Grapevine, Texas: Today, i took a stroll down Main St in Grapevine, Texas. I noticed that the HAWK signals that were installed earlier this year were confusing the fudge out of drivers. Almost none of them knew what do to. The biggest issue was that they were stopping when the signals were dark. The second biggest issue was that they did not know that they could go during the flashing phase one the pedestrians were out of the way. This was actually causing increased congestion. A third issue is that these signals only serve pedestrians, and they screw vehicles on the side streets. Traffic on Main St is very heavy ,and drivers coming from side streets were having to take advantage of the cluelessness of Main St drivers, and go when they did not have right-of-way. It was the only way they could get out.
For all these reasons, I say these intersections should have normal traffic signals.
Also, at Hudgins Av, there is still a crosswalk with overhead emergency-vehicle-type pedestrian-activated amber lights, which now is a consistency issue.
Just like with roundabouts, the government has introduced a new road feature without making any effort to properly educating drivers.
Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9375539,-97.0789558,1446m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9375539,-97.0789558,1446m/data=!3m1!1e3)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fflic.kr%2Fp%2F2jFXgdQ%255D%255Bimg%2520width%3D640%2520height%3D425%255Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flive.staticflickr.com%2F65535%2F50335240076_061b24297d_z.jpg&hash=0c280674016e3627274b1ea5606636eaca27af05)[/url]DSC_0182 (https://flic.kr/p/2jFXgdQ) by Brian Kosich (https://www.flickr.com/photos/165116087@N06/), on Flickr[/img]
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50335240076_061b24297d_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jFXgdQ)DSC_0182 (https://flic.kr/p/2jFXgdQ) by Brian Kosich (https://www.flickr.com/photos/165116087@N06/), on Flickr
The installation pictured does not comply with the National edition of the MUTCD.
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD 4F.02 Paragraph 08A CROSSWALK STOP ON RED (symbolic circular red) (R10-23) sign (see Section 2B.53) shall be mounted adjacent to a pedestrian hybrid beacon face on each major street approach. If an overhead pedestrian hybrid beacon face is provided, the sign shall be mounted adjacent to the overhead signal face.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 12, 2020, 07:13:31 PM
The installation pictured does not comply with the National edition of the MUTCD.
Quoteauthor=2009 MUTCD 4F.02 Paragraph 08]A CROSSWALK STOP ON RED (symbolic circular red) (R10-23) sign (see Section 2B.53) shall be mounted adjacent to a pedestrian hybrid beacon face on each major street approach. If an overhead pedestrian hybrid beacon face is provided, the sign shall be mounted adjacent to the overhead signal face.
I had to tinker with the coding that was auto-generated when I tried to quote you to prevent my text from being included in the quote. Anyway,
The ones in McAlester, OK have those, but they still don't tell drivers what to do if no lights are illuminated
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9327983,-95.7672862,3a,19.3y,292.22h,94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYpnDPcAlRPYSImxh9HKObg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9327983,-95.7672862,3a,19.3y,292.22h,94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYpnDPcAlRPYSImxh9HKObg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: Brian556 on September 12, 2020, 06:36:04 PM
Grapevine, Texas: Today, i took a stroll down Main St in Grapevine, Texas. I noticed that the HAWK signals that were installed earlier this year were confusing the fudge out of drivers. Almost none of them knew what do to. The biggest issue was that they were stopping when the signals were dark. The second biggest issue was that they did not know that they could go during the flashing phase one the pedestrians were out of the way. This was actually causing increased congestion. A third issue is that these signals only serve pedestrians, and they screw vehicles on the side streets. Traffic on Main St is very heavy ,and drivers coming from side streets were having to take advantage of the cluelessness of Main St drivers, and go when they did not have right-of-way. It was the only way they could get out.
For all these reasons, I say these intersections should have normal traffic signals.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 12, 2020, 07:13:31 PM
The installation pictured does not comply with the National edition of the MUTCD.
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD 4F.02 Paragraph 08A CROSSWALK STOP ON RED (symbolic circular red) (R10-23) sign (see Section 2B.53) shall be mounted adjacent to a pedestrian hybrid beacon face on each major street approach. If an overhead pedestrian hybrid beacon face is provided, the sign shall be mounted adjacent to the overhead signal face.
Although only guidance, the national MUTCD also recommends that pedestrian hybrid beacons be installed at least 100 feet from a side street or driveway that is stop or yield controlled. This was installed right at an intersection. If they were going to do that, they might as well have installed a regular signal.
IMHO, the HAWK was the worst thing introduced in the 2009 MUTCD. I think there should have been more study before adopting it, or examination of something else more intuitive.
They need better signage, such as this used in Cambridge MA: (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200913/ae89fe0458cb0c55a55819cd00fc9670.jpg)
iPhone
I was stopped by a HAWK today (first time). Half the drivers seemed lost.
I went through one a few months back. I was at the front of the pack. Once the lights started flashing, I proceeded. Car next to me went almost immediately; cars behind us just didn't even stop.
I don't know who the hell thought these were smart. Compliance is abysmal. I give them another ten years max before being redacted.
I've not seen another country that uses any signal like this. Even the UK's very unique pedestrian signals use regular three-head traffic signals.
Drivers everywhere recognize the three-head traffic signal and its basic meanings (caution on flashing yellow, proceed after stop on flashing red, four way stop when dark) ... don't fuck with this.
What's strange about apparent driver comprehension is that, if it were a plain flashing red light, they would all know what to do. But, when a HAWK goes to flashing red mode, nobody seems to know what to do.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2020, 03:19:48 AM
I went through one a few months back. I was at the front of the pack. Once the lights started flashing, I proceeded. Car next to me went almost immediately; cars behind us just didn't even stop.
I don't know who the hell thought these were smart. Compliance is abysmal. I give them another ten years max before being redacted.
I've not seen another country that uses any signal like this. Even the UK's very unique pedestrian signals use regular three-head traffic signals.
Drivers everywhere recognize the three-head traffic signal and its basic meanings (caution on flashing yellow, proceed after stop on flashing red, four way stop when dark) ... don't fuck with this.
What about the ones near a roundabout entrance/exit? I almost got rear ended one time when I was making a full stop on the flashing reds in Dover, NH (https://youtu.be/rahWFVv0qMI?t=175)... people just blow thru the solid and flashing red phases especially exiting the circle.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:09:29 AM
What's strange about apparent driver comprehension is that, if it were a plain flashing red light, they would all know what to do. But, when a HAWK goes to flashing red mode, nobody seems to know what to do.
My observation with HAWKs is that compliance tends to be better in regions that both a) have a lot of them and b) have had them for a while. As an example, compliance tends to be pretty good in Utah, where there are quite a few at midblock crossings in Salt Lake City and at other busy pedestrian crossings around the metro areas. But Atlanta doesn't have nearly as many of them, so compliance there is far worse. In particular, what people in Atlanta suck at most is they don't realize you can go on the flashing red after stopping if there are no pedestrians.
The signage that accompanies the signal is probably a major determining factor in how the average local driver treats it. In Salt Lake, the standard sign that accompanies a HAWK reads "stop on red / stop on flashing red then proceed if clear (https://goo.gl/maps/prHCtrgZ4HAGeGiN6)". The equivalent sign in Atlanta only has "stop on red (https://goo.gl/maps/bEBx2NSLam2J9nPU6)".
Quote from: US 89 on September 15, 2020, 11:30:41 AM
....
The signage that accompanies the signal is probably a major determining factor in how the average local driver treats it. In Salt Lake, the standard sign that accompanies a HAWK reads "stop on red / stop on flashing red then proceed if clear (https://goo.gl/maps/prHCtrgZ4HAGeGiN6)". The equivalent sign in Atlanta only has "stop on red (https://goo.gl/maps/bEBx2NSLam2J9nPU6)".
Both the District of Columbia (https://goo.gl/maps/ufS5zyjoP3Z1bT5D8) and Alexandria, Virginia (https://goo.gl/maps/rdH7v84ccjypdMJx8), amended their signage for exactly that reason. The signs originally didn't say what to do on flashing red (https://goo.gl/maps/8hXKN1NRugkjP6cR8). (That latter link should show the Alexandria HAWK signal in 2009. Clicking through the old Street View images shows the signs were changed sometime between 2014 and 2017.)
What's even worse is when there's a HAWK-like emergency signal (stop on flashing red) and a "real" HAWK signal (stop on flashing red then proceed) next to each other. Two signals that look the same, yet drivers are supposed to behave differently.
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
Quote from: DRMan on September 15, 2020, 12:33:37 PM
What's even worse is when there's a HAWK-like emergency signal (stop on flashing red) and a "real" HAWK signal (stop on flashing red then proceed) next to each other. Two signals that look the same, yet drivers are supposed to behave differently.
