New HAWK Signals Confusing Drivers in Grapevine

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[STLmapboy]

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 and has yellow-reflector signals on a snazzy black mast arm.

[kphoger]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[mrsman]

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.]

[1995hoo]

....

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

[webny99]

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.

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[webny99]

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).

[1995hoo]

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.

[jakeroot]

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).

[kphoger]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[kphoger]

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?

[webny99]

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.

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 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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[jakeroot]

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 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, 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.

[mrsman]

....

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

[ErmineNotyours]

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.  A louvered 3M light for a beacon no less, but with no flashing red for the side street.

[webny99]

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:

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?

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. 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.

[jakeroot]

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:

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.

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. 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. 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.

[webny99]

The idea that this is disorientating is patently false when positive offset left turns are consistently considered the safest design for left turns.

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.

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.

...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.

[jakeroot]

(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, 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 (old approach was protected-only). 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.

The idea that this is disorientating is patently false when positive offset left turns are consistently considered the safest design for left turns.

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. 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 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.

[kphoger]

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?

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.