Traffic signal

[Big John]

Milwaukee uses FDW extensively

[jakeroot]

New HAWK Signal in Renton, WA:

[Big John]

^^ Does the MUTCD black backplate rule apply to HAWKs?

[PurdueBill]

I was fooled by this light as a driver, thinking the pedestrian countdown would go to yellow, but the yellow started early.  Maybe the city did this to discourage driving by the countdown.  Then I found out ped signals are supposed to get three seconds of clearance before the next green, but they don't here.  Renton has been responsive to inquiries in the past, so you never know.

This is known as FDW on yellow. It's an idea that I personally love, because it's more pedestrian friendly.


iPhone

There are lots of allowed options in the MUTCD for overlap of the flashing Don't Walk, with the countdown reaching 0 either before the yellow light or after. 



Some folks in Chicago were pushing to install countdown pedestrian signals specifically so motorists could see the countdown to yellow, completely contrary to regulation.  (That seemed to start with the red light camera abuse.)

One issue with the signal in the video is that we can't see the signals for both streets at the same time; the cross street seems to already have green at :05 when we first see it (the arrows) but the clock strikes 0 on the pedestrian signal at :02 so there may be 3 seconds to the nearest second but one would have to see when exactly the green arrows came on.  If it's 3 seconds after the other street's signal turned red, then it's not enough clearance.  If it does change right then, then it's barely enough.

[jakeroot]

^^ Does the MUTCD black backplate rule apply to HAWKs?

This was my thought/concern. I would think so. I know it doesn't apply for bike signals.

Renton has all-yellow (front + back) signals downtown too. This is rather typical of them .

[JoePCool14]

New HAWK Signal in Renton, WA:

Not a fan of how short those mast arms are. Other than that it's alright.

[SignBridge]

My opinion: HAWK Signals are total BS.

And re: backplate color: The new (since 2009) MUTCD allowing yellow reflective strips almost totally obliterates the purpose of dark colored backplates that the MUTCD requires. I won't be surprised if the next edition of the Manual allows yellow backplates.

[jakeroot]

Not a fan of how short those mast arms are. Other than that it's alright.

I mean, any longer wouldn't be necessary. The mast arm with the signals facing the camera is already longer than necessary. The mast arm facing away from the camera looks about right.

My opinion: HAWK Signals are total BS.

Yeah I'm not keen on them either. But agencies seem to like them, regardless of how well they actually work. I think if you plopped an engineer down in front of one for a day, and actually had them watch how drivers interacted with them, they'd change their view. I think we all know how poorly drivers understand the basics of their operation.

And re: backplate color: The new (since 2009) MUTCD allowing yellow reflective strips almost totally obliterates the purpose of dark colored backplates that the MUTCD requires. I won't be surprised if the next edition of the Manual allows yellow backplates.

Based on the draft, they don't seem to be changing their opinion. But I agree that it should be allowed. I see nothing wrong with all-yellow signals.

[Amtrakprod]

New HAWK Signal in Renton, WA:

HAWKs shouldn't be used on bike trail xings so this is not great. In general, HAWKs are a cool idea, but the alternating red, and the confusing bike compatibility sink it.

[RobbieL2415]

States like HAWK signals because they require drivers to actually give way at crosswalks.

[CoreySamson]

States like HAWK signals because they require drivers to actually give way at crosswalks.

Which the drivers probably would do, except there's not really any common knowledge of what to do when you encounter a HAWK, so they might not. My (very good) Driver's Ed curriculum online said nothing about them, and I'm sure that's the same for 99% of the population. If states really want to incorporate HAWKs, then they need to put them in Driver's Ed curriculum so people aren't confused when they see them. I'm pretty sure I don't even know what a HAWK does. Here's my guesses (and correct me if I'm wrong):

Dark: treat the HAWK as invisible
Flashing Red: Yield to pedestrians if they are present
Solid Red: Stop

My big beef about HAWKs is that why can't you use a normal traffic light instead? Drivers understand those.