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
flashing red = stop, then continue when it's safe to do so
solid red = remain stopped (unless you're turning right)
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: DRMan on September 15, 2020, 12:33:37 PM
What's even worse is when there's a HAWK-like emergency signal (stop on flashing red) and a "real" HAWK signal (stop on flashing red then proceed) next to each other. Two signals that look the same, yet drivers are supposed to behave differently.
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
flashing red = stop, then continue when it's safe to do so
solid red = remain stopped (unless you're turning right)
Yes, you're right. The signage confused me but a look at MUTCD confirmed that, at emergency signals, drivers are to stop and then proceed on flashing red. The signage should be changed to make that clear.
But the real inconsistency (and what I was thinking of in the first place) is that the steady red aspect is _optional_ on the emergency signal vs. mandatory with the HAWK.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 09:09:29 AM
What's strange about apparent driver comprehension is that, if it were a plain flashing red light, they would all know what to do. But, when a HAWK goes to flashing red mode, nobody seems to know what to do.
I don't think we give enough drivers credit for recognizing the basics, like a
single flashing red light meaning stop and then proceed when clear. Adjacent flashing red signals were only ever used at at-grade railway crossings, and we were taught to stop and never move until they stop blinking. I'm more surprised that drivers are willing to blow through them without stopping, since the same signal at a railway means "stop and wait until lights stop flashing".
At any rate, adjacent flashing red signals have different meanings depending on whether there is an adjacent crossbuck. That's dumb.
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 15, 2020, 10:35:03 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2020, 03:19:48 AM
I went through one a few months back. I was at the front of the pack. Once the lights started flashing, I proceeded. Car next to me went almost immediately; cars behind us just didn't even stop.
I don't know who the hell thought these were smart. Compliance is abysmal. I give them another ten years max before being redacted.
I've not seen another country that uses any signal like this. Even the UK's very unique pedestrian signals use regular three-head traffic signals.
Drivers everywhere recognize the three-head traffic signal and its basic meanings (caution on flashing yellow, proceed after stop on flashing red, four way stop when dark) ... don't fuck with this.
What about the ones near a roundabout entrance/exit? I almost got rear ended one time when I was making a full stop on the flashing reds in Dover, NH (https://youtu.be/rahWFVv0qMI?t=175)... people just blow thru the solid and flashing red phases especially exiting the circle.
I can see why they were installed there (since roundabouts sometimes have not-so-good compliance with pedestrian give-way rules), but I don't think they're brilliant. I'd rather an RRFB or single flashing red orb were used instead.
I still feel pretty strongly that HAWK was a solution looking for a problem to solve. There are many pedestrian trail crossings in my area, and they all employ traditional pedestrian-actuated R-Y-G traffic lights. Compliance is good, and there is zero confusion.
Here are a couple very clear and obvious examples:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.947841,-122.0805969,3a,75y,103.32h,86.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAysDRIlAozwjAN1h1budJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9271014,-122.0406542,3a,75y,145.9h,85.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqgiCCZvAnhLL9tOfiQJJ6w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9263888,-122.0704748,3a,75y,261.91h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssalP3u4xkSuFFl2r4R65mw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
All of them are well-signed and the expectations are obvious for pedestrians and motorists alike. If a crossing is problematic enough to install a HAWK, then a R-Y-G will probably do the job better.
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
Quote from: DRMan on September 15, 2020, 02:45:34 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 15, 2020, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: DRMan on September 15, 2020, 12:33:37 PM
What's even worse is when there's a HAWK-like emergency signal (stop on flashing red) and a "real" HAWK signal (stop on flashing red then proceed) next to each other. Two signals that look the same, yet drivers are supposed to behave differently.
https://goo.gl/maps/SrJtdgqbznwJMZRS9
flashing red = stop, then continue when it's safe to do so
solid red = remain stopped (unless you're turning right)
Yes, you're right. The signage confused me but a look at MUTCD confirmed that, at emergency signals, drivers are to stop and then proceed on flashing red. The signage should be changed to make that clear.
But the real inconsistency (and what I was thinking of in the first place) is that the steady red aspect is _optional_ on the emergency signal vs. mandatory with the HAWK.
It's a bad idea to put the two types of signals that close to the other.
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
With all of the confusion and ambiguity around whether to stop or proceed at a HAWK signal, I do think that there is probably less time spent stopped in aggregate at a regular R-Y-G signal. Perhaps with better driver education.....
HAWK compliance seems very good around Boise, ID. I've never seen someone try to stop at a dark one, and I also don't think I've ever seen anyone wait longer than they had to at the flashing red phase. The worst thing I've seen (which really isn't bad at all) is occasionally someone will stop during the flashing yellow phase, a good 5 seconds or so before it turns red. Legitimately here, people are better at HAWKs than Roundabouts (where nobody signals when exiting here).
Well, I do have one bad experience with one in Nampa, as a pedestrian. Some asshole yelled out of his car something like "hurry up" at me while I was crossing, during the walk phase. I was walking at a completely normal pace, don't know what his problem was and what he would have done with the 5 seconds he'd have saved if I sprinted across the street.
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 05:08:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
With all of the confusion and ambiguity around whether to stop or proceed at a HAWK signal, I do think that there is probably less time spent stopped in aggregate at a regular R-Y-G signal. Perhaps with better driver education.....
??
Is the time between dark and dark longer for a HAWK signal than the time between green and green for a regular RYG ped signal? If not, then how do you figure?
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
This is why the Los Angeles ped xing is better. R-Y-G signals, but the red is a flashing red. One improvement to this would be a brief steady red at the beginning of the red phase to force a 7 second full stop. But with the flashing red, traffic is not stuck when the crossing is cleared.
Such as this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0460986,-118.2526003,3a,75y,234.25h,77.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKEEj5LLWrvJ15zYfHambKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
There are a lot of new fancy flashing signals which tend to mess with principal color coding. Which is fundamentally wrong.
So flashing red means stop; double that - stop for real, it is dangerous. Or now it means something else.
Plashing yellow may mean you have right of way or that you have to yield , or just ask for reading the message.
Dark signal may mean failure, or maybe just don't pay attention
This way MUTCD can get upgraded to all black-on-white variable messages and get done with it as color-coding no longer sends a message anyway.
I can attest that my driver education said absolutely nothing about HAWKs, and my driver's ed was pretty good. I think a normal traffic light would work just fine instead of these; they are a solution in search of a problem.
(P.S. I'm glad I'm on this forum and learned about these, otherwise, I could've put myself in a dangerous situation when encountered with one being a young driver. So thanks!)
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 05:09:32 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 05:08:26 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
With all of the confusion and ambiguity around whether to stop or proceed at a HAWK signal, I do think that there is probably less time spent stopped in aggregate at a regular R-Y-G signal. Perhaps with better driver education.....
??
Is the time between dark and dark longer for a HAWK signal than the time between green and green for a regular RYG ped signal? If not, then how do you figure?
That of course depends on the timing for the crossing itself. What I was alluding to is the non-zero number of drivers who will stop at a dark HAWK similar to a dark R-Y-G. The flashing phase could be a time saver for drivers if the crossing is clear, but again... it's ambiguous to some. The steady green ball of a R-Y-G is completely unambiguous. A darkened HAWK is a recipe for drivers stopping unnecessarily, as others in this thread have noted observing.
Quote from: CoreySamson on September 15, 2020, 06:11:32 PM
I can attest that my driver education said absolutely nothing about HAWKs, and my driver's ed was pretty good. I think a normal traffic light would work just fine instead of these; they are a solution in search of a problem.
(P.S. I'm glad I'm on this forum and learned about these, otherwise, I could've put myself in a dangerous situation when encountered with one being a young driver. So thanks!)
There is soooooooo much that drivers ed doesn't teach. It'll tell you the main things in the state you live in, and general stuff found throughout the country. But travel around the country, and guaranteed you'll run into situations that you just have to know how to deal with it.
No HAWKS in Metro STL yet, and from what I'm hearing that's a good thing. Encountered my first one on CA-133 just north of Laguna Beach this summer.
I take that back, there's a new HAWK in Kirkwood installed when they redid their Lindbergh signals in early 2020. It's at this crosswalk (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5951529,-90.4062993,3a,75y,332.24h,82.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR_HJoH9nTGtr9YtZiHwOUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/) and has yellow-reflector signals on a snazzy black mast arm.
Quote from: kalvado on September 15, 2020, 05:46:41 PM
Plashing yellow may mean you have right of way or ...
In what context does it mean that? As far as I'm aware, flashing yellow always indicates caution–
i.e. that you might need to slow or even stop.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 15, 2020, 05:46:41 PM
Plashing yellow may mean you have right of way or ...
In what context does it mean that? As far as I'm aware, flashing yellow always indicates caution–i.e. that you might need to slow or even stop.
