According to the MUTCD, Orange and White were chosen as the colors for pedestrian signals to make them stand out from vehicular signals. However, the rest of the world outside the United States and Canada don't seem to have a problem with using Red and Green pedestrian signals.
So, why would the United States and Canada use Orange and White but the rest of the world use Red and Green?
Note that the U.S. and Canada were slower to make the move to symbolic pedestrian signals rather than words, where such signals have pretty much always used symbols in Europe. Now the U.S. and Canada have leapfrogged much of the world by incorporating countdown timers on pedestrian signals.
EDIT: Oops, wrong forum. Please move.
Please don't color-code, or at the very least, don't use white. It makes it harder to read, especially with the off-white message box/theme.
Probably because those colors aren't used for vehicular signals. Makes it so the two types of signals cannot be confused. Interestingly, Buffalo loves to use standard tri-color signals for pedestrian crossings, mounting them where a pedestrian signal would be. I have seen tri-color bicycle signals with a bicycle-shaped filter on the lens, making each lamp look like a pictogram of a bicycle when lit.
Quote from: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 10:00:36 PM
Probably because those colors aren't used for vehicular signals. Makes it so the two types of signals cannot be confused. Interestingly, Buffalo loves to use standard tri-color signals for pedestrian crossings, mounting them where a pedestrian signal would be. I have seen tri-color bicycle signals with a bicycle-shaped filter on the lens, making each lamp look like a pictogram of a bicycle when lit.
I understand the reason why the MUTCD states to use orange and white for pedestrian signals, and you are correct, they are to make them easily distinguishable from vehicular signals. However, the rest of the world outside the United States and Canada don't seem to have any issue with red and green pedestrian signals.
My question is this: Why would the US and Canada have an issue with red and green pedestrian signals but not the rest of the world? After all, it is natural instinct that red means stop and green means go.
Why does the US do ____ while everyone else does _____?
There's countless items that one can ask. And I don't think it's as easy as it sounds. Does the rest of the world have issues with it? The assumption is No, they don't, but is there any proof of that?
Precisely. North America and Europe each have a set of standard signage and traffic control devices. I prefer ours, but there are advantages to both. What really matters is that the continuous landmasses each have a set of signs that is standard. You can't drive from Europe to North America and that is precisely why they can be so different without any issue.
Quote from: cl94 on August 30, 2014, 11:20:44 PM
Precisely. North America and Europe each have a set of standard signage and traffic control devices. I prefer ours, but there are advantages to both. What really matters is that the continuous landmasses each have a set of signs that is standard. You can't drive from Europe to North America and that is precisely why they can be so different without any issue.
I'm not so sure about that: in my circles, quite a few people travel to Europe and back often for business (probably partly due to the fact that I live in DC). Most of them rent a car there, seeing that you can with a plain, US license. I think it's important that there's at least some degree of standardization all of the world, just because there are quite a few globetrotters/tourists everywhere. For example, one of my friends almost got a heart-attack when he didn't give way to a guy coming from the right at a T-junction! All traffic, even at T-junctions, have to yield to cars coming from the right at uncontrolled intersections in many mainland European countries.
Europeans usually find the American system easy to adapt to, as long as they know English, because signage is pretty specific and written out in words. We Americans usually find the Vienna Convention signs a bit trickier, because they're diagram-based and can be a bit like completing a cryptic crossword puzzle. Also, we can't wrap our heads around the concept of "priority roads" or stick-shifts, and we have to give up rights on red.
My favorite system is probably the Canadian one: they use diagrams, usually, but they're just short of being dadaist. I love the "obligatory" green circle and the black lane signs.
Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 30, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
For example, one of my friends almost got a heart-attack when he didn't give way to a guy coming from the right at a T-junction! All traffic, even at T-junctions, have to yield to cars coming from the right at uncontrolled intersections in many mainland European countries.
Wow, okay, that is dangerous and worth being aware of. The idea of a main road yielding to a side street as standard procedure when there are no signs is not something I ever would have considered.
