HAWK Thread

[jeffandnicole]

...and now for the main reason I bumped the thread.

My father got a traffic ticket today, for proceeding through a HAWK signal during the flashing red phase (after coming to a complete stop, and bicyclists having cleared the crossing).

That caused me to go digging up the federal guidelines on HAWK...and I ran across this sign:



(Sorry about the quality -- it's from a FHWA guide.)

The best thing you can provide us: The statute number provided on the ticket. That'll tell us exactly what he was cited for.  If the officer provided any commentary on the ticket, that'll help as well.  For example - if he was actually cited for failing to stop at the stop line, or for not allowing the pedestrians to completely clear the intersection, he would need to fight this in a different manner.

https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2010/title-55/chapter-8/55-8-112/  This describes the law in TN for a flashing red light (they used 'rapid intermittent flashing' for some reason).  The important part here: "the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign".

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tdot/traffic-engineering/tdm-2018/TDOT%20Traffic%20Design%20Manual_Report_Chapter%2013_Aug2018.pdf  Page 1 provides a summary of the HAWK signal for Tennessee.

What's unfortunate here is the signage, and this is a MUTCD issue.  The signage says Stop on Red.  It doesn't say traffic may proceed on flashing red.  Worse, and roadfro is absolutely accurate: The MUTCD never says traffic can proceed on flashing red.  It simply terms it as a pedestrian clearance interval.  What's also unfortunate is that there doesn't appear to be a statute, rule or any other guidance as to a HAWK signal's flashing red signal.  The statute I cited above may be the best way to go about it.

So it's going to be up to the officer and judge's discretion here if you do try to fight it. If you can find something written by the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee, or Federal Government in regards to a HAWK signal, it's an ounce of gold towards helping your position (it's not solid gold, but it'll definitely help).

[jakeroot]

I usually try and find news stories about HAWK installations, since those usually get some official commentary by local road agencies that state exactly what each phase is for. Unfortunately, I can't find any such story. I see the signal was installed before 2012.

[MikeTheActuary]

The best thing you can provide us: The statute number provided on the ticket. That'll tell us exactly what he was cited for.  If the officer provided any commentary on the ticket, that'll help as well.  For example - if he was actually cited for failing to stop at the stop line, or for not allowing the pedestrians to completely clear the intersection, he would need to fight this in a different manner.[...]

Thanks, and understood.  I had that information, but appreciate the suggestions.  My intent in telling about my father's recent run in with a traffic cop was to provide a backstory on why I came across the picture of that sign from the FHWA website.

I'm not certain what he was cited for. I'll see the ticket for myself in a few days, and I'll go from there.  Mostly, I was sitting in a hotel, somewhat bored, but not really in the mood to go out wandering in the snow, and so I took the opportunity to kill some time.

And, FWIW, my read is that the key statutes at the state level are TCA 55-8-112, with TCA 55-8-145 as an example of how 55-8-112 extends to wigwag-style flashing red lights.  (Flashing red lights at railroad crossing = stop and proceed only if/when safe.)  That creates a reasonable expectation that a driver may proceed after coming to a complete stop if the crossing is clear given the ambiguity of the posted sign.

[rickmastfan67]

Stanley Roberts's back on the HAWK misbehaving people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OryIz0lH_F4

[clong]

For this argument, why is this not the case with emergency signals like at fire stations? I feel HAWKs should fully match those, possibly with the added flashing red phase at the end before returning to flashing yellow in the bottom of a 3 segment light.
[/quote]

I don't believe I've ever actually seen a stoplight-protected fire station, so I can't comment from personal experience.  But I would prefer either a green light or a dark signal in the absence of an exiting fire truck there as well.  I agree that uniformity is important here.
[/quote]

There are 2 fire stations in Birmingham that I encounter pretty regularly that have traffic signals. They both have flashing yellows normally that are labeled Emergency Signal that the fire station can activate to red when they are leaving for a call.

Occasionally, a confused driver will stop at the signal when it is flashing yellow, but not often.

[roadman]

2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.

Alternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.

Not for railroad crossings with gates.  And not for school buses either.

[UCFKnights]

Disney World uses them for its fire stations recently. At least where it will save money:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.4176493,-81.5899228,3a,47.6y,55.69h,85.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVy6Gq0n0UGtT78KHMKtIvA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I believe this signal is solar powered (and temporary for the construction), the lack of a light being on most of the time allows it to be solar powered. Another was installed where one of the arms got damaged and it eliminated the need for said arm.

The compliance rate is really low for them, too. I find it kind of shocking nobodys went back and looked at  the compliance rate of them to reconsider their approval. I honestly can't say I've seen one where the majority of people are compliant to what they're supposed to do. And if the compliance rate is that low... it needs to be revisited.

