(Now that I remember this being something I really drove past, and not a dream...)
This isn't approved by the FHWA, is it?
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.378412,-81.51863&spn=0.008609,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378288,-81.518587&panoid=DfR-DAQWl1lysZr-zVQQdA&cbp=12,358.77,,0,-4.91
LOL Disney. I'm always surprised at what they can get away with on what are technically public roads.
It is rather interesting to see that such a configuration is in use for a firehouse.
Also, if you move the little man slightly west, you'll notice that there is a different street view of this set-up. The set-up used ordinary three-section (vertical) traffic signals on the main drag, while a pair of traffic signals faced the driveway. Those are long gone apparently. Take a look...
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.378299,-81.51878&spn=0.000019,0.009871&gl=us&t=m&layer=c&cbll=28.378274,-81.518701&panoid=K35XZel38lpAuz_ltik4AQ&cbp=12,237.45,,0,-0.12&z=17
Disney's roads are about as pedestrian-unfriendly as it gets, ironically. The lack of street name signage (except at most signaled intersections) pisses me off.
Quote from: formulanone on March 29, 2013, 10:25:55 AM
Disney's roads are about as pedestrian-unfriendly as it gets, ironically.
Yep. Luckily they have frequent free buses, unless you're trying to get to the Wide World of Sports.
Quote from: formulanone on March 29, 2013, 10:25:55 AM
The lack of street name signage (except at most signaled intersections) pisses me off.
Most intersections of public non-surface roads have name blades for both streets. It's the entrances to hotels that don't usually have names posted.
That's the rub, I take our own vehicle because I can't stand waiting for the busses (especially with kids in tow). But I almost always have to consult a map between any two locations within WDW.
Still, does it really matter if the signal serves essentially the same purpose? Meh.
Quote from: formulanone on March 29, 2013, 01:41:17 PM
Still, does it really matter if the signal serves essentially the same purpose? Meh.
Does it? At a standard HAWK you stop, look, and proceed if nobody's crossing. Do they want you to do this when a fire engine is preparing to exit?
Doesn't it turn red, though? I don't really know, to be honest...I guess the fireman pushes the button and runs!
Quote from: formulanone on March 29, 2013, 02:20:23 PM
Doesn't it turn red, though? I don't really know, to be honest...I guess the fireman pushes the button and runs!
The sign says "EMERGENCY SIGNAL / STOP ON FLASHING RED". Presumably it's for a fire engine pulling out, and it's conceivable that it could turn red before the engine has left the garage.
There are other HAWK like signals out there:
* Main Street in Downers Grove, IL:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dupage+county,+il&hl=en&ll=41.788065,-88.009168&spn=0.006776,0.016512&sll=40.004509,-81.594773&sspn=0.05595,0.132093&hnear=DuPage,+Illinois&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.788148,-88.0092&panoid=x1qzHH4F4TR61jpG0ZZy7A&cbp=12,2.55,,0,1.46 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Dupage+county,+il&hl=en&ll=41.788065,-88.009168&spn=0.006776,0.016512&sll=40.004509,-81.594773&sspn=0.05595,0.132093&hnear=DuPage,+Illinois&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=41.788148,-88.0092&panoid=x1qzHH4F4TR61jpG0ZZy7A&cbp=12,2.55,,0,1.46)
* Roselle Road in Bloomingdale:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=roselle,+il&hl=en&ll=41.950596,-88.080832&spn=0.00169,0.004128&sll=39.13006,-86.989746&sspn=14.421881,33.815918&hnear=Roselle,+DuPage,+Illinois&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.950596,-88.080832&panoid=6ncxlhF5-C7HN6gS24vpJQ&cbp=12,354.86,,0,-2.51 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=roselle,+il&hl=en&ll=41.950596,-88.080832&spn=0.00169,0.004128&sll=39.13006,-86.989746&sspn=14.421881,33.815918&hnear=Roselle,+DuPage,+Illinois&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.950596,-88.080832&panoid=6ncxlhF5-C7HN6gS24vpJQ&cbp=12,354.86,,0,-2.51)
And one more I can't find right now; it's somewhere near Huntley.
EDIT: The 2009 MUTCD does allow HAWK beacons for emergency vehicle access:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part4/part4g.htm (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part4/part4g.htm) (little over halfway down, Section 4G-04)
What confuses me is that there doesn't seem to be a single signal head or beacon facing the fire station's driveway. (http://goo.gl/maps/NE7go) How does the driver of the emergency vehicle confirm that the HAWK is operating before pulling out onto the road?
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 29, 2013, 05:42:02 PM
EDIT: The 2009 MUTCD does allow HAWK beacons for emergency vehicle access:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part4/part4g.htm (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part4/part4g.htm) (little over halfway down, Section 4G-04)
Thanks for that. So you are allowed to proceed after stopping if no fire engines are coming.
I still question the dark nature of the default status. A tiny green face (4 inches or so) should be enough to confirm that power's not out.
A tiny green or a flashing yellow would be sufficient, like the standard R/Y/FY emergency signals here in FL
Last week I encountered, for the first time, a HAWK signal that had gone red when a pedestrian exiting a bus had pressed the button to call for the light. (The light is on Van Dorn Street in Alexandria, Virginia, and I'd passed it hundreds of times but had never seen it operating.) People duly stopped when the pedestrian was crossing. Once he was clear, a couple of drivers took off immediately on solid red. I assume that's a violation. A solid red means you have to stop, and since there is nowhere to turn right at that spot, you have to wait, correct?
The HAWK lights then started flashing red. At that point the guy in front of me went. I pulled up to the stop bar, stopped, and then went–I figured since it was flashing red, you treat it like any other flashing red light, and in Virginia a flashing red is normally to be treated as a stop sign. The drivers in the lane to my left did not stop like I did–I assume they saw there was no pedestrian and decided they could just go.
What is the correct thing to do in that situation? Last night I passed through there as the bus was stopped and the yellow came on, but I made it through before it went red so I didn't observe what people did.
(I realize this isn't necessarily germane to the fire-station situation being discussed in this thread, but I didn't think it worthy of starting a new thread.)
^^^
My understanding is that it's a stop light while solid red and a stop sign while flashing red.
Yeah, if no peds in the crosswalk on the flashing red you can proceed. Less delay for the drivers since you don't have to wait through the whole cycle.
The one that I've encountered is solid red while the walk light is white, and changes to flashing red for the same amount of time the crosswalk is in flashing don't walk mode.
Quote from: Milepost61 on April 03, 2013, 11:31:58 PM
Yeah, if no peds in the crosswalk on the flashing red you can proceed. Less delay for the drivers since you don't have to wait through the whole cycle.
You know, I thought there was a mention in the MUTCD about drivers making a complete stop during flashing red at HAWK or emergency vehicle beacons... the MUTCD appears to be silent on this in those chapters. Without making that distinction, I assume the typical description of signal colors and features applies and a complete stop is required before proceeding on the flashing red phase of these signals.
Thinking about it now, it actually doesn't make sense for the emergency beacon to not have an solid red phase...
I went down to the HAWK on NJ 27 near the Garden State Parkway to observe operations, with several test presses. Depending on who was in front, one of four things happened:
a) Everyone just kept going regardless of the signal
b) People stopped on the solid red and proceeded after I had crossed
c) People stopped on the solid red and waited for the flashing red
d) People stopped on the solid red AND the flashing red and did not proceed until the light went dark
Clearly, more driver education is needed on this issue. In general, though, RED means STOP.
Sorry to revive such an old thread. Moving this from a thread where it wasn't relevant.
Haven't seen an emergency HAWK install until just a few days ago. This is on Joint-Base Lewis McChord, near Tacoma, WA. Not sure who's responsible for military base roads.
(No street view since, military base).
(https://i.imgur.com/53XJ3Ld.jpg)
I've seen the HAWK signal that Alps mentioned earlier on NJ 27 in Iselin in front of the Metropark Train Station. I wanted to check it out so I parked nearby, walked over, activated the signal and crossed the street safely while traffic stopped. The signal seemed to work as intended with traffic.
But I still think the HAWK concept is a bad idea that will cause accidents because drivers (including myself) may be confused as to how to comply with it. Yes, signs are displayed with the instruction but they look so small, you can hardly read them while approaching. And what's worse is these identical-looking signals work differently and have different rules depending whether they're used at a crosswalk or a fire station. You can assume as some do above that flashing-red is like a stop sign and steady-red means stop-and-stay-stopped. But then that's not true in all cases like railroad crossing signals. So who knows?
Another problem is that conceptually the HAWK is in conflict with standard traffic signal philosophy that signals are not supposed to ever be completely dark. Some indication is always supposed to be on. And I think the Manual says that somewhere.
So what the heck was the FHWA thinking when they approved this idea? The HAWK strikes me as a cheap-crap version of a real pedestrian-crossing or fire-station activated traffic signal.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2018, 09:32:10 PM
Another problem is that conceptually the HAWK is in conflict with standard traffic signal philosophy that signals are not supposed to ever be completely dark. Some indication is always supposed to be on. And I think the Manual says that somewhere.
In most states, ramp meter signals go dark when not in use. Not sure if there's an exemption for those specifically, but at least there's some precedent to the HAWK, in some respect.
Good point jakeroot. We have dark ramp-metering signals here on Long Island too. I'd forgotten about those.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 11, 2018, 10:32:54 PM
Good point jakeroot. We have dark ramp-metering signals here on Long Island too. I'd forgotten about those.
Point aside, I agree that dark signals should, in principle, mean "stop and proceed with caution".
Assuming the HAWK cannot be modified to include an always-on signal (flashing yellow perhaps?), both HAWKs and ramp meters should have regulatory signs like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/H2zC3Pk.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:30:36 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/H2zC3Pk.png)
If the signal is dark, then I ain't stopping no matter what!
Kids in the street be damned!
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:30:36 PM
https://i.imgur.com/H2zC3Pk.png
If the signal is dark, then I ain't stopping no matter what!
Kids in the street be damned!
Signs cannot override the right-of-way of a pedestrian crossing in a marked/unmarked crosswalk, at least in WA.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:30:36 PM
https://i.imgur.com/H2zC3Pk.png
If the signal is dark, then I ain't stopping no matter what!
Kids in the street be damned!
Signs cannot override the right-of-way of a pedestrian crossing in a marked/unmarked crosswalk, at least in WA.
While I do understand that, I also think it's a bad idea to post regulatory signs telling people not to stop.
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 02:11:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 12, 2018, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:30:36 PM
https://i.imgur.com/H2zC3Pk.png
If the signal is dark, then I ain't stopping no matter what!
