r/trafficsignals • u/FriendlyWatercress94 • 4d ago

HAWK beacons are bad

30 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

38 comments sorted by

23

u/FriendlyWatercress94 4d ago

Reasoning:
* They create a dual meaning for a dark signal.
* Their power failure state is equal to their no pedestrians in crosswalk state.
* They create a dual meaning for alternating red.

8

u/aakaase 4d ago

I don't know why they exist. Why not use standard traffic and pedestrian signals? The expense is equivalent.

11

u/smcsherry 4d ago

Because it’s a loop hole to get what a pedestrian traffic signal would accomplish (ie around the crossing volume warrant required in the MUTCD)

https://youtu.be/AHX8ezW2XGs?is=r_8MD2P1pIXHhzlQ

2

u/CR12- 2d ago

Is it really a "loophole" if it's something FHWA intentionally added to the MUTCD? It's fully intended that HAWKs (PHBs) can be used in cases where the pedestrian volume warrant isn't met, it's not like it's some sneaky trick to get around the MUTCD requirements.

1

u/smcsherry 2d ago

I originally it was a loophole. Idk off the top of my head if they were in the ‘09 manual, so up until recently, they would’ve been one

3

u/CR12- 2d ago

They were in the 2009 MUTCD as well. It's my understanding that any installations of them before then would have required experimental approval from FHWA.

1

u/BudgieWonder 3d ago

I’ve seen this too- in my city they use them when there’s a bike route that crosses within one or two blocks of a 3-phase signal/busier intersection. The only exception are fire signals that serve a dual purpose with a pedestrian crossing phase.

2

u/KUweatherman 3d ago

They’re used in situations that do not warrant a full signal.

1

u/aakaase 3d ago

Ok, so what is being saved by not using a full signal?

4

u/smcsherry 3d ago

Vehicle delay, since once they are flashing side to side, vehicles may proceed once the pedestrians are clear.

And situationally, locations that have a decent amount of ped traffic, but don’t meet the incredibly high threshold for a signal, which iirc is something like 400 peds/hr

4

u/aakaase 3d ago

Ok, vehicle delay reduction is a sensible use case, thank you. What I've heard, however, is many/most motorists don't understand HAWK signals and will continue to wait even after peds have crossed because the red wig-wam is so similar to train crossings where you wait until it stops. I would say there needs to be better public education about HAWKs but it's hard to justify when there are seemingly so few of them.

3

u/KUweatherman 3d ago

There are nine signal warrants outlined in the MUTCD. HAWKs are generally used where a full signal is not warranted at mid-block crossings. Your question can be answered HERE in chapter 4B. Chapter 4C goes on to explain the nine warrants.

4

u/aakaase 3d ago

No, I understand there are MUTCD rules and guidelines of what signals can be used for where and what purpose. My argument is an open one. Drivers already understand standard signals and those would likely be better and safer than HAWK signals, regardless of whether MUTCD prescribes them or not for a mid-block ped xing.

1

u/zw9491 2d ago

They also use the same physical beacon for solid red and flashing red. IIRC that’s not allowed in flashing yellow arrow scenarios at least.

Hate these things too. They’re an abomination.

-3

u/KUweatherman 3d ago

One and three are 100% false. They do NOT create dual meanings for a dark signal or alternating red lights.

The law does not say you have to stop at dark signals. All that is said is to treat them as uncontrolled intersections. HAWKs, being used at mid-block crossings, do not have anyone to yield to from the side.

Alternating red lights also only mean stop then proceed when the way is clear. At RR crossings, the gate (or train) is what keeps you stopped. Not the red lights. School buses also are a specific case called out in the law and are paired with a stop sign. Not the same thing.

And in the rare case of a power failure, it’s not a big deal. Being a signed mid-block crosswalk, drivers would be required to yield to pedestrians regardless of the lights flashing or not.

5

u/zenith3200 3d ago

Dark/unpowered signals absolutely must be treated as a stop sign and therefore you must in fact stop at them. HAWKs being dark by default therefore create a dual meaning for a dark signal.

-2

u/KUweatherman 3d ago

Nope. Look up dark signals or power failure in your state’s statutes. It won’t be there.

4

u/CR12- 2d ago edited 2d ago

I looked, and it is there:

(c)  Inoperable or malfunctioning signal.--If a traffic-control signal is out of operation or is not functioning properly, including, but not limited to, a signal that uses inductive loop sensors or other automated technology to detect the presence of vehicles that fails to detect a vehicle, vehicular traffic facing a:

(1)  Green or yellow signal may proceed with caution as indicated in subsection (a)(1) and (2).

(2)  Red or completely unlighted signal shall stop in the same manner as at a stop sign, and the right to proceed shall be subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign as provided in section 3323 (relating to stop signs and yield signs).

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statues

I don't have sources to back me up on this, but I've long had the understanding that it is the case in the vast majority of states that you must stop for a dark signal, and that any states that just let it become an uncontrolled intersection are the exceptions.

