RCMoeur 

As a registered professional with specific knowledge and experience in this area, and who was involved in the technical review of this device prior to national adoption, I have no intention of leaving the thread, especially when your apparent justification for wanting to force me off the thread is that I don't agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of this traffic control device. What I am doing is providing information on the history, justification, and use of pedestrian hybrid beacons from peer-reviewed sources so that others reading this thread can receive better information on PHBs other than your describing your unhappiness with them. I'm also trying to convey this information in a calm, objective, and rational manner, as I don't see any value in adding an emotional overlay to an already complex topic. And trying to silence or eliminate other credible and authoritative views is a disservice to all BF readers, and could be seen as having authoritarian overtones.

Traffic engineering is not as simple as most people might think. There can be a lot of difficult decisions in trying to serve all users. Some concepts seem counterintuitive on their face, but make sense after deeper analysis. There is a history of overly focusing on motorized mobility at the cost of other modes, but note that the PHB is a specific treatment that helps to better balance crossing safety and street access.

As noted before, the expected driver behavior during the flashing red indication is for each driver to move up to the stop line (typically set back 50 ft or so from the crossing) stop, look for someone in the crosswalk, remain stopped if someone is in the crosswalk, otherwise proceed. The next vehicle behind them repeats the process. Holding all traffic in solid red for the entire duration creates much greater delay and reduces respect for the beacon. During extensive evaluation, very few problems were noted during the flashing red interval.

As I mentioned earlier today, the PHB you're specifically concerned about uses a non-standard sign. This sign could be interpreted by drivers as waiving the need for each vehicle to come to a full stop prior to proceeding during flashing red, which could result in problems and conflicts. But as I have not evaluated the site firsthand, I'll leave it at that. The news report says MassDOT is looking at the issue - I'll presume my technical colleagues at that agency will assess the situation to be best of their capabilities and take appropriate action.

work4bike

I just looked at this on Google Street View. Which sign are you referring to as nonstandard? What sign should be there?


.

UniChris

Thank you for entirely substituting your "knowledge and experience" for any willingness to address the facts of specific concerns raised in this thread.

Instead of addressing the issues, all you have done is post your preconceived assumptions over and over.

The first time I patiently explained exactly what you were overlooking, but you did it again, and again, and again - and continue doing so.

Please - tell us - how is a device which allows drivers to proceed during the time when it falsely implies the crossing is still safe, anything less than a blatant sacrifice of user safety for driver convenience?

Why do you believe this is any sort of improvement (nevermind a deadly regression) over the fully honest, traditional stayed-solid-red light which preceded it in this location?

And do you not understand how the focus of the design of these devices on the first user, is so deadly to the unexpected second user? Or are you still not bothering to read the thread before replying?

RCMoeur 

Here is a zoom from the photo in post #1, which seems to be a PHB on the Norwottuck rail trail:

This sign apparently says "CROSSWALK / STOP ON RED / PROCEED ON FLASHING RED WHEN CLEAR". This non-standard sign could be interpreted as "drive through flashing red if 'clear'", which I don't think was the exact intended message. That was the non-standard sign I was referencing.

The linked Daily Hampshire Gazette article has a photo of a different PHB at Hopkins Academy in Hadley. There is a sign on the mast arm, but the angle of the photo doesn't allow clear reading of that sign. I did a search on the site and was able to get a clear view in Google Street View of the sign - and it's the same non-standard sign as the one in post 1.


However, the PHB for the Cochictuate rail trail with the Google Street View link in post #4 has the standard R10-23 CROSSWALK / STOP ON RED sign called for in the MUTCD. This sign is the standard sign for these beacons, and has seen good driver compliance.

In fact, the only issue about this sign is that in some locations its been observed that drivers don't proceed after stopping on flashing red, and wait until the beacon goes dark before proceeding. While this is a fail-safe situation, it can affect traffic flow and progression. And the non-standard sign in the first two photos may have been intended to address this situation, but in turn could possibly be telling drivers they don't have to stop at all on flashing red.

