AARoads Forum

As everyone here should know, the flashing yellow arrow was added as an option in the 2009 MUTCD to indicate permissive left turns.

However, wouldn't some people find the flashing distracting?  This is why the MUTCD banned the use of white strobes inside red lights.  As alternatives, why not a fourth color arrow such as blue, purple, white, or pink?  Or alternatively, a "reversed" yellow arrow, which would basically be a yellow ball light with a black arrow inside it.

What does anyone here think?

Blue would be confusing, since Blue is used instead of green in other countries.


I like the flashing red ball that Michigan uses, because everyone knows what a flashing red means.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2014, 04:31:11 PM
However, wouldn't some people find the flashing distracting?  This is why the MUTCD banned the use of white strobes inside red lights.  As alternatives, why not a fourth color arrow such as blue, purple, white, or pink?  Or alternatively, a "reversed" yellow arrow, which would basically be a yellow ball light with a black arrow inside it.

What does anyone here think?

If the flashing was that big of a problem, I think it would have cropped up with pedestrian signals a long time ago. As long as the flashing is in sync, it's ok for me. HOWEVER, some municipalities (looking at you, Madison :pan: :pan:), have three different flash rates: one for the FYA, one for the upright hand, and a third for the ped countdown. THAT gets very distracting, especially at night.

Adding just about any one of your suggested colors would not help colorblind drivers. The current red, amber, green already has a bluish tint to it. Reversing the black and yellow would be more confusing/ignored detail than the concept of a FYA.

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 14, 2014, 06:07:20 PM
I like the flashing red ball that Michigan uses, because everyone knows what a flashing red means.

Except that would require everyone to come to a complete stop before making the turn...adding unnecessary delay in many cases. A flashing yellow has always meant slow down, proceed with caution; it does not give you the right-of-way. Like YIELD signs, I don't understand why some drivers get so confused with that concept.

Frankly, I didn't see a problem with the 5-signal tower (or doghouse as used in other states). If they're going to do something, the current FYA is a good enough solution for me.

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PM

Adding just about any one of your suggested colors would not help colorblind drivers. The current red, amber, green already has a bluish tint to it. Reversing the black and yellow would be more confusing/ignored detail than the concept of a FYA.

I know that was the case with incandescent signals (orange tint to red, blue tint to green), however, is that still the case with LED signals?  Isn't the light output of LEDs monochromatic?  Everyone should know that red is on top (or on the left in horizontal signals) and green is on the bottom (or on the right in horizontal signals).  The additional color would go between the yellow and green signals.

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 14, 2014, 06:07:20 PM

I like the flashing red ball that Michigan uses, because everyone knows what a flashing red means.

Which are gradually being replaced by FYA.

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PM
Except that would require everyone to come to a complete stop before making the turn...adding unnecessary delay in many cases. A flashing yellow has always meant slow down, proceed with caution; it does not give you the right-of-way. Like YIELD signs, I don't understand why some drivers get so confused with that concept.

In theory, yes, but in practice people treat it as a yield.  Except maybe for kids taking their license exam, no one comes to a complete stop for a blinking red left turn light.

The problem is, and I've said it before, we didn't have any light signal that meant Yield.  So they improvised, and came up with the two alternatives - FYA and MI's flashing red.  Looks like FYA is in the majority.  Since there's enough of them around now, I don't think we need to come up with another shape or color to replace FYA.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2014, 07:48:02 PM

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PM

Adding just about any one of your suggested colors would not help colorblind drivers. The current red, amber, green already has a bluish tint to it. Reversing the black and yellow would be more confusing/ignored detail than the concept of a FYA.

I know that was the case with incandescent signals (orange tint to red, blue tint to green), however, is that still the case with LED signals?  Isn't the light output of LEDs monochromatic?

The light source may have changed, but the color shade has remained the same/become more uniform with LEDs. I know there are ITE specifications floating around; any manufacturer's literature references how their LED product meets ITE color, luminosity, etc., etc. values.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2014, 07:48:02 PM
Everyone should know that red is on top (or on the left in horizontal signals) and green is on the bottom (or on the right in horizontal signals).  The additional color would go between the yellow and green signals.

If position is the key, what difference does it make what color the FA is? If you select blue or purple for the FYA replacement, it could easily get confused for green in a 3-indication left turn setup (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=43.074765,-89.438526&spn=0.000004,0.003484&t=m&layer=c&cbll=43.074765,-89.438526&panoid=vMudjFhQwDQfhfrxsMc3Pg&cbp=12,285.31,,0,5.4&z=19). Granted, the fact that there's only 3 indications should be clue enough, however most drivers aren't putting that much thought into what they're doing. The split-second decision most of today's drivers make could mean a costly misinterpretation.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on August 14, 2014, 04:31:11 PM
However, wouldn't some people find the flashing distracting?  This is why the MUTCD banned the use of white strobes inside red lights.  As alternatives, why not a fourth color arrow such as blue, purple, white, or pink?  Or alternatively, a "reversed" yellow arrow, which would basically be a yellow ball light with a black arrow inside it.

A flash versus a strobe is completely different. The flash pattern is similar to a beacon, flashing about once per second. The strobe lights flashed several times per second, which is far more distracting (and strobe patterns at certain rates have the ability to induce seizures).

I would find another color to be much less intuitive, and it would have a wealth of issues mentioned previously. The reversed arrow concept would likely suffer from less visibility of the arrow from a distance.

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PMA flashing yellow has always meant slow down, proceed with caution; it does not give you the right-of-way.

If you're at a four-way intersection, and you have a flashing yellow (ball), doesn't that mean cross traffic has a flashing red, and you have the right-of-way?

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 10:29:02 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PMA flashing yellow has always meant slow down, proceed with caution; it does not give you the right-of-way.

If you're at a four-way intersection, and you have a flashing yellow (ball), doesn't that mean cross traffic has a flashing red, and you have the right-of-way?

Except if you're making a left turn facing the flashing yellow. Between the main street and the cross street, yes, you have the right-of-way, but not against oncoming traffic, nor a pedestrian crossing the road.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 10:29:02 AM

If you're at a four-way intersection, and you have a flashing yellow (ball), doesn't that mean cross traffic has a flashing red, and you have the right-of-way?

except for that one town in Vermont that apparently had three yellows and a red at one point.  Steve Alpert has photos but I can't find them because I don't remember which highway number.

Quote from: DaBigE on August 15, 2014, 10:56:43 AM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 10:29:02 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PMA flashing yellow has always meant slow down, proceed with caution; it does not give you the right-of-way.

If you're at a four-way intersection, and you have a flashing yellow (ball), doesn't that mean cross traffic has a flashing red, and you have the right-of-way?

Except if you're making a left turn facing the flashing yellow. Between the main street and the cross street, yes, you have the right-of-way, but not against oncoming traffic, nor a pedestrian crossing the road.

Alright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 11:37:29 AM


Alright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

I agree with you. As someone from Maryland (which isn't using FYAs), it was really confusing to see them in Texas for the first time. It was really ambiguous, and I thought that it just meant: you have the right of way over other cars, but not over pedestrians. It was nice, though, because at that specific intersection, there was a "yield on flashing yellow arrow" sign, which cleared up the ambiguities.

At the end of the day, all we needed was a permissive left without through traffic having green and without having to stop. A flashing yellow arrow fits the bill, as long as it's clear to everyone: it's fine, as long as every intersection with it has clear signs for those who aren't used to it at home, or for those who use logic and reason to sort out what signs and signals mean.

remind me again why we need a flashing yellow arrow?

doesn't green ball, without explicit green arrow, mean "you may turn left, but yield to oncoming before doing so"?  what else does the FYA mean? 

The last paragraph of wisvishr's post answers that.  It's not about what else the FYA means, but what else the green ball means.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2014, 01:59:14 PM
remind me again why we need a flashing yellow arrow?

doesn't green ball, without explicit green arrow, mean "you may turn left, but yield to oncoming before doing so"?  what else does the FYA mean?

I totally agree. When the FYA was first introduced, I thought it was a solution looking for a problem. Until the FYA was introduced, I had never heard of any green ball ambiguity. Unless you had a green arrow, if you had to cross anyone else's path to complete your maneuver, you had to ensure the path was clear before proceeding.

FYAs do allow for a little more programming flexibility. For instance, you can allow a permissive left turn while the opposing traffic has a protected turn movement. That said, certain modelling softwares still cannot properly model a FYA.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 02:10:04 PM
The last paragraph of wisvishr's post answers that.  It's not about what else the FYA means, but what else the green ball means.

I had not read this part:

QuoteAt the end of the day, all we needed was a permissive left without through traffic having green and without having to stop.

fair enough.  that's a resolution that allows traffic to proceed faster than shutting down the left turn lane just because the straight is shut down.

but what else does the green ball mean? 

(also, when does one have right of way over a pedestrian?  ever?  I thought the law was that one must make every effort to avoid them - even if they are jaywalking, falling out of the sky, looking to pick a fight with you after they got a flat tire, etc.)

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 01:51:10 PM
...as long as every intersection with it has clear signs for those who aren't used to it at home, or for those who use logic and reason to sort out what signs and signals mean.

That sign has become optional in many places, Wisconsin now being one of them.

Quoteexcept for that one town in Vermont that apparently had three yellows and a red at one point.  Steve Alpert has photos but I can't find them because I don't remember which highway number.

Don't recall hearing about this one before.  Which town?

Quoteremind me again why we need a flashing yellow arrow?

doesn't green ball, without explicit green arrow, mean "you may turn left, but yield to oncoming before doing so"?  what else does the FYA mean?

As was mentioned in the other FYA thread, yes green ball means this.  But green ball was increasingly confusing drivers who also believed that it meant they also had right-of-way while turning.  Hence why FYA was developed, as it makes the distinction for left-turning-traffic to use caution more clear.

Quote(also, when does one have right of way over a pedestrian?  ever? 

When you have the green turn arrow.   Sure, plenty of them start walking against such an arrow, but by the book the driver has right-of-way in green arrow situations.

Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2014, 03:01:04 PM
Don't recall hearing about this one before.  Which town?

I finally remembered.  it is in Barre: Elm at Summer.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fvt%2Fvt_14%2Fblinker.jpg&hash=345ec7acc73aa6edafb1fb80763ee463581ac7d1)

photo from here:
http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/vt/vt_14/

QuoteBut green ball was increasingly confusing drivers who also believed that it meant they also had right-of-way while turning.  Hence why FYA was developed, as it makes the distinction for left-turning-traffic to use caution more clear.

or we could just stop giving stupid people driver's licenses, but where would the fun be in that?

Quoteby the book the driver has right-of-way in green arrow situations.

I would call that a "jaywalking" situation and while technically I may have right-of-way to hit him, I would not be able to justify that to the courts, the pedestrian's family, or my conscience.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2014, 03:12:10 PM
As was mentioned in the other FYA thread, yes green ball means this.  But green ball was increasingly confusing drivers who also believed that it meant they also had right-of-way while turning.  Hence why FYA was developed, as it makes the distinction for left-turning-traffic to use caution more clear.

And these are the people that shouldn't be issued driver's licenses.  It's a simple core principle of driving.  IF THERE IS ONCOMING TRAFFIC, YIELD TO IT, not just at signalized intersections, but in general (except STOP signs, where you get a "turn") - even when there is no intersections (driveways, etc)....
The exception to that; when a DOT uses an ARROW.  It exists to tell you that you don't have to adhere to that principle, that you don't have to yield to oncoming traffic. 
The people that think the green ball means they have the right-of-way need to go back to driver's ed.
Which is why I dislike the FYA.  It uses something (the arrow) whose whole purpose is to say "You don't have to yield to oncoming traffic" to convey a situation where you have to yield to oncoming traffic.  An oxymoron.

The FYA also allows for Dallas phasing as the green balls no longer permitted for the left turn lane unless all through lanes in that direction are also displaying green.  It also brings that situation to other areas that never allowed a non-protected left turn where the adjacent through traffic had a red.

Meh, that's not exactly why I hate them. An arrow doesn't necessarily denote that you have the right of way, just that turning traffic has different rules than through traffic. A flashing red arrow is pretty common (at least in Maryland), and it doesn't mean that turning traffic has the right of way.

Still, I prefer a flashing red arrow to a flashing yellow arrow, because it'll make sure people don't wait in the middle of the intersection before proceeding. It'll limit the number of people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning -- with a red arrow, your first instinct is to stay behind the stop line until you're clear, rather  than waiting in the middle.

Quote from: Big John on August 15, 2014, 04:15:39 PM
The FYA also allows for Dallas phasing as the green balls no longer permitted for the left turn lane unless all through lanes in that direction are also displaying green.  It also brings that situation to other areas that never allowed a non-protected left turn where the adjacent through traffic had a red.

what is the difference between these two?  I thought the definition of Dallas phasing was "red for the mainline, permissive green for left-turning traffic"?

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning

what's wrong with this?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2014, 04:25:46 PM

what's wrong with this?

If the intersection is too small, there could be a conflict with protected left turns from the opposite direction.

But I guess in retrospect it's not such a huge deal.

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Still, I prefer a flashing red arrow to a flashing yellow arrow, because it'll make sure people don't wait in the middle of the intersection before proceeding. It'll limit the number of people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning -- with a red arrow, your first instinct is to stay behind the stop line until you're clear, rather  than waiting in the middle.

The flashing red would require the driver to make a full stop, even if there is no oncoming traffic, prior to making the permissive left turn. Using the flashing yellow does not require a full stop.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2014, 04:25:23 PM

Quote from: Big John on August 15, 2014, 04:15:39 PM
The FYA also allows for Dallas phasing as the green balls no longer permitted for the left turn lane unless all through lanes in that direction are also displaying green.  It also brings that situation to other areas that never allowed a non-protected left turn where the adjacent through traffic had a red.

what is the difference between these two?  I thought the definition of Dallas phasing was "red for the mainline, permissive green for left-turning traffic"?

