Dallas: new ped signals with thin 4-sided blinking yellow

[txstateends]

http://www.newcolonist.com/dontwalksigns.html
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/fox_4_features/street_squad/street-squad%3A-cedar-springs-crosswalks-012612

Due to a recent hit & run death, the city is trying a new ped signal (demo in the video within the 2nd link).  Installed below the down-angled arrow sign is a thin signal with 2 blinkers facing each direction of traffic, and the other sides have 1 blinker.  I've not seen this signal type before, and apparently the city wants to use these in more spots around town.  Meanwhile, the first link has a pic of an intersection with a low-mounted yellow sign warning pedestrians that traffic may not stop for them if they're in the crosswalk (haven't seen those signs either). 

[NE2]

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/techsum/fhwasa09009/

[realjd]

What ever happened to the in-roadway yellow flashing lights that some places were putting across the pavement at crosswalks? That seemed like a good idea but I haven't seen any new installations in a while. I also think the zig-zag markings like the British use seem like a good idea, and a few states are testing them:
http://dpw.co.hawaii.hi.us/traffic/faded-traffic-markings/
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/11-r9.pdf

[Brian556]

What ever happened to the in-roadway yellow flashing lights that some places were putting across the pavement at crosswalks? That seemed like a good idea but I haven't seen any new installations in a while.

Highland Village just installed these at two crosswalks. They automatically activate when a pedestrian approaches the crosswalk, using a beam between two bollards.They also have rectangular lights around the borders on the crosswalk signs.

[The High Plains Traveler]

There is at least one similar signal in Pueblo CO, on Santa Fe Avenue where guests at a hotel might cross to walk to the Riverwalk. I haven't personally put my well-being on the line to see how it works in crossing this busy four-lane street.

How about the relatively newly approved pedestrian signal that has two horizontally mounted red lights with a yellow between. The light is normally dark, then when activated by a pedestrian it displays the yellow, then the two red lights steady. After the pedestrian is provided time to complete most of the crossing, the light flashes the red lights alternately to allow traffic to move (after stopping) if the crosswalk is clear. Then, it goes dark again. This was introduced to eliminate the problem of a standard pedestrian signal that motorists are more likely to run a red because they are accustomed to seeing it green. Colorado Springs is installing these.

[NE2]

How about the relatively newly approved pedestrian signal that has two horizontally mounted red lights with a yellow between.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAWK_beacon

[roadfro]

What ever happened to the in-roadway yellow flashing lights that some places were putting across the pavement at crosswalks? That seemed like a good idea but I haven't seen any new installations in a while. I also think the zig-zag markings like the British use seem like a good idea, and a few states are testing them:
http://dpw.co.hawaii.hi.us/traffic/faded-traffic-markings/
http://www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/11-r9.pdf

Reno had these in-roadway lights at some crosswalks near UNR. They ultimately weren't as visible as would have been liked, and they didn't really hold up well--maintenance isn't very easy with these. Both intersections that had these now have the rapid rectangular flashing beacons, and the driver compliance seems to be better.

I am not a fan of the zig zag markings, mainly because US drivers don't know what they mean. UNR installed some on one of the campus streets in front of the student union. They aren't very effective in slowing cars, prohibiting unauthorized stopping, or anything else...

How about the relatively newly approved pedestrian signal that has two horizontally mounted red lights with a yellow between.

HAWK signals serve a different function, in that it is a traffic signal that requires vehicles to stop when activated. RRFBs are a simply a warning beacon which bears no legal requirement to stop.

[Kacie Jane]

RRFBs are a simply a warning beacon which has bears no legal requirement to stop.

You know, except for the law requiring you to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk...

[roadfro]

RRFBs are a simply a warning beacon which has bears no legal requirement to stop.

You know, except for the law requiring you to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk...

An active warning beacon itself bears no legal requirement to stop/yield, unless installed with a regulatory sign that bears that requirement. The beacon simply warns a driver of a particular situation--in this case, the possible presence of a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian physically crossing in the crosswalk invokes the legal requirement of a driver to stop/yield for the pedestrian as appropriate.

[NE2]

An active warning beacon itself bears no legal requirement to stop/yield, unless installed with a regulatory sign that bears that requirement.

Not in states that have adopted the uniform vehicle code. A sign telling you to stop/yield is a "nag sign" reminding you of the law.

[Kacie Jane]

RRFBs are a simply a warning beacon which has bears no legal requirement to stop.

You know, except for the law requiring you to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk...

