Is the RRFB Dead?

[jakeroot]

There was one in Sherwood back in 2008 or so with the following criteria

Speed Limit 25:
Under 25, number no flashing.
25-29 Flashing, rate was dependent on how fast you were going.
30+ Rapidly flashimg red and blue lights.

A police car was hidden often back there and it was the only time my parents got a speeding ticket in the last 20 years.

That seems like a really low tolerance level, at least compared to the one's I see from time to time. The closest one to me, which is only about 5 blocks from my house, flashes red-blue only if you're going 9 or 10 over. And the number will start flashing only from about 28-on.

[cl94]

LOL!  This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.

If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.

Which is fine.  HAWKs are what they should gone for in the first place.

Of course, in some states, what one should legally do at HAWKs is debatable. At least in New York, HAWKs are legally considered to be a dark signal when not flashing, which means, per NY Vehicle and Traffic Law, they are stop signs when dark. Nobody follows this, of course, but I'm waiting for some Barney Fife cop to start writing tickets for it (Tonawanda, I'm looking at you). Just use a 3-light signal that rests on green or has a flashing yellow in the bottom.

[Hurricane Rex]

There was one in Sherwood back in 2008 or so with the following criteria

Speed Limit 25:
Under 25, number no flashing.
25-29 Flashing, rate was dependent on how fast you were going.
30+ Rapidly flashimg red and blue lights.

A police car was hidden often back there and it was the only time my parents got a speeding ticket in the last 20 years.

That seems like a really low tolerance level, at least compared to the one's I see from time to time. The closest one to me, which is only about 5 blocks from my house, flashes red-blue only if you're going 9 or 10 over. And the number will start flashing only from about 28-on.

Sherwood has a lot of speed traps.
99W: Expressway quality, 45 mph, 60 is common on it and police enforce it however give some tolerance.
Langer Farms Drive: Speed limit 25, 85th percentile speed is 33 mph. 0 tolerance and enforced.
Oregon Street: 25 mph, average at least 30, enforced with no tolerance (I've been pulled over at 29 although it was a warning luckily).
Lastly the road I am talking about: Brookman road: RURAL, strait and 35 mph speed limit until a sharp curve then its 25 mph even on the straitaways past it. 50 isn't uncommon.

In other words, we are the strictest city ever in my opinion.

[Brandon]

I hope it is dead.  Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72

[kphoger]

I hope it is dead.  Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72

Well, if there's anywhere to be extra careful about ped crossings, it's the Prairie Path!

[vdeane]

The thing I always liked about RRFBs is that they're very good at making crosswalks noticeable when a pedestrian is crossing yet are no more restrictive for drivers than an uncontrolled crosswalk... HAWKs, meanwhile, are basically hybrids of signals and stop signs.  I can't imagine dealing with a HAWK signal is any less annoying than driving through a shopping center that has stop signs in front of every store entrance.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[jakeroot]

I hope it is dead.  Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72

Could you please point us to a link where a lawmaker discusses making RRFB's mean 'stop and remain stopped until not flashing'? I'm starting to get a little tired of your RRFB bashing, based on some worry about an almost-certainly-unenforceable law that does not exist, and probably never will. Just because they might have discussed it, doesn't mean it will be law. Lawmakers discuss BS all the time that doesn't make it past the floor.

[Hurricane Rex]

The thing I always liked about RRFBs is that they're very good at making crosswalks noticeable when a pedestrian is crossing yet are no more restrictive for drivers than an uncontrolled crosswalk... HAWKs, meanwhile, are basically hybrids of signals and stop signs.  I can't imagine dealing with a HAWK signal is any less annoying than driving through a shopping center that has stop signs in front of every store entrance.

(personal opinion emphasized)

That is true, I don't mind RRFB in the right spots but at others I don't see what is we in with flashing amber lights.

[Brandon]

I hope it is dead.  Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72

Could you please point us to a link where a lawmaker discusses making RRFB's mean 'stop and remain stopped until not flashing'? I'm starting to get a little tired of your RRFB bashing, based on some worry about an almost-certainly-unenforceable law that does not exist, and probably never will. Just because they might have discussed it, doesn't mean it will be law. Lawmakers discuss BS all the time that doesn't make it past the floor.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/arlington-heights/news/ct-ahp-crosswalk-death-prompts-idot-entry-tl-1013-20161010-story.html

[vdeane]

"While the entry has yet to be written, it will explain to drivers that when the crosswalk signal is activated and the lights are flashing, they need to stop until pedestrians and bicyclists have safely crossed the road."
If that phrasing is correct, it corresponds to the legal requirements for drivers at a midblock crosswalk lacking a traffic light.

