Alternatives to the flashing yellow arrow

[jakeroot]

Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

[Brandon]

Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

[jakeroot]

Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

But wouldn't that make it legal in practice? I'm saying that, by the books, sailing through a flashing red is not legal. It might not be enforced, the same way a lot of laws aren't, but that doesn't make it right, necessarily. It would seem that a flashing amber is still the safer bet, mainly because it's congruent with the rest of the country, but also because it's actually, by the books, legal to sail through them should there not be opposing traffic.

Also, are we saying that Michigan is installing signals that they are fully aware people are going to ignore? That seems insane to me.

[GaryV]

I saw something else today that FYA can do and a doghouse can't.  At an intersection that normally has a FYA permissive phase, the red arrow stayed on - because a pedestrian had pushed the button to get a Walk signal.  The FYA didn't go on, so the left turners didn't get a chance to run down the pedestrian.

That said, I see nothing wrong with MI's flashing red left turn, which is being phased out.  Why not treat a flashing red as a yield instead of a stop?  With the yellow arrow, you have to treat yellow as a yield instead of a right of way signal.  And flashing red needs 3-head signals, not 4-head.

[Revive 755]

^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

Regarding the FYA arrowing being safer than a green ball/drivers who don't know how to proceed on a green ball shouldn't be driving argument, how about the case of the intersection where 99% of the time a leading left turn arrow is provided?  For the 1% times when the green arrow doesn't come up, but a green ball is provided, a driver who is not paying enough attention could wrongly think the arrow is coming up as usually.  With a FYA, there is a stronger indication that the protected arrow has not come up.

[vdeane]

Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

It's standard practice to speed and cops usually speed even without flashers on, but that doesn't make speeding legal.  What most drivers do doesn't change the laws on the books.  If I see a flashing red, I treat it like a stop sign, no ifs ands or buts.  I would be especially careful to not make a rolling stop if there was a cop nearby or a red light camera (actually, if there was a red light camera, I'd seriously consider just waiting for the green).

[Brandon]

Does that hold up if you were to station a very visible police presence at the intersection (especially if the stated objective was to catch people to don't follow the traffic light to the letter)?

Drivers would roll through the flashing red ball even if they knew a police officer was sitting at the corner looking for any traffic violations.  If a police department suddenly targeting drivers for rolling through the flashing red ball, the story would end up on the local news.

Without fully understanding the situation we are discussing (I get confused rather easily), it seems rather strange that local officials are sanctioning red-light running.

As has been said several times, it is not considered red light running where the flashing red ball is used for permissive left turns.  It is standard practice in Michigan to go through one of these if the opposing traffic is clear.  Even cops go right through them.

It's standard practice to speed and cops usually speed even without flashers on, but that doesn't make speeding legal.  What most drivers do doesn't change the laws on the books.  If I see a flashing red, I treat it like a stop sign, no ifs ands or buts.  I would be especially careful to not make a rolling stop if there was a cop nearby or a red light camera (actually, if there was a red light camera, I'd seriously consider just waiting for the green).

1. If you stop at one of these, you'll get the horn - deservedly.
2. Red light cameras are illegal in Michigan.

[vdeane]

So you're supposed to risk a ticket because a bunch of people decided that they should run the light?  Last I checked, police enforce the law as it is written - not how "consensus" says you should drive.  In fact, the government specifically uses the difference is the "consensus" and the actual letter of the law to enable the police to pull over anybody they please, under the knowledge that of all the laws out there, everyone is practically guaranteed to violate one of them if you observe them for a few minutes.

I have never gotten a ticket (not even a warning).  I don't intend to start now.

[roadfro]

^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

LEDs flashing in the border of a sign is a completely different issue from signal indication colors. Besides, using the same white from pedestrian signal for a vehicle signal can start to muddy the meaning of other colors.

