As someone who is legally blind I can confirm of how dangerous crosswalks are, I have been hit 3 times. Yes, they hit a blind person and claimed they didn't see me. Who's the real blind one here.
@@Arlae_Nova Only time I can see it being a valid excuse is if someone runs out into the street when you don't expect it like from infront of a parked car.
@@Arlae_Nova There is a painted pedestrian crossing with no lights, yellow red or otherwise near a busy shopping center on my way home. At night the street lamps are poorly placed, so the walkway itself is not very well lit. Every single time I drive past I scan back and forth back and forth before passing through because I'm paranoid of someone being in the crosswalk that I don't see, but I see everyone else just zoom on by with no regard. I started looking very closely because once I narrowly avoided (ok it wasn't super close but close enough to scare me) hitting someone at night in dark clothing that I didn't see. So yes, responsibility is shared between drivers & traffic engineers to make sure at the very minimum the crosswalk is lit up so you can see if someone is there from a distance....
@albino guidedog in the UK we’ve actually perfected these with sensors to detect whether pedestrians are still at the crossing. We also have little metal ice cream cones under where the button for the crossing is. When the traffic is stopped the cone spins to indicate to the deaf that it is safe to cross. There is also a beeping sound for the blind as well. This is switched off in certain residential areas late at night to avoid disturbance.
It is fascinating to me just how much time, money, and effort is put into patching up road safety issues in the US, instead of tackling the fundamental underlying problem of safe streets. American news sites love to share the story of the Soviet bureaucrats who visited London and were amazed that there were no bread lines. They asked to speak to the man in charge of planning the supply of bread to London and were shocked that the answer was "nobody"! If American traffic engineers spent any time looking outside their borders, they would be shocked that lots of people walked and weren't being murdered by drivers. They would then ask how these other world cities allow pedestrians to safely cross their 8-lane stroads cutting through the middle of the city ... If you don't know the answer to that "question" then you need to read more Strong Towns.
However, the HAWK seems to effectively solve a problem arising from urban sprawl. Fixing the root causes of this problem might be quite difficult from a traffic engineer's perspective when the society is so heavily car-dependent as in the US. I can hardly imagine that an aspiring traffic engineer proposing for instance 2x2 mile Superblocks and envisioning that people will actually do their grocery hauls with delivery bikes in near future will have his position very long.
The HAWK signals (and other things like the Diamond interchange, ramp meter and bus that acts like a train) are very much a band aid to the solution, but it's better than the regular widening of a road, which would have costed a lot more money. I guess you can say that fixing the core of the problem is the best, like how well designed Netherlands and Japan are, but good infrastructure like that takes time, effort, money and will, something America lacks, so band aids like these may as well be considered a good thing.
Our transportation system serves land use. Moral arguments aside about suburbs, they are here and we can't just ignore them and hope they go away. And retrofitting them into something more walkable will take decades if not half a century. Tools like HAWK beacons are a low-cost first step toward the safety goal you correctly champion.
@@RoadGuyRob yep, I totally get that, and you're correct. But also, that argument would hold more water if the US wasn't building more and more and more of these places. As it stands now, the US is building almost nothing but car-dependent places, while simultaneously saying it's too hard to retrofit car-dependent places into something better.
10:48 One problem with this alternate-blinking red signal: This is the same as a railroad crossing signal. And at a railroad crossing, wig-wagging red light means "stop and stay no matter what". So motorists may not get that this signal here means "proceed if clear", and may remain stopped, contrary to the traffic engineers' intention. A better signal would be all red lights blinking synchronously, which unmistakably means "stop, then proceed if clear".
It's still failsafe. Most drivers see that it turns from solid to blinking red, so they see that it changes from "stop" to something else that therefore isn't stop. And if someone would get it confused, they'd stop instead of going, so it's still safe.
@@bbqchezit every one I’ve seen has the signs, but many drivers don’t read them and just sit there until the light stops blinking anyway. I somewhat agree with the other Dan that it should be failsafe, but I find that in practice it’s often not. As drivers see other cars going across on the blinking red lights, others don’t stop or even slow down for them.
That 'joke' was used in the movie Midnight Cowboy by the character played by Dustin Hoffman in 1969 to represent a certain type of devil many care New Yorker who deliberately jaywalks in front of approaching vehicles. Good choice if you want to victim blame, which hero Rob is not doing.
@@trainluvr It was actually unscripted. Hoffman and the other guy were being filmed crossing the road when a car that was not part of the movie (they were filming in regular traffic) nearly hit Hoffman and he genuinely said the line. The rest is history.
the best im walking here ever used was in FORREST GUMP....lt. Dan was already an amputee at this point and told a cab driver "hey! IM WALKING HERE" lmao that shit was hilarious
As a European I am absolutely shocked at how basically no drivers stopped at a pedestrian crossing. I can only remember one or two instances IN MY LIFE where a car didn't stop at a normal zebra crossing.
ehh... yeah, but that's because you live in a place that designs things primarily for pedestrians. in the united states things are made to have traffic moving and keep it that way. we don't live in a place where pedestrians are exactly 'prioritized'. and mind you, i'm not criticizing the way you guys build your cities, i think we ought to do some of that ourselves, but i'm putting the lack of stopping into perspective.
Yes, because here, the fines for not stopping are on the same level as running a red light. Also, overtaking at a Zebra crossing is forbidden to eliminate that "one lane stops and the other doesn't see the pedestrian behind the stopped cars" issue. In the US, stopping isn't even required when there's no red light.
In Europe they aren't stupid enough to expect zebra crossings to work on six lane roads. They normally use on-demand traffic lights there. Also in Europe no one would expect yellow traffic lights to work for anything. So of course that pedestrian crossings use the same traffic lights as the intersections. It is good that murrica finally saw the light on this topic too...
I think one of the things that can help crossings be safer is incorporating medians and possibly narrowing the width of the lanes just before and at the crosswalk slightly. Narrow lanes are a natural way to encourage cars to slow down, and medians for crosswalks on roads that don't already have them call more attention to the crosswalk.
It's VERY clear time watching these videos and of Idiots driving in various Dash Cam videos that US gas some very bad practices and attitudes to who is more important or vulnerable and the brazen misbehaving like those light runners is disgusting
@@cockneyse But to say it's only the US, would probably be wrong. The US is still miles ahead of other countries where it's all just chaos, everywhere and all the time. But I do think pedestrians and cyclist infrastructure should be improved where it makes sense.
@@JoePCool14 I don't believe they're saying it's only the US that has these problems, it's that the US has a very bad view on which type of mobility should have priority over others
@@edipires15 The US just does things differently. Everyone always raves about Europe being perfect, which is where I think this is going to go, when the truth is that they just do things differently. Obviously the two nations were also developed in different eras. I think both can learn from each other.
Wait, hold on. What?! I had to pause the video for this. Are you seriously saying that some cities in the US are so backwards when it comes to walking around town that you are provided with a FLAG ON A WOODEN POLE (4:02) to cross a street safely?! I thought that was a joke or a mid-video sketch. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard regarding the US. I'm a little concerned about what the rest of the video holds if this a genuine solution some traffic engineer(?) devised over there.
Yeah, it's a real thing that I've seen in multiple places. Definitely not practical and not that effective either. But many of the other solutions presented here are more legit.
As the US is unwilling to implement any measure that inconveniences drivers all these solutions are little more than window dressing. It's the road design and the high speeds that create the unsafe situations for pedestrians and unless that is addressed no amount of flags or flashing lights will keep pedestrians from being killed. When for the most advanced solution the driver compliance is only 97%, that still means that out of every 100 crossings a pedestrian makes, there's three that are potentially deadly. (or 1 per day for an average elementary school class) I'm not sure this really is something that can be celebrated as a win.
Unfortunately the USA was built largely after the car was invented so everything is designed around cars. Redesigning the cities to be less car centered is extremely expensive. Just to give LA a decent subway system you would need 1,000 miles of subway and that would cost a TRILLION dollars and take 100 years to build.
When actually doing a study on the risk you have to distinguish two numbers. There is usually a ~2s delay between cars getting a red light and pedestrians a green light, in addition a short reaction time for the pedestrian. During this time there is no risk of a red light runner to hit a pedestrian, because they are not yet on the road. Most of the red light violations are within the first second and actually don't impose any danger. There is no risk for them to hit a pedestrian crossing. Still it is important to fine even the smallest violation of a red light because deviance acceptance itself imposes the risk of larger deviations. The second or two they willingly accept might add up with a short distraction and suddenly you have a dangerous situation.
Pedestrian: Gets hit by car on a crosswalk DOT: "CLEARLY it was because of the crosswalk and the pedestrian using it, not because of the huge, multiple lane high speed roadway. We should remove it instead of actually designing a safer street."
The first suggestion to remove the pedestrian problem for cars from that place was putting 2kV on the beg button. It was considered too expensive on electricity so they went with a fence instead.
Yeah, the highway code and DOT are actively anti pedestrian, even on sidewalks. Our town wanted to place planters between the sidewalk and highway, to protect pedestrians. The state DOT refused, because a driver that swerved off the highway, and hit a planter, might bounce back into the road (and hit another car, instead of a nice cushy pedestrian). Seriously. I lost all respect for the DOT having any true interest in safety. The roads aren't even good for drivers, either. Time for a complete ripping up of the road standards. It would be hard to make a worse road system, and it's a direct result of the standards, as these things show.
@@RoadGuyRobmany fire stations around where I live (northeast Ohio) use signals as described in MUTCD 2009 Section 4G.03 with a flashing yellow in place of green, then a solid yellow and red phase. I feel that is much more clear than the HAWK, by reducing the ambiguity of the wig-wag meaning (full stop or stop-and-go), as well as the dark mode (which could mean treating it as a stop sign like a malfunctioning signal). I'd love to see studies about using both signal types and which one is more effective.
Really? That seems... odd. To me. Here, there Emergency Signals are being converted to R/A/fA configuration. Instead of normally showing a steady green ball 🟢, they show flashing amber. When it is time for the brigade to come out, they turn amber and then red like a regular traffic signal.
Hawk red-flashing phase should be SIMULTANEOUS red flashing so it’s not confused with a railroad crossing or school bus RR crossing or school bus wig-wag red lights mean do NOT go, do NOT advance, which is different from Hawk flashing red lights mean.
Amen. In Florida if you don't run the wig wag it induces road rage within those behind you. They need replaced by a single red light. I'm loving your channel
@@danieldaniels7571 Because there are 2 of them side by side, not aligned with the yellow light underneath. I could be wrong, but usually there are some very strict requirements to installing any kind of red light anywhere near a roadway.
As a German, I expect that if I cross pedestrian crossings with stripes, the cars will stop there. I didn't even know that this rule didn't exist in the US. But here is no rule for that with jaywalk at all. The good thing for pedestrians in Germany, the streets are only half as wide and drivers are responsible for stopping. Even the car driver has to reckon with pedestrians and cyclists at every intersection if the car does not expressly have a green traffic light. But when turning, the driver has to watch out for pedestrians and cyclists, even if the traffic light is green. Now it has been decided that new trucks must have automatic systems to secure the sides for cyclists and pedestrians. The principle, the stronger someone is with his vehicle, the more he has to watch out for weaker ones or he will have problems in the event of damage or injury. Particular caution also applies at all crossings without traffic signs. Here the law regulates exactly that everyone has to watch out and who is allowed to drive first. Cyclists, pedestrians and people with handcarts must be given special consideration.
