Has the flashing yellow left turn signal made it to your state?

[jakeroot]

Just make every permissive turn a leading turn and not a lagging turn, like Illinois does ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How are we to say that it's working? Last I checked, Chicago does not do well in the "worst traffic" rankings. Lead/lag signals are a rather important asset.

My concern with the FYA has been in regards to safety.  When it was introduced in SE Michigan, there was roughly a 30% increase in injury accidents at FYA installs (and a 75% increase in head-on left-turn accidents which can be directly attributed to the left-turn signal phase operation).

Interesting. Data from Federal Way, WA, which extensively utilises lead/lag FYA, touts impressive safety improvements over the protected lefts they replaced. I think property damage went up a bit, but injuries dropped. The link to the study is buried in some government website that I'll try and find ASAP.

IMO, the FYA isn't inherently dangerous, but the added flexibility the FYA provides can add confusion to drivers.  If the signal operation is like-for-like after the FYA install i wouldn't expect much change in the crash rate, but that's often not the case.  Even though the FYA solves the "yellow trap" problem, "perceived yellow traps" should be avoided whenever possible.

A massive issue, that very few states seem to recognize, is that left turn signals, especially permissive ones, need to be at eye level with oncoming traffic. Overhead-only displays force traffic to constantly dart back between looking at oncoming traffic and watching for a yellow light. Having only overhead displays almost certainly increases the likelihood that the only display drivers can see is the one in their upper right peripheral vision. That's unacceptable. Left turn lights need to be right in line with oncoming traffic, so drivers can minimise the amount of darting they need to do.

Interestingly, the two jurisdictions in WA that most heavily use the FYA (Bellevue and Federal Way) both require secondary left turn signal displays on the left mast or pole. I'm going to assume that if their experience showed a poor safety record, they wouldn't continue to install them. They both must have several hundred between the two of them.

In British Columbia, there is always a secondary signal on the left (at every intersection, even those without left turns). They go a step further and mount those displays at the same level as the pedestrian heads. Judging by the number of permissive lefts (probably 99% of all single lane lefts), they must be working well.

[SoCal Kid]

Theres a flashing yellow turn signal a block from my neighborhood lol

[johndoe]

A massive issue, that very few states seem to recognize, is that left turn signals, especially permissive ones, need to be at eye level with oncoming traffic. Overhead-only displays force traffic to constantly dart back between looking at oncoming traffic and watching for a yellow light. Having only overhead displays almost certainly increases the likelihood that the only display drivers can see is the one in their upper right peripheral vision. That's unacceptable. Left turn lights need to be right in line with oncoming traffic, so drivers can minimise the amount of darting they need to do.

Interesting, I feel like I see more post-mounted heads for through movements (rather than lefts).  Maybe I drive through them more than I realize and just don't notice.  As far as I know the MUTCD always calls these optional.  Here are some relevant docs:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/development_left_turn_operations_guidelines_yu.pdf
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/fhwasa13027/ch5.cfm#s521

I'm not sure I buy that a post-mounted head to the left is more in the drivers' line of sight.  Just picking a random spot in Bellevue: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6210741,-122.2014786,3a,45.8y,272.17h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stRcEb_TCem3rxM_JNXhW4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 
The head over the lane seems a lot closer to where I need to look (for opposing through vehicles) than the one to the left.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but for you to call the standard MUTCD setup "unacceptable" seems ... exaggerated at best.  Maybe you know of safety studies or other data about these heads? 

[jakeroot]

A massive issue, that very few states seem to recognize, is that left turn signals, especially permissive ones, need to be at eye level with oncoming traffic. Overhead-only displays force traffic to constantly dart back between looking at oncoming traffic and watching for a yellow light. Having only overhead displays almost certainly increases the likelihood that the only display drivers can see is the one in their upper right peripheral vision. That's unacceptable. Left turn lights need to be right in line with oncoming traffic, so drivers can minimise the amount of darting they need to do.

Interesting, I feel like I see more post-mounted heads for through movements (rather than lefts).  Maybe I drive through them more than I realize and just don't notice.  As far as I know the MUTCD always calls these optional.  Here are some relevant docs:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/development_left_turn_operations_guidelines_yu.pdf
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/fhwasa13027/ch5.cfm#s521

Yes, they're optional on a federal level, but a requirement at local levels.