In the context of flashing red-flashing yellow intersection. Then flashing yellow message is "conflicting traffic has an equivalent of a stop sign, you have the right of way, but beware - they will not be asking these questions in ER". Similar to stop and yield signs having unique shapes which can be identified from other directions.
Quote from: kalvado on September 16, 2020, 09:40:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 15, 2020, 05:46:41 PM
Plashing yellow may mean you have right of way or ...
In what context does it mean that? As far as I'm aware, flashing yellow always indicates caution–i.e. that you might need to slow or even stop.
In the context of flashing red-flashing yellow intersection. Then flashing yellow message is "conflicting traffic has an equivalent of a stop sign, you have the right of way, but beware - they will not be asking these questions in ER". Similar to stop and yield signs having unique shapes which can be identified from other directions.
Often, I suppose. But there are also flashing yellow beacons with no flashing red beacons. Especially atop warning signs but also overhead. Are those confusing too?
I don't assume a flashing yellow beacon means I have the right of way. Maybe it means there's a pedestrian crossing, in which case I
don't have the right of way.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 10:04:06 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 16, 2020, 09:40:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 09:06:58 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 15, 2020, 05:46:41 PM
Plashing yellow may mean you have right of way or ...
In what context does it mean that? As far as I'm aware, flashing yellow always indicates caution–i.e. that you might need to slow or even stop.
In the context of flashing red-flashing yellow intersection. Then flashing yellow message is "conflicting traffic has an equivalent of a stop sign, you have the right of way, but beware - they will not be asking these questions in ER". Similar to stop and yield signs having unique shapes which can be identified from other directions.
Often, I suppose. But there are also flashing yellow beacons with no flashing red beacons. Especially atop warning signs but also overhead. Are those confusing too?
I don't assume a flashing yellow beacon means I have the right of way. Maybe it means there's a pedestrian crossing, in which case I don't have the right of way.
Flashing yellow does mean caution, but because of the prevalence of beacons the secondary meaning of right of way has taken hold.
At an intersection with a permanent beacon, the flashing yellow does mean caution, to warn you of the intersection itself. Caution that peds may cross (which you would have to yield for, just like an unmarked intersection). Caution that cross traffic may cross as well, although cross traffic will likely face a flashing red and be required to stop for you, as you have the right of way. You should still caution for the possibility of cross-traffic, the same as if you had right of way against a side street 2-way stop.
This is different from a green light, where cross traffic faces a solid red and may not legally proceed across the intersection at all.
And nighttime flash works the same. The flashing yellow on the main cautions of the intersection, the possibility of cross traffic and pedestrians, but also provides right of way, since the other direction will have a flashing red. It is done to reduce delays in the overnight hours, cross street traffic is more likely to find a gap without needing to stop the main street traffic, so the nighttime flash operation converts the signalized intersection to a 2 way stop.
Are there any flashing yellow beacons at an intersection that do not also incorporate side street flashing red? I haven't yet seen one.
The above explains a lot of the hesitation for using the flashing yellow arrow which also means caution but has a distinct meaning of yielding as well. Fortunately, most states have adopted the FYA as there are benefits to doing so, but a number of the holdouts still rely on this potential confusion for not implementing it. MD and DE have instituted flashing red arrows in their place, but they are not nearly as useful as FYA.
So bottom line, while the normal meaning of flashing yellow is generally caution (and that absolutely holds for flahsing yellows near signs warning of curves or steep hills or heavy traffic ahead), what you caution for can be different. At intersections, you caution for cross-traffic, but maintain right of way. At intersections, FYA cautions for other traffic that you must yield to. Despite the ultimately different meanings, drivers seem to figure it out, as most drivers seem to yield at FYA.
[In retrospect, I believe it would have been better to implement a flashing green to denote caution with right of way at intersections, and have flashing yellow as the equivalent of a yield sign. But that's fictional talk at this point.]
Quote from: mrsman on September 16, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
....
The above explains a lot of the hesitation for using the flashing yellow arrow which also means caution but has a distinct meaning of yielding as well. Fortunately, most states have adopted the FYA as there are benefits to doing so, but a number of the holdouts still rely on this potential confusion for not implementing it. MD and DE have instituted flashing red arrows in their place, but they are not nearly as useful as FYA.
....
You're saying those states use a flashing red arrow to denote a permissive turn in the same manner that other states are using the flashing yellow arrow? That seems exceedingly annoying and it further seems like the type of thing drivers would quickly come to disregard.
Consider this example from near where I live (link below). The Street View link is from July 2017. Note the doghouse signal for the left turn. That doghouse was replaced with a flashing yellow arrow this summer, within the past month or so. Sometimes traffic coming the other way can be quite heavy, but look at the situation seen in this Street View. What point would there be in putting up a flashing red arrow that would presumably require drivers to come to a complete stop before turning left? There would be no point in it, and that's why my previous paragraph suggests that drivers would quickly come to disregard the flashing red arrow.
https://goo.gl/maps/tJSFU4YSMtXkeH726
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 16, 2020, 11:12:43 AM
You're saying those states use a flashing red arrow to denote a permissive turn in the same manner that other states are using the flashing yellow arrow? That seems exceedingly annoying and it further seems like the type of thing drivers would quickly come to disregard.
New York uses a flashing red arrow to denote that a full stop - rather than just a yield - is required before a permissive left turn, as described by this extremely wordy sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2272718,-77.282243,3a,15y,77.35h,93.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWOd3j2Zk8HqyfznNjJOV2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
I think it makes sense to require a stop at this particular location, because oncoming traffic is approaching at speeds of 65-70 mph, and with the offset turn lanes, it takes longer than you might expect to clear the intersection - particularly to clear the oncoming right lane, which has heavy truck traffic. It's easy to misjudge when rolling through at 10 or 15 mph, whereas your judgment is going to be significantly improved when starting from a complete stop.
But seriously, there's got to be a more concise way to get the point across than that sign. I'd rather just make the turn protected-only than expect drivers to comprehend all that in a few seconds.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 12:09:30 PM
it takes longer than you might expect to clear the intersection - particularly to clear the oncoming right lane, which has heavy truck traffic. It's easy to misjudge when rolling through at 10 or 15 mph, whereas your judgment is going to be significantly improved when starting from a complete stop.
On the other hand, it takes longer to clear an intersection when coming from a stop than it does when coming from a roll.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 12:16:27 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 12:09:30 PM
it takes longer than you might expect to clear the intersection - particularly to clear the oncoming right lane, which has heavy truck traffic. It's easy to misjudge when rolling through at 10 or 15 mph, whereas your judgment is going to be significantly improved when starting from a complete stop.
On the other hand, it takes longer to clear an intersection when coming from a stop than it does when coming from a roll.
But the point of the stop is to force you to make
sure you have enough time. It's pretty easy to roll up and take the corner at a decent clip thinking you've got plenty of time (especially since it's only about a 60 degree turn instead of a full 90), only to narrowly miss - or hit! - a truck or car barreling forward at freeway speeds.
I strongly dislike the left turns on this entire corridor, by the way. Some are protected, some are permissive, this one is the unique stop-before-yield combo. All the permissive ones are dangerous and too easy to misjudge; all the protected ones kill about five minutes of your time (shaking like a leaf in the median as the truck traffic roars by).
I wasn't trying to suggest that a flashing red arrow would never make sense; rather, I was responding specifically to mrsman's point that "MD and DE have instituted flashing red arrows in their place, but they are not nearly as useful as FYA." In other words, I was saying that widespread use of flashing red arrows instead of flashing yellow arrows, or traditional "doghouse" arrangements like we're used to in Virginia, would be exceptionally annoying.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
But the point of the stop is to force you to make sure you have enough time. It's pretty easy to roll up and take the corner at a decent clip thinking you've got plenty of time (especially since it's only about a 60 degree turn instead of a full 90), only to narrowly miss - or hit! - a truck or car barreling forward at freeway speeds.
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
Stopping before all left turns would obviously be silly, but then you have to do an exceptional job explaining why that particular NY intersection warrants such particular phasing. Especially since the right turn has a yield sign and you're only clearing two lanes. Most major corridors have trucks on them. What makes this intersection unique?
To me, the positive-offset left turns are extremely ideal when it comes to visibility. They are usually installed along divided highways to allow left turns to occur simultaneously (where they might overlap, especially if there's two left turn lanes), and to allow them to run permissively with better visibility than negative-offset left turns (larger median to your left than right).
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
I still hesitate to believe it's true at all.
Personally at least, I see little difference in perceiving a gap in traffic while rolling at 15 mph to doing so while stopped. I think what potential benefit the latter supposedly provides would be more than offset by the longer time it takes to clear the intersection. To my thinking, being in the oncoming lanes for longer is a riskier situation.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 02:59:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
I still hesitate to believe it's true at all.