Besides, the color of LEDs in a sign are based on the type of sign (white for regulatory, yellow for warning, red for stop signs). They also have no legal meaning, and are merely meant to enhance the conspicuousness of the sign.

[cl94]

^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

LEDs flashing in the border of a sign is a completely different issue from signal indication colors. Besides, using the same white from pedestrian signal for a vehicle signal can start to muddy the meaning of other colors.

Besides, the color of LEDs in a sign are based on the type of sign (white for regulatory, yellow for warning, red for stop signs). They also have no legal meaning, and are merely meant to enhance the conspicuousness of the sign.

Not necessarily. Quite a few signs within the I-87/I-90/US 20 interchange complex in Albany use exclusively red LEDs. This is probably due to the age of the signs (likely date to when all Interstate-Interstate movements were made semi-directional in the late 1980s) as colored LEDs are a relatively recent invention, but they're red nonetheless. From a contrast standpoint, it highlights the most important warning signs pretty nicely.

[Pink Jazz]

^ IMHO it would be better to use pedestrian signal shade of white for a yielding indication over twisting the meaning of flashing red, especially since the MUTCD allows flashing white for LED's embedded in the border of a yield sign (Section 2A.07 Paragraph 11).

LEDs flashing in the border of a sign is a completely different issue from signal indication colors. Besides, using the same white from pedestrian signal for a vehicle signal can start to muddy the meaning of other colors.

Besides, the color of LEDs in a sign are based on the type of sign (white for regulatory, yellow for warning, red for stop signs). They also have no legal meaning, and are merely meant to enhance the conspicuousness of the sign.

Not necessarily. Quite a few signs within the I-87/I-90/US 20 interchange complex in Albany use exclusively red LEDs. This is probably due to the age of the signs (likely date to when all Interstate-Interstate movements were made semi-directional in the late 1980s) as colored LEDs are a relatively recent invention, but they're red nonetheless. From a contrast standpoint, it highlights the most important warning signs pretty nicely.

Red and infrared LEDs were the first to be introduced (in the 1960s), followed by orange, amber, and the traditional (yellowish, not the right hue for traffic signals) green in the 1970s, then blue, white, and pure (traffic signal grade) green in the 1990s.  Even more recent are pink, purple, warm white, and ultraviolet LEDs, although some pink and purple LEDs have issues with their red phosphors fading, which causes their hue to gradually become more bluish.

[tradephoric]

The flashing red ball has been used in Michigan for the past 40 years.  Drivers are technically required to stop at a flashing red ball but its standard practice to roll through the intersection if there is no opposing traffic.  To visualize the point, here is a video of a flashing red ball intersection in action:

Sure, drivers are technically breaking the law.  That doesn't mean the flashing red ball is unsafe. Consider the following scenarios...

Scenario 1:  In Michigan, 99% of drivers roll through the flashing red ball when there is no opposing traffic.  The remaining 1% are unfamiliar with local practices and come to a complete stop.  By coming to a complete stop, they substantially increase the likelihood of getting rear-ended. 

Scenario 2:  In the USA, 99% of drivers know they must yield to oncoming traffic at a FYA indication.  The remaining 1% wrongfully belief they have the right of way.  By believing they have the right of way, they substantially increase the likelihood of getting t-boned. 

Here are a few reasons why the FRA may be a safer alternative than the FYA:

1.   A driver approaching a FYA is more likely to pull out infront of oncoming traffic.  A recent study observed 10 fail-critical (go) responses at FYA permissive indications versus zero fail-critical responses at the FRA.  The results were statistically significant.  (See: NCHRP Web-Only Document 123, page 24). 

2.   A FRA provides greater visual cues that a permissive phase is ending.  Not only would drivers see a change in signal head position but also a change in color when the permissive phase is ending (from a flashing red arrow to a solid yellow arrow).  More visual cues that the permissive phase is ending should be beneficial to drivers.

The flashing red arrow may be safer than the flashing yellow arrow.  However, the FYA was chosen as a national standard because they wanted to go "by the book" .