[JoePCool14]

My big beef about HAWKs is that why can't you use a normal traffic light instead? Drivers understand those.

The whole point was that when the HAWK switches to flashing red, cars can proceed if there isn't anyone else trying to cross the road. The problem is that the flashing red resembles an active railroad crossing - something you are legally supposed to stop at. It's needlessly confusing for, I think an unworthy benefit. It's just not intuitive.

[EpicRoadways]

This is a very naïve question I know, but literally why do HAWKs exist? They don't seem to be any cheaper than a traditional RYG pedestrian signal setup and they go against most logic we're taught in driver's ed. I was taught that if a signal is dark (and not covered by tarp or otherwise obviously not in use) that you should treat it as an all-way stop. I've had several situations with my hometown HAWK signal where drivers will either slow way down or stop because they think the signal is having some sort of maintenance issue and that's why it's dark. And don't even get me started on what happens when someone actually has to cross. Most drivers just ignore the flashing lights because they assume they are the same as the single flashing yellow beacons and meant simply as an advisory not as a mandate to stop. I've had two close calls at that HAWK signal before and I actively avoid it now. Just do what was done for decades before the HAWK and have a pedestrian signal that stays green until manually activated by someone who needs to cross. I know deep down that there must be some advantage to the HAWK or it wouldn't have ever been implemented but like the saying goes... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[thenetwork]

Here's one in Durango, CO.

1205 US-550
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZLU3atVycqDq7JsWA

This crosswalk HAWK doubles as a Fire Station signal, which really Fubars drivers, because some will wait the ENTIRE cycle thinking an emergency vehicle may be coming out.

Can't tell you how many times I've had to wait for those uneducated drivers who insist on waiting until all the lights go off before proceeding.

[JoePCool14]

Yeah, this one seems particularly bad. The way the crosswalk is offset from the lights is really not good. Using a HAWK for dual purpose like that only makes the situation worse. A regular traffic signal would be more clear.

[SignBridge]

In the Manual the primary stated reason for HAWK signals is as follows in Sec.4F.01.02: A pedestrian hybrid beacon may be considered for installation to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants.

My guess is the real reason they are used is that they are less expensive to engineer and install than a conventional traffic signal. In the end most such things almost always come down to less monetary cost.

I completely agree with the above posters about them not being intuitive and well understood by many drivers. A good point was made about the wig-wag flashing similar to a rail crossing signal. How the FHWA could have allowed the same type signal to mean two different things is beyond my understanding. Once again (just like with APL BGS's), they have created a problem where there wasn't one before.

[hotdogPi]

In the Manual the primary stated reason for HAWK signals is as follows in Sec.4F.01.02: A pedestrian hybrid beacon may be considered for installation to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants.

My guess is the real reason they are used is that they are less expensive to engineer and install than a conventional traffic signal. In the end most such things almost always come down to less monetary cost.

I completely agree with the above posters about them not being intuitive and well understood by many drivers. A good point was made about the wig-wag flashing similar to a rail crossing signal. How the FHWA could have allowed the same type signal to mean two different things is beyond my understanding. Once again (just like with APL BGS's), they have created a problem where there wasn't one before.

Resting on green until pressed with no cross street is not a conventional traffic signal.

By the way, wig-wag flashing red means the same thing in both cases (if there's no gate, in the case of a train crossing): stop until the train or pedestrian has passed and it's clear, then you can go, even if it's still flashing.

[SignBridge]

1, Point taken about the wig-wag RR crossing signal, at least in New York State. (VTL Sec. 1170)

When I said conventional traffic signal, I meant one with red, yellow, and green lights with the customary meanings of each color.

[CoreySamson]

My guess is the real reason they are used is that they are less expensive to engineer and install than a conventional traffic signal. In the end most such things almost always come down to less monetary cost.