Dallas Phasing was developed to allow for lead/lag protected left turns phasing at locations with doghouse displays. The lead/lag protected left allows for better two-way signal timing progression along an arterial, while keeping permitted lefts during the non-permitted portion of the cycle can allow increased throughput during peak hours. However, the lagging left can induce yellow trap on the leading side. Dallas phasing incorporated louvered circular green and yellow displays in the doghouse that were tied to the oncoming through traffic instead of the adjacent, so that the permitted left turn could be made while adjacent through traffic was stopped.

FYAs can run Dallas Phasing. The concept is exactly the same, but it's the FYA that is tied to the opposing through green instead of the circular green. No louvers required, since the arrows don't get mistaken for adjacent through indications.

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Still, I prefer a flashing red arrow to a flashing yellow arrow, because it'll make sure people don't wait in the middle of the intersection before proceeding. It'll limit the number of people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning -- with a red arrow, your first instinct is to stay behind the stop line until you're clear, rather  than waiting in the middle.

Around here, the lead car is supposed to wait in the intersection until there's a gap in traffic or the light turns red.  I get quite annoyed if they don't (especially if there isn't a left turn lane and I therefore don't have room to drive around them).

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2014, 06:17:11 PM

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Still, I prefer a flashing red arrow to a flashing yellow arrow, because it'll make sure people don't wait in the middle of the intersection before proceeding. It'll limit the number of people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning -- with a red arrow, your first instinct is to stay behind the stop line until you're clear, rather  than waiting in the middle.

Around here, the lead car is supposed to wait in the intersection until there's a gap in traffic or the light turns red.  I get quite annoyed if they don't (especially if there isn't a left turn lane and I therefore don't have room to drive around them).

Washington State law doesn't really specifiy where you should wait, mostly it ends with "don't block traffic". But in BC, there's a law that states those in intersections (who entered on green) have priority regardless of present signal color. This allows those waiting to turn left to complete their turn without worrying whether they will be honked at/cited/etc.

Quote from: roadfro on August 16, 2014, 01:42:10 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 15, 2014, 04:25:23 PM

Quote from: Big John on August 15, 2014, 04:15:39 PM
The FYA also allows for Dallas phasing as the green balls no longer permitted for the left turn lane unless all through lanes in that direction are also displaying green.  It also brings that situation to other areas that never allowed a non-protected left turn where the adjacent through traffic had a red.

what is the difference between these two?  I thought the definition of Dallas phasing was "red for the mainline, permissive green for left-turning traffic"?

FYAs can run Dallas Phasing. The concept is exactly the same, but it's the FYA that is tied to the opposing through green instead of the circular green. No louvers required, since the arrows don't get mistaken for adjacent through indications.

That is one of the only two reasons I would have a FYA: added permissive left turn time when the through indication is red due to oncoming protected left turn. The other is to allow protected-only left turn cycles during heavy traffic periods, and protected-permissive left turns during other times. Most of the FYA signals in my area do one or both, but there are also a few T intersections (thus no oncoming protected left) where the doghouse has been replaced by the FYA with no increase in functionality.

Quote from: jake on August 17, 2014, 02:57:06 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2014, 06:17:11 PM

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Still, I prefer a flashing red arrow to a flashing yellow arrow, because it'll make sure people don't wait in the middle of the intersection before proceeding. It'll limit the number of people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning -- with a red arrow, your first instinct is to stay behind the stop line until you're clear, rather  than waiting in the middle.

Around here, the lead car is supposed to wait in the intersection until there's a gap in traffic or the light turns red.  I get quite annoyed if they don't (especially if there isn't a left turn lane and I therefore don't have room to drive around them).

Washington State law doesn't really specifiy where you should wait, mostly it ends with "don't block traffic". But in BC, there's a law that states those in intersections (who entered on green) have priority regardless of present signal color. This allows those waiting to turn left to complete their turn without worrying whether they will be honked at/cited/etc.

That's also the law in New York. Any vehicle/pedestrian inside the intersection that entered on a green has priority if their signal turns red, pedestrians over vehicles. I'll add that, while officially illegal, one will rarely get a ticket around here for using the shoulder to get around a turning vehicle in an intersection unless there is a sign specifically telling one not to. NY really only cares about those who run red lights, make illegal turns on red, or block the box.

Quote from: cl94 on August 17, 2014, 06:29:43 PM

Quote from: jake on August 17, 2014, 02:57:06 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 16, 2014, 06:17:11 PM

Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 15, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
Still, I prefer a flashing red arrow to a flashing yellow arrow, because it'll make sure people don't wait in the middle of the intersection before proceeding. It'll limit the number of people who nudge forward into the intersection before turning -- with a red arrow, your first instinct is to stay behind the stop line until you're clear, rather  than waiting in the middle.

Around here, the lead car is supposed to wait in the intersection until there's a gap in traffic or the light turns red.  I get quite annoyed if they don't (especially if there isn't a left turn lane and I therefore don't have room to drive around them).

Washington State law doesn't really specifiy where you should wait, mostly it ends with "don't block traffic". But in BC, there's a law that states those in intersections (who entered on green) have priority regardless of present signal color. This allows those waiting to turn left to complete their turn without worrying whether they will be honked at/cited/etc.

That's also the law in New York. Any vehicle/pedestrian inside the intersection that entered on a green has priority if their signal turns red, pedestrians over vehicles. I'll add that, while officially illegal, one will rarely get a ticket around here for using the shoulder to get around a turning vehicle in an intersection unless there is a sign specifically telling one not to. NY really only cares about those who run red lights, make illegal turns on red, or block the box.

That reminds me of one of my favorite laws in Washington:

Quote from: Washington RCW 46.61.115
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:

     (b) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 11:37:29 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on August 15, 2014, 10:56:43 AM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 10:29:02 AM

Quote from: DaBigE on August 14, 2014, 07:34:54 PMA flashing yellow has always meant slow down, proceed with caution; it does not give you the right-of-way.

If you're at a four-way intersection, and you have a flashing yellow (ball), doesn't that mean cross traffic has a flashing red, and you have the right-of-way?

Except if you're making a left turn facing the flashing yellow. Between the main street and the cross street, yes, you have the right-of-way, but not against oncoming traffic, nor a pedestrian crossing the road.

Alright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

You are right, which is why it would make more sense in some way to have flashing green ball replace flashing yellow ball.

Flashing red: stop, then proceed.  Equivalent to a stop sign.  Cross-traffic has right of way, except in an all-way stop, where it's shared right of way.

Flashing green:  Traffic has right of way, but cross-traffic may proceed anyway so give slight caution.  Equivalent to the uncontrolled part of a 4-way intersection where only the cross street has a stop sign.  Kind of the way a flashing yellow is used now.

Flashing yellow:  Equivalent to a yield sign.  Other traffic may have the right of way, but you don't need to stop if the way is clear.  [what FYA is supposed to mean]

But of course, the current meaning of flashing yellow is so ingrained, that it would not be wise to change it now.  I guess the flashing yellow just has to be learned.

Quote from: mrsman on August 22, 2014, 01:38:16 PM

You are right, which is why it would make more sense in some way to have flashing green ball replace flashing yellow ball.

Flashing red: stop, then proceed.  Equivalent to a stop sign.  Cross-traffic has right of way, except in an all-way stop, where it's shared right of way.

Flashing green:  Traffic has right of way, but cross-traffic may proceed anyway so give slight caution.  Equivalent to the uncontrolled part of a 4-way intersection where only the cross street has a stop sign.  Kind of the way a flashing yellow is used now.

Flashing yellow:  Equivalent to a yield sign.  Other traffic may have the right of way, but you don't need to stop if the way is clear.  [what FYA is supposed to mean]

But of course, the current meaning of flashing yellow is so ingrained, that it would not be wise to change it now.  I guess the flashing yellow just has to be learned.

I completely, totally, fully agree with you. I was about to suggest that myself! I think it makes sense: green means you have the right of way, yellow means you don't, red means you have to stop and either yield, or  take turns. It makes sense!

flashing yellow ball seems to be superfluous from a regulatory perspective: "you have right of way all the time, or at least until this bulb burns out.  proceed with caution, because our licensing system doesn't weed out the morons."

it seems to me that it's the equivalent of a flashing yellow ball on top of a curve advisory yellow-diamond sign or something similar.  just a heads-up that things may get interesting.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 22, 2014, 03:14:11 PM
flashing yellow ball seems to be superfluous from a regulatory perspective: "you have right of way all the time, or at least until this bulb burns out.  proceed with caution, because our licensing system doesn't weed out the morons."

it seems to me that it's the equivalent of a flashing yellow ball on top of a curve advisory yellow-diamond sign or something similar.  just a heads-up that things may get interesting.

But you see, sometimes proceed with caution is absolutely necessary.  It is very common in many areas that they turn traffic lights to flash mode overnight.  They want to convert a traffic controlled intersection into a 4-way intersection where only the cross street has a stop sign.  Simply turning off the light is treated in most jurisdictions as an all-way stop.  They need some indication that the main street can go and the side street has a stop sign and they needed it to be a fairly straight forward way of accomplishing it.  So they created the flashing yellow / flashing red sequence.  This can be programmed in most controllers to happen at a fixed time, or it can be programmed over multiple intersections from central traffic control.  The alternative would be to turn off the light and have a foldable stop sign that would be put in place on the side street, but that would require traffic personnel personally going to each intersection to unfold the stop sign. 

Quote from: mrsman on August 22, 2014, 03:41:11 PM
But you see, sometimes proceed with caution is absolutely necessary.  It is very common in many areas that they turn traffic lights to flash mode overnight.  They want to convert a traffic controlled intersection into a 4-way intersection where only the cross street has a stop sign.  Simply turning off the light is treated in most jurisdictions as an all-way stop.  They need some indication that the main street can go and the side street has a stop sign and they needed it to be a fairly straight forward way of accomplishing it.  So they created the flashing yellow / flashing red sequence.  This can be programmed in most controllers to happen at a fixed time, or it can be programmed over multiple intersections from central traffic control.  The alternative would be to turn off the light and have a foldable stop sign that would be put in place on the side street, but that would require traffic personnel personally going to each intersection to unfold the stop sign.

I'd advocate changing it to flashing green.  yellow is used for caution, which should not be needed in strictly stated doses at very many intersections at night. 

the problem of the inert traffic light is a serious one.  I always wonder how people can discern which non-indicating traffic lights mean "four-way stop" and which mean "bomb on through".  must be a quirk of each locality.

Quote from: mrsman on August 22, 2014, 01:38:16 PM
Flashing green:  Traffic has right of way, but cross-traffic may proceed anyway so give slight caution.  Equivalent to the uncontrolled part of a 4-way intersection where only the cross street has a stop sign.  Kind of the way a flashing yellow is used now.

Flashing yellow:  Equivalent to a yield sign.  Other traffic may have the right of way, but you don't need to stop if the way is clear.  [what FYA is supposed to mean]

I'm kind of confused by what you mean with the flashing green. Are you saying use a flashing green instead of flashing yellow, such as in red/yellow flash mode? I think that might be a bit more confusing...seeing side street cars passing through a flashing green might violate driver expectancy. Flashing yellow covers this just fine, IMO.

BTW: A 4-way intersection with stop signs on a side street is still a controlled intersection (the stop signs provide the control). An uncontrolled intersection is one with no signals or signs controlling entry on all approaches--usually these are found in residential areas only.

Quote from: roadfro on August 24, 2014, 02:13:00 PM

Quote from: mrsman on August 22, 2014, 01:38:16 PM
Flashing green:  Traffic has right of way, but cross-traffic may proceed anyway so give slight caution.  Equivalent to the uncontrolled part of a 4-way intersection where only the cross street has a stop sign.  Kind of the way a flashing yellow is used now.

Flashing yellow:  Equivalent to a yield sign.  Other traffic may have the right of way, but you don't need to stop if the way is clear.  [what FYA is supposed to mean]

I'm kind of confused by what you mean with the flashing green. Are you saying use a flashing green instead of flashing yellow, such as in red/yellow flash mode? I think that might be a bit more confusing...seeing side street cars passing through a flashing green might violate driver expectancy. Flashing yellow covers this just fine, IMO.

BTW: A 4-way intersection with stop signs on a side street is still a controlled intersection (the stop signs provide the control). An uncontrolled intersection is one with no signals or signs controlling entry on all approaches--usually these are found in residential areas only.

If you go back to my original post, I concluded that a change to allow a flashing green would not be wise at this point because the meaning of flashing yellow is already ingrained.  But the point that I was trying to make was that if there were a separate signal indication for yield without stopping, the FYA would be more intuitive. 

I'm not aware that people are really confusing the FYA with the possibility that left turners actually have the right of way when the FYA is displayed.  I think the biggest problem is that the FYA is ignored and that the "yellow trap" problem is not really resolved.  Left turners will see the FYA but they will also see that  adjacent traffic gets a yellow ball and they would assume that both adjacent and opposing traffic sees the yellow ball (and thus will soon see a red ball).  This is ingrained in most drivers and is dangerously incorrect in a FYA controlled lead-lag intersection.

I think that a protected/permissive lagging left is dangerous and leads to a yellow trap unless the opposing left is: 1) also lagging at the same time, 2) prohibited by law, or 3) protected only leading left (red arrow).  The signal indication is irrelevant.

And if we don't need to incorporate a lead-lag protected/permitted left, we don't need a FYA when the doghouse signal works just fine.

Quote from: roadfro on August 16, 2014, 01:26:18 AM
The flashing red would require the driver to make a full stop, even if there is no oncoming traffic, prior to making the permissive left turn. Using the flashing yellow does not require a full stop.

Yes.  The flashing red ball present at permissive left turns in Michigan technically requires drivers to come to a complete stop.  In reality, the law isn't enforced by Michigan police so drivers don't come to a complete stop when there is no oncoming traffic. 

