Traffic signal

[CJResotko]

Very cool! Green for walk (when on a dedicated signal) is quite uncommon in the US, is it not? As well as that countdown time with blinking hand?

Usually the walking man/WALK lenses on pedestrian signals in the US are white.

[Big John]

Very cool! Green for walk (when on a dedicated signal) is quite uncommon in the US, is it not? As well as that countdown time with blinking hand?

Usually the walking man/WALK lenses on pedestrian signals in the US are white.

as specified in MUTCD

[Dirt Roads]

Very cool! Green for walk (when on a dedicated signal) is quite uncommon in the US, is it not? As well as that countdown time with blinking hand?

Usually the walking man/WALK lenses on pedestrian signals in the US are white.

as specified in MUTCD

My understanding is the "non-green" pedestrian signals (ergo, white lenses) was a railroad recommendation consistent with railroading operating rules.  The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

[kphoger]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

[riiga]

My understanding is the "non-green" pedestrian signals (ergo, white lenses) was a railroad recommendation consistent with railroading operating rules.  The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

I don't think that's ever been a problem in countries which use a green man for "walk", but interesting nonetheless.

[kphoger]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

[jakeroot]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

In Japan (which uses green and red pedestrian signals), all-way walks were very common (most famous being Shibuya). From a distance, when this happened, you could squint your eyes and see green lights on the post and red lights overhead.

Similarly from a distance, if both the walk sign and vehicle signal were green, you could squint your eyes and see four or more green "lights" from a distance (the two overhead green lights and two pedestrian signals).

I've never known of confusion arising from this. Of course, the pedestrian signals are mounted on poles (extremely rare for vehicle signals in Japan) and are also pedestrian shapes instead of orbs. Though my anecdotal evidence is hardly comprehensive.

Should be noted that not all countries use phasing where the walk sign is in concurrent with through traffic, requiring turning traffic to yield. For example, the UK doesn't do this to my knowledge. Japan was more like the US with concurrent phasing.

[Dirt Roads]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

I don't recall ever seeing such an arrangement, but there were big concerns about this in cities that utilized side-mounted traffic signals with the ped signal mounted below on the same masts.  In places like Washington D.C., it is commonplace for the side-mounted top red signal to be dark (burnt-out bulb as the most likely culprit) while the pedestrian signal below is illuminated for the cross walk.  Even if you could see the "red ball on the side-mounted traffic signal on the opposite side of street, it might not be in time.

For the record, the railroads were mostly concerned about how a green pedestrian signal uphill from a "grade crossing" in a curve might lead to confusion for locomotive crews.  But my boss (who was the American Association of Railroads representative to MUTCD for many years) was an expert in signal lighting and lens designs, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was more concerned about highway traffic implications.  (He was in his mid-90s when he passed away a few months ago).

[Tendies]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

LPI. Or one of those weird intersections where right turns are protected only and do not run concurrently with the thru movement.

[fwydriver405]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

LPI. Or one of those weird intersections where right turns are protected only and do not run concurrently with the thru movement.

A hybrid version of both would be a leading through interval (LTI). When the pedestrian phase is active, only the conflicting turn is held with a red arrow for a few seconds - any non-conflicting indications can still go during this phase. After a few seconds, the conflicting turn receives a flashing yellow arrow during the pedestrian clear phase. This phasing requires separate signal indications for each movement.

LTIs are common in Montreal, but are starting to appear in some US cities.

[jay8g]

Those 3M ped signals used to be fairly common in Seattle, but sadly (like most of the vintage pedestrian signals that were here 10 years ago) they're pretty much all gone now. There is still one here that I go by on a regular basis.

While they were typically used in situations where there was an obvious reason for the programmed visibility (unlike that example), such as odd multi-phase crossings, they never seemed to take full advantage of the PV design and tended to be easy to see from any angle.

[Tendies]

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

LPI. Or one of those weird intersections where right turns are protected only and do not run concurrently with the thru movement.

A hybrid version of both would be a leading through interval (LTI). When the pedestrian phase is active, only the conflicting turn is held with a red arrow for a few seconds - any non-conflicting indications can still go during this phase. After a few seconds, the conflicting turn receives a flashing yellow arrow during the pedestrian clear phase. This phasing requires separate signal indications for each movement.

LTIs are common in Montreal, but are starting to appear in some US cities.

The thought is that from a distance, anything that is illuminated "green" in the area of the signal mast can be misconstrued as a "proceed at normal speed" aspect. 

That's a good point.  I can see why you wouldn't want a green signal of any kind to be mounted next to an intersection if the actual traffic light is red.

It just occurred to me to ask:  does that even ever happen?  A 'walk' signal on the same approach as a right-sight red light?

LPI. Or one of those weird intersections where right turns are protected only and do not run concurrently with the thru movement.