RCMoeur 

If you want to consider my quoting of the national standard for traffic control devices in the US and related research "perceived assumptions", I can't stop you from doing so, but I think other readers of this thread may be comparing and evaluating the credibility of the conflicting statements - one side based on emotional arguments, the other based on data and professional practice.

Your assertion that these beacons "falsely imply safety" or are "so deadly" is absolutely not borne out by the observed behavior and safety record of thousands of PHBs across the US. Had there been a high number of fatal and severe crashes, FHWA approval would have been rescinded. Note that standard green-yellow-red signals also see fatal and severe crashes, but are not prohibited for use - and the warrants for installation of a RYG signal are much more difficult to satisfy.

Agencies that operate roadways are often responsive to their road users, as they are under political oversight. If pedestrians need a crossing treatment with high compliance, a PHB is an option - and can provide minimal disruption to cross traffic (which you emotionally characterize as "a blatant sacrifice of user safety" - an assertion unsupported by field experience at thousands of locations).

And with that, to use an old Usenet term: *plonk*.

UniChris

And yet again, you persist in ignoring the specific issues and substituting what are exactly preconceived assumptions - ideas you appeared in this thread already believing, and beliefs which will not be swayed by any consideration of the actual content within this thread.

Here, again, is what you persist in ignoring even as you quoted it:

Please - tell us - how is a device which allows drivers to proceed during the time when it falsely implies the crossing is still safe, anything less than a blatant sacrifice of user safety for driver convenience?

Why do you believe this is any sort of improvement (nevermind a deadly regression) over the fully honest, traditional stayed-solid-red light which preceded it in this location?

And do you not understand how the focus of the design of these devices on the first user, is so deadly to the unexpected second user? Or are you still not bothering to read the thread before replying?

kap 7

I ride through a few of these ...as amusing as the op complaints are I've never seen or heard of people being injured/killed. They seem to work really well here.... I've noticed that many people stop for the yellow flashing lights and sometimes even before the lights come on if they see someone on a bike. As for the flashing red I thought that was normal that you have to stop and wait not just cruise through

mr_bill

The "non-standard" sign is an approved alternate sign.

R10-23a

-mr. bill

spclark 

11 year old Albert Lea bicyclist killed....

spclark 

Have yet to see one of those; 'too much information' is my opinion, going to need some time to gain recognition by already too-distracted vehicle drivers.

I was taught SOLID RED means STOP.

FLASHING RED means STOP then maybe proceed (unless at a railroad grade crossing!!) if no cross traffic conflicts.

RCMoeur 

You are quite correct. I forgot about the FHWA action on the R10-23a.

That being said, there still remains the possibility that drivers are misinterpreting the R10-23a sign as "OK to proceed through flashing red without stopping". This could warrant further research.

sggoodri

We had a tragic fatality in Durham NC at one of these last year.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...263536723.html
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/lo...263348488.html
https://goo.gl/maps/cs6BvHu1mJ4YpKyW9

However, we see motorists run ordinary red lights and kill people all the time here. I can't say that it's worse at the hybrid beacons. NCDOT strongly resists any proposal to signalize pedestrian crossings and naturally prefer those with the shortest red time. IMO if we really want to make mid-block crossings safer we need to reduce the speeds and lane counts and get more serious about safety-focused enforcement.

Here in NC, bicyclists don't have legal protection when riding in crosswalks. Some suggest assigning bicyclists the rights of pedestrians at all crosswalks, but I am concerned about bicyclists entering poor sight distance locations at speed. I suggest the US adopt a "toucan" crossing standard at MUPs that formally recognizes bicyclists and addresses bicycle design speed issues.

spclark 

'Toucan' system? Might you have a link where that's explained? I've never heard of this.

Here where I live the major N/S state hiway route through our downtown (three stop lights) just got reduced from four lanes to two with a vastly wider turning lane in the center w/double yellow on both sides.

It's been 25 mph limit from one end to almost the other since I've lived here (be ten years early Nov.) but routinely ignored by drivers. Traffic lights have buttons for pedestrian crossings, which helps slow things down a bit.

After the lanes reduction it's still 25 mph and that's helped some to reduce the uncertainties for cyclists trying to cross where there's no light as well as for motorists attempting to enter the main street traffic stream from side streets.