The husband, meanwhile, should be educated to the fact that flashing yellow never means the same thing as "stop" in any context.  It is simply drawing your attention to the crosswalk so that you're more likely to see the pedestrians and do what you're supposed to do anyways.

The thing I always liked about RRFBs is that they're very good at making crosswalks noticeable when a pedestrian is crossing yet are no more restrictive for drivers than an uncontrolled crosswalk... HAWKs, meanwhile, are basically hybrids of signals and stop signs.  I can't imagine dealing with a HAWK signal is any less annoying than driving through a shopping center that has stop signs in front of every store entrance.

(personal opinion emphasized)

That is true, I don't mind RRFB in the right spots but at others I don't see what is we in with flashing amber lights.

There are a few spots referenced in this thread, I think including a few in Oregon, where something like a HAWK or full signal would probably be more appropriate due to the large number of lanes.

[Pink Jazz]

Considering that lawmakers are upset that the FHWA rescinded its interim approval for Clearview, I wonder if lawmakers will introduce a bill to change the rules to allow incorporation of patented devices in the MUTCD.  The Canadian MUTCD apparently allows it considering that they incorporated RRFBs in its 2014 edition, unless the patent isn't valid in Canada.

[jakeroot]

I hope it is dead.  Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72

Could you please point us to a link where a lawmaker discusses making RRFB's mean 'stop and remain stopped until not flashing'? I'm starting to get a little tired of your RRFB bashing, based on some worry about an almost-certainly-unenforceable law that does not exist, and probably never will. Just because they might have discussed it, doesn't mean it will be law. Lawmakers discuss BS all the time that doesn't make it past the floor.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/arlington-heights/news/ct-ahp-crosswalk-death-prompts-idot-entry-tl-1013-20161010-story.html

I seem to recall your worries revolved around a possible requirement to stop and wait until the flashing beacon quit flashing. This is just updating the manual to reflect the new device, and make it known that drivers need to stop and yield to any pedestrians crossing. Makes sense to me.

[jakeroot]

Considering that lawmakers are upset that the FHWA rescinded its interim approval for Clearview, I wonder if lawmakers will introduce a bill to change the rules to allow incorporation of patented devices in the MUTCD.  The Canadian MUTCD apparently allows it considering that they incorporated RRFBs in its 2014 edition, unless the patent isn't valid in Canada.

I could see patented devices being allowed, but only when they were an optional part of the manual. Required devices should not be patented, as it would be easy for the manufacturer to fix the prices and screw over agencies.

[Revive 755]

If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.

It would be a District by District thing, similar to the deployments of flashing yellow arrows in Illinois.  There is one on US 24 in Mount Sterling (Aerial photo; Listing on Page 55/111, Item 91 for IDOT's April 25, 2014 Letting).  Supposedly the Ottawa District (3) is using them, but I'm either not finding them or the source of this information was mistaken.

[doorknob60]

Just withing the past couple weeks, Boise/ACHD just put up RRFB signs to replace this:



You can see in the GSV picture that construction is already started. Well, this summer and fall they tore up the sidewalk and half the road and completely re-did it. In the process, they replaced the existing pedestrian signage with RRFBs (but on overhead signage similar to the old ones). The old ones worked like the lights were dark until a pedestrian hit the button, then yellow flashers immediately came on for a certain amount of time. Worked well, and compliance was pretty good. I imagine the new signage will be no different in practice, though I haven't seen it in use as a driver or pedestrian yet (only driven by it once, and it's been too cold for me to want to walk too much). I'll snap a picture next time I'm walking through.

[roadfro]

Is it the only the RRFB device/design that's patented, or is the flash pattern part of the patent? (I believe there were a couple of FHWA-approved flash patterns, which makes me think it's the device that's subject to patent.)

My random thought: If we can't use RRFB devices, and the flash pattern is not patented/proprietary, could agencies game this to still achieve the benefits of the RRFB? Install double 8-inch LED yellow beacons with the crossing signs and have them be activated in the same manner, using the RRFB flash pattern. Such an installation will likely look slightly different to drivers, but the operational effect should be the same and hopefully driver compliance rates would be similar.