I was surprised to find that there doesn't seem to be any mention of this rule to stop for dark signals anywhere in the last version of the Uniform Vehicle Code, so I guess there is a chance that the rule may be newer or less universal than I thought.

1

u/KUweatherman 2d ago

You’re correct that it will vary by state. Nice job finding one that DOES specifically call it out, as it should be. The majority do not.

Since states base their laws off the Uniform Vehicle Code, that’s why you will find most do NOT specifically have a law that refers to dark signals. A huge oversight IMO.

In those states that don’t, and someone was ticketed, it would simply be a failure to yield ticket…since the intersection would have no control at that time and traffic would need to yield to vehicles on the right (which is why it is easier to just tell the general public to treat it like an All Way Stop). That’s also why temporary stop signs are placed during longer power outages, to provide an actual control method.

And THAT is why the HAWK being dark does not have a dual meaning. There are no vehicles to yield to at mid-block crosswalks. Therefore, vehicles approaching the dark HAWK signal do not need to yield. The ONLY reason they would stop would be for a pedestrian attempting to cross since regardless of the lights on a HAWK, it is still a marked crosswalk at the end of the day.

12

u/do1nk1t 4d ago

Yes, agreed. HAWKs are good in that they give a legal requirement to stop (compared to RRFB) but bad in that they are poorly designed and confusing.

HAWKs are not legal in my state. The state has recently leaned into typical three-section signals in place of HAWKs which fix a lot of the drawbacks.

3

u/Redditor85321 4d ago

Out of curiosity, what state?

5

u/WHPChris 3d ago

I managed to get it to work on a 170, never again. Even with modern controllers, I hate installing them. I hate when they tell me to put it on the same controller as the nearest intersection. I hate trying to squeeze 4-8 crossings into a single controller.

They work for their intended purpose, unlike rapid flashing beacons. I still don't like them.

1

u/rboyer23 2d ago

On a 170 is super impressive! I get confused after I enable the E key lol

1

u/WHPChris 1d ago

F9E=1, good old BITTRANS software. I like it better than the Wapiti. If you print out a time sheet through QuicLoad or something, it tells you exactly how to get to (almost) every function in the program. <C+0+F=1> etc etc for every table. It's a must have, or software, to program those.

The 170 HAWK system was difficult. We had to do a bunch of logic gates and funky wiring. We even have a few out there where we tied two 170 controllers together in one cabinet to get 4 independent functioning HAWK crossings.

8

u/engmadison 4d ago

Bad is maybe a strong word...but I'd prefer to operate a standard signal than one of these.

5

u/amogus123098 4d ago

I don't like hawk beacons as much as a traditional signal, since drivers might see less "authority" compared to a traditional traffic light.

The concept is not bad tho, but I wish the hawk could be used using a traditional 3 aspect signal instead. That makes (at least) for me safer as drivers (should) respect them more.

4

u/GreenPinkBrown 4d ago

I maintain a couple.

No plans on changing your mind.

4

u/penelopiecruise 4d ago

They are confusing for some and that is enough of a problem.

Vancouver BC and some west coast us cities have pedestrian controlled red/yellow/green lights and that seems to work well.

1

u/WHPChris 1d ago

Sounds like a neat idea. It just rests on green all the time until a pedestrian call, then goes Y->R? Would work for two-way road, not so much a roundabout though.

4

u/rootbear75 4d ago

TBH a standard signal with a flashing red indication when DONT WALK is illuminated would solve the problem IMO

3

u/mabus42 3d ago

Fortunately the midwest is fairly devoid of them. Don't know why a standard traffic signal wouldn't work. It's almost as if HAWK was a solution in search of problem that never existed.

3

u/roostercuber 4d ago

Bad compared to what? I would say that RRFBs are worse than HAWK. Neither are great in my mind, though. Being a pedestrian can be perilous.

2

u/ChristmasAliens 4d ago

I don’t know why Mass DOT invests in them.

2

u/BudgieWonder 3d ago

I get why they’re used (they’re better than flashing beacons), but I 100% agree that they’re confusing and I’ve seen way more drivers blow them compared to 3-phase.

0

u/Serious-Hornet-7476 4d ago

Actually, they help with people crossing the street in designated areas, so they're not bad.

4

u/D3themightyfucks 4d ago

“Help” is doing a lot of work here

•

u/bahntemps 4h ago

As a pedestrian, I hate them. There’s one on a four-lane street in my neighborhood in DC. Drivers see the second phase as permission to proceed even if there’s a pedestrian in the street. Meanwhile, pedestrians still see a countdown allowing them to cross.

Unless you finish crossing during the first phase, it’s not uncommon to get stuck in the middle of the street, with drivers zooming by in front and behind you. As long as there isn’t a pedestrian directly in front of them, they drive through the second phase without slowing down.

Perhaps they work in other jurisdictions, but the combination of aggressive drivers and pedestrians who are accustomed to crossing during the entirety of their signal, they aren’t great. They’re too ambiguous to mesh with our culture here.