Kids in the street be damned!
Signs cannot override the right-of-way of a pedestrian crossing in a marked/unmarked crosswalk, at least in WA.
While I do understand that, I also think it's a bad idea to post regulatory signs telling people not to stop.
There is precedent. "Right turn permitted without stopping" is a fairly common sign that still requires drivers to stop for pedestrians.
I don't mind the "assume everyone is a moron" line of thinking, but you have to give drivers some credit. No one is going to willingly mow down a pedestrian just because a sign tells them they don't have to stop.
Also don't forget that, as the law remains right now, you are legally required to stop at dark ramp meters. I'm trying to think of a sign to overcome this shortfall.
I've never seen anyone stop at a dark ramp-metering signal. It seems like the public actually understands that they only operate during certain hours. But ya' wonder why they couldn't have a flashing yellow when they're not in use. That would have clarified the situation.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 08:32:35 PM
I've never seen anyone stop at a dark ramp-metering signal. It seems like the public actually understands that they only operate during certain hours. But ya' wonder why they couldn't have a flashing yellow when they're not in use. That would have clarified the situation.
This is what flashing green should mean, with flashing greens also being used in other situations with no cross street (as is the case in a few places in Massachusetts).
If I remember right, a flashing-green in Mass. meant a pre-emption activated signal i.e. a crosswalk or fire-station signal. Is that still true?
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 08:50:26 PM
If I remember right, a flashing-green in Mass. meant a pre-emption activated signal i.e. a crosswalk or fire-station signal. Is that still true?
Yes, but they're a lot less common now. HAWKs seem to be for crosswalks and sometimes fire stations, so it's the same situation.
However, I didn't realize that I was quoting a post on ramp meters.
Flashing green does not apply there. (Actually, it could, based on jakeroot's post below.)
No problem 1. It's all good.
Where did the name HAWK signals come from anyway? The Manual calls them Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 09:22:43 PM
Where did the name HAWK signals come from anyway? The Manual calls them Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons.
From Wikipedia:
High-Intensity
Activated cross
Wal
K beacon
Not as bad as the DUKW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW) acronym, but close.
Flashing greens would be a great way to indicate a part-time signal (ramp meters, ped crossings, etc).
The flashing green, besides its (now limited) use in Massachusetts, has wide use in British Columbia. It's still installed today...
https://youtu.be/n_h72zbbgCY
And could you tell us again, what does a flashing-green mean in Canada?
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 10:00:58 PM
And could you tell us again, what does a flashing-green mean in Canada?
In Ontario, it formerly meant "protected turn", though that is now reserved for green arrows (country-wide).
In British Columbia (modern usage), it means "ped activated crossing". Typically used at cross-streets with stop signs. BC is the only province to use it for this purpose. Apparently confuses other Canadians when they visit.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 10:20:54 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 10:00:58 PM
And could you tell us again, what does a flashing-green mean in Canada?
In Ontario, it formerly meant "protected turn", though that is now reserved for green arrows (country-wide).
In British Columbia (modern usage), it means "ped activated crossing". Typically used at cross-streets with stop signs. BC is the only province to use it for this purpose. Apparently confuses other Canadians when they visit.
Across our other border, a flashing green in Mexico means the green phase is about to end and will soon turn to yellow.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 08:32:35 PM
I've never seen anyone stop at a dark ramp-metering signal. It seems like the public actually understands that they only operate during certain hours. But ya' wonder why they couldn't have a flashing yellow when they're not in use. That would have clarified the situation.
Minnesota does it that way. And Wisconsin uses a solid green when not in operation.
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2018, 01:11:24 PM
Across our other border, a flashing green in Mexico means the green phase is about to end and will soon turn to yellow.
Ah yes. I think we know what the FHWA thinks about that type of signal.
Quote from: Big John on November 13, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 08:32:35 PM
I've never seen anyone stop at a dark ramp-metering signal. It seems like the public actually understands that they only operate during certain hours. But ya' wonder why they couldn't have a flashing yellow when they're not in use. That would have clarified the situation.
Minnesota does it that way. And Wisconsin uses a solid green when not in operation.
Though ramp meters in Washington State are dark when not in use, they do go green for a while before turning on.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 13, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 08:32:35 PM
I've never seen anyone stop at a dark ramp-metering signal. It seems like the public actually understands that they only operate during certain hours. But ya' wonder why they couldn't have a flashing yellow when they're not in use. That would have clarified the situation.
Minnesota does it that way. And Wisconsin uses a solid green when not in operation.
Though ramp meters in Washington State are dark when not in use, they do go green for a while before turning on.
You'd think they'd be lit all the time, because aren't dark signals meant to be treated like a stop sign? I'm not a fan of the idea that signals should be treated any differently just because they're being used slightly differently.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 02:23:42 PM
Quote from: Big John on November 13, 2018, 02:12:30 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 12, 2018, 08:32:35 PM
I've never seen anyone stop at a dark ramp-metering signal. It seems like the public actually understands that they only operate during certain hours. But ya' wonder why they couldn't have a flashing yellow when they're not in use. That would have clarified the situation.
Minnesota does it that way. And Wisconsin uses a solid green when not in operation.
Though ramp meters in Washington State are dark when not in use, they do go green for a while before turning on.
You'd think they'd be lit all the time, because aren't dark signals meant to be treated like a stop sign? I'm not a fan of the idea that signals should be treated any differently just because they're being used slightly differently.
I think the difference between an intersection and an on-ramp is fundamental enough to warrant that.
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2018, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
You'd think they'd be lit all the time, because aren't dark signals meant to be treated like a stop sign? I'm not a fan of the idea that signals should be treated any differently just because they're being used slightly differently.
I think the difference between an intersection and an on-ramp is fundamental enough to warrant that.
At the same time, it cannot be that difficult to set the ramp meters to flash yellow when not in operation.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 04:05:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 13, 2018, 02:58:33 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 02:24:48 PM
You'd think they'd be lit all the time, because aren't dark signals meant to be treated like a stop sign? I'm not a fan of the idea that signals should be treated any differently just because they're being used slightly differently.
I think the difference between an intersection and an on-ramp is fundamental enough to warrant that.
At the same time, it cannot be that difficult to set the ramp meters to flash yellow when not in operation.
WA just follows west coast practice. CA and OR both use dark signals. Pretty sure most states do.
Yes there is a fundamental flaw with this design as you are technically required to stop. But it's understood in practice that you don't. I was worried that, because drivers encounter dark ramp meters far more than dark four-way signals, they might fall into the practice of blowing through dark signals. Hence this sign that I was crafting on the last page, that could be used at HAWKs and ramp meters.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 11:30:36 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/H2zC3Pk.png)
Thing is, I'm all for removing ambiguity, even if most people understand the practice. I'm also for consistency, and I feel there's a problem with being inconsistent on the meaning of dark signals depending on their application.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 06:26:36 PM
Thing is, I'm all for removing ambiguity, even if most people understand the practice. I'm also for consistency, and I feel there's a problem with being inconsistent on the meaning of dark signals depending on their application.
I don't disagree. But even if we fix ramp meters, we still have HAWKs which are intentionally designed to be dark. Though I would prefer an alternative to the HAWK that wasn't dark when not in use, versus my sign. As mentioned above, a flashing green could come in handy at ramp meters and HAWKs. Flashing green could mean "part time signal" or something like that.
For the record, WSDOT utilizes back plates at meters, but does not use the reflective tape around the edge as they normally would, as you aren't supposed to see ramp meters unless they're on. I've seen some HAWKs with reflective tape around the backplate...I think somebody is reading the rule for that reflective tape wrong.
Furthermore, after some reading, I think leaving ramp meters dark is actually a MUTCD violation.
Quote from: Section 4D.01, paragraph 3Standard: When a traffic control signal is not in operation, such as before it is placed in service, during seasonal shutdowns, or when it is not desirable to operate the traffic control signal, the signal faces shall be covered, turned, or taken down to clearly indicate that the traffic control signal is not in operation.
To the more on-topic subject of HAWK signals, I've never liked them in the first place. I don't get what makes them superior over a standard three-color signal.
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Yeah, it's atrocious. I remember one time I had to make a left turn on a four lane road with heavy traffic when the power was out. Literally nobody was stopping, so after a couple minutes I had to just go, horn blaring and praying that people would actually stop rather than hit me.
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2018, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Yeah, it's atrocious. I remember one time I had to make a left turn on a four lane road with heavy traffic when the power was out. Literally nobody was stopping, so after a couple minutes I had to just go, horn blaring and praying that people would actually stop rather than hit me.
Doesn't even have to be dark. Good luck trying to go through a four-way flashing red anywhere around here.
Quote from: NE2 on March 28, 2013, 11:03:09 AM
(Now that I remember this being something I really drove past, and not a dream...)
This isn't approved by the FHWA, is it?
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.378412,-81.51863&spn=0.008609,0.016512&gl=us&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.378288,-81.518587&panoid=DfR-DAQWl1lysZr-zVQQdA&cbp=12,358.77,,0,-4.91
It's allowed: (https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1943/45145275204_9de4f68b9f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bMkktS)Screen Shot 2018-11-13 at 8.48.27 PM (https://flic.kr/p/2bMkktS) by Petru Sofio (https://www.flickr.com/photos/155056147@N08/), on Flickr
Okay, found it. The Manual has an exception to the rule cited above by MNHighwayman re: Ramp Metering Signals. Sec. 4I.02.07 states: Ramp signal controls may be placed in dark mode (no indications displayed) when not in use.
Similarly, in the section re: Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons, Sec. 4G.04.05, it says: Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacons shall be placed in dark mode (no indications displayed) during periods between actuations.
And another exception exists for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, in Sec. 4F.03.01.
So I guess that settles that for better or worse. But how is the average driver supposed to know all this?
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2018, 09:44:19 PM
So I guess that settles that for better or worse. But how is the average driver supposed to know all this?
They're not, which is why the inconsistency is a problem.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 09:57:56 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2018, 09:44:19 PM
So I guess that settles that for better or worse. But how is the average driver supposed to know all this?
They're not, which is why the inconsistency is a problem.
What's worse, the FHWA allows this exception, but states don't bother to carve out an exception in their law books (perhaps ... read below).
For example, Revised Code of WA (RCW) statute 46.61.183 states that "Except when directed to proceed by a flagger, police officer, or firefighter, the driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal that is ... not displaying any green, red, or yellow indication to the approach the vehicle is on, shall consider the intersection to be an all-way stop."
