HAWK at a fire station

[jakeroot]

Why don't you work for dot again?

Regulations make me want to tear my hair out. I'd have to work for a giant city that could flip the bird at the FHWA whenever it wanted.

You could also get a job with OkDOT and flip the bird at good taste whenever you want....

If the manual = good taste, OkDOT apparently has a taste for something different.

[Scott5114]

Honestly, I kind of feel like you could get a job at OkDOT and use the Statens vegvesen trafikkskilt håndbok in place of the MUTCD and nobody would catch on for several months. We've got signs with FHWA Series, Clearview, Franklin Gothic, and Helvetica, why not throw Trafikkalfabetet into the mix?

[jakeroot]

Honestly, I kind of feel like you could get a job at OkDOT and use the Statens vegvesen trafikkskilt håndbok in place of the MUTCD and nobody would catch on for several months. We've got signs with FHWA Series, Clearview, Franklin Gothic, and Helvetica, why not throw Trafikkalfabetet into the mix?

Totally! We say..."why?" ... OkDOT asks..."why not?"

[kphoger]

We say..."why?" ... OkDOT asks says..."why not? meh."

FTFY.

[Amtrakprod]

Alright alright, we are getting OFFTOPIC

[jakeroot]

Alright alright, we are getting ＯＦＦ　ＴＯＰＩＣ

FTFY

[Amtrakprod]

(null)
Anyways, looks like we all forgot about MUTCD Section 4G.04 line 10. Here's the link to the page: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4g.htm#section4G04
It states:  A steady red clearance interval may be used after the steady yellow change interval.


iPhone

[jakeroot]

I don't know if all we all forgot, as much as we took your word for it.

[SignBridge]

Hmmm, yeah it does say that. Thinking about it further, maybe they set it up this way 'cause they want traffic to have to stay stopped when the signal is active, instead of treating the flashing lights like a stop sign. 

[Amtrakprod]

Just another reason why the hawk is confusing


iPhone

[SignBridge]

Yes Amtrakprod, I absolutely agree. They should just use regular traffic signals so as not to confuse the public. 

BTW, has anyone yet seen a HAWK anywhere on Long Island? Don't know if NYS DOT or Nassau/Suffolk DPW's intend to try them.

[jakeroot]

As usual, I have zero issue with the HAWK as it allows traffic to proceed after a stop, and virtually no (or literally no) signals operate like this. But, regular 3-orb RYG signals easily could. And you could have a regular traffic light with a blinking red with the same operation. I don't see what the HAWK does at at a fire station that a part-time blinking red orb couldn't also accomplish.

[SignBridge]

Good point, Jakeroot.

[Amtrakprod]

So I emailed the traffic engineer of Lexington MA, he said the cycle that should be there is two seconds of solid red then 30 seconds of flashing red, so he's gonna fix it.

[jakeroot]

So I emailed the traffic engineer of Lexington MA, he said the cycle that should be there is two seconds of solid red then 30 seconds of flashing red, so he's gonna fix it.

Not even sure why two seconds of solid red is necessary. Flashing red still requires drivers to stop. It's not like the ingress/egress sequences can occur in two seconds.

[SignBridge]

Well as we said above, the MUTCD does allow a steady-red clearance interval as an extra safety margin following the steady-yellow, to be sure traffic comes to a complete stop before they can stop & proceed.

[jakeroot]

Well as we said above, the MUTCD does allow a steady-red clearance interval as an extra safety margin following the steady-yellow, to be sure traffic comes to a complete stop before they can stop & proceed.

Right, but it's an option in the MUTCD for emergency beacons, not a requirement. Cities are certainly free to use that brief all-red phase, but I think the whole "stop and yield" aspect is still achieved through a flashing red phase, without the need for an all-red phase. The 2-second solid red just seems like a waste. Then again, it's such a short phase it really doesn't matter.

[Amtrakprod]

Well as we said above, the MUTCD does allow a steady-red clearance interval as an extra safety margin following the steady-yellow, to be sure traffic comes to a complete stop before they can stop & proceed.

Right, but it's an option in the MUTCD for emergency beacons, not a requirement. Cities are certainly free to use that brief all-red phase, but I think the whole "stop and yield" aspect is still achieved through a flashing red phase, without the need for an all-red phase. The 2-second solid red just seems like a waste. Then again, it's such a short phase it really doesn't matter.

They said that they noticed cars getting confused


iPhone

[Amtrakprod]

Note that the HAWK-style signals are actually considered beacons as far as the MUTCD is concerned ("Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon" and "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" are the official terms). While beacons, by MUTCD definition, are still considered a type of signal, they are operationally different from regular traffic signals. I think this is part of the distinction that allows them to be dark when not in use.

That reminds me. The MUTCD's Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates does not carve out exceptions for when the border should not be applied. HAWKs and ramp meters don't need them as they are normally dark anyways (no need to call further attention to them), and single-face beacons are typically accompanied by signage or markings that spell out rules when no flashing is occurring.