Requirements for pole-mounted signals on either side seem to be the result of two different rulings: when they're required on the right, it's probably for visibility requirements, such as on truck-heavy routes (see this example in WA). Requirements for signals on the left seem to be, more often than not, the result of similar requirements, but also when two signals are required for every movement. It stands to reason that most single-lane left turns probably don't have enough mast-arm space to cram in two left turn signals overhead, without ignoring the 8-foot rule, so they end up on a pole on the left. Bellevue's are the result of this kind of rule. Glare is also a major issue for overhead signals. The engineer in Federal Way has indicated to me that this was a big reason that he chose to begin requiring supplemental displays.

I'm not sure I buy that a post-mounted head to the left is more in the drivers' line of sight.  Just picking a random spot in Bellevue: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6210741,-122.2014786,3a,45.8y,272.17h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stRcEb_TCem3rxM_JNXhW4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 
The head over the lane seems a lot closer to where I need to look (for opposing through vehicles) than the one to the left.

Bellevue insists on mounting the left turn displays on the mast on the immediate left. This results in some intersections with left turn displays way off to the left (see here). Federal Way has stricter requirements, with many being much closer to the through-lanes and crosswalk ramp.

I think it's important to note what it is that drivers need to be looking for. Of course we need to watch for oncoming vehicles, but we also need to watch for pedestrians. Although this particular left turn (below) does not have a pedestrian crossing along the left side of the intersection, the box below highlights how far left (especially on approach) drivers should be looking (the box is smaller on the right to highlight that oncoming traffic is smaller, the further away it is). If there was no display on the left side of this intersection, drivers would have to spend a bit too much time looking off to the right, when they need to be looking down. Even in this case, the pole-mounted display is not within my box, but it's much closer to that area where attention should be focused, with slim chances of it being disregarded should it turn red.



It's also important to consider that Street View doesn't necessarily give us the whole picture (no pun intended). In-real-life, more often than not, left turners pull forward into the intersection when yielding. Depending on vehicle placement, this may result in serious neck-straining; because the windshield only goes so far back, things that are "above" a driver get harder to see, the closer you get to them. In this case, it's much easier to see a pole-mounted signal. At this left turn in Arlington, VA, note that an extra left turn display is used on the far corner, because the overhead signal would be virtually impossible to see from any left turn position within the intersection. A similar issue can be seen at this intersection in Bothell, WA. The cone-of-vision usually dictates when an extra display needs to be used, but these cones don't seem to take into account those drivers who pull forward to wait (everyone in most areas I drive in).

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but for you to call the standard MUTCD setup "unacceptable" seems ... exaggerated at best.  Maybe you know of safety studies or other data about these heads?

What tends to "grind my gears" is when an agency changes how a signal operates, without fully exploring all possible options for improving any actual, or perceived, issues with the current operation. An option that, IMO, isn't exploited enough, is the placement of additional signal displays. At the very least, they simply compound the requirement to yield. Nothing wrong with that.

I wish I had an actual study to back-up my claims here. These are just things that I've noticed while out driving. But my point, really, is that we shouldn't simply give up if we have trouble with crashes and whatnot. Try everything you can think of. Engineers seem to give-in too quickly. Sure, there's rules out there, and an engineer puts themselves in an actionable position if they choose to break the rules. But, at least in terms of secondary and auxiliary signal displays, I don't know of any jurisdiction that bans them, so that's at least one thing that could be played with.

FWIW, I cannot find any signal design manuals that actually indicate why secondary or auxiliary signal displays would be required in their respective jurisdiction, beyond cone-of-vision requirements. For the British Columbia manual, the rules (starting at page 78) are very specific, with the constant requirement being that a secondary display on the far-left corner must be used. The problem is, the BC MOTI doesn't actually indicate why those are the requirements. The TxDOT document you linked to above spells out some reasons, but I don't believe that's an official guideline that any particular jurisdiction is using.

[thenetwork]

Is it my bad memory, or did a lot of people on here dislike the introduction of the FYA nine years ago or whenever that was?  I don't hear anybody complain about them anymore, though.

