Differing Types of Pedestrian Crosswalk Signals

[Brandon]

Recently, I went on a trip that included significant mileage in British Columbia.  Going there, I noticed that they used flashing green signals to denote signals used for pedestrian crosswalks.  I have also seen standard traffic signals (ryg) used for them as well as HAWK beacons.  I'm not really sure which one would be the best to use for them.  They all seem to have their positive points and their flaws.  I've added a poll of out curiosity to see what others think.

[kphoger]

I voted "None".  Painted stripes and maybe a warning sign.  That's it.

[hotdogPi]

I voted flashing green. Unfortunately, they're being phased out in Massachusetts, with only a few, mostly in the Peabody/Salem area, remaining.

[SkyPesos]

Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

[kphoger]

Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.  And, if no pedestrians are anywhere nearby, then why slow down?  But if you don't slow down, then WHOAAA!!

[jeffandnicole]

I'd go with the "rectangular rapid-flash LED flash beacons", which inform drivers a pedestrian may be crossing, but doesn't require them to stop unless the pedestrian is walking across the street.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

[Hobart]

I voted "other". I do like the concept of a HAWK, but don't like it because it uses alternating red flashing lights, which MUTCD explicitly says to avoid with beacons to avoid confusion with railroad crossing signals.

A better option would be a standard red, yellow, and green light, except the red flashes when pedestrians are being allowed to cross. This is the same idea as a HAWK signal, but without any confusion with railroad crossings.

[Brandon]

I'd go with the "rectangular rapid-flash LED flash beacons", which inform drivers a pedestrian may be crossing, but doesn't require them to stop unless the pedestrian is walking across the street.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

The trouble with these is that some municipalities try to enforce them as a stop sign or red signal.  We have a few (Elmhurst) like that around here.  The state (Illinois) was also toying with making them a mandatory stop when flashing.

[jeffandnicole]

I'd go with the "rectangular rapid-flash LED flash beacons", which inform drivers a pedestrian may be crossing, but doesn't require them to stop unless the pedestrian is walking across the street.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

The trouble with these is that some municipalities try to enforce them as a stop sign or red signal.  We have a few (Elmhurst) like that around here.  The state (Illinois) was also toying with making them a mandatory stop when flashing.

And obviously, they're wrong.  In no state statute is a flashing yellow light a mandatory stop.

[jdbx]

I strongly dislike HAWK signals because their meaning and how to treat them is so ambiguous to drivers. The fact that signs seem to always be posted on the explaining the meaning of the light sequence is an admission of their ambiguity and unfamiliarity.

In my area, there are 2 typical treatments for pedestrian crossings: At crossings of more minor 2-lane roads where additional warning is warranted, you will see the rectangular flashing yellow beacons.  IME, those are never ambiguous:  if they are flashing, there is probably a pedestrian nearby.  People generally yield to the pedestrian, and then proceed when clear.  At crossings of busier roads, especially with 4 or more lanes, a standard RYG traffic light is installed.  Again, completely unambiguous.  Everybody knows what to do when they see a red light.

I find it hard to see how the cost and operation of a HAWK is any better than a standard RYG traffic light. Perhaps you could argue that a HAWK provides a shorter delay for drivers, but I think that the ambiguity negates some of that advantage.

[froggie]

It's interesting that BC uses a "flashing green" to denote this because on the other end of Canada (specifically Quebec), a flashing green means something VERY different...namely a protected left turn.

For this reason, I would not suggest it for a pedestrian signal.

[Big John]

^^ Though the green flashes at a lot quicker pace to denote a protected turn than for a pedestrian crossing.

[jakeroot]

It's interesting that BC uses a "flashing green" to denote this because on the other end of Canada (specifically Quebec), a flashing green means something VERY different...namely a protected left turn.

For this reason, I would not suggest it for a pedestrian signal.

Doubtful. They've been using flashing green for pedestrian signals in BC for decades, and I know of no outstanding safety issues.

Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

[hotdogPi]

Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Are you saying there are more flashing greens in Massachusetts than eastern Canada?

[jakeroot]

Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Are you saying there are more flashing greens in Massachusetts than eastern Canada?

I'm slightly exaggerating, but there aren't likely that many flashing green-protected left signals left in Eastern Canada. To my knowledge, they have not been installed for several decades.

Any remaining protected-left flashing-green signals in Eastern Canada should be converted to bimodal flashing green arrow signals. Though to my knowledge, this transition is largely complete already.