An active warning beacon itself bears no legal requirement to stop/yield, unless installed with a regulatory sign that bears that requirement. The beacon simply warns a driver of a particular situation--in this case, the possible presence of a pedestrian in the crosswalk. The pedestrian physically crossing in the crosswalk invokes the legal requirement of a driver to stop/yield for the pedestrian as appropriate.

You're technically correct, but unless some idiot on the sidewalk pressed the button just for sh*ts and giggles without actually wanting to cross, you're making a meaningless distinction.  The beacon alerts you to the pedestrian, the pedestrian requires you to stop.  It's not really that big a leap to say that the beacon itself essentially requires you to stop.

[Alps]

No, the beacon doesn't require you to stop. It may continue to blink after the pedestrian has left the crosswalk, and you can then proceed despite the blinking.

[Zmapper]

Fort Collins has a recent installation like that at Sherwood and Laurel. They seem to be doing their job with getting drivers to stop.

[Revive 755]

How about the relatively newly approved pedestrian signal that has two horizontally mounted red lights with a yellow between. The light is normally dark, then when activated by a pedestrian it displays the yellow, then the two red lights steady. After the pedestrian is provided time to complete most of the crossing, the light flashes the red lights alternately to allow traffic to move (after stopping) if the crosswalk is clear. Then, it goes dark again. This was introduced to eliminate the problem of a standard pedestrian signal that motorists are more likely to run a red because they are accustomed to seeing it green. Colorado Springs is installing these.

There's a hesitancy to install them in some state DOTs due to current legislation that requires motorist to treat dark traffic lights as stop signs; said legislation is not specific enough to distinguish between a regular traffic light and a hawk light.

[Kacie Jane]

No, the beacon doesn't require you to stop. It may continue to blink after the pedestrian has left the crosswalk, and you can then proceed despite the blinking.

I'm sorry.  I suppose I made a snide comment and then took it further than I meant to.  My original point was that to say there's no legal requirement to stop somewhat ignores the fact that these signals are simply meant to protect pedestrians on top of laws that already exist.

Not having seen a HAWK in person, I wasn't totally familiar with it, and realize now that pedestrians have a walk/don't walk signal, which does change things a bit. (Pedestrians can't legally cross when the HAWK is dark and they have a don't walk signal.  Regular yellow beacons are solely meant as an aid; it's perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross without activating them, and vehicles still have to yield.)

I would still argue with roadfro that HAWKs and RRFBs do serve the same function: alerting vehicles to the pedestrian, and getting those vehicles to slow/stop so that the pedestrian has an opportunity to cross the road safely.  One could almost certainly say though, that the HAWK does this more effectively.

[Alps]

How about the relatively newly approved pedestrian signal that has two horizontally mounted red lights with a yellow between. The light is normally dark, then when activated by a pedestrian it displays the yellow, then the two red lights steady. After the pedestrian is provided time to complete most of the crossing, the light flashes the red lights alternately to allow traffic to move (after stopping) if the crosswalk is clear. Then, it goes dark again. This was introduced to eliminate the problem of a standard pedestrian signal that motorists are more likely to run a red because they are accustomed to seeing it green. Colorado Springs is installing these.

There's a hesitancy to install them in some state DOTs due to current legislation that requires motorist to treat dark traffic lights as stop signs; said legislation is not specific enough to distinguish between a regular traffic light and a hawk light.

What about emergency lights at fire stations that are usually off? (I think the bottom yellow light is technically supposed to blink, but most times I've seen them, they don't.)

[US71]

What about emergency lights at fire stations that are usually off? (I think the bottom yellow light is technically supposed to blink, but most times I've seen them, they don't.)

From what I have seen, many of the newer Fire Station signals are a standard 3-Phase RYG signal. Springdale, AR has one as does Ft Smith. I don't see many Flashing Yellow signals at fire stations anymore.

[roadfro]

An active warning beacon itself bears no legal requirement to stop/yield, unless installed with a regulatory sign that bears that requirement.

Not in states that have adopted the uniform vehicle code. A sign telling you to stop/yield is a "nag sign" reminding you of the law.

The regulatory signs I had in mind when I wrote that were a stop or yield sign, so not "nag signs" in that sense.

I would still argue with roadfro that HAWKs and RRFBs do serve the same function: alerting vehicles to the pedestrian, and getting those vehicles to slow/stop so that the pedestrian has an opportunity to cross the road safely.  One could almost certainly say though, that the HAWK does this more effectively.

I don't think we disagree with the purpose of the two, just the particulars of the function in what each requires of the driver.

[D-Dey65]

There's a strobe light at a pedestrian crosswalk in Hernando, Florida:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WST_Citrus_CR_486_Crosswalk;_North_Side.jpg