The rule exists, just nobody cares (I say that as someone who grew up in Germany and has been living in NA for two decades). Jaywalking is only a thing because the car industry lobbied for it back at the beginning when car drivers constantly either ran over people who were stuck in clusters of people who had the audacity just walk in the street. It's not just there though. The car industry over the decades has done whatever they could to make cars safer for the drivers and passengers but has done little to nothing to make it safer for the people outside the cage. In the US over the last decade it's gotten even worse with larger and larger "cars" on the road, to the point where most kids would get their head crushed by the grill at an impact. Even as a tall guy I have been next to some of these monsters where the hood came up to my chest.
What's more, some states where drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians crossing the street (such as Oregon), had some young kids cross a main road in town (2 lanes either direction plus a shared left turn lane, dubbed a 'suicide lane') get hit crossing the street but not within any marked crossing -- They were cited for crossing a highway. So, not every rule is created equal, either. As a driver, if you're not in a crossing at all, I'm not backing off - crossing mid-block with no designated crossing *is* carlessness. For one, we as a driver aren't expecting you to cross -- especially at night. For two, traffic flow is already becoming a problem here as the town grows in population but not in area. That said, I LOVE the rapid flashing beacons at crossings. As a racing driver, we look for lights or flags. Well, nobody's out there waving a yellow flag at me (or a red one), so I look for lights. I see lights, I obey lights. We don't have HAWK crossing where I am, but I have seen them in larger towns 100 miles away. I do like them, but not quite as well as the rapid beacon lights just yet. That could just be from a lack of experience with them. The story is different with stripped crossings that have no lighting at all -- Like the one outside where I work. At night, there is ONE lonesome street light that is so far in the air it doesn't illuminate much of anything below it. I almost hit 2 people crossing one night because I never saw them. and it's just a two lane road with a shared left turn lane. What I'd give to see that crossing have RAPID beacons. It's also a low-volume crossing, as such, it's uncommon to have someone in it anyway, let alone at night. I'm actually bringing this to the attention of the city to 1) add street lights through this section of the road -- which is by the way a state highway -- and to improve visibility at this specific crossing -- The crossing half a mile away has RAPID lights and a curbed island.
Ditto for the other commenters: it is the law here that drivers must yield to pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk-either a painted one or an "implied" one. I chalk it down to shitty drivers and/or shitty driving instruction, since I do know Germany has something of a car culture comparable to the USA.
Most will stop if they see a pedestrian in the crosswalk, but high speed, broad streets or lots of distraction can make it hard to notice. A driver does stand a great chance of being rear-ended if they stop just because a pedestrian is standing near one end of the crosswalk, so actually starting to cross can be an act of faith.
Nice to see something working for pedestrians. Although, we need a long-term solution to these wide-ass roads. We might need to build actual freeway orbital bypasses outside and do some serious road dieting (sidewalk/green median/bicycle and-or transit lane conversions) on the surface roads (particularly the ones running parallel) in exchange.
Yeah I could see a orbital highway taking on the purpose of traveling around the city by car. In my town we have some of these very wide arterials (sr99) and they’re not fun for cars or pedestrians because there are so many points of conflict that causes drivers to slow down and be on high alert while it can also be just downright dangerous as a pedestrian walking across the business access driveways. It’s no wonder that sr99 is the most dangerous roadway in the state while i5 comes nowhere near as close
That was my conclusion as well after watching this video... Maybe we're just idealists though, looking for a ped-centric urban landscape... Idk, downsizing roadways just sounds like paradise though
I guess it might be difficult to find a 6 lane main road in Europe with a pedestrian crossing only marked with stripes and signs, not traffic lights. There are lots of pedestrian crossings only marked by stripes and signs, some might have an additional yellow flashing light above or the pedestrian crossing sign might be illuminated itself and illuminate the crosswalk underneath, but that's about it. Most of these are only on 2 lane (1 + 1 lane) roads ... even on 4 lane roads I actually don't remember any basic pedestrian crossing without any traffic lights ... as it's simply a safety factor Even some single and two lane roads have a traffic light controlled crosswalk simply due to the traffic load and the impression that it's necessary ... might be a on demand traffic light which is green for car traffic until someone pushes the button; Some of those on-demand traffic lights are actually off until someone pushes the button; Then they will turn on and first show the green light for car traffic and then turn red ...
Any road with 4 or more lanes in width in Europe would have an island in the middle splitting the pedestrian crossing into two separate parts, or a foot bridge.
@@jonny5alive123 in many locations yes that is the case, but not everywhere and in general. I have a prime example when taking the road heading downtown: it's up to 6 or 7 lanes wide and has sections without a pedestrian island half-way across the street. But they have at least some pedestrian lights in place
I don't think Europe in general has a habit of running 6 lane highways through neighborhoods, so, yeah, you won't see that. The only time you would ever have 6 lanes where pedestrians are is if it's a stroad. Europe also tends to be better at recognizing stroads as the crime against humanity that they are. Well, actually they had less of a chance to build them, but still.
@@johnsmith34 In London we have a few urban 6 lane highways with a 40/50 mph limit, e.g. the A406. AFAIK there is no Zebra crossings (crosswalks), and mostly bridges and/or underpasses to cross. These days we'd typically have traffic calming for Zebra crossings, such as narrowing of the road to encourage drivers to slow down, and we have pretty good complance at people stopping.
Kind of sad that drivers could just brute force their way out of having to give way at pedestrian crossings. I wonder how many of these drivers also wouldn't stop at railway crossings. Probably zero because that would actually endanger themselves but it's essentially the same principle.
@@AlexandarHullRichter If I am doing a grocery delivery I totally would if it seemed safe otherwise I'd stop normally unless I was literally right at the tracks when it started flashing.
The problem aren't the signs & rules. The problem are the people blatantly ignoring them and not paying attention to someone in a crosswalk. It's an instant failure at a DMV test yet people seem to ignore the rule.
@@Midala87 " I totally would if it *seemed* safe". That is what everyone says 5 secondes before being destroyed in pieces by a train at a railroad crossings : "it seemed safe !". Come on man, please be smart. It flashes : you stop, no questions asked.
I'm not a big fan of cops sitting around all day giving speeding tickets but I whole heartedly agree with cops handing out tickets to drivers who don't stop at crosswalks. We need to train drivers to actually look for pedestrians because it really is a matter of life and death.
It is working in Europe. For two reasons: - The pedestrian has the priority, and car drivers are more careful at zebra crossings, because the car driver will be liable for any incidents/accidents. (Also in Germany and The Netherlands there are crossings where a pedestrian can cross, but without any priority. (It is marked very differently.)) - It is rarely used in wide multi-lane roads. It does work best with a two lane street, but does not work any street with more than four lanes...
As much as I'm a pedestrian friendly person, you do have to consider how many emergency responses are on foot? how many store deliveries are on foot? etc. If signalled crossings cause congestion, it will impact these services. Road traffic is incredibly important today, and disregarding it will make everyone's life worse off.
@@i3d3 that's the thing, by prioritizing road traffic and (unintentionally) making it harder for pedestrians then if you want to go to the store near your house you HAVE to drive there or you risk your life trying to cross the road @1:20 even at a marked crossing.
The wig-wag red in all other cases means “stop” urgently. Eg: railroad crossing, school bus, drawbridge. This one use case is an exception to that rule. A flashing single red light would mean a stop sign that drivers could pass through and would be much more appropriate.
It's fine. People see that it goes from solid double red to flashing and can tell what's up. In theory it could be confusing, but even so, it's confusing you to stop, not confusing you to go when you shouldn't, so it's still fine.
Why isn't stopping for pedestrians as important or urgent as those other examples you mention? A train might kill a vehicle occupant, but it's not like it's worse when somebody dies in a collision just because they were in a car.
This comment has merit. It might work for the HAWK, but drivers used to alternating reds meaning "proceed with caution" might not stop when they see the same alternating reds outside a tunnel. Studies, and incident investigations of tunnel fires in Norway, showed that a lot of drives ignore alternating reds. This has left them trapped next to a burning truck when they should have been safe outside. Maybe the solution is to stop using alternating reds, but introdusing further confusion carries a high risk.
@@DanCojocaru2000 It makes people think that alternately flashing reds means "like green but with a bit of caution" since worst case you dent your car on a pedestrian. Then they'll also start doing that for railroad crossings where it can do real damage to their car and its occupants.
This channel is a perfect example of quality over quantity. I wish I could bing his stuff, hopefully in a decade I can go back and enjoy a day of this keep up the great work on the education and journalism. You are an asset to us :)
The HAWK system is a good way to make pedestrian crossings safer, however the main problem are the wide and straight stroads that separate neighborhoods.
@TransitNerd They can still have their cul-de-sacs if they want. But you still get rid of the stroads. The end result is that people will then have to drive slower and share road space with the other cars. We can repurpose some of these lanes for public transit and bike lanes (what's known as a complete street). The entire idea would be to slow cars down, not run what is basically a highway through the middle of your neighourhood.
I saw the same thing, stroads everywhere. The big problem is we've been designing our roadways incorrectly for decades now, and it's going to take a long time to undo that. AFAIK most cities still have strict residential/commercial separation and laws against multiple resident housing, which prohibits walkable neighborhoods. The crazy thing is walkability actually increase property values, think about the most popular places to go/live near; riverwalks, campus corners, old style Main Street USA type places, etc.
As a pedestrian, being made to wait 90 seconds to cross the road is the final middle finger from our road design. We should be doing everything possible to discourage driving, but instead we're doing the literal opposite
I'm fine with waiting 90 seconds if that is where the inconvenience ends. Where I am in Vegas I have to walk nearly a half mile to a stop light, wait for it to cycle to give a walk, then wait for the 10 vehicles making a right turn that refuse to slow down to allow for the group of pedestrians in the crosswalk with the walk sign. Then wall halfway back down the street to the destination. At night it seems the signal will cycle quickly for all directions of vehicle traffic to get green time before activating for the pedestrian. The crosswalk button does work, otherwise there is no walk cycle during late night hours. You just have to wait two very quick cycles.
Every second a car is sat idling for a lollygagging "i have the right of way" pedestrian, another polar bear dies from global warming due to needless idling. Pedistrians are the squishy ones. They need to wait.
One of the most advanced crosswalks in Australia 🇦🇺 is a traffic light 🚦crosswalk with motion sensors on either side detecting whether or not someone is actually waiting and if they actually cross when it turns green for them. They also put these motion sensors on the regular intersection crosswalks too to give elderly enough time to cross large intersections.
Those ones are in the UK too. In fact, they are becoming the norm. The older ones with the flashing amber lights are being phased out. Now the light just changes back to green when the sensors pick up that the crossing is clear.
there are a few of those in Victoria and they also detect big groups to extend green time aswell. Having used some myself, the wait times can be really short.
however, I don't think we have crosswalks that span 4 lanes (or more) of traffic. If I'm not mistaken, one lane per direction is the max for unsignalized Crosswalks (Zebra-Crossings) here in Germany
I remember driving in Canada years ago and some kid just walked into the crosswalk without bothering to see if traffic was stopping. It shocked me and thankfully I was going slow enough to easily stop, but that was very very different than my experience as an American driver and pedestrian.
It's incredible how in Spain cars will stop for you even if you're on the sidewalk NEAR a crosswalk, when I go there on vacation I feel sorry to inconvenience drivers that stops for me even if I do not have to cross. (Talking about Catalunya/Barcelona). I'm from Italy, and her's a bit different, 9/10 will not stop if you're not manifestedly waiting to cross, yet if you really act like it I would say 5/10 will stop. Yet I've managed to be almost run over by a car in the second lane while one in the first lane had stopped, like the aneddocte you mentioned (thought here it's pretty well taught in driving school that if a car is stopped by a crosswalk you have to slow down to check if they are letting pedestrians by). That one time I almost got run over I "managed" (not on purpose I swear) to crash the car's rear view mirror on my side with the bag I was carrying (coming back from groceries, had some heavy stuff inside). Since I was not injured the dude from the car payed me off for the groceries that got totaled by his mirror (well, overpaid like 6 times for the inconvenience) and said he was going 1 to pay more attention, 2 asked if I was not gonna report the accident so he could claim the insurance for vandalism on the mirror. Otherwise legally speaking it was gonna be blamed for the damage, thus even if I was safe and no charges would be on him he would see his insurance double the year ahead.