Edit: I may be wrong and these are common in Quebec. They were rightly phased out in Ontario over a decade ago. Quebec needs to transition to arrows like all other provinces, so that flashing green means pedestrian crossing. It is the much more logical use, we invented green arrows for a reason.

[johnandmegh]

Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.  And, if no pedestrians are anywhere nearby, then why slow down?  But if you don't slow down, then WHOAAA!!

And, this may sound ridiculous, but I don't think it's a good thing to condition drivers to expect the feeling of running over something with their cars in crosswalks...

[kphoger]

Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.  And, if no pedestrians are anywhere nearby, then why slow down?  But if you don't slow down, then WHOAAA!!

And, this may sound ridiculous, but I don't think it's a good thing to condition drivers to expect the feeling of running over something with their cars in crosswalks...

I do remember one time, being in a car with someone, we went over a raised crosswalk–and the other person said, startled, "What was that!"

[jakeroot]

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.

Raised crossings could use an entirely different kind of material. If the road is pavement, they could be concrete. If the road is concrete, the raised crossing could be asphalt. This would allow them to stand out regardless of paint.

Also, raised crossings are supposed to have warning signs that indicate their presence, so if the arrow or crosswalk markings are faded, they can still be located by drivers.

[kphoger]

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.

Raised crossings could use an entirely different kind of material. If the road is pavement, they could be concrete. If the road is concrete, the raised crossing could be asphalt. This would allow them to stand out regardless of paint.

Also, raised crossings are supposed to have warning signs that indicate their presence, so if the arrow or crosswalk markings are faded, they can still be located by drivers.

1.  A different type of pavement is less useful after dark.  I have a similar problem with speed bumps in Mexico;  some of them are concrete painted yellow and, when the paint fades, it can still be quite difficult to notice them in time after dark.

2.  Is there a warning sign in the MUTCD specific to raised crosswalks?  I'm not seeing one after a quick glance at the manual.  The closest I see is W17-1 (SPEED HUMP).  While this does warn a driver to slow down, it is not a crosswalk warning sign.

One that I'm specifically thinking of here in Wichita is this one.  A lot of the time, this location lies in the shadow of a building.  The only warning signage is a W17-1, which should be helpful, except that it's only on the righthand side of the road and I'm usually driving in the left lane.

[SkyPesos]

2.  Is there a warning sign in the MUTCD specific to raised crosswalks?  I'm not seeing one after a quick glance at the manual.  The closest I see is W17-1 (SPEED HUMP).  While this does warn a driver to slow down, it is not a crosswalk warning sign.

One that I'm specifically thinking of here in Wichita is this one.  A lot of the time, this location lies in the shadow of a building.  The only warning signage is a W17-1, which should be helpful, except that it's only on the righthand side of the road and I'm usually driving in the left lane.

At one of the raised crossings in Cincinnati (on Vine St in OTR), there's the standard pedestrian crossing sign, with a banner below it saying "HUMP". I think this is a pretty good warning sign for raised crosswalks

[thenetwork]

A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

[jeffandnicole]

A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

There shouldn't be conflicting signs near each other.  If there are, then whoever purchased one of the signs made a mistake. 

[Revive 755]

A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

Problem is there is a lot of inconsistency in some states like Missouri where it seems like around 50% of the signs say yield, 50% say to stop.

[vdeane]

A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

There shouldn't be conflicting signs near each other.  If there are, then whoever purchased one of the signs made a mistake. 

There's enough of a distinction that it's something that pedestrian advocates fight to get legally changed.  IIRC, "stop" means that one must stop if a pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk, even if they've already cleared your lane, while "yield" means exactly what it sounds like.

As for the inconsistency, I'm guessing it's a result of most people not knowing that there's a difference between the two.

[kphoger]

There's enough of a distinction that it's something that pedestrian advocates fight to get legally changed.  IIRC, "stop" means that one must stop if a pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk, even if they've already cleared your lane, while "yield" means exactly what it sounds like.

As for the inconsistency, I'm guessing it's a result of most people not knowing that there's a difference between the two.

And in fact, in states whose vehicle code follows the UVC, it's not even as clear-cut as one might hope.  What exactly counts as "so closely ... as to be in danger"?

(Also notice how Illinois modified the UVC in this case.)

Chapter 11 — Rules of the Road

Article V — Pedestrians' Rights and Duties

§ 11-502 — Pedestrians' right of way in crosswalks

(a)  When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to yield to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

Vehicles

625 ILCS 5/ — Illinois Vehicle Code

Chapter 11 — Rules of the Road

Article X — Pedestrians' Rights and Duties

§ 11-1002 — Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks

(a)  When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.