[MikeTheActuary]

2) that alternating red signals mean stop and stay stopped.

Alternating red means stop and proceed when clear in any instance, IIRC, including railroad crossings.

Not for railroad crossings with gates.  And not for school buses either.

Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe".  However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.

The nature of when a school bus' flashing red lights are used imply that it is not safe when the lights are flashing, making the distinction between flashing and steady red lights moot.

[kphoger]

Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe".  However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.

Are you telling me that I can cross a railroad against flashing red lights, so long as that crossing is not equipped with stop arms?

[jeffandnicole]

Flashing red lights at a railroad crossing still mean "stop and proceed when safe".  However it is usually illegal to circumvent a lowered arm at a railroad crossing / a lowered arm communicates that it is not safe to proceed.

Are you telling me that I can cross a railroad against flashing red lights, so long as that crossing is not equipped with stop arms?

When safe to do so.  Those lights can malfunction on occasion.

[TEG24601]

It has been my experience that no one understands the HAWK. The biggest reason is that the wig-wag/flashing lights is too similar to railroad crossings, so everyone stops and waits until the lights turn off. RYG is the only thing that people understand fully.

[mrsman]

I understand the desire for HAWK.  Basically, provide a safe pedestrian crossing of a major street at either: 1) mid-block crossing or 2) intersection of small street, but not providing any kind of inducement for small street traffic.  [In many busy areas, like Los Angeles, if a small street has a traffic signal, you now see many people take that to easily cross the perpendicular big street and avoid the traffic of a parallel large street.  One example is Orlando Ave in L.A., three blocks east of La Cienega, has signals at all major intersections between Wilshire and Melrose.  The traffic signals induce more traffic on Orlando than on Croft, one block over.]  At the same time, the HAWK is only red as long as necessary to allow the ped to cross so as not to delay main street traffic.  The idea is that the only traffic crossing the main street is peds (not cars) so there is no need to provide a full-fledged signal.

As the many comments above illustrate, HAWKS are not doing the job.  They are unsafe because drivers are not aware of what they should be doing.  They are basically ignoring the signal.

In Los Angeles, they have found the ideal, IMO, solution for the mid-block crossing.  In this video, you can see that they employ this at an intersection, but the small street [West Knoll] still faces a stop sign, and is physically prevented by an island from making left turns at Santa Monica Blvd

https://youtu.be/2vGNk8dfOdU

At 0:38, you see a RYG signal in West Hollywood, CA that flashes red during the red phase, but in all other respects is a normal signal.  IMO, it removes a lot of the confusion with HAWKS as the signal is generally green not dark.  Drivers intuitively know that green signals may eventually hit red, but a dark signal that they pass around 90% of the time as dark sometimes coming to life is surprising.  And as we have seen from some HAWK videos, it is absolutely frightening to see drivers sail right through on a red light when people are crossing.

The one modification I would make for a mid-bock ped xing signal would be to have a brief solid red phase before going to flashing red.  The signal would normally rest at green.  If no one pushes the button, it's green all the time.  When pedestrian pushes the button, at some point (not too much) later, the yellow comes on to warn of an upcoming red.  [Ideally, this should be timed to allow for good signal progression, to the extent possible.] Then, a solid red for a few seconds, while peds get a white man.  Invariably, there would be a pedestrian walking at this time, so cars should absolutely stop.  Then, the signal can move to flashing red (during the flashing don't walk phase).  This accounts for the fact that many pedestrians probably walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec and would be safely out of the way and cars may progress.  The flashing red ensures that cars will still come to a stop, for example to account for any peds that may still be running for the signal, but would generally allow for traffic to move after a brief stop.  And then the signal will revert to green until the next pedestrian pushes the button.

The signal on the video is similar to the signal that Amtrakprod posted on 11/19/18 upthread, except that it rests on green instead of flashing yellow.  Green is far more common and far more understood.  Legally, I beleive a ped is allowed to cross on the FY, but would not be allowed to cross when traffic has the green.

IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings.  If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop.  But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.

I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds.  There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection.  Essentially, even though this is an intersecction, there are no side street cars entering the intersection.  It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.

[UCFKnights]

IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings.  If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop.  But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.

I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds.  There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection.  Essentially, even though this is an intersection, there are no side street cars entering the intersection.  It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.

