Here's an interesting HAWK installation: https://goo.gl/maps/tp7fr7Cmr5qGEa2u5
Ugh. Classic example of where a pelican would have been better.
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.
I'm also thinking RRFBs would have worked.
Drivers already have a hard enough time with roundabouts. Throwing HAWKs up just doubles the potential for mistakes and accidents.
That's what happens when you give too many options to an engineer who graduated with multiple choice tests mostly
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.
Poll