NY has a law that mandates all drivers stop for the entire duration a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, and waiting to cross counts as in the crosswalk. So whenever i am just talking with someone i make sure to take a few steps away from a crosswalk to not confuse drivers.
I really like the way these series of videos are centred in the pedestrian an how to make commuting by foot easier and more convinient. However, there is an issue on how cities are designed in the US, leaving no alternative rather than driving.
There's always an alternative. Walking is no problem most of the time. Crossing large roads has been a problem for a long time, and will always be controversial.
They are putting these in all over Phoenix, and that’s what many people do. And then once someone goes, other drivers just blow through them without stopping. There’s a sign on every one explaining what to do, but expecting drivers to read signs is clearly acting too much, especially considering how many Arizona drivers can’t speak English.
@@danieldaniels7571 The fact that there even needs to be a sign to explain what the signal is telling you means that the signal is trying to be too unnecessarily different. Ditch the stupid wig-wagging and make all the red lights flash together. Problem solved! What once looked similar to a railroad crossing is now point blank "PROCEED WHEN CLEAR". Just like a normal traffic light that is flashing red.
I'm from Europe and seeing these crosswalks is totally ridiculous for me. That's why I think it's so important to educate fellow Americans in how much improvement they still have to do. Thank you for your videos.
But in europe we do crosswalks with only paint yet ppl still stop... i'm afraid it is a mentallity issue and not that the drivers don't see the pedestrians but rather feel like they have the right of way....
Europe doesn't really have wide high speed roads with regular surface pedestrian access. It's pretty much a necessity in the US because of how many cities are laid out. The solution in the past was urban freeways, but they are understandably very unpopular. I think while it might seem silly to us, it makes a lot more sense for them.
@@Croz89 we do have large 6 lane roads with turning lanes. If one has a crosswalk, it's usually divided into 2 parts and there's a "safety island" in the middle, where pedestrians can wait to cross to the other side, if they haven't made it to the other side yet. These are almost always signaled crossings.
@@Croz89 either way, the pedestrians and cyclists are always in priority in Europe. This is because most people don't drive. This can be your child or grandma crossing that street so everyone respects pedestrians.
One of these HAWK beacons was just installed in my area. As a driver, I really appreciate it as it does a good job getting my attention when I can't see the pedestrian who is trying to cross in front of me because I'm in the inside lane.
THIS is exactly why I felt way safer skating in the street in NC over using the sidewalk when on my electric skateboard. (Top speed 26mph so on average I was faster than a bicyclist). When you're in the street the cars are forced to see you and its much easier to say turn left over trying to cross the street from the sidewalk. Plus you're where people are already watching since there's typically a car there vs on the sidewalk where very few drivers ever check before turning even when there is a pedestrian crossing light there. However, I'm now in Texas and the stupidly high speed limits everywhere and the horrible road conditions have made it more unsafe to be in the street. Even if there's a dedicated bike lane because it'll either be full of gravel and trash, or cars will drive in it all the time. However, there are crossings where I'll leave the sidewalk and use the street instead just due to how much safer it is to cross while in traffic where people are actively looking for cars. As for a general tip if you're a pedestrian on foot: if you dress well and make yourself look important, than you're far more likely to have cars stop and let you cross. I've had cars stop for me while I was waiting to j walk all because I had a suit on. Meanwhile I've almost been hit countless times while trying to cross at cross walks in more casual clothing. As for the flags: there are still people driving who still wouldn't notice them unfortunately. I've almost been hit at a signaled pedestrian crosswalk while carrying a large folding table that would have made me very visible. The driver was taking a left and then proceeded to beep at me as if I was in the wrong even with signs clearly stating that pedestrians have the right of way 🤦
Pedestrians have no business being mixed with cars just as cars have no business being mixed with trains. Similarly, bicycles have no business being mixed with cars, either.
Can't believe you came to Tucson for this! I'm an urban planning student from Tucson currently studying in Amsterdam (where pedestrian infrastructure is much better) so it's a very relavent video for me from one of my favorite channels
The video just completely missed that Pelican crossings are being PHASED OUT in the UK due to several reasons: 1. “flashing” signals are ambiguous 2. Pedestrians do not wait 3. Traffic is stopped when no one crossing 4. Slow moving or late entry pedestrians still on crossing when red man shows and signals to traffic are green 5. Pedestrians are looking across at green/red man aspect and not at the traffic They are being REPLACED by Puffin crossings which have the following improvements: Pedestrian wait area detector. Usually infra-red but can be computer vision. Used to check that pedestrians are still waiting after button has been pressed. Pedestrian crossing zone detector. Usually microwave radar. Used to extend green to pedestrians if they are still crossing (up to maximum) Pedestrian signal is near to pedestrians and positioned so that they are also looking at the approaching traffic. No “flashing” signal aspects so who has priority is always clear.
With the smaller roads, in the UK there doesn't tend to be crossing 4+ lanes on one pedestrian crossing and so it is less time to wait until the pedestrian is off the crosswalk anyway. So the flashing is less relevant in the first place. I think I prefer the US method of quicker activation for the pedestrians though I do understand the UK hesitance of this when kids would trigger them then run off, the sensors of puffin cossings add a lot to more to go wrong and maintain. But overall I think it is interesting how the UK was 20-25 years ahead of the US on this.
Sounds like those pelican crossings don’t have the “hot” button Rob was talking about. Meaning that the signal should change right when you push the button or very soon after. That would solve #2 & #3.
Surprised you didn't talk about diluting the railroad crossing wig wag. It's not surprising the hawk works, it just goes counter to normal mutcd practice of being unambiguous. It's like creating an octagonal yield sign.
MTUCD now has quite a few contradictions, I feel "back in the day" engineers worked hard to make sure there were no contradictions or 2 rules for the same signal/sign/pattern/situation. Another one in ramp meters, If a traffic light is out treat it as a stop sign, oh but except these. There should not be exceptions, Georgia DOT goes one step further to confuse the issue, they have been adding the yellow reflectivity around all traffic light to make them easier to see when dark, so you can stop at them, they are also adding the reflectivity to Ramp Meters.... which if dark shouldn't bee seen or acted upon so why add the border. The average driver is dumb, and half are dumber than that, you should not make them have to make a split second decision of which rule a signal means in one particular situation.
The real solution is to get rid of 7-lane boulevard. My university (University of Tennessee) removed roads with more than four lanes and raised most of the intersections within campus to pedestrian level and created raised crosswalks. This greatly improved the walkability and, what’s more, traffic has gotten so much better.
okay, but given how a lot of state DOT's are, it'd be quite hard to convince them. so sure, i think maybe some action then is warranted, protests, whatever, but it'll be quite the fight and probably require some organization
Omg, American stroads is truly hellish. How tf are wheelchair users supposed to cross a 4 lane road. It doesn't even have a traffic island in the middle. The city planner and traffic engineer should be sued
OMG!!! Rob came to my town of Tucson to explain how messed up our traffic is! I never saw a HAWK til moving to Tucson 6 years ago, and I used to live in Phoenix. They do work very well in Tucson, especially over at the university with the college students. And yes, Speedway and Broadway are amongst the WORST roads to put a crosswalk on expecting cars to yield to pedestrians for. Glad to hear Tucson is putting more of these in and looking forward to other cities following suit. P.S. if you’re wondering why Tucson lacks freeways, you can thank the senior citizens and hippies in Tucson for shooting down a handful of voter propositions back in the 70s and 80s to fund freeway construction in the city.
Fun fact: In Wisconsin, any intersection is a crosswalk that drivers have to yield to pedestrians for. If it has a sign or painted lines, it is considered a marked crosswalk. If it doesn't have a sign, it is considered an unmarked crosswalk. This is because, in Wisconsin, crosswalks aren't meant to keep you safe. They are there to hold drivers liable if they hit a pedestrian.
Interesting, in NY driver's are legally required to stop if a pedestrian is in any part of the crosswalk, which includes waiting on the sidewalk. From my anecdotal experience we have decent compliance with that law, or atleast with being let into the crosswalk. (Obviously a signalized crosswalk is controlled by signals instead of this law) I'm honestly surprised at how a 6ft tall man in an orange high vis vest had such a hard time crossing a road in a crosswalk.
@@jasonreed7522 I'm not a lawyer, but a quick read of the laws in New York indicate that your information is not quite correct. Yes, drivers are required to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, but the definition of crosswalk in NY seems to match that in WI; a marked crosswalk is the painted section of the road, while an unmarked crosswalk is the part of the road between curbs at any intersection. Based on these definitions, a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk is not considered to be in the crosswalk. The sidewalk isn't painted, and it is not between curbs. It makes sense to not include the sidewalk because otherwise a pedestrian could stand at the corner and force all traffic to have to stop. If the pedestrian never crosses the street, the traffic would be stuck waiting for them.
@@jasonreed7522 Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. My reading of the law indicates that your cousin shouldn't have failed their road test, if that was the reason why they failed (although, I also doubt that's the case because usually a single infraction is not enough to make you fail your road test, but I don't know the context and I'm getting the story second-hand). I could be wrong, but also the person administering the test could have been wrong. It's easy for misinformation to spread and for people, even test administrators, to think they know the law when they don't. I invite you to read up on the NY law yourself, to see if you agree with how I interpret the law. Here's the crosswalk definition: www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/110 And here's the right-of-way rules: law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/article-27/ I know that, personally, if I am waiting to cross, I don't want to play a guessing game with a death machine. I prefer to wait until the car has passed and nobody is coming. Right of way doesn't keep me from dying. If the NY law really truly extends to people standing on the corner, then I encourage you to contact your state representatives because such a system is rife for abuse.
@@joeo3377 unfortunately that website doesn't play nicely with mobile (the text goes off the screen and in desktop mode under ads). However from what i can tell standing on the plate on the sloped part of the sidewalk doesn't count as in the crosswalk. (Maybe the law changed, maybe it never was) As far as right of way goes, may parents have a saying "You can be right, or you can be dead right." Which sums up the sentiment of make sure a car will stop or no cars are comming before walking out into a crosswalk, but generally speaking most cars will stop to let you cross if its reasonable for them to do so at an uncontrolled crosswalk. I would have to do a deep dive or ask a NY lawyer to be sure of the exact state of our crosswalk laws. (Which generally favor pedestrians acting without a death wish, one of the rules is pedestrians can't walk out in front of a car that isn't reasonably capable of yielding to them which is common sense.)
I have always wondered why an intersection of pedestrians and vehicles is different from an intersection of just vehicles. Why does a pedestrian crossing need to look any different from the signals we use for vehicles? Why can't it just be a register traffic light? We use things like induction and cameras to tell when a car is at a red light and needs to cross the intersection. Why is that different from a pedestrian pushing a button? It's always bugged me that they are different things. They shouldn't be. The hawk is a step toward that. But I don't understand why it needs to be side by side reds with a yellow under it. Why can't it just be a normal red, yellow, green? It can always be green and then when a pedestrian pushes the button it turns yellow for a bit, and then red the same way a normal light does when a car stops on an indication wire at a red light. It would remove _all_ confusion for drivers and is safe for pedestrians. I just don't understand why they are separate things. It's still an intersection whether it's people v cars, people v people, or cars v cars, or all of those.