So, maybe it's the "intersection" bit of the law that allows HAWKs and meters to bypass the rule, as they aren't placed at intersections.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 14, 2018, 12:42:11 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 13, 2018, 09:57:56 PM
Quote from: SignBridge on November 13, 2018, 09:44:19 PM
So I guess that settles that for better or worse. But how is the average driver supposed to know all this?
They're not, which is why the inconsistency is a problem.
What's worse, the FHWA allows this exception, but states don't bother to carve out an exception in their law books (perhaps ... read below).
For example, Revised Code of WA (RCW) statute 46.61.183 states that "Except when directed to proceed by a flagger, police officer, or firefighter, the driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal that is ... not displaying any green, red, or yellow indication to the approach the vehicle is on, shall consider the intersection to be an all-way stop."
So, maybe it's the "intersection" bit of the law that allows HAWKs and meters to bypass the rule, as they aren't placed at intersections.
Note that the HAWK-style signals are actually considered beacons as far as the MUTCD is concerned ("Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon" and "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" are the official terms). While beacons, by MUTCD definition, are still considered a type of signal, they are operationally different from regular traffic signals. I think this is part of the distinction that allows them to be dark when not in use.
(Not that I'm defending these... I don't like them, don't think most drivers understand what to do when encountering them, and would prefer to see a traditional style signal.)
I'd also agree with the assessment that the "intersection" factor comes in to play here as well, which allows the driver to proceed through dark pedestrian/emergency beacons or ramp meters. (Although, some jurisdictions have placed the pedestrian beacons at crosswalks located at a minor side street intersection, so then what happens...?!?)
(Although, some jurisdictions have placed the pedestrian beacons at crosswalks located at a minor side street intersection, so then what happens...?!?)[/quote]
That is the case with the installation I cited earlier on S.R. 27 in Iselin, New Jersey at the Metropark Rail station. There are (too) small signs posted with the message: "Crosswalk, Stop On Red (ball)"
Quote from: roadfro on November 14, 2018, 11:07:15 AM
Note that the HAWK-style signals are actually considered beacons as far as the MUTCD is concerned ("Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon" and "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" are the official terms). While beacons, by MUTCD definition, are still considered a type of signal, they are operationally different from regular traffic signals. I think this is part of the distinction that allows them to be dark when not in use.
That reminds me. The MUTCD's
Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates does not carve out exceptions for when the border should
not be applied. HAWKs and ramp meters don't need them as they are normally dark anyways (no need to call further attention to them), and single-face beacons are typically accompanied by signage or markings that spell out rules when no flashing is occurring.
Here's a couple examples, from WA, of signals that have had reflective tape unnecessarily applied. WSDOT seems to have an exception for ramp meters, as this is one of only a very few with the border, but it would better if the FHWA specifically ruled them out to reduce the chance of it being incorrectly applied in the future, especially as the rule is likely to be implemented into the future MUTCD:
(https://i.imgur.com/Sn9k0GC.png) (https://i.imgur.com/On3OpOJ.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2018, 03:37:08 AM
That reminds me. The MUTCD's Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates does not carve out exceptions for when the border should not be applied. HAWKs and ramp meters don't need them as they are normally dark anyways (no need to call further attention to them), and single-face beacons are typically accompanied by signage or markings that spell out rules when no flashing is occurring.
Here's a couple examples, from WA, of signals that have had reflective tape unnecessarily applied. WSDOT seems to have an exception for ramp meters, as this is one of only a very few with the border, but it would better if the FHWA specifically ruled them out to reduce the chance of it being incorrectly applied in the future, especially as the rule is likely to be implemented into the future MUTCD:
That interim approval was terminated because the 'backplate yellow reflective border' option was added to the 2009 MUTCD (at Section 4D.12 paragraph 21). Based on other statements in the MUTCD about design of beacons & ramp meters, it can be implied the border option also extends to these devices.
I have yet to see a hybrid beacon in Nevada (we really like our RRFB's at unsignalized crosswalks), but NDOT has added yellow borders to all our ramp meters in the Reno area.
In Utah, UDOT and Salt Lake City have been very proactive about adding reflective tape to nearly all signals, and ramp meters and HAWKs are no exception.
Utah loves HAWKs, by the way. Downtown Salt Lake is full of them, and UDOT is installing them in several other areas as well. Usually they replace a yellow flashing beacon or an RRFB.
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2018, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Yeah, it's atrocious. I remember one time I had to make a left turn on a four lane road with heavy traffic when the power was out. Literally nobody was stopping, so after a couple minutes I had to just go, horn blaring and praying that people would actually stop rather than hit me.
I think it kind of depends. More often than not, at least when the power is out, people will treat it as a four-way stop. I have seen this most often at intersections where each road is only two lanes; can't recall a specific incident at a four/lane two lane scenario, so that might be a part of it. But at T-intersections, people are probably pretty likely to blow through if they are on the main road.
Quote from: webny99 on November 15, 2018, 12:57:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2018, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Yeah, it's atrocious. I remember one time I had to make a left turn on a four lane road with heavy traffic when the power was out. Literally nobody was stopping, so after a couple minutes I had to just go, horn blaring and praying that people would actually stop rather than hit me.
I think it kind of depends. More often than not, at least when the power is out, people will treat it as a four-way stop. I have seen this most often at intersections where each road is only two lanes; can't recall a specific incident at a four/lane two lane scenario, so that might be a part of it. But at T-intersections, people are probably pretty likely to blow through if they are on the main road.
I usually see the main roadway just goes, with the side street needing to cross when safe.
Another way is to simply make a right, then make a U-turn up the road a bit.
Most people don't know the actual rule, and with more and more traffic lights having battery backups and more reliable electricity capabilities, intersections that are completely dark are pretty rare. Same thing with railroad crossings: In my youth, train crossings with lights activated and gates down for no reason seemed to happen regularly. You just looked, and if safe you went thru the crossing. Now, people are totally confused as such a situation and will sit there forever.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2018, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 15, 2018, 12:57:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2018, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Yeah, it's atrocious. I remember one time I had to make a left turn on a four lane road with heavy traffic when the power was out. Literally nobody was stopping, so after a couple minutes I had to just go, horn blaring and praying that people would actually stop rather than hit me.
I think it kind of depends. More often than not, at least when the power is out, people will treat it as a four-way stop. I have seen this most often at intersections where each road is only two lanes; can't recall a specific incident at a four/lane two lane scenario, so that might be a part of it. But at T-intersections, people are probably pretty likely to blow through if they are on the main road.
I usually see the main roadway just goes, with the side street needing to cross when safe.
Another way is to simply make a right, then make a U-turn up the road a bit.
Most people don't know the actual rule, and with more and more traffic lights having battery backups and more reliable electricity capabilities, intersections that are completely dark are pretty rare. Same thing with railroad crossings: In my youth, train crossings with lights activated and gates down for no reason seemed to happen regularly. You just looked, and if safe you went thru the crossing. Now, people are totally confused as such a situation and will sit there forever.
In my limited experience with these situations, most people on the main road just sail through, but then it doesn't take too long for one or two drivers to realize they're supposed to stop and wait their turn. Once they stop, other people follow suit until new traffic comes along who don't remember the rule and the phase starts all over again.
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2018, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 15, 2018, 01:01:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on November 15, 2018, 12:57:11 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 13, 2018, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: NoGoodNamesAvailable on November 13, 2018, 07:25:54 PM
In my part of NY, I would absolutely say the majority of drivers do not know you're supposed to stop for a dark signal; and in my experience in power outages around 80% of cars will blow through if they feel like they're on the major road (of course major and minor road can be subjective). It's pathetic how poorly trained the drivers are in this country.
Yeah, it's atrocious. I remember one time I had to make a left turn on a four lane road with heavy traffic when the power was out. Literally nobody was stopping, so after a couple minutes I had to just go, horn blaring and praying that people would actually stop rather than hit me.
I think it kind of depends. More often than not, at least when the power is out, people will treat it as a four-way stop. I have seen this most often at intersections where each road is only two lanes; can't recall a specific incident at a four/lane two lane scenario, so that might be a part of it. But at T-intersections, people are probably pretty likely to blow through if they are on the main road.
I usually see the main roadway just goes, with the side street needing to cross when safe.
Another way is to simply make a right, then make a U-turn up the road a bit.
Most people don't know the actual rule, and with more and more traffic lights having battery backups and more reliable electricity capabilities, intersections that are completely dark are pretty rare. Same thing with railroad crossings: In my youth, train crossings with lights activated and gates down for no reason seemed to happen regularly. You just looked, and if safe you went thru the crossing. Now, people are totally confused as such a situation and will sit there forever.
In my limited experience with these situations, most people on the main road just sail through, but then it doesn't take too long for one or two drivers to realize they're supposed to stop and wait their turn. Once they stop, other people follow suit until new traffic comes along who don't remember the rule and the phase starts all over again.
To some extent, during mass power outages, that is also the reasonable thing to do, even if its not quite legal. Having been through a number of hurricanes which caused mass power outages for a week or 2 afterwards, it just isn't reasonable to treat an intersection with 6 lanes each direction (including turn lanes) as a 4 way stop, the efficiency is just so low that there would be severe backups with nobody going anywhere. Also so many people are just confused about who goes next each time a direction does stop (this at nearly all 4 way stops) I'm more likely to stop if there are few people around and its reasonable to stop, but on heavily trafficked roads, its far faster for everyone if I just go.
Jakeroot's above photo of a new HAWK installation is a good example of how bad some of these things are. First, I agree that there should not be reflective trim on HAWK backplates because at night they will fool a driver into thinking it's a power failure and they are supposed to stop.
And second that instructional sign between the two overhead lights can't even be read as you approach and barely even from the stop line as the legend is ridiculously small. I can't believe that sign meets any applicable standard. The people who design these devices are supposed to be professional engineers. A little common sense would go a long way!
I have no problem with reflective tape on HAWK or ramp meter signals. To me, the presence or absence of tape has zero influence on whether I think I'm required to stop at a dark signal or not. Why is everyone assuming drivers will instinctively stop for dark signals with reflective tape but those same drivers will not instinctively stop for dark signals without it?
It's like you guys want HAWK and ramp meter signals to be as invisible as possible–essentially disappearing into the darkness of night after the sun goes down. That's silly to me: if a signal might activate at a moment's notice, don't you think it's advantageous for drivers to actually see there's even a signal head there to begin with before it lights up?
Quote from: roadfro on November 15, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2018, 03:37:08 AM
That reminds me. The MUTCD's Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates does not carve out exceptions for when the border should not be applied.
That interim approval was terminated because the 'backplate yellow reflective border' option was added to the 2009 MUTCD (at Section 4D.12 paragraph 21). Based on other statements in the MUTCD about design of beacons & ramp meters, it can be implied the border option also extends to these devices.
