HAWK Thread

[SignBridge]

These basically are what many of us have called for in terms of HAWK beacons. The phasing is G/Y/SR/FR, with Steady Red displayed for the walk indication (+buffer) and Flashing Red displayed for the ped clearance interval.

Video from another installation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QY2cYBbMadg

Unfortunately, compliance is still sub-par just like HAWK/PHB signals...

Overall, I do really like these signals, but I gotta love how the FDOT example video of a "Midblock" signal is literally not at a midblock location. I think that's okay, but maybe if it is at an intersection, replace the green with a flashing yellow (to indicate that cross traffic is possible).

An ICWS ("TRAFFIC ENTERING WHEN FLASHING") would probably be better than a continuous flashing beacon imho, based on some research I've seen. D2 is installing a bunch of them.

Yeah ! That video shows cross traffic going thru the intersection when the light is circular green! That shouldn't be. Any driver approaching that location will interpret the green light as an intersection traffic light, not a mid-block crosswalk, especially when the crosswalk is virtually at the intersection. FDOT's traffic engineers should know better than to set it up this way.!. And it's probably an MUTCD violation. Even a true HAWK signal would be less mid-leading.

[Revive 755]

^ Depends how one interprets the MUTCD.  Based on https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/documents/half-signals/download there are some who don't consider 90 degree cross traffic as a minor conflict.

No movement that creates an unexpected crossing of pathways of moving vehicles or pedestrians should be allowed during any green or yellow interval, except when all three of the following conditions are met:
A. The movement involves only slight conflict, and
B. Serious traffic delays are substantially reduced by permitting the conflicting movement, and
C. Drivers and pedestrians subjected to the unexpected conflict are effectively warned thereof by a sign.

There's also the following for the pedestrian signal warrant:

A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control
the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.

B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian-actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

There's nearly, if not identical language in the school crossing warrant section.

I seem to recall FHWA previously having more guidance against using "half signals" for crosswalks, possibly due to issues with side street traffic.

[mrsman]

There are many HAWKs (and half-signals and other equivalent types of signals) at intersections.  They really shouldn't be.  These devices are best suited for mid-block locations (or the few intersections that don't involve cross-traffic, like where the side street is a one-way street going away from the intersection or where side street traffic is forced to make a right turn onto the main street).

Half-signals at stop-sign intersections, as stated earlier, are contrary to driver expectations of seeing cross-traffic when the main street has a green.  It is also a problem that drivers on the side street don't really have the ability to control the signal (unless you send a passenger to push the button).

There is no good safety related reason for half-signals.  If they are present at an intersection, they should be full signals.

I think they are installed this way because the local DOT recognizes the problem of assisting ped crossing, but they don't want to induce auto traffic on the side street.  In my experience, especially in a busy city, if you have several parallel local streets, the street with the traffic signal will have more traffic, because drivers know that it is easier to cross the main street (or turn left) with the assistance of the signal.  But again, NIMBYism by residents on the local street should not dictate a safety decision.

Would a half-signal be better with a flashing yellow?  While it avoids the problem of the expectations that drivers have with respect to a green light (that cross traffic has a red and will stop and remain stopped) it maintains the problem that many of us have with the HAWKs, that the flashing yellow is misunderstood and that in most cases a flashing yellow is always a flashing yellow and drivers have no expectation that the flashing yellow ever turns red.

In my area, there is a pedestrian crossing at an intersection where drivers on the main street see a signal similar to fire station signals (flashing yellow most of the time, then faster flash, then solid yellow, then solid red).  The signal does not have a flashing red phase like a HAWK.  There are also more red light runners than expected, I believe because many drivers probably pass by here without the expectation that the light could ever turn red since it is flashing yellow most of the time.  So while I have my problems with it, I can say they address the side street problem, since the side street sees a flashing red most of the time (equivalent to the existing stop sign) and a solid red during the pedestrian phase.  So even when peds are crossing, drivers on the side street are not allowed to go straight or turn left, even though main street traffic is supposed to stop.

University Blvd and Reedie Drive in Wheaton, MD:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0399443,-77.042967,3a,75y,214.86h,85.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sc7iaCbyfS6hUrewH3wppig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.924006788102574%26panoid%3Dc7iaCbyfS6hUrewH3wppig%26yaw%3D214.86240999034646!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D



In summary, the L.A. style (or Florida style) ped signal is a great alternative to HAWK, but it only belongs at a decent distance away from an intersection.  At intersections, a full signal should be used.

[mrsman]

Here is a great video on the topic that came on my youtube feed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-5A2RxgvOc

[Rothman]

Here is a great video on the topic that came on my youtube feed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-5A2RxgvOc

Pfft.  I still say Pelican > HAWK.