One might argue that my solution doesn't solve the problem of cars being stopped too long. Okay, then instead of a "stop on red" sign, make it say "proceed with caution on flashing yellow". The pedestrian pushes the button. The light cycles from green to yellow to red. It counts x number of seconds and then goes to yellow flashing for x number of seconds. And then back to green.
@@constanttraveler at a regular traffic light, flashing red means stop, then proceed when clear. If you're switching from a solid red to a flashing red, it will make everyone stop when reaching the crosswalk, even if it's clear.
They should make pedestrian islands. A road should have an island between each lane at the crosswalk. That should slow down drivers and improve safety and pedestrian experience. Also, speed breakers are a nice idea for cars to slow down.
nope, right of ways for pedestrians at such crossigns must be absolute, and mechanisms need to exist to enforce that at the cost of extreme damage to vehicle, perhaps even serious injury to driver and passengers, should that right of way be violated. I'd much rather a negligent party end up with serious injuries than for pedestrians to even have to endure a scratch from these bad drivers.
This is why nearly every crosswalk in New York City (especially all of those downtown and on major roads/boulevards with medians) have full traffic/pedestrian lights.
Your channel makes me consider switching my major to engineering even though I'm bad at math. Thank you for covering Arizona so much, too. You've been able to answer so many questions I've had about roads in my state!
Interesting that a red wig wag is used instead of a flashing amber. I would assume, based on prior usage in places like railway crossings and swing bridges, that a red wig wag would mean "stop or you'll die". I guess as in the UK flashing amber already meant "give way to pedestrians" on zebra crossings, and isn't used anywhere else, it made sense here for pelican crossings. Interestingly flashing amber phases seem to be less common nowadays than they used to be. I suspect it might be due to new sensor technology that turns the light green once it detects the road is clear of pedestrians.
you are right! a few years ago, one of these was installed in front of a local hospital. Usually, there’s only one or two occasional pedestrians and I always wondered why the vehicles would wait long after the pedestrians crossed for the red wig wag to completely stop before moving on. Your comment made me think that a red wig wag was the wrong choice. Maybe a single flashing red would have been more appropriate. They did post an instructional sign to help drivers understand that once the pedestrians have crossed you can move on, but I may be the only one who read it.
I think that this HAWK is an ideal solution, but I would be confused about the wig-wag red phase. To me, that seems more insistent even than solid red. I think a flashing single red phase would better convey the impression to Americans that you must stop and then may go if the way is clear.
The wigwag phase is my only complaint about these, since in every other use case, it means Stop and Stay. Though going from solid red (also Stop and Stay) to wigwag does imply a change in state, but I would argue that the reds flashing together (Stop, proceed if safe) would be a better choice. That said, there is a sign at all installations in MN stating that the wigwag is a permissive stop, but still, why use a phase that requires a sign to explain it?
a fair point: all other uses of alternating red are "do not proceed under any circumstances" it really would be more consistent for the hawks to be reprogrammed to flash alternating red for the stop and then a non alternating yellow flash to proceed if clear. so the phases would be: full dark when inactive. solid yellow for prepare to stop. alternating flash for about 5 seconds for you must stop. solid red for another 5 to give more cushion for stragglers to see to stop. then flashing yellow to let cars proceed if it is clear.
Just curious, where are alternating red lights that mean "stop and stay?" The only other example I can think of is a railroad crossing, and they do NOT mean "stop and stay" (at least by the statutes in my state, but I can only assume this railroad crossing requirement is consistent nationwide). Our statute only requires a prolonged stop if the train is so close that there is a hazard of collision - otherwise, cars may proceed if the red lights are still alternating but the train is far enough away or has passed. (I know there'll be comments if I don't mention... cars ARE required to "stop and stay" if crossing gates exist and are down.) ADDENDUM: I just scanned the US national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the only other signal that uses alternating red lights is the "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" which includes a light beacon exactly the same as the HAWK. Section 4G.04(6) of the Manual reads, "The alternating flashing red signal indications shall only be displayed when it is required that drivers on the major street stop and then proceed subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign." So, it is to be treated like a Stop sign - stop, but proceed when clear, even if the signal to stop still is displayed. OK, I just thought of an example of alternating red lights that DO require MOST, not all, drivers to stop until extinguished - school bus warning light systems. These are a little different, as these aren't stationary signals on the roadway. There are specific rules to this lighting system (at least in my state), and not all drivers need to stop - like drivers in the opposite direction must stop, but not if there is a median dividing the two sides of the roadway - so I would say this lighting system is a separate entity in-and-of itself, which is why there's a separate state statute in my state addressing the intricacies of the rules of this lighting system. And I would guess that, since these lights are on vehicles, they decided to have them alternately flash to distinguish them from regular hazard lights on vehicles (that can be either amber or red) that flash simultaneously, not to assimilate them to warning beacons that alternately flash and the rules that come with them. Just a note: school bus lights are not governed by the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is why associated rules are not on the same page (literally or figuratively) with rules for other alternating red light traffic systems, but all traffic control devices in the Manual with alternating red lights are to be treated like Stop signs (stop, then proceed if clear, even if lights are flashing)... nationally... so there seems to be a consistent pattern with them (literally and figuratively 😉😛 ) ... and no one can say that "all other alternating red light systems mean 'stop and stay.'" ijs
My problem hasn't been wide roads, but left turns. Over 40 years ago. I would often almost get hit by cars coming from behind me and making a left hand turn. Because of this I try to avoid crossing at intersections, in favor of crossing in the middle of the block, where I only have to look left and right, and don't have to look behind me for cars turning left. Several years ago I broke this rule, and waited at the intersection. Before I started across the road, I looked left, and saw there wee no cars waiting to turn left, so I started across the road. I got half way across the lane on the far side of the road, and got struck from behind by a car making a left hand turn. In my opinion, cars making left hand turns should have a red light while the walk signal is on.
The amount of people that go through the red lights is crazy! In South Australia, I rarely see people going through a red. If they do it is because they don’t realise.
This video is perhaps the most informative in the Las Vegas Area. Nearly all areas were built in the last several decades where it is unfriendly to pedestrians. Not to mention a high chunk of the people especially Blacks who were gentrified from inner cities of CA who do not drive. In fact many areas according to the John Birch Society were built to prevent Blacks from moving in.
@Road Guy Rob this is hands down the best video you have ever produced. Thank you. As a traffic engineer, there's a few, small caveats that I'd like to suggest. You hit the nail on the head about pedestrian safety versus car convenience, however my agency is completely focused on pedestrian safety over car convenience. To that end, the MUTCD is not necessarily the end all, be all. The MUTCD does not always fit well in more urban environments and there's a lot of engineers who have decided to disregard it to engineering judgment for vulnerable road user safety. Also, The PHB has a lower speed limit of 35 mph. On roads 35 MPH or below, other solutions such as an RRFB or raised crosswalk is more appropriate. However, all of the examples you show are fantastic examples of PHBs as a decent solution if reducing lane number and width are not open for discussion. Again, thank you for such a great video. Really well done.
As a pedestrian I have found that HAWKs are significantly worse than a standard pedestrian activated traffic light. There's one street I cross regularly that has one that has 4 lanes of traffic. What will happen is while I'm waiting for the HAWK to kick on is one driver will stop because they see me waiting on the side. At that point I can either a. wait for the walk sign and that one driver who stopped will get pissed at me for not crossing or b. start to cross and hope the other 3 lanes of traffic stop for me.
@@sblack53 yes 30 is preferable but 50 as a limit. 50 can still be fine in places with only sparse pedestrians with only one lane in each direction and a center island and good visibility :D
My one criticism of these signals is the flashing red, which looks too much like a railroad crossing signal and would tell drivers to “stop” rather than “stop and check.”
Another excellent video. There was an attempt to install a mid block crosswalk in downtown salt lake, but the city said the data didn't indicate any auto pedestrian "accidents". It's ridiculous that the threshold for installing a crosswalk includes human lives. The city planners sat on the street and counted the number of jay walkers and with enough push, the city finally built the cross walk. Honestly, walking is a fundamental human activity. Walking and bicycling should have priority over vehicles. That would help us build human scale development instead of the deserts of asphalt we currently have.
The problem with hawk signals is that they are based in the idea that pedestrians are hit because they are not visible enough, but that's untrue. Car hit people because drivers aren't paying attention, and cars are going too fast. If you really want to make pedestrians safer you need to force drivers to slow down and pay attntion. This means narrowing lanes near crossings, raised crosswalks etc.
It's city design, and reflection of when many US cities really became established. European and East Coast US cities were mostly built pre-car, so the city was built more around pedestrians, because people lived walking distance from work. Other US cities, particularly in the sun belt which was mostly too hot to attract people before air conditioning, were built firmly into the car age. Really you can build as much pedestrian infrastructure as you like, but the layout of the city is going to mean it won't be used nearly as much as it would in London or New York.
@@Croz89 That's simply not true. With the notable exception of Tucson and Las Vegas, most cities in the frontier had well established themselves by the time 1950 came around (which is when car ownership seriously took off); having populations ranging from the low hundreds of thousands into the millions. Unless all those freeways, 6 lane roads and carparks were built by the indians, it's safe to say that these places were just demolished for the car.
@@flopsinator5817 Compared to what they were back then, those cities were tiny, some were barely more than frontier outposts. Almost all of their growth came during the car age.
@@Croz89 Los Angeles had a pop. of nearly 2 million in 1950, Phoenix 100.000, Albuquerque 100.000, Houston 600.000, San Fransisco 750.000, Fresno 100.000, Dallas 400.000, Denver 400.000, you get the point... What do all of these cities have in common today? They have multiple freeways and highways running through their core.
Yes and when the driver presses the button, he should be made to wait for 90 seconds, so that people can cross the street. Those people on foot have places to be you know!
@@leprechaunbutreallyjustamidget if you haven't noticed this was a joke, i was trying to convey the point that US transportation planners are willing to do almost anything to inconvenience pedestrians in the name of safety, while ignoring simple solutions that slightly delay drivers.
We've got a similar crosswalk here in Lexington, KY. It's 4 lanes and I've stated for years that they need a crossing bridge or the like there because I've more than once watched cars in 3 of the lanes stop and a car in the 4th lane just blast right past them. I'm warned them that at some point there will be a fatality if something isn't done soon but of course nobody wants to listen until after the fact.
Why not have a green light on the Hawk instead of training drivers to not stop when traffic lights are out? Decades ago we treated out lights as stop signs. In recent years (New England here) I've seen fewer folks do that, main road just keeps going like it's green, side streets nose out gradually until far enough out the more timid main road driver slows to allow them in. (It might be due to yield/stop laws for pedestrians in crosswalks regardless of signal, but here signal rules legally where there is a signal, if pedestrian enters without, it's jaywalking.)
i guess they're treating these HAWK signals the same as beacon lights, like a school zone area, no one stops and treats a school zone during after hours like a stop sign, plus these signals don't look like a regular 3 stacked signal. the really stupid part is the wig wag red, i experienced one of these about a month ago, and i remained stopped while it was zig zagging, i thought it meant, EXTRA stop while the light is red incase more traffic is coming and don't see the solid red, to get your attention more, rail roads have this same setup, and you're not allowed to cross the rail road tracks till the wig wag red flashing lights are completely out, why is this different? it's stupid. they should honestly have both reds blinking at the same time, i know what that means at an intersection after a strong storm hits and takes the lights out, either that or have the flashing yellow after it was solid red for 10 seconds or so, to let drivers know it's good to proceed once a pedestrian or multiple pedestrians have crossed, and after 30 seconds or so the yellow can go away.