I have yet to see a hybrid beacon in Nevada (we really like our RRFB's at unsignalized crosswalks), but NDOT has added yellow borders to all our ramp meters in the Reno area.
I had no idea that was in the MUTCD. Thanks for the info. I would agree that the relevant section extends the application to beacons (etc), but I was wondering if it was necessary.
Did not know that any agency was installing yellow borders around ramp meter signals. A few have slipped through in WA (WSDOT does not use them normally), but I didn't think it was normal anywhere. Based on some brief Street View research in states with lots of yellow border installs, GA seems to use them at ramp meters,
UT and OR do not, BC
did (only one and it was removed); I think that's all. Other states and agencies use meters but do not widely use reflective borders.
Quote from: US 89 on November 15, 2018, 12:10:58 PM
In Utah, UDOT and Salt Lake City have been very proactive about adding reflective tape to nearly all signals, and ramp meters and HAWKs are no exception.
I was going to ask for a link, but I finally found one (northbound 15 on-ramp from Timpanogos). Only one I could find, though.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 15, 2018, 03:03:47 PM
Jakeroot's above photo of a new HAWK installation is a good example of how bad some of these things are. First, I agree that there should not be reflective trim on HAWK backplates because at night they will fool a driver into thinking it's a power failure and they are supposed to stop.
I agree. Though the reflective tape has several benefits, a key one does seem to be recognition when there's a power-failure at night, but this is not an issue at ramp meters as they are not supposed to be seen/recognized when dark. I see that another benefit of the retroreflective border is a reduction in rear-end collisions, as recognition of the traffic light was improved post-installation. But, I don't see how these are factors at ramp meters, as there's no clear danger to ignoring a ramp meter signal to begin with (chance of a driver slamming on the brakes because they did not see the light is obviously much lower at ramp meters).
Quote from: SignBridge on November 15, 2018, 03:03:47 PM
And second that instructional sign between the two overhead lights can't even be read as you approach and barely even from the stop line as the legend is ridiculously small. I can't believe that sign meets any applicable standard. The people who design these devices are supposed to be professional engineers. A little common sense would go a long way!
I'm willing to accept the small signs, as there's a good chance you'd be reading it from only a couple dozen feet away at most. Ideally, however, they'll no longer be necessary once they become more common (as much as I wish that wouldn't be the case).
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2018, 03:09:33 PM
I have no problem with reflective tape on HAWK or ramp meter signals. To me, the presence or absence of tape has zero influence on whether I think I'm required to stop at a dark signal or not. Why is everyone assuming drivers will instinctively stop for dark signals with reflective tape but those same drivers will not instinctively stop for dark signals without it?
My problem is just that dark signals are allowed at all. I would rather a flashing green orb or flashing yellow orb were displayed at these part time signals. Pretty much every potential issue with dark signals would immediately vanish as there'd no longer be any!
Quote from: kphoger on November 15, 2018, 03:09:33 PM
It's like you guys want HAWK and ramp meter signals to be as invisible as possible–essentially disappearing into the darkness of night after the sun goes down. That's silly to me: if a signal might activate at a moment's notice, don't you think it's advantageous for drivers to actually see there's even a signal head there to begin with before it lights up?
Unlike HAWKs or ramp meters, traffic signals must be seen even when dark, as they become all-way stops. Serious safety issues could arise if drivers don't see the signals when they're dark. This is in stark contrast to ramp meters and HAWKs, where drivers are supposed to, effectively, ignore them when they're dark. Other benefits of the yellow border include reduced rear-end collisions, but my understanding is that studies were conducted at intersections with cross-traffic and 24/7 phasing, where signal recognition is always important. These are not issues at HAWKs or ramp meters, as there's no cross traffic that would ever have the right-of-way. That said, if a driver fails to see a HAWK's red display and hits a pedestrian, the argument could be made that a reflective border may have improved peripheral recognition. So, there is some benefit, maybe.
You do make another good point. If drivers don't go through a particular HAWK or ramp meter often, being able to see them and recognize their existence, even when dark, may come in handy the next time they go through one. But I would make the argument that the HAWK and ramp meter are still able to be seen without the yellow border.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 16, 2018, 02:14:48 AM
My problem is just that dark signals are allowed at all. I would rather a flashing green orb or flashing yellow orb were displayed at these part time signals. Pretty much every potential issue with dark signals would immediately vanish as there'd no longer be any!
Yes, there would still be dark signals, in the event of a power failure. I still insist that nobody out there on the road would actually come to a stop just because a HAWK or ramp meter signal is dark. Nobody.
Think about a crosswalk that uses a standard three-section stoplight, only turning red when a pedestrian pushes a button. Are you trying to tell me people come to a complete stop at such a crosswalk when there's a power failure. I don't think so! Drivers know the difference between a light that controls an intersection and one that doesn't.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 16, 2018, 01:46:41 AM
I was going to ask for a link, but I finally found one (northbound 15 on-ramp from Timpanogos). Only one I could find, though.
I guess they're not as common as I thought -- but really, the meters that don't have it is just because UDOT hasn't gotten around to them yet; they were put up before the reflective borders became a thing. The rule of thumb is that after around 2014, any new or replaced ramp meters will have reflective tape. These freeways have been recently reconstructed, so they all have the reflective backplates on the meters:
- I-15 between Timpanogos Highway and Bangerter Highway (reconstructed 2016)
- I-15 between Beck Street and Centerville (reconstructed 2015)
- I-215 southwest quadrant, between Redwood and SR-201 (reconstructed 2017)
kphoger, you must be a real optimist. You think many drivers can tell the difference between one kind of traffic signal and another? You're giving the ignorant public way too much credit. Remember the average driver is not like us with a background of observing this stuff for years. And most drivers have never seen the MUTCD and its rules. I think to most drivers a traffic light is a traffic light; period. But I hope I'm wrong and that your predictions are correct.
Has anyone here seen a HAWK beacon anywhere in New York State yet? I have not seen any in the New York City metropolitan area including Long Island so far. Just wondering if NYSDOT or Nassau, Suffolk, or Westchester Counties have installed any yet. Thanks.
There are plenty in the Buffalo area.
vdeane, were they done by NYSDOT or local jurisdictions?
Quote from: SignBridge on November 16, 2018, 08:41:10 PM
kphoger, you must be a real optimist. You think many drivers can tell the difference between one kind of traffic signal and another? You're giving the ignorant public way too much credit. Remember the average driver is not like us with a background of observing this stuff for years. And most drivers have never seen the MUTCD and its rules. I think to most drivers a traffic light is a traffic light; period. But I hope I'm wrong and that your predictions are correct.
I think drivers can tell the difference between an intersection and a mid-block crosswalk.
I think drivers can tell the difference between an intersection and an on-ramp.
If you don't, then you must be a real pessimist.
You got that right kphoger!.......LOL Based on years and years of driving experience including 40 years of driving emergency vehicles.
But even I would have to agree that many drivers probably can tell a ramp signal from an intersection signal.
Is it that hard, to know how the hawk signal works? They are now installing more in Delaware, Where school bus stops are & where many pedestrians may cross the road.
iPhone
Quote from: kphoger on November 16, 2018, 11:05:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 16, 2018, 02:14:48 AM
My problem is just that dark signals are allowed at all. I would rather a flashing green orb or flashing yellow orb were displayed at these part time signals. Pretty much every potential issue with dark signals would immediately vanish as there'd no longer be any!
Yes, there would still be dark signals, in the event of a power failure. I still insist that nobody out there on the road would actually come to a stop just because a HAWK or ramp meter signal is dark. Nobody....Think about a crosswalk that uses a standard three-section stoplight, only turning red when a pedestrian pushes a button. Are you trying to tell me people come to a complete stop at such a crosswalk when there's a power failure. I don't think so! Drivers know the difference between a light that controls an intersection and one that doesn't.
We can make our own luck by just not allowing dark signals. I think the chances of an accident occurring due to misunderstanding is very low, but that doesn't mean we can't change what we have to reduce
any chance of confusion.
Quote from: US 89 on November 16, 2018, 12:54:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 16, 2018, 01:46:41 AM
I was going to ask for a link, but I finally found one (northbound 15 on-ramp from Timpanogos). Only one I could find, though.
I guess they're not as common as I thought -- but really, the meters that don't have it is just because UDOT hasn't gotten around to them yet; they were put up before the reflective borders became a thing. The rule of thumb is that after around 2014, any new or replaced ramp meters will have reflective tape. These freeways have been recently reconstructed, so they all have the reflective backplates on the meters:
- I-15 between Timpanogos Highway and Bangerter Highway (reconstructed 2016)
- I-15 between Beck Street and Centerville (reconstructed 2015)
- I-215 southwest quadrant, between Redwood and SR-201 (reconstructed 2017)
I usually come to the conclusion based on the design of the ramp meter signals compared to nearby ramp terminii. At the American Fork DDI's, for example, the crossover points feature signals with the reflective border, but the ramp meters do not have the reflective border. This reflects modern WSDOT practice; as many western states do things pretty similar (minus a few obvious things), I figured it might be a reliable way to indicate in-field practices elsewhere. Guess not!
SignBridge, here's another supplemental HAWK sign in Washington with an indecipherable legend:
(https://i.imgur.com/145tNaZ.jpg)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2018, 03:37:08 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 14, 2018, 11:07:15 AM
Note that the HAWK-style signals are actually considered beacons as far as the MUTCD is concerned ("Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon" and "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" are the official terms). While beacons, by MUTCD definition, are still considered a type of signal, they are operationally different from regular traffic signals. I think this is part of the distinction that allows them to be dark when not in use.
That reminds me. The MUTCD's Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates does not carve out exceptions for when the border should not be applied. HAWKs and ramp meters don't need them as they are normally dark anyways (no need to call further attention to them), and single-face beacons are typically accompanied by signage or markings that spell out rules when no flashing is occurring.
Here's a couple examples, from WA, of signals that have had reflective tape unnecessarily applied. WSDOT seems to have an exception for ramp meters, as this is one of only a very few with the border, but it would better if the FHWA specifically ruled them out to reduce the chance of it being incorrectly applied in the future, especially as the rule is likely to be implemented into the future MUTCD:
(https://i.imgur.com/Sn9k0GC.png) (https://i.imgur.com/On3OpOJ.png)
Hmmm, never seen such skinny strips of reflective tape before. In MA, we always use alot.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 16, 2018, 08:47:35 PM
Has anyone here seen a HAWK beacon anywhere in New York State yet? I have not seen any in the New York City metropolitan area including Long Island so far. Just wondering if NYSDOT or Nassau, Suffolk, or Westchester Counties have installed any yet. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns9I2ZlOszI
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 17, 2018, 06:59:46 PM
Hmmm, never seen such skinny strips of reflective tape before. In MA, we always use alot.