This idea would require some changes to the MUTCD provisions for signals/beacons. One drawback I can think of is that it would likely cost a bit more for agencies to install–the RRFBs are a nice, compact unit that doesn't need a whole bunch of mounting hardware, but beacons may be a bit more unwieldy. RRFBs also have the happy benefit of being pretty easy to install anywhere as a solar-powered device, but the beacon solution might not be as easy to plop down wherever or be as easily powered by solar panels...

[roadman]

Most school zone twin beacon assemblies are LED and solar powered these days, so I don't see how a twin beacon replacement for a RRFB would be any different.

[jakeroot]

Most school zone twin beacon assemblies are LED and solar powered these days, so I don't see how a twin beacon replacement for a RRFB would be any different.

Might be different in your area, but most school zone assemblies in my area have the two flashing beacons placed above and below the sign, and they don't flash rapidly (they interchange roughly every half second). I think what roadfro is proposing are two yellow beacons placed side-by-side, below the pedestrian warning sign, that flash in the same manner as the RRFB. Basically, a chubbier RRFB.

[doorknob60]

Just withing the past couple weeks, Boise/ACHD just put up RRFB signs to replace this:



You can see in the GSV picture that construction is already started. Well, this summer and fall they tore up the sidewalk and half the road and completely re-did it. In the process, they replaced the existing pedestrian signage with RRFBs (but on overhead signage similar to the old ones). The old ones worked like the lights were dark until a pedestrian hit the button, then yellow flashers immediately came on for a certain amount of time. Worked well, and compliance was pretty good. I imagine the new signage will be no different in practice, though I haven't seen it in use as a driver or pedestrian yet (only driven by it once, and it's been too cold for me to want to walk too much). I'll snap a picture next time I'm walking through.

I grabbed pictures, for the curious. Also found an error.

The sidewalk along Idaho St. to the east was still closed, so I couldn't get a great angle.


And here's the error, on the button. The arrow is pointing in the wrong direction

[doorknob60]

(snip)

Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.

Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).

[doorknob60]

(snip)

Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.

Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).

Well, I e-mailed ACHD and they went out and replaced it. Here's a new picture.

[jakeroot]

(snip)

Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.

Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).

Well, I e-mailed ACHD and they went out and replaced it. Here's a new picture.

https://i.imgur.com/W5MYVS4.jpg

Massive props for such a fast modification!

[Revive 755]

Is it the only the RRFB device/design that's patented, or is the flash pattern part of the patent? (I believe there were a couple of FHWA-approved flash patterns, which makes me think it's the device that's subject to patent.)

I've heard there are multiple patents covering RRFB's, and one of those also covers the flash pattern.

(modified to fix quoting error)

[roadfro]

(snip)

Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.

Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).

Well, I e-mailed ACHD and they went out and replaced it. Here's a new picture.

https://i.imgur.com/W5MYVS4.jpg

Massive props for such a fast modification!

But no props for it still being wrong... The walking man symbol should not be used because there is not a walk signal.

There is a MUTCD standard sign that should be used for such crossings. The R10-25: "(symbolic finger pressing button) Push button to turn on warning lights" .

[DaBigE]

Is it the only the RRFB device/design that's patented, or is the flash pattern part of the patent? (I believe there were a couple of FHWA-approved flash patterns, which makes me think it's the device that's subject to patent.)

I've heard there are multiple patents covering RRFB's, and one of those also covers the flash pattern.

From what I have read, there are currently four active US patents for the RRFB device and another patent application in progress. What my colleagues and I cannot figure out, since none of us are patent engineers, is what the patent all covers. The images in the patents make it seem like the mounting order of the Xing sign, the beacons, and the downward angle arrow may also be covered in addition to the technology.

In the meantime, FHWA has released some FAQs

From the rumor mills:

• ITE may try to put pressure on the situation, at least for some kind of grandfather clause (for RRFBs that were already out to bid), since the RRFB has proven safety countermeasure value
• The patent holder is digging in his/their heels on the situation 
• TTI is working on/has finished a study comparing the effectiveness of the RRFB to a pair of pedestrian-actuated, 12-in circular flashing beacons
• FHWA may try to enforce this terminated IA...how, no one seems to know

The biggest fear in the engineering community is the potential litigation...for installing a "banned" device; for not installing a proven countermeasure; for the next crash that happens where a "banned" device is installed.