@@Omar-em7rl That's a good take, I do get the alternating reds, because without a green they show it's not off/out like a blinking red is at times for a glancing driver, there's always a red apparent. Without having seen this video, I'd react like you, alternating flashing seems a stronger signal to stop to me akin to RR. I agree that there isn't an obvious meaning to that, and feel going to yellow would be more appropriate when it's OK to move although it's not customary to go to yellow after red, I believe there is another use case I can't recall that does so. My SO just came up with the idea of alternating red/yellow instead of red/red. This also eliminates a lightbulb assembly. Since yellow is more a yield type situation, and blinking red a stop sign where you can proceed after stop, alternating red/yellow would clearly be something most drivers haven't seen, but a different condition than solid red, and not the alternating RR big hazard stop situation.
@@RJFerret you know, i didn't think about that, Americans haven't seen a signal go from Red to Yellow in 90 years, the last of those signals were the W.S. Darley 3 light signals that were discontinued in 1928 due to green being ontop of the other way for traffic, while the other flow of traffic had red ontop. that's probably why the yellow method idea i mentioned wasn't approved and they went this way instead. the yellow red alternating flashing you mentioned, i think we're just overthinking it at this point, they use 3 signal heads, so the cost of a regular traffic light is there anyways, they should have just done a regular traffic light instead of doing this confusing stuff, but it's too late now, they should honestly just reprogram the lights and have both reds flash at the same time, so the signal is treated as a stop sign.
Love your videos and I'm not an engineer or a guy who cares about traffic stuff. I just like how you highlight something that impacts us all yet is rarely pondered. Plus your personality is awesome and your method of delivery is superb so thanks for being who you are and doing what you do!
I live in Tucson, and I love these things. I watched them when they were introduced through the present. Compliance is high. The one issue I see with them is that when it transitions to wig-wags not everyone knows what to do and a meaningful portion of cars don't proceed under the wig-wags even when clear. But that's a small gripe. Mostly it just works.
I see the same issue with them in Phoenix. I guess it’s too much effort to read the sign on them that says what to do. The other more alarming issue I’m seeing with the flashing red is that since drivers see other drivers proceeding through them, they don’t stop or even slow down for them.
As a German it's just hilarious to see the us struggling with something this simple. SLOW THE TRAFFIC! One of the most important things to do! It's the design of the street, not thousand blinking lights and signs. Here are some tips: Don't have such width roads. Make it narrower, so people don't drive over the speed limit or generally slower. Make the crosswalk be raised tho the height of the sidewalk to slow drivers down and make them go over the sidewalk, not the people over the street. Have a lightend sign on top of the crosswalk crosswalk
Rob!! Thank you so much for taking my video idea! I can’t begin to stress how underrated your content is, though I feel greater success is a matter of time. HAWK stands for High-intensity Activated... crossWalK. It’s not really an acronym, heh. PHB makes sense though. 🙂 I’m pleasantly surprised compliance is that high - surprising you got two red-light runners if that's the case! I think a lot of the confusion stems from “doesn’t flashing red mean stop for danger like a RR crossing?” But at least that’s still a driver complying, and they’ll hopefully learn quickly. MUTCD, I believe, also permits a sign that adds “PROCEED ON FLASHING RED WHEN CLEAR” for added clarity.
In South Australia, literally every road that isn’t a side street has many pedestrian traffic light crossings along it. They usually have like 5 lights for each direction!
Wow… this is great. I’ve been a pedestrian now for four months in Phoenix and vlogging about it on my channel. Lately I’ve been focusing on crosswalks. Particularly on how many drivers don’t know what to do at these HAWK lights, and also what Arizona calls an “unmarked crosswalk.” Just as you mentioned that there is an amount of pedestrian traffic required for a signal, ADOT requires a certain amount of pedestrian traffic to mark a crosswalk. Drivers in general don’t even know unmarked crosswalks are a thing, and assume those using them are jaywalking.
Enforcement seems like another component to me. I grew up in Vermont where yielding to pedestrians at a crosswalk is required by law, and cops will actually pull you over for not doing it. I never had difficulty crossing at a crosswalk until I moved out of the state.
In greater Vancouver, British Columbia, mid-block pedestrian crossings often make use of a standard, three-aspect traffic signal which continuously flashes green when not in use. When a pedestrian pushes the crossing button, the signal first goes to solid green (the first indication to drivers that someone wishes to cross) and then to yellow and red. After a set amount of time, the signal returns to flashing green. This seems to me to accomplish the same objective as the HAWK beacon and is easier to understand.
These style HAWK crossings have been going in all over Phoenix and many drivers clearly don’t understand them. In my Vlogs on my channel I have video of drivers staying stopped at the flashing red and others flying through, ignoring it completely. What you described sounds better.
@@danieldaniels7571 Most of these are not stroads, they're thoroughfare roads that allow pedestrians. The only way to make them less stroad is to ban pedestrians and cyclists.
the biggest issue the hawk is trying to accommodate is that pedestrians don't need the crosswalk for a consistent length of time. you may have missed that many cities try to synchronize the lights on long through roads so cars obeying the speed limit will hit every light at the same phase - I.E. green. adding a pedestrian light forces them to either have the cars hitting lights that are red at the wrong time, or requiring pedestrians to wait for their allotted point in the synchronization. the crossing specific design allows them to protect a crosswalk for he time they calculate is needed for the slowest pedestrian, while allowing cars to proceed if the pedestrian is faster. keep in mind that the time allowed by a multiphase traffic light is usually shorter if there are no pedestrians wanting to cross than it is if there are pedestrians waiting to cross.
There's almost the same here in japan, the problem is even after people have crossed cars still has to wait til it's green. The pedestrian stop light also is connected to the traffic grid so it won't go red in a bad timing. Not all but most I;ve used
You should make a video on Michigan Lefts / New Jersey Lefts and call it "Turn RIGHT to go LEFT??" with Lightning McQueen in the thumbnail or something silly. A very unique intersection that most people outside of those states have likely never seen and could make an interesting video topic
I saw one of these pop up in Casa Grande, AZ a couple months ago driving through. They're easy for drivers to understand, easy for peds to understand, and they shine so much on the massive stretches that connect the I-10 to the city making the once impossible to walk city so much safer
I don't know why transport departments punish pedestrians by removing crosswalks when an accident occurs. What we SHOULD do is install those pop up spikes on the road so drivers are incentivized to pay attention or else get their tires popped.
When I lived in Des Moines, I had one of these on my block - I loved using them and it definitely made crossing the street feel more safe and convenient. I wish we had these in NYC!
As someone living in the Netherlands: WTF!? Yeah... That is basically all I can say about it. This is just a very strange solution. Why alternating red lights? In every part of the world, alternating red lights mean: you REALLY need to stop here or you will die. Even in the US this is a thing. Watching this video, it feels like pedestrians are seen as a problem. Pedestrians are also people that want to go somewhere. Why is it so hard to respect that?
jaywalking is really common in towns, cities most people prefer the shortest route but people do tend to use the intersection, it just depends on where
As soon as the car was invented, American city planners forgot that legs exist. It's how our lovely Tucson ended up a waffle-iron cement nightmare of broken dreams and hell-like blistering heat islands devoid of life.
Another outstanding video. As a former resident of Tucson it was great to see the city and the roads. The HAWK looks like a great system! One thing I hope you noticed about Tucson was the 'trailing' turn signals and I'd love to see a video on whether it's really safer (as I was told) or not. Thanks.
I never even knew what these were in my trucking days going through Tucson. I just thought they were weird looking stoplights for seemingly non-existent intersections. Great video as always Rob!
If you were a trucker in the UK or EU it'd be your job to know about things like this As a professional driver, you'd need to be up to speed on changes like this. We go on courses known as Certificate of Professional competence (CPC). They are an ongoing process and have to be completed in 5-year cycles.
@@grahamlive I’ll admit I don’t know everything about the road and im always learning, but these pedestrian crossings in particular are still somewhat exclusive to Tucson, so I was unfamiliar with them at the time
I was in Miami the other day where many areas are entirely stroads with few, if any, protected crosswalk opportunities. We tried to cross a 4 lane road with a button initiating the flashing yellow lights in a clearly marked crosswalk and *nobody* even slowed down. We were almost hit by a city bus!
Considering the low amount of freeways Tuscon has, it should really put into consideration how ineffective these "wide urban boulevards" are for cars. The city needs to focus on transit, then narrowing down the stroads so that cars go naturally slower, so it's safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
That's what I was thinking too. Why not turn the outer lane on every other boulevard into a bus lane and run high capacity buses every 3 mins in a straight line through the city
I lived in Tucson for years, and was a pedestrian for a year of that. No one will use transit that has access to a car, and damn near everyone drives. It also has, by US standards, pretty decent transit.
or, here's a crazy thought: build a way for people who just need to pass through a sizable chunk (or all) of tucson to drive on a road that has no interaction with local traffic and then prohibit any business from trying to connect to that road. - since stroads are created when businesses are allowed to build along a bypass route.
Fantastic video!! The production quality on your videos is so high, I almost can't believe this isn't a real TV show. Thank you so much for putting in all the effort to create such fantastic content!
These are common in Phoenix, with accompanying signage explaining each phase. Driver compliance seems quite good, unlike previous arrangements. Definitely a highly effective innovation.
2:21 Grand Prix Circuit - easily the best F1 racing game of the late 1980s. Btw, that people won't stop at a zebra crossing is insane. In Europe, failing to stop for a pedestrian would incur traffic points and a heavy fine. Then again, on a road as wide as this one and with a speed limit way above 50 km/h / 30mph, you'd probably not see a zebra crossing to begin with, but rather a traffic light, or some kind of pedestrian under/overpass.
In the UK, the crossings are known as Pelican (PEdestrian LIght CONtrolled) and the more modern Puffin (Pedestrian User-Friendly INtelligent) crossings. I see he was inspired to keep the bird theme going by naming his variant Hawk!
Honestly I hate these, recently my city put these up, but they placed them all super close together and like 100 feet away from stop lights, now it’s made a nice road into a city nightmare with traffic backing up and people panicking, and still most pedestrians still j-walk and don’t even use the dang things
Also, your videos are amazing Rob. The videography, production quality, expert analysis and subject matter. This should be required educational content for every driver 😊
I'm sure Rob's well-presented videos are useful and informative to Americans but people watching from European countries are sitting back in awe at just how backward the American road system is.
Transportation is responsive to land use. American land use (by law) is really spread out. Engineers get no say in this (city councils do). So we build a network to serve spread-out suburbs. Tools like HAWK beacons are first steps toward fixing decades of neglect (back in the 1960s, pedestrians weren't considered at all).
This video was great! I'm a Civil Engineer in LA, tasked with implementing HAWK Beacons for out clients, an I found this video very informative and helpful. I am a lot more motivated for this project, thanks!
Not surprisingly, we have one in downtown Mesa. They're needed elsewhere in the city - the highest need being at the various canal path crossings, where a full stoplight exists instead of a HAWK.
In British Columbia, we just use a regular traffic signal that flashes green. It turns solid green when a pedestrian prompts a crossing and the signal phases to a red light.
Im not even American and I haven’t really driven there yet. But i love your videos. It’s something of the style and specially the quality you invest in these videos that are so entertaining. I wish you succeed in your yt career so you still keep making this vids. 10/10 channel. Id say its even better than most real tv channels ive seen
As someone who is legally blind I can confirm of how dangerous crosswalks are, I have been hit 3 times. Yes, they hit a blind person and claimed they didn't see me. Who's the real blind one here.
"I didn't see the pedestrian" should never be an excuse imo. If you hit a pedestrian as a driver, you are responsible, unless proven otherwise
I would call that a problem, not an excuse. If someone can't see if pedestrian, they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.
@@Arlae_Nova Only time I can see it being a valid excuse is if someone runs out into the street when you don't expect it like from infront of a parked car.