Now that I think about it, "Don't walk" should be white (regulatory) and "walk" should be orange (severe warning).
It might be because the people who would be confused by red/green pedestrian signals aren't allowed to get drivers licenses over there. Here, we give out licenses like candy and then cater to the lowest common denominator. Around here, if someone gets confused by something, we change all the traffic control devices across the county. There, if someone gets confused, that person isn't allowed to drive.
I've never seen Orange/White pedestrian signals. Could someone post an example?
The only orange (amber) and white lights I've seen are those for Light Rail, usually when in mixed traffic. Like the MAX in Portland, OR.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
I've never seen Orange/White pedestrian signals. Could someone post an example?
The only orange (amber) and white lights I've seen are those for Light Rail, usually when in mixed traffic. Like the MAX in Portland, OR.
Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 30, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
.... Also, we can't wrap our heads around the concept of "priority roads" or stick-shifts, and we have to give up rights on red.
....
Speak for yourself. I grew up in the USA and I have a difficult time whenever I'm forced to drive an automatic. The unfamiliar kickdown function drives me nuts. I blame automatic gearboxes for the apparent inability of many Americans to accelerate properly.
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 31, 2014, 07:48:15 PM
Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 30, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
.... Also, we can't wrap our heads around the concept of "priority roads" or stick-shifts, and we have to give up rights on red.
....
Speak for yourself. I grew up in the USA and I have a difficult time whenever I'm forced to drive an automatic. The unfamiliar kickdown function drives me nuts. I blame automatic gearboxes for the apparent inability of many Americans to accelerate properly.
I also blame them for some of the traffic. The creeping up everyone loves to do is pretty difficult with a stick. Heck, starting to move is the hardest part of driving a stick and what prevents many from ever using them. I bet that if more people had sticks there would be more alternate merging and continuous flow because it's such a pain to stop.
Yeah, I get mad at all the people who cut in front of me when I'm using the space in front to modulate my speed. They could learn a thing or two. I don't hit half the backups that everyone else adjacent to me hits because of it. I don't understand why most people would rather go as fast as they can, stop, go as fast as they can, stop, repeat ad infinitum rather than driver a slower but constant speed. Seriously, if I wanted to stop constantly, I'd take the local street with a million traffic lights. Most rush hour congestion would go away if people could figure this out (plus how to do a zipper merge onto a freeway without slowing down).
Quote from: Duke87 on August 31, 2014, 12:01:03 AM
Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 30, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
For example, one of my friends almost got a heart-attack when he didn't give way to a guy coming from the right at a T-junction! All traffic, even at T-junctions, have to yield to cars coming from the right at uncontrolled intersections in many mainland European countries.
Wow, okay, that is dangerous and worth being aware of. The idea of a main road yielding to a side street as standard procedure when there are no signs is not something I ever would have considered.
I'm 99% sure this is the case in the U.S. as well. The difference is that here, totally uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare outside of residential areas with 20 mph speed limits.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 31, 2014, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 31, 2014, 12:01:03 AM
Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 30, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
For example, one of my friends almost got a heart-attack when he didn't give way to a guy coming from the right at a T-junction! All traffic, even at T-junctions, have to yield to cars coming from the right at uncontrolled intersections in many mainland European countries.
Wow, okay, that is dangerous and worth being aware of. The idea of a main road yielding to a side street as standard procedure when there are no signs is not something I ever would have considered.
I'm 99% sure this is the case in the U.S. as well. The difference is that here, totally uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare outside of residential areas with 20 mph speed limits.
It's definitely not the case at t-junctions, at least in Maryland. The md drivers manual specifically states that people on the "major" road at the t junction have priority. In Europe, the minor road has priority over the major road if the minor road is on the right.
iPad
Fair enough. In Washington, it is the case. Washington Drivers' Manual (http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/docs/driverguide-en.pdf), page 3-22 (or 56, if you prefer to count consecutively):
QuoteAt an intersection where there is no stop sign, yield sign, or traffic signal, drivers must yield to vehicles in the intersection and to those coming from the right.