But are they really? They have the same amount of signal orbs as a normal signal, the hardware holding them up is basically the same (to my knowledge), and the fact that they are put on timers at different times of day probably adds to the cost. I don't really see how they can be much cheaper than a regular signal.

[Caps81943]

And re: backplate color: The new (since 2009) MUTCD allowing yellow reflective strips almost totally obliterates the purpose of dark colored backplates that the MUTCD requires. I won't be surprised if the next edition of the Manual allows yellow backplates.

Based on the draft, they don't seem to be changing their opinion. But I agree that it should be allowed. I see nothing wrong with all-yellow signals.

Virginia's new signals are basically all-yellow anyway.

[jakeroot]

My guess is the real reason they are used is that they are less expensive to engineer and install than a conventional traffic signal. In the end most such things almost always come down to less monetary cost.

But are they really? They have the same amount of signal orbs as a normal signal, the hardware holding them up is basically the same (to my knowledge), and the fact that they are put on timers at different times of day probably adds to the cost. I don't really see how they can be much cheaper than a regular signal.

Based on the number of fully-signalized red-yellow-green crossings I see here in Washington State, the cost is not any different.

The HAWK is popular for the same reason that roundabouts are popular: because they're something new with some recent data behind them and agencies look good when they install them.

And re: backplate color: The new (since 2009) MUTCD allowing yellow reflective strips almost totally obliterates the purpose of dark colored backplates that the MUTCD requires. I won't be surprised if the next edition of the Manual allows yellow backplates.

Based on the draft, they don't seem to be changing their opinion. But I agree that it should be allowed. I see nothing wrong with all-yellow signals.

Virginia's new signals are basically all-yellow anyway.

Well, and a couple new ones in Renton are literally all yellow anyways (which was really the point of my picture  -- I don't care much about the HAWK).

[interstatefan990]

In the Manual the primary stated reason for HAWK signals is as follows in Sec.4F.01.02: A pedestrian hybrid beacon may be considered for installation to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants.

My guess is the real reason they are used is that they are less expensive to engineer and install than a conventional traffic signal. In the end most such things almost always come down to less monetary cost.

I completely agree with the above posters about them not being intuitive and well understood by many drivers. A good point was made about the wig-wag flashing similar to a rail crossing signal. How the FHWA could have allowed the same type signal to mean two different things is beyond my understanding. Once again (just like with APL BGS's), they have created a problem where there wasn't one before.

Honestly, I feel like if transportation officials determine that a location is insufficient to warrant a signal but still are looking to increase pedestrian safety, they should just install pedestrian-activated RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) at the crosswalks, not HAWKs. They are much cheaper to install and operate, provide a clearer message, decrease waiting times, and leave way less doubt as to whether a pedestrian is actually present or not. In my honest opinion I believe if they were used universally and drivers always knew that flashing orange lights below a ped sign meant someone was about to cross, pedestrian safety around the nation would be significantly improved.

Here's an article that explains the benefits of RRFBs and basically states that when it comes to motorist compliance they're on par with conventional traffic signals and HAWKs:

https://resources.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/bikeped/workshops/documents/7_DPS201_RRFB.pdf

[jakeroot]

Three different levels of mast-mounted signals at this North Vancouver (BC) intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/1MEZ9gkBT5RiCEMc6

(If you're not sure what I mean...just click the link).

[kphoger]

The whole point was that when the HAWK switches to flashing red, cars can proceed if there isn't anyone else trying to cross the road.

This is a very naïve question I know, but literally why do HAWKs exist?

That was answered in the post immediately before yours.

[jakeroot]

That was answered in the post immediately before yours.

Yes, but also no. JoePCool14 explained how the HAWK works, but not why they need to exist.

Solid red to flashing red is a function of regular red-yellow-green 3-orb traffic signals as well. The HAWK does not offer any unique functionality not already possible with a regular traffic light.