@@Arlae_Nova There is a painted pedestrian crossing with no lights, yellow red or otherwise near a busy shopping center on my way home. At night the street lamps are poorly placed, so the walkway itself is not very well lit. Every single time I drive past I scan back and forth back and forth before passing through because I'm paranoid of someone being in the crosswalk that I don't see, but I see everyone else just zoom on by with no regard. I started looking very closely because once I narrowly avoided (ok it wasn't super close but close enough to scare me) hitting someone at night in dark clothing that I didn't see. So yes, responsibility is shared between drivers & traffic engineers to make sure at the very minimum the crosswalk is lit up so you can see if someone is there from a distance....
@albino guidedog in the UK we’ve actually perfected these with sensors to detect whether pedestrians are still at the crossing. We also have little metal ice cream cones under where the button for the crossing is. When the traffic is stopped the cone spins to indicate to the deaf that it is safe to cross. There is also a beeping sound for the blind as well. This is switched off in certain residential areas late at night to avoid disturbance.
It is fascinating to me just how much time, money, and effort is put into patching up road safety issues in the US, instead of tackling the fundamental underlying problem of safe streets.
American news sites love to share the story of the Soviet bureaucrats who visited London and were amazed that there were no bread lines. They asked to speak to the man in charge of planning the supply of bread to London and were shocked that the answer was "nobody"!
If American traffic engineers spent any time looking outside their borders, they would be shocked that lots of people walked and weren't being murdered by drivers. They would then ask how these other world cities allow pedestrians to safely cross their 8-lane stroads cutting through the middle of the city ...
If you don't know the answer to that "question" then you need to read more Strong Towns.
Yea this is pretty true
However, the HAWK seems to effectively solve a problem arising from urban sprawl. Fixing the root causes of this problem might be quite difficult from a traffic engineer's perspective when the society is so heavily car-dependent as in the US. I can hardly imagine that an aspiring traffic engineer proposing for instance 2x2 mile Superblocks and envisioning that people will actually do their grocery hauls with delivery bikes in near future will have his position very long.
The HAWK signals (and other things like the Diamond interchange, ramp meter and bus that acts like a train) are very much a band aid to the solution, but it's better than the regular widening of a road, which would have costed a lot more money. I guess you can say that fixing the core of the problem is the best, like how well designed Netherlands and Japan are, but good infrastructure like that takes time, effort, money and will, something America lacks, so band aids like these may as well be considered a good thing.
Our transportation system serves land use.
Moral arguments aside about suburbs, they are here and we can't just ignore them and hope they go away. And retrofitting them into something more walkable will take decades if not half a century.
Tools like HAWK beacons are a low-cost first step toward the safety goal you correctly champion.
@@RoadGuyRob yep, I totally get that, and you're correct. But also, that argument would hold more water if the US wasn't building more and more and more of these places. As it stands now, the US is building almost nothing but car-dependent places, while simultaneously saying it's too hard to retrofit car-dependent places into something better.
10:48 One problem with this alternate-blinking red signal: This is the same as a railroad crossing signal. And at a railroad crossing, wig-wagging red light means "stop and stay no matter what". So motorists may not get that this signal here means "proceed if clear", and may remain stopped, contrary to the traffic engineers' intention. A better signal would be all red lights blinking synchronously, which unmistakably means "stop, then proceed if clear".
That would be a blinking yellow light...
It's still failsafe. Most drivers see that it turns from solid to blinking red, so they see that it changes from "stop" to something else that therefore isn't stop. And if someone would get it confused, they'd stop instead of going, so it's still safe.
Ones I've seen have signs directly stating what the solid and wig-wag reds mean
@@flopsinator5817 wrong
@@bbqchezit every one I’ve seen has the signs, but many drivers don’t read them and just sit there until the light stops blinking anyway. I somewhat agree with the other Dan that it should be failsafe, but I find that in practice it’s often not. As drivers see other cars going across on the blinking red lights, others don’t stop or even slow down for them.
I cant believe you didn't use the "i'm walkin here" joke even once
Didn't think of it. Those were my genuine unscripted reactions to impatient Highland, CA drivers.
That 'joke' was used in the movie Midnight Cowboy by the character played by Dustin Hoffman in 1969 to represent a certain type of devil many care New Yorker who deliberately jaywalks in front of approaching vehicles. Good choice if you want to victim blame, which hero Rob is not doing.
@@trainluvr It was actually unscripted. Hoffman and the other guy were being filmed crossing the road when a car that was not part of the movie (they were filming in regular traffic) nearly hit Hoffman and he genuinely said the line. The rest is history.
the best im walking here ever used was in FORREST GUMP....lt. Dan was already an amputee at this point and told a cab driver "hey! IM WALKING HERE" lmao that shit was hilarious
As a European I am absolutely shocked at how basically no drivers stopped at a pedestrian crossing. I can only remember one or two instances IN MY LIFE where a car didn't stop at a normal zebra crossing.
ehh... yeah, but that's because you live in a place that designs things primarily for pedestrians. in the united states things are made to have traffic moving and keep it that way. we don't live in a place where pedestrians are exactly 'prioritized'. and mind you, i'm not criticizing the way you guys build your cities, i think we ought to do some of that ourselves, but i'm putting the lack of stopping into perspective.
Yes, because here, the fines for not stopping are on the same level as running a red light. Also, overtaking at a Zebra crossing is forbidden to eliminate that "one lane stops and the other doesn't see the pedestrian behind the stopped cars" issue. In the US, stopping isn't even required when there's no red light.
because what américans call a street we call it a highway and we dont build crosswalks over highways
In Europe they aren't stupid enough to expect zebra crossings to work on six lane roads. They normally use on-demand traffic lights there.
Also in Europe no one would expect yellow traffic lights to work for anything. So of course that pedestrian crossings use the same traffic lights as the intersections.
It is good that murrica finally saw the light on this topic too...
@Park Justin that isn't true on a state level, your city might have that rule but you don't live in any city I've heard of
I think one of the things that can help crossings be safer is incorporating medians and possibly narrowing the width of the lanes just before and at the crosswalk slightly. Narrow lanes are a natural way to encourage cars to slow down, and medians for crosswalks on roads that don't already have them call more attention to the crosswalk.
It's VERY clear time watching these videos and of Idiots driving in various Dash Cam videos that US gas some very bad practices and attitudes to who is more important or vulnerable and the brazen misbehaving like those light runners is disgusting
@@cockneyse But to say it's only the US, would probably be wrong. The US is still miles ahead of other countries where it's all just chaos, everywhere and all the time. But I do think pedestrians and cyclist infrastructure should be improved where it makes sense.
@@JoePCool14 I don't believe they're saying it's only the US that has these problems, it's that the US has a very bad view on which type of mobility should have priority over others
@@JoePCool14 problem is that the US is miles behind other developed countries
@@edipires15 The US just does things differently. Everyone always raves about Europe being perfect, which is where I think this is going to go, when the truth is that they just do things differently. Obviously the two nations were also developed in different eras. I think both can learn from each other.
Wait, hold on. What?! I had to pause the video for this. Are you seriously saying that some cities in the US are so backwards when it comes to walking around town that you are provided with a FLAG ON A WOODEN POLE (4:02) to cross a street safely?! I thought that was a joke or a mid-video sketch. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard regarding the US. I'm a little concerned about what the rest of the video holds if this a genuine solution some traffic engineer(?) devised over there.
Yeah, it's a real thing that I've seen in multiple places. Definitely not practical and not that effective either. But many of the other solutions presented here are more legit.
It is very simple, cheap and fast. Any other solution is much moe complicated
a very real thing in canada aswell
and I also can't say i've ever picked up a flag to cross only when drunk to wave it around
It doesn't seem like a hard concept or a joke to me.
As the US is unwilling to implement any measure that inconveniences drivers all these solutions are little more than window dressing. It's the road design and the high speeds that create the unsafe situations for pedestrians and unless that is addressed no amount of flags or flashing lights will keep pedestrians from being killed. When for the most advanced solution the driver compliance is only 97%, that still means that out of every 100 crossings a pedestrian makes, there's three that are potentially deadly. (or 1 per day for an average elementary school class) I'm not sure this really is something that can be celebrated as a win.
Unfortunately the USA was built largely after the car was invented so everything is designed around cars. Redesigning the cities to be less car centered is extremely expensive. Just to give LA a decent subway system you would need 1,000 miles of subway and that would cost a TRILLION dollars and take 100 years to build.
When actually doing a study on the risk you have to distinguish two numbers. There is usually a ~2s delay between cars getting a red light and pedestrians a green light, in addition a short reaction time for the pedestrian. During this time there is no risk of a red light runner to hit a pedestrian, because they are not yet on the road. Most of the red light violations are within the first second and actually don't impose any danger. There is no risk for them to hit a pedestrian crossing. Still it is important to fine even the smallest violation of a red light because deviance acceptance itself imposes the risk of larger deviations. The second or two they willingly accept might add up with a short distraction and suddenly you have a dangerous situation.
97% compliance means 97 out of 100 cars stop. It doesn't mean people are killed.
@@jamestucker8088 And is that century-long build time a case of nine women trying to make a baby in one month?
@@drooplug Of course not, that's why I wrote: potentially. Every red light runner is an accident waiting to happen.
Pedestrian: Gets hit by car on a crosswalk
DOT: "CLEARLY it was because of the crosswalk and the pedestrian using it, not because of the huge, multiple lane high speed roadway. We should remove it instead of actually designing a safer street."
Tucson can't even patch the potholes. There is no way in hell we'll get some pie-in-the-sky re-spin.
The first suggestion to remove the pedestrian problem for cars from that place was putting 2kV on the beg button. It was considered too expensive on electricity so they went with a fence instead.
Yeah, the highway code and DOT are actively anti pedestrian, even on sidewalks. Our town wanted to place planters between the sidewalk and highway, to protect pedestrians. The state DOT refused, because a driver that swerved off the highway, and hit a planter, might bounce back into the road (and hit another car, instead of a nice cushy pedestrian). Seriously. I lost all respect for the DOT having any true interest in safety. The roads aren't even good for drivers, either. Time for a complete ripping up of the road standards. It would be hard to make a worse road system, and it's a direct result of the standards, as these things show.
@@geonerd Not with people like you, who give them a pass.
@@bearcubdaycare pedestrians are stupid
Also worth noting that HAWKs are also used as Emergency Signals in front of Fire Departments.
Absolutely correct. Richard mentioned how perfect they are for fire stations. Didn't have time to fit it in
@@RoadGuyRobmany fire stations around where I live (northeast Ohio) use signals as described in MUTCD 2009 Section 4G.03 with a flashing yellow in place of green, then a solid yellow and red phase. I feel that is much more clear than the HAWK, by reducing the ambiguity of the wig-wag meaning (full stop or stop-and-go), as well as the dark mode (which could mean treating it as a stop sign like a malfunctioning signal). I'd love to see studies about using both signal types and which one is more effective.
@@RoadGuyRob They are used as a light at a railroad crossing in i think sweden and czechia
Really? That seems... odd. To me.
Here, there Emergency Signals are being converted to R/A/fA configuration. Instead of normally showing a steady green ball 🟢, they show flashing amber. When it is time for the brigade to come out, they turn amber and then red like a regular traffic signal.
Also on UK level crossings
Hawk red-flashing phase should be SIMULTANEOUS red flashing so it’s not confused with a railroad crossing or school bus
RR crossing or school bus wig-wag red lights mean do NOT go, do NOT advance, which is different from Hawk flashing red lights mean.
Agreed. We have one of these in my city near the college, and the double flashing red leads to confusion, frustration, and honking among drivers.
Amen. In Florida if you don't run the wig wag it induces road rage within those behind you. They need replaced by a single red light. I'm loving your channel
My guess is that there have to be 2 red lights, otherwise it would legally be considered a stoplight.
