AARoads Forum

Recently, I went on a trip that included significant mileage in British Columbia.  Going there, I noticed that they used flashing green signals to denote signals used for pedestrian crosswalks.  I have also seen standard traffic signals (ryg) used for them as well as HAWK beacons.  I'm not really sure which one would be the best to use for them.  They all seem to have their positive points and their flaws.  I've added a poll of out curiosity to see what others think.

I voted "None".  Painted stripes and maybe a warning sign.  That's it.

I voted flashing green. Unfortunately, they're being phased out in Massachusetts, with only a few, mostly in the Peabody/Salem area, remaining.

Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 01:00:37 PM
Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.  And, if no pedestrians are anywhere nearby, then why slow down?  But if you don't slow down, then WHOAAA!!

I'd go with the "rectangular rapid-flash LED flash beacons", which inform drivers a pedestrian may be crossing, but doesn't require them to stop unless the pedestrian is walking across the street.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

I voted "other". I do like the concept of a HAWK, but don't like it because it uses alternating red flashing lights, which MUTCD explicitly says to avoid with beacons to avoid confusion with railroad crossing signals.

A better option would be a standard red, yellow, and green light, except the red flashes when pedestrians are being allowed to cross. This is the same idea as a HAWK signal, but without any confusion with railroad crossings.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2023, 01:24:01 PM
I'd go with the "rectangular rapid-flash LED flash beacons", which inform drivers a pedestrian may be crossing, but doesn't require them to stop unless the pedestrian is walking across the street.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

The trouble with these is that some municipalities try to enforce them as a stop sign or red signal.  We have a few (Elmhurst) like that around here.  The state (Illinois) was also toying with making them a mandatory stop when flashing.

Quote from: Brandon on September 18, 2023, 02:53:57 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 18, 2023, 01:24:01 PM
I'd go with the "rectangular rapid-flash LED flash beacons", which inform drivers a pedestrian may be crossing, but doesn't require them to stop unless the pedestrian is walking across the street.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia11/stpetersburgrpt/intro.htm

The trouble with these is that some municipalities try to enforce them as a stop sign or red signal.  We have a few (Elmhurst) like that around here.  The state (Illinois) was also toying with making them a mandatory stop when flashing.

And obviously, they're wrong.  In no state statute is a flashing yellow light a mandatory stop.

I strongly dislike HAWK signals because their meaning and how to treat them is so ambiguous to drivers. The fact that signs seem to always be posted on the explaining the meaning of the light sequence is an admission of their ambiguity and unfamiliarity.

In my area, there are 2 typical treatments for pedestrian crossings: At crossings of more minor 2-lane roads where additional warning is warranted, you will see the rectangular flashing yellow beacons.  IME, those are never ambiguous:  if they are flashing, there is probably a pedestrian nearby.  People generally yield to the pedestrian, and then proceed when clear.  At crossings of busier roads, especially with 4 or more lanes, a standard RYG traffic light is installed.  Again, completely unambiguous.  Everybody knows what to do when they see a red light.

I find it hard to see how the cost and operation of a HAWK is any better than a standard RYG traffic light. Perhaps you could argue that a HAWK provides a shorter delay for drivers, but I think that the ambiguity negates some of that advantage.

It's interesting that BC uses a "flashing green" to denote this because on the other end of Canada (specifically Quebec), a flashing green means something VERY different...namely a protected left turn.

For this reason, I would not suggest it for a pedestrian signal.

^^ Though the green flashes at a lot quicker pace to denote a protected turn than for a pedestrian crossing.

Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2023, 12:50:16 AM
It's interesting that BC uses a "flashing green" to denote this because on the other end of Canada (specifically Quebec), a flashing green means something VERY different...namely a protected left turn.

For this reason, I would not suggest it for a pedestrian signal.

Doubtful. They've been using flashing green for pedestrian signals in BC for decades, and I know of no outstanding safety issues.

Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:11:22 AM
Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Are you saying there are more flashing greens in Massachusetts than eastern Canada?

Quote from: 1 on September 19, 2023, 06:35:42 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:11:22 AM
Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Are you saying there are more flashing greens in Massachusetts than eastern Canada?

I'm slightly exaggerating, but there aren't likely that many flashing green-protected left signals left in Eastern Canada. To my knowledge, they have not been installed for several decades.

Any remaining protected-left flashing-green signals in Eastern Canada should be converted to bimodal flashing green arrow signals. Though to my knowledge, this transition is largely complete already.

Edit: I may be wrong and these are common in Quebec. They were rightly phased out in Ontario over a decade ago. Quebec needs to transition to arrows like all other provinces, so that flashing green means pedestrian crossing. It is the much more logical use, we invented green arrows for a reason.

Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 01:20:44 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 01:00:37 PM
Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.  And, if no pedestrians are anywhere nearby, then why slow down?  But if you don't slow down, then WHOAAA!!

And, this may sound ridiculous, but I don't think it's a good thing to condition drivers to expect the feeling of running over something with their cars in crosswalks...

Quote from: johnandmegh on September 19, 2023, 11:39:39 AM

Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 01:20:44 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on September 18, 2023, 01:00:37 PM
Sometimes I question how effective any type of non-RYG signal are at drivers stopping at pedestrian crossings. It seems like to me a raised crosswalk along with a sign is a more effective cue, but I don't have anything to back that up besides my own experiences.

I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.  And, if no pedestrians are anywhere nearby, then why slow down?  But if you don't slow down, then WHOAAA!!

And, this may sound ridiculous, but I don't think it's a good thing to condition drivers to expect the feeling of running over something with their cars in crosswalks...

I do remember one time, being in a car with someone, we went over a raised crosswalk–and the other person said, startled, "What was that!"

Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.

Raised crossings could use an entirely different kind of material. If the road is pavement, they could be concrete. If the road is concrete, the raised crossing could be asphalt. This would allow them to stand out regardless of paint.

Also, raised crossings are supposed to have warning signs that indicate their presence, so if the arrow or crosswalk markings are faded, they can still be located by drivers.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:00:16 PM

Quote from: kphoger on September 18, 2023, 01:20:44 PM
I don't like raised crosswalks because, when the paint fades, there's little visual cue that there's a huge hump in the road.

Raised crossings could use an entirely different kind of material. If the road is pavement, they could be concrete. If the road is concrete, the raised crossing could be asphalt. This would allow them to stand out regardless of paint.

Also, raised crossings are supposed to have warning signs that indicate their presence, so if the arrow or crosswalk markings are faded, they can still be located by drivers.

1.  A different type of pavement is less useful after dark.  I have a similar problem with speed bumps in Mexico;  some of them are concrete painted yellow and, when the paint fades, it can still be quite difficult to notice them in time after dark.

2.  Is there a warning sign in the MUTCD specific to raised crosswalks?  I'm not seeing one after a quick glance at the manual.  The closest I see is W17-1 (SPEED HUMP).  While this does warn a driver to slow down, it is not a crosswalk warning sign.

One that I'm specifically thinking of here in Wichita is this one (https://maps.app.goo.gl/piKAx1PMHVpaznyw7).  A lot of the time, this location lies in the shadow of a building.  The only warning signage is a W17-1, which should be helpful, except that it's only on the righthand side of the road and I'm usually driving in the left lane.

Quote from: kphoger on September 20, 2023, 09:36:29 AM
2.  Is there a warning sign in the MUTCD specific to raised crosswalks?  I'm not seeing one after a quick glance at the manual.  The closest I see is W17-1 (SPEED HUMP).  While this does warn a driver to slow down, it is not a crosswalk warning sign.

One that I'm specifically thinking of here in Wichita is this one (https://maps.app.goo.gl/piKAx1PMHVpaznyw7).  A lot of the time, this location lies in the shadow of a building.  The only warning signage is a W17-1, which should be helpful, except that it's only on the righthand side of the road and I'm usually driving in the left lane.

At one of the raised crossings in Cincinnati (on Vine St in OTR (https://maps.app.goo.gl/N1W7d2YW979uQdsTA)), there's the standard pedestrian crossing sign, with a banner below it saying "HUMP". I think this is a pretty good warning sign for raised crosswalks

A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

Quote from: thenetwork on September 30, 2023, 07:33:49 PM
A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

There shouldn't be conflicting signs near each other.  If there are, then whoever purchased one of the signs made a mistake. 

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 30, 2023, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on September 30, 2023, 07:33:49 PM
A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

Problem is there is a lot of inconsistency in some states like Missouri where it seems like around 50% of the signs say yield, 50% say to stop.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 30, 2023, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on September 30, 2023, 07:33:49 PM
A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

There shouldn't be conflicting signs near each other.  If there are, then whoever purchased one of the signs made a mistake. 

There's enough of a distinction that it's something that pedestrian advocates fight to get legally changed.  IIRC, "stop" means that one must stop if a pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk, even if they've already cleared your lane, while "yield" means exactly what it sounds like.

As for the inconsistency, I'm guessing it's a result of most people not knowing that there's a difference between the two.

Quote from: vdeane on October 01, 2023, 03:39:28 PM
There's enough of a distinction that it's something that pedestrian advocates fight to get legally changed.  IIRC, "stop" means that one must stop if a pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk, even if they've already cleared your lane, while "yield" means exactly what it sounds like.

