A bus stop must be connected to the entire sidewalk network. Having a landing pad that leads to grass is thankfully a thning of the past.
Question: What cycle do you like?
Option 1: original HAWK
Option 2: modified HAWK
Option 3: what is a HAWK signal?
Option 4: I like RYG ped signals.
Title: HAWK Thread
Post by: MCRoads on December 11, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
Post by: MCRoads on December 11, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
OK, so i think the HAWK signal being off all the time unless the button is pushed is odd for a signal, and confusing to drivers who haven't seen it before. they use a similar system to the HAWK on Tinker AFB as a security barrier warning light, only it isn't off at all, it has a flashing light. so, I've taken inspiration and made what i think is a good change. i will compare the barrier signal to both the original HAWK, and the modified HAWK signal cycles.
barrier signal:
Flash yellow (2 sec on, 2 sec off): barrier inactive, no stopping
Flash yellow (1 sec on, 1 sec off): barrier activating, use caution
Solid yellow: barrier activating, slow and stop
Solid red:barrier up, do not proceed
modified HAWK:
Flash yellow: (2 sec on, 2 sec off) crosswalk clear, no stopping
Flash yellow: (1 sec on, 1 sec off) pedestrians will cross, caution
Solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
Solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
Flash red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
original HAWK:
no signal: crosswalk clear, no stopping
flashing yellow: pedestrians will cross, caution
solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
flashing red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
Here is a GIF of what a modified HAWK would look like:
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-11-2017/qwPYUZ.gif) (https://www.aaroads.com/gif/hawk-signal-modification-qwPYUZ)
barrier signal:
Flash yellow (2 sec on, 2 sec off): barrier inactive, no stopping
Flash yellow (1 sec on, 1 sec off): barrier activating, use caution
Solid yellow: barrier activating, slow and stop
Solid red:barrier up, do not proceed
modified HAWK:
Flash yellow: (2 sec on, 2 sec off) crosswalk clear, no stopping
Flash yellow: (1 sec on, 1 sec off) pedestrians will cross, caution
Solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
Solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
Flash red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
original HAWK:
no signal: crosswalk clear, no stopping
flashing yellow: pedestrians will cross, caution
solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
flashing red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
Here is a GIF of what a modified HAWK would look like:
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/12-11-2017/qwPYUZ.gif) (https://www.aaroads.com/gif/hawk-signal-modification-qwPYUZ)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on December 11, 2017, 01:39:09 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 11, 2017, 01:39:09 PM
Original.
A flashing yellow light is a flashing yellow light, no matter the blink rate. I actually prefer HAWK to standard signals, because people grow accustomed to ignore lights that are always green, so they sometimes don't notice them when they actually turn yellow/red. I've seen this happen near my house.
A flashing yellow light is a flashing yellow light, no matter the blink rate. I actually prefer HAWK to standard signals, because people grow accustomed to ignore lights that are always green, so they sometimes don't notice them when they actually turn yellow/red. I've seen this happen near my house.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AM
Post by: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AM
They could have kept it simple and gone for a modified version of the pelican crossing from Commonwealth countries. Just replace the flashing yellow 'yield' phase with a flashing red 'stop and yield' phase.
This would avoid contradicting two rules that normally apply to signals, 1) that you should treat a dark signal as a stop sign, and 2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
Your concept avoids one of these contradictions, but not the other.
This would avoid contradicting two rules that normally apply to signals, 1) that you should treat a dark signal as a stop sign, and 2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
Your concept avoids one of these contradictions, but not the other.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 08:24:28 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 08:24:28 AM
Quote from: MCRoads on December 11, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
...and confusing to drivers who haven't seen it before.
modified HAWK:
Flash yellow: (2 sec on, 2 sec off) crosswalk clear, no stopping
Flash yellow: (1 sec on, 1 sec off) pedestrians will cross, caution
Solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
Solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
Flash red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
And this isn't confusing?
You have 4 different light phases when pedestrians could be crossing.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 02:38:31 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 02:38:31 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PMQuote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
I have seen the sign "Stop On Red" being fairly common. And since a flashing red is still red, that's why traffic continues to remain stopped.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadman on December 12, 2017, 02:42:03 PM
Post by: roadman on December 12, 2017, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 02:38:31 PMThis is the sign MassDOT uses with HAWK installations: https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/Signs/MA-R10-23a.pdfQuote from: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PMQuote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
I have seen the sign "Stop On Red" being fairly common. And since a flashing red is still red, that's why traffic continues to remain stopped.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 02:50:15 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 12, 2017, 02:50:15 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PMQuote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
Correct. Please see below for the applicable rules.
Quote from: MUTCD, 2009 Edition, Chapter 8C. Flashing-Light Signals, Gates, and Traffic Control Signals
§8C.02 Flashing-Light Signals
04 When indicating the approach or presence of rail traffic, the flashing-light signal shall display toward approaching highway traffic two red lights mounted in a horizontal line flashing alternately.
Quote from: MUTCD, 2009 Edition, Chapter 8C. Flashing-Light Signals, Gates, and Traffic Control Signals
§8C.01 Introduction
04 The meaning of flashing-light signals and gates shall be as stated in the "Uniform Vehicle Code" (see Sections 11-701 and 11-703 of the UVC), which is available from the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances (see Page i for the address).
Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millenium Edition
§11-701 Obedience to signal indicating approach of train
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MCRoads on December 13, 2017, 10:03:07 AM
Post by: MCRoads on December 13, 2017, 10:03:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 08:24:28 AMQuote from: MCRoads on December 11, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
...and confusing to drivers who haven't seen it before.
modified HAWK:
Flash yellow: (2 sec on, 2 sec off) crosswalk clear, no stopping
Flash yellow: (1 sec on, 1 sec off) pedestrians will cross, caution
Solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
Solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
Flash red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
And this isn't confusing?
You have 4 different light phases when pedestrians could be crossing.
pedestrians will cross: They cannot cross until the light has turned solid red.
pedestrians crossing: pedestrians are in the traffic lanes, pedestrians have started crossing.
pedestrians may be crossing: pedestrians may be in the traffic lanes, pedestrians may not be finished crossing.
there are only two phases where pedestrians are allowed to enter the traffic lanes.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadfro on December 13, 2017, 11:03:56 AM
Post by: roadfro on December 13, 2017, 11:03:56 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 12, 2017, 02:42:03 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 02:38:31 PMThis is the sign MassDOT uses with HAWK installations: https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/8/docs/traffic/Signs/MA-R10-23a.pdfQuote from: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PMQuote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
I have seen the sign "Stop On Red" being fairly common. And since a flashing red is still red, that's why traffic continues to remain stopped.
That sign ("Crosswalk / Stop On Red / Proceed on Flashing Red When Clear") is actually approved by FHWA as a clarification/interim approval to the 2009 MUTCD. Even still, that doesn't convey the full message that each car is supposed to stop during the flashing red--that sign can be interpreted as you can go through during flashing red without stopping as long as the peds are cleared.
Quote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AM
They could have kept it simple and gone for a modified version of the pelican crossing from Commonwealth countries. Just replace the flashing yellow 'yield' phase with a flashing red 'stop and yield' phase.
Or just used a Pelican crossing concept instead. That makes the most sense with the concept the HAWK signals are trying to convey...not sure why the wheel was reinvented here...
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 13, 2017, 12:20:32 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 13, 2017, 12:20:32 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on December 13, 2017, 10:03:07 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 08:24:28 AMQuote from: MCRoads on December 11, 2017, 10:17:20 AM
...and confusing to drivers who haven't seen it before.
modified HAWK:
Flash yellow: (2 sec on, 2 sec off) crosswalk clear, no stopping
Flash yellow: (1 sec on, 1 sec off) pedestrians will cross, caution
Solid yellow: pedestrians will cross, slow and stop
Solid red: pedestrians crossing, do not proceed
Flash red: pedestrians may be crossing, stop, then if clear, proceed
And this isn't confusing?
You have 4 different light phases when pedestrians could be crossing.
pedestrians will cross: They cannot cross until the light has turned solid red.
pedestrians crossing: pedestrians are in the traffic lanes, pedestrians have started crossing.
pedestrians may be crossing: pedestrians may be in the traffic lanes, pedestrians may not be finished crossing.
there are only two phases where pedestrians are allowed to enter the traffic lanes.
There should only be one phase when pedestrians are allowed to enter the traffic lanes: When THEY have a walk signal. Remember...the traffic light is guidance for traffic, so that's not what the pedestrian goes by (a well placed signal may never be seen by the pedestrian, because their focus should be on the walk/don't walk signal). You can't have a White Walk Signal while cross traffic has a yellow light because peds have the right of way. A yellow light doesn't require traffic to stop, and they aren't expecting pedestrians to enter the crosswalk at that point. Yellow signals are used primarily to indicate the signal will be turning red. So, when peds have a walk signal, motorists should have a red stop signal. As the pedestrian signal moves to a countdown/flashing red, that's when the traffic signal should turn to flashing red.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:34:27 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:34:27 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on December 13, 2017, 10:03:07 AMQuote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2017, 08:24:28 AM
You have 4 different light phases when pedestrians could be crossing.
there are only two phases where pedestrians are allowed to enter the traffic lanes.
These two statements are not contradictory. There are four HAWK phases in your scheme during which pedestrians could be crossing. Up from three in the Original.
Meanwhile, the only difference in your scheme between "no pedestrians nearby" and "watch out for pedestrians" is how fast a light is flashing–requiring people both to know the difference in meaning and also to count how many seconds there are between blinks.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
Post by: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: UCFKnights on December 13, 2017, 07:24:22 PM
Post by: UCFKnights on December 13, 2017, 07:24:22 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PMFor this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.Quote from: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on December 14, 2017, 11:25:55 AM
Post by: kphoger on December 14, 2017, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 13, 2017, 07:24:22 PMQuote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PMFor this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.Quote from: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience. But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well. I agree that uniformity is important here.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PM
Post by: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PM
It doesn't matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can't see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don't have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don't see it in time. Let's not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let's talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on December 14, 2017, 12:23:03 PM
Post by: kphoger on December 14, 2017, 12:23:03 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PM
It doesn't matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can't see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don't have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don't see it in time. Let's not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let's talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
It looks like they had attempted to put the exit legs' crosswalks farther downstream than the entry legs' crosswalks (approx. 100—110 feet from the circulating lanes). This is obviously a good, thing, but apparently not good enough. I was unable to find any specific FHWA recommendation on how far from the circulating lanes to put a crosswalk; do you know if this exists? I actually think anywhere on the splitter island is too close, but that's just a gut feeling. Mid-block crosswalks would be my preference at roundabout locations.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2017, 12:29:16 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 14, 2017, 12:29:16 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PM
It doesn’t matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can’t see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don’t have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don’t see it in time. Let’s not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let’s talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
I'm pretty sure tradephoric is a politician. They are the only ones that can derail a conversation with a sole exception, and tell others that the entire discussion must end until this one exception is fixed.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadfro on December 14, 2017, 03:57:02 PM
Post by: roadfro on December 14, 2017, 03:57:02 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PMThe same can be said for crosswalks at roundabout exits involving RRFBs or no conditions at all. Yield to pedestrian rates are much higher upon entry than upon exit. So no news there...
It doesn't matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can't see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don't have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don't see it in time. Let's not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let's talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
LG-H871
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: UCFKnights on December 15, 2017, 01:02:59 AM
Post by: UCFKnights on December 15, 2017, 01:02:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on December 14, 2017, 11:25:55 AMI know I've seen them in other states as well, but they're common in Florida, here's a typical example:Quote from: UCFKnights on December 13, 2017, 07:24:22 PMQuote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PMFor this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.Quote from: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience. But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well. I agree that uniformity is important here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6111816,-81.1918464,3a,75y,344.14h,78.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPTJ5hcwVvsrjiHARwSk3mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A dark signal is SUPPOSED to be treated as a stop sign supposedly (rarely happens), thats another reason I don't like the HAWK defaulting to dark. i'd want the signals to look like the emergency ones, perhaps with the added flashing red phase. (Some emergency signal installations use red signal housing in other states, and I've seen lots of Florida ones with an 8 inch bottom flashing yellow segment)
Another thing I've seen in Orlando is the fluorescent yellow being used as the retroreflective border around signals for schools (instead of the standard yellow warning color), they could be used on HAWKs or pedestrian signals as well?
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: tradephoric on December 15, 2017, 10:21:13 AM
Post by: tradephoric on December 15, 2017, 10:21:13 AM
Quote from: roadfro on December 14, 2017, 03:57:02 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PMThe same can be said for crosswalks at roundabout exits involving RRFBs or no conditions at all. Yield to pedestrian rates are much higher upon entry than upon exit. So no news there...
It doesn't matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can't see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don't have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don't see it in time. Let's not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let's talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
It's a false sense of security. Pedestrians see the WALK indication and may assume it's safe to cross yet about 1/3 of drivers are ignoring the solid red indication at the HAWK. Just imagine if 1/3 of drivers blew through red lights at a typical intersection and how safe that would be for pedestrians and or other motorists (and i'm not talking about running a red light that was still "pink"... i'm talking about blowing through a solid red light that has been red for a while). The HAWK has a horrid compliance rate at the exiting leg of a roundabout. At some point you are better off with no traffic control device at all.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 15, 2017, 11:41:59 AM
Post by: freebrickproductions on December 15, 2017, 11:41:59 AM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 15, 2017, 01:02:59 AMHuntsville also has some, though the city uses RYG signals:Quote from: kphoger on December 14, 2017, 11:25:55 AMI know I've seen them in other states as well, but they're common in Florida, here's a typical example:Quote from: UCFKnights on December 13, 2017, 07:24:22 PMQuote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PMFor this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.Quote from: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience. But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well. I agree that uniformity is important here.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6111816,-81.1918464,3a,75y,344.14h,78.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPTJ5hcwVvsrjiHARwSk3mg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A dark signal is SUPPOSED to be treated as a stop sign supposedly (rarely happens), thats another reason I don't like the HAWK defaulting to dark. i'd want the signals to look like the emergency ones, perhaps with the added flashing red phase. (Some emergency signal installations use red signal housing in other states, and I've seen lots of Florida ones with an 8 inch bottom flashing yellow segment)
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7134687,-86.6269973,3a,59y,352.49h,94.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDZ4zBFG2WQxKT-AswxiMyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I've also seen a few up in New Jersey, though typically with an 8 inch flashing yellow indication at the bottom.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2018, 11:21:52 AM
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2018, 11:21:52 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 15, 2017, 10:21:13 AMQuote from: roadfro on December 14, 2017, 03:57:02 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PMThe same can be said for crosswalks at roundabout exits involving RRFBs or no conditions at all. Yield to pedestrian rates are much higher upon entry than upon exit. So no news there...
It doesn't matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can't see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don't have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don't see it in time. Let's not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let's talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
It's a false sense of security. Pedestrians see the WALK indication and may assume it's safe to cross yet about 1/3 of drivers are ignoring the solid red indication at the HAWK. Just imagine if 1/3 of drivers blew through red lights at a typical intersection and how safe that would be for pedestrians and or other motorists (and i'm not talking about running a red light that was still "pink"... i'm talking about blowing through a solid red light that has been red for a while). The HAWK has a horrid compliance rate at the exiting leg of a roundabout. At some point you are better off with no traffic control device at all.
1/3rd? lol. Looks like more than 50% here. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMoDfLcWSE
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2018, 11:27:56 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2018, 11:27:56 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2018, 11:21:52 AMQuote from: tradephoric on December 15, 2017, 10:21:13 AMQuote from: roadfro on December 14, 2017, 03:57:02 PMQuote from: tradephoric on December 14, 2017, 12:10:24 PMThe same can be said for crosswalks at roundabout exits involving RRFBs or no conditions at all. Yield to pedestrian rates are much higher upon entry than upon exit. So no news there...
It doesn’t matter what type of indications are used at a HAWK if drivers physically can’t see it in time to react to the indications being displayed. A HAWK study at a roundabout in Oakland County, Michigan found that 31.1% of exit leg drivers proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication. Compare that to just 5.6% of drivers who proceeded through the crosswalk during the steady red indication at the entry leg of the roundabout. That massive discrepancy between exiting and entry approaches suggests that the HAWK is not an effective traffic control device at an exit leg of a roundabout. Drivers exiting a roundabout don’t have enough time to react to the HAWK signal as they exit a roundabout and simply don’t see it in time. Let’s not put HAWKs in locations where 1/3 of drivers are going to blow through the solid red. Once that happens then let’s talk about the nuances of the best sequence to use.
https://www.rcocweb.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/99
It's a false sense of security. Pedestrians see the WALK indication and may assume it's safe to cross yet about 1/3 of drivers are ignoring the solid red indication at the HAWK. Just imagine if 1/3 of drivers blew through red lights at a typical intersection and how safe that would be for pedestrians and or other motorists (and i'm not talking about running a red light that was still "pink"... i'm talking about blowing through a solid red light that has been red for a while). The HAWK has a horrid compliance rate at the exiting leg of a roundabout. At some point you are better off with no traffic control device at all.
1/3rd? lol. Looks like more than 50% here. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMoDfLcWSE
Note that during many of the solid reds, no one was crossing. Guess the news station had to constantly press the walk button for no reason to get the story they wanted. That doesn't help people's attitutes and knowledge for these lights when people press the button without actually walking across the intersection.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: tradephoric on February 16, 2018, 11:30:34 AM
Post by: tradephoric on February 16, 2018, 11:30:34 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2018, 11:21:52 AM
1/3rd? lol. Looks like more than 50% here. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMoDfLcWSE
WOW. That is a lot of people just blowing through that solid red HAWK at the end of that video... and that's not even at the exiting lane of a roundabout. The driver's mentality seems to be.. "well if i don't see a pedestrian in the crosswalk, I'm not stopping".
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2018, 11:39:22 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on February 16, 2018, 11:39:22 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on February 16, 2018, 11:30:34 AMQuote from: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2018, 11:21:52 AM
1/3rd? lol. Looks like more than 50% here. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMoDfLcWSE
WOW. That is a lot of people just blowing through that solid red HAWK at the end of that video... and that's not even at the exiting lane of a roundabout. The driver's mentality seems to be.. "well if i don't see a pedestrian in the crosswalk, I'm not stopping".
I sometimes attribute that to the "following the leader" syndrome. If one person did it, then we can all do it. I've seen motorists do that at standard intersections - if one person goes thru a red by mistake (often times, they see the green arrow light up and for whatever reason think they got the green light), then the next person or two or three go thru as well, as if they're not even paying attention.
It appeared a few of the cars in the video actually slowed down at least, or even stopped. Since the video doesn't actually show the motorist at the stop line, we can't see what they actually did. None of that excludes the fact that the motorist should have remained stopped though at the solid red.
And the flashing red - being that the sign says "STOP ON RED", it's hard to fault the driver for not moving when the lights are still flashing red. The sign is incomplete.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Revive 755 on February 17, 2018, 12:21:27 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on February 17, 2018, 12:21:27 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 13, 2017, 11:03:56 AM
That sign ("Crosswalk / Stop On Red / Proceed on Flashing Red When Clear") is actually approved by FHWA as a clarification/interim approval to the 2009 MUTCD. Even still, that doesn't convey the full message that each car is supposed to stop during the flashing red--that sign can be interpreted as you can go through during flashing red without stopping as long as the peds are cleared.
Utah has a much better version of the sign that I wish FHWA would have used as a basis for the sign in the interpretation. See Page 498/587 of the 10 MB Utah Standard Highway Signs Supplement pdf (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=13202015905895727)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadfro on February 18, 2018, 01:10:46 PM
Post by: roadfro on February 18, 2018, 01:10:46 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on February 17, 2018, 12:21:27 PMQuote from: roadfro on December 13, 2017, 11:03:56 AM
That sign ("Crosswalk / Stop On Red / Proceed on Flashing Red When Clear") is actually approved by FHWA as a clarification/interim approval to the 2009 MUTCD. Even still, that doesn't convey the full message that each car is supposed to stop during the flashing red--that sign can be interpreted as you can go through during flashing red without stopping as long as the peds are cleared.
Utah has a much better version of the sign that I wish FHWA would have used as a basis for the sign in the interpretation. See Page 498/587 of the 10 MB Utah Standard Highway Signs Supplement pdf (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=13202015905895727)
That Utah sign is a bit of improvement in the overall instruction, but it is much more to process. "STOP / on flashing / red (red ball) / proceed if clear" does give a clearer message though.
I'd just be happy to switch to a Pelican crossing. I don't see the need for each successive car to stop if pedestrians have already cleared...
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: mrsman on April 09, 2018, 12:41:19 AM
Post by: mrsman on April 09, 2018, 12:41:19 AM
Quote from: roadfro on February 18, 2018, 01:10:46 PMQuote from: Revive 755 on February 17, 2018, 12:21:27 PMQuote from: roadfro on December 13, 2017, 11:03:56 AM
That sign ("Crosswalk / Stop On Red / Proceed on Flashing Red When Clear") is actually approved by FHWA as a clarification/interim approval to the 2009 MUTCD. Even still, that doesn't convey the full message that each car is supposed to stop during the flashing red--that sign can be interpreted as you can go through during flashing red without stopping as long as the peds are cleared.
Utah has a much better version of the sign that I wish FHWA would have used as a basis for the sign in the interpretation. See Page 498/587 of the 10 MB Utah Standard Highway Signs Supplement pdf (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=13202015905895727)
That Utah sign is a bit of improvement in the overall instruction, but it is much more to process. "STOP / on flashing / red (red ball) / proceed if clear" does give a clearer message though.
I'd just be happy to switch to a Pelican crossing. I don't see the need for each successive car to stop if pedestrians have already cleared...
I think that's brilliant and a whole lot safer.
For all mid-block signalized crossings (and crossings where the side street is one-way away from the main street), follow the pelican crossing:
MAIN: GREEN - YELLOW - RED - FL YELLOW - GREEN (with short "all-red" phases at each red to green phase)
SIDE: DW - DW - WALK - FDW - DW
The safest part is that it meets driver expectations when they see a green light, they know that the light may eventually turn yellow and red. The city of Los Angeles mid-block crossings are somewhat similar, except that the FL YELLOW is replaced with FL RED, but to your point the FL YELLOW makes more sense as at this point in the crossing, there are likely no pedestrians left to cross. (In my experience, the vast majority of peds cross at the beginning of the crossing and usually cross faster than the 3 ft/sec timing that keeps cars waiting for the light to turn green. Hence the stale red light that is better replaced with a flashing yellow assuming that there are no cars on the side street crossing.)
I beleive that modified signals should be outlawed at regular intersections. There are some HAWKS out there at regular intersections where main street faces a HAWK and side street peds have a ped crossing and side street vehicles face a stop sign. These are designed to stop main street traffic without inducing side street traffic with green lights.
Here is one in DC at Connecticut/Northampton just south of the Chevy Chase Circle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9658337,-77.0758445,3a,75y,270.08h,91.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sua4eBrwuc8U95DzLuDLSzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
These are wrong. If there is heavy pedestrian traffic at such an intersection, regular traffic signal should be installed, but side street traffic should be controlled to force side street traffic to turn right on the main street. (And maybe add a warning sign that side street does not see a green light at every traffic cycle since likely there is no side street sensor other than the pedestrian button at such crossings.)
In short, if you want drivers to absolutely stop for peds at a crossing, and you are going to put in some types of signal the drivers need to see both a red light and a green light somewhere in their cycle. The green light doesn't merely tell the drivers to go, it also warns them that this light may eventually turn yellow and red. Dark signaled HAWKS or constant flashing yellows [at modified firehouse signals that are HAWK substitutes in MD and other states] fail to communicate to drivers that the light may eventually turn red, which is why they don't stop, like in the video forwarded by rickmastfan67.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 09, 2018, 04:49:22 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 09, 2018, 04:49:22 PM
Something that always peeved me about HAWKs is how the flashing phase looks exactly like flashing railroad crossing lights, and yet the expected behavior is very much something we don't want people doing at railroad crossings. Was this not considered when the hybrid beacon was approved? Maybe I'm looking too far into it.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 09, 2018, 05:22:22 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on April 09, 2018, 05:22:22 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on April 09, 2018, 04:49:22 PMActually, the flashing on both signals means the exact same thing: stop and proceed when clear. In fact, many beacons here in Alabama use two red lights that alternate.
Something that always peeved me about HAWKs is how the flashing phase looks exactly like flashing railroad crossing lights, and yet the expected behavior is very much something we don't want people doing at railroad crossings. Was this not considered when the hybrid beacon was approved? Maybe I'm looking too far into it.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 07:04:29 PM
Post by: vdeane on April 09, 2018, 07:04:29 PM
Even though that's the legal meaning, I'm pretty sure most people are taught to stop and wait for the lights to go off and gates to go back up when at a railroad crossing. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people don't even realize that railroad crossings with flashing lights but no gates or bells even exist.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 10, 2018, 11:43:32 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 10, 2018, 11:43:32 PM
To revive a dead thread, I tried to come up with concise regulatory signage for a HAWK beacon that better explains the flashing red phase. Thoughts?
(https://i.imgur.com/oruMYoP.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oruMYoP.png)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on June 11, 2018, 01:47:33 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 11, 2018, 01:47:33 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2018, 11:21:52 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMoDfLcWSE
The setup in that video is very peculiar. The near-side signals are two-head red and amber displays (no idea how they work), and no far side mast/post signals are used, period. This is extremely unusual for California, even at unique setups. Even some of the HAWKs in Washington (https://goo.gl/NSyvxD) have supplemental signals.
San Bruno intersection in question: https://goo.gl/hRmHrw
(https://i.imgur.com/H4JSTYb.png)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: mrsman on August 19, 2018, 02:46:19 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 19, 2018, 02:46:19 PM
It is peculiar. It seems from the clip of the video that the supplemental red and yellow light follows what the main HAWK light does, just with 2 lights instead of 3.
So the supplemental light goes from dark > fl yellow > solid yellow > solid red > fl red > dark.
The one question is whether the flashing red is in sync with the left red HAWK signal or the right red HAWK signal.
In any event, I don't like these. See my post a little upthread where I strongly prefer the L.A. version or the PELICAN signal to deal with this situation.
So the supplemental light goes from dark > fl yellow > solid yellow > solid red > fl red > dark.
The one question is whether the flashing red is in sync with the left red HAWK signal or the right red HAWK signal.
In any event, I don't like these. See my post a little upthread where I strongly prefer the L.A. version or the PELICAN signal to deal with this situation.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 11, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 11, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on December 13, 2017, 07:24:22 PMLots of places use EMERGENCY SIGNAL HAWKs:Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2017, 01:48:41 PMFor this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.Quote from: Brandon on December 13, 2017, 01:37:23 PM
I'd simplify the HAWK phases based on what drivers are taught to do.
1. Flashing yellow: caution, it's a pedestrian crossing.
2. Solid yellow: button has been pushed and pedestrian ready to cross.
3. Solid red: stop, wait for pedestrians.
4. Flashing red: stop, look for pedestrians, proceed if clear.
Then back to flashing yellow.
IMHO, people would be less likely to notice the change from flashing yellow to solid yellow with that scheme. They would be more likely with the actual HAWK scheme because the signal has just "come alive" from being dark and so they're already paying attention to it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTHnDhkTV8c
This one is set up not correctly.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 11, 2018, 06:47:58 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 11, 2018, 06:47:58 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 11, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
Lots of places use EMERGENCY SIGNAL HAWKs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTHnDhkTV8c
This one is set up not correctly.
This is beyond inane. Talk about fixing something that isn't broken, this is way more confusing than a standard 3-section signal.
Which brings me back to my huge problem with HAWKs–every signal indication they convey could be conveyed far more intuitively with a standard 3-head signal–Bottom light flashes amber in rest mode; middle amber light comes on when actuated, then red, then flashing red and back to rest mode. HAWKs are reinventing the wheel.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MCRoads on November 11, 2018, 08:39:25 PM
Post by: MCRoads on November 11, 2018, 08:39:25 PM
This thread will never quite die, will it?
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 08:48:29 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 08:48:29 PM
Quote from: MCRoads on November 11, 2018, 08:39:25 PM
This thread will never quite die, will it?
Why should it? It's not even a year old, and barely over a page and a half long.
For the record, it's kind of become a generic HAWK thread.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 16, 2018, 07:38:33 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 16, 2018, 07:38:33 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on June 10, 2018, 11:43:32 PMIt's good, but it never explained how your supposed to yield to Peds after stopping
To revive a dead thread, I tried to come up with concise regulatory signage for a HAWK beacon that better explains the flashing red phase. Thoughts?
(https://i.imgur.com/oruMYoP.png)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 16, 2018, 10:41:57 PM
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 16, 2018, 10:41:57 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRpb5ViND1o
Stanley Roberts is back, and now in AZ on this subject.
Stanley Roberts is back, and now in AZ on this subject.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 17, 2018, 03:11:45 AM
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 17, 2018, 03:11:45 AM
The comments on that YouTube video prove that even a simple light like that can confuse idiots.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on November 17, 2018, 10:20:27 AM
Post by: Roadwarriors79 on November 17, 2018, 10:20:27 AM
You can all thank the city of Tucson for the HAWK signals. I was living there at the time when they were first being developed. I didn't think they would ever be used nationwide. Pelican signals would have been better because most people can understand a simple red-yellow-green traffic light.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 17, 2018, 05:12:02 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 17, 2018, 05:12:02 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on November 17, 2018, 10:20:27 AM
You can all thank the city of Tucson for the HAWK signals. I was living there at the time when they were first being developed. I didn't think they would ever be used nationwide. Pelican signals would have been better because most people can understand a simple red-yellow-green traffic light.
As you know, Tucson normally has my admiration. but I don't know if I can ever forgive them for inventing this signal. I appreciate somebody trying to come up with a signal that doesn't require drivers to remain stopped throughout the entire walk signal, but I don't know if the HAWK is an ideal middle ground.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 17, 2018, 07:11:35 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 17, 2018, 07:11:35 PM
Another way I think would be more clear, is to have both signals flash red at once, no alternating. The alternating can be confused with grade crossings. This is a better way:
go to 1:09 to see the phase
go to 1:09 to see the phase
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 17, 2018, 07:11:35 PM
Another way I think would be more clear, is to have both signals flash red at once, no alternating. The alternating can be confused with grade crossings. This is a better way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHihP2t5mdQ
go to 1:09 to see the phase
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AM
Post by: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 03:58:29 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 03:58:29 PM
Quote from: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
You can't just double at that point lol.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: US 89 on November 19, 2018, 04:22:57 PM
Post by: US 89 on November 19, 2018, 04:22:57 PM
Quote from: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
Another thing you could do is have a three-section signal, but make the bottom a flashing yellow instead of green (similar to a flashing yellow arrow). The middle solid yellow would be to emphasize a change from flashing yellow to solid red. I see it working like this:
flashing yellow --> solid yellow --> solid red --> flashing red --> flashing yellow --> etc...
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 05:50:17 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 05:50:17 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2018, 04:22:57 PMQuote from: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
Another thing you could do is have a three-section signal, but make the bottom a flashing yellow instead of green (similar to a flashing yellow arrow). The middle solid yellow would be to emphasize a change from flashing yellow to solid red. I see it working like this:
flashing yellow --> solid yellow --> solid red --> flashing red --> flashing yellow --> etc...
I thought about that as well, but that's just a US emergency signal (Canada uses two orbs). Typically the bottom orb is 8-inch and the top two 12-inch.
One issue that I thought of overnight was that drivers may stop for people waiting to cross even on flashing yellow. Flashing beacons at crosswalks, like these (https://goo.gl/JQVhKK) that flash 24/7, others that flash when a button is pushed, or RRFBs, specifically use flashing yellow indications to get drivers to stop and give way to peds waiting to cross. Thing is, we wouldn't want drivers stopping on flashing yellow, since it will go red for peds when they push the button.