My concern with the FYA has been in regards to safety.  When it was introduced in SE Michigan, there was roughly a 30% increase in injury accidents at FYA installs (and a 75% increase in head-on left-turn accidents which can be directly attributed to the left-turn signal phase operation).



IMO, the FYA isn't inherently dangerous, but the added flexibility the FYA provides can add confusion to drivers.  If the signal operation is like-for-like after the FYA install i wouldn't expect much change in the crash rate, but that's often not the case.  Even though the FYA solves the "yellow trap" problem, "perceived yellow traps" should be avoided whenever possible.

Interesting stat, considering Michigan had the flashing red ball for decades, prior to phasing in/converting to FYAs.

[Revive 755]

I think it's important to note what it is that drivers need to be looking for. Of course we need to watch for oncoming vehicles, but we also need to watch for pedestrians.

For some intersections, there is always going to be some darting if the driver is watching for both oncoming vehicles, oncoming pedestrians, and pedestrians coming from the same direction as the driver.  US 14 at Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, IL, may be a good example where this would be a problem if a protected-permitted display was used for the EB left instead of protected only.

    I'm not sure I buy that a post-mounted head to the left is more in the drivers' line of sight.  Just picking a random spot in Bellevue: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6210741,-122.2014786,3a,45.8y,272.17h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stRcEb_TCem3rxM_JNXhW4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
    The head over the lane seems a lot closer to where I need to look (for opposing through vehicles) than the one to the left.

I was thinking at first the setup for Longmeadow Parkway at Sleepy Hollow Road in Algonquin, IL, was what was meant.

[jakeroot]

I think it's important to note what it is that drivers need to be looking for. Of course we need to watch for oncoming vehicles, but we also need to watch for pedestrians.

For some intersections, there is always going to be some darting if the driver is watching for both oncoming vehicles, oncoming pedestrians, and pedestrians coming from the same direction as the driver.  US 14 at Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, IL, may be a good example where this would be a problem if a protected-permitted display was used for the EB left instead of protected only.

Maybe it depends on driver training? Barely any protected left turns in BC, outside of super-busy arterials, so teaching drivers how to handle "yield" signals is a pretty major part of driving courses.

I can think of several important arterials in Vancouver that run at angles through grid areas (Kingsway being the big one), and the 90-degree intersections don't seem to have any fewer crashes (according to ICBC). Seems to be more about volume than angle. If we look at this particular intersection in Surrey, BC, which has two sharp left turns and no protected phase (at all), we can see how the overhead signal is helpful when looking downstream for oncoming cars, and the left-side green orb signal helpful for when looking for pedestrians.

I'm not sure I buy that a post-mounted head to the left is more in the drivers' line of sight.  Just picking a random spot in Bellevue: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6210741,-122.2014786,3a,45.8y,272.17h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stRcEb_TCem3rxM_JNXhW4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
The head over the lane seems a lot closer to where I need to look (for opposing through vehicles) than the one to the left.

I was thinking at first the setup for Longmeadow Parkway at Sleepy Hollow Road in Algonquin, IL, was what was meant.

I'm not a particularly big fan of that, on account of visual clutter (given the extra mast arm). But I highly prefer it to having only one display, directly in front of the left turn lane.

California does a great job with their signal placement. Virtually all far-left corner signals are right next to the oncoming lane of traffic.

[fwydriver405]

My concern with the FYA has been in regards to safety.  When it was introduced in SE Michigan, there was roughly a 30% increase in injury accidents at FYA installs (and a 75% increase in head-on left-turn accidents which can be directly attributed to the left-turn signal phase operation).

Interesting. Data from Federal Way, WA, which extensively utilises lead/lag FYA, touts impressive safety improvements over the protected lefts they replaced. I think property damage went up a bit, but injuries dropped. The link to the study is buried in some government website that I'll try and find ASAP.

Are there any states that mandate protected-only signals 24/7 if the left turn crosses two or more lanes in the opposing direction? MaineDOT (and maybe NHDOT?) policy only allows FYA's to be installed if the turn crosses only one lane in the opposing direction...