As for the inconsistency, I'm guessing it's a result of most people not knowing that there's a difference between the two.

And in fact, in states whose vehicle code follows the UVC, it's not even as clear-cut as one might hope.  What exactly counts as "so closely ... as to be in danger"?

(Also notice how Illinois modified the UVC in this case.)

Quote from: Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition
Chapter 11 — Rules of the Road

Article V — Pedestrians' Rights and Duties

§ 11-502 — Pedestrians' right of way in crosswalks

(a)  When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to yield to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

Quote from: Illinois Compiled Statutes
Vehicles

625 ILCS 5/ — Illinois Vehicle Code

Chapter 11 — Rules of the Road

Article X — Pedestrians' Rights and Duties

§ 11-1002 — Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks

(a)  When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.

Quote from: froggie on September 19, 2023, 12:50:16 AM
It's interesting that BC uses a "flashing green" to denote this because on the other end of Canada (specifically Quebec), a flashing green means something VERY different...namely a protected left turn.

For this reason, I would not suggest it for a pedestrian signal.

The reason why these flashing greens are useful is because oftentimes they are installed adjoining a side street that faces a stop sign.

Essentially it's telling drivers on the main road not to be alarmed if they see a vehicle turning from a side street when their signal is green.

(https://i.imgur.com/1sSpZQD.png)

Here are Ontario's newest kind of pedestrian crossing (put into the Ontario Traffic Manual in I think around 2018? or something)

(https://i.imgur.com/T7TJRBY.png)

Here is the traditional way:

(https://i.imgur.com/yjlezbC.png)

RYG crossings also exist.

^^ The MUTCD definition of the pavement triangles is a yield line.  Is that the same in Ontario?  If so, it shouldn't be accompanied with a small stop for pedestrians sign.

Quote from: Big John on October 02, 2023, 09:54:03 PM
^^ The MUTCD definition of the pavement triangles is a yield line.  Is that the same in Ontario?  If so, it shouldn't be accompanied with a small stop for pedestrians sign.

Shark teeth markings are supposed to mean yield, yeah.

The stop for pedestrians sign I believe is supposed to signify that you should stop when you see pedestrians. The sign specifies "within crosswalk".

I don't think I've seen a flexible sign of the same kind with a yield sign as of yet in Ontario.

flashing green is also a protected left turn (= green and green left turn arrow) in Ontario.

Mike

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:11:22 AM
Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 09:15:18 AM
They were rightly phased out in Ontario over a decade ago.

Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2023, 01:30:39 PM
flashing green is also a protected left turn (= green and green left turn arrow) in Ontario.

Do we need to send this to arbitration?

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 09:15:18 AM

Quote from: 1 on September 19, 2023, 06:35:42 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:11:22 AM
Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Are you saying there are more flashing greens in Massachusetts than eastern Canada?

I'm slightly exaggerating, but there aren't likely that many flashing green-protected left signals left in Eastern Canada. To my knowledge, they have not been installed for several decades.

Any remaining protected-left flashing-green signals in Eastern Canada should be converted to bimodal flashing green arrow signals. Though to my knowledge, this transition is largely complete already.

Edit: I may be wrong and these are common in Quebec. They were rightly phased out in Ontario over a decade ago. Quebec needs to transition to arrows like all other provinces, so that flashing green means pedestrian crossing. It is the much more logical use, we invented green arrows for a reason.

All of the protected-left arrow signals in Waterloo Region in Ontario use flashing green arrows, and as far as I know they're still being installed here.

I think the confusion arises that a rapidly flashing green ball in Ontario meant a protected left turn while a slower flashing green ball in Vancouver meant a pedestrian crossing. A green arrow in Canada usually flashes to mean a protected movement now.

Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2023, 03:59:45 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:11:22 AM
Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 09:15:18 AM
They were rightly phased out in Ontario over a decade ago.

Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2023, 01:30:39 PM
flashing green is also a protected left turn (= green and green left turn arrow) in Ontario.

Do we need to send this to arbitration?

I may have been wrong in declaring them non-existent in Ontario...there may be a half dozen examples.

I am perhaps irrationally bothered by how often the protected-left flashing green orb variant (found in Eastern Canada) is brought up on this forum, for as rare as it is. There's probably more remaining examples on YouTube than in real life. Meanwhile, over in British Columbia, the pedestrian-controlled flashing green orb variant is one of the most common traffic control devices out there. I'm not exaggerating when I say there are probably over a thousand flashing green orb signals across BC's Lower Mainland, with many more in other regions of BC (Vancouver Island, Okanagan, etc).