MUTCD allows the yellow borders to be 1-3 inches wide.
Good example Jakeroot. Maybe Wash. DOT should issue binoculars to all drivers.
And thanks Amtrakprod for that video. They said it's the first in the state? Interesting. Looks like a NYSDOT installation. I see on the map, Sheridan Dr. is a State road. Be interesting to see if NYSDOT starts putting them up elsewhere in the state in the near future.
There are a few in Williamsville too. A picture of one was posted to the NYSDOT IntraDOT announcements yesterday or Thursday.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2018, 05:14:55 PM
SignBridge, here's another supplemental HAWK sign in Washington with an indecipherable legend:
(https://i.imgur.com/145tNaZ.jpg)
Just a few blocks from my work.
"Stop on red" is easy enough. The small lettering is mostly for those already stopped at the light, telling them they can go if it is flashing and the crosswalk is clear.
A similar sign is used at HAWKs in Utah, and I feel it's more readable than the one in Washington:
https://goo.gl/maps/Nhu6WFuD39G2
Crappy signage got me thinking...symbols to the rescue. Is this clearer?
(https://i.imgur.com/tLWAoIS.png)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
Crappy signage got me thinking...symbols to the rescue. Is this clearer?
(https://i.imgur.com/tLWAoIS.png)
Why don't you work for dot again?
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on November 18, 2018, 07:22:48 PM
Why don't you work for dot again?
Regulations make me want to tear my hair out. I'd have to work for a giant city that could flip the bird at the FHWA whenever it wanted.
I also mocked that up in about 10 minutes (concept to finish) so I'm sure there's room for improvement.
Jakeroot, your concept isn't bad, but you don't want to post anything that looks like a stop sign at the same location with a signal. That would create confusion and a legal conflict.
And ErmineNotyours, anyone with less than perfect 20/20 vision may not be able to read that fine print even from the stop line. I can't believe that any professional traffic engineer would think this was reasonable.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 18, 2018, 08:49:31 PM
Jakeroot, your concept isn't bad, but you don't want to post anything that looks like a stop sign at the same location with a signal. That would create confusion and a legal conflict.
I see lots of signs posted at signals with "stop for/yield to pedestrians/cyclists", with the stop/yield being a symbol of the actual sign. Plenty of precedent so I doubt that's an issue.
Hmmm..........you're right jakeroot. Looks like I was a little hasty in my above comment. Looking at the Manual, I see those signs you're talking about that incorporate the stop or yield sign symbol. I stand corrected. :spin:
Quote from: SignBridge on November 18, 2018, 09:46:30 PM
Hmmm..........you're right jakeroot. Looks like I was a little hasty in my above comment. Looking at the Manual, I see those signs you're talking about that incorporate the stop or yield sign symbol. I stand corrected. :spin:
In fairness, you're not crazy for thinking the way you do. I only use the symbols in my proposed signs because I've seen them used on real life signs. Otherwise I wouldnt since legally it seems odd.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
Crappy signage got me thinking...symbols to the rescue. Is this clearer?
(https://i.imgur.com/tLWAoIS.png)
I like it, but the stop sign makes it seem like you may proceed after a stop.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 04:00:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
Crappy signage got me thinking...symbols to the rescue. Is this clearer?
https://i.imgur.com/tLWAoIS.png
I like it, but the stop sign makes it seem like you may proceed after a stop.
That's a decent point, actually. I'll keep that in mind!
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 06:01:12 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 04:00:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:19:36 PM
Crappy signage got me thinking...symbols to the rescue. Is this clearer?
https://i.imgur.com/tLWAoIS.png
I like it, but the stop sign makes it seem like you may proceed after a stop.
That's a decent point, actually. I'll keep that in mind!
Anytime, I would keep the Stop Sign on the other side, but on the solid red, I'd say Stop in words.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 06:41:05 PM
I would keep the Stop Sign on the other side, but on the solid red, I'd say Stop in words.
So I deleted the stop sign on the left, but rather than use "STOP" on the sign twice, in two different contexts, I used "do not proceed".
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
(https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png)
I do wonder if it might not just be easier to use blankout signs that show this symbol during the solid red phase:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/MUTCD_R3-27.svg)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:30:51 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 06:41:05 PM
I would keep the Stop Sign on the other side, but on the solid red, I'd say Stop in words.
So I deleted the stop sign on the left, but rather than use "STOP" on the sign twice, in two different contexts, I used "do not proceed".
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
(https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png)
I do wonder if it might not just be easier to use blankout signs that show this symbol during the solid red phase:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/MUTCD_R3-27.svg)
I designed a sign, my first sign I've designed, thoughts?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/45963183811_316785472e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2d2Bkdp)Crosswalk HAWK sign (https://flic.kr/p/2d2Bkdp) by Petru Sofio (https://www.flickr.com/photos/155056147@N08/), on Flickr
Note: I haven't found a better font yet.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:30:51 PM
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
(https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png)
Wait, what? Are you wanting drivers to stop when the top orbs are dark?
Quote from: kphoger on November 19, 2018, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:30:51 PM
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
(https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png)
Wait, what? Are you wanting drivers to stop when the top orbs are dark?
I would assume, that a driver would only Stop on "dark orbs" if a pedestrian was walking & it turned off, or they just walked across without pushing a button. Which I have seen someone do with these systems.
iPhone
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:35:09 PM
I designed a sign, my first sign I've designed, thoughts?
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/45963183811_316785472e_c.jpg
Note: I haven't found a better font yet.
Very nice! I like the symbols. Roadgeek 2005 (all the road sign fonts and weights) can be downloaded here: https://www.fontspace.com/michael-d-adams/roadgeek-2005
Quote from: kphoger on November 19, 2018, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:30:51 PM
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png
Wait, what? Are you wanting drivers to stop when the top orbs are dark?
The half red/half black symbols are meant to indicate that those two faces flash between red and dark. My original design might be better, but I didn't want to give the impression that only one side of the HAWK flashes red.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:30:51 PM
So I deleted the stop sign on the left, but rather than use "STOP" on the sign twice, in two different contexts, I used "do not proceed".
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
(https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png)
You should use black on yellow (or black on FYG) warning sign colors on the pedestrian symbol, since the white on black colors used here are only ever officially used on signs attached to pedestrian crosswalk call buttons. That, and the crosswalk lines associated with the pedestrian symbol (originally shown on "ped X-ing here" signs) were eliminated in prior edition of the MUTCD (2003 or Millennium edition).
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:35:09 PM
I designed a sign, my first sign I've designed, thoughts?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/45963183811_316785472e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2d2Bkdp)Crosswalk HAWK sign (https://flic.kr/p/2d2Bkdp) by Petru Sofio (https://www.flickr.com/photos/155056147@N08/), on Flickr
It doesn't work. Since each vehicle is supposed to come to a complete stop before proceeding (if clear). Showing both a stop sign and a yield sign in the message can cause some confusion–especially since each vehicle must come to a complete stop on flashing red, and there is technically no yielding in that phase.
Quote from: roadfro on November 20, 2018, 01:34:23 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 07:30:51 PM
So I deleted the stop sign on the left, but rather than use "STOP" on the sign twice, in two different contexts, I used "do not proceed".
I also changed the signal display on the right to reflect that the top orbs could display either red or nothing.
https://i.imgur.com/y0aTnZ5.png
You should use black on yellow (or black on FYG) warning sign colors on the pedestrian symbol, since the white on black colors used here are only ever officially used on signs attached to pedestrian crosswalk call buttons. That, and the crosswalk lines associated with the pedestrian symbol (originally shown on "ped X-ing here" signs) were eliminated in prior edition of the MUTCD (2003 or Millennium edition).
Gotcha. I was emulating the HAWK regulatory sign in the image I posted on the last page, which featured a white-on-black "CROSSWALK" message, but I think the standard colors (and no lines) would be better understood in retrospect.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 19, 2018, 08:35:09 PM
I designed a sign, my first sign I've designed, thoughts?
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4804/45963183811_316785472e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2d2Bkdp)Crosswalk HAWK sign (https://flic.kr/p/2d2Bkdp) by Petru Sofio (https://www.flickr.com/photos/155056147@N08/), on Flickr
It doesn't work. Since each vehicle is supposed to come to a complete stop before proceeding (if clear). Showing both a stop sign and a yield sign in the message can cause some confusion–especially since each vehicle must come to a complete stop on flashing red, and there is technically no yielding in that phase.
[/quote]
I see how that could be confusing, I may change the Yield to words
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 20, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
I see how that could be confusing, I may change the Yield to words
It may not necessarily be the difference between symbols and words. Try for something that doesn't have drivers read-out "stop then yield".
Quote from: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 20, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
I see how that could be confusing, I may change the Yield to words
It may not necessarily be the difference between symbols and words. Try for something that doesn't have drivers read-out "stop then yield".
Stop, then proceed with caution?
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 20, 2018, 07:52:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 20, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
I see how that could be confusing, I may change the Yield to words
It may not necessarily be the difference between symbols and words. Try for something that doesn't have drivers read-out "stop then yield".
Stop, then proceed with caution?
What program do we use to create signs & etc?
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on November 20, 2018, 08:04:51 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 20, 2018, 07:52:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 07:23:01 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 20, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
I see how that could be confusing, I may change the Yield to words
It may not necessarily be the difference between symbols and words. Try for something that doesn't have drivers read-out "stop then yield".
Stop, then proceed with caution?
What program do we use to create signs & etc?
iPhone
I used Canvas, but I'm looking for a better one. I found another sign that may work: http://www.ci.neenah.wi.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PHB-Flashing-Red-Sign.jpg
Taking another stab. Tried to not use any words (except for those on the symbols). Not sure which is better (or least worst haha). Also adjusted colors:
(https://i.imgur.com/vfFufeZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mnKuLfR.png)
@ Jake, did you see my comment about the left turn yield?
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on November 20, 2018, 11:51:22 PM
@ Jake, did you see my comment about the left turn yield?
On the 'Custom Signs' thread? Yes, I just didn't respond.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 11:53:25 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 20, 2018, 11:51:22 PM
@ Jake, did you see my comment about the left turn yield?
On the 'Custom Signs' thread? Yes, I just didn't respond.
