FHWA terminated the interim approval for the RRFB yesterday: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/mutcd_news.htm (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/mutcd_news.htm)
Quote from: MUTCD News Feed, December 21, 2017, Termination of Interim Approval 11All highway agencies, including those agencies that previously received the FHWA's approval to use rectangular rapid flashing beacons under Interim Approval 11, are prohibited from installing any new rectangular rapid flashing beacons. However, any existing rectangular rapid flashing beacons that are already installed may remain in place until they reach the end of their useful service life.
At least for the time-being, no more can "legally" be installed. I'm guessing this will start a new round of legal challenges, as this seems to effectively kill the business of the patent holder.
LOL! This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2017, 12:31:44 PM
LOL! This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.
If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.
Good. They were confusing as to whether they were advisory or mandatory signals.
YES!! This is a huge victory for me, because I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely. I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them. THEY'RE NOT SAFE
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 22, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. ... I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.
Unlikely, unless you told them about it. ;-)
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 22, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
YES!! This is a huge victory for me, because I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely. I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them. THEY'RE NOT SAFE
Not to mention epileptics (and before anyone says they shouldn't be driving, they're entitled to be passengers).
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 22, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
YES!! This is a huge victory for me, because I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely. I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them. THEY'RE NOT SAFE
No. From the memorandum:
Quotehe MUTCD prohibits patented devices from experimentation, IA, or inclusion in the MUTCD.5 The FHWA has learned of the existence of four issued U.S. patents, and at least one pending patent application, covering aspects of the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) device originally approved under IA-11 of July 16, 2008.
The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.
I think the difference might be that patented ≠ proprietary, at least in the eyes of bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure you can't patent a font. Though, the difference in practice is splitting hairs...
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 22, 2017, 04:26:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.
I think the difference might be that patented ≠ proprietary, at least in the eyes of bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure you can't patent a font. Though, the difference in practice is splitting hairs...
Pretty sure you're right. Font makers generally make money from licences. Clearview's downfall was mostly unrelated, but it was an undeniable negative.
I doubt this IA termination will last. Once the creator of the RRFB realises he shot himself in the ass, he'll pull the patent. You can't make money if agencies can't use your device. I'll be looking out for the old-fashioned 12-inch flashing amber bulbs in the mean time. I've only seen RRFBs installed here in Washington for several years now.
If the IA isn't brought back, I'd be pretty sad. I really like the RRFB. They provide a very unique warning indication that was only used for crosswalks. You'd know it was a crosswalk without having to look at the warning sign. Needless to say, I've gotten used to flashing amber bulbs (used on warning signs) to mean either signal ahead, or school zone. Now they can mean "pedestrian crossing"? Booooo.
Interested to see what the TAC thinks of this. I've seen RRFBs in Vancouver, BC (never in lieu of a flashing green signal, though -- just mid-block crossings). And they've apparently been installed in Alta as well.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2017, 12:31:44 PM
LOL! This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.
If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.
Which is fine. HAWKs are what they should gone for in the first place.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.
Under federal copyright law, while the type foundry that created Clearview holds copyright over the "software" (i.e. the TrueType/OpenType/whatever) instructions that generate the font, and can trademark the name, they do not hold copyright or any other intellectual property rights over the design itself. Hence why, for example, the Roadgeek 2005 fonts that replicate the design of Clearview may be freely used and redistributed under their copyright holder's license, and the Clearview people can't really do anything about it, unless they can show the Roadgeek 2005 outlines were copied from the TTF/OTF of Clearview - so, for example, tracing a 1000 pt rendering of the glyphs in Clearview and distributing the results is perfectly legal. Even the metrics, kerning, etc. of a proprietary font can legally be replicated exactly as long as it isn't done by copying the "software" directly.
That's also why the FHWA series cannot be copyrighted, as a federal government work, but designs based on them (Interstate and Overpass, for example) can be. Or why almost every big foundry has a clone of Times and Helvetica and a bunch of other "standard" typefaces with minuscule variations that are invisible except to the trained eye.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 22, 2017, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 22, 2017, 04:26:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 22, 2017, 04:17:17 PM
The way I read this, any proprietary devices or products are prohibited. This makes me wonder how Clearview got approval. It's not a patented device, but it's a licensed font for which users are required to buy said license. The traditional FHWA font is not a proprietary font like Clearview is.