I think this is why I'd still prefer a flashing green indication.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 06:45:14 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 06:45:14 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 19, 2018, 04:22:57 PMSo you would want this:Quote from: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
Another thing you could do is have a three-section signal, but make the bottom a flashing yellow instead of green (similar to a flashing yellow arrow). The middle solid yellow would be to emphasize a change from flashing yellow to solid red. I see it working like this:
flashing yellow --> solid yellow --> solid red --> flashing red --> flashing yellow --> etc...
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:17:51 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:17:51 PM
^^
That's the most clever thing California has ever done with traffic signals. Funny that one actually exists!
That's the most clever thing California has ever done with traffic signals. Funny that one actually exists!
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:15:08 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:15:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:17:51 PMLol, everyone thinks that cali is like textbook MUTCD but they are creative.
^^
That's the most clever thing California has ever done with traffic signals. Funny that one actually exists!
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on November 19, 2018, 09:19:30 PM
Post by: kphoger on November 19, 2018, 09:19:30 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:15:08 PMeveryoneno one thinks that cali is like textbook MUTCD
FTFY.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 01:06:30 AM
Post by: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 01:06:30 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 19, 2018, 09:19:30 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:15:08 PMeveryoneno one thinks that cali is like textbook MUTCD
FTFY.
Haha yeah I wouldn't call them textbook MUTCD at all, but they are not normally too crafty. They have great signal placement, but they lack innovation overall. The sheer number of fully protected lefts in CA in maddening. I feel like they treat every road the same when no two roads are.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadfro on November 20, 2018, 01:54:09 AM
Post by: roadfro on November 20, 2018, 01:54:09 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 06:45:14 PMQuote from: US 89 on November 19, 2018, 04:22:57 PMSo you would want this:Quote from: Jet380 on November 19, 2018, 08:11:51 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:27:01 PM
Interesting. At that point, you may as well install a two-orb signal, where the bottom is amber and the top is red. Bottom amber would flash 24/7, and the top would go red when walk sign is on. Then to flashing red for a bit, and then back to flashing yellow. Might even be allowed under current regulation.
And at that point, you may as well add a green aspect and it becomes a modified pelican crossing.
Another thing you could do is have a three-section signal, but make the bottom a flashing yellow instead of green (similar to a flashing yellow arrow). The middle solid yellow would be to emphasize a change from flashing yellow to solid red. I see it working like this:
flashing yellow --> solid yellow --> solid red --> flashing red --> flashing yellow --> etc...
I'd prefer this to a HAWK any day. It is the same basic function as a HAWK, without the unusual display configuration of a HAWK, and it seems much more intuitive (not needing explanatory signs).
Although I still think a Pelican crossing would be superior to both.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
What about this:
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: hotdogPi on November 21, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on November 21, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
What about this:
Absolutely not. Flashing yellow means the cross street has flashing red, and more importantly, flashing yellow cannot suddenly turn to solid red. (Note the car at 0:19 in the video.)
I also believe that flashing green should only be used where there is no cross street, although there is no official standard for this yet.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:31:22 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:31:22 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 01:57:53 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
What about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hhhyUuWb8c
Absolutely not. Flashing yellow means the cross street has flashing red, and more importantly, flashing yellow cannot suddenly turn to solid red. (Note the car at 0:19 in the video.)
I'm sure that was in error. If someone contacts the city, I bet they'd fix it.
Car at 0:19 doesn't do anything wrong. I don't see an NTOR sign. On the other hand, that "Stop on Red" sign is rather redundant.
I quite like this signal. Interesting to see a new install of flashing green. I thought the MUTCD disallowed them.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 01:57:53 PM
I also believe that flashing green should only be used where there is no cross street, although there is no official standard for this yet.
I don't see why. BC's flashing greens are used any time the crosswalk is ped-activated, regardless if there's a cross-street. Further, the heaviest crosswalks are usually at intersections, where these would be most helpful.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 03:40:55 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 03:40:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:31:22 PM
Car at 0:19 doesn't do anything wrong.
The car clearly didn't come close to stopping on red.
Quote
I quite like this signal. Interesting to see a new install of flashing green. I thought the MUTCD disallowed them.
Delaware used flashing green at intersections where the cross street had a flashing red. The intent was that cars at the flashing red could go when it was safe to do so. The flashing green warned drivers that there could be cross traffic, and that the light could go from flashing green to either steady green or steady yellow (I forget which) then to steady red, giving cross traffic a steady green if the traffic was waiting there too long.
They eventually did away with them - too many accidents. I don't think any have existed for years in Delaware.
Delaware's a state where they try different things. They still use a flashing red left arrow, which much of the country now has as a flashing yellow arrow. They're also one of the few that allow open alcohol containers in the vehicle as long as the driver isn't the one drinking.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: hotdogPi on November 21, 2018, 03:49:54 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on November 21, 2018, 03:49:54 PM
I only mentioned the 0:19 car to show that it was a three-way intersection and not solely a pedestrian signal.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 04:00:26 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 04:00:26 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 03:40:55 PMQuote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:31:22 PM
Car at 0:19 doesn't do anything wrong.
The car clearly didn't come close to stopping on red.
No stop line visible in the video, so no way to be sure.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2018, 03:40:55 PM
Delaware used flashing green at intersections where the cross street had a flashing red. The intent was that cars at the flashing red could go when it was safe to do so. The flashing green warned drivers that there could be cross traffic, and that the light could go from flashing green to either steady green or steady yellow (I forget which) then to steady red, giving cross traffic a steady green if the traffic was waiting there too long.
They eventually did away with them - too many accidents. I don't think any have existed for years in Delaware.
Delaware's a state where they try different things. They still use a flashing red left arrow, which much of the country now has as a flashing yellow arrow. They're also one of the few that allow open alcohol containers in the vehicle as long as the driver isn't the one drinking.
I'm not sure if it's fair to blame the flashing green for any danger. It's entirely possible that a full signal should have been used at those intersections instead. After all, it's just an intersection with a stop sign.
I seem to remember reading about that open container law when I was in Rehoboth last August. Reminds me of NOLA.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 05:33:29 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 05:33:29 PM
A red flashing bulb has replaced the flashing yellow
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
Post by: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:31:22 PMQuote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 01:57:53 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 01:49:36 PM
What about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hhhyUuWb8c
Absolutely not. Flashing yellow means the cross street has flashing red, and more importantly, flashing yellow cannot suddenly turn to solid red. (Note the car at 0:19 in the video.)
I'm sure that was in error. If someone contacts the city, I bet they'd fix it.
Car at 0:19 doesn't do anything wrong. I don't see an NTOR sign. On the other hand, that "Stop on Red" sign is rather redundant.
I quite like this signal. Interesting to see a new install of flashing green. I thought the MUTCD disallowed them.
Flashing yellow does not automatically mean that a cross street has any particular indication–it means proceed with caution and yield if necessary. It just so happens that traditionally a flashing yellow typically encounters flashing red on a side street.
Flashing green is prohibited in MUTCD 4D.04 (Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications), paragraph 3: "D. A flashing green signal indication has no meaning and shall not be used." I'm really curious how this got implemented...
I don't mind the flashing green used in this video...but what difference would it make if it were a steady green instead?
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 21, 2018, 11:28:15 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 21, 2018, 11:28:15 PM
Quote from: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
Flashing green is prohibited in MUTCD 4D.04 (Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications), paragraph 3: "D. A flashing green signal indication has no meaning and shall not be used." I'm really curious how this got implemented...
In some eastern Canadian provinces, it indicates or used to indicate a protected left turn, and in BC it's the rest indication for a signalized pedestrian crossing where vehicular cross traffic is unsignalized. There is a pretty fatal misinterpretation that can result from the multiple meanings of this indication, so the US said "screw this mess" and banned it entirely.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on November 22, 2018, 04:51:19 AM
Post by: jakeroot on November 22, 2018, 04:51:19 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
I don't mind the flashing green used in this video...but what difference would it make if it were a steady green instead?
There's a couple things I've come to appreciate in regards to how BC uses them: it's a helpful reminder to watch for cross-traffic, as flashing greens are very often used at three or four way intersections. If these were solid green lights, it might give the impression that someone was running a red light. It's also a reminder that the light is not part of a sequence, and could change at any time (though it does go solid green briefly before yellow>red).
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 21, 2018, 11:28:15 PMQuote from: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
Flashing green is prohibited in MUTCD 4D.04 (Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications), paragraph 3: "D. A flashing green signal indication has no meaning and shall not be used." I'm really curious how this got implemented...
In some eastern Canadian provinces, it indicates or used to indicate a protected left turn, and in BC it's the rest indication for a signalized pedestrian crossing where vehicular cross traffic is unsignalized. There is a pretty fatal misinterpretation that can result from the multiple meanings of this indication, so the US said "screw this mess" and banned it entirely.
To the best of my knowledge, the "protected" meaning (limited to Ontario, IIRC) has long since been abandoned in favor of using green arrows, either flashing or solid (provincial choice). Some installations remain, but are hard to come by.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 22, 2018, 07:04:38 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 22, 2018, 07:04:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2018, 04:51:19 AMJake's right, it's not used like that anymore.Quote from: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
I don't mind the flashing green used in this video...but what difference would it make if it were a steady green instead?
There's a couple things I've come to appreciate in regards to how BC uses them: it's a helpful reminder to watch for cross-traffic, as flashing greens are very often used at three or four way intersections. If these were solid green lights, it might give the impression that someone was running a red light. It's also a reminder that the light is not part of a sequence, and could change at any time (though it does go solid green briefly before yellow>red).Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 21, 2018, 11:28:15 PMQuote from: roadfro on November 21, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
Flashing green is prohibited in MUTCD 4D.04 (Meaning of Vehicular Signal Indications), paragraph 3: "D. A flashing green signal indication has no meaning and shall not be used." I'm really curious how this got implemented...
In some eastern Canadian provinces, it indicates or used to indicate a protected left turn, and in BC it's the rest indication for a signalized pedestrian crossing where vehicular cross traffic is unsignalized. There is a pretty fatal misinterpretation that can result from the multiple meanings of this indication, so the US said "screw this mess" and banned it entirely.
To the best of my knowledge, the "protected" meaning (limited to Ontario, IIRC) has long since been abandoned in favor of using green arrows, either flashing or solid (provincial choice). Some installations remain, but are hard to come by.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:26:45 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 22, 2018, 07:04:38 AM
Jake's right, it's not used like that anymore.
There are a bunch of "protected" blinking green lights in Montréal.
Maybe they're waiting to finish road construction before replacing them? :)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:36:38 PM
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:36:38 PM
...and now for the main reason I bumped the thread.
My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).
That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014/images/f2.png)
(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)
My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).
That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014/images/f2.png)
(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on December 17, 2018, 07:39:01 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on December 17, 2018, 07:39:01 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:36:38 PMTake it up with the court, go to the location and send us pictures
...and now for the main reason I bumped the thread.
My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).
That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014/images/f2.png)
(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 09:23:25 PM
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 09:23:25 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 17, 2018, 07:39:01 PMQuote from: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:36:38 PMTake it up with the court, go to the location and send us pictures
...and now for the main reason I bumped the thread.
My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).
That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014/images/f2.png)
(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)
iPhone
Just to clarify, the image I posed was an FHWA image from "Washington" (which "Washington" wasn't specified).
Here's the site of the ticket: https://goo.gl/maps/DiSauNF7HcE2
Obviously, under bog-standard HAWK, what he says he did was perfectly legal, despite local custom being to remain stopped through the flashing red phase.
When I go down in a few days, I'm going to take a look at the ticket and see how long he has to resolve the ticket. (My father has always been...scattered and disorganized. That hasn't improved since my mother passed a couple of years ago. I've taken over my mother's old job of paying bills, doing "paperwork stuff"....). Most likely I will end up just paying it, but if I can get him a court date that aligns with my travel schedule...then we might fight it.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadfro on December 18, 2018, 12:10:07 AM
Post by: roadfro on December 18, 2018, 12:10:07 AM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 09:23:25 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on December 17, 2018, 07:39:01 PMQuote from: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:36:38 PMTake it up with the court, go to the location and send us pictures
...and now for the main reason I bumped the thread.
My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).
That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014/images/f2.png)
(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)
iPhone
Just to clarify, the image I posed was an FHWA image from "Washington" (which "Washington" wasn't specified).
Here's the site of the ticket: https://goo.gl/maps/DiSauNF7HcE2
Obviously, under bog-standard HAWK, what he says he did was perfectly legal, despite local custom being to remain stopped through the flashing red phase.
When I go down in a few days, I'm going to take a look at the ticket and see how long he has to resolve the ticket. (My father has always been...scattered and disorganized. That hasn't improved since my mother passed a couple of years ago. I've taken over my mother's old job of paying bills, doing "paperwork stuff"....). Most likely I will end up just paying it, but if I can get him a court date that aligns with my travel schedule...then we might fight it.
If you do fight the ticket, you'll want to first look at the vehicle codes for your state, specifically for the statute(s) he was cited under, and be sure of your position. The national MUTCD text isn't exactly clear that it is ok to proceed on flashing red after a stop–that connect might be available via other documents on the MUTCD/FHWA website or maybe through local news articles covering the new installations in the area.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Jet380 on December 18, 2018, 04:33:19 AM
Post by: Jet380 on December 18, 2018, 04:33:19 AM
That sucks, good luck fighting it (if that's what you choose to do).
Traffic control devices should be as intuitive as possible. HAWKs can't be very intuitive if a cop can't even get it right!
Traffic control devices should be as intuitive as possible. HAWKs can't be very intuitive if a cop can't even get it right!
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jamess on December 18, 2018, 12:13:38 PM
Post by: jamess on December 18, 2018, 12:13:38 PM
HAWKs are quite possibly the worst MUTCD decision of all time
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2018, 01:08:04 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2018, 01:08:04 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on December 17, 2018, 07:36:38 PM
...and now for the main reason I bumped the thread.
My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).
That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:
(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa14014/images/f2.png)
(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)
The best thing you can provide us: The statute number provided on the ticket. That'll tell us exactly what he was cited for. If the officer provided any commentary on the ticket, that'll help as well. For example - if he was actually cited for failing to stop at the stop line, or for not allowing the pedestrians to completely clear the intersection, he would need to fight this in a different manner.
https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-55/chapter-8/55-8-112/ This describes the law in TN for a flashing red light (they used 'rapid intermittent flashing' for some reason). The important part here: "the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign".
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/traffic-engineering/tdm-2018/TDOT%20Traffic%20Design%20Manual_Report_Chapter%2013_Aug2018.pdf Page 1 provides a summary of the HAWK signal for Tennessee.
What's unfortunate here is the signage, and this is a MUTCD issue. The signage says Stop on Red. It doesn't say traffic may proceed on flashing red. Worse, and roadfro is absolutely accurate: The MUTCD never says traffic can proceed on flashing red. It simply terms it as a pedestrian clearance interval. What's also unfortunate is that there doesn't appear to be a statute, rule or any other guidance as to a HAWK signal's flashing red signal. The statute I cited above may be the best way to go about it.
So it's going to be up to the officer and judge's discretion here if you do try to fight it. If you can find something written by the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee, or Federal Government in regards to a HAWK signal, it's an ounce of gold towards helping your position (it's not solid gold, but it'll definitely help).
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 02:54:09 PM
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2018, 02:54:09 PM
I usually try and find news stories about HAWK installations, since those usually get some official commentary by local road agencies that state exactly what each phase is for. Unfortunately, I can't find any such story. I see the signal was installed before 2012.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 18, 2018, 09:41:07 PM
Post by: MikeTheActuary on December 18, 2018, 09:41:07 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 18, 2018, 01:08:04 PMThe best thing you can provide us: The statute number provided on the ticket. That'll tell us exactly what he was cited for. If the officer provided any commentary on the ticket, that'll help as well. For example - if he was actually cited for failing to stop at the stop line, or for not allowing the pedestrians to completely clear the intersection, he would need to fight this in a different manner.[...]
Thanks, and understood. I had that information, but appreciate the suggestions. My intent in telling about my father's recent run in with a traffic cop was to provide a backstory on why I came across the picture of that sign from the FHWA website.
I'm not certain what he was cited for. I'll see the ticket for myself in a few days, and I'll go from there. Mostly, I was sitting in a hotel, somewhat bored, but not really in the mood to go out wandering in the snow, and so I took the opportunity to kill some time.
And, FWIW, my read is that the key statutes at the state level are TCA 55-8-112, with TCA 55-8-145 as an example of how 55-8-112 extends to wigwag-style flashing red lights. (Flashing red lights at railroad crossing = stop and proceed only if/when safe.) That creates a reasonable expectation that a driver may proceed after coming to a complete stop if the crossing is clear given the ambiguity of the posted sign.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 08, 2019, 04:17:40 AM
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 08, 2019, 04:17:40 AM
Stanley Roberts's back on the HAWK misbehaving people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OryIz0lH_F4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OryIz0lH_F4
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: clong on August 08, 2019, 09:49:11 AM
Post by: clong on August 08, 2019, 09:49:11 AM
For this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.
[/quote]
I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience. But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well. I agree that uniformity is important here.
[/quote]
There are 2 fire stations in Birmingham that I encounter pretty regularly that have traffic signals. They both have flashing yellows normally that are labeled Emergency Signal that the fire station can activate to red when they are leaving for a call.
Occasionally, a confused driver will stop at the signal when it is flashing yellow, but not often.
[/quote]
I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience. But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well. I agree that uniformity is important here.
[/quote]
There are 2 fire stations in Birmingham that I encounter pretty regularly that have traffic signals. They both have flashing yellows normally that are labeled Emergency Signal that the fire station can activate to red when they are leaving for a call.
Occasionally, a confused driver will stop at the signal when it is flashing yellow, but not often.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: roadman on August 08, 2019, 10:12:26 AM
Post by: roadman on August 08, 2019, 10:12:26 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PMNot for railroad crossings with gates. And not for school buses either.Quote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: UCFKnights on August 08, 2019, 10:37:11 AM
Post by: UCFKnights on August 08, 2019, 10:37:11 AM
Disney World uses them for its fire stations recently. At least where it will save money:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.4176493,-81.5899228,3a,47.6y,55.69h,85.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVy6Gq0n0UGtT78KHMKtIvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I believe this signal is solar powered (and temporary for the construction), the lack of a light being on most of the time allows it to be solar powered. Another was installed where one of the arms got damaged and it eliminated the need for said arm.
The compliance rate is really low for them, too. I find it kind of shocking nobodys went back and looked at the compliance rate of them to reconsider their approval. I honestly can't say I've seen one where the majority of people are compliant to what they're supposed to do. And if the compliance rate is that low... it needs to be revisited.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.4176493,-81.5899228,3a,47.6y,55.69h,85.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVy6Gq0n0UGtT78KHMKtIvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I believe this signal is solar powered (and temporary for the construction), the lack of a light being on most of the time allows it to be solar powered. Another was installed where one of the arms got damaged and it eliminated the need for said arm.
The compliance rate is really low for them, too. I find it kind of shocking nobodys went back and looked at the compliance rate of them to reconsider their approval. I honestly can't say I've seen one where the majority of people are compliant to what they're supposed to do. And if the compliance rate is that low... it needs to be revisited.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 08, 2019, 05:33:56 PM
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 08, 2019, 05:33:56 PM
Quote from: roadman on August 08, 2019, 10:12:26 AMQuote from: freebrickproductions on December 12, 2017, 02:33:37 PMNot for railroad crossings with gates. And not for school buses either.Quote from: Jet380 on December 12, 2017, 06:30:16 AMAlternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.
2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.
Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe". However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.
The nature of when a school bus' flashing red lights are used imply that it is not safe when the lights are flashing, making the distinction between flashing and steady red lights moot.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on August 09, 2019, 01:31:18 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 09, 2019, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on August 08, 2019, 05:33:56 PM
Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe". However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.
Are you telling me that I can cross a railroad against flashing red lights, so long as that crossing is not equipped with stop arms?
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2019, 01:46:19 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 09, 2019, 01:46:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 09, 2019, 01:31:18 PMQuote from: MikeTheActuary on August 08, 2019, 05:33:56 PM
Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe". However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.
Are you telling me that I can cross a railroad against flashing red lights, so long as that crossing is not equipped with stop arms?
When safe to do so. Those lights can malfunction on occasion.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: TEG24601 on August 09, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
Post by: TEG24601 on August 09, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
It has been my experience that no one understands the HAWK. The biggest reason is that the wig-wag/flashing lights is too similar to railroad crossings, so everyone stops and waits until the lights turn off. RYG is the only thing that people understand fully.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: mrsman on August 09, 2019, 05:36:36 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 09, 2019, 05:36:36 PM
I understand the desire for HAWK. Basically, provide a safe pedestrian crossing of a major street at either: 1) mid-block crossing or 2) intersection of small street, but not providing any kind of inducement for small street traffic. [In many busy areas, like Los Angeles, if a small street has a traffic signal, you now see many people take that to easily cross the perpendicular big street and avoid the traffic of a parallel large street. One example is Orlando Ave in L.A., three blocks east of La Cienega, has signals at all major intersections between Wilshire and Melrose. The traffic signals induce more traffic on Orlando than on Croft, one block over.] At the same time, the HAWK is only red as long as necessary to allow the ped to cross so as not to delay main street traffic. The idea is that the only traffic crossing the main street is peds (not cars) so there is no need to provide a full-fledged signal.
As the many comments above illustrate, HAWKS are not doing the job. They are unsafe because drivers are not aware of what they should be doing. They are basically ignoring the signal.
In Los Angeles, they have found the ideal, IMO, solution for the mid-block crossing. In this video, you can see that they employ this at an intersection, but the small street [West Knoll] still faces a stop sign, and is physically prevented by an island from making left turns at Santa Monica Blvd
https://youtu.be/2vGNk8dfOdU
At 0:38, you see a RYG signal in West Hollywood, CA that flashes red during the red phase, but in all other respects is a normal signal. IMO, it removes a lot of the confusion with HAWKS as the signal is generally green not dark. Drivers intuitively know that green signals may eventually hit red, but a dark signal that they pass around 90% of the time as dark sometimes coming to life is surprising. And as we have seen from some HAWK videos, it is absolutely frightening to see drivers sail right through on a red light when people are crossing.
The one modification I would make for a mid-bock ped xing signal would be to have a brief solid red phase before going to flashing red. The signal would normally rest at green. If no one pushes the button, it's green all the time. When pedestrian pushes the button, at some point (not too much) later, the yellow comes on to warn of an upcoming red. [Ideally, this should be timed to allow for good signal progression, to the extent possible.] Then, a solid red for a few seconds, while peds get a white man. Invariably, there would be a pedestrian walking at this time, so cars should absolutely stop. Then, the signal can move to flashing red (during the flashing don't walk phase). This accounts for the fact that many pedestrians probably walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec and would be safely out of the way and cars may progress. The flashing red ensures that cars will still come to a stop, for example to account for any peds that may still be running for the signal, but would generally allow for traffic to move after a brief stop. And then the signal will revert to green until the next pedestrian pushes the button.
The signal on the video is similar to the signal that Amtrakprod posted on 11/19/18 upthread, except that it rests on green instead of flashing yellow. Green is far more common and far more understood. Legally, I beleive a ped is allowed to cross on the FY, but would not be allowed to cross when traffic has the green.
IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings. If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop. But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.
I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds. There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection. Essentially, even though this is an intersecction, there are no side street cars entering the intersection. It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.
As the many comments above illustrate, HAWKS are not doing the job. They are unsafe because drivers are not aware of what they should be doing. They are basically ignoring the signal.
In Los Angeles, they have found the ideal, IMO, solution for the mid-block crossing. In this video, you can see that they employ this at an intersection, but the small street [West Knoll] still faces a stop sign, and is physically prevented by an island from making left turns at Santa Monica Blvd
https://youtu.be/2vGNk8dfOdU
At 0:38, you see a RYG signal in West Hollywood, CA that flashes red during the red phase, but in all other respects is a normal signal. IMO, it removes a lot of the confusion with HAWKS as the signal is generally green not dark. Drivers intuitively know that green signals may eventually hit red, but a dark signal that they pass around 90% of the time as dark sometimes coming to life is surprising. And as we have seen from some HAWK videos, it is absolutely frightening to see drivers sail right through on a red light when people are crossing.
The one modification I would make for a mid-bock ped xing signal would be to have a brief solid red phase before going to flashing red. The signal would normally rest at green. If no one pushes the button, it's green all the time. When pedestrian pushes the button, at some point (not too much) later, the yellow comes on to warn of an upcoming red. [Ideally, this should be timed to allow for good signal progression, to the extent possible.] Then, a solid red for a few seconds, while peds get a white man. Invariably, there would be a pedestrian walking at this time, so cars should absolutely stop. Then, the signal can move to flashing red (during the flashing don't walk phase). This accounts for the fact that many pedestrians probably walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec and would be safely out of the way and cars may progress. The flashing red ensures that cars will still come to a stop, for example to account for any peds that may still be running for the signal, but would generally allow for traffic to move after a brief stop. And then the signal will revert to green until the next pedestrian pushes the button.
The signal on the video is similar to the signal that Amtrakprod posted on 11/19/18 upthread, except that it rests on green instead of flashing yellow. Green is far more common and far more understood. Legally, I beleive a ped is allowed to cross on the FY, but would not be allowed to cross when traffic has the green.
IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings. If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop. But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.
I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds. There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection. Essentially, even though this is an intersecction, there are no side street cars entering the intersection. It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
Post by: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 09, 2019, 05:36:36 PMI do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed
IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings. If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop. But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.
I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds. There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection. Essentially, even though this is an intersection, there are no side street cars entering the intersection. It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: djlynch on August 10, 2019, 02:23:16 PM
Post by: djlynch on August 10, 2019, 02:23:16 PM
Something that looks and behaves like a standard signal is the way to go, but I'd rather have R-Y-FY, like a permissive-only turn (maybe even a flashing straight-ahead arrow). The "be careful" message of flashing yellow feels like it fits better than green, in part because mid-block crosswalks feel safer and I've noticed that pedestrian compliance isn't great at HAWKs when they have to wait more than a few seconds for their turn because the minimum time between cycles hasn't passed or the timing is tied to coordination with nearby traffic signals.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: hotdogPi on August 10, 2019, 04:35:34 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on August 10, 2019, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: djlynch on August 10, 2019, 02:23:16 PM
Something that looks and behaves like a standard signal is the way to go, but I'd rather have R-Y-FY, like a permissive-only turn (maybe even a flashing straight-ahead arrow). The "be careful" message of flashing yellow feels like it fits better than green, in part because mid-block crosswalks feel safer and I've noticed that pedestrian compliance isn't great at HAWKs when they have to wait more than a few seconds for their turn because the minimum time between cycles hasn't passed or the timing is tied to coordination with nearby traffic signals.
Flashing yellow means that you have priority if continuing straight, which is not the case here.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: kphoger on August 10, 2019, 05:50:57 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 10, 2019, 05:50:57 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
I do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed
The one and only time I had to stop at an RRFB crosswalk, the driver in front of me refused to go again until it stopped flashing–even though the pedestrians were long gone by then. So it had the same problem I've witnessed at HAWKs.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 06:38:41 PM
Post by: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 06:38:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2019, 05:50:57 PMThere are a number of people who stop at a crosswalk near my house that has no sign, no lights, etc, when no pedestrians are around. The compliance rate is never perfect, but, at least from my experience, it seems far better. Are people not understanding RRFB's as common as the HAWK issues?Quote from: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 01:18:26 PM
I do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed
The one and only time I had to stop at an RRFB crosswalk, the driver in front of me refused to go again until it stopped flashing–even though the pedestrians were long gone by then. So it had the same problem I've witnessed at HAWKs.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: mrsman on August 11, 2019, 03:32:51 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 11, 2019, 03:32:51 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on August 10, 2019, 01:18:26 PMQuote from: mrsman on August 09, 2019, 05:36:36 PMI do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed
IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings. If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop. But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.
I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds. There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection. Essentially, even though this is an intersection, there are no side street cars entering the intersection. It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.
THere are many steps that a DOT can take to make a pedestrian crossing safer. Extending the curb into the street to make the crossing distance shorter is one. Putting in an island so that peds can cross one direction at a time and wait in the middle for traffic to clear is another.
Those two above steps are somewhat passive in their approach. Pedestrians are given better opportuinities to cross, but at the end of the day, this is still the idea that a ped will cross only when the approach is clear, or if they are lucky enough to grab a driver's attention to stop for them.
A traffic signal is something different. Knowing that there may not be a natural break in traffic (especially on two-way streets), the DOT has to put in a signal to actually stop the traffic. (Hence it is more active approach to ped safety rather than a passive approach of narrowing the crossing.) The stopped traffic will allow for the peds to cross. [Of course, people do run red lights, so there is no guarantee, you still have to make sure that they stop.]
In my view, the bigger problem in a HAWK isn't that drivers are just waiting on the flashing red, even when the peds have cleared the intersection, it's that drivers just blow by the signal in the first place. A standard RYG signal has much better compliance rate (not perfect of course) at having the driver stop than a HAWK. I believe the reason for this is the driver's expectation - a green signal is to go, a yellow signal is a warning that a red is coming. Greens do not stay green forever, they could eventually be red. Flashing yellow does not have this same notion, as there are many flashing yellows all over the place that mean caution, but don't necessarily lead to an eventual red light.
So then, if we want to improve the odds of cars stopping, put in something that resembles a regular traffic signal. RYG. THe only proper modification, IMO, is that part of the red phase can shift from solid red to flashing red, to allow cars to proceed if the pedestrians have cleared the intersection (each car would still be required to make a full brief stop, before proceeding until the signal turns green). IF they don't, they will cause a small delay, but they won't impact safety.
Such has been done in Los Angeles, and it seems to properly balance pedestrian safety with minimizing traffic delay. I also hope that such a signal can be installed with much less severe warrants than a regular signal, since the delay on the main street is rather minimal.
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it's not alternating.
iPhone
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK modification
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 12, 2019, 03:55:09 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 12, 2019, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 09, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
It has been my experience that no one understands the HAWK. The biggest reason is that the wig-wag/flashing lights is too similar to railroad crossings, so everyone stops and waits until the lights turn off. RYG is the only thing that people understand fully.
This is also been the case in New Hampshire, specifically in Concord (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1745033,-71.5291041,3a,75y,357.55h,83.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scVi3ZGf2_e4WWzELrFLDCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Epping (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.032491,-71.0725309,3a,75y,17.3h,89.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYOgXG2L7x7fxHxP7iz4uuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYOgXG2L7x7fxHxP7iz4uuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D207.26443%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), Londonderry (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,147.05h,87.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D86.65785%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), and Meredith (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6616706,-71.4940203,3a,66y,65.77h,88.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg3piATr8-cpt5WsilTAELQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (there is another one in Meredith on US-3 between Dover and Lake Rd). Many NH drivers just remain stopped during the flashing red interval, especially when there is a State Trooper nearby (this happened recently in Epping). Some drivers, mostly Massachusetts drivers, honk at the lead driver(s) during the flashing red phase. Most drivers in Massachusetts seem to understand what to do at PHB/HAWK signals, albeit most roll through the flashing red phase w/o a complete stop.
I should mention that the speed limit on where the PHB/HAWK signals were installed in NH was 65 km/h (40mph), with the exception of the two Meredith signals being 50 km/h (30mph). At one time in Londonderry (NH 28), a lorry (tracter-trailer) almost got rear-ended by a car not paying attention and following too close, and when I tried to cross, two drivers travelling about 80-90 km/h (50-55 mph) blew the solid red when my WALK signal was on for well after three seconds, and had to wait for those drivers at the kerb to pass before I could safely cross.
