HAWK Thread

[algorerhythms]

This video on pedestrian crossings has a section about Hawk crossings (starting at about 21:30 if you want to skip ahead to that section).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY

[Amtrakprod]

This video on pedestrian crossings has a section about Hawk crossings (starting at about 21:30 if you want to skip ahead to that section).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY

Haha, Not Just Bikes. That guy really hates traffic engineers...

I like Dutch infrastructure, but I don't think all traffic engineers are awful people.

[Amtrakprod]

I would say that 75% of drivers do not make complete stops at stop signs, right turns on red, etc, and I'm being generous. As someone who does, I get irritated that others do not.

As a pedestrian, I've had that be much less of a problem at stop signs, but much more of a problem at stoplights–specifically the phenomenon that people turning right on red often blindly intrude into the crosswalk before stopping and looking.

I've only been hit by a car once, and it was at a stop sign.

As for rights on red, I prefer to propose R10-11 (No Turn On Reds) instead of allowing vehicles to turn on red. It makes for a much safer environment


iPhone

Requiring cars to idle at a red light increases energy use, so it's actually bad for the environment.

There's no evidence behind that, even if it seems true, especially with the adoption of automatic engine off cars that have become popular.

Furthermore, making the environment outside of a car more pleasant, which will result in less cars on the road.

So we'll keep prioritizing pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses, while restricting turns on red.


iPhone

Who's "we"?

At my job, in the transpo industry, just generally. It's different in every state, but in Massachusetts, rights on red; just don't make a lot of sense most of them.
iPhone

So, you work in the "transpo industry."  If you mean a private contractor, I don't see how you would be able to dictate when rights on red are implemented.

We're able to recommend it.  Typically it stays.

Here's a city in Massachusetts that has had a lot of great projects. They want to ban turn on red city wide. They just aren't appropriate in many contexts.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwix0_LEvMX7AhXhMlkFHX3pBHQQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boston.com%2Fnews%2Flocal-news%2F2022%2F11%2F08%2Fno-turn-on-red-cambridge%2F&usg=AOvVaw2kp6aJ-Ca1LGL6jhGsqHDR

[Amtrakprod]

Most drivers will still yield to pedestrians under "California stop" conditions and speeds are usually very low (2-5 mph)

In my experience, drivers don't yield to pedestrians until they actually see one, and they don't start looking for them until they've already entered the crosswalk during their "California stop" routine.

This doesn't mean I'm against less-than-complete stops.  It just means people need to learn how to properly yield.

I think this is a good summary on my thoughts too. I'll still be the odd one out doing complete stops, but as long as everyone slows to 2-5 mph, I think it should be safe enough, as long as no one enters when the flashing lights toggle. While yes that's illegal, it doesn't mean humans won't do that. That's the psychology of traffic engineering!

[SignBridge]

Besides Cambridge, Massachusetts and the other cities listed in the story, New York City (in all five boroughs) has always prohibited right-on-red except where permitted by posted signs.

[Amtrakprod]

Besides Cambridge, Massachusetts and the other cities listed in the story, New York City (in all five boroughs) has always prohibited right-on-red except where permitted by posted signs.

Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.

[jakeroot]

State-wide, I've long associated Pennsylvania with no-turn-on-red. They seem to put them up everywhere.

No turning on red here in Japan. Which is nice, although when you do get a walk sign, prepare for cars to be waiting a foot off the crosswalk for you to cross. Scrambles are common.

[mrsman]

I seem to recall the original LA-style HAWK (three-head signal) had no solid red phase. Solid green > Solid Yellow > Flashing Red > Solid green.

In theory, drivers have a flashing red, and must stop anytime the signal is active. So the danger to pedestrians should be very minimal unless they just straight up run the flashing red.

This is correct.  No solid red, just flashing red.

I believe that the safest ped crossing singal would be teh LA signal modified with a brief solid red phase at the beginning of the crossing.  THe solid red will force people to stop to see what is happening, and then after a few seconds, cars  can proceed assuming that there are no pedestrians still crossing.

Besides Cambridge, Massachusetts and the other cities listed in the story, New York City (in all five boroughs) has always prohibited right-on-red except where permitted by posted signs.

Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.

MA is generally a very dense state.  So in much of the area, there are significant numbers of people crossing.

NTOR is justified in any significant pedestrian heavy area.  While I am not a fan of blanket RTOR prohibitions, I think it is fair to assume that putting in NTOR signs in downtown areas and within walking distance to major transit stations is generally justified for safety reasons.

[US 89]

Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.

I think you overstate the prevalence of NTOR in Massachusetts. I just tested 5 random intersections in the Boston area on Google Street View, including several in what appeared to be downtown areas with likely more pedestrian traffic, and found a good handful of Left Turn Yield On Green signs... but zero NTORs. If your math is right, that should have a 0.2% chance of happening.

[rickmastfan67]

State-wide, I've long associated Pennsylvania with no-turn-on-red. They seem to put them up everywhere.

LOL! I rarely see any 'no-turn-on-red' signage here in Western PA.

Not saying they aren't out there, but PennDOT over on the western side of the state doesn't use them unless really necessary.

[Amtrakprod]

Correct. But most Boston area signals have turns on red prohibited with signage. If you go to any traffic signal randomly on google maps in Massachusetts, there is a roughly 70% chance you'll find at least one no turn on red sign, if not more.

I think you overstate the prevalence of NTOR in Massachusetts. I just tested 5 random intersections in the Boston area on Google Street View, including several in what appeared to be downtown areas with likely more pedestrian traffic, and found a good handful of Left Turn Yield On Green signs... but zero NTORs. If your math is right, that should have a 0.2% chance of happening.

That's weird. Did you check for nearside signs?