Yes.  The FYA technically eliminates the "yellow trap" .  In reality, drivers waiting at a permissive left turn who see the adjacent through lane turn yellow automatically assume that the opposing through lane is changing yellow with it (leading to a "perceived yellow trap" ).  I believe many agencies downplay the potential dangers of the "perceived yellow trap"  because they have been assured that the FYA solves the "yellow trap"  problem (which technically it does).   Now, road agencies have free reign to install as many "perceived yellow trap"  situations at FYA intersections as they would like.

At some point, reality trumps theory.  The reality is the total number of injury accidents have increased by 30% at new FYA installs throughout SE Michigan.  The "perceived yellow trap" , which was rarely seen under Michigan's old style flashing red ball, is becoming commonplace at FYA intersections throughout the region.  Also, it may have been a mistake to incorporate a flashing yellow arrow as opposed to a flashing red arrow.  A segment of the driving population approaching a flashing yellow arrow will wrongfully assume that they have the right of way (since they equate yellow to mean "Proceed with caution"  or even just "Proceed" ).  From a safety standpoint, the FYA has failed in SE Michigan.  That's the reality.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRandom%2FMCFYA2_zpsd7aed911.jpg%3Ft%3D1377098616&hash=b7e260d13f1dcc20a237be7925254b2cb5db7174)

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 02:09:34 PM
At some point, reality trumps theory.  The reality is the total number of injury accidents have increased by 30% at new FYA installs throughout SE Michigan.  The "perceived yellow trap" , which was rarely seen under Michigan's old style flashing red ball, is becoming commonplace at FYA intersections throughout the region.  Also, it may have been a mistake to incorporate a flashing yellow arrow as opposed to a flashing red arrow.  A segment of the driving population approaching a flashing yellow arrow will wrongfully assume that they have the right of way (since they equate yellow to mean "Proceed with caution"  or even just "Proceed" ).  From a safety standpoint, the FYA has failed in SE Michigan.  That's the reality.

Of course accidents went up. We've allowed more traffic to proceed through an intersection in a given window of time, and thus the intersection throughput has been increased, and thus the amount accidents increased. I think it's well established that busier intersections have more accidents (that's why we invented grade-separated interchanges).

That reminds me of when Washington privatized liquor sales. People got all up in arms because liquor theft went up . . . well, of course it did! There's more alcohol!

^I'm not buying it.  Most of the FYA installs in SE Michigan were around 2008-2010 (the after crash data was looking at 3 years immediately following the great recession).    Traffic volumes were down during this period.  There is no evidence that traffic volumes increased by 30% to explain away the 30% increase in total injury accidents at the FYA intersections.  Regardless, the FYA wouldn't be able to increase intersection capacity by 30%.  With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
^I'm not buying it.  Most of the FYA installs in SE Michigan were around 2008-2010 (the after crash data was looking at 3 years immediately following the great recession).    Traffic volumes were down during this period.  There is no evidence that traffic volumes increased by 30% to explain away the 30% increase in total injury accidents at the FYA intersections.  Regardless, the FYA wouldn't be able to increase intersection capacity by 30%.  With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

Fair enough. My second problem then is the stats themselves. Why are three years worth of collisions crammed into one table? There were 758 injury collisions in the three years after the FYA install, versus 579 in the three years prior. When you have three years of stats in one whole, it's not possible to tell if collisions are actually dropping off or not. For example (and this is purely an example based on zero real-world evidence), what if there were 300 collisions in the first year after the FYA install, then only 200, and then only 158? That would actually show the FYA as working, but again, there's no way to tell.

Is there a year-by-year study anywhere?

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:07:09 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

No they did not.  These intersections were protected/permissive before.  All they did was to go from the flashing red ball to the flashing yellow arrow.  Thus, there was zero gain in volume.

Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:07:09 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

No they did not.  These intersections were protected/permissive before.  All they did was to go from the flashing red ball to the flashing yellow arrow.  Thus, there was zero gain in volume.

Do you honestly believe that making traffic stop before turning has the same capacity as making traffic simply yield?

Quote from: jake on August 26, 2014, 01:19:39 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:07:09 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

No they did not.  These intersections were protected/permissive before.  All they did was to go from the flashing red ball to the flashing yellow arrow.  Thus, there was zero gain in volume.

Do you honestly believe that making traffic stop before turning has the same capacity as making traffic simply yield?

If opposing traffic makes it so one has to stop to yield for the majority of a cycle, it's pretty close. But in such a case, I'd just use a protected-only with ITS shortening green times if demand isn't there.

Quote from: cl94 on August 26, 2014, 01:25:55 PM

Quote from: jake on August 26, 2014, 01:19:39 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:07:09 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

No they did not.  These intersections were protected/permissive before.  All they did was to go from the flashing red ball to the flashing yellow arrow.  Thus, there was zero gain in volume.

Do you honestly believe that making traffic stop before turning has the same capacity as making traffic simply yield?

If opposing traffic makes it so one has to stop to yield for the majority of a cycle, it's pretty close. But in such a case, I'd just use a protected-only with ITS shortening green times if demand isn't there.

Well yeah, if there's opposing traffic it doesn't matter. But consider all the times when there isn't any opposing traffic. Stopping would absolutely impede the regular, consistent flow of traffic.

Quote from: jake on August 25, 2014, 04:59:24 PM
Fair enough. My second problem then is the stats themselves. Why are three years worth of collisions crammed into one table? There were 758 injury collisions in the three years after the FYA install, versus 579 in the three years prior. When you have three years of stats in one whole, it's not possible to tell if collisions are actually dropping off or not. For example (and this is purely an example based on zero real-world evidence), what if there were 300 collisions in the first year after the FYA install, then only 200, and then only 158? That would actually show the FYA as working, but again, there's no way to tell.

Is there a year-by-year study anywhere?

The Southeast Michigan Counsel of Governments (SEMCOG) compiles crash data on a yearly basis for every major intersection in SE Michigan.  Here is a link to the crash data for Macomb County:

http://www.semcog.org/data/apps/highcrash.report.cfm?mcd=3999&numReturn=100&ftype=0

Using this public data,  you can look back at over 10 years of crash data for any intersection of interest.  I broke the numbers down by year in the chart below per your request.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRandom%2FFYAmacomb2_zps46829ed6.jpg&hash=762c0d66ab8299ee585b4fccb7b062b89d3ecef2) (http://s478.photobucket.com/user/tradephoric/media/Transportation%20Pictures/Random/FYAmacomb2_zps46829ed6.jpg.html)

Quote from: jake on August 26, 2014, 01:19:39 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:07:09 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

No they did not.  These intersections were protected/permissive before.  All they did was to go from the flashing red ball to the flashing yellow arrow.  Thus, there was zero gain in volume.

Do you honestly believe that making traffic stop before turning has the same capacity as making traffic simply yield?

In practice, as stated by Tradephoric above, no one, not even cops, stops at the flashing red ball to make a left turn in Michigan.

Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2014, 05:01:22 PM

Quote from: jake on August 26, 2014, 01:19:39 PM

Quote from: Brandon on August 26, 2014, 06:36:34 AM

Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2014, 09:07:09 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 03:41:14 PM
With the FYA you still have left turn phases which prevents any significant gains in capacity.   

But traffic is also able to turn left outside of the left turn phases, so in intersections that went from protected-only to FYI, the volume of turning vehicles increased.

No they did not.  These intersections were protected/permissive before.  All they did was to go from the flashing red ball to the flashing yellow arrow.  Thus, there was zero gain in volume.

Do you honestly believe that making traffic stop before turning has the same capacity as making traffic simply yield?

In practice, as stated by Tradephoric above, no one, not even cops, stops at the flashing red ball to make a left turn in Michigan.

Well, as also stated by Tradephoric above, the amount of injury collisions is back to pre-FYA levels, so why are we still having this conversation?

Quote from: mrsman on August 24, 2014, 06:51:41 PM
If you go back to my original post, I concluded that a change to allow a flashing green would not be wise at this point because the meaning of flashing yellow is already ingrained.  But the point that I was trying to make was that if there were a separate signal indication for yield without stopping, the FYA would be more intuitive. 

I'm not aware that people are really confusing the FYA with the possibility that left turners actually have the right of way when the FYA is displayed.  I think the biggest problem is that the FYA is ignored and that the "yellow trap" problem is not really resolved.  Left turners will see the FYA but they will also see that  adjacent traffic gets a yellow ball and they would assume that both adjacent and opposing traffic sees the yellow ball (and thus will soon see a red ball).  This is ingrained in most drivers and is dangerously incorrect in a FYA controlled lead-lag intersection.

I think that a protected/permissive lagging left is dangerous and leads to a yellow trap unless the opposing left is: 1) also lagging at the same time, 2) prohibited by law, or 3) protected only leading left (red arrow).  The signal indication is irrelevant.

And if we don't need to incorporate a lead-lag protected/permitted left, we don't need a FYA when the doghouse signal works just fine.

A "yield" condition assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection--vehicles controlled by a YIELD need to slow down to a speed that is reasonable for the existing conditions or stop when necessary to avoid interfering with conflicting traffic (that's a paraphrase from the MUTCD). So "Yield without stopping" doesn't actually make sense. However, I get the point you are trying to make, and in that sense I can see where a flashing green (as a substitute for yellow in red/yellow flash mode) could draw the distinction--still not sold on it though.

The FYA does eliminate "yellow trap", but does introduce "perceived yellow trap" if a driver is paying attention to the adjacent through signals when trying to make the permitted left turn. The main question is why the driver bothers paying attention to the adjacent through signals at all when faced with an all-arrow display. I don't get why that concept isn't ingrained in driver's heads... Lead/lag PPLT has been used without major issue in many locations (Dallas, Las Vegas, among others).

The all-arrow FYA display over dedicated left turn lanes is definitely an improvement over relying on a simple doghouse. It's a much clearer indication.

Quote from: tradephoric on August 25, 2014, 02:09:34 PM
At some point, reality trumps theory.  The reality is the total number of injury accidents have increased by 30% at new FYA installs throughout SE Michigan.  The "perceived yellow trap" , which was rarely seen under Michigan's old style flashing red ball, is becoming commonplace at FYA intersections throughout the region.  Also, it may have been a mistake to incorporate a flashing yellow arrow as opposed to a flashing red arrow.  A segment of the driving population approaching a flashing yellow arrow will wrongfully assume that they have the right of way (since they equate yellow to mean "Proceed with caution"  or even just "Proceed" ).  From a safety standpoint, the FYA has failed in SE Michigan.  That's the reality.

I make the assumption that all intersections included in this data had flashing circular red PPLT in the before case, and FYA PPLT in the after case. Further, I would hope the data is comparing similar timing and phasing schemes. If either one of those statements is not the case, then the comparison data isn't valid for analysis. If both statements are true, then this truly is a mystery. IIRC, various before/after studies conducted on FYA before it was included in the MUTCD didn't have such results, so what is the issue in Michigan? I would want to speculate that it's the use of a less restrictive color indication, but the assertions that no driver stops at a flashing circular red for PPLTs in Michigan would seem to eliminate that thought...

A major 2007 study (NCHRP web only document 123) analyzed the safety benefits of the FYA at over 50 installations.  The following conclusion was made:

QuoteThe installation of the FYA indication at sites which currently operate PPLT signal phasing showed improvements in safety.  In other locations, the change in left-turn signal phasing had a more significant impact on safety than the change in left-turn indication, although safety appeared to improve with time.

The MDOT FYA brochure (linked on Macomb County's website) describes the FYA as a "safer, more efficient way to handle traffic turning left at busy intersections" .   The FYA brochure makes it sound like a WIN-WIN, where traffic moves more efficiently and safely through an intersection.  This is not the case.  Since the introduction of the FYA in Macomb, the lagging PPLT are allowed to skip if no vehicles are detected (under the old flashing circular red, the lagging PPLT were not allowed to skip).  So yes, the FYA's in Macomb County has led to more efficient operation but it has come at a cost to safety. 

I agree with Roadfro that it's not a fair apples-to-apples comparison.  I just don't feel it's fair to describe the FYA as a safer AND more efficient type of PPLT.  It's either one or the other. 

Quote from: tradephoric on August 27, 2014, 11:54:11 AM
I just don't feel it's fair to describe the FYA as a safer AND more efficient type of PPLT.  It's either one or the other.

This is a fair statement.

The safety benefit of the FYA through new signal indications seems to be proven (although perhaps not universally) through various studies and trials. The FYA being better than a circular green in the permissive mode–particularly in instances where drivers reacted to a critical circumstance with a more "fail safe" response.

The efficiency aspect may not necessarily come from the FYA itself. Rather, the FYA has increased awareness in the signal timing and manufacturing community about signal timing/phasing techniques for PPLT operation. Some of the operational come from simple re-timing or now using PPLT where signals were protected-only before. Other operational efficiencies in some jurisdictions are things that could have been done previously but took much more effort than some agencies would expend. For example, tying the permissive mode to the opposing thru movement was something rather complex when first introduced as Dallas Phasing (in Vegas, this required installing a louvered 5-section display and requiring technicians to add special programming to controllers and hardware to achieve the result); with the advent of FYA, PPLT signal hardware is cheaper and the controller logic has been pre-programmed into many newer signal controllers, making it much easier to implement more advanced phasing options.

The year-by-year stats graph tradephoric posted earlier suggests to me that there was a bit of a learning curve with the FYA in that region.  But once Michigan drivers got more used to the FYA, the safety benefits began to show themselves.

Quote from: froggie on August 29, 2014, 08:08:48 AM
The year-by-year stats graph tradephoric posted earlier suggests to me that there was a bit of a learning curve with the FYA in that region.  But once Michigan drivers got more used to the FYA, the safety benefits began to show themselves.