Also, how does preemption work at PHB/HAWK, or standard R-Y-G (or FY) pelican crossing? Found these near Quincy, Massachusetts near the Quincy College:
Hancock St near Quincy College (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2517696,-71.0035878,3a,32.6y,267.64h,110.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHoNVCPvFbmiwclBpXesCpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Second Hancock St location (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2506537,-71.0028259,3a,15.5y,204.61h,101.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6GQIHDrQv1u2n7DtLJCTog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2019, 04:05:05 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2019, 04:05:05 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it’s not alternating.
iPhone
Or we can use the same laws, and just use a steady red light. Because in your example, alternating red lights means go would mean no one needs to stop and stay stopped for school buses.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 14, 2019, 02:35:37 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 14, 2019, 02:35:37 PM
In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,159.54h,87.89t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D136.50557%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2019, 04:05:05 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it’s not alternating.
iPhone
Or we can use the same laws, and just use a steady red light. Because in your example, alternating red lights means go would mean no one needs to stop and stay stopped for school buses.
Correct, the laws should be consistent.
I think a school bus would have its own rules, since it is a vehicle, not a stationary signal. The flash is just meant to get your attention.
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
I've seen differing treatments for drawbridges. Some are controlled by RYG signals. Some are controlled by signals that are similar to R/R crossings.
Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 14, 2019, 02:35:37 PM
In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,159.54h,87.89t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D136.50557%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.
If a HAWk is placed at an intersection, then it should be treated no differently than a regular red orb signal, so I think RTOR should be generally allowed at HAWKs.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on August 16, 2019, 02:50:43 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 16, 2019, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that. I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so. I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:
Quote from: Universal Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE VII--SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED
§ 11-701 – Obedience to signal indicating approach of train
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when :
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down. But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing. The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: roadfro on August 17, 2019, 02:20:46 PM
Post by: roadfro on August 17, 2019, 02:20:46 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PMQuote from: fwydriver405 on August 14, 2019, 02:35:37 PM
In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,159.54h,87.89t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D136.50557%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.
If a HAWk is placed at an intersection, then it should be treated no differently than a regular red orb signal, so I think RTOR should be generally allowed at HAWKs.
HAWKs were really meant to be for mid-block crossings. I don't think they should be placed adjacent to an intersection and a signal should be used instead.
However, it appears in the MUTCD that there is a different, lower threshold for the installation of HAWK beacons than the traffic signals warrants for pedestrian volumes.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:53:11 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:53:11 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 12, 2019, 03:55:09 PMFor the first one: that may due to the fact that I found no sign explaining what to do on flashing red. Also I think those detectors are for intersections ahead.Quote from: TEG24601 on August 09, 2019, 05:02:14 PM
It has been my experience that no one understands the HAWK. The biggest reason is that the wig-wag/flashing lights is too similar to railroad crossings, so everyone stops and waits until the lights turn off. RYG is the only thing that people understand fully.
This is also been the case in New Hampshire, specifically in Concord (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1745033,-71.5291041,3a,75y,357.55h,83.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scVi3ZGf2_e4WWzELrFLDCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Epping (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.032491,-71.0725309,3a,75y,17.3h,89.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYOgXG2L7x7fxHxP7iz4uuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYOgXG2L7x7fxHxP7iz4uuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D207.26443%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), Londonderry (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,147.05h,87.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D86.65785%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), and Meredith (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6616706,-71.4940203,3a,66y,65.77h,88.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg3piATr8-cpt5WsilTAELQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (there is another one in Meredith on US-3 between Dover and Lake Rd). Many NH drivers just remain stopped during the flashing red interval, especially when there is a State Trooper nearby (this happened recently in Epping). Some drivers, mostly Massachusetts drivers, honk at the lead driver(s) during the flashing red phase. Most drivers in Massachusetts seem to understand what to do at PHB/HAWK signals, albeit most roll through the flashing red phase w/o a complete stop.
I should mention that the speed limit on where the PHB/HAWK signals were installed in NH was 65 km/h (40mph), with the exception of the two Meredith signals being 50 km/h (30mph). At one time in Londonderry (NH 28), a lorry (tracter-trailer) almost got rear-ended by a car not paying attention and following too close, and when I tried to cross, two drivers travelling about 80-90 km/h (50-55 mph) blew the solid red when my WALK signal was on for well after three seconds, and had to wait for those drivers at the kerb to pass before I could safely cross.
Also, how does preemption work at PHB/HAWK, or standard R-Y-G (or FY) pelican crossing? Found these near Quincy, Massachusetts near the Quincy College:
Hancock St near Quincy College (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2517696,-71.0035878,3a,32.6y,267.64h,110.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHoNVCPvFbmiwclBpXesCpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Second Hancock St location (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2506537,-71.0028259,3a,15.5y,204.61h,101.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6GQIHDrQv1u2n7DtLJCTog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:56:03 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:56:03 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PMI think railroad crossings have alternating red lights because they attract more attention to the crossing. Also I was thinking maybe railroad crossing should have reflective borders too.Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 12, 2019, 04:05:05 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on August 12, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it's not alternating.
iPhone
Or we can use the same laws, and just use a steady red light. Because in your example, alternating red lights means go would mean no one needs to stop and stay stopped for school buses.
Correct, the laws should be consistent.
I think a school bus would have its own rules, since it is a vehicle, not a stationary signal. The flash is just meant to get your attention.
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
I've seen differing treatments for drawbridges. Some are controlled by RYG signals. Some are controlled by signals that are similar to R/R crossings.Quote from: fwydriver405 on August 14, 2019, 02:35:37 PM
In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917929,-71.3995448,3a,75y,159.54h,87.89t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DAJXD5fdWqv_e4UXnaeDqUA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D136.50557%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.
If a HAWk is placed at an intersection, then it should be treated no differently than a regular red orb signal, so I think RTOR should be generally allowed at HAWKs.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:57:41 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 16, 2019, 02:50:43 PMThat's the dumbest rule I've heard.Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that. I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so. I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:Quote from: Universal Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE VII--SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED
§ 11-701 – Obedience to signal indicating approach of train
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when :
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down. But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing. The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 11:31:49 AM
Post by: jeffandnicole on August 18, 2019, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:57:41 AMQuote from: kphoger on August 16, 2019, 02:50:43 PMThat’s the dumbest rule I’ve heard.Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that. I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so. I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:Quote from: Universal Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE VII--SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED
§ 11-701 — Obedience to signal indicating approach of train
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when :
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down. But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing. The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".
iPhone
In theory, if the gates are down, you can't go thru the gates. In order to go around the gates, you will need to cross the yellow line, which is illegal as well, especially if it's a double yellow or no passing on your side of the road.
If there's an obvious problem with the gates you may not have a choice other than to go around them though. But if you *think* there's a problem with the gates, you go around them and a train is approaching, then you're going to lose.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
R/R crossings and drawbridges* should be absolute full stopping. The signaliztion should be in place to not permit proceeding until the RR crossing or drawbridge is 100% clear.
A ped crossing is different. Acknowledging the reality that many times peds can actually cross a lot faster than the mandated 3.5 ft/sec, we know that the ped xing can be clear before the light changes to green. To account for that, cars may proceed after coming to a complete stop, if the peds are no longer present.
It is true that flashing red is more noticeable then solid red, yet it is troubling that flashing red is used for R/R crossings, which should only be on when a train is present or approaching. When trains are not approaching, the signals can be off. In no way it is a good idea to proceed if a R/R signal is flashing.
* Most drawbridges seem to use standard RYG signals, but I have seen a couple that tend to use R/R type signals. Of course, a solid red is used while the bridge is up so that cars do not drive into the water.
A ped crossing is different. Acknowledging the reality that many times peds can actually cross a lot faster than the mandated 3.5 ft/sec, we know that the ped xing can be clear before the light changes to green. To account for that, cars may proceed after coming to a complete stop, if the peds are no longer present.
It is true that flashing red is more noticeable then solid red, yet it is troubling that flashing red is used for R/R crossings, which should only be on when a train is present or approaching. When trains are not approaching, the signals can be off. In no way it is a good idea to proceed if a R/R signal is flashing.
* Most drawbridges seem to use standard RYG signals, but I have seen a couple that tend to use R/R type signals. Of course, a solid red is used while the bridge is up so that cars do not drive into the water.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Big John on August 18, 2019, 03:37:52 PM
Post by: Big John on August 18, 2019, 03:37:52 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 12:11:35 PMThat is the current MUTCD requirement. The alternating red option had them vertically aligned.
* Most drawbridges seem to use standard RYG signals, but I have seen a couple that tend to use R/R type signals. Of course, a solid red is used while the bridge is up so that cars do not drive into the water.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on August 19, 2019, 02:14:43 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 19, 2019, 02:14:43 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 12:11:35 PM
It is true that flashing red is more noticeable then solid red, yet it is troubling that flashing red is used for R/R crossings, which should only be on when a train is present or approaching. When trains are not approaching, the signals can be off. In no way it is a good idea to proceed if a R/R signal is flashing.
Think of a single-track railroad. The train finishes crossing the road, but the signal won't stop flashing for another 20 seconds or whatever. How is it unsafe to cross the railroad? You can clearly see no train is following on that one's heels, and obviously no train is coming from the other direction because it's a single track.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on August 19, 2019, 04:42:32 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 19, 2019, 04:42:32 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:57:41 AMQuote from: kphoger on August 16, 2019, 02:50:43 PMQuote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that. I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so. I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:Quote from: Universal Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE VII--SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED
§ 11-701 – Obedience to signal indicating approach of train
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when :
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down. But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing. The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".
That's the dumbest rule I've heard.
For what it's worth, the law in Massachusetts states you can't go until the light stops flashing. The law in New Jersey has no such stipulation.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 20, 2019, 02:08:40 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 20, 2019, 02:08:40 AM
Quote from: kphoger on August 19, 2019, 04:42:32 PMThat's the law in Texas as well.Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 18, 2019, 10:57:41 AMQuote from: kphoger on August 16, 2019, 02:50:43 PMQuote from: mrsman on August 15, 2019, 04:46:41 PM
So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed. Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.
Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing? I don't have a good answer.
Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that. I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so. I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:Quote from: Universal Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
ARTICLE VII--SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED
§ 11-701 – Obedience to signal indicating approach of train
(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when :
1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;
4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down. But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing. The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".
That's the dumbest rule I've heard.
For what it's worth, the law in Massachusetts states you can't go until the light stops flashing. The law in New Jersey has no such stipulation.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on August 20, 2019, 02:07:41 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 20, 2019, 02:07:41 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 20, 2019, 02:08:40 AM
That's the law in Texas as well.
I suppose that depends on how the phrase "until permitted to proceed" is construed. The actual vehicle code (https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.251) doesn't mention having to wait for the light to stop flashing, but it does include that phrase.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on August 22, 2019, 10:06:13 PM
Post by: mrsman on August 22, 2019, 10:06:13 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 18, 2019, 03:37:52 PMQuote from: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 12:11:35 PMThat is the current MUTCD requirement. The alternating red option had them vertically aligned.
* Most drawbridges seem to use standard RYG signals, but I have seen a couple that tend to use R/R type signals. Of course, a solid red is used while the bridge is up so that cars do not drive into the water.
Here is a GSV of the State St drawbidge in Chicago. The drawbridge signal has a 5-stack all red orbs.
It seems that the drawbridge closing is independent of the nearby signals (at Wacker Dr.) Drawbridge signal is red, even though the signal on State at Upper Wacker is green.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8866561,-87.627903,3a,75y,6.88h,78.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIZat4v05dUcgCnZ30N-jGg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on August 23, 2019, 12:41:11 AM
Post by: jakeroot on August 23, 2019, 12:41:11 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 22, 2019, 10:06:13 PMQuote from: Big John on August 18, 2019, 03:37:52 PMQuote from: mrsman on August 18, 2019, 12:11:35 PMThat is the current MUTCD requirement. The alternating red option had them vertically aligned.
* Most drawbridges seem to use standard RYG signals, but I have seen a couple that tend to use R/R type signals. Of course, a solid red is used while the bridge is up so that cars do not drive into the water.
Here is a GSV of the State St drawbidge in Chicago. The drawbridge signal has a 5-stack all red orbs.
It seems that the drawbridge closing is independent of the nearby signals (at Wacker Dr.) Drawbridge signal is red, even though the signal on State at Upper Wacker is green.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8866561,-87.627903,3a,75y,6.88h,78.43t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIZat4v05dUcgCnZ30N-jGg!2e0!5s20140501T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Looks like the centre (median) signal has been removed. Does the bridge not open or close (to traffic) as it used to?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 23, 2019, 07:17:56 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on August 23, 2019, 07:17:56 PM
Looks like the law is different in IN, as the sign by the railroad crossing reads; "Do not proceed when lights are flashing".
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6167991,-86.7168943,3a,57.6y,167.2h,91.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJefTopaIwzjWHEEwaOVtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6167991,-86.7168943,3a,57.6y,167.2h,91.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJefTopaIwzjWHEEwaOVtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on August 23, 2019, 08:58:43 PM
Post by: kphoger on August 23, 2019, 08:58:43 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on August 23, 2019, 07:17:56 PM
Looks like the law is different in IN, as the sign by the railroad crossing reads; "Do not proceed when lights are flashing".
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6167991,-86.7168943,3a,57.6y,167.2h,91.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJefTopaIwzjWHEEwaOVtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
1. That's a warning sign, which means it is not regulatory in nature.
2. I cannot find any such restriction in the Indiana state laws. As a matter of fact, I don't even see a law prohibiting a driver from going around lowered gates: pedestrians yes, but not vehicles. :crazy: Below is the applicable statute.
Quote from: Indiana Code, Title 9, § 9-21-8-39
Whenever a person who drives a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing, the person shall stop within fifty (50) feet but not less than fifteen (15) feet from the nearest track of the railroad and may not proceed until the person can do so safely under the following circumstances:
(1) When a clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a train or other on-track equipment.
(2) When a crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a train or other on-track equipment.
(3) When a railroad train or other on-track equipment approaching within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of a highway crossing emits an audible signal and because of speed or nearness to the crossing is an immediate hazard.
(4) When an approaching train or other on-track equipment is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 23, 2019, 10:21:17 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on August 23, 2019, 10:21:17 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2019, 08:58:43 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on August 23, 2019, 07:17:56 PM
Looks like the law is different in IN, as the sign by the railroad crossing reads; "Do not proceed when lights are flashing".
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6167991,-86.7168943,3a,57.6y,167.2h,91.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRJefTopaIwzjWHEEwaOVtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
1. That's a warning sign, which means it is not regulatory in nature.
2. I cannot find any such restriction in the Indiana state laws. As a matter of fact, I don't even see a law prohibiting a driver from going around lowered gates: pedestrians yes, but not vehicles. :crazy: Below is the applicable statute.Quote from: Indiana Code, Title 9, § 9-21-8-39
Whenever a person who drives a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing, the person shall stop within fifty (50) feet but not less than fifteen (15) feet from the nearest track of the railroad and may not proceed until the person can do so safely under the following circumstances:
(1) When a clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a train or other on-track equipment.
(2) When a crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a train or other on-track equipment.
(3) When a railroad train or other on-track equipment approaching within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of a highway crossing emits an audible signal and because of speed or nearness to the crossing is an immediate hazard.
(4) When an approaching train or other on-track equipment is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing.
Maine and New Hampshire have a similar law to Indiana's as well, minus the going around a lowered gate in Maine...
Quote from: Maine Legislature, §2076. Railroad or grade crossings
2. Warning devices. An operator of a motor vehicle approaching a railroad crossing shall do so in a manner so that the operator will be able to stop if necessary. The operator shall stop the vehicle not less than 15 feet and not more than 50 feet from the nearest rail of the railroad track and may not proceed if:
A. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device warns of the approach of a train; [2015, c. 89, §1 (NEW).]
B. A crossing gate is lowered or a flagger gives or continues to give a signal or warning of the approach or passage of a train; [2015, c. 89, §1 (NEW).]
C. A train is visible and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing; or [2015, c. 89, §1 (NEW).]
D. A sign, device or law requires the vehicle to stop. [2015, c. 89, §1 (NEW).]
A vehicle may proceed across the track when the gates have been raised, the flagger indicates that no train is approaching or, if there is an electric or mechanical signal device, the operator has ascertained that no train is approaching. An operator proceeding by an electric or mechanical signal device shall use extra caution.
Quote from: New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 265:49 All Vehicles Must Stop at Certain Railroad Grade Crossings.The commissioner of transportation is hereby authorised to designate particularly dangerous highway grade crossings of railroads and to order stop signs erected at such crossings. It shall be the duty of the commissioner to erect such stop signs at such designated crossings where said highways are under his jurisdiction. Local communities shall when ordered by commissioner erect such stop signs on highways within their jurisdiction. When such stop signs are erected the driver of any vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and shall proceed only upon exercising due care.
By "stop signs" in NH's law, that is also implying flashing red lights and gates, correct? I don't see anything in this NH law mentioning anything with gates, although RSA 265:12 does mention it in part II.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: doogie1303 on October 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PM
Post by: doogie1303 on October 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PM
So they just erected one of these HAWK signals for a bike path crossing just outside the URI campus on route 138 in Kingston, RI. Hate to say it but us Rhode Islanders are slow to understand these new MUTCD signal standards (we only got our first FYA in Coventry a few years ago and I haven't seen many others erected). There is probably going to be a lot of confused people when this signal starts getting used.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 28, 2019, 10:19:12 PM
Post by: jakeroot on October 28, 2019, 10:19:12 PM
Quote from: doogie1303 on October 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PM
So they just erected one of these HAWK signals for a bike path crossing just outside the URI campus on route 138 in Kingston, RI. Hate to say it but us Rhode Islanders are slow to understand these new MUTCD signal standards (we only got our first FYA in Coventry a few years ago and I haven't seen many others erected). There is probably going to be a lot of confused people when this signal starts getting used.
Tis the fate of too many HAWK signals. I have no solid evidence, but anecdotal evidence doesn't seem to weigh heavily in their favour -- people just don't seem to get their nuances.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on October 29, 2019, 12:07:47 AM
Post by: fwydriver405 on October 29, 2019, 12:07:47 AM
Quote from: doogie1303 on October 28, 2019, 09:10:06 PMOn the same topic, a friend of mine told me that HAWK's (or PHB's is what NHDOT refers to them) were recently installed on Main St on the University of New Hampshire campus in Durham, New Hampshire. Since Main St was recently reconfigured, I'll have to see how drivers are reacting to the new signals, but based on previous NHDOT installs, many NH drivers are also slow to understand the new MUTCD signal standards...
So they just erected one of these HAWK signals for a bike path crossing just outside the URI campus on route 138 in Kingston, RI. Hate to say it but us Rhode Islanders are slow to understand these new MUTCD signal standards (we only got our first FYA in Coventry a few years ago and I haven't seen many others erected). There is probably going to be a lot of confused people when this signal starts getting used.
Also, about 8 kilometres or 5 miles from campus near Exit 6 on the Spaulding Turnpike, the intersection of US 4 and Boston Harbor Rd was converted into a roundabout, which also meant the existing ped signals and crosswalk when the intersection was signalised was converted to HAWK. That crosswalk is literally <50 m (55 yds) from the entry/exit of the roundabout and I've seen many people blow the solid and flashing red without even slowing down, especially from drivers exiting the roundabout.
Any statistics on the compliance rate and crash data of HAWK's (or any crosswalks) at roundabouts? Always thought that crosswalks near the entry and exit of roundabouts were a recipe for disaster...
Here's an image of the US-4 and Boston Harbor Rd roundabout if you're curious, 29 September 2019:
(https://i.ibb.co/zbzgntK/IMG-5744-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gwx8jcs)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 03, 2021, 03:49:39 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 03, 2021, 03:49:39 PM
Just the other day, I drove by a baseball game and encountered a HAWK signal in use in both directions. I've hardly ever seen one in use before. Some thoughts:
1. Not being super familiar with HAWK phasing, I slowed down on flashing yellow because I expected it to turn red next. Do we really need a solid yellow phase in between?
2. If you're stopped at the solid red phase and then it turns to flashing red, you can proceed if it's clear. But what if you approach the crosswalk on flashing red phase and no one is crossing? Do you still have to stop? I think the legal answer is yes, but signage that says "Proceed on flashing red when clear" leaves that rather ambiguous.
1. Not being super familiar with HAWK phasing, I slowed down on flashing yellow because I expected it to turn red next. Do we really need a solid yellow phase in between?
2. If you're stopped at the solid red phase and then it turns to flashing red, you can proceed if it's clear. But what if you approach the crosswalk on flashing red phase and no one is crossing? Do you still have to stop? I think the legal answer is yes, but signage that says "Proceed on flashing red when clear" leaves that rather ambiguous.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: hotdogPi on May 03, 2021, 03:55:10 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 03, 2021, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 03, 2021, 03:49:39 PM
Just the other day, I drove by a baseball game and encountered a HAWK signal in use in both directions. I've hardly ever seen one in use before. Some thoughts:
1. Not being super familiar with HAWK phasing, I slowed down on flashing yellow because I expected it to turn red next. Do we really need a solid yellow phase in between?
2. If you're stopped at the solid red phase and then it turns to flashing red, you can proceed if it's clear. But what if you approach the crosswalk on flashing red phase and no one is crossing? Do you still have to stop? I think the legal answer is yes, but signage that says "Proceed on flashing red when clear" leaves that rather ambiguous.
HAWKs are no different from other signals as to what the phases mean (except that dark signals are to be ignored entirely, since there's no conflict like there is at a normal signal).
As for #1, a solid red cannot be preceded by a flashing yellow; this is true whether it's a normal cycle, a RYG pedestrian signal, a time-of-day change, or a HAWK signal.
As for #2, a flashing red is a flashing red.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 04, 2021, 02:00:28 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 04, 2021, 02:00:28 PM
I think the supplemental sign should say "proceed on flashing red after stop", with interpretation as to why you are stopping being left to drivers.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on May 02, 2022, 09:59:49 PM
Post by: mrsman on May 02, 2022, 09:59:49 PM
A sad story involving HAWK signals that occurred in North Bethesda, MD.
Tuckerman Lane is a busy east-west street with two lanes in each direction. The Bethesda Trolley Trail is a hiking/bike path that is off-road (and has a bridge over the Beltway), but intersects with Tuckerman Lane at a non-signalized intersection.
Here is the location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.029788,-77.1123116,3a,75y,277.94h,84.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPIYmr8pR-u7eHk8f3WT3rg!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
As one can see based on past GSV images, early on, it was just simply a marked crosswalk. Some time before 2008, the county put in place a cement median to make it easier for trail users (and perhaps for bus passengers as well as there is a nearby bus stop) to cross Tuckerman.
2008 GSV shows an improved crossing with a cement median that is about the width of one traffic lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.029733,-77.1123435,3a,75y,294.94h,73.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQ36vbNHpOjYG8EUn4JJtcQ!2e0!5s20081001T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Fast forward to 2017 and you see that the crossing was improved with the installation of a push-button that activates flashing yellow lights to warn about the crossing of people using the trail.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0298062,-77.1122954,3a,30y,292.08h,82.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIvdtX7aZCcf2JEXKarwN0Q!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
In July 2019, a young woman was killed while crossing at this intersection. A few months later, in the interests of pedestrian safety, the county installed a HAWK signal at this intersection in December 2019.
https://wjla.com/news/local/pedestrian-safety-in-bethesda-new-crosswalk-beacons-installed-near-site-of-deadly-crash?fbclid=IwAR2WQmXOCMxucQjR9AgFAJ-4e0RSDYM5YtcjSEK7akG3kybTK_-DmQlLzag
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.029788,-77.1123116,3a,75y,275.13h,86.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPIYmr8pR-u7eHk8f3WT3rg!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
A few days ago, another tragedy at this crossing, as a 74 year old jogger was killed crossing the street. It is not clear as to whether the jogger activated the HAWK signal, but anecdotal reports from neighbors do indicate many close calls, even when the red lights are flashing.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/74-year-old-jogger-struck-killed-in-bethesda/3038747/
----
So what to make of all of this? It seems that there is still significant driver confusion with regard to HAWK signals. While there are many unfortunate pedestrian deaths at all types of intersections, I know that I would feel safer with a different type of pedestrian signal. I mentioned a few times (probably on this thread and other places) that there are better signals than HAWK with regard to easing driver confusion. Ideally, a regular RYG signal that moves from solid red to flashing red to allow drivers to proceed (after stopping) after giving pedestrians absolute right of way for 10-15 seconds.* The flashing red is designed to allow for traffic to proceed if pedestrians are no longer present (because they cross faster than the presumed 3.5 ft/sec), but is still otherwise part of the more familiar RYG signal, than the HAWK with its less-understood dark-flashing yellow-solid yellow-solid red-flashing red phasing.
* The closest that I have seen to what I describe exists at mid-block crossings in Downtown LA (and other parts of the city). There, the phasing is green-yellow-flashing red. I would add in a brief solid red to make sure that all cars stop and look around before proceeding. Like in many HAWKs, it would seem that flashing red would work well during the pedestrian clearance interval (flashing don't walk) when many pedestrians who may have begun crossing at the moment the walk signal came on would likely no longer be in the intersection. But the key is that the flashing yellow and dark phases of the HAWK are far less intuitive than a simple green light. The green light gives drivers the right of way, but also indicate a light that could turn yellow or red, whereas there are so many flashing yellow s that are simply meaningless.
Tuckerman Lane is a busy east-west street with two lanes in each direction. The Bethesda Trolley Trail is a hiking/bike path that is off-road (and has a bridge over the Beltway), but intersects with Tuckerman Lane at a non-signalized intersection.
Here is the location:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.029788,-77.1123116,3a,75y,277.94h,84.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPIYmr8pR-u7eHk8f3WT3rg!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
As one can see based on past GSV images, early on, it was just simply a marked crosswalk. Some time before 2008, the county put in place a cement median to make it easier for trail users (and perhaps for bus passengers as well as there is a nearby bus stop) to cross Tuckerman.
2008 GSV shows an improved crossing with a cement median that is about the width of one traffic lane:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.029733,-77.1123435,3a,75y,294.94h,73.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQ36vbNHpOjYG8EUn4JJtcQ!2e0!5s20081001T000000!7i3328!8i1664
Fast forward to 2017 and you see that the crossing was improved with the installation of a push-button that activates flashing yellow lights to warn about the crossing of people using the trail.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0298062,-77.1122954,3a,30y,292.08h,82.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIvdtX7aZCcf2JEXKarwN0Q!2e0!5s20170701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
In July 2019, a young woman was killed while crossing at this intersection. A few months later, in the interests of pedestrian safety, the county installed a HAWK signal at this intersection in December 2019.
https://wjla.com/news/local/pedestrian-safety-in-bethesda-new-crosswalk-beacons-installed-near-site-of-deadly-crash?fbclid=IwAR2WQmXOCMxucQjR9AgFAJ-4e0RSDYM5YtcjSEK7akG3kybTK_-DmQlLzag
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.029788,-77.1123116,3a,75y,275.13h,86.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPIYmr8pR-u7eHk8f3WT3rg!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192
A few days ago, another tragedy at this crossing, as a 74 year old jogger was killed crossing the street. It is not clear as to whether the jogger activated the HAWK signal, but anecdotal reports from neighbors do indicate many close calls, even when the red lights are flashing.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/74-year-old-jogger-struck-killed-in-bethesda/3038747/
----
So what to make of all of this? It seems that there is still significant driver confusion with regard to HAWK signals. While there are many unfortunate pedestrian deaths at all types of intersections, I know that I would feel safer with a different type of pedestrian signal. I mentioned a few times (probably on this thread and other places) that there are better signals than HAWK with regard to easing driver confusion. Ideally, a regular RYG signal that moves from solid red to flashing red to allow drivers to proceed (after stopping) after giving pedestrians absolute right of way for 10-15 seconds.* The flashing red is designed to allow for traffic to proceed if pedestrians are no longer present (because they cross faster than the presumed 3.5 ft/sec), but is still otherwise part of the more familiar RYG signal, than the HAWK with its less-understood dark-flashing yellow-solid yellow-solid red-flashing red phasing.
* The closest that I have seen to what I describe exists at mid-block crossings in Downtown LA (and other parts of the city). There, the phasing is green-yellow-flashing red. I would add in a brief solid red to make sure that all cars stop and look around before proceeding. Like in many HAWKs, it would seem that flashing red would work well during the pedestrian clearance interval (flashing don't walk) when many pedestrians who may have begun crossing at the moment the walk signal came on would likely no longer be in the intersection. But the key is that the flashing yellow and dark phases of the HAWK are far less intuitive than a simple green light. The green light gives drivers the right of way, but also indicate a light that could turn yellow or red, whereas there are so many flashing yellow s that are simply meaningless.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 10:06:48 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 10:06:48 PM
In NYSDOT Region 3, HAWKs are now outright discouraged given other solutions (RRFBs and PELICANS (dumbest acronym ever)).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 02, 2022, 10:59:44 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 02, 2022, 10:59:44 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 10:06:48 PMIt sounds like they actually have some sense.
In NYSDOT Region 3, HAWKs are now outright discouraged given other solutions (RRFBs and PELICANS (dumbest acronym ever)).
An RRFB really isn't a replacement for a HAWK beacon. If it doesn't have a red light legally requiring vehicles to stop, it's not in the same category. If you've ever lived somewhere with an aggressive driving culture where vehicles simply do not yield to pedestrians, you understand why.
Old fashioned three-head signals are the solution and there's no reason the US should be so allergic to them.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 03, 2022, 11:23:14 AM
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 03, 2022, 11:23:14 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2022, 10:06:48 PM
In NYSDOT Region 3, HAWKs are now outright discouraged given other solutions (RRFBs and PELICANS (dumbest acronym ever)).
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 02, 2022, 10:59:44 PM
It sounds like they actually have some sense.
An RRFB really isn't a replacement for a HAWK beacon. If it doesn't have a red light legally requiring vehicles to stop, it's not in the same category. If you've ever lived somewhere with an aggressive driving culture where vehicles simply do not yield to pedestrians, you understand why.
Old fashioned three-head signals are the solution and there's no reason the US should be so allergic to them.
All of this brings up an interesting issue. In Great Britain where the PELICON (a.k.a. Pelican Signal) originated, these signals are no longer permitted in new applications. Instead, the newer "Puffin signal" places the pedestrian signal heads on the same side of the road as the request button. My impression is that the "Puffin" solution reduces some of the issues related to the timing of pedestrian cycle (ergo, mobility-impaired pedestrians don't get part-way into the intersection before the time starts to count down). I haven't seen this issue discussed anywhere in the United States.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 03, 2022, 11:41:45 AM
Post by: kphoger on May 03, 2022, 11:41:45 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 02, 2022, 09:59:49 PM
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.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 02, 2022, 10:59:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Big John on May 03, 2022, 06:03:49 PM
Post by: Big John on May 03, 2022, 06:03:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 03, 2022, 11:41:45 AMDoes California still have a flashing red signal for those?Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 02, 2022, 10:59:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 03, 2022, 06:59:32 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 03, 2022, 06:59:32 PM
Quote from: Big John on May 03, 2022, 06:03:49 PMQuote from: kphoger on May 03, 2022, 11:41:45 AMDoes California still have a flashing red signal for those?Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 02, 2022, 10:59:44 PM
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.
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.google.com/maps/@34.0487971,-118.2410097,3a,32.6y,122.89h,90.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIbC7wFTAC9A6yPtUJglA9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XGeAJT8utw
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Big John on May 03, 2022, 07:34:26 PM
Post by: Big John on May 03, 2022, 07:34:26 PM
^^ Yes, that phasing.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 04, 2022, 12:56:33 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 04, 2022, 12:56:33 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2022, 07:55:30 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 04, 2022, 07:55:30 PM
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.
Heck, I'm an educated driver and even I find it confusing compared to a regular traffic light.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2022, 10:21:42 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2022, 10:21:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: roadfro on May 05, 2022, 12:54:04 PM
Post by: roadfro on May 05, 2022, 12:54:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 04, 2022, 12:56:33 PM
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.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 04, 2022, 07:55:30 PM
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).