[jakeroot]

Sure, drivers are technically breaking the law.

Therein lies the problem. Until pavement markings can dictate the meanings of overhead signals, having a flashing red dictate one thing in one scenario and something else in another is extremely vague, and will be a disaster for the courts. This presents an issue for nationwide implementation, and standardization of signal meanings across the country should really be the goal here.

[lordsutch]

May I humbly suggest that Michigan post giant signs at its borders regarding the specific traffic laws that are unenforced in the state, so non-locals know to do 80+ on Detroit interstates and to roll through flashing reds?

[Roadrunner75]

I've seen a lot of this talk about the FYA recently, and I'm probably late to the party in commenting, but for the record I think they're a bad idea and they can stay out of New Jersey.  A quick scroll upthread had the best point - something like "flashing yellow ball - you have the right-of-way"; "flashing yellow arrow - you don't have the right-of-way?".  It's too confusing and it invites head-on collisions.  With a flashing red arrow I know where I stand.  A lot of reasons were stated for it, and MUTCD includes it now and blah blah blah, but it all goes out the window when someone gets squashed.  In my day, we had solid arrows and we liked it that way.

Traffic control curmudgeon mode OFF

[vdeane]

The issue is that when traffic signals were designed there was no consideration given to the idea that one might want to allow people to go when they don't have the right of way.  now the red/yellow/green setup is so ingrained, so we're trying to shoehorn things in.

Sure, drivers are technically breaking the law.  That doesn't mean the flashing red ball is unsafe.

I wasn't saying anything about safety.  I was just questioning the study that claimed they were just as efficient because they assumed that drivers would not follow the law.  A traffic standard should not rely on law-breaking in order to be efficient.

[tradephoric]

The issue of the FYA came up after Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson was nearly killed at a FYA intersection.  Here's a summary of the accident:

After the crash, the Frank Beckmann show interviewed MDOT director Kirt Steudle.  Frank suggested that a flashing red arrow would be clearer to drivers that they must stop for oncoming traffic.  Everybody knows that red means stop.  To this point, Kirt responded.... 

"When you drive up to an intersection and there is nobody coming and the light is flashing red you are suppose to stop and then proceed.  But what everybody was doing, myself included and probably most of your listeners, is you see a flashing red light coming up and nobody is coming and you just whip right through it.  Well, you just violated the traffic law because you're supposed to stop and then proceed...(Aug 13, 2012)"

The MDOT director admits to rolling through the flashing red.  Again, it's common practice and the violation isn't enforced in Michigan.  The FYA solves the technicalities of rolling through a flashing red indication but it also introduces a more ambiguous FYA indication that may be leading to more accidents (specifically head-on left turns).  I'm OK with drivers bending the rules if it means I don't die in a car accident.

[Roadrunner75]

At least everyone knows what they're supposed to do when they see a flashing red arrow.  If they roll through it, they at least know they don't have the right-of-way and they would (hopefully) be more cautious and yield to oncoming traffic.  The FYA is too ambiguous.  I'd rather have traffic stop (or know they're supposed to stop), than have a signal confusing to drivers speed up the flow a little bit.

[Pete from Boston]

(also, when does one have right of way over a pedestrian?  ever? 

When you have the green turn arrow.   Sure, plenty of them start walking against such an arrow, but by the book the driver has right-of-way in green arrow situations.

This may have been covered, but I'm late to the thread and there are more messages than I'm prepared to read through since this.

The Mass. General Laws state:

No driver of a vehicle shall pass any other vehicle which has stopped at a marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross, nor shall any such operator enter a marked crosswalk while a pedestrian is crossing or until there is a sufficient space beyond the crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle he is operating, notwithstanding that a traffic control signal may indicate that vehicles may proceed.