Data wise the city says they have them posted at 90+% of intersections, but it's possible some have been removed. At least where I live in Arlington, it's No Turn On Red land. Good for when I bike/walk/run, but a bit annoying for when I drive.

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/@18.4622015,-66.0878207,3a,75y,322.8h,93.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipNd-3-zh1_gqMKNo5Av3z_nePAB1SCJimp1JzLc!2e10!3e12!7i10560!8i5280
Noticing that Puerto Rico adopted the HAWK signal.

[Troubleshooter]

I hate the HAWK. Two problems:

- The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow., and the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.

- Ignoring the MUTCD, our officials have put them at intersections where the other street has stop signs.

[kphoger]

- If The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow., and then the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.

Is this what you intended?  I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase.  Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase.  So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.

[Troubleshooter]

- If The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow., and then the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.

Is this what you intended?  I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase.  Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase.  So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.

It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.

Also, even if the one pedestrian crosses on the solid red, the signal still keeps stopping traffic for 30 seconds.

[kphoger]

It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.

Correct.  But the whole purpose of a HAWK beacon is to give peds a protected crossing phase.  You can't do that with a simple yellow warning signal.  It's either a HAWK or a standard RYG signal.  Both of them stop traffic, because that's the whole point of them in the first place.  If you don't like that part of it, then it isn't HAWK beacons you don't like, it's protected ped crossing phases at all that you don't like.

Also, even if the one pedestrian crosses on the solid red, the signal still keeps stopping traffic for 30 seconds.

As I said, that's no different than a standard RYG signal.

The comparison is between something like this and something like this.

[SignBridge]

I think Troubleshooter makes a valid point about peds crossing during the flashing yellow phase. We now have two types of new and somewhat unfamiliar signals at ped crossings. Besides the HAWK, we also have RRFB's (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) At RRFB's, peds do normally cross the road during flashing yellow lights.

Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.

[jakeroot]

Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.

I would imagine that most pedestrians can sort out the difference. One requires you to hit a button and wait for a walk sign, the other just activates some flashing lights.

[kphoger]

We now have two types of new and somewhat unfamiliar signals at ped crossings. Besides the HAWK, we also have RRFB's (rectangular rapid flashing beacons)

I thought IA-11 was terminated due to patent issues.  Was approval reinstated?

Do we really believe that the average pedestrian will take note of the difference between these two types of signals? Best of luck! The problem with traffic engineers is that they think like engineers and figure everybody else does too. They need to put themselves in the place of the average driver or pedestrian.

I would imagine that most pedestrians can sort out the difference. One requires you to hit a button and wait for a walk sign, the other just activates some flashing lights.

Yes, I'm pretty sure the average pedestrian has learned by now that an orange hand means DON'T WALK, and a white man means 'WALK', and that the average pedestrian can figure out the difference between that setup and an RRFB crosswalk.  I mean, the pedestrian isn't even the one facing the traffic signal:  drivers are.

[algorerhythms]

- If The pedestrian crosses during the flashing yellow., and then the rest of the sequence stops traffic for no reason.

Is this what you intended?  I think it is, because pedestrians are supposed to cross during the solid red phase, not the flashing yellow phase.  Assuming I'm reading your gripe correctly, it's really no different than a pedestrian pushing the button at a standard RYG crossing and then crossing the street during the yellow phase.  So it isn't really a knock against the HAWK specifically.

It is. But we have flashing yellow warning signals that do that without stopping traffic.

That's the problem. In my experience, at the yellow warning signals here, drivers do not stop for them, or even slow down. Which means that they're no better than no signal at all, because as a pedestrian you are still stuck waiting for a gap in the traffic. At least a driver is somewhat more likely to stop for a red light.

[Troubleshooter]

The difference is in how long the signal disrupts traffic:

The RRFB disrupts traffic for less than 10 seconds. The traffic usually slows enough for the pedestrian to cross/ Also, these are usually at medians here so only one direction is affected at a time.

The HAWK usually disrupts traffic for 30-40 seconds depending in whether the pestrian crosses at the flashing yellow or waits for the walk si8gnal.

And the HAWK in this is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.

[kphoger]

The difference is in how long the signal disrupts traffic

No, the difference between a HAWK and an RRFB is that the latter doesn't even have a red light phase at all.  They are not equivalent.  The equivalent to an RRFB would be a pushbutton-activated flashing yellow beacon–not a HAWK.

And the HAWK in this is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.

Yeah, sorry, I knew that when I posted it.  I was just too lazy to look up a location that was in compliance.

[SignBridge]

The difference is in how long the signal disrupts traffic:

The RRFB disrupts traffic for less than 10 seconds. The traffic usually slows enough for the pedestrian to cross/ Also, these are usually at medians here so only one direction is affected at a time.

The HAWK usually disrupts traffic for 30-40 seconds depending in whether the pestrian crosses at the flashing yellow or waits for the walk si8gnal.

And the HAWK in this is at an intersection, contrary to MUTCD saying it should be at least 60 ft away from an intersection.

I don't see anything saying 60 ft. in the Manual. Sec. 4F.02.04.A reads: The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 ft.from side streets or driveways that are controlled by stop or yield signs.

And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

[kphoger]

And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

[jakeroot]

And that is a recommendation (should), not a standard (shall). But it is genuinely puzzling to me why so many traffic agencies ignore that recommendation and install them AT such intersections.

I assume it's because, in general, more people cross a road where there's a cross-street than where there isn't one.

Exactly, and it's why (IMO) it's an idiotic recommendation. Very few pedestrians are likely to detour mid-block towards a HAWK unless they ultimately have to go that way.

I would much rather the HAWK design were modified to be placed more effectively at intersections rather than attempting to prohibit it altogether. And/or the MUTCD being less mental about half-signals.