Kopy that.
iPhone
Quote from: jakeroot on November 20, 2018, 11:48:12 PM
Taking another stab. Tried to not use any words (except for those on the symbols). Not sure which is better (or least worst haha). Also adjusted colors:
(https://i.imgur.com/vfFufeZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mnKuLfR.png)
Why not just a new type of sign for the hawk. A traffic light [emoji613]pic, so people know to treat it like a light
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on November 20, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
Why not just a new type of sign for the hawk. A traffic light [emoji613]pic, so people know to treat it like a light
A new type of sign is kind of what I'm trying to achieve. But you don't want drivers to treat it like a regular signal. Regular signals are four-way stops when dark. These are not. Technically they are beacons.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:08:02 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 20, 2018, 11:59:58 PM
Why not just a new type of sign for the hawk. A traffic light [emoji613]pic, so people know to treat it like a light
A new type of sign is kind of what I'm trying to achieve. But you don't want drivers to treat it like a regular signal. Regular signals are four-way stops when dark. These are not. Technically they are beacons.
Bang I got it, use the hawk signal image & have the yellow orb & the red half orbs & under that "pedestrian signal" stop when solid yield after flash.
iPhone
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
Made another sign, this sign may be temporary. (https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4829/31050419047_aaa2056d9f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PiPvNx)Crosswalk (1) (https://flic.kr/p/PiPvNx) by Petru Sofio (https://www.flickr.com/photos/155056147@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 02:07:21 PM
Made another sign, this sign may be temporary. (https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4829/31050419047_aaa2056d9f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/PiPvNx)Crosswalk (1) (https://flic.kr/p/PiPvNx) by Petru Sofio (https://www.flickr.com/photos/155056147@N08/), on Flickr
You expect someone to read all of that while driving?
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
One thing that might work, to improve driver education (which is undoubtedly an issue), might be to install an electronic sign that would light up with "PROCEED AFTER STOP" during the flashing red phase.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
One thing that might work, to improve driver education (which is undoubtedly an issue), might be to install an electronic sign that would light up with "PROCEED AFTER STOP" during the flashing red phase.
A blank out sign is a very good idea, it would read: slow down, prepare to stop, stop, stop then proceed if clear
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Standard flashing red after the solid red, on a regular RYG signal.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Standard flashing red after the solid red, on a regular RYG signal.
Exactly. No idea if any city has tried this yet, but it's basically a HAWK with a more familiar layout.
We could always go full-Pelican; green>yellow>red>flashing yellow>green. Flashing yellow is already used to warn drivers of marked crossings. A flashing green could improve such a setup.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Standard flashing red after the solid red, on a regular RYG signal.
Exactly. No idea if any city has tried this yet, but it's basically a HAWK with a more familiar layout.
We could always go full-Pelican; green>yellow>red>flashing yellow>green. Flashing yellow is already used to warn drivers of marked crossings. A flashing green could improve such a setup.
I'm not one for the pelican way, I think the flashing yellow California video in the other section would be good.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Standard flashing red after the solid red, on a regular RYG signal.
I don't believe that there's any advantage to driver comprehension by using a standard signal instead of a HAWK signal if the actual indications remain the same. A solid red is still a solid red, a flashing red is still a flashing red. The only major difference is the dark phase, which I'm not convinced is a problem either.
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 04:17:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Standard flashing red after the solid red, on a regular RYG signal.
I don't believe that there's any advantage to driver comprehension by using a standard signal instead of a HAWK signal if the actual indications remain the same. A solid red is still a solid red, a flashing red is still a flashing red. The only major difference is the dark phase, which I'm not convinced is a problem either.
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 04:17:59 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 21, 2018, 02:53:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 02:18:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 01:00:06 PM
I'm starting to think the best option might be no sign at all. I don't think any of these latest signs really make anything clearer than the lights themselves.
I actually agree. But drivers definitely don't understand the different phases of the HAWK. Something is necessary.
To stop using HAWK signals.
HAWKs still allow you to move off after the initial stop, so there's a flow advantage. Just wish there was something more intuitive.
Standard flashing red after the solid red, on a regular RYG signal.
I don't believe that there's any advantage to driver comprehension by using a standard signal instead of a HAWK signal if the actual indications remain the same. A solid red is still a solid red, a flashing red is still a flashing red. The only major difference is the dark phase, which I'm not convinced is a problem either.
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
I agree with Jake, based on observations, as shown on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUWKi2CmyU4
I think using the double red flash is better
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
That's what I'm saying, like in this video:
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
That's what I'm saying, like in this video:
Except that
still nobody went ahead on flashing red in that video either.
That set-up in Phoenix might or might not be more effective, but I'm surprised that they would install it in a way that is not compliant with the MUTCD. BTW, it was steady red for 10 seconds and flashing-red for 20 seconds.
But either way, I still think HAWK beacons will be confusing to drivers, and we would be better off with standard traffic signals that everybody recognizes and understands. Creating a new form of traffic signals was and is a bad idea.
The current generation of engineers who wrote the 2009 MUTCD seemed to have a knack for creating new problems where there weren't any before (in my opinion). Besides HAWK beacons look at the fiasco they've created with the overhead signing of option lane exits on freeways. They like reinventing the wheel.
The California signal posted earlier is operationally identical to a HAWK. This includes requiring each car to come to a full stop before proceeding during the flashing red (ped clearance) phase, even if the peds have cleared.
A Pelican crossing allows drivers to yield during the flashing yellow (ped clearance) phase, so it is a bit friendlier to vehicle operations.
I prefer the Pelican. However, I can see one drawback in that if peds don't follow their signals then there could be sudden ped/vehicle conflicts...
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
That's what I'm saying, like in this video:
Except that still nobody went ahead on flashing red in that video either.
IMO, the bigger problem is still having some cars run the red light at the beginning of the cycle. I think that a HAWK light is a surprise. Many drivers drive on through because for the most part, these signals are dark and they just ride through and never expect them to be red. But if the dormant phase were green instead of dark, then drivers would treat them like a regular signal.
During the FDW phase, drivers can see either flashing yellow (pelican) or flashing red (California style).
green>yellow>red>flashing yellow>green. Optional Signage: Yield to peds on flashing yellow.
green>yellow>red>flashing red>green Optional Signage: Stop for peds on flashing red. Proceed when clear.
And of course the signage could have some level of symbols to cut down on wordage. I'm thinking along the lines of the "left turn yield on green" that you some times see at doghouses to encourage people to make permitted left turns. (And to this day, I still see unaware drivers who believe that they are not allowed to turn left when the green arrow terminates, even if it's clear.)
Quote from: mrsman on November 23, 2018, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
That's what I'm saying, like in this video:
Except that still nobody went ahead on flashing red in that video either.
IMO, the bigger problem is still having some cars run the red light at the beginning of the cycle. I think that a HAWK light is a surprise. Many drivers drive on through because for the most part, these signals are dark and they just ride through and never expect them to be red. But if the dormant phase were green instead of dark, then drivers would treat them like a regular signal.
During the FDW phase, drivers can see either flashing yellow (pelican) or flashing red (California style).
green>yellow>red>flashing yellow>green. Optional Signage: Yield to peds on flashing yellow.
green>yellow>red>flashing red>green Optional Signage: Stop for peds on flashing red. Proceed when clear.
And of course the signage could have some level of symbols to cut down on wordage. I'm thinking along the lines of the "left turn yield on green" that you some times see at doghouses to encourage people to make permitted left turns. (And to this day, I still see unaware drivers who believe that they are not allowed to turn left when the green arrow terminates, even if it's clear.)
Some of the problem is that these ideas are still against how signals are supposed to work. In fact, I think in many states, there's laws stating that a light must turn from green to yellow to red back to green again. Going green-yellow-red-yellow-green wouldn't be permitted. Even green-yellow-red-flashing red-green wouldn't be correct, because a flashing phase is usually followed by a steady phase of the same color.
So there's a matter of trying to find something that works within the realm of what is currently permitted, yet be efficient to prevent people from stopping unnecessarily.
How about a standard three-color traffic light activated as needed by pedestrians pushing the button on the pole.
Quote from: SignBridge on November 23, 2018, 09:27:12 PM
How about a standard three-color traffic light activated as needed by pedestrians pushing the button on the pole.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xsuaC24k0L5EQ/giphy.gif)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 23, 2018, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
That's what I'm saying, like in this video:
Except that still nobody went ahead on flashing red in that video either.
IMO, the bigger problem is still having some cars run the red light at the beginning of the cycle. I think that a HAWK light is a surprise. Many drivers drive on through because for the most part, these signals are dark and they just ride through and never expect them to be red. But if the dormant phase were green instead of dark, then drivers would treat them like a regular signal.
During the FDW phase, drivers can see either flashing yellow (pelican) or flashing red (California style).
green>yellow>red>flashing yellow>green. Optional Signage: Yield to peds on flashing yellow.
green>yellow>red>flashing red>green Optional Signage: Stop for peds on flashing red. Proceed when clear.
And of course the signage could have some level of symbols to cut down on wordage. I'm thinking along the lines of the "left turn yield on green" that you some times see at doghouses to encourage people to make permitted left turns. (And to this day, I still see unaware drivers who believe that they are not allowed to turn left when the green arrow terminates, even if it's clear.)
Some of the problem is that these ideas are still against how signals are supposed to work. In fact, I think in many states, there's laws stating that a light must turn from green to yellow to red back to green again. Going green-yellow-red-yellow-green wouldn't be permitted. Even green-yellow-red-flashing red-green wouldn't be correct, because a flashing phase is usually followed by a steady phase of the same color.
So there's a matter of trying to find something that works within the realm of what is currently permitted, yet be efficient to prevent people from stopping unnecessarily.
I know I've seen numerous solid red arrows turn to flashing red arrows the to green arrows in my life before the FYA replaced them, and that hasn't ever really caused confusion from what I've seen.
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 24, 2018, 09:49:03 AM
I know I've seen numerous solid red arrows turn to flashing red arrows the to green arrows in my life before the FYA replaced them, and that hasn't ever really caused confusion from what I've seen.
While I don't know if that's actually allowed, it definitely should be. I believe that turn on solid red arrow should not be allowed, and using a flashing red arrow should be the primary way to distinguish between turn on red allowed or not (instead of using signs at every single intersection that doesn't allow turn on red).
Quote from: 1 on November 24, 2018, 10:19:00 AM
(instead of using signs at every single intersection that doesn't allow turn on red).
...or having a city-wide statute (that everyone who drives there is expected to know, whether they're from another city or state or country or whatever) against it and then posting signs at only those intersections where it's allowed.
Ya' mean like New York City? LOL
Quote from: kphoger on November 24, 2018, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 24, 2018, 10:19:00 AM
(instead of using signs at every single intersection that doesn't allow turn on red).