I think the difference might be that patented ≠ proprietary, at least in the eyes of bureaucracy. I'm pretty sure you can't patent a font. Though, the difference in practice is splitting hairs...
Pretty sure you're right. Font makers generally make money from licences. Clearview's downfall was mostly unrelated, but it was an undeniable negative.
I doubt this IA termination will last. Once the creator of the RRFB realises he shot himself in the ass, he'll pull the patent. You can't make money if agencies can't use your device. I'll be looking out for the old-fashioned 12-inch flashing amber bulbs in the mean time. I've only seen RRFBs installed here in Washington for several years now.
If the IA isn't brought back, I'd be pretty sad. I really like the RRFB. They provide a very unique warning indication that was only used for crosswalks. You'd know it was a crosswalk without having to look at the warning sign. Needless to say, I've gotten used to flashing amber bulbs (used on warning signs) to mean either signal ahead, or school zone. Now they can mean "pedestrian crossing"? Booooo.
Interested to see what the TAC thinks of this. I've seen RRFBs in Vancouver, BC (never in lieu of a flashing green signal, though -- just mid-block crossings). And they've apparently been installed in Alta as well.
The Canadian MUTCD has no restriction against patented traffic control devices and approves of RRFBs in its 2014 edition.
Quote from: kphoger on December 22, 2017, 02:55:06 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 22, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
I get migraines from rapidly flashing lights. ... I wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.
Unlikely, unless you told them about it. ;-)
The last sentence:
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 22, 2017, 01:53:17 PMI wonder if this was a major factor in the decision against them.
was mainly in reference to the previous sentence:
Quote from: paulthemapguy on December 22, 2017, 01:53:17 PM
All they do is blind me and impede my ability to drive safely.
I also figure they may be seizure-inducing. There's a reason they put warnings on movies and video games with rapidly flashing lights in them.
I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 23, 2017, 04:01:11 AM
I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.
Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2017, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 23, 2017, 04:01:11 AM
I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.
Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.
At most yes, there is one in Sherwood that still has the general flashing light and one with a circular version of this. That was installed 10 years ago though.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 24, 2017, 02:48:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2017, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 23, 2017, 04:01:11 AM
I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.
Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.
At most yes, there is one in Sherwood that still has the general flashing light and one with a circular version of this. That was installed 10 years ago though.
Does it flash non-stop, or only when prompted?
I forgot to mention earlier, but there
are flashing amber orbs at crosswalks in Washington, but they are used overhead, and flash non-stop (example here (https://goo.gl/hqXikp) and here (https://goo.gl/R3CvVw)) (the second example is ancient). As far as I know, the style the RRFB replaced (side-mounted, and flash only when prompted) were completely superseded by the RRFB. In my head, I can picture an example, but I cannot remember where it was (or where it would be).
Quote from: jakeroot on December 24, 2017, 03:19:56 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 24, 2017, 02:48:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2017, 01:48:13 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 23, 2017, 04:01:11 AM
I'm happy about this decision as I found nothing wrong with normal flashing amber bulbs used before this.
Unless I'm mistaken, hasn't Oregon just about completely switched over to the RRFB at zebra crossings? Much like Washington in that respect. I haven't seen a crosswalk with a flashing amber bulb in a long time.
At most yes, there is one in Sherwood that still has the general flashing light and one with a circular version of this. That was installed 10 years ago though.
Does it flash non-stop, or only when prompted?
Only when prompted.
Another alternative I've seen is the signs with integrated LEDs flashing around the borders:
https://www.grainger.com/product/3YPG9?cm_mmc=PPC:+Google+PLA&s_kwcid=AL!2966!3!50916684477!!!g!63266792877!&ef_id=VO7-8gAAAMPq6jut:20171224125943:s&kwid=productads-adid^50916684477-device^c-plaid^63266792877-sku^3YPG9-adType^PLA
I personally agree the flashing orb is overused for too many things, and I dislike the HAWK, so I hope the RRFB comes back or something like this takes it over. (Note I've seen this to emphasize other signs as well, with different color LEDs, including stop with red LEDs and speed limit with white LEDs)
^^
I've only seen flashing blue-red LEDs embedded in the "YOUR SPEED" display, never a separate panel.