@@flopsinator5817 why would it NOT be legally considered a stop light?
@@danieldaniels7571 Because there are 2 of them side by side, not aligned with the yellow light underneath.
I could be wrong, but usually there are some very strict requirements to installing any kind of red light anywhere near a roadway.
As a German, I expect that if I cross pedestrian crossings with stripes, the cars will stop there. I didn't even know that this rule didn't exist in the US. But here is no rule for that with jaywalk at all.
The good thing for pedestrians in Germany, the streets are only half as wide and drivers are responsible for stopping.
Even the car driver has to reckon with pedestrians and cyclists at every intersection if the car does not expressly have a green traffic light. But when turning, the driver has to watch out for pedestrians and cyclists, even if the traffic light is green. Now it has been decided that new trucks must have automatic systems to secure the sides for cyclists and pedestrians.
The principle, the stronger someone is with his vehicle, the more he has to watch out for weaker ones or he will have problems in the event of damage or injury.
Particular caution also applies at all crossings without traffic signs. Here the law regulates exactly that everyone has to watch out and who is allowed to drive first.
Cyclists, pedestrians and people with handcarts must be given special consideration.
The rule exists, just nobody cares (I say that as someone who grew up in Germany and has been living in NA for two decades).
Jaywalking is only a thing because the car industry lobbied for it back at the beginning when car drivers constantly either ran over people who were stuck in clusters of people who had the audacity just walk in the street.
It's not just there though. The car industry over the decades has done whatever they could to make cars safer for the drivers and passengers but has done little to nothing to make it safer for the people outside the cage. In the US over the last decade it's gotten even worse with larger and larger "cars" on the road, to the point where most kids would get their head crushed by the grill at an impact. Even as a tall guy I have been next to some of these monsters where the hood came up to my chest.
What's more, some states where drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians crossing the street (such as Oregon), had some young kids cross a main road in town (2 lanes either direction plus a shared left turn lane, dubbed a 'suicide lane') get hit crossing the street but not within any marked crossing -- They were cited for crossing a highway. So, not every rule is created equal, either.
As a driver, if you're not in a crossing at all, I'm not backing off - crossing mid-block with no designated crossing *is* carlessness. For one, we as a driver aren't expecting you to cross -- especially at night. For two, traffic flow is already becoming a problem here as the town grows in population but not in area. That said, I LOVE the rapid flashing beacons at crossings. As a racing driver, we look for lights or flags. Well, nobody's out there waving a yellow flag at me (or a red one), so I look for lights. I see lights, I obey lights. We don't have HAWK crossing where I am, but I have seen them in larger towns 100 miles away. I do like them, but not quite as well as the rapid beacon lights just yet. That could just be from a lack of experience with them.
The story is different with stripped crossings that have no lighting at all -- Like the one outside where I work. At night, there is ONE lonesome street light that is so far in the air it doesn't illuminate much of anything below it. I almost hit 2 people crossing one night because I never saw them. and it's just a two lane road with a shared left turn lane. What I'd give to see that crossing have RAPID beacons. It's also a low-volume crossing, as such, it's uncommon to have someone in it anyway, let alone at night. I'm actually bringing this to the attention of the city to 1) add street lights through this section of the road -- which is by the way a state highway -- and to improve visibility at this specific crossing -- The crossing half a mile away has RAPID lights and a curbed island.
Ditto for the other commenters: it is the law here that drivers must yield to pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk-either a painted one or an "implied" one. I chalk it down to shitty drivers and/or shitty driving instruction, since I do know Germany has something of a car culture comparable to the USA.
Most will stop if they see a pedestrian in the crosswalk, but high speed, broad streets or lots of distraction can make it hard to notice. A driver does stand a great chance of being rear-ended if they stop just because a pedestrian is standing near one end of the crosswalk, so actually starting to cross can be an act of faith.
@@RickJaeger I believe it's the training (or lack of). I'm from the UK and zebra crossings are disrespected only rarely by (bad) drivers.
Growing up in America taught me at a young age to look both ways when crossing a one way street
I’ve noticed while walking on sidewalks that most drivers don’t even look both ways when pulling out of a driveway into a street.
In the UK you'd have been taught that by the Green Cross Code man. Here he is. th-cam.com/video/CRUBMBi_lp4/w-d-xo.html
@@grahamlive woah. Darth Vader.
@@danieldaniels7571 Yes indeed. 😀
And when you got older, you learned to not look both ways because everyone has to stop for you anyways. $$$$$
Nice to see something working for pedestrians. Although, we need a long-term solution to these wide-ass roads. We might need to build actual freeway orbital bypasses outside and do some serious road dieting (sidewalk/green median/bicycle and-or transit lane conversions) on the surface roads (particularly the ones running parallel) in exchange.
It's time to say no to stroads!
More public transportation would be very helpful too. What takes up more space? 30 cars or single bus? (And that's not even scratching the surface)
Yeah I could see a orbital highway taking on the purpose of traveling around the city by car.
In my town we have some of these very wide arterials (sr99) and they’re not fun for cars or pedestrians because there are so many points of conflict that causes drivers to slow down and be on high alert while it can also be just downright dangerous as a pedestrian walking across the business access driveways. It’s no wonder that sr99 is the most dangerous roadway in the state while i5 comes nowhere near as close
That was my conclusion as well after watching this video... Maybe we're just idealists though, looking for a ped-centric urban landscape... Idk, downsizing roadways just sounds like paradise though
Turn the US into the EU, i like it
I guess it might be difficult to find a 6 lane main road in Europe with a pedestrian crossing only marked with stripes and signs, not traffic lights. There are lots of pedestrian crossings only marked by stripes and signs, some might have an additional yellow flashing light above or the pedestrian crossing sign might be illuminated itself and illuminate the crosswalk underneath, but that's about it. Most of these are only on 2 lane (1 + 1 lane) roads ... even on 4 lane roads I actually don't remember any basic pedestrian crossing without any traffic lights ... as it's simply a safety factor
Even some single and two lane roads have a traffic light controlled crosswalk simply due to the traffic load and the impression that it's necessary ... might be a on demand traffic light which is green for car traffic until someone pushes the button; Some of those on-demand traffic lights are actually off until someone pushes the button; Then they will turn on and first show the green light for car traffic and then turn red ...
Any road with 4 or more lanes in width in Europe would have an island in the middle splitting the pedestrian crossing into two separate parts, or a foot bridge.
@@jonny5alive123 in many locations yes that is the case, but not everywhere and in general. I have a prime example when taking the road heading downtown: it's up to 6 or 7 lanes wide and has sections without a pedestrian island half-way across the street. But they have at least some pedestrian lights in place
I think in Europe this is only common in Russia.
I don't think Europe in general has a habit of running 6 lane highways through neighborhoods, so, yeah, you won't see that.
The only time you would ever have 6 lanes where pedestrians are is if it's a stroad. Europe also tends to be better at recognizing stroads as the crime against humanity that they are. Well, actually they had less of a chance to build them, but still.
@@johnsmith34 In London we have a few urban 6 lane highways with a 40/50 mph limit, e.g. the A406. AFAIK there is no Zebra crossings (crosswalks), and mostly bridges and/or underpasses to cross. These days we'd typically have traffic calming for Zebra crossings, such as narrowing of the road to encourage drivers to slow down, and we have pretty good complance at people stopping.
Kind of sad that drivers could just brute force their way out of having to give way at pedestrian crossings. I wonder how many of these drivers also wouldn't stop at railway crossings. Probably zero because that would actually endanger themselves but it's essentially the same principle.
A lot of people drive through railroad crossings while the gates are still going down.
@@AlexandarHullRichter If I am doing a grocery delivery I totally would if it seemed safe otherwise I'd stop normally unless I was literally right at the tracks when it started flashing.
The problem aren't the signs & rules. The problem are the people blatantly ignoring them and not paying attention to someone in a crosswalk. It's an instant failure at a DMV test yet people seem to ignore the rule.
@@Midala87 " I totally would if it *seemed* safe". That is what everyone says 5 secondes before being destroyed in pieces by a train at a railroad crossings : "it seemed safe !". Come on man, please be smart. It flashes : you stop, no questions asked.
I'm not a big fan of cops sitting around all day giving speeding tickets but I whole heartedly agree with cops handing out tickets to drivers who don't stop at crosswalks. We need to train drivers to actually look for pedestrians because it really is a matter of life and death.
I think the "painted only" crosswalks only give pedestrians a false sense of security and safety
Paint is not infistructure. its window dressing.
It makes it easier to tell the morgue where to pick up the body: "Yeah, it's about 20 feet south of the crosswalk."
Yep. Same goes for painted bike lanes and cyclists. More effective to have nothing as at least then people are more cautious.
It is working in Europe.
For two reasons:
- The pedestrian has the priority, and car drivers are more careful at zebra crossings, because the car driver will be liable for any incidents/accidents. (Also in Germany and The Netherlands there are crossings where a pedestrian can cross, but without any priority. (It is marked very differently.))
- It is rarely used in wide multi-lane roads. It does work best with a two lane street, but does not work any street with more than four lanes...
@@zsoltturi6989 There's always room for irrelevant comments.
this video shows the lengths Americans will go to 'keep traffic flowing" and disregarding all other modes of transport
As much as I'm a pedestrian friendly person, you do have to consider how many emergency responses are on foot? how many store deliveries are on foot? etc.
If signalled crossings cause congestion, it will impact these services. Road traffic is incredibly important today, and disregarding it will make everyone's life worse off.
@@i3d3 You don't think there are ambulances and delivery vans in places with far better pedestrian infrastructure?
@@magnushmann also Emergency services can drive through red lights
@@i3d3 that's the thing, by prioritizing road traffic and (unintentionally) making it harder for pedestrians then if you want to go to the store near your house you HAVE to drive there or you risk your life trying to cross the road @1:20 even at a marked crossing.
@@i3d3 If there is congestion, the cars MUST make room for emergency responders. It's not that hard dude...
The wig-wag red in all other cases means “stop” urgently. Eg: railroad crossing, school bus, drawbridge. This one use case is an exception to that rule. A flashing single red light would mean a stop sign that drivers could pass through and would be much more appropriate.
It's fine. People see that it goes from solid double red to flashing and can tell what's up. In theory it could be confusing, but even so, it's confusing you to stop, not confusing you to go when you shouldn't, so it's still fine.
Why isn't stopping for pedestrians as important or urgent as those other examples you mention? A train might kill a vehicle occupant, but it's not like it's worse when somebody dies in a collision just because they were in a car.
This comment has merit. It might work for the HAWK, but drivers used to alternating reds meaning "proceed with caution" might not stop when they see the same alternating reds outside a tunnel. Studies, and incident investigations of tunnel fires in Norway, showed that a lot of drives ignore alternating reds. This has left them trapped next to a burning truck when they should have been safe outside. Maybe the solution is to stop using alternating reds, but introdusing further confusion carries a high risk.
@@DanCojocaru2000 It makes people think that alternately flashing reds means "like green but with a bit of caution" since worst case you dent your car on a pedestrian. Then they'll also start doing that for railroad crossings where it can do real damage to their car and its occupants.
@@Vugoseq Frankly, if they do that, I'd call it natural selection.
This channel is a perfect example of quality over quantity. I wish I could bing his stuff, hopefully in a decade I can go back and enjoy a day of this keep up the great work on the education and journalism. You are an asset to us :)
The HAWK system is a good way to make pedestrian crossings safer, however the main problem are the wide and straight stroads that separate neighborhoods.
@TransitNerd They can still have their cul-de-sacs if they want. But you still get rid of the stroads. The end result is that people will then have to drive slower and share road space with the other cars. We can repurpose some of these lanes for public transit and bike lanes (what's known as a complete street). The entire idea would be to slow cars down, not run what is basically a highway through the middle of your neighourhood.