[roadfro]

Also, do other states have restrictions on where FYA's can be placed? I recently heard that MaineDOT policy mandates 24/7 protected only operation if a single-lane left turn crosses two or more opposing thru lanes, which means that any permissive movements are only allowed if the left turn crosses one opposing thru lane. I also noticed that although FYA's have started to appear in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, FYA's in NH and MA do not show the red arrow after the leading left turn expires, while in ME after the leading left turn, a red arrow is shown for a few seconds then FYA when the opposing movement is released.

Are there any states that mandate protected-only signals 24/7 if the left turn crosses two or more lanes in the opposing direction? MaineDOT (and maybe NHDOT?) policy only allows FYA's to be installed if the turn crosses only one lane in the opposing direction...

I think you'll find that states'/local agencies' guidelines on when to use protected or permitted left turn varies widely.

For example, most agencies in Nevada will allow permitted lefts with FYAs across three opposing lanes. In the Vegas area, you'll see permitted lefts allowed where opposing traffic speed limit is as high as 45mph–in the Reno area, it's generally rare to have permitted lefts across anything posted higher than 35.

Also, you'll almost never see an FYA at dual left turns in Nevada (I thought this was explicitly not allowed, but I have come across an instance of a dual left with FYAs in south Reno). But some agencies in other states have this as a semi-regular occurence.


Also, the MUTCD does not mandate that the red arrow come on between the protected and permitted phases. Some agencies prefer that the red arrow display, some don't–I can understand arguments either way.

[kphoger]

My concern with the FYA has been in regards to safety.  When it was introduced in SE Michigan, there was roughly a 30% increase in injury accidents at FYA installs (and a 75% increase in head-on left-turn accidents which can be directly attributed to the left-turn signal phase operation).



IMO, the FYA isn't inherently dangerous, but the added flexibility the FYA provides can add confusion to drivers.  If the signal operation is like-for-like after the FYA install i wouldn't expect much change in the crash rate, but that's often not the case.  Even though the FYA solves the "yellow trap" problem, "perceived yellow traps" should be avoided whenever possible.

Did you factor in any change in traffic counts at those locations?  Raw total numbers don't mean very much if traffic counts changed.

[paulthemapguy]

Just make every permissive turn a leading turn and not a lagging turn, like Illinois does ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

How are we to say that it's working? Last I checked, Chicago does not do well in the "worst traffic" rankings. Lead/lag signals are a rather important asset.

Lagging left turns aren't a valuable asset if they lead to yellow trap!  Make the thru signals (ball indications) in opposite directions turn red at the same time, and there is no yellow trap.  Or at least you have that good old Midwestern understanding that the left turners floating in the box (middle of the intersection) get to vacate once the thru traffic clears.  Just watch any Illinois intersection with permissive left turns.

(Idk what you mean by "it's working"--seems like an argument against logic itself.)

[tradephoric]

Did you factor in any change in traffic counts at those locations?  Raw total numbers don't mean very much if traffic counts changed.

The majority of those FYA installs were done between 2008-2010.  All i can say is that the great recession hit this region hard and traffic counts were down across the board during that time.

Lagging left turns aren't a valuable asset if they lead to yellow trap!  Make the thru signals (ball indications) in opposite directions turn red at the same time, and there is no yellow trap.  Or at least you have that good old Midwestern understanding that the left turners floating in the box (middle of the intersection) get to vacate once the thru traffic clears.  Just watch any Illinois intersection with permissive left turns.

(Idk what you mean by "it's working"--seems like an argument against logic itself.)

The FYA essentially has gotten rid of the yellow trap even under lagging left turns (or lead-lag).  The problem is there are a lot of low IQ drivers out there.  They see that the adjacent through is terminating and automatically assume the opposing through has to stop too (even when their left is still flashing yellow arrow).  So while technically not a yellow-trap, it's what's known as a perceived yellow trap because drivers just don't know any better.  Rightly or wrongly, a lot of agencies don't like flashing the FYA when the adjacent through is red.

[SignBridge]

Tradephoric, that situation you describe: flashing yellow with adjacent reds (aka Dallas Phasing) is the specific situation that the FYA was designed to address. The FYA replaces the green-ball that many drivers used to think was the same as a green-arrow when displayed over the left lane only. The purpose of the FYA being to alert left-turning drivers that they can turn with caution, that they do not have right-of-way as with a green-arrow.