What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 24, 2017, 10:51:25 PM
What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.
Puyallup, Washington has at least two examples:
https://goo.gl/uf7aDR
https://goo.gl/V2oB5y
More recent mid-block crossings have been RRFB's. I don't mind the in-ground lights. They're a fine alternative to the RRFB, although certainly more expensive to install, and maintain/repair.
I am discouraged by this removal of RRFBs from interim approval. In my area, these beacons have been the one tactic tried that actually has helped increase driver compliance with yielding to pedestrians in uncontrolled crosswalks. They attract attention better than typical beacons or flashing LED's in sign borders, and the attempts at in-roadway warning lights have been either ineffective or difficult to maintain such that all of them in the Reno area have been removed.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 24, 2017, 10:51:25 PM
What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.
They're still acceptable. On the MUTCD's Interim Approvals page, where there is the information about RRFBs and their removal, the FHWA links to a document that shows other treatments for uncontrolled crosswalks, and in-roadway warning lights are one of the items mentioned. In fact, there is a whole (rather short) chapter of the MUTCD dedicated to these–Chapter 4N–in which use at unmarked crosswalks is described as the only real approved use of them. So it would take a future rule-making action to disallow in-roadway warning lights (i.e. FHWA would need to remove in-roadway warning lights from the next version of the MUTCD).
Quote from: roadfro on December 25, 2017, 12:42:12 PM
I am discouraged by this removal of RRFBs from interim approval. In my area, these beacons have been the one tactic tried that actually has helped increase driver compliance with yielding to pedestrians in uncontrolled crosswalks. They attract attention better than typical beacons or flashing LED's in sign borders, and the attempts at in-roadway warning lights have been either ineffective or difficult to maintain such that all of them in the Reno area have been removed.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 24, 2017, 10:51:25 PM
What about In-Road Warning Lights? Interestingly the Town of Queen Creek replaced those at at one crosswalk with an RRFB.
They're still acceptable. On the MUTCD's Interim Approvals page, where there is the information about RRFBs and their removal, the FHWA links to a document that shows other treatments for uncontrolled crosswalks, and in-roadway warning lights are one of the items mentioned. In fact, there is a whole (rather short) chapter of the MUTCD dedicated to these–Chapter 4N–in which use at unmarked crosswalks is described as the only real approved use of them. So it would take a future rule-making action to disallow in-roadway warning lights (i.e. FHWA would need to remove in-roadway warning lights from the next version of the MUTCD).
The in road ones here have been removed as well. I drove by one frequently, and walked one a bit quite as well... I really didn't like them. In the vehicle, you could only see it if there weren't other cars in front of you, and generally only really stood out at night. As a pedestrian, I felt they gave a false sense of security, they looked cool and looked like they highlighted you in the crosswalk, but really didn't. The only time I felt it was actually useful was for night time when there was very, very light traffic, and even then, it'd be a lot smarter for the pedestrian to let the vehicle go first and wave them on then to trust it.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 26, 2017, 03:00:17 AM
There was one in Sherwood back in 2008 or so with the following criteria
Speed Limit 25:
Under 25, number no flashing.
25-29 Flashing, rate was dependent on how fast you were going.
30+ Rapidly flashimg red and blue lights.
A police car was hidden often back there and it was the only time my parents got a speeding ticket in the last 20 years.
That seems like a really low tolerance level, at least compared to the one's I see from time to time. The closest one to me, which is only about 5 blocks from my house, flashes red-blue only if you're going 9 or 10 over. And the number will start flashing only from about 28-on.
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2017, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: Brandon on December 22, 2017, 12:31:44 PM
LOL! This essentially fucks over the Illinois Secretary of State's wanting to have a driver stop at them regardless of whether a pedestrian is in the crosswalk or not.