There's even a bigger learning curve with roundabouts.  The chart below looks at crash data of 16 major roundabouts built throughout SE Michigan between 2006-2009.  While PDO accidents spike the first year after roundabout construction, injury accidents drop from day one.  There's no doubt that roundabouts reduce injury accidents. 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi478.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Frr144%2Ftradephoric%2FTransportation%2520Pictures%2FRoundabouts%2FRBuntitled_zps758a2437.png&hash=72057a190f81fe343b369787fc1cee4936efece8)

If an intersection's traffic pattern allows for the use of a FYA for turns, then at that point what's the difference between the intersection with a FYA and the intersection with a doghouse signal?

Also why is it that the FYA option requires an addtional head to be added to a dedicated turn signal (red arrow, two yellow arrows, green arrow)? Why can't they just flash the yellow arrows that already exist on the three ways? It would seem easier to install this option in existing equipment without major rewiring and adding an additional head.

Quote from: doogie1303 on August 29, 2014, 08:06:23 PM
If an intersection's traffic pattern allows for the use of a FYA for turns, then at that point what's the difference between the intersection with a FYA and the intersection with a doghouse signal?

FYA allows for permissive turns at some times of the day and not at others.

Also why is it that the FYA option requires an addtional head to be added to a dedicated turn signal (red arrow, two yellow arrows, green arrow)? Why can't they just flash the yellow arrows that already exist on the three ways? It would seem easier to install this option in existing equipment without major rewiring and adding an additional head.
[/quote]
It was considered safer to have a second yellow head for the "going to be red" phase.  Drivers might miss the flashing yellow turning to solid yellow.  It's less likely to be missed if it switches to a separate signal head.

People are too stupid to know you have to yield turning left on a green ball (yes, really). flashing yellow arrow emphasizes the need to yield.

The issue is that a green arrow, by definition, assigns the right of way to vehicles facing it. With a flashing green, you'd have two greens crossing each other, a very dangerous situation. This is the reason why a flashing green is explicitly prohibited in the MUTCD. A ball only assigns ROW in the straight direction, preventing this.

For all the pro-FYA people out there,

To what extent would you favor changing split-phasing signals to FYA?

Here is the situation:  A four-way intersection.  Eastbound gets 18 seconds of green (with a left arrow as well), followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Westbound gets 33 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Then north/south gets 63 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  The current signal display for eastbound and westbound have a 4-aspect tower: R,Y,G,GA.  Green and green arrow are lit at the same time.  This is pure split phasing.

Could this then be changed to a situation where westbound sees a FYA while eastbound sees green and eastbound sees a FYA while westbound sees green, thereby allowing an optional permissive left turn during the entire time that north/south has a red light?

Would your answer change if there were multiple left turn lanes (or optional left turn lanes) on the eastbound and/or westbound left turns?

Quote from: mrsman on August 30, 2014, 11:19:00 PM
For all the pro-FYA people out there,

To what extent would you favor changing split-phasing signals to FYA?

Here is the situation:  A four-way intersection.  Eastbound gets 18 seconds of green (with a left arrow as well), followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Westbound gets 33 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Then north/south gets 63 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  The current signal display for eastbound and westbound have a 4-aspect tower: R,Y,G,GA.  Green and green arrow are lit at the same time.  This is pure split phasing.

Could this then be changed to a situation where westbound sees a FYA while eastbound sees green and eastbound sees a FYA while westbound sees green, thereby allowing an optional permissive left turn during the entire time that north/south has a red light?

Would your answer change if there were multiple left turn lanes (or optional left turn lanes) on the eastbound and/or westbound left turns?

Biggest issue is that there's a yellow trap. Heading EB, you don't know the state of the opposing signal (as it is not duplicated in your direction) and might end up causing more issues (yellow trap accidents). If there is a heavy turn movement from the WB movement, in this case, you could theoretically give it an FYA, as WB would be getting a full green afterward. I really don't see a problem with this if the EB movement is pretty light.

Quote from: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 11:26:47 PM

Quote from: mrsman on August 30, 2014, 11:19:00 PM
For all the pro-FYA people out there,

To what extent would you favor changing split-phasing signals to FYA?

Here is the situation:  A four-way intersection.  Eastbound gets 18 seconds of green (with a left arrow as well), followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Westbound gets 33 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Then north/south gets 63 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  The current signal display for eastbound and westbound have a 4-aspect tower: R,Y,G,GA.  Green and green arrow are lit at the same time.  This is pure split phasing.

Could this then be changed to a situation where westbound sees a FYA while eastbound sees green and eastbound sees a FYA while westbound sees green, thereby allowing an optional permissive left turn during the entire time that north/south has a red light?

Would your answer change if there were multiple left turn lanes (or optional left turn lanes) on the eastbound and/or westbound left turns?

Biggest issue is that there's a yellow trap. Heading EB, you don't know the state of the opposing signal (as it is not duplicated in your direction) and might end up causing more issues (yellow trap accidents). If there is a heavy turn movement from the WB movement, in this case, you could theoretically give it an FYA, as WB would be getting a full green afterward. I really don't see a problem with this if the EB movement is pretty light.

Yellow trap isn't a big issue, as the FYA eliminates the yellow trap regardless of what point in the cycle the permissive/protected phases are, due to flashing yellow overlapping with opposing through green. ("Perceived" yellow trap is a different issue.)

The issue in this particular case relates to the reason for the split phasing to begin with. I'm going to assume that the intersection isn't skewed and that there are no sight distance issues. What is the lane configuration like? If there's any shared turning lanes (i.e. 1 left turn lane and 1 shared left/through lane), then there is no other safe signal phasing option other than to use a split. If there are no shared lanes and each direction has a a single dedicated left turn lane, then a FYA can potentially be installed–most engineers will frown on permissive phasing with multiple turn lanes though for safety reasons.

Quote from: roadfro on August 31, 2014, 05:23:23 PM

Quote from: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 11:26:47 PM

Quote from: mrsman on August 30, 2014, 11:19:00 PM
For all the pro-FYA people out there,

To what extent would you favor changing split-phasing signals to FYA?

Here is the situation:  A four-way intersection.  Eastbound gets 18 seconds of green (with a left arrow as well), followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Westbound gets 33 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  Then north/south gets 63 seconds of green followed by 2 seconds of yellow.  The current signal display for eastbound and westbound have a 4-aspect tower: R,Y,G,GA.  Green and green arrow are lit at the same time.  This is pure split phasing.

Could this then be changed to a situation where westbound sees a FYA while eastbound sees green and eastbound sees a FYA while westbound sees green, thereby allowing an optional permissive left turn during the entire time that north/south has a red light?

Would your answer change if there were multiple left turn lanes (or optional left turn lanes) on the eastbound and/or westbound left turns?

Biggest issue is that there's a yellow trap. Heading EB, you don't know the state of the opposing signal (as it is not duplicated in your direction) and might end up causing more issues (yellow trap accidents). If there is a heavy turn movement from the WB movement, in this case, you could theoretically give it an FYA, as WB would be getting a full green afterward. I really don't see a problem with this if the EB movement is pretty light.

Yellow trap isn't a big issue, as the FYA eliminates the yellow trap regardless of what point in the cycle the permissive/protected phases are, due to flashing yellow overlapping with opposing through green. ("Perceived" yellow trap is a different issue.)

The issue in this particular case relates to the reason for the split phasing to begin with. I'm going to assume that the intersection isn't skewed and that there are no sight distance issues. What is the lane configuration like? If there's any shared turning lanes (i.e. 1 left turn lane and 1 shared left/through lane), then there is no other safe signal phasing option other than to use a split. If there are no shared lanes and each direction has a a single dedicated left turn lane, then a FYA can potentially be installed–most engineers will frown on permissive phasing with multiple turn lanes though for safety reasons.

In the example that I'm thinking of, based on a real-world split-phased signal at Dennis/Georgia in Silver Spring, MD, EB has a dedicated single left turn lane.  WB has a dedicated left and an option lane left or straight, but the vast majority of traffic makes a left turn. 

You're right that the reason for the split phasing was probably due to the shared lane treatment.  My question is why is it unsafe to have a permissive left here?  There are plenty of signalized intersections with no left turn lane at all and the left thru lane is a de facto left or straight option lane.  If the car ahead of you wants to turn left, you may have to wait until traffic is clear for him to turn, even if the light is green and even if you want to go straight.  That's the risk of being in the option lane, the car ahead of you (or the car ahead of that car) may want to go a different movement and you may have to wait for him, yet there are too many cars wanting to turn left for one lane to be sufficient.

Quote from: mrsman on September 07, 2014, 08:17:49 AM
In the example that I'm thinking of, based on a real-world split-phased signal at Dennis/Georgia in Silver Spring, MD, EB has a dedicated single left turn lane.  WB has a dedicated left and an option lane left or straight, but the vast majority of traffic makes a left turn. 

You're right that the reason for the split phasing was probably due to the shared lane treatment.  My question is why is it unsafe to have a permissive left here?  There are plenty of signalized intersections with no left turn lane at all and the left thru lane is a de facto left or straight option lane.  If the car ahead of you wants to turn left, you may have to wait until traffic is clear for him to turn, even if the light is green and even if you want to go straight.  That's the risk of being in the option lane, the car ahead of you (or the car ahead of that car) may want to go a different movement and you may have to wait for him, yet there are too many cars wanting to turn left for one lane to be sufficient.

With a single dedicated left turn lane in the EB direction, you could use potentially use permitted left turns for that. However, the existence of the shared lane on the opposite side would make it more difficult for the EB permitted left drivers to ascertain their gap when figuring out exactly what the other driver is doing in the WB shared lane. This could decrease efficiency.

The WB direction wouldn't make sense to have permitted lefts with the shared lane. That would be a violation of driver expectancy by potentially stopping through vehicles in the shared lane. Yes, the situation exists on streets without dedicated turning lanes. However, the goal of using a shared lane (when a dedicated left lane already exists) is to increase the left turn throughput, which can really only happen if the shared lane has a protected left–left turn throughput decreases when drivers are waiting for a gap, then straight throughput decreases for vehicles stuck behind waiting left turning vehicles.

Mn/DOT just handled it by using a doghouse and running split phase in the peak periods, flashing yellow arrow only in the non-peak.

Quote from: Mdcastle on August 30, 2014, 09:57:44 PM
People are too stupid to know you have to yield turning left on a green ball (yes, really). flashing yellow arrow emphasizes the need to yield.

What makes you think they will yield at a flashing yellow arrow if they are also blowing through solid greens?

Quote from: US 41 on September 09, 2014, 06:46:23 PM

Quote from: Mdcastle on August 30, 2014, 09:57:44 PM
People are too stupid to know you have to yield turning left on a green ball (yes, really). flashing yellow arrow emphasizes the need to yield.

What makes you think they will yield at a flashing yellow arrow if they are also blowing through solid greens?

I'll let you think about that for a second...

All of this depends on the notion that people know what to do at a flashing yellow arrow in the first place. They're not logically consistent with anything (as I've argued several times), and often there's a blatant lack of signage. And it's not on many driver's manuals, like Maryland's or DC's. How the hell do I know what to do at one if I'm not a member of AA Roads? This is literally the ONLY place I'd heard of it, and when I encountered one in Iowa, I knew what to do because I'm an enthusiast.

Just to prove it, I asked my dad what he'd do, and he said "you'd go, because flashing yellow gives you the right of way."

My mom, though, said "you'd yield because you'd have to yield to all traffic at a normal flashing yellow." Yeah, no.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 10, 2014, 10:25:33 PM

Quote from: US 41 on September 09, 2014, 06:46:23 PM

Quote from: Mdcastle on August 30, 2014, 09:57:44 PM
People are too stupid to know you have to yield turning left on a green ball (yes, really). flashing yellow arrow emphasizes the need to yield.

What makes you think they will yield at a flashing yellow arrow if they are also blowing through solid greens?

I'll let you think about that for a second...

The logic is that many people speed up when they see a yellow to try and make it through the light.

That's an apparent lack of logic.  The light goes red before the fya phase, ergo that mistake isn't really possible.


iPhone

The flashing red arrow (FRA) led to fewer fail-critical responses than a flashing yellow arrow (FYA), according to research cited in NCHRP Web-Only Document 123.   The following excerpts can be found on page 24 of the report: 

QuoteIn the driving simulator a total of ten fail-critical (go) responses were observed at the two scenarios with FYA permissive indications. However, all but one of these responses occurred on the first observation of a FYA display by each driver.  Alternatively, no fail critical responses were observed at the FRA scenarios. These results were statistically significant.

At wide intersections where the left-turn lanes are separated from the through and right-turn lanes, and the left-turn driver cannot see the through movement indication, the FRA requires the driver to stop before proceeding significantly reducing left-turn capacity. 

Two simple questions.

1.   Which type of PPLT indication is safer (FYA or FRA)?
Based on the driving simulator results, drivers are more likely to yield to oncoming traffic at a FRA.  Drivers in the study were especially susceptible to experiencing a fail-critical (go) response when encountering a FYA display for the first time.

2.   Which type of PPLT indication is more efficient (FYA or FRA)?
In theory, drivers are required to come to a stop before proceeding at a FRA.  However, it's been well documented that the majority of Michigan drivers don't come to a complete stop when encountering a flashing red ball when it is clear to go.  If the FRA was introduced nationally, it's very likely drivers would treat the FRA the same way they treat the FYA and there would be no reduction in capacity.     

IMO, the flashing red arrow (FRA) would be safer than the flashing yellow arrow (FYA).  Also, the capacity of each would be the same. 

Quote from: tradephoric on September 12, 2014, 11:16:28 AM
2.   Which type of PPLT indication is more efficient (FYA or FRA)?
In theory, drivers are required to come to a stop before proceeding at a FRA.  However, it's been well documented that the majority of Michigan drivers don't come to a complete stop when encountering a flashing red ball when it is clear to go.  If the FRA was introduced nationally, it's very likely drivers would treat the FRA the same way they treat the FYA and there would be no reduction in capacity.     

IMO, the flashing red arrow (FRA) would be safer than the flashing yellow arrow (FYA).  Also, the capacity of each would be the same. 

Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Quote from: tradephoric on September 12, 2014, 02:12:16 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

Quote from: jake on September 12, 2014, 02:16:51 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on September 12, 2014, 02:12:16 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

Quote from: Brandon on September 12, 2014, 03:09:27 PM

Quote from: jake on September 12, 2014, 02:16:51 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on September 12, 2014, 02:12:16 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

But wouldn't that make it legal in practice? I'm saying that, by the books, sailing through a flashing red is not legal. It might not be enforced, the same way a lot of laws aren't, but that doesn't make it right, necessarily. It would seem that a flashing amber is still the safer bet, mainly because it's congruent with the rest of the country, but also because it's actually, by the books, legal to sail through them should there not be opposing traffic.

Also, are we saying that Michigan is installing signals that they are fully aware people are going to ignore? That seems insane to me.

I saw something else today that FYA can do and a doghouse can't.  At an intersection that normally has a FYA permissive phase, the red arrow stayed on - because a pedestrian had pushed the button to get a Walk signal.  The FYA didn't go on, so the left turners didn't get a chance to run down the pedestrian.

That said, I see nothing wrong with MI's flashing red left turn, which is being phased out.  Why not treat a flashing red as a yield instead of a stop?  With the yellow arrow, you have to treat yellow as a yield instead of a right of way signal.  And flashing red needs 3-head signals, not 4-head.

^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

---

Regarding the FYA arrowing being safer than a green ball/drivers who don't know how to proceed on a green ball shouldn't be driving argument, how about the case of the intersection where 99% of the time a leading left turn arrow is provided?  For the 1% times when the green arrow doesn't come up, but a green ball is provided, a driver who is not paying enough attention could wrongly think the arrow is coming up as usually.  With a FYA, there is a stronger indication that the protected arrow has not come up.

Quote from: Brandon on September 12, 2014, 03:09:27 PM

Quote from: jake on September 12, 2014, 02:16:51 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on September 12, 2014, 02:12:16 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

It's standard practice to speed and cops usually speed even without flashers on, but that doesn't make speeding legal.  What most drivers do doesn't change the laws on the books.  If I see a flashing red, I treat it like a stop sign, no ifs ands or buts.  I would be especially careful to not make a rolling stop if there was a cop nearby or a red light camera (actually, if there was a red light camera, I'd seriously consider just waiting for the green).

Quote from: vdeane on September 13, 2014, 12:31:12 PM

Quote from: Brandon on September 12, 2014, 03:09:27 PM

Quote from: jake on September 12, 2014, 02:16:51 PM

Quote from: tradephoric on September 12, 2014, 02:12:16 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 12, 2014, 12:48:08 PM
Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

It's standard practice to speed and cops usually speed even without flashers on, but that doesn't make speeding legal.  What most drivers do doesn't change the laws on the books.  If I see a flashing red, I treat it like a stop sign, no ifs ands or buts.  I would be especially careful to not make a rolling stop if there was a cop nearby or a red light camera (actually, if there was a red light camera, I'd seriously consider just waiting for the green).

1. If you stop at one of these, you'll get the horn - deservedly.
2. Red light cameras are illegal in Michigan.

So you're supposed to risk a ticket because a bunch of people decided that they should run the light?  Last I checked, police enforce the law as it is written - not how "consensus" says you should drive.  In fact, the government specifically uses the difference is the "consensus" and the actual letter of the law to enable the police to pull over anybody they please, under the knowledge that of all the laws out there, everyone is practically guaranteed to violate one of them if you observe them for a few minutes.

I have never gotten a ticket (not even a warning).  I don't intend to start now.

Quote from: Revive 755 on September 12, 2014, 10:19:03 PM
^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

LEDs flashing in the border of a sign is a completely different issue from signal indication colors. Besides, using the same white from pedestrian signal for a vehicle signal can start to muddy the meaning of other colors.

Besides, the color of LEDs in a sign are based on the type of sign (white for regulatory, yellow for warning, red for stop signs). They also have no legal meaning, and are merely meant to enhance the conspicuousness of the sign.

Quote from: roadfro on September 13, 2014, 07:57:14 PM

Quote from: Revive 755 on September 12, 2014, 10:19:03 PM
^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

LEDs flashing in the border of a sign is a completely different issue from signal indication colors. Besides, using the same white from pedestrian signal for a vehicle signal can start to muddy the meaning of other colors.

Besides, the color of LEDs in a sign are based on the type of sign (white for regulatory, yellow for warning, red for stop signs). They also have no legal meaning, and are merely meant to enhance the conspicuousness of the sign.

Not necessarily. Quite a few signs within the I-87/I-90/US 20 interchange complex in Albany use exclusively red LEDs. This is probably due to the age of the signs (likely date to when all Interstate-Interstate movements were made semi-directional in the late 1980s) as colored LEDs are a relatively recent invention, but they're red nonetheless. From a contrast standpoint, it highlights the most important warning signs pretty nicely.

Quote from: cl94 on September 13, 2014, 08:05:35 PM

Quote from: roadfro on September 13, 2014, 07:57:14 PM

Quote from: Revive 755 on September 12, 2014, 10:19:03 PM
^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

LEDs flashing in the border of a sign is a completely different issue from signal indication colors. Besides, using the same white from pedestrian signal for a vehicle signal can start to muddy the meaning of other colors.

Besides, the color of LEDs in a sign are based on the type of sign (white for regulatory, yellow for warning, red for stop signs). They also have no legal meaning, and are merely meant to enhance the conspicuousness of the sign.

Not necessarily. Quite a few signs within the I-87/I-90/US 20 interchange complex in Albany use exclusively red LEDs. This is probably due to the age of the signs (likely date to when all Interstate-Interstate movements were made semi-directional in the late 1980s) as colored LEDs are a relatively recent invention, but they're red nonetheless. From a contrast standpoint, it highlights the most important warning signs pretty nicely.

Red and infrared LEDs were the first to be introduced (in the 1960s), followed by orange, amber, and the traditional (yellowish, not the right hue for traffic signals) green in the 1970s, then blue, white, and pure (traffic signal grade) green in the 1990s.  Even more recent are pink, purple, warm white, and ultraviolet LEDs, although some pink and purple LEDs have issues with their red phosphors fading, which causes their hue to gradually become more bluish.

The flashing red ball has been used in Michigan for the past 40 years.  Drivers are technically required to stop at a flashing red ball but its standard practice to roll through the intersection if there is no opposing traffic.  To visualize the point, here is a video of a flashing red ball intersection in action:


Sure, drivers are technically breaking the law.  That doesn't mean the flashing red ball is unsafe. Consider the following scenarios...

Scenario 1:  In Michigan, 99% of drivers roll through the flashing red ball when there is no opposing traffic.  The remaining 1% are unfamiliar with local practices and come to a complete stop.  By coming to a complete stop, they substantially increase the likelihood of getting rear-ended. 

Scenario 2:  In the USA, 99% of drivers know they must yield to oncoming traffic at a FYA indication.  The remaining 1% wrongfully belief they have the right of way.  By believing they have the right of way, they substantially increase the likelihood of getting t-boned. 

Here are a few reasons why the FRA may be a safer alternative than the FYA:

1.   A driver approaching a FYA is more likely to pull out infront of oncoming traffic.  A recent study observed 10 fail-critical (go) responses at FYA permissive indications versus zero fail-critical responses at the FRA.  The results were statistically significant.  (See: NCHRP Web-Only Document 123, page 24). 

2.   A FRA provides greater visual cues that a permissive phase is ending.  Not only would drivers see a change in signal head position but also a change in color when the permissive phase is ending (from a flashing red arrow to a solid yellow arrow).  More visual cues that the permissive phase is ending should be beneficial to drivers.

The flashing red arrow may be safer than the flashing yellow arrow.  However, the FYA was chosen as a national standard because they wanted to go "by the book" .

Quote from: tradephoric on September 15, 2014, 06:54:47 PM
Sure, drivers are technically breaking the law.

Therein lies the problem. Until pavement markings can dictate the meanings of overhead signals, having a flashing red dictate one thing in one scenario and something else in another is extremely vague, and will be a disaster for the courts. This presents an issue for nationwide implementation, and standardization of signal meanings across the country should really be the goal here.

May I humbly suggest that Michigan post giant signs at its borders regarding the specific traffic laws that are unenforced in the state, so non-locals know to do 80+ on Detroit interstates and to roll through flashing reds?

I've seen a lot of this talk about the FYA recently, and I'm probably late to the party in commenting, but for the record I think they're a bad idea and they can stay out of New Jersey.  A quick scroll upthread had the best point - something like "flashing yellow ball - you have the right-of-way"; "flashing yellow arrow - you don't have the right-of-way?".  It's too confusing and it invites head-on collisions.  With a flashing red arrow I know where I stand.  A lot of reasons were stated for it, and MUTCD includes it now and blah blah blah, but it all goes out the window when someone gets squashed.  In my day, we had solid arrows and we liked it that way.

Traffic control curmudgeon mode OFF

The issue is that when traffic signals were designed there was no consideration given to the idea that one might want to allow people to go when they don't have the right of way.  now the red/yellow/green setup is so ingrained, so we're trying to shoehorn things in.

Quote from: tradephoric on September 15, 2014, 06:54:47 PM
Sure, drivers are technically breaking the law.  That doesn't mean the flashing red ball is unsafe.

I wasn't saying anything about safety.  I was just questioning the study that claimed they were just as efficient because they assumed that drivers would not follow the law.  A traffic standard should not rely on law-breaking in order to be efficient.

The issue of the FYA came up after Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson was nearly killed at a FYA intersection.  Here's a summary of the accident:



After the crash, the Frank Beckmann show interviewed MDOT director Kirt Steudle.  Frank suggested that a flashing red arrow would be clearer to drivers that they must stop for oncoming traffic.  Everybody knows that red means stop.  To this point, Kirt responded.... 

"When you drive up to an intersection and there is nobody coming and the light is flashing red you are suppose to stop and then proceed.  But what everybody was doing, myself included and probably most of your listeners, is you see a flashing red light coming up and nobody is coming and you just whip right through it.  Well, you just violated the traffic law because you're supposed to stop and then proceed...(Aug 13, 2012)"

The MDOT director admits to rolling through the flashing red.  Again, it's common practice and the violation isn't enforced in Michigan.  The FYA solves the technicalities of rolling through a flashing red indication but it also introduces a more ambiguous FYA indication that may be leading to more accidents (specifically head-on left turns).  I'm OK with drivers bending the rules if it means I don't die in a car accident.

At least everyone knows what they're supposed to do when they see a flashing red arrow.  If they roll through it, they at least know they don't have the right-of-way and they would (hopefully) be more cautious and yield to oncoming traffic.  The FYA is too ambiguous.  I'd rather have traffic stop (or know they're supposed to stop), than have a signal confusing to drivers speed up the flow a little bit.

Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2014, 03:01:04 PM

Quote(also, when does one have right of way over a pedestrian?  ever? 

When you have the green turn arrow.   Sure, plenty of them start walking against such an arrow, but by the book the driver has right-of-way in green arrow situations.

This may have been covered, but I'm late to the thread and there are more messages than I'm prepared to read through since this.

The Mass. General Laws state:

No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.

So at least here, the pedestrian has the right-of-way by the letter of the law no matter what the signal says.  Sounds unreasonable, I know, but I guess it is the part of the law that says "you can't kill them just because the light was green," and I would prefer not to have to argue against it in court.

The counterargument to that being that, if the pedestrian has a "Don't Walk" signal, they are legally required to wait and do not legally have the right-of-way.  That said, agree that I'd prefer not to have to argue that in court.

Pedestrians are often stupid, irresponsible, and in violation of the law, but they are also soft and squishy, and courts look unfavorably at threats to their existence by hunks of rigid steel propelled with great force, and it's best to drive accordingly.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 11:37:29 AMAlright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

This is also how I look at it.  It is counterintuitive because it co-opts the behavior of something that means something else to people.

More importantly, there's a new signal that might not mean what people think it means, and at least here there is no effort to educate the public.  We get more effort to prepare us for new colors of M&Ms. 

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 16, 2014, 10:22:48 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 11:37:29 AMAlright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

This is also how I look at it.  It is counterintuitive because it co-opts the behavior of something that means something else to people.

More importantly, there's a new signal that might not mean what people think it means, and at least here there is no effort to educate the public.  We get more effort to prepare us for new colors of M&Ms.

Agree completely. The fact that NYSDOT has to put up a sign, for example, says something. The ones on NY 5S near Herkimer can be a nightmare because people don't know what the flashing arrow means until they read the sign, which is hard to read unless you're under it. As such, every time I go through there, I see quite a few vehicles stopping at the FYAs when they don't have to. Is it better than the protected-only that was there? Certainly. But I don't see why a doghouse wouldn't have worked at those two intersections, especially because there wasn't anything like it or the Michigan red ball in the state until they installed the first FYAs a few years ago. If I didn't know what a FYA was, I'd have stopped as well to read the sign showing a yellow arrow surrounded by miniscule font.

If there was much of an effort by NYSDOT to educate the public, I haven't seen any. You'd think that, for the intersection in Rochester, they'd do some PSAs in Buffalo, especially because residents of one often frequent the other. The info page about them is buried on their website, preempted by the roundabout user guide they've been promoting for a decade.

For those who think that a flashing yellow arrow gives someone the right of way, perhaps my suggestion of adding another color such as blue, purple, white, or pink wouldn't be so bad, since it would have its own meaning.

Quote from: cl94 on September 17, 2014, 12:05:45 AM
Agree completely. The fact that NYSDOT has to put up a sign, for example, says something. The ones on NY 5S near Herkimer can be a nightmare because people don't know what the flashing arrow means until they read the sign, which is hard to read unless you're under it. As such, every time I go through there, I see quite a few vehicles stopping at the FYAs when they don't have to. Is it better than the protected-only that was there? Certainly. But I don't see why a doghouse wouldn't have worked at those two intersections, especially because there wasn't anything like it or the Michigan red ball in the state until they installed the first FYAs a few years ago. If I didn't know what a FYA was, I'd have stopped as well to read the sign showing a yellow arrow surrounded by miniscule font.