No exceptions mentioned for 3-way/T intersections.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 31, 2014, 10:35:54 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on August 31, 2014, 12:01:03 AM
Quote from: wisvishr0 on August 30, 2014, 11:43:42 PM
For example, one of my friends almost got a heart-attack when he didn't give way to a guy coming from the right at a T-junction! All traffic, even at T-junctions, have to yield to cars coming from the right at uncontrolled intersections in many mainland European countries.
Wow, okay, that is dangerous and worth being aware of. The idea of a main road yielding to a side street as standard procedure when there are no signs is not something I ever would have considered.
I'm 99% sure this is the case in the U.S. as well. The difference is that here, totally uncontrolled intersections are fairly rare outside of residential areas with 20 mph speed limits.
I have
never seen an uncontrolled intersection, even in residential areas of small, rural hamlets. I'm pretty sure New York prohibits their use. But, that being said, it's nearly impossible to set a speed limit under 25 here except on university campuses, in parks, or in school zones- state law prohibits it and requires a darn good reason for NYSDOT to approve an exception.
The Maryland manual clearly talks about t-junctions (see the top of the second page):(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftapatalk.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F14%2F08%2F31%2F21b3adae9cc3baf2ebe64b048d87fb5e.jpg&hash=793b2551742a86068c69d80a4ed38c4058c32daa)
iPad
We have plenty of uncontrolled intersections in residential areas, so these rules are useful.
Quote from: cl94 on August 31, 2014, 11:21:03 PM
I have never seen an uncontrolled intersection, even in residential areas of small, rural hamlets. I'm pretty sure New York prohibits their use. But, that being said, it's nearly impossible to set a speed limit under 25 here except on university campuses, in parks, or in school zones- state law prohibits it and requires a darn good reason for NYSDOT to approve an exception.
A "controlled" intersection is one that has either a traffic signal, stop sign or yield sign on at least one approach. You're telling me that you've
never been at an intersection that was lacking any controls...?
Where I grew up, practically every intersection in any residential area is uncontrolled.
Quote from: roadfro on September 01, 2014, 10:16:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 31, 2014, 11:21:03 PM
I have never seen an uncontrolled intersection, even in residential areas of small, rural hamlets. I'm pretty sure New York prohibits their use. But, that being said, it's nearly impossible to set a speed limit under 25 here except on university campuses, in parks, or in school zones- state law prohibits it and requires a darn good reason for NYSDOT to approve an exception.
A "controlled" intersection is one that has either a traffic signal, stop sign or yield sign on at least one approach. You're telling me that you've never been at an intersection that was lacking any controls...?
Where I grew up, practically every intersection in any residential area is uncontrolled.
Never. Almost everything in New York has a stop or yield sign on all but 1-2 approaches. My parents are also from New York and
they've never seen an uncontrolled intersection in this state. If there are any, they're buried in the middle of nowhere or in the middle of a large city.
Winter Park, FL uses Orange and Green on its Park Avenue signals.
Is that supposed to be orange? It always looked red to me, or at least close enough to red that I didn't perceive the intended color as different from the red used for motorists. As for motorists (or pedestrians, I guess) confusing pedestrian signals with vehicular ones, that is very hard to believe. A ball does not look anything like a hand or a person. Why then are turn signals the same color as regular ones? After all, someone might confuse that red arrow with a ball, right? Heck, not all intersections use arrows. Some have a regular signal with "left turn signal" written above it. Heck, just yesterday, I encountered one so faded that all I could make out was "ft urn n-l". It took me a few seconds to puzzle out the exact wording on the faded sign (the last word specifically), but the signal's placement alone was enough to easily figure out what it was for.
I can confirm that uncontrolled intersections are very rare in NY, if they even exist at all. Stop signs are everywhere here. Even yield is quite rare outside of right turn ramps.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Is that supposed to be orange? It always looked red to me, or at least close enough to red that I didn't perceive the intended color as different from the red used for motorists.