...or having a city-wide statute (that everyone who drives there is expected to know, whether they're from another city or state or country or whatever) against it and then posting signs at only those intersections where it's allowed.
It's way easier to sign an existing law than to create a new law.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 24, 2018, 08:27:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 24, 2018, 04:08:14 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 24, 2018, 10:19:00 AM
(instead of using signs at every single intersection that doesn't allow turn on red).
...or having a city-wide statute (that everyone who drives there is expected to know, whether they're from another city or state or country or whatever) against it and then posting signs at only those intersections where it's allowed.
It's way easier to sign an existing law than to create a new law.
You might have misinterpreted his post, as I did when I initially read it. He was advocating
against cities that already do that (which, as far as I know, is only NYC and Montreal). This is the relevant part of the entire combined sentence:
"Using a flashing red arrow should be the primary way to distinguish between turn on red allowed or not (instead of using signs at every single intersection that doesn't allow turn on red or having a city-wide statute against it and then posting signs at only those intersections where it's allowed)."
I think I found the HAWK with the most number of signal faces on one approach...one way, granted, but still one-per-lane plus pole mounts! ... https://goo.gl/rgmsAF
(Spokane, WA)
(https://i.imgur.com/ePrtuep.png)
Well I finally caught a Emergency Signal HAWK in action (partly), I believe it was set up wrong: https://youtu.be/KG5xGYc7aAA
Before the video it's dark, then flashing yellow 4 times, goes solid yellow for 3 seconds then shows one red light on, then how's both red lights on(going against signage), then it goes flashing red and then off
iPhone
So only one red light was displaying before the video started? That would be odd.
I think the signage is sufficient. Solid red is pretty self-explanatory.
Other than that, besides the extremely long all-red phase, things seem in order.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 07:50:18 PM
So only one red light was displaying before the video started? That would be odd.
I think the signage is sufficient. Solid red is pretty self-explanatory.
Other than that, besides the extremely long all-red phase, things seem in order.
According to the MUTCD, fire station hawks should flash red as soon as they end the solid yellow phase
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 05, 2018, 08:24:54 PM
According to the MUTCD, fire station hawks should flash red as soon as they end the solid yellow phase
Oooooh. Thanks.
Yeah looking at the specs in the MUTCD, it looks like whoever programmed its operation set it up like a crosswalk signal instead of an emergency signal. And watching the video, the posted sign does contradict the actual operation. You can contact the city agency that installs and maintains traffic signals. Best of luck.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 18, 2018, 07:22:48 PM
Why don't you work for dot again?
Regulations make me want to tear my hair out. I'd have to work for a giant city that could flip the bird at the FHWA whenever it wanted.
You could also get a job with OkDOT and flip the bird at good taste whenever you want....
Quote from: SignBridge on December 05, 2018, 10:16:21 PM
Yeah looking at the specs in the MUTCD, it looks like whoever programmed its operation set it up like a crosswalk signal instead of an emergency signal. And watching the video, the posted sign does contradict the actual operation. You can contact the city agency that installs and maintains traffic signals. Best of luck.
Yeah imma try, they have two hawks in town, both are set up wrong
iPhone
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2018, 01:56:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2018, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 18, 2018, 07:22:48 PM
Why don't you work for dot again?
Regulations make me want to tear my hair out. I'd have to work for a giant city that could flip the bird at the FHWA whenever it wanted.
You could also get a job with OkDOT and flip the bird at good taste whenever you want....
If the manual = good taste, OkDOT apparently has a taste for something different.
Honestly, I kind of feel like you could get a job at OkDOT and use the Statens vegvesen trafikkskilt håndbok in place of the MUTCD and nobody would catch on for several months. We've got signs with FHWA Series, Clearview, Franklin Gothic, and Helvetica, why not throw Trafikkalfabetet into the mix?
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 06, 2018, 07:52:34 PM
Honestly, I kind of feel like you could get a job at OkDOT and use the Statens vegvesen trafikkskilt håndbok in place of the MUTCD and nobody would catch on for several months. We've got signs with FHWA Series, Clearview, Franklin Gothic, and Helvetica, why not throw Trafikkalfabetet into the mix?
Totally! We say..."why?" ... OkDOT asks..."why
not?"
Quote from: jakeroot on December 07, 2018, 01:59:44 AM
We say..."why?" ... OkDOT asks says..."why not? meh."
FTFY.
Alright alright, we are getting OFFTOPIC
(null)
Anyways, looks like we all forgot about MUTCD Section 4G.04 line 10. Here's the link to the page: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4g.htm#section4G04
It states: A steady red clearance interval may be used after the steady yellow change interval.
iPhone
I don't know if all we all forgot, as much as we took your word for it. :-P
Hmmm, yeah it does say that. Thinking about it further, maybe they set it up this way 'cause they want traffic to have to stay stopped when the signal is active, instead of treating the flashing lights like a stop sign.
Just another reason why the hawk is confusing
iPhone
Yes Amtrakprod, I absolutely agree. They should just use regular traffic signals so as not to confuse the public.
BTW, has anyone yet seen a HAWK anywhere on Long Island? Don't know if NYS DOT or Nassau/Suffolk DPW's intend to try them.
As usual, I have zero issue with the HAWK as it allows traffic to proceed after a stop, and virtually no (or literally no) signals operate like this. But, regular 3-orb RYG signals easily could. And you could have a regular traffic light with a blinking red with the same operation. I don't see what the HAWK does at at a fire station that a part-time blinking red orb couldn't also accomplish.
Good point, Jakeroot.
So I emailed the traffic engineer of Lexington MA, he said the cycle that should be there is two seconds of solid red then 30 seconds of flashing red, so he's gonna fix it.
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 11, 2018, 10:38:48 AM
So I emailed the traffic engineer of Lexington MA, he said the cycle that should be there is two seconds of solid red then 30 seconds of flashing red, so he's gonna fix it.
Not even sure why two seconds of solid red is necessary. Flashing red still requires drivers to stop. It's not like the ingress/egress sequences can occur in two seconds.
Well as we said above, the MUTCD does allow a steady-red clearance interval as an extra safety margin following the steady-yellow, to be sure traffic comes to a complete stop before they can stop & proceed.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 11, 2018, 08:44:30 PM
Well as we said above, the MUTCD does allow a steady-red clearance interval as an extra safety margin following the steady-yellow, to be sure traffic comes to a complete stop before they can stop & proceed.
Right, but it's an option in the MUTCD for emergency beacons, not a requirement. Cities are certainly free to use that brief all-red phase, but I think the whole "stop and yield" aspect is still achieved through a flashing red phase, without the need for an all-red phase. The 2-second solid red just seems like a waste. Then again, it's such a short phase it really doesn't matter.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2018, 01:32:16 AM
Quote from: SignBridge on December 11, 2018, 08:44:30 PM
Well as we said above, the MUTCD does allow a steady-red clearance interval as an extra safety margin following the steady-yellow, to be sure traffic comes to a complete stop before they can stop & proceed.
Right, but it's an option in the MUTCD for emergency beacons, not a requirement. Cities are certainly free to use that brief all-red phase, but I think the whole "stop and yield" aspect is still achieved through a flashing red phase, without the need for an all-red phase. The 2-second solid red just seems like a waste. Then again, it's such a short phase it really doesn't matter.
They said that they noticed cars getting confused
iPhone
Quote from: jakeroot on November 15, 2018, 03:37:08 AM
Quote from: roadfro on November 14, 2018, 11:07:15 AM
Note that the HAWK-style signals are actually considered beacons as far as the MUTCD is concerned ("Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon" and "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" are the official terms). While beacons, by MUTCD definition, are still considered a type of signal, they are operationally different from regular traffic signals. I think this is part of the distinction that allows them to be dark when not in use.
That reminds me. The MUTCD's Interim Approval for Use of Retroreflective Border on Signal Backplates does not carve out exceptions for when the border should not be applied. HAWKs and ramp meters don't need them as they are normally dark anyways (no need to call further attention to them), and single-face beacons are typically accompanied by signage or markings that spell out rules when no flashing is occurring.
Here's a couple examples, from WA, of signals that have had reflective tape unnecessarily applied. WSDOT seems to have an exception for ramp meters, as this is one of only a very few with the border, but it would better if the FHWA specifically ruled them out to reduce the chance of it being incorrectly applied in the future, especially as the rule is likely to be implemented into the future MUTCD:
(https://i.imgur.com/Sn9k0GC.png) (https://i.imgur.com/On3OpOJ.png)
Sorry for a late response to this, another Emergency signal in Lexington MA, a temporary one uses reflective borders on the emergency direction, but on the Mass Ave direction they have normal black borders: (sorry for the bad image) (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181212/aad2013b9d971cad88c56fb1d945aeee.jpg)
iPhone
Quote from: Amtrakprod on December 12, 2018, 03:36:49 PM
Sorry for a late response to this, another Emergency signal in Lexington MA, a temporary one uses reflective borders on the emergency direction, but on the Mass Ave direction they have normal black borders: (sorry for the bad image) https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181212/aad2013b9d971cad88c56fb1d945aeee.jpg
I think this style makes the most sense. Traditional flashing red or flashing yellow beacons (to indicate priority at a junction) should always be flashing; the ones that flash part-time are for pedestrian crossings such as HAWKs and RRFBs (or their orb cousins). Though a stop sign is used at the cross-street here, it might be wise to further amplify the upcoming junction priority beyond the stop sign by using the reflective border, to make it clear to approaching traffic that, yes, this is in fact a down signal and you must stop. This is unlike the adjacent HAWK signals, which don't require you to stop when dark, so calling attention to them when they're dark seems wholly unnecessary.
For the record, "dark signal" laws typically only apply at junctions (or intersections), so most HAWK's get around this law by not being at intersections. But many, including the one directly above, are placed at junctions, where the law would apply. What I cannot remember is whether or not beacons are considered "traffic control signals". If they aren't, then I suppose they would be exempt (at least under WA law)
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2018, 02:58:44 PM
I think this style makes the most sense. Traditional flashing red or flashing yellow beacons (to indicate priority at a junction) should always be flashing; the ones that flash part-time are for pedestrian crossings such as HAWKs and RRFBs (or their orb cousins). Though a stop sign is used at the cross-street here, it might be wise to further amplify the upcoming junction priority beyond the stop sign by using the reflective border, to make it clear to approaching traffic that, yes, this is in fact a down signal and you must stop. This is unlike the adjacent HAWK signals, which don't require you to stop when dark, so calling attention to them when they're dark seems wholly unnecessary.