A doghouse, at least in Nevada and other places, is also nearly always accompanied by a sign. This has been a standard for years, and people (should) learn in drivers ed to yield on a circular green if there are no arrows illuminated. However, there's too many drivers assuming green means go and make a fail-critical mistake. At least with an FYA, a fail-safe mistake (stopping) is more common and results in fewer accidents.

All this to say that sometimes, no matter what you do, somebody is gonna make a stupid mistake and you can't engineer for every contingency.

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2014, 03:34:29 AM
This has been a standard for years, and people (should) learn in drivers ed to yield on a circular green if there are no arrows illuminated. However, there's too many drivers assuming green means go and make a fail-critical mistake.

Being that the vast majority - 99.99% of traffic lights - don't have a flashing yellow arrow, I think people know what to do when they intend to turn left on a green light. Now...that doesn't mean they do it properly...distractions, failure to see traffic, etc, are all causes of accidents. 

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2014, 03:34:29 AM

Quote from: cl94 on September 17, 2014, 12:05:45 AM
Agree completely. The fact that NYSDOT has to put up a sign, for example, says something. The ones on NY 5S near Herkimer can be a nightmare because people don't know what the flashing arrow means until they read the sign, which is hard to read unless you're under it. As such, every time I go through there, I see quite a few vehicles stopping at the FYAs when they don't have to. Is it better than the protected-only that was there? Certainly. But I don't see why a doghouse wouldn't have worked at those two intersections, especially because there wasn't anything like it or the Michigan red ball in the state until they installed the first FYAs a few years ago. If I didn't know what a FYA was, I'd have stopped as well to read the sign showing a yellow arrow surrounded by miniscule font.

A doghouse, at least in Nevada and other places, is also nearly always accompanied by a sign. This has been a standard for years, and people (should) learn in drivers ed to yield on a circular green if there are no arrows illuminated. However, there's too many drivers assuming green means go and make a fail-critical mistake. At least with an FYA, a fail-safe mistake (stopping) is more common and results in fewer accidents.

All this to say that sometimes, no matter what you do, somebody is gonna make a stupid mistake and you can't engineer for every contingency.

Here in Arizona, 5-head signals (either doghouse or straight) are not usually accompanied by a sign.

NYSDOT's FYAs were announced in local newspapers but I think that's it.

If it were FRA, that would be OK if the law was amended to treat it as a FYA.  Otherwise, I'm not risking it if there's a cop or camera nearby (or if I ever see one outside of MI).

Risking what?

A ticket.  I intend to keep my perfect record of never getting one.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 17, 2014, 01:14:02 AM
For those who think that a flashing yellow arrow gives someone the right of way, perhaps my suggestion of adding another color such as blue, purple, white, or pink wouldn't be so bad, since it would have its own meaning.

If I were founding my own country of people who have never lived in the US or Canada before, I'd have flashing yellow mean yield, and flashing green mean what flashing yellow means now (you have the right of way, but other traffic and pedestrians can still cross). No need for another color -- flashing yellow is superfluous right now.

Of course, it means changing habits and rules, which could potentially be dangerous. At the end of the day, I like Maryland's approach of just having flashing red arrows or, if efficiency is really that big a deal at busier intersections, flashing yellow is fine as long as it has a big, clear sign.

I'm a stickler for consistency, so if I had the choice, I'd redo everything and have all signs, lane markings and signals completely standardized across the US (and the world!). But obviously it's not feasible and would probably upset "states' rights" activists. Oh well, it's interesting that each state has its own practices, without which we wouldn't even have this discussion.


iPad

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2014, 03:34:29 AM
A doghouse, at least in Nevada and other places, is also nearly always accompanied by a sign. This has been a standard for years, and people (should) learn in drivers ed to yield on a circular green if there are no arrows illuminated. However, there's too many drivers assuming green means go and make a fail-critical mistake. At least with an FYA, a fail-safe mistake (stopping) is more common and results in fewer accidents.

A fail-critical (go) mistake was more common at a FYA indication than at a FRA indication according to a recent study (NCHRP Web-Only Document 123, page 24).  The FYA may be safer than the circular green (nobody is disputing that) but is the FYA safer than the FRA?

In regards to safety: 
FRA > FYA > circular green

Like it or not, FRA isn't happening. FHWA isn't going to amend the MUTCD to add a traffic control predicated on everyone ignoring its legal meaning (STOP) and assuming it means something else (YIELD), no matter how much fun it is for Michiganders to do so.

As for the allegedly confusing meaning of FYA, even the 2003 MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4d.htm#section4D04) stated: "When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, vehicular traffic is permitted to proceed through the intersection or past such signal indication only with caution."

If you're turning across oncoming traffic without checking if proceeding is clear, you're not "proceeding... with caution."

Quote from: lordsutch on September 17, 2014, 04:56:52 PM
Like it or not, FRA isn't happening. FHWA isn't going to amend the MUTCD to add a traffic control predicated on everyone ignoring its legal meaning (STOP) and assuming it means something else (YIELD), no matter how much fun it is for Michiganders to do so.

As for the allegedly confusing meaning of FYA, even the 2003 MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4d.htm#section4D04) stated: "When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, vehicular traffic is permitted to proceed through the intersection or past such signal indication only with caution."

If you're turning across oncoming traffic without checking if proceeding is clear, you're not "proceeding... with caution."

There's a difference between what's in the MUTCD and what the average person will do. MUTCD says a right on red yields to oncoming traffic. That's not how drivers in certain places (i.e. Buffalo) act. In New York especially, a flashing yellow is the default signal indication at a fire station. The other major location is a minor intersection that doesn't warrant a two phase traffic signal but needs a warning. At these (much more common) installations, flashing yellow has the right of way. It is extremely difficult to make people change and learn new things and the rapidly aging population isn't helping matters. Many people will just not understand that a flashing yellow can mean two different things that only depend on the shape.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 17, 2014, 10:34:32 AM

Quote from: roadfro on September 17, 2014, 03:34:29 AM

Quote from: cl94 on September 17, 2014, 12:05:45 AM
Agree completely. The fact that NYSDOT has to put up a sign, for example, says something. The ones on NY 5S near Herkimer can be a nightmare because people don't know what the flashing arrow means until they read the sign, which is hard to read unless you're under it. As such, every time I go through there, I see quite a few vehicles stopping at the FYAs when they don't have to. Is it better than the protected-only that was there? Certainly. But I don't see why a doghouse wouldn't have worked at those two intersections, especially because there wasn't anything like it or the Michigan red ball in the state until they installed the first FYAs a few years ago. If I didn't know what a FYA was, I'd have stopped as well to read the sign showing a yellow arrow surrounded by miniscule font.

A doghouse, at least in Nevada and other places, is also nearly always accompanied by a sign. This has been a standard for years, and people (should) learn in drivers ed to yield on a circular green if there are no arrows illuminated. However, there's too many drivers assuming green means go and make a fail-critical mistake. At least with an FYA, a fail-safe mistake (stopping) is more common and results in fewer accidents.

All this to say that sometimes, no matter what you do, somebody is gonna make a stupid mistake and you can't engineer for every contingency.

Here in Arizona, 5-head signals (either doghouse or straight) are not usually accompanied by a sign.

In Illinois, they (5-lamp towers - we have no doghouses) are and are not accompanied by a sign.  No, it's not Alanland, it's the different DOT districts.  Most IDOT districts typically use the signage.  IDOT District 1 (Chicagoland) and CDOT do not typically use the signage.  District 3 (Kankakee, Ottawa) uses it religiously.

Quote from: lordsutch on September 17, 2014, 04:56:52 PM
Like it or not, FRA isn't happening. FHWA isn't going to amend the MUTCD to add a traffic control predicated on everyone ignoring its legal meaning (STOP) and assuming it means something else (YIELD), no matter how much fun it is for Michiganders to do so.

As for the allegedly confusing meaning of FYA, even the 2003 MUTCD (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part4/part4d.htm#section4D04) stated: "When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes, vehicular traffic is permitted to proceed through the intersection or past such signal indication only with caution."

If you're turning across oncoming traffic without checking if proceeding is clear, you're not "proceeding... with caution."

Sure, except they teach you in most driver's ed classes that you have the right of way on a flashing yellow (even if you do have to proceed with caution).
Actually, in the MD drivers manual they say you have to "proceed with caution" on green as well. Does that mean a green arrow means yield as well?

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:26:46 PM
A ticket.  I intend to keep my perfect record of never getting one.

But I'm not clear why.  If you're turning left on a green light, or a flashing yellow/red arrow, that's perfectly legal as long as you yield to oncoming traffic.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 15, 2014, 11:37:29 AMAlright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

Try to wrap your mind around this one.  In the province of Ontario....

If you're making a left facing a solid green ball, you DON'T have the right of way.
If you're making a left facing a flashing green ball, you DO have the right of way.

Mind blown!   :ded:

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 08:56:52 AM

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:26:46 PM
A ticket.  I intend to keep my perfect record of never getting one.

But I'm not clear why.  If you're turning left on a green light, or a flashing yellow/red arrow, that's perfectly legal as long as you yield to oncoming traffic.

With a flashing red, you're LEGALLY supposed to stop.  That is what Michigain law says.  Just because everyone, including the cops, ignores it doesn't mean the law suddenly changed.  Note that "but officer, you didn't pull over the other people who committed the same offense" is NOT a legal defense!

If the law were actually amended to give FRA the same meaning as FYA, then the problem could be avoided.

There is a difference between "it works even if people don't follow the law" and "it works because people don't follow the law".

Quote from: vdeane on September 18, 2014, 12:52:14 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 08:56:52 AM

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:26:46 PM
A ticket.  I intend to keep my perfect record of never getting one.

But I'm not clear why.  If you're turning left on a green light, or a flashing yellow/red arrow, that's perfectly legal as long as you yield to oncoming traffic.

With a flashing red, you're LEGALLY supposed to stop.  That is what Michigain law says.  Just because everyone, including the cops, ignores it doesn't mean the law suddenly changed.  Note that "but officer, you didn't pull over the other people who committed the same offense" is NOT a legal defense!

If the law were actually amended to give FRA the same meaning as FYA, then the problem could be avoided.

There is a difference between "it works even if people don't follow the law" and "it works because people don't follow the law".

Yep. An "other people did it" defense won't work. It just won't. People doing something does not make it legal.

If it were me, I would change all the emergency signals to a standard three-head setup with a flashing green orb. It doesn't have a standard meaning yet (within the US), and it would avoid confusion with the amber orb apparently giving the right of way (which isn't true in Washington anyways (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.065)). This way, the only time you'd see a flashing yellow is at give-way point.

Of course, a standard solid green orb with standard phasing would work. I just want to make sure people don't get used to never seeing it red. I think a different signal type for emergency signals is a good idea.

As a whole, a flashing green orb would mean "you may go but stay alert to crossing traffic". British Columbia uses a flashing green orb to mean 'Ped Crossing' or 'side street has stop signs', and I think a signal with that meaning could come in handy in the US.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRyJxQ0j.gif&hash=bbd15f9cc7ef2fa4ab57aff7eafb8504e4030805)

Biggest problem with getting rid of the flashing yellow is that you'd have to change several thousand signals. Wouldn't be as much of an issue if everything was still incandescent bulbs, but those are long gone, having been replaced by longer-lasting lamps. Heck, just in New York there are probably tens of thousands of flashing yellow indications.

Then comes the problem of retraining every person on the meaning of each signal indication. At least out east, a flashing yellow means "have ROW with caution" pretty universally.

Quote from: vdeane on September 18, 2014, 12:52:14 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 08:56:52 AM

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:26:46 PM
A ticket.  I intend to keep my perfect record of never getting one.

But I'm not clear why.  If you're turning left on a green light, or a flashing yellow/red arrow, that's perfectly legal as long as you yield to oncoming traffic.

With a flashing red, you're LEGALLY supposed to stop.  That is what Michigain law says.  Just because everyone, including the cops, ignores it doesn't mean the law suddenly changed.  Note that "but officer, you didn't pull over the other people who committed the same offense" is NOT a legal defense!

If the law were actually amended to give FRA the same meaning as FYA, then the problem could be avoided.

There is a difference between "it works even if people don't follow the law" and "it works because people don't follow the law".

People here, who are notoriously unconcerned with driving rules, generally stop at flashing reds.  i have never encountered a place where people often don't.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 18, 2014, 03:17:37 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 18, 2014, 12:52:14 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2014, 08:56:52 AM

Quote from: vdeane on September 17, 2014, 02:26:46 PM
A ticket.  I intend to keep my perfect record of never getting one.

But I'm not clear why.  If you're turning left on a green light, or a flashing yellow/red arrow, that's perfectly legal as long as you yield to oncoming traffic.

With a flashing red, you're LEGALLY supposed to stop.  That is what Michigain law says.  Just because everyone, including the cops, ignores it doesn't mean the law suddenly changed.  Note that "but officer, you didn't pull over the other people who committed the same offense" is NOT a legal defense!

If the law were actually amended to give FRA the same meaning as FYA, then the problem could be avoided.

There is a difference between "it works even if people don't follow the law" and "it works because people don't follow the law".

People here, who are notoriously unconcerned with driving rules, generally stop at flashing reds.  i have never encountered a place where people often don't.

Most of the flashing red balls that people would encounter are accompanied by a stop sign, so that helps in training that behavior (notwithstanding a signal temporarily on flash, left turn signal or on seasonal flash which should get a stop sign anyway).  I don't see people running flashing reds either.

Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 02:25:46 PM
If it were me, I would change all the emergency signals to a standard three-head setup with a flashing green orb. It doesn't have a standard meaning yet (within the US), and it would avoid confusion with the amber orb apparently giving the right of way (which isn't true in Washington anyways (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.065)). This way, the only time you'd see a flashing yellow is at give-way point.

Of course, a standard solid green orb with standard phasing would work. I just want to make sure people don't get used to never seeing it red. I think a different signal type for emergency signals is a good idea.

As a whole, a flashing green orb would mean "you may go but stay alert to crossing traffic". British Columbia uses a flashing green orb to mean 'Ped Crossing' or 'side street has stop signs', and I think a signal with that meaning could come in handy in the US.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRyJxQ0j.gif&hash=bbd15f9cc7ef2fa4ab57aff7eafb8504e4030805)

These were not uncommon in the Boston area until sometime in the last decade.  As mentioned, though, yellow implies a more serious degree of caution.

Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 02:25:46 PM
If it were me, I would change all the emergency signals to a standard three-head setup with a flashing green orb. It doesn't have a standard meaning yet (within the US), and it would avoid confusion with the amber orb apparently giving the right of way (which isn't true in Washington anyways (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.065)). This way, the only time you'd see a flashing yellow is at give-way point.

Of course, a standard solid green orb with standard phasing would work. I just want to make sure people don't get used to never seeing it red. I think a different signal type for emergency signals is a good idea.

As a whole, a flashing green orb would mean "you may go but stay alert to crossing traffic". British Columbia uses a flashing green orb to mean 'Ped Crossing' or 'side street has stop signs', and I think a signal with that meaning could come in handy in the US.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRyJxQ0j.gif&hash=bbd15f9cc7ef2fa4ab57aff7eafb8504e4030805)

Completely agree (I had a similar suggestion a few posts back). I had no idea BC did it, so it means that it's possible.

I should clarify to say that what we had (have?) here was not the emergency setup, but the pedestrian crossing.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on September 18, 2014, 06:14:59 PM
I should clarify to say that what we had (have?) here was not the emergency setup, but the pedestrian crossing.

I would also like to clarify that my "flashing amber ball" replacement would apply to all flashing amber ball setups, not just emergency signals. My initial post was about one-half thought-out.

Here in Arizona, fire stations use standard red/yellow/green signals rather than the red/solid yellow/flashing yellow setup.

Note that where I used to live in Hampton Roads, most fire station signals had red lights with white strobes inside them, and the flashing yellow lights were smaller than the red and solid yellow.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 18, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
Here in Arizona, fire stations use standard red/yellow/green signals rather than the red/solid yellow/flashing yellow setup.

Standard signals are also the standard in New York, but they're always on flashing yellow. I've only once seen one turn to solid yellow and then red, but I was unable to see what happened after the emergency cycle. They might go to green for a short while, but they definitely don't stay green. Signal-controlled railroad crossings here can be steady green or flashing yellow and I know that the flashing yellow ones go green after a train passes. I've never seen a red/yellow/flashing yellow setup here outside of certain T-intersections in New York City where one can only turn right.

Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 02:25:46 PM
If it were me, I would change all the emergency signals to a standard three-head setup with a flashing green orb. It doesn't have a standard meaning yet (within the US), and it would avoid confusion with the amber orb apparently giving the right of way (which isn't true in Washington anyways (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.065)). This way, the only time you'd see a flashing yellow is at give-way point.

Of course, a standard solid green orb with standard phasing would work. I just want to make sure people don't get used to never seeing it red. I think a different signal type for emergency signals is a good idea.

As a whole, a flashing green orb would mean "you may go but stay alert to crossing traffic". British Columbia uses a flashing green orb to mean 'Ped Crossing' or 'side street has stop signs', and I think a signal with that meaning could come in handy in the US.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FRyJxQ0j.gif&hash=bbd15f9cc7ef2fa4ab57aff7eafb8504e4030805)

Standard steady green would work here. Nevada used to have red/yellow/flashing yellow for emergency signals, but many of these have been converted to standard red/yellow/green.

However, I think you are on to something. I can see making a case for changing red/yellow flash mode (low-volume or night mode) to a red/green flash mode. Flashing green indicates right of way priority, but there may be cross traffic. Then, all flashing yellow would be more reserved for yield situations, such as permitted turns.

With flashing yellow meaning yield, this could allow getting rid of the abysmal "Hawk" ped crossing signals--using a standard 3-section head with flashing yellow displayed during part of the flashing don't walk time (so vehicles can go if peds have cleared early).

It was mentioned earlier as an argument against the FYA that flashing yellow generally means you have the right-of-way but proceed with caution.

What got missed is the basics of intersection right-of-way.  Yes, most drivers ed classes teach you that you have the right-of-way on a flashing yellow.  But what they also teach you (or, if not, SHOULD be teaching) is that opposing drivers have right-of-way over you if you are turning left.

Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2014, 08:22:17 AM
It was mentioned earlier as an argument against the FYA that flashing yellow generally means you have the right-of-way but proceed with caution.

What got missed is the basics of intersection right-of-way.  Yes, most drivers ed classes teach you that you have the right-of-way on a flashing yellow.  But what they also teach you (or, if not, SHOULD be teaching) is that opposing drivers have right-of-way over you if you are turning left.

Yes but now you've added an arrow to the mix.  If it was a flashing ball, most drivers would understand the above.  The flashing yellow ball means you have the right-of-way in your (straight) direction of travel (use caution, pedestrians have ROW, etc etc).  The arrow is now indicating a specific direction of travel (left), and one could assume that if the ball says I have the ROW to go straight, then the arrow indicates I have the ROW to go left.

Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2014, 08:22:17 AM
It was mentioned earlier as an argument against the FYA that flashing yellow generally means you have the right-of-way but proceed with caution.

What got missed is the basics of intersection right-of-way.  Yes, most drivers ed classes teach you that you have the right-of-way on a flashing yellow.  But what they also teach you (or, if not, SHOULD be teaching) is that opposing drivers have right-of-way over you if you are turning left.

They did.  A green light means you have the right of way until you cross someone else's, at which point you cede yours to them until they pass. 

This is also what a full flashing yellow means, with the urging of caution any yellow traffic sign or light connotes.

This is also what no signal means. 

A signal that means the same as no signal, in my opinion, confuses things unnecessarily.  A "just confirming what you should already know" signal is not super helpful, and because it's extraneous, adds driver confusion potential, the opposite of what road devices and signs ought to achieve. 

Quote from: Roadrunner75 on September 19, 2014, 09:48:27 AM
Yes but now you've added an arrow to the mix.  If it was a flashing ball, most drivers would understand the above.  The flashing yellow ball means you have the right-of-way in your (straight) direction of travel (use caution, pedestrians have ROW, etc etc).  The arrow is now indicating a specific direction of travel (left), and one could assume that if the ball says I have the ROW to go straight, then the arrow indicates I have the ROW to go left.

This is how I tend to think about it. 

When people use a word in a way that diverges from its proper meaning, it bugs me when it's said that we should defer to what most people now know that meaning to be, even if it's incorrect as a literal meaning.

However, in the case of a probably very large segment of the driving public considering "flashing yellow anything" to mean "I have the right of way," it might be best to not contradict that, because the technicality that's being missed can get people killed.  (Using "literally" wrong, by comparison, will only get you a punch in the face.)

Quote from: cl94 on September 18, 2014, 09:20:21 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 18, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
Here in Arizona, fire stations use standard red/yellow/green signals rather than the red/solid yellow/flashing yellow setup.

Standard signals are also the standard in New York, but they're always on flashing yellow. I've only once seen one turn to solid yellow and then red, but I was unable to see what happened after the emergency cycle. They might go to green for a short while, but they definitely don't stay green. Signal-controlled railroad crossings here can be steady green or flashing yellow and I know that the flashing yellow ones go green after a train passes. I've never seen a red/yellow/flashing yellow setup here outside of certain T-intersections in New York City where one can only turn right.

There's an emergency signal on NY 21/NY 332 in Canandaigua that is red/yellow/flashing yellow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.882092,-77.2772203,3a,75y,318.77h,73.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stNYN377iF5mnMZrp03YPHg!2e0

In red/yellow flash mode in a normally protected-only setup, don't the left turn arrows flash yellow? Thus the same meaning for a flashing yellow arrow?

Quote from: vdeane on September 19, 2014, 12:43:15 PM

Quote from: cl94 on September 18, 2014, 09:20:21 PM

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 18, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
Here in Arizona, fire stations use standard red/yellow/green signals rather than the red/solid yellow/flashing yellow setup.

Standard signals are also the standard in New York, but they're always on flashing yellow. I've only once seen one turn to solid yellow and then red, but I was unable to see what happened after the emergency cycle. They might go to green for a short while, but they definitely don't stay green. Signal-controlled railroad crossings here can be steady green or flashing yellow and I know that the flashing yellow ones go green after a train passes. I've never seen a red/yellow/flashing yellow setup here outside of certain T-intersections in New York City where one can only turn right.

There's an emergency signal on NY 21/NY 332 in Canandaigua that is red/yellow/flashing yellow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.882092,-77.2772203,3a,75y,318.77h,73.63t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stNYN377iF5mnMZrp03YPHg!2e0

Most emergency signals in Washington are (to my knowledge) red/amber/flashing amber. Take (this (http://goo.gl/lSQCG2)) example near Lakewood.

Quote from: Mdcastle on September 19, 2014, 03:17:50 PM
In red/yellow flash mode in a normally protected-only setup, don't the left turn arrows flash yellow? Thus the same meaning for a flashing yellow arrow?

Around Wisconsin, the arrows always flash red. And [not to be snarky, just an observation] unlike Michigan, drivers I've seen do come to a complete stop before making their turn.

The flashing red ball PPLT signal display had the highest level of driver comprehension based on a photographic driver study found in NCHRP 493.  Regardless, the project panel eliminated it from future consideration (from page 51):

QuoteThe flashing red arrow and circular red indications were eliminated by the project panel from future consideration after much discussion with the research team because of the message that these indications presented (i.e., "stop, then proceed if a gap is available"  rather than the more typical PPLT "proceed if a gap is available"  message). Additionally, the flashing permissive red indications may dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.

The stated objective of the report was to "evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different signal displays and phasing for PPLT control" .  Nowhere does the stated objective touch on the legal technicalities involved and one has to question why the flashing red indication was eliminated from future consideration.  The research board provided zero evidence that the flashing permissive red indication would dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.  There is, however, evidence that the flashing red would be a safer PPLT indication than the flashing yellow.  Based on the results of a driving simulator study (found in 2006 NCHRP 493 web-only doc.), drivers experience zero fail-critical responses at flashing red indications vs. 10 fail-critical responses at flashing yellow indications.  According to the study, the results were statistically significant.

Some of us are stuck on the legal issues of using a flashing red indication for a PPLT while others of us are stuck on safety.  It seems we have reached an impasse. 

Quote from: tradephoric on September 20, 2014, 01:18:54 PM
The flashing red ball PPLT signal display had the highest level of driver comprehension based on a photographic driver study found in NCHRP 493.  Regardless, the project panel eliminated it from future consideration (from page 51):

QuoteThe flashing red arrow and circular red indications were eliminated by the project panel from future consideration after much discussion with the research team because of the message that these indications presented (i.e., "stop, then proceed if a gap is available"  rather than the more typical PPLT "proceed if a gap is available"  message). Additionally, the flashing permissive red indications may dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.

The stated objective of the report was to "evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different signal displays and phasing for PPLT control" .  Nowhere does the stated objective touch on the legal technicalities involved and one has to question why the flashing red indication was eliminated from future consideration.  The research board provided zero evidence that the flashing permissive red indication would dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.  There is, however, evidence that the flashing red would be a safer PPLT indication than the flashing yellow.  Based on the results of a driving simulator study (found in 2006 NCHRP 493 web-only doc.), drivers experience zero fail-critical responses at flashing red indications vs. 10 fail-critical responses at flashing yellow indications.  According to the study, the results were statistically significant.

Some of us are stuck on the legal issues of using a flashing red indication for a PPLT while others of us are stuck on safety.  It seems we have reached an impasse.

I don't see what's wrong with 'stop, then proceed if a gap is available' in all of these situations.  The flashing red arrow then works just fine.  If an intersection has enough volume to warrant a full left turn signal, then have traffic stop before turning when they otherwise don't have a green arrow. 

Quote from: tradephoric on September 20, 2014, 01:18:54 PM
The flashing red ball PPLT signal display had the highest level of driver comprehension based on a photographic driver study found in NCHRP 493.  Regardless, the project panel eliminated it from future consideration (from page 51):

QuoteThe flashing red arrow and circular red indications were eliminated by the project panel from future consideration after much discussion with the research team because of the message that these indications presented (i.e., "stop, then proceed if a gap is available"  rather than the more typical PPLT "proceed if a gap is available"  message). Additionally, the flashing permissive red indications may dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.

The stated objective of the report was to "evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different signal displays and phasing for PPLT control" .  Nowhere does the stated objective touch on the legal technicalities involved and one has to question why the flashing red indication was eliminated from future consideration.  The research board provided zero evidence that the flashing permissive red indication would dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.  There is, however, evidence that the flashing red would be a safer PPLT indication than the flashing yellow.  Based on the results of a driving simulator study (found in 2006 NCHRP 493 web-only doc.), drivers experience zero fail-critical responses at flashing red indications vs. 10 fail-critical responses at flashing yellow indications.  According to the study, the results were statistically significant.

Some of us are stuck on the legal issues of using a flashing red indication for a PPLT while others of us are stuck on safety.  It seems we have reached an impasse.

That's because a red indication always means stop. A yellow could function as a caution (while retaining the right of way) or a yield in the case of an FYA. A flashing red as a permissive works because you want people to pay attention to oncoming traffic before turning and understand that oncoming traffic has the right of way.