[fwydriver405]

Speaking of Hybrid Beacons and railroad crossings... what about them actually being used at a railroad crossing, either in tandem with existing signals or as the actual warning devices? Two examples I can think of:

The other one is at Petaluma Hill Rd in in Penngrove CA. This one is in tandem with existing level crossing signals, and it appears it was installed in 2018. I'm not sure what they were going here with the signal sequence, or why they were added later when the signal was upgraded, as the sequence doesn't make sense to me, especially the flashing red.

When the (normal) crossing activates, the Hybrid Beacon goes solid yellow for 3 seconds, then goes steady red for 7.5 seconds as the crossing gates go down, and then flash red like the (normal) crossing signals for 7.5 seconds before going dark.

Example of sequence (start at 1:29 for sequence):
https://youtu.be/s8vagx2yLJA?t=87

Seems to be an improper use of HAWK signals at the railroad crossing in Penngrove, Calif. I doubt the MUTCD permits their use at RR crossings. But maybe Calif's Manual has an exception? 

Got an update on this signal. Stumbled across this video in my recommendations recently and saw that the Hybrid Beacons may also operate as a queue cutter as well when the railroad crossing isn't active, to prevent vehicles from backing up onto the tracks.


Also, stumbled across a strange sequence of events in Portland, ME recently, near Maine Medical Center. Traffic signals were installed at the St. John St and D St. intersection sometime around 2019 or 2020 for the new MMC parking garage. However, ever since they've been installed, they've been on flash and have never been on colours since the signals were energised. So they've been on flash from 2019/20 up until sometime in 2024, when the signals were removed and replaced with Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons / HAWKs, with at least one out of the two of the mast arm structures being retained. The side streets do not have any signalisation and just have normal stop signs, but the lane use signs out of the garage were kept. I believe the phasing is the same as the one as on Congress St., where the PHB/HAWK is solid red for the entire pedestrian phase (W+FDW), and only flashes once FDW is ended.

To my knowledge, this is the third location in the State of Maine where Hybrid Beacons have been installed, second one to serve as a pedestrian function.

[kphoger]

I thought of this thread the other day, because this pedestrian signal is now completely dark, yet also not covered up.  Legally, should all traffic stop all the time now?

[SignBridge]

MUTCD says if the signals are not in operation they need to be bagged or turned away from traffic.

[kphoger]

I thought of this thread the other day, because this pedestrian signal is now completely dark, yet also not covered up.  Legally, should all traffic stop all the time now?

MUTCD says if the signals are not in operation they need to be bagged or turned away from traffic.

I do see that in 4D.01(¶04).

However, I'm struggling to actually find a Kansas state law—or anything in the UVC—that says inoperative signals should be treated as all-way stop intersections.  I realize that traffic laws vary by state, but is this an urban legend?

[kphoger]

Well, I suppose it doesn't matter anymore, because the signal is functioning again.  Just a temporary outage, I guess.

But I do still wonder how many states don't actually have any law saying dark signals should be treated as all-way stop intersections.  I've heard it all my life, but now I'm realizing it's not as universal as we all seem to have thought.  For example, I haven't found anything requiring drivers to stop at a dark signal in the Uniform Vehicle Code or in the statutes of either of the two states I've lived in (IL and KS).  I did find someone claim that Illinois requires it, but the link went to the entire vehicle code rather than a specific chapter, so I wasn't able to confirm.

[Revive 755]

^ There's a few links to the various dark signal laws in the following Illinois study on HAWK beacons:  https://apps.ict.illinois.edu/projects/getfile.asp?id=8922

[kphoger]

^ There's a few links to the various dark signal laws in the following Illinois study on HAWK beacons:  https://apps.ict.illinois.edu/projects/getfile.asp?id=8922

Thank you.  While the 'Source' for Illinois's rule in Appendix A was the driver's handbook—which is definitely not the same thing as the vehicle code—the e-mail reply from an Illinois state traffic engineer quoted in Appendix B led me to the correct statute.  So, yes, drivers must stop at dark signals in Illinois.  But it also confirms what I had found in the Kansas vehicle code:  silence.  In my state, at least, there is no law about stopping at dark signals.

[jakeroot]

WA's law is quite clear: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.183

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 temporarily without power on all approaches or 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. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right-of-way in accordance with RCW 46.61.180(1) and 46.61.185.

Under this statute, the way it is written, even if a HAWK were interpreted as a signal (rather than a beacon), mid-block crossings wouldn't require stopping since the signals are not at intersections. Same for ramp meters, since those are not at intersections, either.

[bcroadguy]

I have never seen a HAWK signal or anything similar in Canada before, so I was surprised to see a video of this new HAWK-like signal in BC: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMS8B2LnA/

It's very similar to this signal in Florida posted earlier in this thread https://youtu.be/QY2cYBbMadg, except for the flashing green (normal for half signals and signalized mid-block crosswalks in BC).

It's interesting how during the flashing red phase, the supplementary signals alternate with the overhead one.