Yeah, I also thought the do-not-walk lighting for pedestrian crossings was red, and that any perceived "orange" was a function of bulb brightness rather than the general color of such signals.
I've only lived in 2 houses in my life (excluding my college years) but yet I've managed to live on streets with uncontrolled intersections within developments. None of them ever caused any issues.
My current street was repaved a few years back, along with a similar street a few blocks down. That street does have a stop sign, and after the paving was finished, they painted a stop bar on the pavement. I figured my street would be brought up to date as well. But since my street didn't have a stop sign, they left it as is, and didn't put a stop bar down either!
Here's another uncontrolled intersection I'm well aware of. It's a one way, plenty of One Way and Do Not Enter signage, but has never had a 'Stop' Sign.
http://goo.gl/maps/1Kkmh
No one would ever confuse who has the right of way here. Although people do get confused in that when turning left, you are allowed to be on the left side of this street...since it is a one way.
Thinking about it some more, there are some ones here and there around the Rochester area. They're definitely not the norm, and they're also on older streets that haven't seen anything more than a minor resurfacing in more than 50 years. I wonder if the towns just forgot the signs. One formerly uncontrolled intersection got an all-way stop when the roads were rebuilt.
The city of Rome has some uncontrolled intersections for narrow alleys (many of which aren't even marked on Google Maps)... not sure if that counts or not.
I don't usually see uncontrolled intersections in urban areas, or even suburban areas for that matter. I usually see these on gravel or chip and seal roads in rural areas with extremely low traffic counts.
Examples (and these are just the ones on GSV):
Schoolhouse and Pauling, Manhattan Twp, Will County, IL (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.395773,-87.924142&spn=0.018479,0.042272&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.39581,-87.921863&panoid=9XdEaSzutjLWudELDp_YWg&cbp=12,324.64,,0,5.3)
88th Ave and Brittany Lane, Green Garden Twp, Will County, IL (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.392208,-87.824947&spn=0.00924,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.392208,-87.824947&panoid=s9ISCr9ExVNUacimRkq5Cw&cbp=12,42.21,,0,14.89)
There's a lot more, but GSV never goes down those roads.
I think I saw some uncontrolled intersections around 30 years ago in Moosonee and Moose Factory, Ontario, but since there were very few vehicles there and the towns aren't connected to any part of the North American road network, it didn't really matter.
All the residential areas near me have stop signs at every intersection. The one exception was the T-intersection outside my parents' house in Fairfax, which had just a yield sign on one corner, but when their new neighbor complained to the county that it was too hard to see the street sign, VDOT came out and moved the street sign and replaced the yield sign with a stop sign. (Dumb: turning either way at that T-intersection puts you on a cul-de-sac at either end, no outlet except going back up the hill.)
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Is that supposed to be orange? It always looked red to me, or at least close enough to red that I didn't perceive the intended color as different from the red used for motorists.
Yes. The shade of orange is known as Portland Orange. The difference is more noticeable when seen from head-on.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 02, 2014, 06:18:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Is that supposed to be orange? It always looked red to me, or at least close enough to red that I didn't perceive the intended color as different from the red used for motorists.
Yes. The shade of orange is known as Portland Orange. The difference is more noticeable when seen from head-on.
I think back in the days of neon ped signals displaying "Dont Walk" or "Wait" messages, the orange neon looked much closer to red (i.e. Crayola's 'red-orange') than they do now with LEDs. But yeah, it's always been a pretty clear distinction to me.
Quote from: Big John on August 31, 2014, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
I've never seen Orange/White pedestrian signals. Could someone post an example?
The only orange (amber) and white lights I've seen are those for Light Rail, usually when in mixed traffic. Like the MAX in Portland, OR.
Looks Red to me.
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 04, 2014, 02:46:01 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 31, 2014, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
I've never seen Orange/White pedestrian signals. Could someone post an example?
The only orange (amber) and white lights I've seen are those for Light Rail, usually when in mixed traffic. Like the MAX in Portland, OR.
Looks Red to me.
That's very distinctly orange, not red.