If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.
Which is fine. HAWKs are what they should gone for in the first place.
Of course, in some states, what one should legally do at HAWKs is debatable. At least in New York, HAWKs are legally considered to be a dark signal when not flashing, which means, per NY Vehicle and Traffic Law, they are stop signs when dark. Nobody follows this, of course, but I'm waiting for some Barney Fife cop to start writing tickets for it (Tonawanda, I'm looking at you). Just use a 3-light signal that rests on green or has a flashing yellow in the bottom.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 26, 2017, 02:03:47 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 26, 2017, 03:00:17 AM
There was one in Sherwood back in 2008 or so with the following criteria
Speed Limit 25:
Under 25, number no flashing.
25-29 Flashing, rate was dependent on how fast you were going.
30+ Rapidly flashimg red and blue lights.
A police car was hidden often back there and it was the only time my parents got a speeding ticket in the last 20 years.
That seems like a really low tolerance level, at least compared to the one's I see from time to time. The closest one to me, which is only about 5 blocks from my house, flashes red-blue only if you're going 9 or 10 over. And the number will start flashing only from about 28-on.
Sherwood has a lot of speed traps.
99W: Expressway quality, 45 mph, 60 is common on it and police enforce it however give some tolerance.
Langer Farms Drive: Speed limit 25, 85th percentile speed is 33 mph. 0 tolerance and enforced.
Oregon Street: 25 mph, average at least 30, enforced with no tolerance (I've been pulled over at 29 although it was a warning luckily).
Lastly the road I am talking about: Brookman road: RURAL, strait and 35 mph speed limit until a sharp curve then its 25 mph even on the straitaways past it. 50 isn't uncommon.
In other words, we are the strictest city ever in my opinion.
I hope it is dead. Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72
Quote from: Brandon on December 27, 2017, 11:45:18 AM
I hope it is dead. Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72
Well, if there's anywhere to be extra careful about ped crossings, it's the Prairie Path!
The thing I always liked about RRFBs is that they're very good at making crosswalks noticeable when a pedestrian is crossing yet are no more restrictive for drivers than an uncontrolled crosswalk... HAWKs, meanwhile, are basically hybrids of signals and stop signs. I can't imagine dealing with a HAWK signal is any less annoying than driving through a shopping center that has stop signs in front of every store entrance.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Brandon on December 27, 2017, 11:45:18 AM
I hope it is dead. Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72
Could you please point us to a link where a lawmaker discusses making RRFB's mean 'stop and remain stopped until not flashing'? I'm starting to get a little tired of your RRFB bashing, based on some worry about an almost-certainly-unenforceable law that does not exist, and probably never will. Just because they might have discussed it, doesn't mean it will be law. Lawmakers discuss BS all the time that doesn't make it past the floor.
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2017, 01:01:06 PM
The thing I always liked about RRFBs is that they're very good at making crosswalks noticeable when a pedestrian is crossing yet are no more restrictive for drivers than an uncontrolled crosswalk... HAWKs, meanwhile, are basically hybrids of signals and stop signs. I can't imagine dealing with a HAWK signal is any less annoying than driving through a shopping center that has stop signs in front of every store entrance.
(personal opinion emphasized)
That is true, I don't mind RRFB in the right spots but at others I don't see what is we in with flashing amber lights.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2017, 12:02:56 AM
Quote from: Brandon on December 27, 2017, 11:45:18 AM
I hope it is dead. Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72
Could you please point us to a link where a lawmaker discusses making RRFB's mean 'stop and remain stopped until not flashing'? I'm starting to get a little tired of your RRFB bashing, based on some worry about an almost-certainly-unenforceable law that does not exist, and probably never will. Just because they might have discussed it, doesn't mean it will be law. Lawmakers discuss BS all the time that doesn't make it past the floor.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/arlington-heights/news/ct-ahp-crosswalk-death-prompts-idot-entry-tl-1013-20161010-story.html
"While the entry has yet to be written, it will explain to drivers that when the crosswalk signal is activated and the lights are flashing, they need to stop until pedestrians and bicyclists have safely crossed the road."