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2022, 10:21:42 PM
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...
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 05, 2022, 06:15:40 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 05, 2022, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2022, 12:54:04 PM
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.917711,-71.3993541,3a,75y,335.69h,80.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOpMC_TDTYs-qIJ8ijXkjyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) - 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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0325916,-71.0724972,3a,90y,11.44h,80.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDaUQ_epyNDczqXWPGxbKUw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), what is essentially a 5-way intersection, much of the same behaviour happens as in Londonderry.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:45:23 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on May 06, 2022, 10:45:23 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2022, 10:21:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 07, 2022, 08:48:53 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 07, 2022, 08:48:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 07, 2022, 09:15:33 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 07, 2022, 09:15:33 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2022, 12:54:04 PM
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
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 08, 2022, 07:38:03 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 08, 2022, 07:38:03 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51059845666_092ad11acc_5k.jpg)
New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2kMZ4dE) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51059845666_092ad11acc_5k.jpg)
New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2kMZ4dE) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2022, 02:29:02 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2022, 02:29:02 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51059845666_092ad11acc_5k.jpg)
New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2kMZ4dE) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), 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).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 03:05:34 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 03:05:34 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 09, 2022, 02:29:02 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51059845666_092ad11acc_5k.jpg)
New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2kMZ4dE) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), 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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 09, 2022, 03:07:33 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 09, 2022, 03:07:33 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
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?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 09, 2022, 08:09:11 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 09, 2022, 08:09:11 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on May 09, 2022, 08:10:13 PM
Post by: jamess on May 09, 2022, 08:10:13 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 04, 2022, 10:21:42 PM
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"
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 09, 2022, 09:21:32 PM
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 09, 2022, 09:21:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 09, 2022, 11:19:28 AM
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:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51059845666_092ad11acc_5k.jpg)
New HAWK Signal, Renton, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2kMZ4dE) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Simple solution, paint them PINK or PURPLE.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: MASTERNC on May 09, 2022, 09:46:17 PM
Post by: MASTERNC on May 09, 2022, 09:46:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 09, 2022, 09:49:32 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 09, 2022, 09:49:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 10, 2022, 11:17:27 AM
Post by: kphoger on May 10, 2022, 11:17:27 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 09, 2022, 08:09:11 PM
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/tA8L8TC3Q4JgMLkU7) 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 (https://goo.gl/maps/egZf9NJVo5auKzRaA)), 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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
This half the HAWK on one side of the intersection, half on the other (https://goo.gl/maps/zeWztuAtQGgSHoMM6) 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.
West Lafayette was dying to get SR 26 off this stretch so they could install stuff like this.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2022, 10:21:10 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 10, 2022, 10:21:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Revive 755 on May 10, 2022, 10:48:35 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on May 10, 2022, 10:48:35 PM
^ There's a similar installation in Oak Park, IL, (https://goo.gl/maps/99ZwNmNbSXXrxdAE8) which runs afoul of the Illinois MUTCD Supplement.
Quote from: IL MUTCD SupplementIf used, pedestrian hybrid beacons shall be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways and at least 300 feet from traffic signals or railroad grade crossings with active warning devices.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 10, 2022, 11:16:39 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 10, 2022, 11:16:39 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 10, 2022, 10:21:10 PM
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.
What should be done in this situation? I say put a normal three-head signal on the main street with solid red, solid yellow, and flashing yellow. And a red flasher for the side street. No flashing on the main street. Just stop or go.
If you listened to some people on this forum, making someone stay stopped for 15 seconds to let a pedestrian cross is such a serious fault that it should be considered above every other factor when signalizing (or should I say beaconizing) a pedestrian crossing.
The fact is, there is only a certain level of complexity in signal operations that will be reliably understood by the public–especially in a country like ours with incredibly lax driver licensing requirements. It would be nice if we could incorporate a flashing red phase into these installations, but in my opinion, we can't. When you install a HAWK at an intersection, that intersection is now operating in a totally different way from any other intersection, yet there is no education or legal clarification to match this.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 11, 2022, 04:01:39 AM
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 11, 2022, 04:01:39 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
This half the HAWK on one side of the intersection, half on the other (https://goo.gl/maps/zeWztuAtQGgSHoMM6) 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.
What's even more fun with that one? Just go back to the Aug '18 imagery there. They had the lights facing the opposite way then.
https://goo.gl/maps/Xnf4zppBYymFNnK87
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 11, 2022, 09:40:10 AM
Post by: kphoger on May 11, 2022, 09:40:10 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
This half the HAWK on one side of the intersection, half on the other (https://goo.gl/maps/zeWztuAtQGgSHoMM6) 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.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 10, 2022, 10:21:10 PM
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.
As you already mentioned, however, it only goes against MUTCD recommendations. It doesn't actually violate any shall verbiage.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 07, 2022, 08:48:53 PM
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.
Quote from: MUTCD – 2009 Edition
4F. – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Section 4F.02 – Design of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Guidance:
04. When an engineering study finds that installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon is justified, then:
A. The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs,
In fact, language throughout Chapter 4F includes the phrase "major street" (nine instances), which suggests to me they assumed some HAWKs would be installed in locations that also have minor street approaches. §4F.03 ¶04 even specifically provides an option for HAWKs installed "adjacent to a roundabout".
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: roadfro on May 12, 2022, 12:04:32 PM
Post by: roadfro on May 12, 2022, 12:04:32 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 11, 2022, 09:40:10 AMQuote from: MUTCD – 2009 Edition
4F. – Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Section 4F.02 – Design of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Guidance:
04. When an engineering study finds that installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon is justified, then:
A. The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs,
In fact, language throughout Chapter 4F includes the phrase "major street" (nine instances), which suggests to me they assumed some HAWKs would be installed in locations that also have minor street approaches. §4F.03 ¶04 even specifically provides an option for HAWKs installed "adjacent to a roundabout".
It's actually ten instances of "major street" (one instance is hyphenated). But in all those instances, the context is really about the one street. The phrase "minor street" is not used, and the phrase "side street" is only used in the quoted context above about the beacon should be at least 100 feet from side streets. That makes me think that installations at side streets were not envisioned.
The "adjacent to a roundabout" provision is intriguing (the ped heads can be dark in a specifically studied circumstance), but there's no other mention of locating a HAWK at roundabouts. But HAWKs at roundabouts are a different animal than a HAWK at a traditional intersection.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on May 12, 2022, 12:58:59 PM
Post by: jamess on May 12, 2022, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
used to seeing a flashing Don't Walk meaning that cross traffic would have a red light and pulling out,
Well thats illegal, drivers are not to look at pedestrian signals
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 01:51:17 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 01:51:17 PM
Quote from: jamess on May 12, 2022, 12:58:59 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
used to seeing a flashing Don't Walk meaning that cross traffic would have a red light and pulling out,
Well thats illegal, drivers are not to look at pedestrian signals
Where is that illegal?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 12, 2022, 07:57:05 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 12, 2022, 07:57:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 01:51:17 PMQuote from: jamess on May 12, 2022, 12:58:59 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
used to seeing a flashing Don't Walk meaning that cross traffic would have a red light and pulling out,
Well thats illegal, drivers are not to look at pedestrian signals
Where is that illegal?
Good question, and even if true, how are we going to prevent people from looking at things? LOL
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 09:50:21 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 09:50:21 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 12, 2022, 07:57:05 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 01:51:17 PMQuote from: jamess on May 12, 2022, 12:58:59 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
used to seeing a flashing Don't Walk meaning that cross traffic would have a red light and pulling out,
Well thats illegal, drivers are not to look at pedestrian signals
Where is that illegal?
Good question, and even if true, how are we going to prevent people from looking at things? LOL
Embed the ped signals in the sidewalk pavement, with louvres. Might not work so well in Calgary.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: CoreySamson on May 12, 2022, 09:52:35 PM
Post by: CoreySamson on May 12, 2022, 09:52:35 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 10:13:02 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 12, 2022, 10:13:02 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 12, 2022, 09:52:35 PM
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.
The flashing yellow phase on a HAWK means you need to slow down and prepare to stop. Not that you need to slow down and stop. It's basically like a flashing green ball on a Mexican stoplight.
The solid yellow phase is treated like a yellow light at a normal traffic light.
By the way... For all of you Wikipedia editors out there... The article about HAWK beacons has some incorrect information about emergency-vehicle hybrid beacons. See below.
Quote from: Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAWK_beacon#Alternating_flashing_red_aspect
Emergency-vehicle hybrid beacons, for emergency vehicle facilities (i.e. fire stations), use the same signal head design, and uses an alternating flashing red aspect to protect departing emergency vehicles. The only distinguishing part of the design is a different sign, R10-14, is used with the signal. Unlike at a HAWK beacon, drivers are expected to remain stopped during this time, to allow emergency vehicles to enter the roadway.[1]: 513—515
References
1. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 2009. OCLC 777002425. Retrieved August 11, 2021.
However, the very MUTCD that is linked to in the reference states otherwise.
Quote from: MUTCD – 2009 Edition
CHAPTER 4G. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS AND HYBRID BEACONS FOR EMERGENCY-VEHICLE ACCESS
Section 4G.04 Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Beacons [p 514]
Standard:
06. Upon actuation by authorized emergency personnel, the emergency-vehicle hybrid beacon faces shall each display a flashing yellow signal indication, followed by a steady yellow change interval, prior to displaying two CIRCULAR RED signal indications in an alternating flashing array for a duration of time adequate for egress of the emergency vehicles. The alternating flashing red signal indications shall only be displayed when it is required that drivers on the major street stop and then proceed subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign. Upon termination of the flashing red signal indications, the emergency-vehicle hybrid beacons shall revert to a dark mode (no indications displayed) condition.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: PurdueBill on May 13, 2022, 11:50:21 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on May 13, 2022, 11:50:21 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 12, 2022, 07:57:05 PMQuote from: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 01:51:17 PMQuote from: jamess on May 12, 2022, 12:58:59 PMQuote from: PurdueBill on May 10, 2022, 10:09:09 PM
used to seeing a flashing Don't Walk meaning that cross traffic would have a red light and pulling out,
Well thats illegal, drivers are not to look at pedestrian signals
Where is that illegal?
Good question, and even if true, how are we going to prevent people from looking at things? LOL
Chicago Mayor Emanuel once said how great it was that pedestrian signals were countdown style so drivers could see how long they had before the yellow light so they would not get caught by the red light cameras. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-pedestrian-countdown-timers-red-light-camera-perspec-zorn-0304-jm-20150303-column.html
Whether it is what drivers are supposed to be doing, it is what people do as consequences of design like short yellows at camera intersections or HAWKs at intersections where the side street could use the WALK signal to see more clearly that the main drag has red.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 13, 2022, 10:10:45 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 13, 2022, 10:10:45 PM
Does anyone know of any HAWK signals erected by New York State DOT, especially on Long Island? I haven't seen any yet and I'm wondering if NYSDOT is embracing this concept with the same zeal as flashing yellow arrows which they're putting up all over the place.
My native Nassau County DPW so far has not put up any HAWK's that I know of, and so far they don't seem to be using FYA's either. They stick to the KISS principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid) which I kind of agree with.
My native Nassau County DPW so far has not put up any HAWK's that I know of, and so far they don't seem to be using FYA's either. They stick to the KISS principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid) which I kind of agree with.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 13, 2022, 10:43:12 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 13, 2022, 10:43:12 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 13, 2022, 10:10:45 PMThere's probably one somewhere.
Does anyone know of any HAWK signals erected by New York State DOT, especially on Long Island? I haven't seen any yet and I'm wondering if NYSDOT is embracing this concept with the same zeal as flashing yellow arrows which they're putting up all over the place.
My native Nassau County DPW so far has not put up any HAWK's that I know of, and so far they don't seem to be using FYA's either. They stick to the KISS principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid) which I kind of agree with.
You will not see new HAWKs in Region 3 (Central NY). Region 3 has determined other safety measures are more effective, per my understanding.
I am a big fan of FYAs.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 13, 2022, 11:43:31 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 13, 2022, 11:43:31 PM
City of Somerville MA just retimed their PHBs to only flash red after the pedestrian signal reached 0 on the FDW for 3 seconds. It is a lot safer. https://youtu.be/TAyjEcZ6qbQ
iPhone
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
^^^
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They've defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They've defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on May 14, 2022, 10:27:42 AM
Post by: US 89 on May 14, 2022, 10:27:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
^^^
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They've defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
Exactly. If the pedestrian countdown is at 0, why the hell do you still have the flashing phase?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 14, 2022, 07:56:02 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 14, 2022, 07:56:02 PM
Anyone else notice the steady-yellow in that video is not even two seconds long? MUTCD recommends three seconds, minimum using the usual word should.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 08:08:10 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: US 89 on May 14, 2022, 10:27:42 AMQuote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
^^^
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They've defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
Exactly. If the pedestrian countdown is at 0, why the hell do you still have the flashing phase?
It would appear to be the first example of a pre-green signal in the US! Aka, "clutch-in" time.
Quote from: SignBridge on May 14, 2022, 07:56:02 PM
Anyone else notice the steady-yellow in that video is not even two seconds long? MUTCD recommends three seconds, minimum using the usual word should.
I'm not usually too bothered by short yellows unless there's a camera; it's definitely very short, though. But then it doesn't seem Somerville quite gets the idea with the HAWK to begin with, so I guess we'll have to excuse them.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 14, 2022, 10:23:12 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 14, 2022, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: US 89 on May 14, 2022, 10:27:42 AMThink of it as an all red phase almost.Quote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
^^^
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They've defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
Exactly. If the pedestrian countdown is at 0, why the hell do you still have the flashing phase?
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on May 15, 2022, 01:21:04 AM
Post by: US 89 on May 15, 2022, 01:21:04 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on May 14, 2022, 10:23:12 PMQuote from: US 89 on May 14, 2022, 10:27:42 AMThink of it as an all red phase almost.Quote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
^^^
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They’ve defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
Exactly. If the pedestrian countdown is at 0, why the hell do you still have the flashing phase?
iPhone
Which is what the 3 seconds after the countdown timer reaches 0 is supposed to be...
All I see in that video is a couple of pedestrians not even waiting for their light to change before starting to cross (that's another thing I seem to observe a lot with HAWKs) and then several cars and bikes being held up for quite a bit by the extended double red. I hate having to come to a full stop and wait at pedestrian signals when nobody is even there and I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 15, 2022, 09:31:30 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 15, 2022, 09:31:30 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 15, 2022, 01:21:04 AMI think even a standard RRFB could have worked better in this instance. The city is looking at installing a RYG full signal here instead. Here's a similar HAWK on the same corridor, similar issues and timing. https://youtu.be/CiYrBbjVnYMQuote from: Amtrakprod on May 14, 2022, 10:23:12 PMQuote from: US 89 on May 14, 2022, 10:27:42 AMThink of it as an all red phase almost.Quote from: jakeroot on May 14, 2022, 09:34:30 AM
^^^
They should have just installed a regular half signal (signal for main road, stop sign for side road). They've defeated the entire point of the HAWK.
Exactly. If the pedestrian countdown is at 0, why the hell do you still have the flashing phase?
iPhone
Which is what the 3 seconds after the countdown timer reaches 0 is supposed to be...
All I see in that video is a couple of pedestrians not even waiting for their light to change before starting to cross (that's another thing I seem to observe a lot with HAWKs) and then several cars and bikes being held up for quite a bit by the extended double red. I hate having to come to a full stop and wait at pedestrian signals when nobody is even there and I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2022, 03:02:31 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2022, 03:02:31 PM
The signals in those examples seemed very poorly configured. Between the extra short yellow, the extra short flashing red, and the glitchy transitions, those are not great.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PM
So I tried pointing this out on a Facebook thread, and it's going over most people's heads without thinking it through...
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 15, 2022, 08:01:06 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 15, 2022, 08:01:06 PM
Considering that the MUTCD recommends against installing HAWK's within 100 ft. of side streets and driveways controlled by stop or yield signs, I'm amazed that so many of them in many states seem to be AT such intersections.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the above example in Massachusetts with the barely two second steady-yellow. That state has a long history of doing whatever they want regardless of what the Manual says. LOL
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the above example in Massachusetts with the barely two second steady-yellow. That state has a long history of doing whatever they want regardless of what the Manual says. LOL
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2022, 10:03:18 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2022, 10:03:18 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 15, 2022, 08:01:06 PMThere's a HAWK in Hadley on Route 9 I despise. Luckily, it is rarely triggered -- I believe it is for a crosswalk connecting a courthouse to...a Cumby. :D
Considering that the MUTCD recommends against installing HAWK's within 100 ft. of side streets and driveways controlled by stop or yield signs, I'm amazed that so many of them in many states seem to be AT such intersections.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the above example in Massachusetts with the barely two second steady-yellow. That state has a long history of doing whatever they want regardless of what the Manual says. LOL
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: roadfro on May 18, 2022, 03:52:21 PM
Post by: roadfro on May 18, 2022, 03:52:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PMI don't know that the MUTCD mandates one way or the other, but I've never seen any examples (in person or video) of "outer inner outer inner". If you think to situations where there might be three overhead signals, or one overhead and a side mount, "left right left right" would be the only style that makes sense...
So I tried pointing this out on a Facebook thread, and it's going over most people's heads without thinking it through...
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
From a traffic control systems perspective, I think it would be more electrically complex if the beacons displayed different red aspects at the same time, and for no real benefit.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2022, 04:35:21 PM
Post by: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2022, 04:35:21 PM
I just don't get HAWKS, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Nobody understands them. (The same with the flashing yellow arrow) If you have to put a sign next to it explaining what a HAWK or FYA means then it shouldn't be used. Everyone knows a RYG light and what to do. HAWKS should be replaced with a regular RYG light.
I have one near me and when it went to flashing red and no pedestrians around, nobody moved until it went off.
I have one near me and when it went to flashing red and no pedestrians around, nobody moved until it went off.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 18, 2022, 04:44:49 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 18, 2022, 04:44:49 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2022, 04:35:21 PM
I just don't get HAWKS, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Nobody understands them. ... If you have to put a sign next to it explaining what a HAWK ... means then it shouldn't be used. Everyone knows a RYG light and what to do. HAWKS should be replaced with a regular RYG light.
I have one near me and when it went to flashing red and no pedestrians around, nobody moved until it went off.
If a standard RYG signal at the same pedestrian crossing went from solid red to flashing red, then I have a suspicion a lot of drivers would likewise remain stopped until the flashing red phase ended.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2022, 04:35:21 PM
(The same with the flashing yellow arrow) ... If you have to put a sign next to it explaining what a ... FYA means then it shouldn't be used.
What is your preferred solution to yellow trap?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 18, 2022, 04:51:23 PM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 18, 2022, 04:51:23 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2022, 04:35:21 PM
I just don't get HAWKS, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Nobody understands them. (The same with the flashing yellow arrow) If you have to put a sign next to it explaining what a HAWK or FYA means then it shouldn't be used. Everyone knows a RYG light and what to do. HAWKS should be replaced with a regular RYG light.
I have one near me and when it went to flashing red and no pedestrians around, nobody moved until it went off.
HAWKs are up for debate, but I disagree with your take on FYAs. I think they're pretty clear and useful. Were doghouses/5-light towers okay too? Yes. But FYAs are even better.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2022, 07:46:20 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2022, 07:46:20 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2022, 04:44:49 PM
If a standard RYG signal at the same pedestrian crossing went from solid red to flashing red, then I have a suspicion a lot of drivers would likewise remain stopped until the flashing red phase ended.
I'm not personally convinced of that. Drivers are quite well trained that a single flashing red means "stop then proceed when clear". The wig-wag double-flashing red, on the other hand, does not have such a meaning.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 18, 2022, 10:27:31 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on May 18, 2022, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on May 18, 2022, 04:35:21 PMFlashing yellow arrows are actually really intuitive, and we've had great successes with them. Drivers like them too.
I just don't get HAWKS, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Nobody understands them. (The same with the flashing yellow arrow) If you have to put a sign next to it explaining what a HAWK or FYA means then it shouldn't be used. Everyone knows a RYG light and what to do. HAWKS should be replaced with a regular RYG light.
I have one near me and when it went to flashing red and no pedestrians around, nobody moved until it went off.
PHBs are less popular
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Revive 755 on May 18, 2022, 10:37:21 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on May 18, 2022, 10:37:21 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 18, 2022, 03:52:21 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PMI don't know that the MUTCD mandates one way or the other, but I've never seen any examples (in person or video) of "outer inner outer inner". If you think to situations where there might be three overhead signals, or one overhead and a side mount, "left right left right" would be the only style that makes sense...
So I tried pointing this out on a Facebook thread, and it's going over most people's heads without thinking it through...
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
MUTCD 4F.02 Paragraph 03 Item A mandates at least two faces for each approach to the Hawk.
I don't see a mandate in the MUTCD for "left right left right" versus "outer inner outer inner". Maybe there's a bit for guidance on this in some of the other electrical guidelines - one of the ITE ones and/or NEMA perhaps?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 19, 2022, 12:17:25 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 19, 2022, 12:17:25 AM
Quote from: Revive 755 on May 18, 2022, 10:37:21 PMQuote from: roadfro on May 18, 2022, 03:52:21 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PMI don't know that the MUTCD mandates one way or the other, but I've never seen any examples (in person or video) of "outer inner outer inner". If you think to situations where there might be three overhead signals, or one overhead and a side mount, "left right left right" would be the only style that makes sense...
So I tried pointing this out on a Facebook thread, and it's going over most people's heads without thinking it through...
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
MUTCD 4F.02 Paragraph 03 Item A mandates at least two faces for each approach to the Hawk.
I don't see a mandate in the MUTCD for "left right left right" versus "outer inner outer inner". Maybe there's a bit for guidance on this in some of the other electrical guidelines - one of the ITE ones and/or NEMA perhaps?
I think it's just sloppy wiring. Sometimes we see the same thing with railing crossings, where it varies between alternating and left-right. In my opinion, they should be uniform, left-left, right-right.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: PurdueBill on May 20, 2022, 01:37:37 AM
Post by: PurdueBill on May 20, 2022, 01:37:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2022, 07:46:20 PM
I'm not personally convinced of that. Drivers are quite well trained that a single flashing red means "stop then proceed when clear". The wig-wag double-flashing red, on the other hand, does not have such a meaning.
Anywhere else you do see a wigwag style red, like a school bus or a railroad crossing, it means stop and stay put until the lights go dark. A HAWK somehow took that same pattern and made it mean something else. It seems like both reds flashing together would be better really.
They made it impermissible to have horizontal pairs of red flashing balls alternate at an intersection because it could be confused with a railroad crossing, then introduced a new thing that has alternating horizontally-aligned red flashing balls. Nuts!!
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: DRMan on May 20, 2022, 01:46:24 PM
Post by: DRMan on May 20, 2022, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on May 20, 2022, 01:37:37 AMQuote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2022, 07:46:20 PM
I'm not personally convinced of that. Drivers are quite well trained that a single flashing red means "stop then proceed when clear". The wig-wag double-flashing red, on the other hand, does not have such a meaning.
Anywhere else you do see a wigwag style red, like a school bus or a railroad crossing, it means stop and stay put until the lights go dark. A HAWK somehow took that same pattern and made it mean something else. It seems like both reds flashing together would be better really.
They made it impermissible to have horizontal pairs of red flashing balls alternate at an intersection because it could be confused with a railroad crossing, then introduced a new thing that has alternating horizontally-aligned red flashing balls. Nuts!!
Having both reds flash together would be better, and so would having the yellow flash at all times. A dark signal is supposed to equate to an all-way stop.
Although, drivers seem accustomed to these weird phases here in the birthplace of the HAWK.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on May 24, 2022, 01:34:31 PM
Post by: jamess on May 24, 2022, 01:34:31 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PM
So I tried pointing this out on a Facebook thread, and it's going over most people's heads without thinking it through...
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
left right left right like a railroad crossing in which going means deaths so you know, very intuitive
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: hotdogPi on May 24, 2022, 01:43:20 PM
Post by: hotdogPi on May 24, 2022, 01:43:20 PM
Quote from: jamess on May 24, 2022, 01:34:31 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on May 15, 2022, 03:34:31 PM
So I tried pointing this out on a Facebook thread, and it's going over most people's heads without thinking it through...
During the flashing red phase, when two signal heads are used, are the lights supposed to flash out in out in, or left right left right?
left right left right like a railroad crossing in which going means deaths so you know, very intuitive
No, it's not intuitive at all. The flashing red phase of a HAWK functions as a typical flashing red; you can go once it's clear. Drivers are trained to stop entirely until the phase ends on a railroad crossing, and you're not supposed to do that at a HAWK. (Some states do treat railroad crossings without gates as typical flashing reds where you can go after the train passes, but few people know this.)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 02:08:13 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 02:08:13 PM
Maybe the real issue is that a flashing red means one thing at an intersection and a different thing at a railroad. Why is nobody saying that's confusing?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 24, 2022, 03:20:37 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on May 24, 2022, 03:20:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 02:08:13 PM
Maybe the real issue is that a flashing red means one thing at an intersection and a different thing at a railroad. Why is nobody saying that's confusing?
And also the same pattern for a school bus as well displaying their red lights, similar to a level/railroad crossing?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 24, 2022, 05:02:51 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 24, 2022, 05:02:51 PM
Yeah, HAWKs are of the devil.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 24, 2022, 08:36:05 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 24, 2022, 08:36:05 PM
Well besides the HAWK being a bad concept in general, the idea that wig-wag flashing red lights mean different things at different locations is downright dangerous to life. It shouldn't mean stop and proceed at a pedestrian crossing but mean stop and stay at a railroad crossing. It should have the same meaning everywhere. What are the engineers at FHWA smoking?
And another problem I've noticed in all the HAWK videos, we've seen (besides that many of them are installed at intersections, contrary to MUTCD recommendation) is that the red flashing pattern is not uniform in all installations either. As others have noted: some flash left-right, left-right and others flash in-out, in-out. So we don't even have consistency with the flashing pattern. What a mess!
The stop and proceed indication at a crosswalk should have all red lights flashing together just like at a regular traffic signal, so stop and proceed would always be all red lights flashing together.
And another problem I've noticed in all the HAWK videos, we've seen (besides that many of them are installed at intersections, contrary to MUTCD recommendation) is that the red flashing pattern is not uniform in all installations either. As others have noted: some flash left-right, left-right and others flash in-out, in-out. So we don't even have consistency with the flashing pattern. What a mess!
The stop and proceed indication at a crosswalk should have all red lights flashing together just like at a regular traffic signal, so stop and proceed would always be all red lights flashing together.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 09:02:03 PM
Post by: kphoger on May 24, 2022, 09:02:03 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on May 24, 2022, 08:36:05 PM
Well besides the HAWK being a bad concept in general, the idea that wig-wag flashing red lights mean different things at different locations is downright dangerous to life. It shouldn't mean stop and proceed at a pedestrian crossing but mean stop and stay at a railroad crossing. It should have the same meaning everywhere. What are the engineers at FHWA smoking?
Why stop there? Flashing red lights in general should have the same meaning everywhere.
Two stoplights flashing red on a mast arm means stop and proceed (flash mode), and two lenses in the same stoplight on a mast arm means stop and proceed (HAWK), but two lenses on a railroad signal mean stop and stay (wigwag).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 25, 2022, 09:33:10 AM
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 25, 2022, 09:33:10 AM
The railroader in me wants to remind everyone that the flashing railroad signals is meant to represent the left and right [stops] of a wig-wag, which simulates a railroad flagger swinging a red lantern back-and-forth. Which indeed, both the wigwag and the flagman use constant red signals. But you'all are entirely correct, the flashing red signals should have a consistent aspect (interpreted meaning): "stop while flashing".
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on June 10, 2022, 12:27:54 AM
Post by: fwydriver405 on June 10, 2022, 12:27:54 AM
Speaking of Hybrid Beacons and railroad crossings... what about them actually being used at a railroad crossing, either in tandem with existing signals or as the actual warning devices? Two examples I can think of:
W Jefferson Ave and Zug Island Rd in Detroit MI (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2931474,-83.11159,3a,26.2y,245.7h,90.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-5XUpcnaroj2wh13qC4MA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - there are no actual railroad (level) crossing signals here, the hybrid beacons ARE the actual level crossing signals. Past GSV suggested they replaced traditional RYG signals on the mast arm around 2017. Wonder if their sequence is very similar to how the United Kingdom and Ireland does their level crossings. Example of what I mean for a sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KVOPU5MQrw
The other one is at Petaluma Hill Rd in in Penngrove CA (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2973363,-122.6664557,3a,75y,185.5h,87.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDO6xGAUhHIGicMfiex-otQ!2e0!5s20210301T000000!7i16384!8i8192). This one is in tandem with existing level crossing signals, and it appears it was installed in 2018. I'm not sure what they were going here with the signal sequence, or why they were added later when the signal was upgraded, as the sequence doesn't make sense to me, especially the flashing red.
When the (normal) crossing activates, the Hybrid Beacon goes solid yellow for 3 seconds, then goes steady red for 7.5 seconds as the crossing gates go down, and then flash red like the (normal) crossing signals for 7.5 seconds before going dark.
Example of sequence (start at 1:29 for sequence):
https://youtu.be/s8vagx2yLJA?t=87
EDIT, here's what I found from the video description:
W Jefferson Ave and Zug Island Rd in Detroit MI (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2931474,-83.11159,3a,26.2y,245.7h,90.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-5XUpcnaroj2wh13qC4MA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - there are no actual railroad (level) crossing signals here, the hybrid beacons ARE the actual level crossing signals. Past GSV suggested they replaced traditional RYG signals on the mast arm around 2017. Wonder if their sequence is very similar to how the United Kingdom and Ireland does their level crossings. Example of what I mean for a sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KVOPU5MQrw
The other one is at Petaluma Hill Rd in in Penngrove CA (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2973363,-122.6664557,3a,75y,185.5h,87.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDO6xGAUhHIGicMfiex-otQ!2e0!5s20210301T000000!7i16384!8i8192). This one is in tandem with existing level crossing signals, and it appears it was installed in 2018. I'm not sure what they were going here with the signal sequence, or why they were added later when the signal was upgraded, as the sequence doesn't make sense to me, especially the flashing red.
When the (normal) crossing activates, the Hybrid Beacon goes solid yellow for 3 seconds, then goes steady red for 7.5 seconds as the crossing gates go down, and then flash red like the (normal) crossing signals for 7.5 seconds before going dark.
Example of sequence (start at 1:29 for sequence):
https://youtu.be/s8vagx2yLJA?t=87
EDIT, here's what I found from the video description:
Quote from: Penngrove Magic by NebulaTrain99An unusual feature here are High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons. Intended for pedestrian crosswalks and closely resembling warning lights in the United Kingdom, the HAWKs were placed in early 2017 to address safety concerns (particularly from the annual parade). I'm not exactly sure how and when they are triggered, but they serve to prevent traffic from blocking the tracks and also react with the railroad crossing signals. The HAWKs additionally have digital signs pointed on Woodward Ave. that bear a "No Left Turn" symbol and also read "Train" if one is indeed present.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Lukeisroads on June 10, 2022, 01:05:30 PM
Post by: Lukeisroads on June 10, 2022, 01:05:30 PM
go to 178 in bakersfield they have a HAWK the first one in bakersfield and in kern county
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 10, 2022, 01:10:45 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 10, 2022, 01:10:45 PM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on June 10, 2022, 01:05:30 PM
go to 178 in bakersfield they have a HAWK the first one in bakersfield and in kern county
Well, that was vague.
Here is the specific location: https://goo.gl/maps/kWQoVka4t4pyXoSQ6
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 10, 2022, 09:03:54 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 10, 2022, 09:03:54 PM
Seems to be an improper use of HAWK signals at the railroad crossing in Penngrove, Calif. I doubt the MUTCD permits their use at RR crossings. But maybe Calif's Manual has an exception?