Quote from: Brandon on September 04, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on September 04, 2014, 02:46:01 PM
Quote from: Big John on August 31, 2014, 02:18:27 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 31, 2014, 01:51:05 PM
I've never seen Orange/White pedestrian signals. Could someone post an example?
The only orange (amber) and white lights I've seen are those for Light Rail, usually when in mixed traffic. Like the MAX in Portland, OR.
Looks Red to me.
That's very distinctly orange, not red.
It's the color of orange Kool-Aid. Slightly redder than the traditional "orange", but orange nonetheless.
Looks orange to my eyes. It might be worth noting that no two people see color the exact same way.
Quote from: Brandon on September 02, 2014, 02:21:13 PM
I don't usually see uncontrolled intersections in urban areas, or even suburban areas for that matter. I usually see these on gravel or chip and seal roads in rural areas with extremely low traffic counts.
While not very common, a lot of the suburbs in the Bethesda and Potomac areas that were built in the 60s and 70s have uncontrolled T-junctions (and we're not very far from DC, only about 7 miles. Hardly a rural area!)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0524745,-77.1782902,3a,48.3y,320.82h,84.84t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sSXBYmrI8WnfZKJXTzzCdzg!2e0
The practice is to yield to the people on the through street, which is apparently a violation of the Driver's Manual in Wisconsin?
EDIT: Not Wisconsin. I meant Washington.
Quote from: vdeane on September 04, 2014, 05:41:51 PM
Looks orange to my eyes. It might be worth noting that no two people see color the exact same way.
Well, someone with tritanopia would see orange as a pinkish red. But that hand definitely looks orange to me.
Quote from: roadfro on September 03, 2014, 05:19:55 AM
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 02, 2014, 06:18:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on September 02, 2014, 12:41:29 PM
Is that supposed to be orange? It always looked red to me, or at least close enough to red that I didn't perceive the intended color as different from the red used for motorists.
Yes. The shade of orange is known as Portland Orange. The difference is more noticeable when seen from head-on.
I think back in the days of neon ped signals displaying "Dont Walk" or "Wait" messages, the orange neon looked much closer to red (i.e. Crayola's 'red-orange') than they do now with LEDs. But yeah, it's always been a pretty clear distinction to me.
Right, and the neon lights that I remember seeing in the LA area had a red "Wait" and a green "Walk" and I don't think they ever had a flashing phase. They were so low, that I don't beleive that any driver would've confused them for their traffic lights, despite the color.
In some intersections that don't include pedestrian lights, the standard RYG lights control both peds and vehicles. If there are any left arrows or other indications where the pedestrian may be allowed to cross, even though the traffic light they see is red, you'd likely see a left side louvred traffic light in place of a ped light.
I'm lucky enough to own a couple of examples of California neon, and have talked on the phone several times with the person who's the definitive resource on them. Basically they evolved from:
"Heavy Cast' to the lighter "E8" housing
"Neon Red" (The orange-red produced by clear neon filled tubes) and Green to Portland Orange and Lunar White
"Wait / "Walk" to "Walk/Don't Walk"
"Exposed tube" to backlit
Also, not specific to any models they went from not flashing to flashing. By far the most popular configurations were the heavy cast neon red/green wait/walk, the E8 neon red/green walk/don't walk, and the backlit lunar white walk/don't walk. Later a lot of the old neon was stripped and replaced with neon in sealed modules made by ICC. (Later still ICC made their own version, then neon that included a switching power supply in the sealed module that would fit in a standard 16" housing.
They never used pure red neon, although it was available. Portland Orange was neon with a yellow phosphor. Green and Lunar White are both argon/mercury with phosphors. They degrade with time and are not restorable. Portland Orange and Lunar White tubing are no longer available, but there are close substitutes.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3815/12260128856_d8b83f3838.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/jFonb1)IMG_3455 (https://flic.kr/p/jFonb1) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10593057_10152658279864875_6862071122024409780_n.jpg?oh=8c6e2d3437d8635177e1ae933b18383a&oe=5484F8B1)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3667/9694864424_37b05273a5.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fLGHqU)98-IMG_3268 (https://flic.kr/p/fLGHqU) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3678/9694863976_1a224a52da.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/fLGHib)99-IMG_3352 (https://flic.kr/p/fLGHib) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
I always thought it interesting how they were able to get both a "red" and a "green" WALK in the same compartment. In the old WAIT/WALK signals, obviously WAIT and WALK were in two separate compartments and they would not be lit at the same time, unless there was a malfunction.