If that phrasing is correct, it corresponds to the legal requirements for drivers at a midblock crosswalk lacking a traffic light.
The husband, meanwhile, should be educated to the fact that flashing yellow never means the same thing as "stop" in any context. It is simply drawing your attention to the crosswalk so that you're more likely to see the pedestrians and do what you're supposed to do anyways.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 28, 2017, 05:25:03 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 27, 2017, 01:01:06 PM
The thing I always liked about RRFBs is that they're very good at making crosswalks noticeable when a pedestrian is crossing yet are no more restrictive for drivers than an uncontrolled crosswalk... HAWKs, meanwhile, are basically hybrids of signals and stop signs. I can't imagine dealing with a HAWK signal is any less annoying than driving through a shopping center that has stop signs in front of every store entrance.
(personal opinion emphasized)
That is true, I don't mind RRFB in the right spots but at others I don't see what is we in with flashing amber lights.
There are a few spots referenced in this thread, I think including a few in Oregon, where something like a HAWK or full signal would probably be more appropriate due to the large number of lanes.
Considering that lawmakers are upset that the FHWA rescinded its interim approval for Clearview, I wonder if lawmakers will introduce a bill to change the rules to allow incorporation of patented devices in the MUTCD. The Canadian MUTCD apparently allows it considering that they incorporated RRFBs in its 2014 edition, unless the patent isn't valid in Canada.
Quote from: Brandon on December 28, 2017, 12:17:09 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 28, 2017, 12:02:56 AM
Quote from: Brandon on December 27, 2017, 11:45:18 AM
I hope it is dead. Here's an example from Aurora, IL: https://goo.gl/maps/rRrFESdeaD72
Could you please point us to a link where a lawmaker discusses making RRFB's mean 'stop and remain stopped until not flashing'? I'm starting to get a little tired of your RRFB bashing, based on some worry about an almost-certainly-unenforceable law that does not exist, and probably never will. Just because they might have discussed it, doesn't mean it will be law. Lawmakers discuss BS all the time that doesn't make it past the floor.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/arlington-heights/news/ct-ahp-crosswalk-death-prompts-idot-entry-tl-1013-20161010-story.html
I seem to recall your worries revolved around a possible requirement to stop and wait until the flashing beacon quit flashing. This is just updating the manual to reflect the new device, and make it known that drivers need to stop and yield to any pedestrians crossing. Makes sense to me.
Quote from: Pink Jazz on December 28, 2017, 01:53:03 PM
Considering that lawmakers are upset that the FHWA rescinded its interim approval for Clearview, I wonder if lawmakers will introduce a bill to change the rules to allow incorporation of patented devices in the MUTCD. The Canadian MUTCD apparently allows it considering that they incorporated RRFBs in its 2014 edition, unless the patent isn't valid in Canada.
I could see patented devices being allowed, but only when they were an optional part of the manual. Required devices should not be patented, as it would be easy for the manufacturer to fix the prices and screw over agencies.
Quote from: vdeane on December 22, 2017, 12:48:06 PM
If they get IDOT to use HAWK signals where they would have used RRFBs, they may well get their wish.
It would be a District by District thing, similar to the deployments of flashing yellow arrows in Illinois. There is one on US 24 in Mount Sterling (Aerial photo (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9837383,-90.75281,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en); Listing on Page 55/111, Item 91 for IDOT's April 25, 2014 Letting) (http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Letting-&-Bidding-Reference/Archives/2014/04.25.2014/Vol17n12r.pdf). Supposedly the Ottawa District (3) is using them, but I'm either not finding them or the source of this information was mistaken.
Just withing the past couple weeks, Boise/ACHD just put up RRFB signs to replace this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKOBi8C5.png&hash=79e69a81f011162e6c97cb0d36575c1752c142a8)
You can see in the GSV picture that construction is already started. Well, this summer and fall they tore up the sidewalk and half the road and completely re-did it. In the process, they replaced the existing pedestrian signage with RRFBs (but on overhead signage similar to the old ones). The old ones worked like the lights were dark until a pedestrian hit the button, then yellow flashers immediately came on for a certain amount of time. Worked well, and compliance was pretty good. I imagine the new signage will be no different in practice, though I haven't seen it in use as a driver or pedestrian yet (only driven by it once, and it's been too cold for me to want to walk too much). I'll snap a picture next time I'm walking through.