Quote from: tradephoric on September 20, 2014, 01:18:54 PM
The flashing red ball PPLT signal display had the highest level of driver comprehension based on a photographic driver study found in NCHRP 493.  Regardless, the project panel eliminated it from future consideration (from page 51):

QuoteThe flashing red arrow and circular red indications were eliminated by the project panel from future consideration after much discussion with the research team because of the message that these indications presented (i.e., "stop, then proceed if a gap is available"  rather than the more typical PPLT "proceed if a gap is available"  message). Additionally, the flashing permissive red indications may dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.

The stated objective of the report was to "evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different signal displays and phasing for PPLT control" .  Nowhere does the stated objective touch on the legal technicalities involved and one has to question why the flashing red indication was eliminated from future consideration.  The research board provided zero evidence that the flashing permissive red indication would dilute the meaning of other red stop indications.  There is, however, evidence that the flashing red would be a safer PPLT indication than the flashing yellow.  Based on the results of a driving simulator study (found in 2006 NCHRP 493 web-only doc.), drivers experience zero fail-critical responses at flashing red indications vs. 10 fail-critical responses at flashing yellow indications.  According to the study, the results were statistically significant.

Some of us are stuck on the legal issues of using a flashing red indication for a PPLT while others of us are stuck on safety.  It seems we have reached an impasse.

According to your previous posts, the evidence clearly exists in Michigan. 

This thread has discussed the common custom in Michigan that drivers do not come to a complete stop at a flashing red when making the permitted left turn on a flashing red left turn signal. That very behavior dilutes the meaning of a flashing red signal, which is supposed to invoke a full stop regardless of ball or arrow.

The optimum word is "other" .  There is no evidence that Michigan drivers who roll through a PPLT flashing red ball are more likely to roll through other red stop indications (IE. non-PPLT red indications).   The only thing diluted is the effectiveness of the project panel's argument.

I would expect a "stop, then proceed if a gap is available" to potentially needlessly back up traffic in situations where there's no conflicting traffic for an extended period.  Safety is always the primary requirement, but there are operational considerations as well.

Quote from: jake on September 18, 2014, 02:25:46 PM
If it were me, I would change all the emergency signals to a standard three-head setup with a flashing green orb. It doesn't have a standard meaning yet (within the US), and it would avoid confusion with the amber orb apparently giving the right of way (which isn't true in Washington anyways (http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.065))...

I'm not certain this is a meaningful distinction.  I believe "proceed with caution" is how flashing yellow is interpreted everywhere. It still means you have the right if way, just be extra careful for people either flat out running their flashing red, or stopping but still turning in front of you after misjudging the distance.

Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

Are you talking about a flashing yellow beacon? Cause that's a completely different thing.

But if talking about a red/yellow/flashing yellow crosswalk signal, and a pedestrian is in the crosswalk during flashing yellow, then you technically would have the right of way based on how I understand such signals to work (since that would mean the ped is violating the signal).

Quote from: roadfro on September 22, 2014, 05:20:23 AM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

Are you talking about a flashing yellow beacon? Cause that's a completely different thing.

Why?  How is a four-way intersection where one street has only a flashing yellow, and the cross street has only a flashing red (in other words, not 3-lens traffic signals, just one or two lenses of the appropriate color), appreciably different from an overhead flashing yellow at a crosswalk?

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

If there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I'm pretty sure the law says you don't have the right of way regardless of what the signal says, so no conflict there.  The yellow serves to make people look at the crosswalk to see if a pedestrian is there rather than just blowing through, and many areas will have "stop/yield to pedestrians" signs too.

The city of Canandaigua actually has a couple crosswalks on NY 332 that have push buttons that activate square yellow flashers on the bottom of the "crosswalk ahead" signs.

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:59:19 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

If there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I'm pretty sure the law says you don't have the right of way regardless of what the signal says, so no conflict there.

Even if your signal is green, and their signal says don't walk?  (Keep in mind that saying you have the right of way is not the same as saying you have the right to mindlessly run over pedestrians.)

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 22, 2014, 07:13:45 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:59:19 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

If there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I'm pretty sure the law says you don't have the right of way regardless of what the signal says, so no conflict there.

Even if your signal is green, and their signal says don't walk?  (Keep in mind that saying you have the right of way is not the same as saying you have the right to mindlessly run over pedestrians.)

Washington State Law requires all users of public right-of-way to heed all traffic control devices, including pedestrians.

Great (well) example of this is an incident involving a pedestrian near the South Hill Mall in Puyallup a few months ago. A pedestrian was crossing Meridian (which is 8 lanes through there) against a red hand, and was hit by a car. The driver was devastated, but was never charged. The final investigation concluded that the pedestrian was A) ignoring their control device which said not to cross, and B) was likely insane anyway because crossing there without due care is suicidal; therefore the driver was in no way at fault.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 22, 2014, 07:13:45 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:59:19 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

If there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I'm pretty sure the law says you don't have the right of way regardless of what the signal says, so no conflict there.

Even if your signal is green, and their signal says don't walk?  (Keep in mind that saying you have the right of way is not the same as saying you have the right to mindlessly run over pedestrians.)

Depends on the state. In New York, the pedestrian has the right of way no matter what. They could get a ticket for jaywalking, but a driver would be held responsible for hitting a jaywalking pedestrian, likewise a driver who fails to stop for a pedestrian in the road on their side of the centerline could be fined for failing to yield. Just another one of the crazy laws we have here.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 22, 2014, 08:00:06 AM

Quote from: roadfro on September 22, 2014, 05:20:23 AM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

Are you talking about a flashing yellow beacon? Cause that's a completely different thing.

Why?  How is a four-way intersection where one street has only a flashing yellow, and the cross street has only a flashing red (in other words, not 3-lens traffic signals, just one or two lenses of the appropriate color), appreciably different from an overhead flashing yellow at a crosswalk?

Per the MUTCD, these are completely different types of beacons: "intersection control" beacon versus "warning beacon". I guess it really depends on the context and operation.

A flashing yellow beacon on a pedestrian crossing (with pedestrian crossing sign) doesn't translate the same to me as a flashing yellow beacon over the center of an intersection. Yes, both convey the message that you should proceed with caution. However, several people (not I) would interpret the intersection beacon as indicating you have the right of way, while that is not necessarily the case for the warning beacon at a pedestrian crossing (especially if that beacon is pedestrian activated).

I've never seen intersection control beacons at an intersection that had different colors in different directions. And really, this would be a 2-way stop...and I don't see a reason for an overhead yellow beacon on the main road for such a case (but clearly there is some historical need as this is an allowed application in the MUTCD).

Flashing yellow in the perpendicular direction to flashing red is pretty much the rule at intersections here that have flashing red at a two-way stop, as you put it.  So much so that it's surprising to me that it isn't the case everywhere. 

^ Clarifying that not talking about a signalized intersection, but just plain beacons over a stop-controlled intersection.

Out in Nevada, you just don't see a whole lot of beacons over intersections period. The few I have seen are all-way stops with red beacons in all directions. (And many of these have been switched to using a solar-powered beacon mounted on top of the stop sign, instead of an overhead intersection beacon.)

Quote from: roadfro on September 23, 2014, 08:31:46 PM
^ Clarifying that not talking about a signalized intersection, but just plain beacons over a stop-controlled intersection.

Out in Nevada, you just don't see a whole lot of beacons over intersections period. The few I have seen are all-way stops with red beacons in all directions. (And many of these have been switched to using a solar-powered beacon mounted on top of the stop sign, instead of an overhead intersection beacon.)

NYSDOT seems to be adopting the solar-powered stop sign beacons, at least in Regions 4 and 5. The newest section of the US 219 expressway has them at its two exits in R5 and NY 77 has them at US 20A in R4. In each of these occasions, they are facing an expressway ramp or a high-speed road with no traffic interruptions for several miles approaching the intersection.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 22, 2014, 07:13:45 PM

Quote from: vdeane on September 22, 2014, 12:59:19 PM

Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 21, 2014, 04:00:48 AM
Although yes, the use of a flashing amber at otherwise unsignalized crosswalks (that is, unsignalized for the pedestrians), which I've seen both in Washington and elsewhere, does muddle this quite a bit.  (If you see a flashing amber at a crosswalk, and there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you don't have the right of way.)

If there's a pedestrian in a crosswalk, I'm pretty sure the law says you don't have the right of way regardless of what the signal says, so no conflict there.

Even if your signal is green, and their signal says don't walk?  (Keep in mind that saying you have the right of way is not the same as saying you have the right to mindlessly run over pedestrians.)

As far as I'm concerned, if the pedestrian crosses against the light, he/she will get my horn.  I have zero tolerance for red light runners, be they pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorists.  They all get my horn, and maybe a gesture.

I've been seeing some people run the "Don't Walk" signal in Missoula lately. Geez! That's just asking for a hit and run situation. It just seems that they're not keen to obeying the signals with the pictographs of the orange hand and white walking man. It's really annoying. And I don't think Missoula is going to do a damn thing about that and that's a crying shame. We have some pretty below average drivers here in Missoula, not to say all Missoula drivers are that way. I mean, yeah, it annoys the piss out of me that someone runs the "Don't Walk" signal, but I'm not that stupid to punch the horn at someone or flip the bird at someone.

Moving out of that tangent onto the subject at hand, secondly, my biggest question is that how was it permissible for the city of Missoula to put a stupid FYA, albeit, a "permissive" FYA, at Dore Lane and Brooks Street?! Just...how is that even possible?! It makes more sense to have the standard RYG with protected arrow just like the vast majority of our intersections do have. Why couldn't some knucklehead contractor put an RYG-with-protected-arrow there at Dore Lane and Brooks Street instead of this ridiculous "permissive" FYA? (and I use that term "permissive" loosely, because there isn't anything "permissive" about that flashing yellow arrow at Dore Lane and Brooks Street) Dore Lane is a low volume traffic artery and Brooks Street is a mid-level volume  artery (that's if you want to call it that) and Brooks gets more vehicles per day than Dore Lane. The only time Dore Lane ever sees traffic heading that way is when people turn from 39th Street to Dore Lane over to Cabella's and Boot Barn on the old Kmart property, or from 36th Street to Dore Lane, or from Brooks to Dore Lane across the way. Why does that intersection even NEED a frickin' FYA?!

QuoteI've been seeing some people run the "Don't Walk" signal in Missoula lately. Geez! That's just asking for a hit and run situation. It just seems that they're not keen to obeying the signals with the pictographs of the orange hand and white walking man. It's really annoying. And I don't think Missoula is going to do a damn thing about that and that's a crying shame. We have some pretty below average drivers here in Missoula, not to say all Missoula drivers are that way. I mean, yeah, it annoys the piss out of me that someone runs the "Don't Walk" signal, but I'm not that stupid to punch the horn at someone or flip the bird at someone.

Hahaha, I actually honked my horn at some douchebag jaywalking on the don't walk signal at Van Buren and Broadway as I was trying to turn right onto Broadway from Van Buren about a week ago.

It's a college town though, people don't respect pedestrian signals in college towns.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=13210.0

QuoteMoving out of that tangent onto the subject at hand, secondly, my biggest question is that how was it permissible for the city of Missoula to put a stupid FYA, albeit, a "permissive" FYA, at Dore Lane and Brooks Street?! Just...how is that even possible?! It makes more sense to have the standard RYG with protected arrow just like the vast majority of our intersections do have. Why couldn't some knucklehead contractor put an RYG-with-protected-arrow there at Dore Lane and Brooks Street instead of this ridiculous "permissive" FYA? (and I use that term "permissive" loosely, because there isn't anything "permissive" about that flashing yellow arrow at Dore Lane and Brooks Street) Dore Lane is a low volume traffic artery and Brooks Street is a mid-level volume  artery (that's if you want to call it that) and Brooks gets more vehicles per day than Dore Lane. The only time Dore Lane ever sees traffic heading that way is when people turn from 39th Street to Dore Lane over to Cabella's and Boot Barn on the old Kmart property, or from 36th Street to Dore Lane, or from Brooks to Dore Lane across the way. Why does that intersection even NEED a frickin' FYA?!

Because of the new Cabela's, actually. That block (the entire old Kmart property) is in a tax-increment targeted improvement district- Cabela's is the anchor store, but the idea is that there will be even a couple more businesses up right at the edge of Brooks there in what used to be the edge of the old Kmart parking lot. The FYA is there because of what's coming, moreso than what's there. The new signal is among the infrastructure improvements the tax increment is supposed to fund.

The way the parking lot will be configured now, it will be smaller and generate more vehicle trips, so to prevent queuing on Dore Ln, the FYA helps them get more vehicles through that intersection faster at minimal cost to safety, since there's not much oncoming traffic from Dore Ln. Yeah, it's maybe a little bit difficult to make that left turn at times, but if they modified upstream signal timing (which they may have) that's easy enough to fix. Since the smart Missoulian would head down to 39th Street if they are looking to go west on Brooks and out the west end of the shopping center if they were looking to go north on Reserve, there shouldn't even be that many left turns, which is why a protected left turn signal would be a waste of a cycle, most of the time.

Get out! You visited Missoula a week ago, corco?! Damn, dude. I didn't even know you'd show up otherwise I would have met you somewhere. It's been a crazy week with cleanup and repairs at my place.

Anyhow, I guess I'm still new to this FYA situation in Missoula being that the South Crossing complex is underway in construction. I'm not sure what's going to replace the old Village 6 property. It was sad to see it go. I guess that's going to be a part of the South Crossing development, then again, it may be separate from that. It just confuses me every time I go by Dore Lane and Brooks Street seeing the FYA signal there. It makes me go, "is that meaning cross with caution, yield, what the heck is the permissive FYA supposed to mean?" That was why I had those thoughts earlier.

Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 18, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
Note that where I used to live in Hampton Roads, most fire station signals had red lights with white strobes inside them, and the flashing yellow lights were smaller than the red and solid yellow.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7186272,-122.6597458,3a,15y,120.28h,92.58t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sTQa_6h2pSnlT3MrU0jlnpQ!2e0

Here's one in WA that fits that description.