Cyclists put themselves at a disadvantage when they ignore the benefit of dismounting to cross when there's no traffic control. We have a rule here that pedestrians have right of way in a crosswalk but where there's none it confuses too many drivers who don't remember that pedestrians always have right of way and won't yield to cyclists who've dismounted to cross.

sggoodri

A toucan crossing is a signalized crossing in Britain where both pedestrians and bicyclists are allowed to cross at the same time, i.e "two can" cross simultaneously. It is wider than a typical crosswalk and is designed for bicyclists to be riding rather than walking their bikes.

https://www.veygo.com/learner-driver...ucan-crossing/

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/News/N...t%20to%20cross.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toucan_crossing

I often walk my bike if I find myself at a pedestrian crosswalk. But I prefer to be able to ride according to driver rules, and at some wide and busy uncontrolled locations I prefer to turn right, merge into the left turn lane, and turn left at the next intersection or commercial driveway, assuming it can get me to the same destination.

spclark 

My practice parallels yours while I admit I do take some extra precaution when doing a '...turn right, merge into the left lane...' move out of a strong sense of self-preservation.

I've never seen a 'toucan' where I've lived and cycled; they may exist somewhere in the USA I've never been (lots of those still) and I think that they sound like A Good Idea as long as everyone plays to the same rules of engagement.

Korina

Hah! I knew I recognized it! It's called a HAWK signal; Ray talks about them starting at about 2:00. HTH.
PS The whole vid is worth watching, as is his channel.

RCMoeur 

The video can seemingly be summarized as "we don't have the perfect situation of slow driving everywhere that we want, so we'll do the easy thing that goes over well with the activists, and make fun of the devices and treatments that can help at some locations." It's much easier to criticize in a video (or on a website such as BikeForums) than it is to put in the long hours of research, data collection, analysis, and evaluation that actually results in improvements. I've known the researchers who wrote NCHRP Report 562 for a long time, and they showed with hard data that passive traffic control treatments at crosswalks were not getting any sort of useful yielding behavior on multi-lane roads with higher speeds, and that something more effective such as active devices are needed.

The official name is the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon as defined in the MUTCD, but some people do call them unofficially as "HAWKs". This term was coined by Dr. Richard Nassi of Tucson, AZ, the primary inventor of the treatment, but having two names for the same device does result in confusion (as noted earlier in the thread).

Korina

What do you call the yellow pedestrian crossing sign with the beg button and flashing LEDs? We have those in a couple of places in my town, including a trail crossing, and they work pretty well. Of course, we're a small town, so while the speeds can be high, the volume isn't.

The larger city next door has a newly installed PHB on their 5-lane car sewer (i.e. Highway 101 through the middle). Caltrans has promised three, along with a slew of other safety improvements, but only delivered the one so far. I haven't actually seen it in use, so have no idea how well it functions.

RCMoeur 

"Rectangular-rapid-flash beacon." Covered under Interim Approval IA-21. These are typically a small percentage of the cost of a PHB or full signal, which allows agencies to install them where funds are limited. However, the yielding percentage is not as high as at PHBs, and may not work all that well as compared to PHBs or signals depending on traffic conditions. But in some cases they do work well, and provide notable benefit in creating crossing opportunities.

I'm not a big fan of the term "beg button". I understand the inconvenience of having to go up and press the button, and the issues with accessible and low-vision users finding and pressing it. But passive detection is still very much a developing technology for pedestrians (and in some case for cyclists), and the ol' button (and especially the newer buttons) at least have a good track record of doing what they are asked to do - provide a call for service.

There is an intentional reason rectangular rapid-flash beacons typically don't provide an activation cue to crossing users. The users (should be) observing the traffic on the street being crossed and begin crossing after they perceive a usable gap or effective yielding, not based on the beacon status.

Korina

"Polite request" buttons? Ours work pretty well; they've been up for three or four years with no incidents, at least none involving the beacons. Samoa Blvd., a.k.a. SR 255, is fairly low volume if a bit high-speed (everyone's coming off the highway and reluctant to slow down) and goes past the edge of town. It's here, if you're curious; the beacons are at a few of the street intersections.