And re: the installation in Detroit, I doubt that's in compliance with the MUTCD either, but I'll have to check to be sure.
And re: the installation in Detroit, I doubt that's in compliance with the MUTCD either, but I'll have to check to be sure.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2022, 11:38:44 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2022, 11:38:44 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 10, 2022, 11:28:01 PMQuote from: fwydriver405 on June 10, 2022, 12:27:54 AM
Speaking of Hybrid Beacons and railroad crossings... what about them actually being used at a railroad crossing, either in tandem with existing signals or as the actual warning devices? Two examples I can think of:
W Jefferson Ave and Zug Island Rd in Detroit MI (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2931474,-83.11159,3a,26.2y,245.7h,90.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-5XUpcnaroj2wh13qC4MA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - there are no actual railroad (level) crossing signals here, the hybrid beacons ARE the actual level crossing signals. Past GSV suggested they replaced traditional RYG signals on the mast arm around 2017. Wonder if their sequence is very similar to how the United Kingdom and Ireland does their level crossings. Example of what I mean for a sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KVOPU5MQrw
These appear to function more like a traditional railroad crossing signal than a HAWK -- there is an added yellow phase before the alternating flashing reds, but there is no flashing yellow or solid red phases. Maybe some genius from the county or city Design department got involved.
The bigger issue I see: Am I nuts, or are both gates on the wrong sides of the road?
You're nuts. You missed that this is in the UK or Ireland..
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on June 11, 2022, 12:21:06 AM
Post by: US 89 on June 11, 2022, 12:21:06 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2022, 11:38:44 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on June 10, 2022, 11:28:01 PMQuote from: fwydriver405 on June 10, 2022, 12:27:54 AM
Speaking of Hybrid Beacons and railroad crossings... what about them actually being used at a railroad crossing, either in tandem with existing signals or as the actual warning devices? Two examples I can think of:
W Jefferson Ave and Zug Island Rd in Detroit MI (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2931474,-83.11159,3a,26.2y,245.7h,90.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-5XUpcnaroj2wh13qC4MA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - there are no actual railroad (level) crossing signals here, the hybrid beacons ARE the actual level crossing signals. Past GSV suggested they replaced traditional RYG signals on the mast arm around 2017. Wonder if their sequence is very similar to how the United Kingdom and Ireland does their level crossings. Example of what I mean for a sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KVOPU5MQrw
These appear to function more like a traditional railroad crossing signal than a HAWK -- there is an added yellow phase before the alternating flashing reds, but there is no flashing yellow or solid red phases. Maybe some genius from the county or city Design department got involved.
The bigger issue I see: Am I nuts, or are both gates on the wrong sides of the road?
You're nuts. You missed that this is in the UK or Ireland..
To be fair, the "another train coming" sign is on the wrong side of the road. You'd never see a sign like that on the left side of a 2-lane road in the US, would you?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 09:01:21 AM
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 09:01:21 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on June 10, 2022, 12:27:54 AM
Speaking of Hybrid Beacons and railroad crossings... what about them actually being used at a railroad crossing, either in tandem with existing signals or as the actual warning devices? Two examples I can think of:
W Jefferson Ave and Zug Island Rd in Detroit MI (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2931474,-83.11159,3a,26.2y,245.7h,90.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-5XUpcnaroj2wh13qC4MA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - there are no actual railroad (level) crossing signals here, the hybrid beacons ARE the actual level crossing signals. Past GSV suggested they replaced traditional RYG signals on the mast arm around 2017. Wonder if their sequence is very similar to how the United Kingdom and Ireland does their level crossings. Example of what I mean for a sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KVOPU5MQrw
Quote from: wanderer2575 on June 10, 2022, 11:28:01 PM
These appear to function more like a traditional railroad crossing signal than a HAWK -- there is an added yellow phase before the alternating flashing reds, but there is no flashing yellow or solid red phases. Maybe some genius from the county or city Design department got involved.
The bigger issue I see: Am I nuts, or are both gates on the wrong sides of the road?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2022, 11:38:44 PM
You're nuts. You missed that this is in the UK or Ireland..
Quote from: US 89 on June 11, 2022, 12:21:06 AM
To be fair, the "another train coming" sign is on the wrong side of the road. You'd never see a sign like that on the left side of a 2-lane road in the US, would you?
You are correct, that the "Another Train Coming" sign would be placed on the right side here in the United States, but the placement of that sign is to warn someone running around the gates (in the opposite lane not to enter the crossing. Assuming that the offending vehicle is passing a string of traffic waiting at the extended gate, it is placed and aimed correctly. But I strongly believe that any "Another Train Coming" sign that is placed on the opposite side of the road should be aimed at the second car behind the gate (ergo, about 30 feet in front of the gate tip). After many years of discussion here in the United States, the "Another Train Coming" sign is finally getting formalized in the most recent MUTCD changes. (I haven't bothered looking this up yet, but this subthread has got my attention).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 11, 2022, 07:55:43 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 11, 2022, 07:55:43 PM
Re: the earlier above photo of the HAWK installation in Detroit, I discovered that the MUTCD does permit (Sec. 8C.09.01) traffic control signals to be used instead of flashing light signals at industrial grade crossings and other locations where train movements are very slow such as switching operations. The crossing in the photo may fit that description.
But so far I haven't seen any provision specifically authorizing HAWK beacons or Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons at railroad crossings. But they might fall under the Manual's general category of traffic control signals; so who knows? Stay tuned.
But so far I haven't seen any provision specifically authorizing HAWK beacons or Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons at railroad crossings. But they might fall under the Manual's general category of traffic control signals; so who knows? Stay tuned.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 08:47:33 PM
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 11, 2022, 08:47:33 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 11, 2022, 07:55:43 PM
Re: the earlier above photo of the HAWK installation in Detroit, I discovered that the MUTCD does permit (Sec. 8C.09.01) traffic control signals to be used instead of flashing light signals at industrial grade crossings and other locations where train movements are very slow such as switching operations. The crossing in the photo may fit that description.
But so far I haven't seen any provision specifically authorizing HAWK beacons or Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons at railroad crossings. But they might fall under the Manual's general category of traffic control signals; so who knows? Stay tuned.
I wonder if this is a test application. One of the issues at many urban grade crossings is that a railroad employee (typically the brakeman, sometimes the conductor) needs to manually flag the crossing. In some cities, it has been difficult for the [flagger] to step out into traffic because of aggressive drivers who don't want to wait (and know that they don't have to if they get in the crossing before the [flagger] that just got out of the locomotive (or caboose, in certain cases). In that case, a HAWK signal serves the purpose of protecting the [flagger] and once the train is on the move, the HAWK signal is irrelevant. In gentler cities where traffic was light enough, the [flagger] simply rode out on the front of the locomotive and waved traffic to a stop before the train crossed.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2022, 09:13:10 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2022, 09:13:10 PM
Quote from: US 89 on June 11, 2022, 12:21:06 AM
To be fair, the "another train coming" sign is on the wrong side of the road. You'd never see a sign like that on the left side of a 2-lane road in the US, would you?
Well, it's on the "other" side, not the wrong side.
You wouldn't also see white lines separating the flow of traffi in the US, or gates just on the "wrong side" either.
Although we have so many signs here I'm the US on the wrong side anyway, sometimes it's tough to tell.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2022, 10:52:15 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2022, 10:52:15 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 11, 2022, 07:55:43 PM
Re: the earlier above photo of the HAWK installation in Detroit, I discovered that the MUTCD does permit (Sec. 8C.09.01) traffic control signals to be used instead of flashing light signals at industrial grade crossings and other locations where train movements are very slow such as switching operations. The crossing in the photo may fit that description.
But so far I haven't seen any provision specifically authorizing HAWK beacons or Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons at railroad crossings. But they might fall under the Manual's general category of traffic control signals; so who knows? Stay tuned.
From FHWA's interpretation ""4(09)-2(I) - Hybrid Beacons Adjacent to Grade Crossings" (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interpretations/4_09_2.htm):
Quote from: FHWA, "4(09)-2(I) - Hybrid Beacons Adjacent to Grade Crossings"A Hybrid Beacon is defined in Section 1A.13 as a "special type of beacon" rather than a special type of traffic control signal. Therefore, neither a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) nor an Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Beacon (EVHB) is considered to be a traffic control signal.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2022, 10:58:49 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2022, 10:58:49 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 25, 2022, 09:33:10 AM
The railroader in me wants to remind everyone that the flashing railroad signals is meant to represent the left and right [stops] of a wig-wag, which simulates a railroad flagger swinging a red lantern back-and-forth. Which indeed, both the wigwag and the flagman use constant red signals. But you'all are entirely correct, the flashing red signals should have a consistent aspect (interpreted meaning): "stop while flashing".
Maybe the correct solution, then, is to use LEDs to create a wig-wag-like animation for railroad crossings, where the light moves in an arc like a wig-wag does.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on June 12, 2022, 12:53:07 AM
Post by: US 89 on June 12, 2022, 12:53:07 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2022, 09:13:10 PMQuote from: US 89 on June 11, 2022, 12:21:06 AM
To be fair, the "another train coming" sign is on the wrong side of the road. You'd never see a sign like that on the left side of a 2-lane road in the US, would you?
Well, it's on the "other" side, not the wrong side.
You wouldn't also see white lines separating the flow of traffi in the US, or gates just on the "wrong side" either.
Although we have so many signs here I'm the US on the wrong side anyway, sometimes it's tough to tell.
Do we? The only signs I routinely see on the left on two-way streets in the US are the "no passing zone" ones and those yellow signs with chevrons/arrows that they use on sharp enough curves.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 11, 2022, 07:55:43 PM
Re: the earlier above photo of the HAWK installation in Detroit, I discovered that the MUTCD does permit (Sec. 8C.09.01) traffic control signals to be used instead of flashing light signals at industrial grade crossings and other locations where train movements are very slow such as switching operations.
If you're looking for a real-world example of this, there are at least (https://goo.gl/maps/VYoaodDBDwPwqjcF7) two of them (https://goo.gl/maps/BiJHCoR2xFeAhq7n9) in Salt Lake City.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 12, 2022, 01:46:56 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on June 12, 2022, 01:46:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 10, 2022, 11:38:44 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on June 10, 2022, 11:28:01 PMQuote from: fwydriver405 on June 10, 2022, 12:27:54 AM
Speaking of Hybrid Beacons and railroad crossings... what about them actually being used at a railroad crossing, either in tandem with existing signals or as the actual warning devices? Two examples I can think of:
W Jefferson Ave and Zug Island Rd in Detroit MI (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2931474,-83.11159,3a,26.2y,245.7h,90.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sM-5XUpcnaroj2wh13qC4MA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) - there are no actual railroad (level) crossing signals here, the hybrid beacons ARE the actual level crossing signals. Past GSV suggested they replaced traditional RYG signals on the mast arm around 2017. Wonder if their sequence is very similar to how the United Kingdom and Ireland does their level crossings. Example of what I mean for a sequence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KVOPU5MQrw
These appear to function more like a traditional railroad crossing signal than a HAWK -- there is an added yellow phase before the alternating flashing reds, but there is no flashing yellow or solid red phases. Maybe some genius from the county or city Design department got involved.
The bigger issue I see: Am I nuts, or are both gates on the wrong sides of the road?
You're nuts. You missed that this is in the UK or Ireland..
My bad; I thought this was the Zug Island Road crossing. The Google Maps link wasn't working for me at the time. I withdraw my comments.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on June 19, 2022, 12:09:05 PM
Post by: mrsman on June 19, 2022, 12:09:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 04, 2022, 12:56:33 PM
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.
The L.A. signal is probably the best implementation of pedestrian signal.
As stated above, easy to understand and definitely meets expectations.
These are only installed in mid-block (or equivalent)* situations. A full intersection should get a full signal to avoid confusion with respect to side street traffic.
They are fail-safe. To the extent that they are not a standard RYG, and to the extent that a driver may be confused, the confusion will cause a driver to wait until the green. Delaying traffic, not injuring pedestrians.
My one recommendation would be to start with a brief, 5 second, solid red phase. Many of these are so old that I believe the technology didn't allow for a solid red sequence followed by a flashing red sequence. Technology now certainly allows it, as we can see with HAWKs, so these signals should also be modified to allow for a brief solid red at the beginning of the pedestrian crossing.
* Equivalent situations. Treated as mid-block but still have some element of cross-traffic to be concerned with:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0572807,-118.2404379,3a,75y,255.22h,81.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1st1kDYE-8PyhJyRgIVGtQOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Spring St at US 101 NB exit ramp. On Spring Street, just south of the crosswalk, there is an exit ramp from the freeway that meets Spring. All traffic from the exit ramp faces a stop sign and all must turn right. Having used this ramp, I can tell you that a full signal would be helpful to give the exit traffic a protected phase. It is difficult to make this right, and the stop and go feature of the flashing red actually makes it harder for cross-street rights, since the available gap time is shorter.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0885889,-118.3778148,3a,37.5y,64.29h,85.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siFGNYZlF8RAAePSP0YPKYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
West Knoll Dr at Santa Monica Blvd. While this is in West Hollywood, the signal operates in a simila fashion to the LADOT standard. Again, we have a cross street that only allows for RIRO, that is just after the cross walk. So with respect to SM Blvd traffic, this is a mid-block location, and the side street, being downstream from the crosswalk, doesn't really interact with the pedestrians that are crossing SM Blvd. So this is an appropriate way to turn a T intersection with a small street into an intersection that is appropriate for the (better version of the) HAWK signal. Obviously, West Knoll Dr has less traffic than the US 101 off-ramp, so I don't believe there is any general warrant for a signal here, other than for pedestrians.
I would even venture to say that more intersection should be designed this way. If the main street has significant pedestrian draw, certain side streets, that don't warrant a vehicular signal, should be transfomed into RIROs (especially at T-intersections). Provide a cross-walk that is upstream from the side street, and have the crosswalk controlled by an LADOT Ped XING signal. You provide a safe crossing at every intersection, while avoiding major delays that would be induced on the main street with a full signal at every intersection. You also minimize side street interaction, which HAWKS and LADOT Ped XING signals are not really designed to address.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on June 19, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Post by: mrsman on June 19, 2022, 12:39:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 10, 2022, 01:10:45 PMQuote from: Lukeisroads on June 10, 2022, 01:05:30 PM
go to 178 in bakersfield they have a HAWK the first one in bakersfield and in kern county
Well, that was vague.
Here is the specific location: https://goo.gl/maps/kWQoVka4t4pyXoSQ6
Take a look at this intersection of 24th/Pine in Bakersfield. One thing that should be pointed out is that the pedestrian crossing is a Z-shaped crossing. You cross the south side of 24th on the west side of Pine, then walk "across" Pine along the 24th median, and then cross the north side of 24th on the east side of Pine. If the southside of the intersection were reopened (GSV currently shows a cul-de-sac), it would ensure that the right turn movements of Pine onto 24th would all be downstream of the pedestrian crossing. So the crosswalk would not interfere with any side street movements. So other than the general problems with HAWKs, this is a good design for a pedestrian crossing signal, even if there is no warrant for Pine street auto traffic. [My prefernce is the L.A. style RYG signal.]
The bus on GSV reminds me that this would be a great place for a bus stop. If someone lives in this neighborhood and is taking the bus, they will have to cross 24th street at least once (either on their outgoing trip or on their return trip). A bus stop necessarily will create a pedestran crossing demand and bus stops should be placed in locations where pedestrian crossing is made safer.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
I still can't believe the FHWA is okay with dark traffic signals, when they were prohibited since the year one. Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AM
Post by: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AMQuote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Kphoger, the difference is that the stoplight warning beacon is just an advisory/caution beacon. Whereas the HAWK is a regulatory signal just like a normal traffic light, so in my opinion the FHWA shouldn't be calling it a beacon. They define it as a beacon because it doesn't meet their definition of a traffic control signal which operates continuously alternating the right-of-way between at least two approaches.
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: hotdogPi on June 21, 2022, 02:38:04 AM
Post by: hotdogPi on June 21, 2022, 02:38:04 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PM
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
Around here, people don't stop at dark signals if it's clearly the priority road.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: cjw2001 on June 21, 2022, 10:28:03 AM
Post by: cjw2001 on June 21, 2022, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AMQuote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Kphoger, the difference is that the stoplight warning beacon is just an advisory/caution beacon. Whereas the HAWK is a regulatory signal just like a normal traffic light, so in my opinion the FHWA shouldn't be calling it a beacon. They define it as a beacon because it doesn't meet their definition of a traffic control signal which operates continuously alternating the right-of-way between at least two approaches.
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
A new Hawk signal went in at a trail crossing near my house, which was the first in the immediate area. On Nextdoor from the chats you thought it was going to be the end of the world. However once it was activated the controversy disappeared, the drivers quickly adjusted, and the crossing is now working well. Before the Hawk went in there was a constant issue with pedestrians crossing without yielding to oncoming traffic and with cars suddenly stopping at the trail crossing for no reason. Now everybody is happy. These things actually work.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 21, 2022, 10:42:22 AM
Post by: kphoger on June 21, 2022, 10:42:22 AM
As far as I can tell, the downsides presented on here come in two forms:
(1) Some people stay stopped longer than they actually need to, because they don't realize they can proceed against a flashing red. This unnecessary stoppage would likely still exist with a standard R-Y-G signal, because the flashing red phase would just be part of the solid red phase instead. Also, pedestrian signals are installed for safety reasons, and people not going right away presents no danger to a pedestrian. Furthermore, this issue should dwindle with time: as more and more drivers see someone proceed against the flashing red, they'll realize it's permitted and do likewise.
(2) Some people stop at them even when they're dark. I suspect this phenomenon is exceedingly rare, to the point that the objection is meaningless. For one thing, as |1| pointed out, a whole heck of a lot of people don't even stop at dark signals at intersections. But for another thing, I've never once seen a driver stop at a dark HAWKsignal beacon signal. Even if it actually were common–which it isn't–what's the worst that would happen? People would get annoyed and honk their horns.
(1) Some people stay stopped longer than they actually need to, because they don't realize they can proceed against a flashing red. This unnecessary stoppage would likely still exist with a standard R-Y-G signal, because the flashing red phase would just be part of the solid red phase instead. Also, pedestrian signals are installed for safety reasons, and people not going right away presents no danger to a pedestrian. Furthermore, this issue should dwindle with time: as more and more drivers see someone proceed against the flashing red, they'll realize it's permitted and do likewise.
(2) Some people stop at them even when they're dark. I suspect this phenomenon is exceedingly rare, to the point that the objection is meaningless. For one thing, as |1| pointed out, a whole heck of a lot of people don't even stop at dark signals at intersections. But for another thing, I've never once seen a driver stop at a dark HAWK
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on June 21, 2022, 06:50:18 PM
Post by: mrsman on June 21, 2022, 06:50:18 PM
Before MD adopted the HAWK signal, they used these emergency signal type displays for ped crossings. [These are pretty common around fire stations.] Many are still out there.
THe default phase is having the bottom signal flash yellow. The bottom signal is usually 8", while the other signals are 12".
After a ped pushes the button, the bottom signal flashes faster as a warning that the signal has been activated.
Then, the middle signal, which is a solid yellow comes on.
Then, a solid red comes on, while the pedestrians are permitted to cross.
Here's an example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0241262,-77.0182096,3a,75y,140.7h,91.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slObc4XTFixNlR09UDBibnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
IMO, this is the worst of all worlds. The lack of familiarity by using a unique signal combined with a solid red that keeps drivers waiting even when pedestrians have cleared. Another down side is that many drivers go by and only see the flashing yellow, so even if they drive down the street many times, they may not be aware that the signal can come to life each time that a pedestrian pushes the button. I have seen too many cars just run through these things, even when the red light comes on.
Occasionally, DOT will put in a warning beacon ahead of this ped crossing. The following beacon will flash when the upcoming emergency signal has been triggered.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0389018,-77.0416349,3a,75y,320.57h,76.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5O1jVT3zYBpirfHPOkBWKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
THe default phase is having the bottom signal flash yellow. The bottom signal is usually 8", while the other signals are 12".
After a ped pushes the button, the bottom signal flashes faster as a warning that the signal has been activated.
Then, the middle signal, which is a solid yellow comes on.
Then, a solid red comes on, while the pedestrians are permitted to cross.
Here's an example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0241262,-77.0182096,3a,75y,140.7h,91.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slObc4XTFixNlR09UDBibnw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
IMO, this is the worst of all worlds. The lack of familiarity by using a unique signal combined with a solid red that keeps drivers waiting even when pedestrians have cleared. Another down side is that many drivers go by and only see the flashing yellow, so even if they drive down the street many times, they may not be aware that the signal can come to life each time that a pedestrian pushes the button. I have seen too many cars just run through these things, even when the red light comes on.
Occasionally, DOT will put in a warning beacon ahead of this ped crossing. The following beacon will flash when the upcoming emergency signal has been triggered.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0389018,-77.0416349,3a,75y,320.57h,76.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5O1jVT3zYBpirfHPOkBWKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: baugh17 on June 26, 2022, 12:32:26 PM
Post by: baugh17 on June 26, 2022, 12:32:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2022, 10:43:12 PMQuote from: SignBridge on May 13, 2022, 10:10:45 PMThere's probably one somewhere.
Does anyone know of any HAWK signals erected by New York State DOT, especially on Long Island? I haven't seen any yet and I'm wondering if NYSDOT is embracing this concept with the same zeal as flashing yellow arrows which they're putting up all over the place.
My native Nassau County DPW so far has not put up any HAWK's that I know of, and so far they don't seem to be using FYA's either. They stick to the KISS principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid) which I kind of agree with.
You will not see new HAWKs in Region 3 (Central NY). Region 3 has determined other safety measures are more effective, per my understanding.
I am a big fan of FYAs.
I think the general public has adapted to FYAs because of their widespread use. But I digress.
The only HAWKs I know of in New York are in the Buffalo area. There are maybe a half dozen including a NYSDOT install on NY 324 in Amherst (http://newyorkroutes.net/images/photos/routes/324/324-10.jpg).
Then you have these (http://newyorkroutes.net/images/misc/watkins.JPG) which I'm guessing is more of a beacon. I know of two...this one in Watkins Glen and another in Malone.
Does R3 share the same general sentiment as the rest of the state?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2022, 02:51:37 PM
Post by: Rothman on June 26, 2022, 02:51:37 PM
Quote from: baugh17 on June 26, 2022, 12:32:26 PMI don't know about other Regions' stances on HAWKs.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2022, 10:43:12 PMQuote from: SignBridge on May 13, 2022, 10:10:45 PMThere's probably one somewhere.
Does anyone know of any HAWK signals erected by New York State DOT, especially on Long Island? I haven't seen any yet and I'm wondering if NYSDOT is embracing this concept with the same zeal as flashing yellow arrows which they're putting up all over the place.
My native Nassau County DPW so far has not put up any HAWK's that I know of, and so far they don't seem to be using FYA's either. They stick to the KISS principle, (Keep It Simple Stupid) which I kind of agree with.
You will not see new HAWKs in Region 3 (Central NY). Region 3 has determined other safety measures are more effective, per my understanding.
I am a big fan of FYAs.
I think the general public has adapted to FYAs because of their widespread use. But I digress.
The only HAWKs I know of in New York are in the Buffalo area. There are maybe a half dozen including a NYSDOT install on NY 324 in Amherst (http://newyorkroutes.net/images/photos/routes/324/324-10.jpg).
Then you have these (http://newyorkroutes.net/images/misc/watkins.JPG) which I'm guessing is more of a beacon. I know of two...this one in Watkins Glen and another in Malone.
Does R3 share the same general sentiment as the rest of the state?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 27, 2022, 06:20:45 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 27, 2022, 06:20:45 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AMQuote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Kphoger, the difference is that the stoplight warning beacon is just an advisory/caution beacon. Whereas the HAWK is a regulatory signal just like a normal traffic light, so in my opinion the FHWA shouldn't be calling it a beacon. They define it as a beacon because it doesn't meet their definition of a traffic control signal which operates continuously alternating the right-of-way between at least two approaches.
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
Nobody expects the general public to care about the beacon/signal thing. The HAWK was intentionally designed to fall under "beacon" rules because if it fell under "signal" rules it would be subject to signal warrant requirements. Those warrant requirements are, I believe, precisely why a lot of cities couldn't install standard R-Y-G ped signals before the HAWK was invented (around here, the only places I've seen them are immediately adjacent to schools).
I'm guessing either Los Angeles doesn't care about the signal warrants because they have the political clout to not particularly care what FHWA/NCUTCD wants, authority granted by the state of California or the California MUTCD to ignore the federal signal warrants, or enough traffic to more consistently meet the signal warrants than other cities do.
Obviously the real solution is to correct the signal warrants to make R-Y-G signals for pedestrians easier to legally install, but hell, we're, what, a year overdue as it is for MUTCD 11e now?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2022, 08:51:05 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 27, 2022, 08:51:05 PM
Scott5114, the reason I bring up the issue of the public not understanding beacon vs. traffic control signal is because different driver conduct is expected when approaching a dark signal depending on the type.
Drivers are expected to treat a malfunctioning dark traffic signal like a stop sign. But they are permitted to drive thru a dark HAWK. So if they don't know the difference between the two types, how will they know what to do when they approach a dark HAWK signal. They may stop thinking it's a defective traffic control signal and maybe get rear ended for trying to do the right thing.
Drivers are expected to treat a malfunctioning dark traffic signal like a stop sign. But they are permitted to drive thru a dark HAWK. So if they don't know the difference between the two types, how will they know what to do when they approach a dark HAWK signal. They may stop thinking it's a defective traffic control signal and maybe get rear ended for trying to do the right thing.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Hobart on June 27, 2022, 09:51:36 PM
Post by: Hobart on June 27, 2022, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2022, 06:20:45 PMQuote from: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AMQuote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Kphoger, the difference is that the stoplight warning beacon is just an advisory/caution beacon. Whereas the HAWK is a regulatory signal just like a normal traffic light, so in my opinion the FHWA shouldn't be calling it a beacon. They define it as a beacon because it doesn't meet their definition of a traffic control signal which operates continuously alternating the right-of-way between at least two approaches.
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
Nobody expects the general public to care about the beacon/signal thing. The HAWK was intentionally designed to fall under "beacon" rules because if it fell under "signal" rules it would be subject to signal warrant requirements. Those warrant requirements are, I believe, precisely why a lot of cities couldn't install standard R-Y-G ped signals before the HAWK was invented (around here, the only places I've seen them are immediately adjacent to schools).
I'm guessing either Los Angeles doesn't care about the signal warrants because they have the political clout to not particularly care what FHWA/NCUTCD wants, authority granted by the state of California or the California MUTCD to ignore the federal signal warrants, or enough traffic to more consistently meet the signal warrants than other cities do.
Obviously the real solution is to correct the signal warrants to make R-Y-G signals for pedestrians easier to legally install, but hell, we're, what, a year overdue as it is for MUTCD 11e now?
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just add a line to the 2009 MUTCD that made HAWK-eligible crosswalks warrant a traffic signal? That's always what's bothered me about them.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 11:33:31 AM
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 11:33:31 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 27, 2022, 08:51:05 PM
They may stop thinking it's a defective traffic control signal and maybe get rear ended for trying to do the right thing.
Has this actually happened, anywhere, ever? Or are you inventing a hypothetical problem that doesn't really exist?
Rear-end crashes happen all over the place, of course, and HAWK locations are no exception. But are you aware of any rear-end crash at a HAWK crossing that was due to the specific reason you stated? Even if such has happened, the benefits provided by having the signal dark until activation may outweigh that.
Meanwhile, the FHWA asserts:
Quote from: U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide – Recommendations and Case Study
Because PHBs remain dark until activated, they can help increase driver attention to pedestrians crossing the roadway, and can reduce rear-end collisions. The pedestrian hybrid beacon's red signal indication removes any judgment from the motorists and requires a complete stop.
A preliminary report from back when HAWKs were introduced in Phoenix indeed showed a reduction in the total number of rear-end crashes and basically no change in the total percentage. Details are shown below:
Quote from: U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration
Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment – July 2010
Rear-end is the most common crash type for all types of intersection control, representing between 40 and 60 percent of the crashes for a given type of traffic control at the intersection. After rear-end, the most common crash types were left-turn and angle.
The dataset shows rear-end as the most common manner of collision for the HAWK intersections in both the before and after periods (illustrated in figure 7 and figure 8). The distribution of IR crashes at the HAWK sites before the HAWK was installed included rear-end (55 percent), angle (13 percent), left-turn (15 percent), and pedestrian (5 percent) crashes. After the installation, the greatest changes in the distribution of crash type were an increase in angle crashes to 19 percent and a decrease in pedestrian crashes to 1 percent.
[...]
A preliminary review of crash type at the HAWK sites indicated a reduction in rear-end crashes, which is not typical when a higher level of control is implemented at an intersection. A potential reason for the reduction in rear-end crashes is that drivers behind the initial vehicle that has stopped for a crossing pedestrian can view the traffic control device without needing to see the pedestrian, who may be obscured by the lead vehicle. Additional research to investigate the changes in crash patterns at the HAWK sites should be considered.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10042/10042.pdf
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 12:28:30 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 12:28:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 11:33:31 AMQuote from: SignBridge on June 27, 2022, 08:51:05 PM
They may stop thinking it's a defective traffic control signal and maybe get rear ended for trying to do the right thing.
Has this actually happened, anywhere, ever? Or are you inventing a hypothetical problem that doesn't really exist?
I'm personally sold on the opposite problem: virtually no one stops at dark HAWK signals (because they shouldn't). This is good, of course, as they shouldn't. But is it potentially training drivers that not all dark signals require a stop? And when I say "signals", I mean things that are overhead or on the edge, and that light up with colors to indicate what to do...I assume that's how most drivers interpret it, anyways.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 12:57:37 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 12:57:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 12:28:30 PM
I'm personally sold on the opposite problem: virtually no one stops at dark HAWK signals (because they shouldn't). This is good, of course, as they shouldn't. But is it potentially training drivers that not all dark signals require a stop? And when I say "signals", I mean things that are overhead or on the edge, and that light up with colors to indicate what to do...I assume that's how most drivers interpret it, anyways.
I don't like the dark signal rule anyway.
For example, if a new signal is going in, most agencies either turn the signals away from the road or put bags over the signals. However, if I'm driving at 55 mph after dark, then it is not apparent if the signal is turned, bagged, or simply not functioning. (And yes, this came up for me. There's a specific signal I'm thinking of in my area that was recently installed along a 55mph stretch of road, and I couldn't tell until I was practically right under it.)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 28, 2022, 01:19:06 PM
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 28, 2022, 01:19:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 11:33:31 AM
A preliminary report from back when HAWKs were introduced in Phoenix indeed showed a reduction in the total number of rear-end crashes and basically no change in the total percentage. Details are shown below:Quote from: U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration
Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment – July 2010
Rear-end is the most common crash type for all types of intersection control, representing between 40 and 60 percent of the crashes for a given type of traffic control at the intersection. After rear-end, the most common crash types were left-turn and angle.
The dataset shows rear-end as the most common manner of collision for the HAWK intersections in both the before and after periods (illustrated in figure 7 and figure 8). The distribution of IR crashes at the HAWK sites before the HAWK was installed included rear-end (55 percent), angle (13 percent), left-turn (15 percent), and pedestrian (5 percent) crashes. After the installation, the greatest changes in the distribution of crash type were an increase in angle crashes to 19 percent and a decrease in pedestrian crashes to 1 percent.
[...]