Here's a couple examples, from WA, of signals that have had reflective tape unnecessarily applied. WSDOT seems to have an exception for ramp meters, as this is one of only a very few with the border, but it would better if the FHWA specifically ruled them out to reduce the chance of it being incorrectly applied in the future, especially as the rule is likely to be implemented into the future MUTCD:

Sorry for a late response to this, another Emergency signal in Lexington MA, a temporary one uses reflective borders on the emergency direction, but on the Mass Ave direction they have normal black borders: (sorry for the bad image)


iPhone

[jakeroot]

Sorry for a late response to this, another Emergency signal in Lexington MA, a temporary one uses reflective borders on the emergency direction, but on the Mass Ave direction they have normal black borders: (sorry for the bad image) https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181212/aad2013b9d971cad88c56fb1d945aeee.jpg

I think this style makes the most sense. Traditional flashing red or flashing yellow beacons (to indicate priority at a junction) should always be flashing; the ones that flash part-time are for pedestrian crossings such as HAWKs and RRFBs (or their orb cousins). Though a stop sign is used at the cross-street here, it might be wise to further amplify the upcoming junction priority beyond the stop sign by using the reflective border, to make it clear to approaching traffic that, yes, this is in fact a down signal and you must stop. This is unlike the adjacent HAWK signals, which don't require you to stop when dark, so calling attention to them when they're dark seems wholly unnecessary.

For the record, "dark signal" laws typically only apply at junctions (or intersections), so most HAWK's get around this law by not being at intersections. But many, including the one directly above, are placed at junctions, where the law would apply. What I cannot remember is whether or not beacons are considered "traffic control signals". If they aren't, then I suppose they would be exempt (at least under WA law)

[MNHighwayMan]

I think this style makes the most sense. Traditional flashing red or flashing yellow beacons (to indicate priority at a junction) should always be flashing; the ones that flash part-time are for pedestrian crossings such as HAWKs and RRFBs (or their orb cousins). Though a stop sign is used at the cross-street here, it might be wise to further amplify the upcoming junction priority beyond the stop sign by using the reflective border, to make it clear to approaching traffic that, yes, this is in fact a down signal and you must stop. This is unlike the adjacent HAWK signals, which don't require you to stop when dark, so calling attention to them when they're dark seems wholly unnecessary.

For the record, "dark signal" laws typically only apply at junctions (or intersections), so most HAWK's get around this law by not being at intersections. But many, including the one directly above, are placed at junctions, where the law would apply. What I cannot remember is whether or not beacons are considered "traffic control signals". If they aren't, then I suppose they would be exempt (at least under WA law)

I think all this unnecessary extra nonsense about what to do with HAWK signals is just further proof that the whole concept is superfluous to begin with. I'm still not convinced that a whole new signal type (with all new rules about how to handle it e.g. when dark) is needed when traditional convention can accomplish the same thing.

Us roadgeeks (or traffic engineers) can call them different all we want (as beacons vs signals), but I really doubt that difference carries over to the average motorist.

[kphoger]

Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.

[MNHighwayMan]

Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.

This is true. At the same time, I don't see any need to complicate things when we couldn't.

[jakeroot]

I think all this unnecessary extra nonsense about what to do with HAWK signals is just further proof that the whole concept is superfluous to begin with. I'm still not convinced that a whole new signal type (with all new rules about how to handle it e.g. when dark) is needed when traditional convention can accomplish the same thing...Us roadgeeks (or traffic engineers) can call them different all we want (as beacons vs signals), but I really doubt that difference carries over to the average motorist.

I don't disagree that regular signals wouldn't be better (or another variation thereof), but I think the HAWK is here to stay. The FHWA has been touting its effectiveness over other designs rather effectively, to the point that those agencies that are typically slow to adopt new things (WSDOT comes to mind) have adopted the HAWK. Basically, as long as the HAWK is sticking around, we really ought to mandate an optimal layout, down to whether or not retroreflective backplates are used. I don't think it's necessarily ridiculous to at least have some guidance.

Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.

That's actually quite dangerous. If a driver unnecessarily comes to a complete stop at what is effectively a green light (since dark HAWK's mean "go"), they could get themselves rear-ended by drivers who know that HAWK's do not require a stop, and who wouldn't be expecting such behavior without a red light.

Like I think I've addressed before, this whole "stop when dark" thing still applies even without retroreflective backplates, but I see no reason to call attention to them when they are effectively irrelevant when dark. A retroreflective "CROSSWALK" sign is enough to alert drivers to its existence, frankly.

[Amtrakprod]

I think all this unnecessary extra nonsense about what to do with HAWK signals is just further proof that the whole concept is superfluous to begin with. I'm still not convinced that a whole new signal type (with all new rules about how to handle it e.g. when dark) is needed when traditional convention can accomplish the same thing...Us roadgeeks (or traffic engineers) can call them different all we want (as beacons vs signals), but I really doubt that difference carries over to the average motorist.

I don't disagree that regular signals wouldn't be better (or another variation thereof), but I think the HAWK is here to stay. The FHWA has been touting its effectiveness over other designs rather effectively, to the point that those agencies that are typically slow to adopt new things (WSDOT comes to mind) have adopted the HAWK. Basically, as long as the HAWK is sticking around, we really ought to mandate an optimal layout, down to whether or not retroreflective backplates are used. I don't think it's necessarily ridiculous to at least have some guidance.

I feel the hawk signal won't be so confusing once people get used to it, but I do feel a doubled flashing red instead of alternating red would be so much better!



iPhone