Personally at least, I see little difference in perceiving a gap in traffic while rolling at 15 mph to doing so while stopped. I think what potential benefit the latter supposedly provides would be more than offset by the longer time it takes to clear the intersection. To my thinking, being in the oncoming lanes for longer is a riskier situation.
And I completely agree. I don't think stopping is necessary at all (note my second paragraph). I was just noting an inconsistency in the overall message.
The "being in the oncoming lanes for longer" argument is exactly why I always make sharper turns when making a permissive left: pull forward, hard-ish left (spending as little time in oncoming traffic as possible), exit the intersection. The "wait for a gap and then lurch forward, clearing everything at once" style of driving seems idiotic and dangerous to me, and results in corner clipping and failure to yield to pedestrians from what I've seen.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 03:47:41 PM
Out of curiosity, what's your usual practice for turning left into a five-lane avenue with TWLTL? Do you wait for the near half to clear, then turn into the TWLTL and wait for a gap in the far half? Or do you wait for a gap in both halves and complete your turn all at once?
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 16, 2020, 01:37:52 PM
I wasn't trying to suggest that a flashing red arrow would never make sense; rather, I was responding specifically to mrsman's point that "MD and DE have instituted flashing red arrows in their place, but they are not nearly as useful as FYA." In other words, I was saying that widespread use of flashing red arrows instead of flashing yellow arrows, or traditional "doghouse" arrangements like we're used to in Virginia, would be exceptionally annoying.
I agree with that, and didn't intend to sound like I was disagreeing. I was just pointing out a local example and some potential reasoning for it. Obviously, that's specific to that location and doesn't make nearly as much sense as the FYA, in general.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
Stopping before all left turns would obviously be silly, but then you have to do an exceptional job explaining why that particular NY intersection warrants such particular phasing. Especially since the right turn has a yield sign and you're only clearing two lanes. Most major corridors have trucks on them. What makes this intersection unique?
You could say that stopping is always safer than barreling. But the reason you can actually barrel at this one is because, as I mentioned, it's at a 60 degree angle, so the turn can be completed at a higher speed. You also have westbound (cross) traffic coming off a stretch of about 5 miles with no stoplights that looks mostly like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2306356,-77.2596533,3a,45.1y,267.06h,90.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stO2vf3F2PHIOGBbL8jZGwA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtO2vf3F2PHIOGBbL8jZGwA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.4405317%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) and functions as an expressway. Speeds of 70+ are not uncommon on that stretch, and drivers might not have adjusted to the changing character of the road, which has stoplights, businesses, etc. for several miles before switching back to full freeway as you get closer to Rochester.
If
I'm the one heading west and come around that corner to find an open road and a green light, you better believe I'm going full throttle to make sure I get through before it turns yellow. So you can imagine what happens if I'm coming out of the curve and dialing up my speed just as someone rolls up and decides they have enough time to roll through at 20-25 mph. You could also have a situation where someone turning left decides to go through without stopping on a yellow light, and there's an oncoming truck that they assumed was stopping that actually keeps going. That's happened more than once at this exact location.
So sure, maybe stopping is microscopically safer than barreling through at a standard 35 or 45 mph undivided intersection. But this one is very much
not that, so hopefully it's clear why requiring a stop to double-check your surroundings makes a bit more sense here than at many other locations.
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 04:01:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 03:47:41 PM
Out of curiosity, what's your usual practice for turning left into a five-lane avenue with TWLTL? Do you wait for the near half to clear, then turn into the TWLTL and wait for a gap in the far half? Or do you wait for a gap in both halves and complete your turn all at once?
Turning left into a road? I always turn into the TWLTL and then merge (even if there's no cars around). But this is also normal (and legal) practice in WA, and many roads with TWLTLs specifically have dedicated turn lanes only at signals to allow people to both merge into them, and turn left from them, at other intersections.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 04:24:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
Stopping before all left turns would obviously be silly, but then you have to do an exceptional job explaining why that particular NY intersection warrants such particular phasing. Especially since the right turn has a yield sign and you're only clearing two lanes. Most major corridors have trucks on them. What makes this intersection unique?
You could say that stopping is always safer than barreling. But the reason you can actually barrel at this one is because, as I mentioned, it's at a 60 degree angle, so the turn can be completed at a higher speed. You also have westbound (cross) traffic coming off a stretch of about 5 miles with no stoplights that looks mostly like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2306356,-77.2596533,3a,45.1y,267.06h,90.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stO2vf3F2PHIOGBbL8jZGwA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtO2vf3F2PHIOGBbL8jZGwA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.4405317%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) and functions as an expressway. Speeds of 70+ are not uncommon on that stretch, and drivers might not have adjusted to the changing character of the road, which has stoplights, businesses, etc. for several miles before switching back to full freeway as you get closer to Rochester.
If I'm the one heading west and come around that corner to find an open road and a green light, you better believe I'm going full throttle to make sure I get through before it turns yellow. So you can imagine what happens if I'm coming out of the curve and dialing up my speed just as someone rolls up and decides they have enough time to roll through at 20-25 mph. You could also have a situation where someone turning left decides to go through without stopping on a yellow light, and there's an oncoming truck that they assumed was stopping that actually keeps going. That's happened more than once at this exact location.
So sure, maybe stopping is microscopically safer than barreling through at a standard 35 or 45 mph undivided intersection. But this one is very much not that, so hopefully it's clear why requiring a stop to double-check your surroundings makes a bit more sense here than at many other locations.
No, I completely disagree that stopping is even microscopically safer than barreling through any left turn. The safety of a left turn has nothing to do with how long you stop and observe oncoming traffic. The only factor, really, is whether there is an adequate gap. To assume that drivers would ever need to stop to determine that is being needlessly cautious.
In your NY example, I get what you're saying about freeway speeds, et al. But drivers approaching that left turn have been in the left turn for how long by the time they reach the stop line? Google shows the full width of the left turn lasts for about 500 feet. That takes about 5 to 9 seconds to clear depending on your speed.
Best I can tell (https://goo.gl/maps/UzZaZo84MVA2LfoV6), traffic coming around that bend is plenty visible before the stop line. If you cannot determine whether you can safely turn in that time frame, then go ahead and stop and yield as necessary (it's not a green arrow after all!). But to try and say that every driver
must stop because you can only determine an adequate gap
after first stopping at the stop line, is simply asinine. There's no reason to stop if a competent driver can determine a safe gap prior to reaching that stop line. Hence the existence of signals that don't require a stop (and make up 99.999% of PPLT signals in the US).
I don't really care if drivers are going 100mph around that corner. I don't need to stop to make that turn safely if I can personally determine a gap to be adequate enough. Stop nannying me.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 16, 2020, 11:12:43 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 16, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
....
The above explains a lot of the hesitation for using the flashing yellow arrow which also means caution but has a distinct meaning of yielding as well. Fortunately, most states have adopted the FYA as there are benefits to doing so, but a number of the holdouts still rely on this potential confusion for not implementing it. MD and DE have instituted flashing red arrows in their place, but they are not nearly as useful as FYA.
....
You're saying those states use a flashing red arrow to denote a permissive turn in the same manner that other states are using the flashing yellow arrow? That seems exceedingly annoying and it further seems like the type of thing drivers would quickly come to disregard.
Consider this example from near where I live (link below). The Street View link is from July 2017. Note the doghouse signal for the left turn. That doghouse was replaced with a flashing yellow arrow this summer, within the past month or so. Sometimes traffic coming the other way can be quite heavy, but look at the situation seen in this Street View. What point would there be in putting up a flashing red arrow that would presumably require drivers to come to a complete stop before turning left? There would be no point in it, and that's why my previous paragraph suggests that drivers would quickly come to disregard the flashing red arrow.
https://goo.gl/maps/tJSFU4YSMtXkeH726
Most permissive lefts in MD are still handled by doghouse signals. However, I can't recall any FYA signals at all here.
There is one doghouse that was converted to flashing red arrow. Stops are required, but generally not done.
Here is Georgia @ Arcola in Wheaton, MD. This corner used to have doghouses. Now, those have been replaced with flashing red arrows, for whatever reason. The signalization still employs leading protected lefts, so there aren't any yellow trap issues to contend with.
The signalization of the arrow is as follows:
Green - yellow - red [very brief] - flashing red (during green orb cycle) - solid red (during yellow orb and red orb).
One problem is that there is no warning from permissive (flashing red) to prohibited (solid red). FYA signals usually have a solid yellow arrow as a warning that the permissive signal is terminating. Another problem is that the signalization may seem to prohibit a very common move of waiting in the middle of the intersection during permissive phase to wait for a gap. When the intersection is busy, one would generally need to wait for yellow orb or even red orb to complete the turn, yet the arrow is solid red during that time.