A preliminary review of crash type at the HAWK sites indicated a reduction in rear-end crashes, which is not typical when a higher level of control is implemented at an intersection. A potential reason for the reduction in rear-end crashes is that drivers behind the initial vehicle that has stopped for a crossing pedestrian can view the traffic control device without needing to see the pedestrian, who may be obscured by the lead vehicle. Additional research to investigate the changes in crash patterns at the HAWK sites should be considered.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/10042/10042.pdf
Please be careful highlighting the data. It is likely that most of the incident/crash data related to "rear-end collisions" are unrelated to activation of the HAWK signal. As with all safety data studies, the entirety of the data is used to calculate any trends. But that doesn't mean that the "trend" is related to "causal changes" (in this case, implementation of a bunch of HAWK signals).
The specific data itself is suspect. IR means intersection-related data, whereas ISN means collision data flagged with the same intersecting street name (which should include data from that same intersection). But I'm presuming that many of the HAWK applications were mid-block, meaning that there is an inexact correlation between the data and the HAWK applications.
What is quite important from this data is shown in the line above the highlighted one. Overall pedestrian-related collisions from nearby locations (ISN) dropped from 27 (roughly 4% of the total) to 4 (roughly 1% of the total) after installation of over 60 HAWK installations in Tucson prior to the year 2006. Table 4 indicates that is an 83% drop over the study period. That data is influenced by the HAWK installations, but doesn't necessarily correspond to the HAWK installations themselves. Note that there was also a drop in pedestrian-related collisions at signalized intersections. Table 4 in the FHWA document indicates that there was an 18% drop in pedestrian-related collisions at signalized intersections (IR) over the same period. (Some of that may have been impacted by HAWK installations as well, so don't go down a tangent there either).
Anyhow, the data is sufficient to demonstrate a significant decline in pedestrian collisions near HAWK installations. But I doubt that anything else can be directly concluded from this study data.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: GaryV on June 28, 2022, 02:40:33 PM
Post by: GaryV on June 28, 2022, 02:40:33 PM
^ I don't recall where it was, but recently I went past a "New Signal Ahead" sign with red flags. Got to the signal, and they hadn't been turned on yet, maybe with black covers but I couldn't tell. Ugg. I know it's probably 2 different contractors, but still, you'd think they could coordinate.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 05:56:47 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 05:56:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 12:57:37 PMQuote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 12:28:30 PM
I'm personally sold on the opposite problem: virtually no one stops at dark HAWK signals (because they shouldn't). This is good, of course, as they shouldn't. But is it potentially training drivers that not all dark signals require a stop? And when I say "signals", I mean things that are overhead or on the edge, and that light up with colors to indicate what to do...I assume that's how most drivers interpret it, anyways.
I don't like the dark signal rule anyway.
For example, if a new signal is going in, most agencies either turn the signals away from the road or put bags over the signals. However, if I'm driving at 55 mph after dark, then it is not apparent if the signal is turned, bagged, or simply not functioning. (And yes, this came up for me. There's a specific signal I'm thinking of in my area that was recently installed along a 55mph stretch of road, and I couldn't tell until I was practically right under it.)
My preference would definitely be for fewer dark signals. But then, I don't know what rule we could implement in its place. Or what actions could be taken to ensure we never have dark signals; HAWKs and ramp meters certainly aren't helping the situation.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 06:12:50 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 06:12:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 05:56:47 PM
But then, I don't know what rule we could implement in its place.
Agreed.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 05:56:47 PM
HAWKs and ramp meters certainly aren't helping the situation.
How many drivers are getting rear-ended at dark ramp meter signals because they thought it was a non-working stoplight?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 28, 2022, 07:18:25 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 28, 2022, 07:18:25 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 27, 2022, 08:51:05 PM
Scott5114, the reason I bring up the issue of the public not understanding beacon vs. traffic control signal is because different driver conduct is expected when approaching a dark signal depending on the type.
Drivers are expected to treat a malfunctioning dark traffic signal like a stop sign. But they are permitted to drive thru a dark HAWK. So if they don't know the difference between the two types, how will they know what to do when they approach a dark HAWK signal. They may stop thinking it's a defective traffic control signal and maybe get rear ended for trying to do the right thing.
I don't disagree, but I'm pointing out that that difference in operation is intentional to snake through a loophole in the rules.
Quote from: Hobart on June 27, 2022, 09:51:36 PM
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just add a line to the 2009 MUTCD that made HAWK-eligible crosswalks warrant a traffic signal? That's always what's bothered me about them.
Possibly...but I think there's some conservatism toward watering down the signal warrants, lest cities use signals for speed control. (They already have that problem with stop sign warrants.)
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 12:57:37 PM
I don't like the dark signal rule anyway.
For example, if a new signal is going in, most agencies either turn the signals away from the road or put bags over the signals. However, if I'm driving at 55 mph after dark, then it is not apparent if the signal is turned, bagged, or simply not functioning. (And yes, this came up for me. There's a specific signal I'm thinking of in my area that was recently installed along a 55mph stretch of road, and I couldn't tell until I was practically right under it.)
The trend toward reflective backplates makes dark signals more obvious in the dark. Although you still have no way of knowing if they're bagged or not (unless they put the bag over the backplate too, which I've never seen). At least it still shifts the balance more toward "fail safe" than "fail deadly".
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 28, 2022, 07:57:58 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 28, 2022, 07:57:58 PM
Well Kphoger, I hope you and the FHWA are correct and that there won't be too much public confusion over this issue. And no, I'm not aware of any rear-end collisions in the circumstances I suggested, but then there are not yet any HAWK signals in my county that I know of.
Re: dark ramp metering signals, in my area there are yellow flashing lights with a yellow diamond shaped sign ahead of the actual signals. Drivers know when the yellow lights are flashing the ramp signals are in operation.
Re: dark ramp metering signals, in my area there are yellow flashing lights with a yellow diamond shaped sign ahead of the actual signals. Drivers know when the yellow lights are flashing the ramp signals are in operation.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 09:02:39 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 09:02:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2022, 07:18:25 PM
(unless they put the bag over the backplate too, which I've never seen)
:)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b448c4bd0e6486684d5809dd0c1f1ad5460cad27/c=0-254-4928-3026/local/-/media/Greenville/2015/03/17/B9316623103Z.1_20150317153835_000_GU0A8EMST.1-0.jpg)
I don't actually consider it to be a "fail safe", though, anyway. If I'm driving on a 55mph road (in the specific case I'm thinking of, in fact, it's in farmland between towns) and I come across a dark signal, I'm probably just going to assume it's a new installation and isn't operational yet. It would actually take a fair level of certainty otherwise to make me come to a stop.
Quote from: SignBridge on June 28, 2022, 07:57:58 PM
Re: dark ramp metering signals, in my area there are yellow flashing lights with a yellow diamond shaped sign ahead of the actual signals.
Here's a yellow diamond shaped sign. (https://goo.gl/maps/HrwLc6FSPTCVxLy7A) I suppose they could put a yellow flashing light on top, if that would make you happy.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2022, 01:05:32 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2022, 01:05:32 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 28, 2022, 07:18:25 PM
The trend toward reflective backplates makes dark signals more obvious in the dark. Although you still have no way of knowing if they're bagged or not (unless they put the bag over the backplate too, which I've never seen). At least it still shifts the balance more toward "fail safe" than "fail deadly".
I would say bagging the entire signal, backplate and all, is more common in my area than not. Both BC and WA.
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2022, 06:12:50 PMQuote from: jakeroot on June 28, 2022, 05:56:47 PM
HAWKs and ramp meters certainly aren't helping the situation.
How many drivers are getting rear-ended at dark ramp meter signals because they thought it was a non-working stoplight?
Didn't I just say that I thought drivers not stopping at dark ramp meters and HAWKs was the bigger issue, not drivers accidentally stopping and getting rear-ended?
My bigger concern remains the entire concept of intentionally dark signals (or "beacons" as they prefer they're called), further cementing, for some, that dark signals of any kind can simply be ignored. Because, well, they can. But not all of them.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:22:21 PM
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:22:21 PM
^^^^
I'm already seeing a generation that gets confused at dark traffic signals. Instead of stopping, they seem to think that the "main road" has the inherent right-of-way. We've got a signal location closeby where the "main road" headed to the Interstate crosses US-70. During several power outages over the past few years, folks on both of these roads think they have the inherent right-of-way when the signal is dark. I've even heard someone blast their horn at the car ahead who correctly stopped at the "four-way stop" when they didn't plow through the intersection.
I'm already seeing a generation that gets confused at dark traffic signals. Instead of stopping, they seem to think that the "main road" has the inherent right-of-way. We've got a signal location closeby where the "main road" headed to the Interstate crosses US-70. During several power outages over the past few years, folks on both of these roads think they have the inherent right-of-way when the signal is dark. I've even heard someone blast their horn at the car ahead who correctly stopped at the "four-way stop" when they didn't plow through the intersection.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on June 29, 2022, 06:34:19 PM
Post by: mrsman on June 29, 2022, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: Hobart on June 27, 2022, 09:51:36 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 27, 2022, 06:20:45 PMQuote from: SignBridge on June 20, 2022, 08:21:28 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 20, 2022, 09:54:34 AMQuote from: SignBridge on June 19, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
Oh wait, these aren't traffic control signals as defined in the Manual. They are Beacons which are a different set of rules.
Yeah right; like the average driver knows the technical difference......
This is further reason that they should only be used mid-block, but drivers encounter dark beacons away from intersections all the time. Think of a stoplight warning sign with an attached double yellow beacon: some of them remain dark until the light is about to change.
Kphoger, the difference is that the stoplight warning beacon is just an advisory/caution beacon. Whereas the HAWK is a regulatory signal just like a normal traffic light, so in my opinion the FHWA shouldn't be calling it a beacon. They define it as a beacon because it doesn't meet their definition of a traffic control signal which operates continuously alternating the right-of-way between at least two approaches.
And again if the Feds think the average driver is going to make that distinction between different types of traffic lights, well good friggin' luck. It'll be interesting to see how many drivers stop at dark HAWK signals at night thinking it's a defective traffic light that's completely out.
Nobody expects the general public to care about the beacon/signal thing. The HAWK was intentionally designed to fall under "beacon" rules because if it fell under "signal" rules it would be subject to signal warrant requirements. Those warrant requirements are, I believe, precisely why a lot of cities couldn't install standard R-Y-G ped signals before the HAWK was invented (around here, the only places I've seen them are immediately adjacent to schools).
I'm guessing either Los Angeles doesn't care about the signal warrants because they have the political clout to not particularly care what FHWA/NCUTCD wants, authority granted by the state of California or the California MUTCD to ignore the federal signal warrants, or enough traffic to more consistently meet the signal warrants than other cities do.
Obviously the real solution is to correct the signal warrants to make R-Y-G signals for pedestrians easier to legally install, but hell, we're, what, a year overdue as it is for MUTCD 11e now?
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to just add a line to the 2009 MUTCD that made HAWK-eligible crosswalks warrant a traffic signal? That's always what's bothered me about them.
In a word, yes. The MUTCD should be adjusted to allow for easier warrants for pedestrian crossing signals. With that said, I have a few caveats.
The pedestrian crossing signal warrants should be easier than that at a regular intersection. But the crossing traffic at such signals should only be for pedestrian use. This means that the crossing should either be mid-block or just in front of a side street that is RIRO. [The side street can only turn right onto main street, and a right turn would not interfere with peds crossing the main street.] In my view, the warrants for this type of pedestrian-restricted signal should be those of a crosswalk. If we can expect a pedestrian to cross at the location without the help of any traffic control device, then adding this type of device would only make such crossing safer. The key is that the flashing red (Los Angeles) or flashing yellow (PELICON) feature would allow traffic to continue, in the same way that traffic would continue at an unsignalized crossing, once the pedestrians are out of the way. A normal traffic signal must meet warrants, because we have to gague the number of vehicles on the side street that need to cross (or turn left) and thus need to stop the flow of traffic on the main street for a considerable period of time. For a pedestrian signal, the amount of time that traffic is stopped would be equivalent to the amount of time that a driver would be doing at an unsignalized crossing, assuming that the driver is giving the pedestrian the appropriate, legal, right of way. In effect, the pedestrian signal doesn't actually change the flow of the main street - it simply makes the pedestrian crossing safer, with the benefit of the red signal.
At the same time, once pedestrian signals are implemented along a corridor, there has to be standards as to their placement. Too many of even these types of signals would degrade traffic. The traffic engineer needs to use their judgment to determine the proper frequency for all types of signals. In Manhattan, it seems that there is a signal every 250 feet - the cross streets are every 1/20 of a mile. And there are signals in Midtown, even when the cross street isn't there. (Example: Madison Ave has no cross streets between 112th and 115th, yet there are two mid block pedestrian signals in the place of 113th and 114th. And like nearly all NYC signals, they are not actuated. They will turn red even if there are no pedestrians present. And these signals do not have a flashing red feature like HAWKs. I cannot anticipate seeing any type of specialized pedestrian signal in NYC any time soon.). For most other cities, perhaps 500 feet is a good standard, and for many suburban roads, I can see the limitation on frequency being anywhere betweeen 1000 and 3000 feet. The key question is how far do we expect pedestrians to walk to a safe crosswalk and site the crosswalks, crossing signals, and bus stops accordingly.
And once the warrants are adjusted, these crossings should be treated as signals, not beacons. Signals with different warrants, since their purpose is ped/bike protection, not vehicular movement. And my strong preference is to avoid intersections (which basically would mean that some side street traffic would take advantage and side street traffic control should only occur with a fully warranted signal) and to use either the Los Angeles or Pelicon variants, which I believe are simply more intuitive and safer than HAWKs. In all cases, the signals should only be activated when a pedestrian pushes the button, and should allow a flashing red or yellow after a few seconds of solid red, to account for faster pedestrians who get out of the way and walk more quickly than 3.5 ft/sec. There is no need to hold up traffic, once the pedestrians are out of the way.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 11:42:18 AM
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 11:42:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 29, 2022, 01:05:32 AM
Didn't I just say that I thought drivers not stopping at dark ramp meters and HAWKs was the bigger issue, not drivers accidentally stopping and getting rear-ended?
Yes. Sorry, I didn't mean my reply as an argument against you. I was merely pointing out that there are already signal-like installations that go dark where people aren't expected to stop–and yet rear-end crashes aren't happening there.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:22:21 PM
I'm already seeing a generation that gets confused at dark traffic signals. Instead of stopping, they seem to think that the "main road" has the inherent right-of-way. We've got a signal location closeby where the "main road" headed to the Interstate crosses US-70. During several power outages over the past few years, folks on both of these roads think they have the inherent right-of-way when the signal is dark. I've even heard someone blast their horn at the car ahead who correctly stopped at the "four-way stop" when they didn't plow through the intersection.
When do you think this generation began the behavior? I've personally been seeing it for twenty years, which is as long as I've been driving in urban environments.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2022, 03:15:16 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2022, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 11:42:18 AMQuote from: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:22:21 PM
I'm already seeing a generation that gets confused at dark traffic signals. Instead of stopping, they seem to think that the "main road" has the inherent right-of-way. We've got a signal location closeby where the "main road" headed to the Interstate crosses US-70. During several power outages over the past few years, folks on both of these roads think they have the inherent right-of-way when the signal is dark. I've even heard someone blast their horn at the car ahead who correctly stopped at the "four-way stop" when they didn't plow through the intersection.
When do you think this generation began the behavior? I've personally been seeing it for twenty years, which is as long as I've been driving in urban environments.
Kind of begs the question as to why it's not already the law. Isn't there like a boulevard rule that could take its place?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 03:21:18 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 03:21:18 PM
It's kind of like how a lot of people don't yield to the right at uncontrolled intersections, instead assuming the "main road" has right of way. In fact, I think a handful of states even have that as the law, but most don't.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 30, 2022, 04:19:24 PM
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 30, 2022, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:22:21 PM
I'm already seeing a generation that gets confused at dark traffic signals. Instead of stopping, they seem to think that the "main road" has the inherent right-of-way. We've got a signal location closeby where the "main road" headed to the Interstate crosses US-70. During several power outages over the past few years, folks on both of these roads think they have the inherent right-of-way when the signal is dark. I've even heard someone blast their horn at the car ahead who correctly stopped at the "four-way stop" when they didn't plow through the intersection.
Quote from: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 11:42:18 AM
When do you think this generation began the behavior? I've personally been seeing it for twenty years, which is as long as I've been driving in urban environments.
That's about when I began seeing this here, as well. Not all of those drivers are/were young. There just seems to have been a shift in society that the motor vehicle rules apply to everyone else. (Note that is also about the same time that my career got routed over from transportation safety into transportation safety regulation. So I might have gotten old and crotchety at the same time).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: GaryV on June 30, 2022, 08:02:11 PM
Post by: GaryV on June 30, 2022, 08:02:11 PM
Quote from: GaryV on June 28, 2022, 02:40:33 PM
^ I don't recall where it was, but recently I went past a "New Signal Ahead" sign with red flags. Got to the signal, and they hadn't been turned on yet, maybe with black covers but I couldn't tell. Ugg. I know it's probably 2 different contractors, but still, you'd think they could coordinate.
I went thru this intersection again today. The traffic light was working now - flashing red in all 4 directions. It's on 14 Mile Road at the exit of a furniture store parking lot; on the side opposite the store there is some new facility but I didn't see the details.
I stopped for the flashing red; most drivers were not stopping.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 08:26:46 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 08:26:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 30, 2022, 03:15:16 PMQuote from: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 11:42:18 AMQuote from: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:22:21 PM
I'm already seeing a generation that gets confused at dark traffic signals. Instead of stopping, they seem to think that the "main road" has the inherent right-of-way. We've got a signal location closeby where the "main road" headed to the Interstate crosses US-70. During several power outages over the past few years, folks on both of these roads think they have the inherent right-of-way when the signal is dark. I've even heard someone blast their horn at the car ahead who correctly stopped at the "four-way stop" when they didn't plow through the intersection.
When do you think this generation began the behavior? I've personally been seeing it for twenty years, which is as long as I've been driving in urban environments.
Kind of begs the question as to why it's not already the law. Isn't there like a boulevard rule that could take its place?
The problem is that at a number of intersections, which road is the "main" road can be not at all obvious, and the answer may even differ from person to person. Case in point, this intersection in Springfield, Missouri (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.20014,-93.2868518,3a,75y,286.08h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBpSHE73lb4veEx25yTmykA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Which road is the main one? I would say Kimbrough is, but that's because I lived there for a year and used that road enough to get to know the traffic patterns. To someone from another city, it would appear entirely inscrutable. If we were to meet at that intersection and both think we're on the main road . . .
And then there's the problem of what to do when two main roads intersect. You might have a different rule for those instances, but again, it requires everyone passing through the intersection to know, without ever having traveled on the intersecting road, that it is a main road.
I think Europe solves this problem by setting it up so that functioning stoplights legally overrule all other traffic control devices at an interchange, so they can provide supplemental stop/yield/you have priority signage at each intersection. If the stoplight goes kaput, then control of the intersection "falls through" to the supplemental traffic control signage.
Short of that, though, "always stop at an intersection with darkened lights" is the safest option.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 30, 2022, 08:38:29 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 30, 2022, 08:38:29 PM
Well Scott5114, many HAWK signals are installed at or extremely close to intersections, contrary to MUTCD advice. What do you suggest drivers do in those situations?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 08:51:38 PM
Post by: kphoger on June 30, 2022, 08:51:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 08:26:46 PM
The problem is that at a number of intersections, which road is the "main" road can be not at all obvious, and the answer may even differ from person to person. Case in point, this intersection in Springfield, Missouri (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.20014,-93.2868518,3a,75y,286.08h,84.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBpSHE73lb4veEx25yTmykA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Which road is the main one? I would say Kimbrough is, but that's because I lived there for a year and used that road enough to get to know the traffic patterns. To someone from another city, it would appear entirely inscrutable. If we were to meet at that intersection and both think we're on the main road . . .
Some state laws likewise get a bit wonky when it comes to uncontrolled intersections.
For example, in Maryland, uncontrolled intersections have the typical yield-to-the-right rule–but not if you're entering a paved road from an unpaved road, in which case traffic on the paved road has the right of way no matter which direction it's coming from.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 08:52:52 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 08:52:52 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on June 30, 2022, 08:38:29 PM
Well Scott5114, many HAWK signals are installed at or extremely close to intersections, contrary to MUTCD advice. What do you suggest drivers do in those situations?
Petition their DOTs to follow the damn MUTCD.
Seriously, "intersection not compliant with the rules causes problems" is not an indictment of the existing rules–it's an illustration of why the existing rules should be followed!
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on June 30, 2022, 09:08:25 PM
Post by: SignBridge on June 30, 2022, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 08:52:52 PMQuote from: SignBridge on June 30, 2022, 08:38:29 PM
Well Scott5114, many HAWK signals are installed at or extremely close to intersections, contrary to MUTCD advice. What do you suggest drivers do in those situations?
Petition their DOTs to follow the damn MUTCD.
Seriously, "intersection not compliant with the rules causes problems" is not an indictment of the existing rules–it's an illustration of why the existing rules should be followed!
Good idea Scott. BTW it was in many of the photos posted earlier in this thread that we saw those HAWKs at intersections. MY guess based on personal experience with calling any traffic agency's attention to their not following the rec's or standards in the Manual is that you'll get a reply something like: Well the Manual was never intended to substitute for engineering judgment and we feel that based on site conditions, visibility etc, the current installation gives adequate service, bla bla bla, etc.
Lot's of fun. LOL........ BTW, the signal involved in that experience with my county DPW was finally changed a few years later.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 10:43:20 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 10:43:20 PM
Heh, yeah, that's a possibility. In that case you bring it up to an elected official or the media and shame them into compliance. "Engineering judgement blah blah blah" doesn't go very far when the six o'clock news goes demanding to talk to the engineer to get them to justify their "judgement", or when a state legislator asks for a meeting with the department head to explain why such an "unsafe" design was allowed...
Basically you contrive a situation in which doing the right thing (rather than nothing) is the path of least resistance.
Basically you contrive a situation in which doing the right thing (rather than nothing) is the path of least resistance.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on July 01, 2022, 08:42:15 AM
Post by: kphoger on July 01, 2022, 08:42:15 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2022, 10:43:20 PM
Heh, yeah, that's a possibility. In that case you bring it up to an elected official or the media and shame them into compliance. "Engineering judgement blah blah blah" doesn't go very far when the six o'clock news goes demanding to talk to the engineer to get them to justify their "judgement", or when a state legislator asks for a meeting with the department head to explain why such an "unsafe" design was allowed...
Basically you contrive a situation in which doing the right thing (rather than nothing) is the path of least resistance.
Especially if the non-compliant HAWK location is the site of a fatal accident. Oh, wait, that isn't actually happening....
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on July 06, 2022, 02:23:47 PM
Post by: mrsman on July 06, 2022, 02:23:47 PM
There is a new HAWK signal in Los Angeles.
https://twitter.com/LADOTofficial/status/1542300646942167045
This is noteworthy, because as mentioned on this thread (and maybe the traffic signal thread), the old L.A. ped xing signal is far better than instituting a HAWK. The old ped xing signals were NEVER placed at intersections, other than RIROs, in Los Angeles, and it seemed like Los Angeles was avoiding HAWKs at normal intersections as well. As we discussed upthread, there are problems with HAWKs at intersections and unfortunately this feels like a major step backward for Los Angeles in particular.
https://twitter.com/LADOTofficial/status/1542300646942167045
This is noteworthy, because as mentioned on this thread (and maybe the traffic signal thread), the old L.A. ped xing signal is far better than instituting a HAWK. The old ped xing signals were NEVER placed at intersections, other than RIROs, in Los Angeles, and it seemed like Los Angeles was avoiding HAWKs at normal intersections as well. As we discussed upthread, there are problems with HAWKs at intersections and unfortunately this feels like a major step backward for Los Angeles in particular.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on July 06, 2022, 08:24:29 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 06, 2022, 08:24:29 PM
It seems like more of these HAWKs are AT intersections than not, in conflict with MUTCD recommendations.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on July 10, 2022, 10:22:20 AM
Post by: mrsman on July 10, 2022, 10:22:20 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on July 06, 2022, 08:24:29 PM
It seems like more of these HAWKs are AT intersections than not, in conflict with MUTCD recommendations.
That seems to be my observation too.
FWIW, people are more likely to want to cross the street at intersections, rather than midblock. That is because any pedestrian on the minor street would be added to those on the main street who may need to get over on the other side. Another aspect is that bus stops tend to be on corners for similar reasons. People who live on the side streets will walk to the main street to catch a bus, and they wouldn't unnecessarily want those people to walk an extra half-block. Another issue is parking. Most jurisdictions will have rules prohibiting parking near a crosswalk and near an intersection. Overall, if all the crosswalks are at intersections, as opposed to mid-block, more on-street parking is preserved.
So more people are likely to want to cross the main street at an intersection with a small street, rather than mid-block. But unfortunately, HAWKs are not as safe at intersections as they are at mid-block. They are not meant to control cross-street movements, even though cross-street traffic will take advantage of the stopped traffic for the pedestrians.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on July 20, 2022, 01:48:14 AM
Post by: US 89 on July 20, 2022, 01:48:14 AM
I came across a HAWK signal on US 30 in Kimberly, ID (https://goo.gl/maps/mgTanLU2YmradFYT8) yesterday, and it might be the worst installation of one I've ever seen. There's not even a crosswalk. It's an emergency signal that activates when a fire truck comes out of the station at the end of that driveway. This is not at all what these things were designed for. No point in having a flashing red phase if the fire truck is already out? It's also only a few hundred feet from the light at SH 50.
Far more preferable would be a 3-section signal with flashing yellow in the bottom, which is already used elsewhere in Idaho (as in this example in Pocatello (https://goo.gl/maps/cUD3hKgJuyEqVd4BA)).
Far more preferable would be a 3-section signal with flashing yellow in the bottom, which is already used elsewhere in Idaho (as in this example in Pocatello (https://goo.gl/maps/cUD3hKgJuyEqVd4BA)).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: cjw2001 on July 20, 2022, 09:57:05 AM
Post by: cjw2001 on July 20, 2022, 09:57:05 AM
Quote from: US 89 on July 20, 2022, 01:48:14 AMThat's a emergency vehicle hybrid beacon compliant with the mutdc https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4g.htm#:~:text=Vehicle%20Hybrid%20Beacons-,Standard%3A,authorized%20emergency%20or%20maintenance%20personnel.
I came across a HAWK signal on US 30 in Kimberly, ID (https://goo.gl/maps/mgTanLU2YmradFYT8) yesterday, and it might be the worst installation of one I've ever seen. There's not even a crosswalk. It's an emergency signal that activates when a fire truck comes out of the station at the end of that driveway. This is not at all what these things were designed for. No point in having a flashing red phase if the fire truck is already out? It's also only a few hundred feet from the light at SH 50.
Far more preferable would be a 3-section signal with flashing yellow in the bottom, which is already used elsewhere in Idaho (as in this example in Pocatello (https://goo.gl/maps/cUD3hKgJuyEqVd4BA)).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on July 20, 2022, 10:18:01 AM
Post by: US 89 on July 20, 2022, 10:18:01 AM
Quote from: cjw2001 on July 20, 2022, 09:57:05 AMQuote from: US 89 on July 20, 2022, 01:48:14 AMThat's a emergency vehicle hybrid beacon compliant with the mutdc https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4g.htm#:~:text=Vehicle%20Hybrid%20Beacons-,Standard%3A,authorized%20emergency%20or%20maintenance%20personnel.
I came across a HAWK signal on US 30 in Kimberly, ID (https://goo.gl/maps/mgTanLU2YmradFYT8) yesterday, and it might be the worst installation of one I've ever seen. There's not even a crosswalk. It's an emergency signal that activates when a fire truck comes out of the station at the end of that driveway. This is not at all what these things were designed for. No point in having a flashing red phase if the fire truck is already out? It's also only a few hundred feet from the light at SH 50.
Far more preferable would be a 3-section signal with flashing yellow in the bottom, which is already used elsewhere in Idaho (as in this example in Pocatello (https://goo.gl/maps/cUD3hKgJuyEqVd4BA)).
Hm. Thanks for sharing that. I'd never seen one used as an emergency signal before.
Still doesn't change my opinion that this is the wrong signal for the situation, though.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on July 20, 2022, 08:14:42 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 20, 2022, 08:14:42 PM
Regarding fire station signals, I agree that the one with the flashing yellow, shown in Pocatello, Id. is a more effective design than the hybrid beacon. In fact Nassau County, Long Island where I live uses that design as standard for fire stations on county roads here. But as the above poster said, the Manual does authorize that hybrid beacon for emergency signals, so yeah let the games begin again with dark signals.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: DRMan on July 21, 2022, 04:55:47 PM
Post by: DRMan on July 21, 2022, 04:55:47 PM
I posted in another thread about this situation in Tucson, where a HAWK beacon and an emergency beacon are within half a block (emergency beacon in the background).
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
The difference between the two being that the emergency beacon does not have the steady red phase that a HAWK has.
In both cases, flashing red signals equate to a STOP sign, so at least there's some consistency.
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
The difference between the two being that the emergency beacon does not have the steady red phase that a HAWK has.
Quote
Section 4F.03 Operation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Standard:
...
02 Upon actuation by a pedestrian, a pedestrian hybrid beacon face shall display a flashing CIRCULAR yellow signal indication, followed by a steady CIRCULAR yellow signal indication, followed by both steady CIRCULAR RED signal indications during the pedestrian walk interval, followed by alternating flashing CIRCULAR RED signal indications during the pedestrian clearance interval (see Figure 4F-3). Upon termination of the pedestrian clearance interval, the pedestrian hybrid beacon faces shall revert to a dark (not illuminated) condition.
Quote
Section 4G.04 Emergency-Vehicle Hybrid Beacons
...
06 Upon actuation by authorized emergency personnel, the emergency-vehicle hybrid beacon faces shall each display a flashing yellow signal indication, followed by a steady yellow change interval, prior to displaying two CIRCULAR RED signal indications in an alternating flashing array for a duration of time adequate for egress of the emergency vehicles. The alternating flashing red signal indications shall only be displayed when it is required that drivers on the major street stop and then proceed subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign. Upon termination of the flashing red signal indications, the emergency-vehicle hybrid beacons shall revert to a dark mode (no indications displayed) condition.
In both cases, flashing red signals equate to a STOP sign, so at least there's some consistency.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: cjw2001 on July 21, 2022, 08:13:15 PM
Post by: cjw2001 on July 21, 2022, 08:13:15 PM
Quote from: DRMan on July 21, 2022, 04:55:47 PM
I posted in another thread about this situation in Tucson, where a HAWK beacon and an emergency beacon are within half a block (emergency beacon in the background).
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
The difference between the two being that the emergency beacon does not have the steady red phase that a HAWK has.
Actually it can, it is just optional instead of required...
Quote
Option:
10 A steady red clearance interval may be used after the steady yellow change interval.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on July 21, 2022, 09:20:25 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 21, 2022, 09:20:25 PM
Just what we need to add to the confusion for drivers. Two kinds of signals that look alike but operate differently
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: DRMan on July 22, 2022, 10:06:56 AM
Post by: DRMan on July 22, 2022, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: cjw2001 on July 21, 2022, 08:13:15 PMQuote from: DRMan on July 21, 2022, 04:55:47 PM
I posted in another thread about this situation in Tucson, where a HAWK beacon and an emergency beacon are within half a block (emergency beacon in the background).
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
The difference between the two being that the emergency beacon does not have the steady red phase that a HAWK has.
Actually it can, it is just optional instead of required...Quote
Option:
10 A steady red clearance interval may be used after the steady yellow change interval.
You are correct, I didn't read down far enough. Thanks for pointing this out. But why the steady red is optional is beyond me.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: roadfro on July 22, 2022, 11:53:02 AM
Post by: roadfro on July 22, 2022, 11:53:02 AM
Quote from: DRMan on July 21, 2022, 04:55:47 PM
I posted in another thread about this situation in Tucson, where a HAWK beacon and an emergency beacon are within half a block (emergency beacon in the background).