Is it the only the RRFB device/design that's patented, or is the flash pattern part of the patent? (I believe there were a couple of FHWA-approved flash patterns, which makes me think it's the device that's subject to patent.)
My random thought: If we can't use RRFB devices, and the flash pattern is not patented/proprietary, could agencies game this to still achieve the benefits of the RRFB? Install double 8-inch LED yellow beacons with the crossing signs and have them be activated in the same manner, using the RRFB flash pattern. Such an installation will likely look slightly different to drivers, but the operational effect should be the same and hopefully driver compliance rates would be similar.
This idea would require some changes to the MUTCD provisions for signals/beacons. One drawback I can think of is that it would likely cost a bit more for agencies to install–the RRFBs are a nice, compact unit that doesn't need a whole bunch of mounting hardware, but beacons may be a bit more unwieldy. RRFBs also have the happy benefit of being pretty easy to install anywhere as a solar-powered device, but the beacon solution might not be as easy to plop down wherever or be as easily powered by solar panels...
Most school zone twin beacon assemblies are LED and solar powered these days, so I don't see how a twin beacon replacement for a RRFB would be any different.
Quote from: roadman on January 03, 2018, 09:23:19 AM
Most school zone twin beacon assemblies are LED and solar powered these days, so I don't see how a twin beacon replacement for a RRFB would be any different.
Might be different in your area, but most school zone assemblies in my area have the two flashing beacons placed above and below the sign, and they don't flash rapidly (they interchange roughly every half second). I think what
roadfro is proposing are two yellow beacons placed side-by-side, below the pedestrian warning sign, that flash in the same manner as the RRFB. Basically, a chubbier RRFB.
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 02, 2018, 03:47:12 PM
Just withing the past couple weeks, Boise/ACHD just put up RRFB signs to replace this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKOBi8C5.png&hash=79e69a81f011162e6c97cb0d36575c1752c142a8)
You can see in the GSV picture that construction is already started. Well, this summer and fall they tore up the sidewalk and half the road and completely re-did it. In the process, they replaced the existing pedestrian signage with RRFBs (but on overhead signage similar to the old ones). The old ones worked like the lights were dark until a pedestrian hit the button, then yellow flashers immediately came on for a certain amount of time. Worked well, and compliance was pretty good. I imagine the new signage will be no different in practice, though I haven't seen it in use as a driver or pedestrian yet (only driven by it once, and it's been too cold for me to want to walk too much). I'll snap a picture next time I'm walking through.
I grabbed pictures, for the curious. Also found an error.
The sidewalk along Idaho St. to the east was still closed, so I couldn't get a great angle.
(https://i.imgur.com/IfyqHk5.jpg)
And here's the error, on the button. The arrow is pointing in the wrong direction :pan:
(https://i.imgur.com/BYJDNyT.jpg)
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 05, 2018, 02:13:29 AM
(snip)
Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.
Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 05, 2018, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 05, 2018, 02:13:29 AM
(snip)
Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.
Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).
Well, I e-mailed ACHD and they went out and replaced it. Here's a new picture.
(https://i.imgur.com/W5MYVS4.jpg)
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 10, 2018, 06:14:18 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 05, 2018, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 05, 2018, 02:13:29 AM
(snip)
Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.
Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).
Well, I e-mailed ACHD and they went out and replaced it. Here's a new picture.
https://i.imgur.com/W5MYVS4.jpg
Massive props for such a fast modification!
Quote from: roadfro on January 03, 2018, 03:13:07 AM
Is it the only the RRFB device/design that's patented, or is the flash pattern part of the patent? (I believe there were a couple of FHWA-approved flash patterns, which makes me think it's the device that's subject to patent.)
I've heard there are multiple patents covering RRFB's, and one of those also covers the flash pattern.