A hybrid version of both would be a leading through interval (LTI). When the pedestrian phase is active, only the conflicting turn is held with a red arrow for a few seconds - any non-conflicting indications can still go during this phase. After a few seconds, the conflicting turn receives a flashing yellow arrow during the pedestrian clear phase. This phasing requires separate signal indications for each movement.

LTIs are common in Montreal, but are starting to appear in some US cities.

Interesting red circle/right arrow FYA. Though isn't the use of the red circle for right turns while the green up arrow is burning non-compliant? Given that it's only for right turns, I'm not sure why they didn't just use a red arrow, given that intersections is already no turn on red. But California likes to just do its own thing.

[fwydriver405]

Interesting red circle/right arrow FYA. Though isn't the use of the red circle for right turns while the green up arrow is burning non-compliant? Given that it's only for right turns, I'm not sure why they didn't just use a red arrow, given that intersections is already no turn on red. But California likes to just do its own thing.

Someone else a while back asked the same question. Looking thru past GSV, when the signal was installed to replace a shared 5-section signal in 2015, there was no sign prohibiting turning on red. Because CVC 21453 (c) prohibits any turns on a red arrow, a circular red is necessary if the intent is to permit turning on red. This also included during the LTI phase, which could introduce a conflict with pedestrians and right turns on red.

Sometime around Feb 2023 and Jun 2024, a No Turn on Red sign was installed, removing this conflict at all times.

Section 4F.15.03 of the 11th edition MUTCD (Section 4D.24.03 of the 2009 MUTCD) does permit the setup, the R10-10 sign is required if the circular indications are not visibility limited or louvered:

Section 4F.15 Signal Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face
Standard:
03 If a separate right-turn signal face is being operated in a protected/permissive right-turn mode and a flashing right-turn yellow arrow signal indication is provided, it shall meet the following requirements (see Figure 4F-14):
A. It shall be capable of displaying one of the following sets of signal indications:
2. Steady CIRCULAR RED, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the four indications shall be displayed at any given time. If the CIRCULAR RED signal indication is sometimes displayed when the signal faces for the adjacent through lane(s) are not displaying a CIRCULAR RED signal indication, a RIGHT TURN SIGNAL (R10-10R) sign (see Section 2B.59) shall be used unless the CIRCULAR RED signal indication in the separate right-turn signal face is shielded, hooded, louvered, positioned, or designed such that it is not readily visible to drivers in the through lane(s).

[Tendies]

Interesting red circle/right arrow FYA. Though isn't the use of the red circle for right turns while the green up arrow is burning non-compliant? Given that it's only for right turns, I'm not sure why they didn't just use a red arrow, given that intersections is already no turn on red. But California likes to just do its own thing.

Someone else a while back asked the same question. Looking thru past GSV, when the signal was installed to replace a shared 5-section signal in 2015, there was no sign prohibiting turning on red. Because CVC 21453 (c) prohibits any turns on a red arrow, a circular red is necessary if the intent is to permit turning on red. This also included during the LTI phase, which could introduce a conflict with pedestrians and right turns on red.

Sometime around Feb 2023 and Jun 2024, a No Turn on Red sign was installed, removing this conflict at all times.

Section 4F.15.03 of the 11th edition MUTCD (Section 4D.24.03 of the 2009 MUTCD) does permit the setup, the R10-10 sign is required if the circular indications are not visibility limited or louvered:

Section 4F.15 Signal Indications for Protected/Permissive Mode Right-Turn Movements in a Separate Signal Face
Standard:
03 If a separate right-turn signal face is being operated in a protected/permissive right-turn mode and a flashing right-turn yellow arrow signal indication is provided, it shall meet the following requirements (see Figure 4F-14):
A. It shall be capable of displaying one of the following sets of signal indications:
2. Steady CIRCULAR RED, steady right-turn YELLOW ARROW, flashing right-turn YELLOW ARROW, and right-turn GREEN ARROW. Only one of the four indications shall be displayed at any given time. If the CIRCULAR RED signal indication is sometimes displayed when the signal faces for the adjacent through lane(s) are not displaying a CIRCULAR RED signal indication, a RIGHT TURN SIGNAL (R10-10R) sign (see Section 2B.59) shall be used unless the CIRCULAR RED signal indication in the separate right-turn signal face is shielded, hooded, louvered, positioned, or designed such that it is not readily visible to drivers in the through lane(s).

That explains it. Red circles on left turn signals are still quite common there. I know of a few 3m signal heads that still use a red circle rather than an arrow, I imagine there are many more out there. With rights, theres no good option for decoupling from the straight movement while also allowing right on red.

[roadman65]

https://maps.app.goo.gl/hiJKLC9R54SWJYjC7

Is this MUTCD compliant?  Isn't the green arrow supposed to be on the left and not on the right as it is here?  Considering that the arrow is not a right turn arrow, I thought was to be to the left of the green ball if it's a permissive phase arrow.

[kphoger]

Yes, a green left arrow is supposed to be to the left of the green ball.

MUTCD (11th ed.), Figure 4F-4.