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
From that link, it's actually the HAWK that's in the background.
As an aside, zooming out a bit, notice that the emergency signal has the white-on-red "Fire Station 5" 'street name' sign. Totally not MUTCD compliant, but I kinda like it!
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on July 22, 2022, 08:39:45 PM
Post by: SignBridge on July 22, 2022, 08:39:45 PM
And that Tucson example is yet another case where the HAWK was installed at an intersection of a street controlled by a stop sign, contrary to MUTCD rec's.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 22, 2022, 09:40:51 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on July 22, 2022, 09:40:51 PM
Saw my first PHB/HAWK in the entire State of Maine today... read below. This replaced a normal RYG crosswalk, and the FR phase doesn't occur until after the ped phase has ended.
Quote from: fwydriver405 on July 22, 2022, 09:34:24 PM
I just saw my first Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (also called a High intensity Activated crossWalK, HAWK) in the entire State of Maine in Portland, at the intersection of Congress and Lascell Streets. It appears to have been installed 2-3 weeks ago from the last time I drove thru there. This used to be just a standard RYG ped signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6586033,-70.2943388,3a,75y,294.17h,77.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxWZ7dshssNjoFiaqAOAcvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
MaineDOT has historically been opposed to PHBs, instead prefering Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) (from what I'm told after doing numerous crosswalk projects in the state), but I noticed this was installed under WIN LAP018664.00 (https://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DOT_projects&id=4313538&v=full-archive-2016) from a source I was told by. So I'm not sure if the DOT is testing out PHBs and using this as a trial location, or if this was a City of Portland installation and Portland wanted to test the PHBs.
Here is what I observed:
- The cabinet seems to be reused from the old setup, but I'm unsure if they replaced the controller as well (Believe it was an old TS1 controller).
- The flashing phase DOES NOT happen until after the FDW ends. It flashes red (in the normal wig-wag setup) for 5 seconds before going dark.
- Some drivers seem to understand what to do during the flashing red phase (treat as STOP sign, then proceed then clear) unlike in New Hampshire, but some drivers just sat there until it went dark.
- There were some red light runners well after the WALK phase was active and the red lights were activated.
Have any more of these appeared statewide as a PHB? For the record I'm not talking about the one in Scarborough (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5690334,-70.3893262,3a,20y,228.13h,92.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sB6Xlckd_rHCY2rb21iNwMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) which acts as an Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon, installed in the mid 2010s.
(https://i.ibb.co/GMr9ND7/IMG-4627.jpg)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
Post by: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
Here is a HAWK in my area that is the worst of both worlds. It is on the way to my child's school, so I am now passing it by regularly.
Aspen Hill Rd in suburban Md near Wheaton and Rockville between Georgia Ave and Connecticut Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0803106,-77.0783766,3a,37.5y,278.94h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Nw7t7UYiEilRcUvHdUWWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A HAWK signal that does not flash. When activeated, it goes from flashing yellow, to solid yellow, to solid red. And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase. And its location is such that stopped traffic will back up into the intersection with Connecticut as well as the driveways from the nearby shopping centers.
IMO, it seems like a HAWK was used since it did not meet normal signal warrants, especially considering that mistimed HAWK signals will disrupt side traffic as well. So a HAWK signal is used, but if it stops traffic in a manner similar to a regular traffic signal, then a non-warranted signal should not be placed. One of the few saving graces about a badly placed HAWK signal is that traffic is only briefly stopped to allow pedestrians to cross. By staying solid red for the entire cycle, this signal will produce more backups and is in a truly bad location.
Aspen Hill Rd in suburban Md near Wheaton and Rockville between Georgia Ave and Connecticut Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0803106,-77.0783766,3a,37.5y,278.94h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Nw7t7UYiEilRcUvHdUWWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A HAWK signal that does not flash. When activeated, it goes from flashing yellow, to solid yellow, to solid red. And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase. And its location is such that stopped traffic will back up into the intersection with Connecticut as well as the driveways from the nearby shopping centers.
IMO, it seems like a HAWK was used since it did not meet normal signal warrants, especially considering that mistimed HAWK signals will disrupt side traffic as well. So a HAWK signal is used, but if it stops traffic in a manner similar to a regular traffic signal, then a non-warranted signal should not be placed. One of the few saving graces about a badly placed HAWK signal is that traffic is only briefly stopped to allow pedestrians to cross. By staying solid red for the entire cycle, this signal will produce more backups and is in a truly bad location.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on September 26, 2022, 09:50:57 AM
Post by: kphoger on September 26, 2022, 09:50:57 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase.
Report it as non-compliant.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on October 24, 2022, 10:44:21 AM
Post by: mrsman on October 24, 2022, 10:44:21 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
Here is a HAWK in my area that is the worst of both worlds. It is on the way to my child's school, so I am now passing it by regularly.
Aspen Hill Rd in suburban Md near Wheaton and Rockville between Georgia Ave and Connecticut Ave.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0803106,-77.0783766,3a,37.5y,278.94h,90.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2Nw7t7UYiEilRcUvHdUWWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A HAWK signal that does not flash. When activeated, it goes from flashing yellow, to solid yellow, to solid red. And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase. And its location is such that stopped traffic will back up into the intersection with Connecticut as well as the driveways from the nearby shopping centers.
IMO, it seems like a HAWK was used since it did not meet normal signal warrants, especially considering that mistimed HAWK signals will disrupt side traffic as well. So a HAWK signal is used, but if it stops traffic in a manner similar to a regular traffic signal, then a non-warranted signal should not be placed. One of the few saving graces about a badly placed HAWK signal is that traffic is only briefly stopped to allow pedestrians to cross. By staying solid red for the entire cycle, this signal will produce more backups and is in a truly bad location.
I wrote to the local DOT and got this response:
Quote
MCDOT installed the first HAWK signal in 2010. The County's HAWK signal is unique in its design. MCDOT made an engineering decision not to use the alternating flashing circular red interval due to concerns of confusing drivers. MCDOT applied for approval from Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) to install the HAWK signal without using the alternating flashing red interval. MDOT SHA has also installed a similar HAWK signal at East West Highway (MD 410) and Bethesda Chevy Chase High School Driveway. Regarding the timing of this HAWK signal, MCDOT has made timing adjustments to better coordinate the HAWK with the signal at Connecticut Avenue.
The above is the official explanation, but I still don't like it. If drivers are going to come to a complete stop anyway, without a flashing red phase, then why not just put in place a regular traffic signal?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 25, 2022, 10:17:52 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on October 25, 2022, 10:17:52 AM
Because whoever is in charge of that HAWK is most likely not a traffic engineer.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on October 25, 2022, 08:23:27 PM
Post by: SignBridge on October 25, 2022, 08:23:27 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on October 25, 2022, 10:17:52 AM
Because whoever is in charge of that HAWK is most likely not a traffic engineer.
You're saying that HAWK signals are being spec'd and installed by people other than traffic engineers? So who do you think is doing them?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 26, 2022, 08:20:21 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 26, 2022, 08:20:21 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2022, 09:50:57 AMAre you guys serious ? Do you know how dangerous in most cases it is so have a beacon flash red while pedestrians are in a crosswalk ? Near a school, that's bad practice.Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase.
Report it as non-compliant.
Yes, maybe it creates traffic. This is a city. There's going to be traffic. Maybe inspiring more children to walk will improve the traffic instead.
The issue with those MCDOT HAWKs for me is the lack of a cooldown phase. You can start it right after it just went off, with 0 delay. Probably not great
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on October 26, 2022, 09:06:57 AM
Post by: US 89 on October 26, 2022, 09:06:57 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 26, 2022, 08:20:21 AMQuote from: kphoger on September 26, 2022, 09:50:57 AMAre you guys serious ? Do you know how dangerous in most cases it is so have a beacon flash red while pedestrians are in a crosswalk ? Near a school, that's bad practice.Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase.
Report it as non-compliant.
Yes, maybe it creates traffic. This is a city. There's going to be traffic. Maybe inspiring more children to walk will improve the traffic instead.
The issue with those MCDOT HAWKs for me is the lack of a cooldown phase. You can start it right after it just went off, with 0 delay. Probably not great
That is not how a HAWK is supposed to be used though. If you want everyone to stop for the entire pedestrian crossing time, just install a regular signal.
Your statement of "how dangerous it is" might be the biggest hyperbole I've seen this month. What makes that any worse than putting in an RRFB or overhead flashing beacon? In my experience, the simple fact that something is flashing is enough to get drivers to pay attention and stop accordingly. And with HAWKs it may be a moot point anyway in a lot of cases since it seems a lot of drivers don't realize you can go after stopping on those flashing reds...
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on October 26, 2022, 10:33:16 AM
Post by: fwydriver405 on October 26, 2022, 10:33:16 AM
Quote from: US 89 on October 26, 2022, 09:06:57 AM
That is not how a HAWK is supposed to be used though. If you want everyone to stop for the entire pedestrian crossing time, just install a regular signal.
Funny enough, this PHB (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6586164,-70.2948442,3a,75y,98.64h,84.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMTAlSmQwlUJjr2UTox_bHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) in Portland near Congress @ Lasell replaced a normal RYG signal (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6587464,-70.2949209,3a,75y,119.74h,79.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1AI9FZdSgDbhFPB0DSSfqg!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i16384!8i8192), however, as of August 2022, the flashing red phase only activates AFTER the W and FDW phase for about 3-7 sec before going dark.
I talked to the firm yesterday who installed this as part of LAP018664.00 (https://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=DOT_projects&id=4313538&v=full-archive-2016) and they said this is the first PHB out of two to be installed in the state, the second one being in Lewiston. They said they there's been "severe red light running" ever since it's been converted and they are thinking about either adding more signs and/or getting the police to do some enforcement.
MaineDOT has been adamant to install PHBs for years now, this being one of the reasons why and from what I'm told by the firm, a strange quirk/technicality in Maine's crosswalk law. They've been preferring RRFBs for a while now but starting to be open with PHBs in 2022. Not sure if the steady red during FDW was a Portland, MaineDOT and/or a the firm's designer's decision.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 02:07:25 PM
Post by: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 02:07:25 PM
Ugh, I forgot about the rebranding of HAWKs. No, sorry, you're not fooling anyone.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: fwydriver405 on October 26, 2022, 02:17:53 PM
Post by: fwydriver405 on October 26, 2022, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 02:07:25 PM
Ugh, I forgot about the rebranding of HAWKs. No, sorry, you're not fooling anyone.
HAWK rebranding? Thought those were always (offically) called Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) per the 2009 MUTCD, unless you're talking about something else.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 02:29:12 PM
Post by: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 02:29:12 PM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on October 26, 2022, 02:17:53 PMHAWK was the original acronym, long before inclusion in the 2009 MUTCD.Quote from: Rothman on October 26, 2022, 02:07:25 PM
Ugh, I forgot about the rebranding of HAWKs. No, sorry, you're not fooling anyone.
HAWK rebranding? Thought those were always (offically) called Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) per the 2009 MUTCD, unless you're talking about something else.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 26, 2022, 11:51:34 PM
Post by: jakeroot on October 26, 2022, 11:51:34 PM
Hmm. Pelican, Puffin, Hawk, PHB....one of these does not belong!
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on October 27, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
Post by: mrsman on October 27, 2022, 09:50:50 PM
Quote from: US 89 on October 26, 2022, 09:06:57 AMQuote from: Amtrakprod on October 26, 2022, 08:20:21 AMQuote from: kphoger on September 26, 2022, 09:50:57 AMAre you guys serious ? Do you know how dangerous in most cases it is so have a beacon flash red while pedestrians are in a crosswalk ? Near a school, that's bad practice.Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase.
Report it as non-compliant.
Yes, maybe it creates traffic. This is a city. There's going to be traffic. Maybe inspiring more children to walk will improve the traffic instead.
The issue with those MCDOT HAWKs for me is the lack of a cooldown phase. You can start it right after it just went off, with 0 delay. Probably not great
That is not how a HAWK is supposed to be used though. If you want everyone to stop for the entire pedestrian crossing time, just install a regular signal.
Your statement of "how dangerous it is" might be the biggest hyperbole I've seen this month. What makes that any worse than putting in an RRFB or overhead flashing beacon? In my experience, the simple fact that something is flashing is enough to get drivers to pay attention and stop accordingly. And with HAWKs it may be a moot point anyway in a lot of cases since it seems a lot of drivers don't realize you can go after stopping on those flashing reds...
That's exactly right. There are different standards for the use of a full traffic signal and a HAWK. A full traffic signal has to meet signal warrants. And they cannot be placed in nearly as many places as an unsignalized crosswalk. And in some states there are guidelines as to how close to another signal they can be placed.
A HAWK is designed to make an unsignalized crossing safer for a pedestrian. The HAWK is a beacon, not a signal. It does not have to meet warrants and is designed to encourage proper behavior at an unsignalized crossing.
Let's imagine an unsignalized crossing on a relatively busy road. By law, in most states, a car must yield to a pedestrian, when a pedestrian is crossing the road. The car must stop to let the pedestrian cross and then may proceed once the pedestrian is out of the way. But in reality, it is not always easy to see the pedestrian, and cars don't always stop, so pedestrians usually wait until there is a gap in traffic (either no cars coming, or a car actually stopping for the pedestrian) before making the crossing. And very likely traffic in the opposing direction will also come to a stop, once they see the pedestrian making the crossing.
The HAWK is meant to mimic the ideal behavior. The signal will flash yellow to warn cars to the presence of pedestrians, and then lead to solid yellow to warn of the upcoming red signal. THe red signal will force the cars to stop, so that the pedestrians can safely BEGIN their journey. But after a few seconds (usually at the time when WALK changes to FDW) the red signal becomes a flashing red signal. Since the cars are already stopped, the cars will remain stopping if there are pedestrians still in the crosswalk. But if there are no pedestrians there, the cars may proceed after coming to a solid stop. The HAWK is there to make sure that the cars stop for pedestrians, and not simply stop for a red light that may be longer than necessary, since most pedestrians walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec.
A well designed HAWK will only cause traffic stop long enough to allow the pedestrians to cross, much like the ideal behavior at an unsignalized crosswalk. As such, the red time should be minimal and warrants aren't necessary, since traffic is only stopped vbriefly.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 28, 2022, 06:20:24 AM
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 28, 2022, 06:20:24 AM
Quote from: mrsman on October 27, 2022, 09:50:50 PMJust because it's in the MUTCD, doesn't make it right.Quote from: US 89 on October 26, 2022, 09:06:57 AMQuote from: Amtrakprod on October 26, 2022, 08:20:21 AMQuote from: kphoger on September 26, 2022, 09:50:57 AMAre you guys serious ? Do you know how dangerous in most cases it is so have a beacon flash red while pedestrians are in a crosswalk ? Near a school, that's bad practice.Quote from: mrsman on September 25, 2022, 04:09:04 PM
And it remains solid red for the duration of the entire pedestriand phase.
Report it as non-compliant.
Yes, maybe it creates traffic. This is a city. There's going to be traffic. Maybe inspiring more children to walk will improve the traffic instead.
The issue with those MCDOT HAWKs for me is the lack of a cooldown phase. You can start it right after it just went off, with 0 delay. Probably not great
That is not how a HAWK is supposed to be used though. If you want everyone to stop for the entire pedestrian crossing time, just install a regular signal.
Your statement of "how dangerous it is" might be the biggest hyperbole I've seen this month. What makes that any worse than putting in an RRFB or overhead flashing beacon? In my experience, the simple fact that something is flashing is enough to get drivers to pay attention and stop accordingly. And with HAWKs it may be a moot point anyway in a lot of cases since it seems a lot of drivers don't realize you can go after stopping on those flashing reds...
That's exactly right. There are different standards for the use of a full traffic signal and a HAWK. A full traffic signal has to meet signal warrants. And they cannot be placed in nearly as many places as an unsignalized crosswalk. And in some states there are guidelines as to how close to another signal they can be placed.
A HAWK is designed to make an unsignalized crossing safer for a pedestrian. The HAWK is a beacon, not a signal. It does not have to meet warrants and is designed to encourage proper behavior at an unsignalized crossing.
Let's imagine an unsignalized crossing on a relatively busy road. By law, in most states, a car must yield to a pedestrian, when a pedestrian is crossing the road. The car must stop to let the pedestrian cross and then may proceed once the pedestrian is out of the way. But in reality, it is not always easy to see the pedestrian, and cars don't always stop, so pedestrians usually wait until there is a gap in traffic (either no cars coming, or a car actually stopping for the pedestrian) before making the crossing. And very likely traffic in the opposing direction will also come to a stop, once they see the pedestrian making the crossing.
The HAWK is meant to mimic the ideal behavior. The signal will flash yellow to warn cars to the presence of pedestrians, and then lead to solid yellow to warn of the upcoming red signal. THe red signal will force the cars to stop, so that the pedestrians can safely BEGIN their journey. But after a few seconds (usually at the time when WALK changes to FDW) the red signal becomes a flashing red signal. Since the cars are already stopped, the cars will remain stopping if there are pedestrians still in the crosswalk. But if there are no pedestrians there, the cars may proceed after coming to a solid stop. The HAWK is there to make sure that the cars stop for pedestrians, and not simply stop for a red light that may be longer than necessary, since most pedestrians walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec.
A well designed HAWK will only cause traffic stop long enough to allow the pedestrians to cross, much like the ideal behavior at an unsignalized crosswalk. As such, the red time should be minimal and warrants aren't necessary, since traffic is only stopped vbriefly.
Cities like Seattle will use PHB warrants for half signals. Cities in my area will program PHBs to not include the flashing red phase while FDW is on.
The MUTCD is a document, sure. And it's helpful in many cases, yes. But how good of an engineer are you if you follow it blindly?
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 09:24:48 AM
Post by: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 09:24:48 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 28, 2022, 06:20:24 AM
Just because it's in the MUTCD, doesn't make it right.
Cities like Seattle will use PHB warrants for half signals. Cities in my area will program PHBs to not include the flashing red phase while FDW is on.
The MUTCD is a document, sure. And it's helpful in many cases, yes. But how good of an engineer are you if you follow it blindly?
It sounds like those engineers aren't following the MUTCD. That doesn't make the MUTCD 'wrong'.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 29, 2022, 05:12:57 AM
Post by: jakeroot on October 29, 2022, 05:12:57 AM
The MUTCD is, has been, and will continue to be a flexible document, meant primarily to keep things consistent from state to state. It's a book of standards. There is always room for personal interpretation and innovation, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 30, 2022, 09:52:02 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 30, 2022, 09:52:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 28, 2022, 09:24:48 AMNever said wrong. It's helpful as a starting point, but it's good to modify and take a look at it in further, especially regarding the context. For PHBs specifically;Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 28, 2022, 06:20:24 AM
Just because it's in the MUTCD, doesn't make it right.
Cities like Seattle will use PHB warrants for half signals. Cities in my area will program PHBs to not include the flashing red phase while FDW is on.
The MUTCD is a document, sure. And it's helpful in many cases, yes. But how good of an engineer are you if you follow it blindly?
It sounds like those engineers aren't following the MUTCD. That doesn't make the MUTCD 'wrong'.
- are there many bicyclists that cross here.
- What's the population, high % of school children or elderly?
- Is there a multi threat conflict?
Maybe it makes sense to go to Alt R right when FDW starts, or maybe you do a delay so pedestrians can get into the final lane, or maybe you just go Alt R after the FDW stops. It all depends!
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AM
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AM
I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AMWhich they do, hence why I prefer the solid red. I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PM
Post by: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PMThere's no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 06:31:18 PM
Post by: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 06:31:18 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PMWho's "we"? :DQuote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PMThere's no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: formulanone on October 31, 2022, 07:53:35 PM
Post by: formulanone on October 31, 2022, 07:53:35 PM
Curiously, I found a HAWK signal placed before a school zone in Bermuda (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2640729,-64.8699953,3a,34.3y,328.55h,100.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipO66LivUBlQfSGJtKyCf8kPXNJddpiWzGAca0ep!2e10!3e11!7i7680!8i3840). The setup doesn't span both travel lanes.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52289452156_b5bdbccc2c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nED7oy)
(Yes, that small sign behind the signal says "kill your speed, not me".)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52289452156_b5bdbccc2c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nED7oy)
(Yes, that small sign behind the signal says "kill your speed, not me".)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: CoreySamson on October 31, 2022, 08:23:13 PM
Post by: CoreySamson on October 31, 2022, 08:23:13 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PMJust a quick question, but why do you believe a solid red makes any difference over a flashing red? They pretty much accomplish the same thing, and in my experience (ofc yours might be different) drivers seem to treat them the same.Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AMWhich they do, hence why I prefer the solid red. I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 08:50:22 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 08:50:22 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PM
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
I wasn't aware that forcing cars to wait at red lights would do something about the 60 mph wind and 117% humidity here...
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: algorerhythms on October 31, 2022, 10:27:07 PM
Post by: algorerhythms on October 31, 2022, 10:27:07 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 08:50:22 PMWhen I was last in Oklahoma, I found walking outside in January actually quite pleasant. Walking outside along 12th Avenue in Norman, not so much.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PM
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
I wasn't aware that forcing cars to wait at red lights would do something about the 60 mph wind and 117% humidity here...
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 01:22:10 AM
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 01:22:10 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PMQuote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AMWhich they do, hence why I prefer the solid red. I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
Are you saying that drivers frequently run flashing red lights? I'm not sure that I would agree with that. Many drivers do California stops, sure. That is common even here in Japan. But I've never seen intersections where drivers just straight up blow through a flashing red. That's exceptionally unusual.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 01, 2022, 09:49:41 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on November 01, 2022, 09:49:41 AM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PMThere’s no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI’ve only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I’m being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights—specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we’ll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
My family has a car that has an auto-engine stop. There's a button to disable it, but you have to press it each time you start the car. Guess what I do every time I drive it?
Also, I see lots of drivers ignoring NTOR, especially in situations where the prohibition isn't justified due to a lack of sight or very high speeds. So NTOR can end up being a nuisance to those who obey it, and doesn't stop people from ignoring it anyways. NTOR should only be used where it is absolutely justified.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:42:05 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 08:50:22 PMPleasant meaning safer, obviously.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PM
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
I wasn't aware that forcing cars to wait at red lights would do something about the 60 mph wind and 117% humidity here...
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:42:48 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:42:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 01:22:10 AMI'm saying California stops, which IMO, is running a flashing red. Full stops is what the signal is requiring, it's not a flashing yellow arrow !Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PMQuote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AMWhich they do, hence why I prefer the solid red. I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
Are you saying that drivers frequently run flashing red lights? I'm not sure that I would agree with that. Many drivers do California stops, sure. That is common even here in Japan. But I've never seen intersections where drivers just straight up blow through a flashing red. That's exceptionally unusual.
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:44:06 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:44:06 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 06:31:18 PMAt my job, in the transpo industry, just generally. It's different in every state, but in Massachusetts, rights on red; just don't make a lot of sense most of them.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PMWho's "we"? :DQuote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PMThere's no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
iPhone
iPhone
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on November 01, 2022, 09:44:49 PM
Post by: Rothman on November 01, 2022, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:44:06 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 06:31:18 PMAt my job, in the transpo industry, just generally. It's different in every state, but in Massachusetts, rights on red; just don't make a lot of sense most of them.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PMWho's "we"? :DQuote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PMThere's no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
iPhone
iPhone
So, you work in the "transpo industry." If you mean a private contractor, I don't see how you would be able to dictate when rights on red are implemented.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on November 01, 2022, 09:51:33 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on November 01, 2022, 09:51:33 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:42:05 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 08:50:22 PMPleasant meaning safer, obviously.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PM
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
I wasn't aware that forcing cars to wait at red lights would do something about the 60 mph wind and 117% humidity here...
I mean, I'd probably be a lot safer if I went around town wearing a football helmet and pads. I'm guessing it wouldn't be very pleasant, though.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on November 01, 2022, 10:24:54 PM
Post by: US 89 on November 01, 2022, 10:24:54 PM
Regarding the auto-engine stop: my mom's car has one of those. I get that it's better for the environment, but it bothers me to no end whenever I have to drive her car because it also locks the steering wheel. Seems bad practice to lock a wheel in a car that you're supposed to be in full control of.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 11:07:46 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 11:07:46 PM
Quote from: US 89 on November 01, 2022, 10:24:54 PM
Regarding the auto-engine stop: my mom's car has one of those. I get that it's better for the environment, but it bothers me to no end whenever I have to drive her car because it also locks the steering wheel. Seems bad practice to lock a wheel in a car that you're supposed to be in full control of.
Becoming less of an issue with mild hybrid systems becoming more common. Usually nudging the steering wheel kicks the engine back on, though.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 11:12:21 PM
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 11:12:21 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:42:48 PMQuote from: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 01:22:10 AM
Are you saying that drivers frequently run flashing red lights? I'm not sure that I would agree with that. Many drivers do California stops, sure. That is common even here in Japan. But I've never seen intersections where drivers just straight up blow through a flashing red. That's exceptionally unusual.
I'm saying California stops, which IMO, is running a flashing red. Full stops is what the signal is requiring, it's not a flashing yellow arrow !
Practically speaking, you really should draw a line between failure to completely stop and blowing through a stop condition. Most drivers will still yield to pedestrians under "California stop" conditions and speeds are usually very low (2-5 mph); total failure to even recognize a stop condition is a serious danger as blowing through at-speed could easily kill someone walking/riding/rolling/driving.
For example, at a HAWK, California stops are pretty reasonable. It's usually obvious enough if there is a pedestrian warranting a complete stop (and yield). But blowing through the alternating red without even slowing down is insanely dangerous. I wouldn't personally support solid red at a HAWK unless the latter has become common. Slowing down, looking for danger, and then continuing, is more than reasonable. I assume the Netherlands agrees, as they don't hardly ever use stop signs.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on November 02, 2022, 10:19:16 AM
Post by: kphoger on November 02, 2022, 10:19:16 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 11:12:21 PM
Most drivers will still yield to pedestrians under "California stop" conditions and speeds are usually very low (2-5 mph)
In my experience, drivers don't yield to pedestrians until they actually see one, and they don't start looking for them until they've already entered the crosswalk during their "California stop" routine.
This doesn't mean I'm against less-than-complete stops. It just means people need to learn how to properly yield.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: algorerhythms on November 02, 2022, 11:42:05 PM
Post by: algorerhythms on November 02, 2022, 11:42:05 PM
This video on pedestrian crossings has a section about Hawk crossings (starting at about 21:30 if you want to skip ahead to that section).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 23, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 23, 2022, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: algorerhythms on November 02, 2022, 11:42:05 PM
This video on pedestrian crossings has a section about Hawk crossings (starting at about 21:30 if you want to skip ahead to that section).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY
Haha, Not Just Bikes. That guy really hates traffic engineers...
I like Dutch infrastructure, but I don't think all traffic engineers are awful people.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 23, 2022, 06:38:39 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 23, 2022, 06:38:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on November 01, 2022, 09:44:49 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on November 01, 2022, 04:44:06 PMQuote from: Rothman on October 31, 2022, 06:31:18 PMAt my job, in the transpo industry, just generally. It's different in every state, but in Massachusetts, rights on red; just don't make a lot of sense most of them.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 06:29:46 PMWho's "we"? :DQuote from: Scott5114 on October 31, 2022, 06:04:22 PMThere's no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 05:31:25 PMQuote from: kphoger on October 31, 2022, 04:27:11 PMI've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.Quote from: Amtrakprod on October 31, 2022, 04:24:29 PM
I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.
As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.
As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment
iPhone
Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.
Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.
So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.
iPhone
iPhone
So, you work in the "transpo industry." If you mean a private contractor, I don't see how you would be able to dictate when rights on red are implemented.
We're able to recommend it. Typically it stays.
Here's a city in Massachusetts that has had a lot of great projects. They want to ban turn on red city wide. They just aren't appropriate in many contexts.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwix0_LEvMX7AhXhMlkFHX3pBHQQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2F2022%2F11%2F08%2Fno-turn-on-red-cambridge%2F&usg=AOvVaw2kp6aJ-Ca1LGL6jhGsqHDR
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 23, 2022, 06:40:57 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 23, 2022, 06:40:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 02, 2022, 10:19:16 AMQuote from: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 11:12:21 PM
Most drivers will still yield to pedestrians under "California stop" conditions and speeds are usually very low (2-5 mph)
In my experience, drivers don't yield to pedestrians until they actually see one, and they don't start looking for them until they've already entered the crosswalk during their "California stop" routine.
This doesn't mean I'm against less-than-complete stops. It just means people need to learn how to properly yield.
I think this is a good summary on my thoughts too. I'll still be the odd one out doing complete stops, but as long as everyone slows to 2-5 mph, I think it should be safe enough, as long as no one enters when the flashing lights toggle. While yes that's illegal, it doesn't mean humans won't do that. That's the psychology of traffic engineering!
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2022, 08:58:57 PM
Post by: SignBridge on November 23, 2022, 08:58:57 PM
Besides Cambridge, Massachusetts and the other cities listed in the story, New York City (in all five boroughs) has always prohibited right-on-red except where permitted by posted signs.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 26, 2022, 10:10:55 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on November 26, 2022, 10:10:55 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 23, 2022, 08:58:57 PM
Besides Cambridge, Massachusetts and the other cities listed in the story, New York City (in all five boroughs) has always prohibited right-on-red except where permitted by posted signs.
Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2022, 12:02:43 AM
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2022, 12:02:43 AM
State-wide, I've long associated Pennsylvania with no-turn-on-red. They seem to put them up everywhere.
No turning on red here in Japan. Which is nice, although when you do get a walk sign, prepare for cars to be waiting a foot off the crosswalk for you to cross. Scrambles are common.
No turning on red here in Japan. Which is nice, although when you do get a walk sign, prepare for cars to be waiting a foot off the crosswalk for you to cross. Scrambles are common.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on December 08, 2022, 08:49:50 PM
Post by: mrsman on December 08, 2022, 08:49:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2022, 12:36:59 AM
I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.
In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.
This is correct. No solid red, just flashing red.
I believe that the safest ped crossing singal would be teh LA signal modified with a brief solid red phase at the beginning of the crossing. THe solid red will force people to stop to see what is happening, and then after a few seconds, cars can proceed assuming that there are no pedestrians still crossing.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 26, 2022, 10:10:55 PMQuote from: SignBridge on November 23, 2022, 08:58:57 PM
Besides Cambridge, Massachusetts and the other cities listed in the story, New York City (in all five boroughs) has always prohibited right-on-red except where permitted by posted signs.
Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.
MA is generally a very dense state. So in much of the area, there are significant numbers of people crossing.
NTOR is justified in any significant pedestrian heavy area. While I am not a fan of blanket RTOR prohibitions, I think it is fair to assume that putting in NTOR signs in downtown areas and within walking distance to major transit stations is generally justified for safety reasons.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on December 08, 2022, 09:45:07 PM
Post by: US 89 on December 08, 2022, 09:45:07 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 26, 2022, 10:10:55 PM
Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.
I think you overstate the prevalence of NTOR in Massachusetts. I just tested 5 random intersections in the Boston area on Google Street View, including several in what appeared to be downtown areas with likely more pedestrian traffic, and found a good handful of Left Turn Yield On Green signs... but zero NTORs. If your math is right, that should have a 0.2% chance of happening.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 10, 2022, 01:44:12 AM
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 10, 2022, 01:44:12 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2022, 12:02:43 AM
State-wide, I've long associated Pennsylvania with no-turn-on-red. They seem to put them up everywhere.
LOL! I rarely see any 'no-turn-on-red' signage here in Western PA.
Not saying they aren't out there, but PennDOT over on the western side of the state doesn't use them unless really necessary.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Amtrakprod on December 11, 2022, 10:38:24 PM
Post by: Amtrakprod on December 11, 2022, 10:38:24 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 08, 2022, 09:45:07 PMQuote from: Amtrakprod on November 26, 2022, 10:10:55 PM
Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.