(modified to fix quoting error)
Quote from: jakeroot on January 10, 2018, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 10, 2018, 06:14:18 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on January 05, 2018, 10:55:38 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 05, 2018, 02:13:29 AM
(snip)
Should say to walk. Better: To turn on warning lights.
Funny this is, the old buttons basically said that. Blurry GSV picture: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6116258,-116.1934493,3a,15y,258.03h,67.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7hVvAELFgO7yS6IytAM9vg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
I can make out "Push button to activate warning lights" on the button (can't see what's on the bottom though).
Well, I e-mailed ACHD and they went out and replaced it. Here's a new picture.
https://i.imgur.com/W5MYVS4.jpg
Massive props for such a fast modification!
But no props for it still being wrong... The walking man symbol should not be used because there is not a walk signal.
There is a MUTCD standard sign that should be used for such crossings. The R10-25: "(symbolic finger pressing button) Push button to turn on warning lights" .
Quote from: Revive 755 on January 10, 2018, 10:46:45 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 03, 2018, 03:13:07 AM
Is it the only the RRFB device/design that's patented, or is the flash pattern part of the patent? (I believe there were a couple of FHWA-approved flash patterns, which makes me think it's the device that's subject to patent.)
I've heard there are multiple patents covering RRFB's, and one of those also covers the flash pattern.
From what I have read, there are currently four active US patents for the RRFB device and another patent application in progress. What my colleagues and I cannot figure out, since none of us are patent engineers, is what the patent all covers. The images in the patents make it seem like the mounting order of the Xing sign, the beacons, and the downward angle arrow may also be covered in addition to the technology.
In the meantime, FHWA has released some FAQs (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/faq/index.htm)
From the rumor mills:
- ITE may try to put pressure on the situation, at least for some kind of grandfather clause (for RRFBs that were already out to bid), since the RRFB has proven safety countermeasure value
- The patent holder is digging in his/their heels on the situation :pan:
- TTI is working on/has finished a study comparing the effectiveness of the RRFB to a pair of pedestrian-actuated, 12-in circular flashing beacons
- FHWA may try to enforce this terminated IA...how, no one seems to know
The biggest fear in the engineering community is the potential litigation...for installing a "banned" device; for not installing a proven countermeasure; for the next crash that happens where a "banned" device is installed.
Quote from: DaBigE on January 11, 2018, 10:54:55 PM
From the rumor mills:
...
The patent holder is digging in his/their heels on the situation :pan:[/li][/list]
Gotta wonder if he's trying to go out with a bang. If he digs his heels any farther, no one's going to make any money selling RRFBs stateside.
The FAQ on the rescinding of the interim approval has been posted:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/faq/index.htm
Quote from: freebrickproductions on January 30, 2018, 12:30:37 PM
The revised FAQ on the rescinding of the interim approval has been posted:
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/faq/index.htm
Revised FAQs came out yesterday...otherwise they've been out since early January.
It appears WSDOT was ready to go with a solution -
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Standards/PlanSheet/IS-22.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/Standards/psl/IS-22/IS-22.pdf
I know of at least one other agency that is moving forward with the WSDOT solution as a stopgap measure until the RRFB comes back (or doesn't come back).
^^
Looks good. Basically the same setup, except with circular flashing LED amber bulbs (8 inches below 40 mph, 12 inches above) placed over the W11-2 signs, instead of below. Seems like a good stop-gap measure until the RRFB mess is sorted (if at all).
Quote from: corco on February 07, 2018, 09:14:48 PM
It appears WSDOT was ready to go with a solution -
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Standards/PlanSheet/IS-22.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/Standards/psl/IS-22/IS-22.pdf
I know of at least one other agency that is moving forward with the WSDOT solution as a stopgap measure until the RRFB comes back (or doesn't come back).
That's basically what I was suggesting in a previous post. I like it. Looking at the links there, it appears WSDOT is also using a rapid flash pattern but it is different from the RRFB patterns I've seen. Still curious if this set up could be used with a flash pattern used on RRFBs (I like the original 2-3/2-5 pattern or the wig wag+simultaneous patterns I've seen around Nevada).