[roadfro]

^ Don't worry, Tradephoric is well aware of the FYA's purpose.

Lagging left turns aren't a valuable asset if they lead to yellow trap!  Make the thru signals (ball indications) in opposite directions turn red at the same time, and there is no yellow trap.  Or at least you have that good old Midwestern understanding that the left turners floating in the box (middle of the intersection) get to vacate once the thru traffic clears.  Just watch any Illinois intersection with permissive left turns.

(Idk what you mean by "it's working"--seems like an argument against logic itself.)

The FYA essentially has gotten rid of the yellow trap even under lagging left turns (or lead-lag).  The problem is there are a lot of low IQ drivers out there.  They see that the adjacent through is terminating and automatically assume the opposing through has to stop too (even when their left is still flashing yellow arrow).  So while technically not a yellow-trap, it's what's known as a perceived yellow trap because drivers just don't know any better.  Rightly or wrongly, a lot of agencies don't like flashing the FYA when the adjacent through is red.

Lead-lag phasing is one of the most effective tools in a traffic signal timing engineer's toolbox, because it can greatly increase the throughput of a coordinated signal corridor. One of the main benefits of the FYA display is to allow PPLT in this manner without introducing yellow trap (or having to modify/louver the doghouse and modify signal controller settings to introduce Dallas Phasing to achieve the same effect).

It is unfortunate that "perceived yellow trap" exists, because it really shouldn't–I wish these drivers knew better. I'd hazard a guess that this phenomenon is more prevalent in areas that haven't widely implemented lead-lag phasing, cause I have never seen this issue in Nevada–we had wide use of lead-lag (and Vegas also had a few intersections with Dallas Phasing) prior to FYA, so many drivers are used to left turns and adjacent through not always terminating together. Agencies not allowing the FYA to display with adjacent through red are basically accepting of potential increased delay and reduced capacity.

[Tonytone]

I feel like this should be updated to the "Flashing Red"


iPhone

[Revive 755]

Are there any states that mandate protected-only signals 24/7 if the left turn crosses two or more lanes in the opposing direction? MaineDOT (and maybe NHDOT?) policy only allows FYA's to be installed if the turn crosses only one lane in the opposing direction...

Missouri generally treats it as a mandate to use protected only lefts when the left turn is opposed by three or more through lanes - see a little more than halfway down the page on http://epg.modot.org/index.php/902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D).

Illinois is similar, but appears to be more willing to allow exceptions than Missouri when a left turn crosses three opposing through lanes.

[US 89]

Are there any states that mandate protected-only signals 24/7 if the left turn crosses two or more lanes in the opposing direction? MaineDOT (and maybe NHDOT?) policy only allows FYA's to be installed if the turn crosses only one lane in the opposing direction...

I checked through Utah's documentation on this, and it looks like protected lefts are required if there are at least 4 opposing lanes. They are also recommended if the opposing speed limit is equal or greater than 60 mph, though there is a bit of wiggle room based on the number of opposing lanes -- for example, SR 36 has several protected-permissive lefts across two 60mph opposing lanes.

[jeffandnicole]

Are there any states that mandate protected-only signals 24/7 if the left turn crosses two or more lanes in the opposing direction? MaineDOT (and maybe NHDOT?) policy only allows FYA's to be installed if the turn crosses only one lane in the opposing direction...

Missouri generally treats it as a mandate to use protected only lefts when the left turn is opposed by three or more through lanes - see a little more than halfway down the page on [ur]http://epg.modot.org/index.php/902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)[/url].

Illinois is similar, but appears to be more willing to allow exceptions than Missouri when a left turn crosses three opposing through lanes.

New Jersey generally doesn't allow unprotected left turns across 3 or more lanes.  I won't say there aren't none at all, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any off the top of my head.  Across 2 lanes is common though.

[Amtrakprod]

Are there any states that mandate protected-only signals 24/7 if the left turn crosses two or more lanes in the opposing direction? MaineDOT (and maybe NHDOT?) policy only allows FYA's to be installed if the turn crosses only one lane in the opposing direction...

Missouri generally treats it as a mandate to use protected only lefts when the left turn is opposed by three or more through lanes - see a little more than halfway down the page on [ur]http://epg.modot.org/index.php/902.5_Traffic_Control_Signal_Features_(MUTCD_Chapter_4D)[/url].