I think you overstate the prevalence of NTOR in Massachusetts. I just tested 5 random intersections in the Boston area on Google Street View, including several in what appeared to be downtown areas with likely more pedestrian traffic, and found a good handful of Left Turn Yield On Green signs... but zero NTORs. If your math is right, that should have a 0.2% chance of happening.
That's weird. Did you check for nearside signs?
Data wise the city says they have them posted at 90+% of intersections, but it's possible some have been removed. At least where I live in Arlington, it's No Turn On Red land. Good for when I bike/walk/run, but a bit annoying for when I drive.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: roadman65 on February 15, 2023, 09:24:46 AM
Post by: roadman65 on February 15, 2023, 09:24:46 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@18.4622015,-66.0878207,3a,75y,322.8h,93.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNd-3-zh1_gqMKNo5Av3z_nePAB1SCJimp1JzLc!2e10!3e12!7i10560!8i5280
Noticing that Puerto Rico adopted the HAWK signal.
Noticing that Puerto Rico adopted the HAWK signal.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 02:32:25 PM
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 02:32:25 PM
I hate the HAWK. Two problems:
- The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow., and the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.
- Ignoring the MUTCD, our officials have put them at intersections where the other street has stop signs.
- The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow., and the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.
- Ignoring the MUTCD, our officials have put them at intersections where the other street has stop signs.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 02:37:38 PM
Post by: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 02:32:25 PM
- If The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow.,andthen the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.
Is this what you intended? I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase. Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase. So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 03:20:28 PM
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 03:20:28 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 02:37:38 PMQuote from: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 02:32:25 PM
- If The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow.,andthen the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.
Is this what you intended? I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase. Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase. So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.
It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.
Also, even if the one pedestrian crosses on the solid red, the signal still keeps stopping traffic for 30 seconds.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 03:39:08 PM
Post by: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 03:39:08 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 03:20:28 PM
It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.
Correct. But the whole purpose of a HAWK beacon is to give peds a protected crossing phase. You can't do that with a simple yellow warning signal. It's either a HAWK or a standard RYG signal. Both of them stop traffic, because that's the whole point of them in the first place. If you don't like that part of it, then it isn't HAWK beacons you don't like, it's protected ped crossing phases at all that you don't like.
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 03:20:28 PM
Also, even if the one pedestrian crosses on the solid red, the signal still keeps stopping traffic for 30 seconds.
As I said, that's no different than a standard RYG signal.
The comparison is between something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/Qqc6vkhPEHRcd43b8) and something like this (https://goo.gl/maps/EykZisKF7B9AJYtr9).
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on March 14, 2023, 08:32:12 PM
Post by: SignBridge on March 14, 2023, 08:32:12 PM
I think Troubleshooter makes a valid point about peds crossing during the flashing yellow phase. We now have two types of new and somewhat unfamiliar signals at ped crossings. Besides the HAWK, we also have RRFB's (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) At RRFB's, peds do normally cross the road during flashing yellow lights.
Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.
Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 14, 2023, 10:11:48 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 14, 2023, 10:11:48 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 14, 2023, 08:32:12 PM
Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.
I would imagine that most pedestrians can sort out the difference. One requires you to hit a button and wait for a walk sign, the other just activates some flashing lights.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on March 15, 2023, 10:09:53 AM
Post by: kphoger on March 15, 2023, 10:09:53 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 14, 2023, 08:32:12 PM
We now have two types of new and somewhat unfamiliar signals at ped crossings. Besides the HAWK, we also have RRFB's (rectangular rapid flashing beacons)
I thought IA-11 was terminated due to patent issues. Was approval reinstated?
Quote from: SignBridge on March 14, 2023, 08:32:12 PM
Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.
Quote from: jakeroot on March 14, 2023, 10:11:48 PM
I would imagine that most pedestrians can sort out the difference. One requires you to hit a button and wait for a walk sign, the other just activates some flashing lights.
Yes, I'm pretty sure the average pedestrian has learned by now that an orange hand means DON'T WALK, and a white man means 'WALK', and that the average pedestrian can figure out the difference between that setup and an RRFB crosswalk. I mean, the pedestrian isn't even the one facing the traffic signal: drivers are.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: algorerhythms on March 15, 2023, 05:43:09 PM
Post by: algorerhythms on March 15, 2023, 05:43:09 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 03:20:28 PMThat's the problem. In my experience, at the yellow warning signals here, drivers do not stop for them, or even slow down. Which means that they're no better than no signal at all, because as a pedestrian you are still stuck waiting for a gap in the traffic. At least a driver is somewhat more likely to stop for a red light.Quote from: kphoger on March 14, 2023, 02:37:38 PMQuote from: Troubleshooter on March 14, 2023, 02:32:25 PM
- If The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow.,andthen the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.
Is this what you intended? I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase. Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase. So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.
It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 16, 2023, 01:53:30 PM
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 16, 2023, 01:53:30 PM
The difference is in how long the signal disrupts traffic:
The RRFB disrupts traffic for less than 10 seconds. The traffic usually slows enough for the pedestrian to cross/ Also, these are usually at medians here so only one direction is affected at a time.
The HAWK usually disrupts traffic for 30-40 seconds depending in whether the pestrian crosses at the flashing yellow or waits for the walk si8gnal.
And the HAWK in this (https://goo.gl/maps/EykZisKF7B9AJYtr9) is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.
The RRFB disrupts traffic for less than 10 seconds. The traffic usually slows enough for the pedestrian to cross/ Also, these are usually at medians here so only one direction is affected at a time.
The HAWK usually disrupts traffic for 30-40 seconds depending in whether the pestrian crosses at the flashing yellow or waits for the walk si8gnal.
And the HAWK in this (https://goo.gl/maps/EykZisKF7B9AJYtr9) is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 02:07:46 PM
Post by: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 02:07:46 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 16, 2023, 01:53:30 PM
The difference is in how long the signal disrupts traffic
No, the difference between a HAWK and an RRFB is that the latter doesn't even have a red light phase at all. They are not equivalent. The equivalent to an RRFB would be a pushbutton-activated flashing yellow beacon–not a HAWK.
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 16, 2023, 01:53:30 PM
And the HAWK in this (https://goo.gl/maps/EykZisKF7B9AJYtr9) is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.
Yeah, sorry, I knew that when I posted it. I was just too lazy to look up a location that was in compliance.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
Post by: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 16, 2023, 01:53:30 PM
The difference is in how long the signal disrupts traffic:
The RRFB disrupts traffic for less than 10 seconds. The traffic usually slows enough for the pedestrian to cross/ Also, these are usually at medians here so only one direction is affected at a time.
The HAWK usually disrupts traffic for 30-40 seconds depending in whether the pestrian crosses at the flashing yellow or waits for the walk si8gnal.
And the HAWK in this (https://goo.gl/maps/EykZisKF7B9AJYtr9) is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.
I don't see anything saying 60 ft. in the Manual. Sec. 4F.02.04.A reads: The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 ft.from side streets or driveways that are controlled by stop or yield signs.
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Post by: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Post by: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kalvado on March 17, 2023, 08:14:29 AM
Post by: kalvado on March 17, 2023, 08:14:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AMI would consider hawk as a niche solution for midblock. There are long blocks, plazas - possibly with associated bus stop, etc.Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
Intersections have too much going on
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on March 18, 2023, 07:57:55 PM
Post by: SignBridge on March 18, 2023, 07:57:55 PM
I will guess that the reason FHWA discourages HAWK's at intersections is because the existence of that signal plus a stop sign coming out of the cross street might be potentially confusing to drivers who are used to intersections being controlled by signs OR signals, but usually not both.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: PurdueBill on March 18, 2023, 11:32:23 PM
Post by: PurdueBill on March 18, 2023, 11:32:23 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 18, 2023, 07:57:55 PM
I will guess that the reason FHWA discourages HAWK's at intersections is because the existence of that signal plus a stop sign coming out of the cross street might be potentially confusing to drivers who are used to intersections being controlled by signs OR signals, but usually not both.
I wonder on the Kansas example of an intersection HAWK when the blank-out No Right Turn sign turns off. One would assume it's on during the steady red light, but does it turn off during the flashing red? If not, that's a lot of sitting to wait. (One would think it must only light during the steady red, but the cynic in me thinks it may do otherwise.)
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
Post by: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on March 18, 2023, 07:57:55 PM
I will guess that the reason FHWA discourages HAWK's at intersections is because the existence of that signal plus a stop sign coming out of the cross street might be potentially confusing to drivers who are used to intersections being controlled by signs OR signals, but usually not both.
Exactly my thought. The real issue is you don’t want to create an intersection where some approaches are signalized and others are not. If I’m turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK…can I go if it’s clear of peds? Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they’re being held by a double red, but it’s actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PM
Post by: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.
Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Hobart on March 20, 2023, 12:41:43 AM
Post by: Hobart on March 20, 2023, 12:41:43 AM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PMQuote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.
Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.
I feel like half signals can be executed well if the thru direction is shown flashing yellow by default, which changes to red, then flashing red, if a pedestrian activates the crosswalk. You'd need a couple "stop here on flashing red" signs on either side of the half-signaled intersection.
If you're worried about the cross street, additional heads can be installed to stop cross-street traffic as you see fit.
Half signals get a bad rap, not because they're a bad idea, but because they're executed wrong.
I also think the HAWK is redundant; just use a standard RYG signal, where red turns to flashing red before turning green (or flashing yellow at half-signaled intersections). It held up fire station entrances for years, what's the issue with using it for crosswalks?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kphoger on March 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM
Post by: kphoger on March 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AM
Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
If I'm turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK...can I go if it's clear of peds?
Yes. You're not facing the
Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they're being held by a double red, but it's actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.
Just like any four-way stop. The other person might start going at the same time as you. This happens all the time. No big deal.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kalvado on March 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Post by: kalvado on March 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 20, 2023, 10:57:04 AMOne reason STOP and YIELD signs have distinct shapes is to let drivers on other legs of intersection know what to expect. Again, beacon breaks that logicQuote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
If I'm turning at a stop sign where cross traffic has the right of way but is stopped by a HAWK...can I go if it's clear of peds?
Yes. You're not facing thesignalbeacon, therefore it does not apply to you. Yield to pedestrians, proceed to turn.Quote from: US 89 on March 19, 2023, 01:54:26 AM
Or worse, what if I see cross traffic at a stop, I assume they're being held by a double red, but it's actually a flashing red and they proceed onwards into me? Seems like a great way to get a lot of near misses and low speed collisions.
Just like any four-way stop. The other person might start going at the same time as you. This happens all the time. No big deal.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on March 25, 2023, 11:52:05 PM
Post by: jakeroot on March 25, 2023, 11:52:05 PM
Quote from: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PMQuote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.
Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.
To my knowledge, the HAWK was created specifically to be a beacon, and the warrants for beacons are much easier to meet, compared to full traffic signals.
Half signals are unique; don't mistake that for confusing. Drivers who do not drive in areas where they are common (such as Seattle) may find them unusual, but I shall imagine almost all drivers are able to work out what is happening within a few moments, and can successfully maneuver through them. The point, though, is to improve pedestrian safety, and I think half signals in this way have actually proven to be very successful in reducing pedestrian crashes. Don't look at them as being tools for helping drivers, but tools for helping pedestrians. They may be an oddity for drivers, but they are mostly to aid pedestrians.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on April 04, 2023, 11:13:19 PM
Post by: mrsman on April 04, 2023, 11:13:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 25, 2023, 11:52:05 PMQuote from: Troubleshooter on March 19, 2023, 09:15:15 PMQuote from: jakeroot on March 17, 2023, 08:02:38 AMQuote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 04:32:01 PMQuote from: SignBridge on March 16, 2023, 04:28:39 PM
And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.
I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.
Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.
I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.
If there is an intersection, a regular traffic signal is supposed to be used instead of a HAWK.
Half signals are just plain wrong. They confuse side road drivers.
To my knowledge, the HAWK was created specifically to be a beacon, and the warrants for beacons are much easier to meet, compared to full traffic signals.
Half signals are unique; don't mistake that for confusing. Drivers who do not drive in areas where they are common (such as Seattle) may find them unusual, but I shall imagine almost all drivers are able to work out what is happening within a few moments, and can successfully maneuver through them. The point, though, is to improve pedestrian safety, and I think half signals in this way have actually proven to be very successful in reducing pedestrian crashes. Don't look at them as being tools for helping drivers, but tools for helping pedestrians. They may be an oddity for drivers, but they are mostly to aid pedestrians.
For the most part, a HAWK or even a half-signal is significantly cheaper to install and operate than a full signal. For starters, you don't need to have any signal faces for the side street direction. You also don't need to have any detectors (inductance loops or optical) for side street traffic. The only input to change the operation of the signal from its normal state (favoring main street traffic) is the pedestrian push button that activates the cycle change.
That being said, there are definitely some issues that I see with operating them at an intersection rather than midblock. Side street traffic can take advantage of the stopping of main street traffic to make going straight or going left easier, but they shouldn't rely on that because the signal will only change in the presence of pedestrians. Also, that pedestrian signal walk is not the equivalent of side street green, because pedestrians crossing parallel to the main street continue to have right of way and main street traffic may be allowed to proceed with the flashing red during the FDW phase (and in some iterations even during the walk phase). It is also true that the side street traffic does not have a direct view of the signal face of the main street, so they may have no knowledge of the upcoming change from solid red to flashing red to no signal. This doesn't seem safe.
When an intersection is signalized (or beaconized, I guess when talking of HAWKs) we are used to the following iterations where one street has right of way over the other:
[Generic cases, not specialized cases like signals with arrows or split-phasing]
Green orb / red orb. One direction may go straight, or turn left (yielding to oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians), or turn right (yielding to parallel pedestrians). The other direction may not proceed or turn left, but may turn right on red (after full stop yielding to one direction of cross-traffic and perpendicular pedestrains).
Flashing yellow / flashing red. The signalized equivalent to the no stop / stop sign. One direction may go straight, or turn left (yielding to oncoming traffic and parallel pedestrians), or turn right (yielding to parallel pedestrians). In all cases, this traffic must also yield to perpendicular pedestrians - who may be unlikely to cross if this street is busy and they view the crossing as dangerous, but nontheless perfectfully legal sor such pedestrians to cross. The other direction may go straight (after full stop and yielding to two directions of cross-traffic and perpendicular pedestrians), turn left (after full stop and yielding to two directions of cross-traffic, perpendicular pedestrians, parallel pedestrians, and oncoming traffic), and turn right (after full stop yielding to one directions of cross-traffic, perpendicular pedestrians, and parallel pedestrians).
But hybrid combinations of the above do not seem especially safe or desirable. If one sees a green orb, does one expect cross traffic to potentially proceed straight across the intersection as can happen at a half-signal? If one experiences the different phases of a HAWK signal, designed to release traffic after a fast pedestian has crossed, but still requiring a full stop at the flashing red phase to account for a possible slow/late pedestrian, does one scan the side street for cars before proceeding, or would they proceed simply upon seeing no pedestrians crossing?
By design, the HAWK was meant to address a mid-block crossing. It does a decent job of this (although there are some even better iteraions like the Los Angeles style mid-blog RYG with flashing red phase).
The HAWK was not meant to address an intersection crossing, because it does not have a signal face for the side street.
Could a HAWK-like signal be designed for the potential of an intersection crossing? Yes. Imagine the following signal sequence:
MAIN / SIDE
Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK [Rest]
Solid Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK
Solid Red / Green - WALK
Solid Red / Yellow - WALK
Flashing Red / Flashing Yellow - FDW
Flashing Red / Yellow - DONT WALK
Flashing Yellow / Flashing Red - DONT WALK [Rest]
Yet despite this possibility, a full regular signal would seem to be far more intuitive and simpler for most drivers. If we want sides street drivers to cross when the pedestrians do, just give them a green light as opposed to having them guess what the indication of the main street signal is based on the pedestrian signal. The worst conflict point for both a HAWK and a half signal is what happens when main street signal is allowed to be released on the basis that most pedestrains are clear of the intersection. The main street drivers are only scanning for pedestrians before proceeding - it is harder for them to look out for side street cross-traffic.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Post by: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 13, 2023, 05:24:54 PM
Post by: NoGoodNamesAvailable on May 13, 2023, 05:24:54 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMI.e. every single HAWK installation :banghead:Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on May 13, 2023, 07:43:06 PM
Post by: SignBridge on May 13, 2023, 07:43:06 PM
Almost overkill in that installation. Three heads for each approach instead of just the required two. Very California like except for no backplates.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Post by: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Post by: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Post by: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2023, 06:53:17 PM
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2023, 06:53:17 PM
Michigan has quite a few HAWKs like this, if I recall correctly.
It's odd to me that each individual crossing has its own activation. Surely they must activate simultaneous with one another...
As a side-note, the signal placement is great. I always thought HAWKs should have the same placement as RRFBs: either side of the road and a supplemental signal overhead.
It's odd to me that each individual crossing has its own activation. Surely they must activate simultaneous with one another...
As a side-note, the signal placement is great. I always thought HAWKs should have the same placement as RRFBs: either side of the road and a supplemental signal overhead.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 10:40:34 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
This definitely should just be a signalized intersection. assuming pedestrian volumes justify all this. You have both roundabout and signal present without reaping the benefits of either. Stupid.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
Quote from: JoePCool14 on May 15, 2023, 10:40:34 AMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AM
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
This definitely should just be a signalized intersection. assuming pedestrian volumes justify all this. You have both roundabout and signal present without reaping the benefits of either. Stupid.
That's a huge assumption. If a study determines there is little to no pedestrian volume, you construct the roundabout and then also include the HAWKs to keep the legal beagles happy.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 01:25:26 PM
Post by: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 01:25:26 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
The root cause, certainly, is unqualified use of roundabouts. Piling up another messy design element on top of that... Well, lets look on a bright side - maybe this would bring some realizations about good and bad design approaches.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.
I know that. My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration. RCOC determined that roundabouts were the best traffic solution at these intersections. So instead of returning the intersections to traditional signals, RCOC opted to keep the roundabouts and install (unused) HAWKs to keep the lawyers at bay.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 04:02:58 PM
Post by: kalvado on May 15, 2023, 04:02:58 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PMAt the very least, these (even unused) lights may slow down the traffic flow as they will be an extra point of attention. May not be a problem if AADT is low enough, <10k or so.Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.
I know that. My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration. RCOC determined that roundabouts were the best traffic solution at these intersections. So instead of returning the intersections to traditional signals, RCOC opted to keep the roundabouts and install (unused) HAWKs to keep the lawyers at bay.
And again - may not be the case since area seem to build up as a low pedestrian type of neighborhood, but future-proofing may be the consideration
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 10:50:05 PM
Post by: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 10:50:05 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.
I know that. My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration.
You said that point was irrelevant.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2023, 09:10:39 AM
Post by: wanderer2575 on May 16, 2023, 09:10:39 AM
Quote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 10:50:05 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 02:08:23 PMQuote from: Rothman on May 15, 2023, 01:47:35 PMQuote from: wanderer2575 on May 15, 2023, 01:17:04 PMQuote from: kalvado on May 14, 2023, 09:39:54 AMQuote from: Rothman on May 14, 2023, 09:08:44 AMThat's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostlyQuote from: mrsman on May 13, 2023, 11:57:27 PMI'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.Quote from: Rothman on May 13, 2023, 12:03:57 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMUgh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
There seems to be a lot of issues here. The entrance and exit for every approach to the roundabout has a HAWK signal. So it seems that the DOT assumes that there is enough of a pedestrian issue here to stop all the traffic to account for pedestrians. Yet, don't roundabouts work best when they are more free-flowing, or at least not in a situation where a whole fleet of cars will clog up the intersection once the pedestrian phase is done? And aren't there other problems that are inherent with these two lane roundabouts?
IMO, this should have stayed as a regular signalized intersection.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
I don't think it's that simple. Pretty sure I've noted this earlier in the thread, but don't discount the possibility the HAWKs are there in response to, or prevention of, a lawsuit alleging insufficient pedestrian accommodation. There was at least one legal action that was settled with the Road Commission for Oakland County agreeing to install HAWKs at roundabouts in West Bloomfield Township. (I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a pedestrian in West Bloomfield, but of course that's irrelevant.)
https://patch.com/michigan/westbloomfield/bernstein-settles-on-roundabout-lawsuit
HAWKs weren't dictated by the Court in that case, but rather the suggested remedy by the Road Commission.
I know that. My second point, which kalvado and you seem to have missed, is that if the study determines there will be little to no pedestrian volume then don't take pedestrians into consideration.
You said that point was irrelevant.
If that's how you comprehend what I said, I give up.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2024, 08:39:41 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2024, 08:39:41 PM
NJ put up a HAWK signal on US 9 near the Garden State Parkway Great Egg Harbor Bridge to assist with bicyclists and pedestrians trying to cross a road that has sort-of a blind spot. The bikes and peds would be heading to the new Great Egg Harbor Bridge which has a ped/bike path.
Here's the light ready to be placed over the roadway in 2019, once the ped crosswalk striping is placed. https://maps.app.goo.gl/xBL55VB8Qu83SuKD9
And in 2022, here's evidence where they apparently didn't account for the slope of the road. https://maps.app.goo.gl/u56B8t88mDv9g9mZ7
Here's the light ready to be placed over the roadway in 2019, once the ped crosswalk striping is placed. https://maps.app.goo.gl/xBL55VB8Qu83SuKD9
And in 2022, here's evidence where they apparently didn't account for the slope of the road. https://maps.app.goo.gl/u56B8t88mDv9g9mZ7
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Big John on April 07, 2024, 09:57:25 PM
Post by: Big John on April 07, 2024, 09:57:25 PM
^^ Bicycles and Pedestrians Prohibited on the left. Then no place on the left for them after crossing the crosswalk. And no wheelchair ramp on the left either.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2024, 11:05:28 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 07, 2024, 11:05:28 PM
Quote from: Big John on April 07, 2024, 09:57:25 PM^^ Bicycles and Pedestrians Prohibited on the left. Then no place on the left for them after crossing the crosswalk. And no wheelchair ramp on the left either.
The ped/bike path is the path on the asphalt.
The ramp is coming from the Parkway, where they are definitely prohibited. Which is why the crosswalk is located where it is. Although they should have some sort of barrier between the travel lanes and the ped/bike path.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PM
Post by: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PM
Post by: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PM
Quote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2024, 09:58:49 PM
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2024, 09:58:49 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PMQuote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
https://tinyurl.com/2bgtaja9
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2024, 10:13:56 PM
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2024, 10:13:56 PM
Y'know, using LMGTFY is weird considering that with all the SEO spam, PROWAG is probably the hip new meme coin that you should invest in right now!
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2024, 10:21:33 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on April 11, 2024, 10:21:33 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 11, 2024, 09:58:49 PMQuote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PMQuote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
https://tinyurl.com/2bgtaja9
Using LMGTFY? You are hereby declared guilty of Olive Garden behavior. Your punishment is to eat breadsticks until you reach the end of them.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on April 11, 2024, 10:50:22 PM
Post by: jamess on April 11, 2024, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PMQuote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) issues its final rule that provides minimum guidelines for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. These guidelines, once adopted, would ensure that facilities used by pedestrians, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, constructed or altered in the public right-of-way by Federal, state, and local Governments are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. When the guidelines are adopted, with or without modifications, as accessibility standards in regulations issued by other Federal agencies implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act, compliance with those enforceable accessibility standards is mandatory.
The final rule is effective September 7, 2023.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way
Specifically:
Each multi-lane segment of the roundabout containing a crosswalk shall provide a crosswalk treatment consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
and
Crosswalks at multi-lane channelized turn lanes shall provide treatments consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/technical.html#r30642-crosswalk-treatments
Any agency worth the paper they print on would have started incorporating the requirements into plans at least 2 years ago. The rules have been under development for an extremely delayed period of time.
Discussion on this forum goes back over a decade
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9139.msg212781#msg212781
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2024, 10:51:35 PM
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 11, 2024, 10:51:35 PM
So pedestrian right of way accessibility guidelines?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Revive 755 on April 11, 2024, 11:04:03 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on April 11, 2024, 11:04:03 PM
Quote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 10:50:22 PMAny agency worth the paper they print on would have started incorporating the requirements into plans at least 2 years ago. The rules have been under development for an extremely delayed period of time.
Except some of the rules changed from the previous draft version, requiring some of the previous fixes to be revisited.
I also recall hearing that some of the PROWAG requirements require adoption by FHWA.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2024, 11:04:58 PM
Post by: Rothman on April 11, 2024, 11:04:58 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 11, 2024, 10:21:33 PMQuote from: Rothman on April 11, 2024, 09:58:49 PMQuote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PMQuote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
https://tinyurl.com/2bgtaja9
Using LMGTFY? You are hereby declared guilty of Olive Garden behavior. Your punishment is to eat breadsticks until you reach the end of them.
The punishment is greatly disproportionate to the crime...but message received.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on April 12, 2024, 12:39:15 PM
Post by: jamess on April 12, 2024, 12:39:15 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 11, 2024, 11:04:03 PMQuote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 10:50:22 PMAny agency worth the paper they print on would have started incorporating the requirements into plans at least 2 years ago. The rules have been under development for an extremely delayed period of time.
Except some of the rules changed from the previous draft version, requiring some of the previous fixes to be revisited.
I also recall hearing that some of the PROWAG requirements require adoption by FHWA.
That is correct, the rules are in an awkward place where they are final and published but still need to be adopted by FHWA and DOJ and in turn incorporated into the MUTCD.
However, most agencies are following the rules now because not doing so will likely create liability.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 12, 2024, 12:55:48 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on April 12, 2024, 12:55:48 PM
Quote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 10:50:22 PMQuote from: SignBridge on April 11, 2024, 08:53:21 PMQuote from: jamess on April 11, 2024, 02:42:40 PMQuote from: GaryV on May 13, 2023, 08:59:29 AMHere's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
My understanding is that the new PROWAG requires this in all multi-lane roundabouts going forward.
PROWAG. ??
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board) issues its final rule that provides minimum guidelines for the accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way. These guidelines, once adopted, would ensure that facilities used by pedestrians, such as sidewalks and crosswalks, constructed or altered in the public right-of-way by Federal, state, and local Governments are readily accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities. When the guidelines are adopted, with or without modifications, as accessibility standards in regulations issued by other Federal agencies implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act, compliance with those enforceable accessibility standards is mandatory.
The final rule is effective September 7, 2023.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrian-facilities-in-the-public-right-of-way
Specifically:
Each multi-lane segment of the roundabout containing a crosswalk shall provide a crosswalk treatment consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
and
Crosswalks at multi-lane channelized turn lanes shall provide treatments consisting of one or more of the following: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/technical.html#r30642-crosswalk-treatments
Any agency worth the paper they print on would have started incorporating the requirements into plans at least 2 years ago. The rules have been under development for an extremely delayed period of time.
Discussion on this forum goes back over a decade
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9139.msg212781#msg212781
One of the benefits of a roundabout is reduced costs, including electricity costs. Unless there's lighting at the roundabout (which there often is), this will greatly increase the costs of constructing and continued maintenance/utility costs at a roundabout.
Ultimately, this will: Reduce the benefits of considering a roundabout as an option when upgrading the intersection, or eliminating crosswalks partially or fully at a roundabout.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: mrsman on April 14, 2024, 08:10:49 AM
Post by: mrsman on April 14, 2024, 08:10:49 AM
I'd like to just reiterate the last few posts to make sure that I understand.
Accessibility guidelines, known as PROWAG, that are now part of federal law, require that multi-lane roundabouts with crosswalks feature crosswalks with an enhancement: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
Now this would likely exempt single lane roundabouts and roundabouts in relatively rural areas, but it seems that not only would this raise the cost, but many of these treatments would actually affect the actual workability of a roundabout. The whole point of a roundabout is the ability for relatively seemless movement of traffic, with yielding appropriately the right of way to traffic already in the roundabout, and of course yielding to any pedestrian who needs to cross. But the implementation of a full signal would likely gum up the works considerably. So if signals are required, why even bother with a roundabout, and not just retain or implement a signalized intersection?
Accessibility guidelines, known as PROWAG, that are now part of federal law, require that multi-lane roundabouts with crosswalks feature crosswalks with an enhancement: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
Now this would likely exempt single lane roundabouts and roundabouts in relatively rural areas, but it seems that not only would this raise the cost, but many of these treatments would actually affect the actual workability of a roundabout. The whole point of a roundabout is the ability for relatively seemless movement of traffic, with yielding appropriately the right of way to traffic already in the roundabout, and of course yielding to any pedestrian who needs to cross. But the implementation of a full signal would likely gum up the works considerably. So if signals are required, why even bother with a roundabout, and not just retain or implement a signalized intersection?
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on April 15, 2024, 11:36:42 AM
Post by: jamess on April 15, 2024, 11:36:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on April 14, 2024, 08:10:49 AMI'd like to just reiterate the last few posts to make sure that I understand.
Accessibility guidelines, known as PROWAG, that are now part of federal law, require that multi-lane roundabouts with crosswalks feature crosswalks with an enhancement: a traffic control signal with a pedestrian signal head; a pedestrian hybrid beacon; a pedestrian actuated rectangular rapid flashing beacon; or a raised crossing.
Now this would likely exempt single lane roundabouts and roundabouts in relatively rural areas, but it seems that not only would this raise the cost
Correct
Quote from: mrsman on April 14, 2024, 08:10:49 AMThe whole point of a roundabout is the ability for relatively seemless movement of traffic, with yielding appropriately the right of way to traffic already in the roundabout, and of course yielding to any pedestrian who needs to cross. But the implementation of a full signal would likely gum up the works considerably. So if signals are required, why even bother with a roundabout, and not just retain or implement a signalized intersection?
Roundabouts have three major benefits. Lower cost of operations, improved safety (no t-bone collisions) and improved traffic flow.
Unfortunately, the improved traffic flow negatively impacts pedestrian safety, as too many american drivers blatantly break the law and fail to stop for pedestrians. So with this change, safety will be improved for pedestrians at the potential expense of traffic throughput and added maintenance costs.
Roundabouts will still be worth building for the safety improvements. Also, in areas with little pedestrian traffic, there really wont be a cost in traffic capacity since the signal only gets activated on demand.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 16, 2024, 09:50:27 AM
Post by: JoePCool14 on April 16, 2024, 09:50:27 AM
Yikes. At least one of the options for compliance appears to be RRFBs. Still requires more electrical work, but not as substantial as full hybrid beacons. It's too bad there wasn't a pedestrian traffic study need as an option to bypass the requirement. It's not worth installing if you get perhaps a few dozen pedestrians per day crossing.
As for PROWAG, I'm scheduled to attend some seminars on it for work in a couple weeks. It'll be interesting to see if this is addressed.
As for PROWAG, I'm scheduled to attend some seminars on it for work in a couple weeks. It'll be interesting to see if this is addressed.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: jamess on April 16, 2024, 02:08:57 PM
Post by: jamess on April 16, 2024, 02:08:57 PM
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 16, 2024, 09:50:27 AMIt's not worth installing if you get perhaps a few dozen pedestrians per day crossing.
Yes actually, it is.
Quote from: JoePCool14 on April 16, 2024, 09:50:27 AMAs for PROWAG, I'm scheduled to attend some seminars on it for work in a couple weeks. It'll be interesting to see if this is addressed.
Its one of the larger changes so I'm sure it will be.
The other big cost driver for agencies is no more orphaned bus stops. A bus stop must be connected to the entire sidewalk network. Having a landing pad that leads to grass is thankfully a thning of the past.
Title: Re: HAWK Thread
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 19, 2024, 07:47:45 PM
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 19, 2024, 07:47:45 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53665438383_206a24575f_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pLepa2)
For HAWKs on intersections, turning traffic can be warned with a sign like this, but please point it in the right direction.
For HAWKs on intersections, turning traffic can be warned with a sign like this, but please point it in the right direction.