I do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed

[djlynch]

Something that looks and behaves like a standard signal is the way to go, but I'd rather have R-Y-FY, like a permissive-only turn (maybe even a flashing straight-ahead arrow). The "be careful" message of flashing yellow feels like it fits better than green, in part because mid-block crosswalks feel safer and I've noticed that pedestrian compliance isn't great at HAWKs when they have to wait more than a few seconds for their turn because the minimum time between cycles hasn't passed or the timing is tied to coordination with nearby traffic signals.

[hotdogPi]

Something that looks and behaves like a standard signal is the way to go, but I'd rather have R-Y-FY, like a permissive-only turn (maybe even a flashing straight-ahead arrow). The "be careful" message of flashing yellow feels like it fits better than green, in part because mid-block crosswalks feel safer and I've noticed that pedestrian compliance isn't great at HAWKs when they have to wait more than a few seconds for their turn because the minimum time between cycles hasn't passed or the timing is tied to coordination with nearby traffic signals.

Flashing yellow means that you have priority if continuing straight, which is not the case here.

[kphoger]

I do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed

The one and only time I had to stop at an RRFB crosswalk, the driver in front of me refused to go again until it stopped flashing–even though the pedestrians were long gone by then.  So it had the same problem I've witnessed at HAWKs.

[UCFKnights]

I do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed

The one and only time I had to stop at an RRFB crosswalk, the driver in front of me refused to go again until it stopped flashing–even though the pedestrians were long gone by then.  So it had the same problem I've witnessed at HAWKs.

There are a number of people who stop at a crosswalk near my house that has no sign, no lights, etc, when no pedestrians are around. The compliance rate is never perfect, but, at least from my experience, it seems far better. Are people not understanding RRFB's as common as the HAWK issues?

[mrsman]

IMO, this would be so much better than HAWKs or rapid flash beacons or any other signal out there to address normally unsignalized crossings.  If a crossing is dangerous enough that you have to add a safety measure like a flashing light, IMO, it seems appropriate to incorporate a safety measure to actually have the cars stop.  But only to stop as long as necessary, hence the flashing red phase to permit cars to continue when peds have cleared the intersection.

I would also like to see this any time the only cross traffic is peds.  There are quite a few signalized T-intersections (especially in NYC), where the T street is one-way away from the intersection.  Essentially, even though this is an intersection, there are no side street cars entering the intersection.  It should be treated and signaled as a pedestrian crossing.

I do think there is a need for different levels of signage/signalization of crossings. But the problem is that HAWK seems to have a really low compliance rate, and also a much higher cost then something like a RRFB. An RRFB seems to, generally, acceptably accomplish every goal of the HAWK with better pedestrian safety (they understand they aren't fully protected, unlike HAWK where they seem to get a walk signal but a really low compliance rate among drivers), no wasted time forcing vehicles to sit waiting after a pedestrian cleared the crossing, etc. Also, RRFBs can be used at an intersection where the major road doesn't need to be stopped, but the minor road has stop signs (but can still turn left)... installing RRFBs allows pedestrians to cross safely without full signalization. HAWKs or pedestrian signals won't do that. And if an RRFB isn't enough, its pretty clear a normal RYG is needed

THere are many steps that a DOT can take to make a pedestrian crossing safer.  Extending the curb into the street to make the crossing distance shorter is one.  Putting in an island so that peds can cross one direction at a time and wait in the middle for traffic to clear is another.

Those two above steps are somewhat passive in their approach.  Pedestrians are given better opportuinities to cross, but at the end of the day, this is still the idea that a ped will cross only when the approach is clear, or if they are lucky enough to grab a driver's attention to stop for them.

A traffic signal is something different.  Knowing that there may not be a natural break in traffic (especially on two-way streets), the DOT has to put in a signal to actually stop the traffic.  (Hence it is more active approach to ped safety rather than a passive approach of narrowing the crossing.)  The stopped traffic will allow for the peds to cross. [Of course, people do run red lights, so there is no guarantee, you still have to make sure that they stop.]

In my view, the bigger problem in a HAWK isn't that drivers are just waiting on the flashing red, even when the peds have cleared the intersection, it's that drivers just blow by the signal in the first place.  A standard RYG signal has much better compliance rate (not perfect of course) at having the driver stop than a HAWK.  I believe the reason for this is the driver's expectation - a green signal is to go, a yellow signal is a warning that a red is coming.  Greens do not stay green forever, they could eventually be red.  Flashing yellow does not have this same notion, as there are many flashing yellows all over the place that mean caution, but don't necessarily lead to an eventual red light.

So then, if we want to improve the odds of cars stopping, put in something that resembles a regular traffic signal.  RYG.  THe only proper modification, IMO, is that part of the red phase can shift from solid red to flashing red, to allow cars to proceed if the pedestrians have cleared the intersection (each car would still be required to make a full brief stop, before proceeding until the signal turns green).  IF they don't, they will cause a small delay, but they won't impact safety.