Not a fan.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0471388,-77.0520942,3a,37.5y,187.37h,93.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2gEEdF-NA4xeZqeJ1se22g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: mrsman on September 16, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
Are there any flashing yellow beacons at an intersection that do not also incorporate side street flashing red? I haven't yet seen one.
West Lake Sammamish Way & Northup Way. (https://goo.gl/maps/DfhKMZHYooztRfKP7) A louvered 3M light for a beacon no less, but with no flashing red for the side street.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 04:57:49 PM
No, I completely disagree that stopping is even microscopically safer than barreling through any left turn.
It wasn't me that suggested that, though. It was you:
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns ... ? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 04:57:49 PM
But to try and say that every driver must stop because you can only determine an adequate gap after first stopping at the stop line, is simply asinine. There's no reason to stop if a competent driver can determine a safe gap prior to reaching that stop line. Hence the existence of signals that don't require a stop (and make up 99.999% of PPLT signals in the US).
I don't really care if drivers are going 100mph around that corner. I don't need to stop to make that turn safely if I can personally determine a gap to be adequate enough. Stop nannying me.
Another thing I should mention more explicitly is the angle of the intersection. Because the side road is at an angle, you're going to be in the intersection for much longer than you would be at a normal intersection. And not only that, you're going to be heading directly
towards oncoming traffic for two car lengths or more
beyond the stop line, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2272718,-77.2821352,3a,67.5y,40.28h,80.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFlpsiRgR1rd5FJKIm8zVGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). This can be disorienting at any location, much less on a 55-mph expressway-type road like this one. And again, because the left turns are less than 90 degrees, you're going to be tempted to take them at higher-than-usual speeds.
I'm not accusing anyone of being incompetent and/or not able to judge a gap without coming to a complete stop.
However, when you factor in (a) the speed of oncoming traffic and (b) the angle and width of this intersection, I can say with 99% certainty that safety is the #1 reason for the stop requirement here. It's essentially a "reset" to make sure you
really check your surroundings and don't just barrel into the turn without paying attention, because that's a recipe for an accident given the intersection geometry. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but I can guarantee they didn't just randomly decide to add a stop requirement for fun. It's a weird location and clearly accident levels warranted some improvement, and I guess this was it. It's not perfect, but I get it.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 08:23:55 PM
It wasn't me that suggested that, though. It was you:
Note my response to kphoger above. I was trying to highlight your implication (that left turns can be made safer by stopping before the turn) by proposing the idea that all left turns are safer if done after a full stop. But more to highlight how that's insane:
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 03:47:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 16, 2020, 02:59:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
I still hesitate to believe it's true at all.
And I completely agree. I don't think stopping is necessary at all (note my second paragraph). I was just noting an inconsistency in the overall message.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 04:57:49 PM
But to try and say that every driver must stop because you can only determine an adequate gap after first stopping at the stop line, is simply asinine. There's no reason to stop if a competent driver can determine a safe gap prior to reaching that stop line. Hence the existence of signals that don't require a stop (and make up 99.999% of PPLT signals in the US).
I don't really care if drivers are going 100mph around that corner. I don't need to stop to make that turn safely if I can personally determine a gap to be adequate enough. Stop nannying me.
Another thing I should mention more explicitly is the angle of the intersection. Because the side road is at an angle, you're going to be in the intersection for much longer than you would be at a normal intersection. And not only that, you're going to be heading directly towards oncoming traffic for two car lengths or more beyond the stop line, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2272718,-77.2821352,3a,67.5y,40.28h,80.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFlpsiRgR1rd5FJKIm8zVGA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). This can be disorienting at any location, much less on a 55-mph expressway-type road like this one. And again, because the left turns are less than 90 degrees, you're going to be tempted to take them at higher-than-usual speeds.
I'm not accusing anyone of being incompetent and/or not able to judge a gap without coming to a complete stop.
However, when you factor in (a) the speed of oncoming traffic and (b) the angle and width of this intersection, I can say with 99% certainty that safety is the #1 reason for the stop requirement here. It's essentially a "reset" to make sure you really check your surroundings and don't just barrel into the turn without paying attention, because that's a recipe for an accident given the intersection geometry. Whether you agree with it or not is up to you, but I can guarantee they didn't just randomly decide to add a stop requirement for fun. It's a weird location and clearly accident levels warranted some improvement, and I guess this was it. It's not perfect, but I get it.
I went back on Google Street View, and I can see that the NY intersection in question used to have negative offset left turns with fully protected phasing. Around early 2012, this was switched so that the left turns had positive offset, dramatically improving the visibility of oncoming traffic. The idea that this is disorientating is patently false when positive offset left turns are
consistently considered the safest design for left turns (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09036/index.cfm). Left turns that point at each other, or worse, the median, are considered more dangerous. I know your argument is that the left turns are pointing at oncoming traffic; this is by design because it results in the best angle for visibility.
I won't go into specifics anymore than I have, but I will try and end with this: this left turn does not feature anything unique that necessitates a stop prior to the turn. The speed limit is well within reason for a permissive left, and importantly, the left turns are positive offset with excellent visibility of oncoming traffic. Maybe traffic can take the left turn at high speed, but that's seldom a factor in determining how to operate a left turn (typically, crash rate, number of approach lanes, and speed of
oncoming traffic are the big ones). This is largely because the speed of a left turn can vary widely based on numerous factors.
I will give NY credit for at least making this a permissive left, since it's a divided highway. But there's a reason most states don't use flashing red arrows. If it's not because they're widely ignored anyway (most drivers just cruise through them in MD), it's that drivers, more often than not, are able to determine a safe gap without stopping first, regardless of the angle of the left turn or the speed which it 'could' be taken at. In most states, if the speed of oncoming traffic isn't insane, the left turns have excellent visibility, and the crash rate is low, it will likely feature permissive phasing. This perfectly describes NY-104 @ Furnace Rd...so why the flashing red arrow? Most states might require a protected left for this
exact intersection because of the higher limit, but I know NY has plenty of permissive lefts across 55 mph roads.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 10:52:15 PM
The idea that this is disorientating is patently false when positive offset left turns are consistently considered the safest design for left turns (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09036/index.cfm).
It's not the offset turn lanes that are/could be disorienting. It's the angle of the side road, and the fact that the side road isn't immediately to your left, meaning you have that extended stretch of driving straight beyond the stop line before turning
and an extended amount of time spent in the intersection because you're crossing at a wider angle.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 10:52:15 PM
this left turn does not feature anything unique that necessitates a stop prior to the turn.
I'm not saying the stop before yield is the only or perfect solution, but the angle is certainly unique for a 55 mph expressway-type road.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 10:52:15 PM
...it's that drivers, more often than not, are able to determine a safe gap without stopping first, regardless of the angle of the left turn or the speed which it 'could' be taken at. In most states, if the speed of oncoming traffic isn't insane, the left turns have excellent visibility, and the crash rate is low, it will likely feature permissive phasing. This perfectly describes NY-104 @ Furnace Rd...so why the flashing red arrow?
I don't think that does describe it, though, because (a) due to the changing road character east of here, everyone's been cruising and doesn't want to miss the light, so the speed of oncoming traffic can border on insane, as I outlined several posts back, (b) even with good visibility, you've still got the weird offset and extended time spent in the intersection because of the angle of the side road, and (c) I'll post the data when I find it, but the crash rate is
not low. It's quite high because it's a weird intersection, and I have to assume the state was trying to improve that with the darn flashing red arrow that I've now spent more time defending than I ever wished to.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 11:41:41 PM
(c) I'll post the data when I find it, but the crash rate is not low. It's quite high because it's a weird intersection, and I have to assume the state was trying to improve that with the darn flashing red arrow that I've now spent more time defending than I ever wished to.
The intersection has not changed since it was rebuilt in 2012. The flashing red arrows
have been there the whole time (https://goo.gl/maps/gD56zxf152nXPFHP9), and the geometry is identical as well.
I do see now that, at some point between 2007 and 2009, the lights were changed to
"yield on green" doghouse signals (https://goo.gl/maps/gccSb7PNK1Pph74DA) (old approach
was protected-only (https://goo.gl/maps/6rUy98SpANjFpS7s6)). This surprises me since the massive negative offset usually precludes permissive phasing. This would tell me that the local jurisdiction (NYSDOT?) was very interested in allowing permissive phasing. Hence the rebuild, since I'm sure crashes would have been an issue at the old intersection given the terrible visibility with the negative offset. Since the current intersection has not changed since 2012, I would have to assume that things are going fine.
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 11:41:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 10:52:15 PM
The idea that this is disorientating is patently false when positive offset left turns are consistently considered the safest design for left turns (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09036/index.cfm).