Mdcastle, are you aware how it was done? From your picture it looks like there is only one set of tubing for "WALK". How would it sometimes show red and sometimes show green?
Quote from: mrsman on September 08, 2014, 12:14:07 AM
I always thought it interesting how they were able to get both a "red" and a "green" WALK in the same compartment. In the old WAIT/WALK signals, obviously WAIT and WALK were in two separate compartments and they would not be lit at the same time, unless there was a malfunction.
Mdcastle, are you aware how it was done? From your picture it looks like there is only one set of tubing for "WALK". How would it sometimes show red and sometimes show green?
Looks like a split tube to me, given how certain sections of each letter only illuminate for one color.
I am actually curious if a question asking "What colors are used to represent Don't Walk and Walk on pedestrian signals in the United States?" were asked on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire (with the choices being A. Red and Green, B. Yellow and Blue, C. Orange and White, and D. Pink and Purple), would someone be tempted to choose choice A based on natural instinct. I wonder how many people actually know that pedestrian signals in the United States are orange and white, not red and green.
Hmm....nobody picked up on my warning/regulatory point.
Maybe from the driver's perspective, "WALK" is regulatory - if the WALK sign is on, then don't turn if there are pedestrians in the crosswalk; "DON'T WALK" is severe warning; it's OK to turn (theoretically).
From the pedestrian's perspective, "WALK" is not a command, just permission to walk.
"DON'T WALK" would be regulatory.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 08, 2014, 01:06:58 AM
I am actually curious if a question asking "What colors are used to represent Don't Walk and Walk on pedestrian signals in the United States?" were asked on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire (with the choices being A. Red and Green, B. Yellow and Blue, C. Orange and White, and D. Pink and Purple), would someone be tempted to choose choice A based on natural instinct. I wonder how many people actually know that pedestrian signals in the United States are orange and white, not red and green.
"Well, when I'm approaching an intersection and I'm a pedestrian, I'm using talking to my best friend and I've never noticed the color. So I don't know if it's yellow and blue because blue is my favorite color since 3rd grade and Tommy from down the block would always find the prettiest blue flowers to give me on August 29th. And Pink and Purple I think won't be the right answer because pink is a girly color and you know all them people that made traffic lights are guys and they wouldn't want to use a girly color for a walk sign, although now that I think about it I may have seen a purple sign somewhere when I was on my 40th annual cruise to the South Pacific last year. So I think the answer has to be A or C, but I just don't know. Can I use my lifeline?"
Quote from: mrsman on September 08, 2014, 12:14:07 AM
I always thought it interesting how they were able to get both a "red" and a "green" WALK in the same compartment. In the old WAIT/WALK signals, obviously WAIT and WALK were in two separate compartments and they would not be lit at the same time, unless there was a malfunction.
Below, are two pictures of the interior of an incandescent bi-modal head I own. This is the model LPS-20 from the Marbelite company.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1013.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf258%2FSteven197981%2F1506887_711472118883598_247605380_n_zpse248d4eb.jpg&hash=47fdfe1b3118e84c813caaaa1edde249bac41c65)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1013.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf258%2FSteven197981%2F1798619_711472128883597_336639330_n_zps84562118.jpg&hash=521c1e28464882d5cfd1034d7115a994a1937a16)
For "DONT WALK," two incandescent lamps were in use. One for the "DONT" section. One for the "WALK" section. For "WALK," two lamps were in use here as well. A unique feature this pedestrian signal had, like other incandescent bi-modal heads, is that the incandescent lamps for "DONT WALK" were wired in series. So, if either one was no longer operable, the other one would not be illuminated. This prevented either a red (or Portland orange) "DONT" or "WALK," in which would have confused a pedestrian.