For the record, "dark signal" laws typically only apply at junctions (or intersections), so most HAWK's get around this law by not being at intersections. But many, including the one directly above, are placed at junctions, where the law would apply. What I cannot remember is whether or not beacons are considered "traffic control signals". If they aren't, then I suppose they would be exempt (at least under WA law)
I think all this unnecessary extra nonsense about what to do with HAWK signals is just further proof that the whole concept is superfluous to begin with. I'm still not convinced that a whole new signal type (with all new rules about how to handle it e.g. when dark) is needed when traditional convention can accomplish the same thing.
Us roadgeeks (or traffic engineers) can call them different all we want (as beacons vs signals), but I really doubt that difference carries over to the average motorist.
Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2018, 04:38:22 PM
Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.
This is true. At the same time, I don't see any need to complicate things when we
couldn't.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 03:33:33 PM
I think all this unnecessary extra nonsense about what to do with HAWK signals is just further proof that the whole concept is superfluous to begin with. I'm still not convinced that a whole new signal type (with all new rules about how to handle it e.g. when dark) is needed when traditional convention can accomplish the same thing...Us roadgeeks (or traffic engineers) can call them different all we want (as beacons vs signals), but I really doubt that difference carries over to the average motorist.
I don't disagree that regular signals wouldn't be better (or another variation thereof), but I think the HAWK is here to stay. The FHWA has been touting its effectiveness over other designs rather effectively, to the point that those agencies that are typically slow to adopt new things (WSDOT comes to mind) have adopted the HAWK. Basically, as long as the HAWK is sticking around, we really ought to mandate an optimal layout, down to whether or not retroreflective backplates are used. I don't think it's necessarily ridiculous to at least have some guidance.
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2018, 04:38:22 PM
Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.
That's actually quite dangerous. If a driver unnecessarily comes to a complete stop at what is effectively a green light (since dark HAWK's mean "go"), they could get themselves rear-ended by drivers who know that HAWK's do not require a stop, and who wouldn't be expecting such behavior without a red light.
Like I think I've addressed before, this whole "stop when dark" thing still applies even without retroreflective backplates, but I see no reason to call attention to them when they are effectively irrelevant when dark. A retroreflective "CROSSWALK" sign is enough to alert drivers to its existence, frankly.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2018, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on December 13, 2018, 03:33:33 PM
I think all this unnecessary extra nonsense about what to do with HAWK signals is just further proof that the whole concept is superfluous to begin with. I'm still not convinced that a whole new signal type (with all new rules about how to handle it e.g. when dark) is needed when traditional convention can accomplish the same thing...Us roadgeeks (or traffic engineers) can call them different all we want (as beacons vs signals), but I really doubt that difference carries over to the average motorist.
I don't disagree that regular signals wouldn't be better (or another variation thereof), but I think the HAWK is here to stay. The FHWA has been touting its effectiveness over other designs rather effectively, to the point that those agencies that are typically slow to adopt new things (WSDOT comes to mind) have adopted the HAWK. Basically, as long as the HAWK is sticking around, we really ought to mandate an optimal layout, down to whether or not retroreflective backplates are used. I don't think it's necessarily ridiculous to at least have some guidance.
I feel the hawk signal won't be so confusing once people get used to it, but I do feel a doubled flashing red instead of alternating red would be so much better!
iPhone
I agree with MNHighwayMan's post up above. We should have stayed with conventional signals with conventional rules. Instead, the FHWA has created a whole new confusing set of signals with a whole new set of issues.
Not sure if this has come up before: The alternating red's in a HAWK mean stop and proceed if safe. But similar horizontal alternating red's at a railroad crossing mean the opposite, stop-and-stay. So how does the FHWA justify having the same signal mean two different things in different locations? Seems like a dangerous conflict to me. I don't understand how they could allow this.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 13, 2018, 07:16:31 PM
I agree with MNHighwayMan's post up above. We should have stayed with conventional signals with conventional rules. Instead, the FHWA has created a whole new confusing set of signals with a whole new set of issues.
Not sure if this has come up before: The alternating red's in a HAWK mean stop and proceed if safe. But similar horizontal alternating red's at a railroad crossing mean the opposite, stop-and-stay. So how does the FHWA justify having the same signal mean two different things in different locations? Seems like a dangerous conflict to me. I don't understand how they could allow this.
I just addressed this issue above, use a double flashing red light instead
iPhone
Quote from: jakeroot on December 13, 2018, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 13, 2018, 04:38:22 PM
Considering the worst thing that could happen is that drivers won't go when they could, I don't really think it's a problem in need of a solution.
That's actually quite dangerous. If a driver unnecessarily comes to a complete stop at what is effectively a green light (since dark HAWK's mean "go"), they could get themselves rear-ended by drivers who know that HAWK's do not require a stop, and who wouldn't be expecting such behavior without a red light.
Like I think I've addressed before, this whole "stop when dark" thing still applies even without retroreflective backplates, but I see no reason to call attention to them when they are effectively irrelevant when dark. A retroreflective "CROSSWALK" sign is enough to alert drivers to its existence, frankly.
But that's not at all what I meant. Sorry for not being clear. I didn't mean people were likely to stop at a HAWK because it's a dark signal (because I seriously doubt anybody does), but rather than people would stop but not proceed on a flashing red.
Quote from: UCFKnights on November 24, 2018, 09:49:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 23, 2018, 01:50:02 PM
Quote from: mrsman on November 23, 2018, 12:40:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:56:44 PM
Quote from: Amtrakprod on November 21, 2018, 09:49:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 21, 2018, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2018, 07:13:35 PM
I think an issue with the HAWK is the alternating flashing red, which bears more resemblance to railway crossings than traffic lights or beacons. From personal experience, there is very low driver comprehension with the HAWK's flashing phase. I think more drivers would understand a single flashing red light.
Yeah, I would prefer it if the two red balls flashed in unison rather than alternating, and I agree that would aid driver comprehension.
That's what I'm saying, like in this video:
Except that still nobody went ahead on flashing red in that video either.
IMO, the bigger problem is still having some cars run the red light at the beginning of the cycle. I think that a HAWK light is a surprise. Many drivers drive on through because for the most part, these signals are dark and they just ride through and never expect them to be red. But if the dormant phase were green instead of dark, then drivers would treat them like a regular signal.
During the FDW phase, drivers can see either flashing yellow (pelican) or flashing red (California style).
green>yellow>red>flashing yellow>green. Optional Signage: Yield to peds on flashing yellow.
green>yellow>red>flashing red>green Optional Signage: Stop for peds on flashing red. Proceed when clear.
And of course the signage could have some level of symbols to cut down on wordage. I'm thinking along the lines of the "left turn yield on green" that you some times see at doghouses to encourage people to make permitted left turns. (And to this day, I still see unaware drivers who believe that they are not allowed to turn left when the green arrow terminates, even if it's clear.)
Some of the problem is that these ideas are still against how signals are supposed to work. In fact, I think in many states, there's laws stating that a light must turn from green to yellow to red back to green again. Going green-yellow-red-yellow-green wouldn't be permitted. Even green-yellow-red-flashing red-green wouldn't be correct, because a flashing phase is usually followed by a steady phase of the same color.
So there's a matter of trying to find something that works within the realm of what is currently permitted, yet be efficient to prevent people from stopping unnecessarily.
I know I've seen numerous solid red arrows turn to flashing red arrows the to green arrows in my life before the FYA replaced them, and that hasn't ever really caused confusion from what I've seen.
[Someone recently posted this on the California thread]
https://youtu.be/2vGNk8dfOdU
As a continuation of what I posted earlier, on this video 0:38, you see a RYG signal in West Hollywood, CA that flashes red during the red phase, but in all other respects is a normal signal. IMO, it removes a lot of the confusion with HAWKS as the signal is generally green not dark. Drivers intuitively know that green signals may eventually hit red, but a dark signal that they pass around 90% of the time as dark sometimes coming to life is surprising. And as we have seen from some HAWK videos, it is absolutely frightening to see drivers sail right through on a red light when people are crossing.
The one modification I would make for a mid-bock ped xing signal would be to have a brief solid red phase before going to flashing red. The signal would normally rest at green. If no one pushes the button, it's green all the time. When pedestrian pushes the button, at some point (not too much) later, the yellow comes on to warn of an upcoming red. [Ideally, this should be timed to allow for good signal progression, to the extent possible.] Then, a solid red for a few seconds, while peds get a white man. Invariably, there would be a pedestrian walking at this time, so cars should absolutely stop. Then, the signal can move to flashing red (during the flashing don't walk phase). This accounts for the fact that many pedestrians probably walk faster than 3.5 ft/sec and would be safely out of the way and cars may progress. The flashing red ensures that cars will still come to a stop, for example to account for any peds that may still be running for the signal, but would generally allow for traffic to move after a brief stop. And then the signal will revert to green until the next pedestrian pushes the button.
I agree kphoger. The pedestrian signal in the video is definitely better than a HAWK.
As far as signals suddenly coming to life causing drivers to be startled, the same thing happens with conventional fire station signals when the flashing-yellow changes to steady-yellow and then steady-red. You can practically see the confusion on drivers' faces when they see it happening at a mid-block location but they don't quite believe or understand what they're seeing, and they coast right on thru....... Sometimes traffic doesn't actually stop until the signal has been red for five seconds or more.
I also agree. The regular 3-head signals are clearly a bit better understood, even when operating the same as a HAWK (as we can see in that CA-2 video above). I have yet to find a video that shows drivers correctly driving off (after a stop) following a HAWK switching from solid to flashing mode. Seems like most drivers just wait until the signals turn off. At that point, you may as well use a regular 3-orb signal...same throughput.
Here's a theory: if you need signs to tell drivers what to do, it's probably not very intuitive. The FYA doesn't have this issue, though communities still often use a supplemental sign.
Quote from: SignBridge on December 15, 2018, 09:24:09 PM
As far as signals suddenly coming to life causing drivers to be startled, the same thing happens with conventional fire station signals when the flashing-yellow changes to steady-yellow and then steady-red. You can practically see the confusion on drivers' faces when they see it happening at a mid-block location but they don't quite believe or understand what they're seeing, and they coast right on thru....... Sometimes traffic doesn't actually stop until the signal has been red for five seconds or more.
Yep, can confirm. This is why I like BC's flashing green. It may go hours without changing, but at least drivers know that it can change. The flashing yellow emergency signal, I imagine, is being confused with a flashing yellow beacon, which never changes to any other color. So when it does change, drivers (as you say) don't understand or believe what they've seen, and may not actually acknowledge the signal until well after the red is displayed.