It's not the offset turn lanes that are/could be disorienting. It's the angle of the side road, and the fact that the side road isn't immediately to your left, meaning you have that extended stretch of driving straight beyond the stop line before turning and an extended amount of time spent in the intersection because you're crossing at a wider angle.
I just don't see that as unusual. Most permissive left turns at larger intersections require drivers to pull forward and then turn. Many Vancouver arterials are like this when they meet roads with large medians. Good example
here (https://goo.gl/maps/SBM7eDJmpCgaWNmh9). Note that traffic pulls straight into the intersection before making a harder turn, regardless of whether there is a protected phase or not.
This intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/KnxxLvRU5Ghru9pu8) actually shows some guidance lines directing you pull forward several meters before turning. BC tends to use a lot of set-back stop lines, so the "pull forward then turn" maneuver is quite common.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 02:50:16 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
But the point of the stop is to force you to make sure you have enough time. It's pretty easy to roll up and take the corner at a decent clip thinking you've got plenty of time (especially since it's only about a 60 degree turn instead of a full 90), only to narrowly miss - or hit! - a truck or car barreling forward at freeway speeds.
Couldn't you say the same thing about all left turns (that don't have a green or solid yellow arrow)? That stopping prior to turning to ensure an adequate gap is much safer than barrelling through at-speed?
Quote from: webny99 on September 16, 2020, 08:23:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 16, 2020, 04:57:49 PM
No, I completely disagree that stopping is even microscopically safer than barreling through any left turn.
It wasn't me that suggested that, though. It was you:
So your position is that...
(1) Not stopping before turning left is safer in most circumstances;
(2) Stopping before turning left is safer at this specific intersection.
What
jakeroot and I are getting at is that the same logic you're using for the intersection in (2) seems like it could be equally applied to the intersections in (1)–
i.e. that any supposed benefit you've illustrated at this particular location could generally be applied to any other intersection, albeit to a lesser degree.
Also, we've drifted far afield of the new HAWK signal in Grapevine.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 09:25:32 AM
Also, we've drifted far afield of the new HAWK signal in Grapevine.
ask mods to rename the thread?
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 02:00:26 AM
The intersection has not changed since it was rebuilt in 2012. The flashing red arrows have been there the whole time (https://goo.gl/maps/gD56zxf152nXPFHP9), and the geometry is identical as well.
... Hence the rebuild, since I'm sure crashes would have been an issue at the old intersection given the terrible visibility with the negative offset. Since the current intersection has not changed since 2012, I would have to assume that things are going fine.
Right, but, from the DOT's point of view, it wouldn't really make sense to get rid of a supposed safety feature when rebuilding the intersection to improve safety.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 02:00:26 AM
I just don't see that as unusual. Most permissive left turns at larger intersections require drivers to pull forward and then turn. Many Vancouver arterials are like this when they meet roads with large medians. Good example here (https://goo.gl/maps/SBM7eDJmpCgaWNmh9). Note that traffic pulls straight into the intersection before making a harder turn, regardless of whether there is a protected phase or not. This intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/KnxxLvRU5Ghru9pu8) actually shows some guidance lines directing you pull forward several meters before turning. BC tends to use a lot of set-back stop lines, so the "pull forward then turn" maneuver is quite common.
Right, but what messes with expectations is that it's just a regular two-lane cross street,
not a wide four- or six-lane boulevard. Imagine if, in your first example, the stop line was exactly where it was, but the entire near half of the cross street did not exist and both directions of travel shared the far half of the cross street. Then it would be more comparable.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 09:25:06 AM
So your position is that...
(1) Not stopping before turning left is safer in most circumstances;
(2) Stopping before turning left is safer at this specific intersection.
(2) is accurate, but not (1). I think the difference between stopping and not stopping is negligible in most cases, the exceptions being intersections with high speeds, weird geometry, and/or other unique features. Those would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 09:25:06 AM
What jakeroot and I are getting at is that the same logic you're using for the intersection in (2) seems like it could be equally applied to the intersections in (1)–i.e. that any supposed benefit you've illustrated at this particular location could generally be applied to any other intersection, albeit to a lesser degree.
The supposed benefit is that it's safer, and I think at this intersection specifically, because of the geometry, it probably is, and I assume that's what the state deemed as well. At any other "normal" intersection, the difference in safety of stopping vs. not stopping is probably negligible. But if there's a pre-existing safety issue and/or higher than normal levels of accidents, then it
isn't just a normal intersection. I know that sounds circular, but I can't think of any better way to put it.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 09:25:32 AM
Also, we've drifted far afield of the new HAWK signal in Grapevine.
No worries; just take Furnace Road to NY 21, and NY 21 to Naples, where grapevines abound (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6223086,-77.397623,3a,27.3y,309.84h,100.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbbMVLw9ddyi1qEkk2J-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1).
Going to go back on topic about PHB/HAWK confusion...
Is this the reason why PHB's should not be installed ≤30m/100ft of a STOP/YIELD intersection? Especially at these two intersections (1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9178404,-71.3992332,3a,75y,250.59h,84.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa5AyOJsDRSK-tBe2dV34Bg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0326315,-71.0724812,3a,75y,359.29h,86.48t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjgioZM2JwyN0vg8i01Iing!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DjgioZM2JwyN0vg8i01Iing%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D67.5642%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)), I've always had these questions about these installs, especially on the side street:
1. By having the PHB signal facing the side street controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign, does the PHB trump the STOP or YIELD sign during the solid red phase (except for right on red)?
2. During the flashing red phase, does the intersection basically turn into an all way stop, then when the PHB goes to dark, it it pretty much a blind transition between all way stop to 2-way stop?
3.Is right on red after stop legal during the solid red phase? After all, it's just a normal solid red ball and usually "NO TURN ON RED" signs aren't posted at PHB's.
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2020, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 09:25:32 AM
Also, we've drifted far afield of the new HAWK signal in Grapevine.
No worries; just take Furnace Road to NY 21, and NY 21 to Naples, where grapevines abound (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6223086,-77.397623,3a,27.3y,309.84h,100.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbbMVLw9ddyi1qEkk2J-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1).
I don't see any hawks in the GSV you linked to.
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 05:19:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
This is why the Los Angeles ped xing is better. R-Y-G signals, but the red is a flashing red. One improvement to this would be a brief steady red at the beginning of the red phase to force a 7 second full stop. But with the flashing red, traffic is not stuck when the crossing is cleared.
Such as this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0460986,-118.2526003,3a,75y,234.25h,77.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKEEj5LLWrvJ15zYfHambKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I've always wondered why they can't incorporate PHB/HAWK phasing with a standard R-Y-G (or R-SY-FY) signal setup for cars... see phasing below:
1. Steady green or flashing yellow ball, pedestrians have steady DON'T WALK symbol.
2. Steady yellow ball for clearance.
3. Steady red ball with ~2 second clearance first, then pedestrians have the WALK symbol with vehicular traffic still having a steady red.
4. Flashing red ball (flashing in unison) while pedestrians have flashing DON'T WALK symbol.
5. Intersection clearance for a few seconds once it goes back to steady DON'T WALK, then back to #1 until another call is placed.
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 17, 2020, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 17, 2020, 09:25:32 AM
Also, we've drifted far afield of the new HAWK signal in Grapevine.
No worries; just take Furnace Road to NY 21, and NY 21 to Naples, where grapevines abound (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6223086,-77.397623,3a,27.3y,309.84h,100.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skZbbMVLw9ddyi1qEkk2J-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1).
I don't see any hawks in the GSV you linked to.
I was just getting us back to the Grapevine(s). That's a start, at least. :D
Quote from: fwydriver405 on September 17, 2020, 12:12:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 05:19:23 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 15, 2020, 04:59:20 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 15, 2020, 04:55:59 PM
better
Only if by "better" you mean that all traffic having to remain stopped when nobody is left crossing the street is "better".
This is why the Los Angeles ped xing is better. R-Y-G signals, but the red is a flashing red. One improvement to this would be a brief steady red at the beginning of the red phase to force a 7 second full stop. But with the flashing red, traffic is not stuck when the crossing is cleared.
Such as this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0460986,-118.2526003,3a,75y,234.25h,77.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKEEj5LLWrvJ15zYfHambKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I've always wondered why they can't incorporate PHB/HAWK phasing with a standard R-Y-G (or R-SY-FY) signal setup for cars... see phasing below:
1. Steady green or flashing yellow ball, pedestrians have steady DON'T WALK symbol.
2. Steady yellow ball for clearance.
3. Steady red ball with ~2 second clearance first, then pedestrians have the WALK symbol with vehicular traffic still having a steady red.
4. Flashing red ball (flashing in unison) while pedestrians have flashing DON'T WALK symbol.
5. Intersection clearance for a few seconds once it goes back to steady DON'T WALK, then back to #1 until another call is placed.