Illinois is similar, but appears to be more willing to allow exceptions than Missouri when a left turn crosses three opposing through lanes.

New Jersey generally doesn't allow unprotected left turns across 3 or more lanes.  I won't say there aren't none at all, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any off the top of my head.  Across 2 lanes is common though.

Speaking of which, any FYAs there yet?


iPhone

[wxfree]

I just remembered something, and it's one of the reasons I like the flashing yellow arrow.  When one side is given all green, circles and arrows, the yellow left arrow flashes for the other side, because that left turn doesn't conflict with the left turn protected by the green arrow on the other side.  Left turns have to yield to straight traffic going the other way, but it always does that with the flashing arrow, so there's no reason to wait for the green arrow on the other side to go away.  With the earlier arrangement, the direction opposite the greens had all reds.  At least that's the way it is most places I go.  One day I was first in line in a left turn lane, and I got a green circle with a red circle.  Traffic in the other direction had all greens.  I was allowed to turn left after yielding.  But I was unaccustomed to that configuration, the only time I'd ever seen green and red together was with a green arrow.  I almost mistakenly started my turn, in front of a hoard of cars that were about to start going.  The new configuration doesn't give green and red at the same time, it gives only one signal, which has less potential for confusion.

[Big John]

  One day I was first in line in a left turn lane, and I got a green circle with a red circle.  Traffic in the other direction had all greens.  I was allowed to turn left after yielding.  But I was unaccustomed to that configuration, the only time I'd ever seen green and red together was with a green arrow.  I almost mistakenly started my turn, in front of a hoard of cars that were about to start going.  The new configuration doesn't give green and red at the same time, it gives only one signal, which has less potential for confusion.

A red ball together with a green ball is against MUTCD rules:

MUTCD 4D.05

10 The following combinations of signal indications shall not be simultaneously displayed on any one signal face:

    CIRCULAR RED with CIRCULAR YELLOW;
    CIRCULAR GREEN with CIRCULAR RED; or
    Straight-through GREEN ARROW with CIRCULAR RED;

[wxfree]

  One day I was first in line in a left turn lane, and I got a green circle with a red circle.  Traffic in the other direction had all greens.  I was allowed to turn left after yielding.  But I was unaccustomed to that configuration, the only time I'd ever seen green and red together was with a green arrow.  I almost mistakenly started my turn, in front of a hoard of cars that were about to start going.  The new configuration doesn't give green and red at the same time, it gives only one signal, which has less potential for confusion.

A red ball together with a green ball is against MUTCD rules:

MUTCD 4D.05

10 The following combinations of signal indications shall not be simultaneously displayed on any one signal face:

    CIRCULAR RED with CIRCULAR YELLOW;
    CIRCULAR GREEN with CIRCULAR RED; or
    Straight-through GREEN ARROW with CIRCULAR RED;

That's a good rule.  It must be why I never saw that configuration anywhere else.  The advantage I mentioned, replacing the simultaneous green and red circles, isn't really and advantage, since that isn't allowed, but it's kind of an advantage because it wouldn't be used with the new configuration, even in places where they don't care about that rule.  It didn't bother me that the old configuration I was familiar with (and was proper) didn't allow left turns when the other side had all greens, but the ability to allow left turns against all greens, without breaking the rules or confusing drivers, is a small advantage of the FYA.

[paulthemapguy]

I don't know if this is news or not, but North Carolina is a state with many FYA's.  The southernmost traffic signal on US421 is an FYA signal:


NC-YA by Paul Drives, on Flickr

[jakeroot]

I don't know if this is news or not, but North Carolina is a state with many FYA's.  The southernmost traffic signal on US421 is an FYA signal:

North Carolina's DOT is one of the few that I've seen to test double flashing yellow arrows. Individual cities sometimes install them, but NC is one of the few states to test them. Most state agencies don't permit them.

[cl94]

North Carolina's DOT is one of the few that I've seen to test double flashing yellow arrows. Individual cities sometimes install them, but NC is one of the few states to test them. Most state agencies don't permit them.

Speaking of double FYAs, I saw one in Vermont on Sunday up in St. Albans. It was operating in protected-only mode.