Such has been done in Los Angeles, and it seems to properly balance pedestrian safety with minimizing traffic delay.  I also hope that such a signal can be installed with much less severe warrants than a regular signal, since the delay on the main street is rather minimal.

[Amtrakprod]

We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it's not alternating.


iPhone

[fwydriver405]

It has been my experience that no one understands the HAWK. The biggest reason is that the wig-wag/flashing lights is too similar to railroad crossings, so everyone stops and waits until the lights turn off. RYG is the only thing that people understand fully.

This is also been the case in New Hampshire, specifically in Concord, Epping, Londonderry, and Meredith (there is another one in Meredith on US-3 between Dover and Lake Rd). Many NH drivers just remain stopped during the flashing red interval, especially when there is a State Trooper nearby (this happened recently in Epping). Some drivers, mostly Massachusetts drivers, honk at the lead driver(s) during the flashing red phase. Most drivers in Massachusetts seem to understand what to do at PHB/HAWK signals, albeit most roll through the flashing red phase w/o a complete stop.

I should mention that the speed limit on where the PHB/HAWK signals were installed in NH was 65 km/h (40mph), with the exception of the two Meredith signals being 50 km/h (30mph). At one time in Londonderry (NH 28), a lorry (tracter-trailer) almost got rear-ended by a car not paying attention and following too close, and when I tried to cross, two drivers travelling about 80-90 km/h (50-55 mph) blew the solid red when my WALK signal was on for well after three seconds, and had to wait for those drivers at the kerb to pass before I could safely cross.

Also, how does preemption work at PHB/HAWK, or standard R-Y-G (or FY) pelican crossing? Found these near Quincy, Massachusetts near the Quincy College:
Hancock St near Quincy College
Second Hancock St location

[jeffandnicole]

We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it’s not alternating.


iPhone

Or we can use the same laws, and just use a steady red light.  Because in your example, alternating red lights means go would mean no one needs to stop and stay stopped for school buses. 

[fwydriver405]

In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.

[mrsman]

We need to update the laws, alternating red should mean STOP like a red light, and flashing red should be STOP than proceed. All hawks should just use the lights to flash double so it’s not alternating.


iPhone

Or we can use the same laws, and just use a steady red light.  Because in your example, alternating red lights means go would mean no one needs to stop and stay stopped for school buses.

Correct, the laws should be consistent.

I think a school bus would have its own rules, since it is a vehicle, not a stationary signal.  The flash is just meant to get your attention.

So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed.  Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.

Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing?  I don't have a good answer.

I've seen differing treatments for drawbridges.  Some are controlled by RYG signals.  Some are controlled by signals that are similar to R/R crossings.

In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.

If a HAWk is placed at an intersection, then it should be treated no differently than a regular red orb signal, so I think RTOR should be generally allowed at HAWKs.

[kphoger]

So generally, steady red is stop and only proceed when the light is exingusihed.  Flashing red is stop, then proceed when clear - essentially the equivalent to a stop sign.

Why is it different for R/R signals, where they flash, even though you're supposed to wait there until the lights stop flashing?  I don't have a good answer.

Hmm, maybe we need to re-think that.  I asked about this in Reply #84, and jeffandnicole answered that it's permitted to cross a railroad while the lights are still flashing as long as it's safe to do so.  I didn't have time then to look it up, but take a gander at the Universal Vehicle Code:

ARTICLE VII--SPECIAL STOPS REQUIRED

§ 11-701 – Obedience to signal indicating approach of train

(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when :

1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;

2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;

3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;

4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.

(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.

It a railroad has gates, then you aren't allowed to cross it while the gates are down.  But, if a railroad has no gates, then you are allowed to cross it even if the lights are flashing.  The flashing lights at a railroad, therefore, should be interpreted to mean "Stop, then proceed when clear".

[roadfro]

In addition to the previous question I mentioned about HAWK and preemptions, after yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, is it legal to make a right turn on red onto another street during the solid red phase? This is assuming that the signal has no signs prohibiting turning right on red and the HAWK is placed near an intersection... which the MUTCD recommends that they should be located at least 30 m (100 ft) from an intersection.

If a HAWk is placed at an intersection, then it should be treated no differently than a regular red orb signal, so I think RTOR should be generally allowed at HAWKs.

HAWKs were really meant to be for mid-block crossings. I don't think they should be placed adjacent to an intersection and a signal should be used instead.

However, it appears in the MUTCD that there is a different, lower threshold for the installation of HAWK beacons than the traffic signals warrants for pedestrian volumes.