L.A.'s setup is similar except without step 3. The red is always flashing.
I finally found a video demonstrating this. Here is the great Fairfax Avenue with a ped xing signal mid-block between Rosewood and Oakwood. I recommend a larger screen.
Start at 2:35. As you cross Rosewood, look into the distance at the next signal going from green to yellow to flashing red. The driver on video reaches the cross-walk, stops and proceeds after pedestrians clear while it is still flashing red. Watch until 3:08.
While I would put in place a brief solid red before the flash, this is the best implementation of a mid-block crossing that I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObaoAUM0HO0
Quote from: mrsman on September 17, 2020, 06:10:38 PM
L.A.'s setup is similar except without step 3. The red is always flashing.
I finally found a video demonstrating this. Here is the great Fairfax Avenue with a ped xing signal mid-block between Rosewood and Oakwood. I recommend a larger screen.
Start at 2:35. As you cross Rosewood, look into the distance at the next signal going from green to yellow to flashing red. The driver on video reaches the cross-walk, stops and proceeds after pedestrians clear while it is still flashing red. Watch until 3:08.
While I would put in place a brief solid red before the flash, this is the best implementation of a mid-block crossing that I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObaoAUM0HO0
This, to me, is the best mid-block crossing design anywhere in the US:
* regular RYG traffic lights (seen throughout the US and the world)
* green when not in use (no dark phase which is supposed to mean 'stop')
* single flashing red orb has universal understanding
* just as efficient as a HAWK
* no explanatory signage needed
WHY IS THIS NOT THE STANDARD MIDBLOCK CROSSING DESIGN!!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!Better yet, why am I reading stories about LADOT
adopting the HAWK signal (https://laist.com/2019/09/25/hawk_pedestrian_crossing_beacon.php)? I'm getting PTSD over here. HAWKs improve safety over a yield crossing. I would
love to see data comparing them to the standard LADOT signalized crossing.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 07:16:53 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 17, 2020, 06:10:38 PM
L.A.'s setup is similar except without step 3. The red is always flashing.
I finally found a video demonstrating this. Here is the great Fairfax Avenue with a ped xing signal mid-block between Rosewood and Oakwood. I recommend a larger screen.
Start at 2:35. As you cross Rosewood, look into the distance at the next signal going from green to yellow to flashing red. The driver on video reaches the cross-walk, stops and proceeds after pedestrians clear while it is still flashing red. Watch until 3:08.
While I would put in place a brief solid red before the flash, this is the best implementation of a mid-block crossing that I have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObaoAUM0HO0
This, to me, is the best mid-block crossing design anywhere in the US:
* regular RYG traffic lights (seen throughout the US and the world)
* green when not in use (no dark phase which is supposed to mean 'stop')
* single flashing red orb has universal understanding
* just as efficient as a HAWK
* no explanatory signage needed
WHY IS THIS NOT THE STANDARD MIDBLOCK CROSSING DESIGN!!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!
Better yet, why am I reading stories about LADOT adopting the HAWK signal (https://laist.com/2019/09/25/hawk_pedestrian_crossing_beacon.php)? I'm getting PTSD over here. HAWKs improve safety over a yield crossing. I would love to see data comparing them to the standard LADOT signalized crossing.
It is an unfortunate reality. And to put salt in the wounds, the HAWK jakeroot refers to on 6th Street is only about 1.5 miles away from the RYG ped xing on Fairfax Ave of the video that I linked to. The Ped Xing lights are common in Downtown LA and a handful of other pedestrian zones. Fairfax is one of the more prominent pedestrian zones. There are two Ped xings on Fairfax between Rosewood and Beverly and a third Ped Xing just south of Olympic.
I follow LADOT on twitter and I responded to them when this HAWK on 6th was unveiled:
"The hawk is a step backwards for Los Angeles. They should really implement mid-block crossing signal like exists on Fairfax near Beverly."
Their non-response: "Happy you are a fan of our mid-block crossings too! The characteristics on 6th street were best for this HAWK pilot though."
I understand that the engineers aren't manning LADOT's twitter feed, so they give me a random twitter user a characteristic non response. Heck, I haven't lived in LA for 20 years, but I still try to stay connected. But it is really frustrating that this happened when we all know that a HAWK is less than ideal. I really feel bad for the peds who need to cross 6th street. Why introduce something new to L.A. drivers who all seem to understand how the signals on Fairfax work?
I think that the original PED XINGs are a L.A. invention, but the HAWKs have federal approval. So perhaps for funding purposes and perhaps for liability purposes, DOT deems it a wiser course of action to utilize the signal that is "federally approved" than to actually use what we all know works far better. But this reality does not make it less frustrating.
:banghead:
I would hate to think that the mid-block PED XINGs will only be allowed for those crossings that are grandfathered in and that every new mid-block crossing that is warranted will be a HAWK. But I fear that to be the case.
The world is backward. The L.A. signal should be the type that is studied by the feds for widespread funding and implementation. To the extent that there are any DOTs out there that are interested, at least there is a video that I located demonstrating its operation, since a picture is worth a thousand words. Too bad there isn't one dedicated to the signal specifically [at least I couldn't find one], but at least it is visible on a video on someone's random drive down Fairfax.
Personally, I'm not a fan of traditional R-Y-G signals used for ped crossings. But the HAWK isn't that desirable either. I would propose R-Y-FY.
Not activated would be flashing yellow to alert drivers that pedestrians could be in the area.
Once activated, it would cycle to yellow to alert drivers a change is happening.
Steady red during the walk cycle.
Flashing red during the "flashing don't walk" cycle.
Then return to flashing yellow.
I think this would clear up any confusion HAWKs cause for drivers. While also making drivers aware that they need to use caution in the area and not just fly on by on green.
As I've said before, eastern Massachusetts's use of flashing green seems to be a good solution. It's being phased out right now, though, and there are only a few left.
Quote from: CardInLex on September 18, 2020, 10:44:38 AM
Personally, I'm not a fan of traditional R-Y-G signals used for ped crossings. But the HAWK isn't that desirable either. I would propose R-Y-FY.
Not activated would be flashing yellow to alert drivers that pedestrians could be in the area.
Once activated, it would cycle to yellow to alert drivers a change is happening.
Steady red during the walk cycle.
Flashing red during the "flashing don't walk" cycle.
Then return to flashing yellow.
I think this would clear up any confusion HAWKs cause for drivers. While also making drivers aware that they need to use caution in the area and not just fly on by on green.
The key difference between flashing yellow and green are whether pedestrians would be allowed to cross when the signal is not red. If cars see green, peds are not allowed to cross, but if its a flashing yellow than peds can cross. I don't think we want to encourage peds to cross against flashing yellow, the whole point is to actually stop the cars with the red signal and then let peds cross.
Another issue is driver expectation. There are many flashing yellows that are always flashing yellows so many drivers do not expect that they will face a red at that intersection. And relatively speaking there are so few mid-block crossings compared to traditional RYG signals. Most drivers encounter RYG signals regularly and they know that a green signal may be green for the time being, but could eventually be a red.
Here is something similar to what you describe in my area. The one difference is that the red is always steady and doesn't flash (which is a shame as far as traffic delay). I can tell you that the vast majority of the time that I pass here its a flashing yellow and many drivers would be surprised to see a sudden red here. In fact, I can tell you that I used to cross regularly here and usually some cars would run right through the red signal. Compliance got better with some additional advanced warning signals, but that of course is extra money.
University at Reedie - ped crossing in Wheaton, MD
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0399287,-77.0429482,3a,75y,319.53h,83.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1vi99_EqqRe1eZJAlZpoIw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Advanced warning flashing yellow beacons about a block ahead of the ped crossing. The flashing yellows only come on when the signal is about to change to red or is already red. Spelling out a red signal ahead when flashing would be better.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0389625,-77.0416639,3a,75y,319.53h,83.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNCKiVZGMQpjS_oE9ej_ykg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I can tell you based on my own experiences that the compliance of cars along Fairfax Ave in LA is far better. The green signal is universally understood, including the possibility that a green signal will eventually turn red.
Quote from: 1 on September 18, 2020, 10:54:11 AM
As I've said before, eastern Massachusetts's use of flashing green seems to be a good solution. It's being phased out right now, though, and there are only a few left.
Is flashing green the resting indication for a mid-block crossing? That may be an answer here. It will still denote a signal that can change to red, unlike flashing yellows which have ultimately many meanings that involve some form of caution. At the same time, the flashing green is different from a steady green to warn drivers of the likely possibility of jaywalking, which I presume is why CardInLex prefers a flashing yellow to a green for a mid-block crossing.
I know flashing green is used in Canada, but not quite sure of its meaning there.