So at least here, the pedestrian has the right-of-way by the letter of the law no matter what the signal says.  Sounds unreasonable, I know, but I guess it is the part of the law that says "you can't kill them just because the light was green," and I would prefer not to have to argue against it in court.

[froggie]

The counterargument to that being that, if the pedestrian has a "Don't Walk" signal, they are legally required to wait and do not legally have the right-of-way.  That said, agree that I'd prefer not to have to argue that in court.

[Pete from Boston]

Pedestrians are often stupid, irresponsible, and in violation of the law, but they are also soft and squishy, and courts look unfavorably at threats to their existence by hunks of rigid steel propelled with great force, and it's best to drive accordingly.

[Pete from Boston]

Alright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

This is also how I look at it.  It is counterintuitive because it co-opts the behavior of something that means something else to people.

More importantly, there's a new signal that might not mean what people think it means, and at least here there is no effort to educate the public.  We get more effort to prepare us for new colors of M&Ms. 

[cl94]

Alright, so hear me out here....

If you're facing a solid green ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a solid green arrow, you have the right of way turning left.
If you're facing a flashing yellow ball, you have the right of way going straight.
If you're facing a flashing yellow arrow, you don't have the right of way???

(Just to be clear, I know exactly what a FYA means.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, saying there's not no reason for confusion.  It's exactly the same as turning right on red on a red arrow.  If you have knowledge of local laws that might border on esoteric, you're fine.  But it could be a lot simpler.)

This is also how I look at it.  It is counterintuitive because it co-opts the behavior of something that means something else to people.

More importantly, there's a new signal that might not mean what people think it means, and at least here there is no effort to educate the public.  We get more effort to prepare us for new colors of M&Ms.

Agree completely. The fact that NYSDOT has to put up a sign, for example, says something. The ones on NY 5S near Herkimer can be a nightmare because people don't know what the flashing arrow means until they read the sign, which is hard to read unless you're under it. As such, every time I go through there, I see quite a few vehicles stopping at the FYAs when they don't have to. Is it better than the protected-only that was there? Certainly. But I don't see why a doghouse wouldn't have worked at those two intersections, especially because there wasn't anything like it or the Michigan red ball in the state until they installed the first FYAs a few years ago. If I didn't know what a FYA was, I'd have stopped as well to read the sign showing a yellow arrow surrounded by miniscule font.

If there was much of an effort by NYSDOT to educate the public, I haven't seen any. You'd think that, for the intersection in Rochester, they'd do some PSAs in Buffalo, especially because residents of one often frequent the other. The info page about them is buried on their website, preempted by the roundabout user guide they've been promoting for a decade.

[Pink Jazz]

For those who think that a flashing yellow arrow gives someone the right of way, perhaps my suggestion of adding another color such as blue, purple, white, or pink wouldn't be so bad, since it would have its own meaning.

[roadfro]

Agree completely. The fact that NYSDOT has to put up a sign, for example, says something. The ones on NY 5S near Herkimer can be a nightmare because people don't know what the flashing arrow means until they read the sign, which is hard to read unless you're under it. As such, every time I go through there, I see quite a few vehicles stopping at the FYAs when they don't have to. Is it better than the protected-only that was there? Certainly. But I don't see why a doghouse wouldn't have worked at those two intersections, especially because there wasn't anything like it or the Michigan red ball in the state until they installed the first FYAs a few years ago. If I didn't know what a FYA was, I'd have stopped as well to read the sign showing a yellow arrow surrounded by miniscule font.

A doghouse, at least in Nevada and other places, is also nearly always accompanied by a sign. This has been a standard for years, and people (should) learn in drivers ed to yield on a circular green if there are no arrows illuminated. However, there's too many drivers assuming green means go and make a fail-critical mistake. At least with an FYA, a fail-safe mistake (stopping) is more common and results in fewer accidents.

All this to say that sometimes, no matter what you do, somebody is gonna make a stupid mistake and you can't engineer for every contingency.