It won't be long until the flashing green orb only means one thing in Canada: pedestrian-controlled crossing. Right now, BC already accounts for almost all examples in Canada anyways.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 04, 2023, 09:08:18 AM

Quote from: kphoger on October 03, 2023, 03:59:45 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 06:11:22 AM
Never mind that flashing green is rare as hen's teeth in Eastern Canada these days. BC likely has 99% of flashing green signals in Canada. The few remaining flashing green 'protected left' signals should just be removed.

Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2023, 09:15:18 AM
They were rightly phased out in Ontario over a decade ago.

Quote from: mgk920 on October 03, 2023, 01:30:39 PM
flashing green is also a protected left turn (= green and green left turn arrow) in Ontario.

Do we need to send this to arbitration?

I may have been wrong in declaring them non-existent in Ontario...there may be a half dozen examples.

I am perhaps irrationally bothered by how often the protected-left flashing green orb variant (found in Eastern Canada) is brought up on this forum, for as rare as it is. There's probably more remaining examples on YouTube than in real life. Meanwhile, over in British Columbia, the pedestrian-controlled flashing green orb variant is one of the most common traffic control devices out there. I'm not exaggerating when I say there are probably over a thousand flashing green orb signals across BC's Lower Mainland, with many more in other regions of BC (Vancouver Island, Okanagan, etc).

It won't be long until the flashing green orb only means one thing in Canada: pedestrian-controlled crossing. Right now, BC already accounts for almost all examples in Canada anyways.

Quebec has tons of flashing greens to mean left turn, so I highly doubt the "it won't be long" part.

I didn't know Canada was so controversial.

Quote from: andrepoiy on October 04, 2023, 09:54:25 AM
Quebec has tons of flashing greens to mean left turn, so I highly doubt the "it won't be long" part.

Are they still being installed? I think I've seen a couple new examples, but I've also seen plenty of green arrows in Quebec too.

At any rate, I don't see why they should still be used in Quebec. Ontario mostly has phased them out, and green arrows clearly make more sense.

Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2023, 10:51:29 AM
I didn't know Canada was so controversial.

Canadian provinces seem to have a lot more autonomy than US states. Having two identical indications meaning wildly different things is, sadly, not beyond the realm of possibility.

I kind of like the characters that Germany uses, apparently adapted from common useage in the former East Germany.

Mike

Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2023, 04:05:17 AM

Quote from: andrepoiy on October 04, 2023, 09:54:25 AM
Quebec has tons of flashing greens to mean left turn, so I highly doubt the "it won't be long" part.

Are they still being installed? I think I've seen a couple new examples, but I've also seen plenty of green arrows in Quebec too.

At any rate, I don't see why they should still be used in Quebec. Ontario mostly has phased them out, and green arrows clearly make more sense.

Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2023, 10:51:29 AM
I didn't know Canada was so controversial.

Canadian provinces seem to have a lot more autonomy than US states. Having two identical indications meaning wildly different things is, sadly, not beyond the realm of possibility.

I would say that in Ontario, individual municipalities have a lot of autonomy as well.

In some municipalities, left-turn green arrows flash, while in other municipalities they don't. They mean the same thing, however.
There are also tons of examples of non-standard signage that is used by municipalities. Only the Ministry of Ontario follows the Ontario Traffic Manual to the line, every other municipality just uses it as a guideline.

Example: there are so many things wrong with this sign, installed fresh in 2023.

(https://i.imgur.com/G5XXiG5.png)

This sign too, yikes

(https://i.imgur.com/fzbRJ6F.png)

Both signs look fine to me.

What is wrong with fresh cut fries? :awesomeface:

Quote from: Revive 755 on September 30, 2023, 10:52:52 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 30, 2023, 10:29:33 PM

Quote from: thenetwork on September 30, 2023, 07:33:49 PM
A little tangent in this crosswalks thread.

Can the MUTCD make up it's mind on the short street-mounted signs at crosswalks?  It seems like it's either STOP to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law...or YIELD to Peds in Crosswalk -- State Law. 

How does State law determine what crosswalk constitutes a stop and what constitutes a yield?  Especially when the two conflicting signs may appear along the same stretch of roadway.

This has to do with state laws, not the MUTCD.  Some states say you must Stop for Pedestrians in crosswalks; other states say you must Yield.  (Honestly, I'm not sure of the true distinction between the two.  Either way, don't hit the pedestrian.)

Problem is there is a lot of inconsistency in some states like Missouri where it seems like around 50% of the signs say yield, 50% say to stop.

NJ switched the state law from yield to stop about a decade ago because drivers simply dont understand what yield means.

Im sure older signs are still out there