A while back, we discussed another configuration of flashing yellow that seemed to encourage jaywalking. It also involves LA:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26713.0
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
Quote from: 1 on September 18, 2020, 10:54:11 AM
As I've said before, eastern Massachusetts's use of flashing green seems to be a good solution. It's being phased out right now, though, and there are only a few left.
Is flashing green the resting indication for a mid-block crossing? That may be an answer here.
Of the few that are left, most are mid-block crossings. However, I know of at least one that's at a regular intersection, which should definitely be converted to a flashing yellow.
QuoteI know flashing green is used in Canada, but not quite sure of its meaning there.
It means different things in different parts of Canada. In Eastern Canada, it means it's an "advanced green"–the equivalent of a green arrow in the USA. If you want to turn left and you're approaching a flashing green, you should turn without stopping because opposing traffic has a red light.
I believe it has a different meaning in BC, but I haven't driven in that province and have only visited, specifically Vancouver, the one time (and I don't recall seeing any flashing greens), so I'm not sure what it means out there.
In British Columbia, flashing green orbs are used to indicate a cross-street that is pedestrian-activated. Vehicle-activated signals are always solid green.
More often than not, they are used at cross-streets, but I believe they can be used by themselves.
Key thing with the flashing green was not just to alert drivers that the signal was for pedestrians, but also that cars leaving the side-street had a stop sign and could enter the intersection. This is why it may be superior to solid green, as those give the appearance of drivers running a red light when used at cross-streets.
How ICBC defines the flashing green light: "watch for pedestrians, who may activate the pedestrian traffic light to change to yellow and then to red. Even if the pedestrian traffic light is not activated, traffic on the side street is facing a stop sign, and may be waiting to move into the intersection when it is clear and safe to do so."
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 07:16:53 PM
HAWKs improve safety over a yield crossing. I would love to see data comparing them to the standard LADOT signalized crossing.
I bet
anything would improve safety over a yield crossing. Flashing lights are more noticeable, no matter what lights they are. And, really, if people have no freaking clue what the lights mean, then they're probably going to be extra-cautious.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
The key difference between flashing yellow and green are whether pedestrians would be allowed to cross when the signal is not red. If cars see green, peds are not allowed to cross, but if its a flashing yellow than peds can cross. I don't think we want to encourage peds to cross against flashing yellow, the whole point is to actually stop the cars with the red signal and then let peds cross.
At first, I wasn't sure I agreed with you about that. I thought that perhaps it would be perfectly fine for peds to cross while traffic faced a flashing yellow light. After all, if it were a regular marked crosswalk and there were a flashing yellow beacon overhead, it would be basically the same thing, right?
But then I realized a key difference: it would encourage peds to cross the street without waiting for a WALK signal. Now, perhaps there might be legal hairs to split between a signalized
intersection and a signalized
mid-block crossing, but I think doing so would only add to the confusion.
So I personally would prefer FR-Y-G for mid-block crossings. I honestly don't think a solid red phase is necessary.
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
Another issue is driver expectation. There are many flashing yellows that are always flashing yellows so many drivers do not expect that they will face a red at that intersection. And relatively speaking there are so few mid-block crossings compared to traditional RYG signals. Most drivers encounter RYG signals regularly and they know that a green signal may be green for the time being, but could eventually be a red.
Other signals are usually flashing yellow and only occasionally display red... such as emergency signals/fire stations, and sometimes school traffic lights that are only operated when school is in session, and those aren't issues.
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2020, 01:12:51 PM
So I personally would prefer FR-Y-G for mid-block crossings. I honestly don't think a solid red phase is necessary.
The double solid red phase of a HAWK signal lasts the same amount of time as the Walking man (WALK) display. That seems reasonable and necessary to get pedestrians into the street and visible for a time without vehicular conflict, before the flashing red allows vehicles to start proceeding.
Quote from: roadfro on September 20, 2020, 05:36:10 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2020, 01:12:51 PM
So I personally would prefer FR-Y-G for mid-block crossings. I honestly don't think a solid red phase is necessary.
The double solid red phase of a HAWK signal lasts the same amount of time as the Walking man (WALK) display. That seems reasonable and necessary to get pedestrians into the street and visible for a time without vehicular conflict, before the flashing red allows vehicles to start proceeding.
The one argument against your position is that LA's implementation has never included that solid red phase, and these types of crossings are all over LA.
One argument might be that a solid red would further improve safety. But there's really no evidence to support that, other than that HAWKs include the solid red phase as well.
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 20, 2020, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
Another issue is driver expectation. There are many flashing yellows that are always flashing yellows so many drivers do not expect that they will face a red at that intersection. And relatively speaking there are so few mid-block crossings compared to traditional RYG signals. Most drivers encounter RYG signals regularly and they know that a green signal may be green for the time being, but could eventually be a red.
Other signals are usually flashing yellow and only occasionally display red... such as emergency signals/fire stations, and sometimes school traffic lights that are only operated when school is in session, and those aren't issues.
I would argue that (A) school zone flashers are beacons, not signals, and (B) flashing yellow emergency signals would/should be
much less commonly activated. Pedestrian signals, if genuinely warranted, would likely be activated far more frequently.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 03:41:45 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 20, 2020, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
Another issue is driver expectation. There are many flashing yellows that are always flashing yellows so many drivers do not expect that they will face a red at that intersection. And relatively speaking there are so few mid-block crossings compared to traditional RYG signals. Most drivers encounter RYG signals regularly and they know that a green signal may be green for the time being, but could eventually be a red.
Other signals are usually flashing yellow and only occasionally display red... such as emergency signals/fire stations, and sometimes school traffic lights that are only operated when school is in session, and those aren't issues.
I would argue that (A) school zone flashers are beacons, not signals, and (B) flashing yellow emergency signals would/should be much less commonly activated. Pedestrian signals, if genuinely warranted, would likely be activated far more frequently.
Not only that-- pedestrians are far more vulnerable. A pedestrian operates one of these signals and gets a WALK and cross traffic gets a red, so the pedestrian would assume that it is safe to cross. If drivers who drive by normally see a flashing yellow and suddenly see a red, they may not be aware of the stop and they will run the red light. I think the school zone flashers just shine a warning light, not a red light, and there is no expectation of drivers stopping any more that at a regular unsignalized intersection.
Yes, there is the possibility of drivers running the red light at an emergency signal as well, but the driver will (potentially) collide with a fire engine as opposed to a pedestrian. Also, there is the likelihood that the fire engine will also have a siren to further warn drivers.
Quote from: mrsman on September 22, 2020, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2020, 03:41:45 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on September 20, 2020, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 18, 2020, 11:30:33 AM
Another issue is driver expectation. There are many flashing yellows that are always flashing yellows so many drivers do not expect that they will face a red at that intersection. And relatively speaking there are so few mid-block crossings compared to traditional RYG signals. Most drivers encounter RYG signals regularly and they know that a green signal may be green for the time being, but could eventually be a red.
Other signals are usually flashing yellow and only occasionally display red... such as emergency signals/fire stations, and sometimes school traffic lights that are only operated when school is in session, and those aren't issues.
I would argue that (A) school zone flashers are beacons, not signals, and (B) flashing yellow emergency signals would/should be much less commonly activated. Pedestrian signals, if genuinely warranted, would likely be activated far more frequently.
Not only that-- pedestrians are far more vulnerable. A pedestrian operates one of these signals and gets a WALK and cross traffic gets a red, so the pedestrian would assume that it is safe to cross. If drivers who drive by normally see a flashing yellow and suddenly see a red, they may not be aware of the stop and they will run the red light. I think the school zone flashers just shine a warning light, not a red light, and there is no expectation of drivers stopping any more that at a regular unsignalized intersection.
Yes, there is the possibility of drivers running the red light at an emergency signal as well, but the driver will (potentially) collide with a fire engine as opposed to a pedestrian. Also, there is the likelihood that the fire engine will also have a siren to further warn drivers.
An obvious extrapolation from the RYG lights is to include 4-second all-red phase. WHich moves things a bit closer to RYG, though.
Update: Grapevine has installed explanation signs on the Hawks. Drivers are still confused as ever, though. They keep stopping when there is no indication, and I even saw one just remain stopped when all lights turned off.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50595633996_d8fc94d268_z.jpg)
DSC_0025 (https://flic.kr/p/2k5XRgb) by Brian Kosich (https://www.flickr.com/photos/165116087@N06/), on Flickr[/url]
Also, got a pic of the single-headed Hawk in Haslet on Schoolhouse Rd (Old FM 156)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50595762822_0a41f861eb_z.jpg)
10.30.2020.Haslet.Hawk.Old.156 (https://flic.kr/p/2k5Yvyj) by Brian Kosich (https://www.flickr.com/photos/165116087@N06/), on Flickr[/url]