If I remember correctly, neon pedestrian signals never had this feature.
The bent tube Don't/Walks (and notice how this has the apostrophe!) have two tubes in the Walk section, an opaque green tube on the bottom a clear "neon red" on the top, when the green or white tube on bottom. When the bottom was lit it would shine through the clear tube on top. (And this setup would not have worked for a pure red or orange tube since those are opaque).
For the backlit models the tubing was bent back and forth and laid on top so the tubes alternated, these being generally orange and white with both tubes opaque.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5489/13523371723_7976e24e7d.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/mB1Pgr)IMG_5238 (https://flic.kr/p/mB1Pgr) by North Star Highways (https://www.flickr.com/people/26956281@N02/), on Flickr
Back to your original question, Pink Jazz. In the mid 1970s, New York City's then Department of Traffic first began to replace countless red and green lamps in pedestrian signals with those that were Portland orange and Lunar white.
According to the traffic commissioner, the new colors were more visible than the previous pair. They were also visible in direct sunlight.
Below, is an article that mentions this occurrence in New York City. From 1975. Courtesy of the New York Times.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1013.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf258%2FSteven197981%2F4_zpsbc616e07.png&hash=87258d96bacb3db9e1068f05a6ed7c1df711b24f)
The neons all had the neon red or orange Walk and Dont's wired in series so they would both go out if a piece of tubing (or the transformer) burnt out. I don't think this was so much of a design feature as simply the way neon works- you don't wire tubes in parallel and if you have a high enough voltage you can drive tubes in series with one transformer. These aslo varied a bit depending on the model but for the neon red / green bent tubes the neon red was 7500 volts and the green was 4500 volts.
Quote from: M3019C LPS20 on September 08, 2014, 03:35:40 PM
Back to your original question, Pink Jazz. In the mid 1970s, New York City's then Department of Traffic first began to replace countless red and green lamps in pedestrian signals with those that were Portland orange and Lunar white.
According to the traffic commissioner, the new colors were more visible than the previous pair. They were also visible in direct sunlight.
Below, is an article that mentions this occurrence in New York City. From 1975. Courtesy of the New York Times.
Speaking of NYC, I remember that the old worded signals there were three-row signals, with the "WALK" indicator in a separate row from the "DONT WALK" indicator (but in the same box), unlike the images posted here which have the "WALK" indicator in the lower half of the "DONT WALK" indicator area.
The LPS-20 was a neat concept but used special bulbs and the reflectors were plastic that would break and even catch fire. The "three row" was a later, more conventional design eventually copied by several other manufactures.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on September 08, 2014, 11:51:58 PMSpeaking of NYC, I remember that the old worded signals there were three-row signals, with the "WALK" indicator in a separate row from the "DONT WALK" indicator (but in the same box), unlike the images posted here which have the "WALK" indicator in the lower half of the "DONT WALK" indicator area.
Bi-modal pedestrian signals were discontinued in New York City sometime after 1980. As early as 1982, new
"three-row" pedestrian signals first appeared on the streets there, due to new standards that were established by the city. They ultimately replaced the older heads that were in use, and the conversion took several years to complete. By 1985, the conversion was successfully completed.
The first kind was manufactured by the Winko-Matic company, and it was the company's model VI 2L pedestrian signal. Below, is a picture of one that I own, which saw service in New York City.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1013.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faf258%2FSteven197981%2F1175494_738308862866590_5334001806095103860_n_zps935f906f.jpg&hash=499eb9e2204cbd1debb23c6fa939d265767d1f59)
Two individual lenses were in use. One piece for "DONT WALK." One piece for "WALK." A rubber gasket held both in place, and it was located in between both pieces.
This 16" pedestrian signal, like many others in New York City, had a louver attached to the door (front of the housing), in which protected the lenses mainly from vandalism. It was additionally fire-retardant.