@TransitNerd You narrow the lands and put more obstacles in the clear zone.
Why not just install a proper traffic signal instead of a silly new traffic engineer invention that no one knows about?
I saw the same thing, stroads everywhere. The big problem is we've been designing our roadways incorrectly for decades now, and it's going to take a long time to undo that. AFAIK most cities still have strict residential/commercial separation and laws against multiple resident housing, which prohibits walkable neighborhoods. The crazy thing is walkability actually increase property values, think about the most popular places to go/live near; riverwalks, campus corners, old style Main Street USA type places, etc.
As a pedestrian, being made to wait 90 seconds to cross the road is the final middle finger from our road design. We should be doing everything possible to discourage driving, but instead we're doing the literal opposite
I agree 💯
Yes but don't you understand, the traffic must flow and you're just an obstacle. /s
I'm fine with waiting 90 seconds if that is where the inconvenience ends. Where I am in Vegas I have to walk nearly a half mile to a stop light, wait for it to cycle to give a walk, then wait for the 10 vehicles making a right turn that refuse to slow down to allow for the group of pedestrians in the crosswalk with the walk sign.
Then wall halfway back down the street to the destination.
At night it seems the signal will cycle quickly for all directions of vehicle traffic to get green time before activating for the pedestrian. The crosswalk button does work, otherwise there is no walk cycle during late night hours. You just have to wait two very quick cycles.
Every second a car is sat idling for a lollygagging "i have the right of way" pedestrian, another polar bear dies from global warming due to needless idling. Pedistrians are the squishy ones. They need to wait.
@@liveepically Ah yes, the one *not* driving is the source of pollution
One of the most advanced crosswalks in Australia 🇦🇺 is a traffic light 🚦crosswalk with motion sensors on either side detecting whether or not someone is actually waiting and if they actually cross when it turns green for them. They also put these motion sensors on the regular intersection crosswalks too to give elderly enough time to cross large intersections.
Those ones are in the UK too. In fact, they are becoming the norm. The older ones with the flashing amber lights are being phased out. Now the light just changes back to green when the sensors pick up that the crossing is clear.
there are a few of those in Victoria and they also detect big groups to extend green time aswell. Having used some myself, the wait times can be really short.
When traveling in Germany I think that I saw dual crosswalk buttons. One button for fast, one for slow crossers. Choose your own delay.
There's a handful of these types of crossings here in Tucson.
In Germany, people respect a crosswalk, that’s why we don’t need hawks. But as always, thank you for this interesting and nice video.
however, I don't think we have crosswalks that span 4 lanes (or more) of traffic.
If I'm not mistaken, one lane per direction is the max for unsignalized Crosswalks (Zebra-Crossings) here in Germany
I remember driving in Canada years ago and some kid just walked into the crosswalk without bothering to see if traffic was stopping. It shocked me and thankfully I was going slow enough to easily stop, but that was very very different than my experience as an American driver and pedestrian.
@@johnchedsey1306 that's because people there already expect cars to stop for pedestrians on non-intersection crosswalk
America: where "jaywalking" is illegal and people don't stop for pedestrians
It's incredible how in Spain cars will stop for you even if you're on the sidewalk NEAR a crosswalk, when I go there on vacation I feel sorry to inconvenience drivers that stops for me even if I do not have to cross. (Talking about Catalunya/Barcelona). I'm from Italy, and her's a bit different, 9/10 will not stop if you're not manifestedly waiting to cross, yet if you really act like it I would say 5/10 will stop. Yet I've managed to be almost run over by a car in the second lane while one in the first lane had stopped, like the aneddocte you mentioned (thought here it's pretty well taught in driving school that if a car is stopped by a crosswalk you have to slow down to check if they are letting pedestrians by). That one time I almost got run over I "managed" (not on purpose I swear) to crash the car's rear view mirror on my side with the bag I was carrying (coming back from groceries, had some heavy stuff inside). Since I was not injured the dude from the car payed me off for the groceries that got totaled by his mirror (well, overpaid like 6 times for the inconvenience) and said he was going 1 to pay more attention, 2 asked if I was not gonna report the accident so he could claim the insurance for vandalism on the mirror. Otherwise legally speaking it was gonna be blamed for the damage, thus even if I was safe and no charges would be on him he would see his insurance double the year ahead.
NY has a law that mandates all drivers stop for the entire duration a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, and waiting to cross counts as in the crosswalk. So whenever i am just talking with someone i make sure to take a few steps away from a crosswalk to not confuse drivers.
I really like the way these series of videos are centred in the pedestrian an how to make commuting by foot easier and more convinient. However, there is an issue on how cities are designed in the US, leaving no alternative rather than driving.
There's always an alternative. Walking is no problem most of the time. Crossing large roads has been a problem for a long time, and will always be controversial.
I love the idea. However, I would find the flashing red "wig wag" extremely confusing. I'd probably stay stopped.
I stayed stopped in Florida and the people behind me wanted to kill me. Everywhere else a wig wag means stop and stay stopped
@@constanttraveler doesn't everyone always want to kill you in Florida?
They are putting these in all over Phoenix, and that’s what many people do. And then once someone goes, other drivers just blow through them without stopping. There’s a sign on every one explaining what to do, but expecting drivers to read signs is clearly acting too much, especially considering how many Arizona drivers can’t speak English.
@@AlexandarHullRichter 😂😂
@@danieldaniels7571 The fact that there even needs to be a sign to explain what the signal is telling you means that the signal is trying to be too unnecessarily different. Ditch the stupid wig-wagging and make all the red lights flash together. Problem solved! What once looked similar to a railroad crossing is now point blank "PROCEED WHEN CLEAR". Just like a normal traffic light that is flashing red.
I'm from Europe and seeing these crosswalks is totally ridiculous for me. That's why I think it's so important to educate fellow Americans in how much improvement they still have to do. Thank you for your videos.
But in europe we do crosswalks with only paint yet ppl still stop... i'm afraid it is a mentallity issue and not that the drivers don't see the pedestrians but rather feel like they have the right of way....
Europe doesn't really have wide high speed roads with regular surface pedestrian access. It's pretty much a necessity in the US because of how many cities are laid out. The solution in the past was urban freeways, but they are understandably very unpopular. I think while it might seem silly to us, it makes a lot more sense for them.
@@Mira_linn Now you know how big absurd road shaped the America
@@Croz89 we do have large 6 lane roads with turning lanes. If one has a crosswalk, it's usually divided into 2 parts and there's a "safety island" in the middle, where pedestrians can wait to cross to the other side, if they haven't made it to the other side yet. These are almost always signaled crossings.
@@Croz89 either way, the pedestrians and cyclists are always in priority in Europe. This is because most people don't drive. This can be your child or grandma crossing that street so everyone respects pedestrians.
Most underrated TH-cam channel. This is better than 99% of shows on cable and TH-cam. Thanks for all of your hard work! Hit the Patreon, people!!
One of these HAWK beacons was just installed in my area. As a driver, I really appreciate it as it does a good job getting my attention when I can't see the pedestrian who is trying to cross in front of me because I'm in the inside lane.
THIS is exactly why I felt way safer skating in the street in NC over using the sidewalk when on my electric skateboard. (Top speed 26mph so on average I was faster than a bicyclist). When you're in the street the cars are forced to see you and its much easier to say turn left over trying to cross the street from the sidewalk. Plus you're where people are already watching since there's typically a car there vs on the sidewalk where very few drivers ever check before turning even when there is a pedestrian crossing light there.
However, I'm now in Texas and the stupidly high speed limits everywhere and the horrible road conditions have made it more unsafe to be in the street. Even if there's a dedicated bike lane because it'll either be full of gravel and trash, or cars will drive in it all the time. However, there are crossings where I'll leave the sidewalk and use the street instead just due to how much safer it is to cross while in traffic where people are actively looking for cars.
As for a general tip if you're a pedestrian on foot: if you dress well and make yourself look important, than you're far more likely to have cars stop and let you cross. I've had cars stop for me while I was waiting to j walk all because I had a suit on. Meanwhile I've almost been hit countless times while trying to cross at cross walks in more casual clothing.
As for the flags: there are still people driving who still wouldn't notice them unfortunately. I've almost been hit at a signaled pedestrian crosswalk while carrying a large folding table that would have made me very visible. The driver was taking a left and then proceeded to beep at me as if I was in the wrong even with signs clearly stating that pedestrians have the right of way 🤦
Pedestrians have no business being mixed with cars just as cars have no business being mixed with trains. Similarly, bicycles have no business being mixed with cars, either.
@@jovetj no lol
@@jovetj by that logic you're right! Cars belong on the highway and city streets are meant for people, bicycles and scooters
@@runswithraptors That's not the logic I used at all.
Can't believe you came to Tucson for this! I'm an urban planning student from Tucson currently studying in Amsterdam (where pedestrian infrastructure is much better) so it's a very relavent video for me from one of my favorite channels
they need to make some canals in Tucson. 😃
Hurray! Dutch knowledge flowing to Tucson.
I just realized an earlier comment suggesting this was at the end of the video, no wonder it was so perfect for me! Thanks road guy rob!
go a watch a not just bikes video and you will se why u like amerterdam
The video just completely missed that Pelican crossings are being PHASED OUT in the UK due to several reasons:
1. “flashing” signals are ambiguous
2. Pedestrians do not wait
3. Traffic is stopped when no one crossing
4. Slow moving or late entry pedestrians still on crossing when red man shows and signals to traffic are green
5. Pedestrians are looking across at green/red man aspect and not at the traffic
They are being REPLACED by Puffin crossings which have the following improvements:
Pedestrian wait area detector. Usually infra-red but can be computer vision. Used to check that pedestrians are still waiting after button has been pressed.
Pedestrian crossing zone detector. Usually microwave radar. Used to extend green to pedestrians if they are still crossing (up to maximum)
Pedestrian signal is near to pedestrians and positioned so that they are also looking at the approaching traffic.
No “flashing” signal aspects so who has priority is always clear.
With the smaller roads, in the UK there doesn't tend to be crossing 4+ lanes on one pedestrian crossing and so it is less time to wait until the pedestrian is off the crosswalk anyway. So the flashing is less relevant in the first place. I think I prefer the US method of quicker activation for the pedestrians though I do understand the UK hesitance of this when kids would trigger them then run off, the sensors of puffin cossings add a lot to more to go wrong and maintain. But overall I think it is interesting how the UK was 20-25 years ahead of the US on this.
Sounds like those pelican crossings don’t have the “hot” button Rob was talking about. Meaning that the signal should change right when you push the button or very soon after. That would solve #2 & #3.
Are all the newer crossings named after birds?
@@drivers99 Problem is then kids keep hitting the button, running off and laughing as the traffic has to stop.
@@AlexandarHullRichter lol I was wondering that too. Why “pelican?”
Surprised you didn't talk about diluting the railroad crossing wig wag. It's not surprising the hawk works, it just goes counter to normal mutcd practice of being unambiguous. It's like creating an octagonal yield sign.
MTUCD now has quite a few contradictions, I feel "back in the day" engineers worked hard to make sure there were no contradictions or 2 rules for the same signal/sign/pattern/situation.
Another one in ramp meters, If a traffic light is out treat it as a stop sign, oh but except these. There should not be exceptions, Georgia DOT goes one step further to confuse the issue, they have been adding the yellow reflectivity around all traffic light to make them easier to see when dark, so you can stop at them, they are also adding the reflectivity to Ramp Meters.... which if dark shouldn't bee seen or acted upon so why add the border.
The average driver is dumb, and half are dumber than that, you should not make them have to make a split second decision of which rule a signal means in one particular situation.
The real solution is to get rid of 7-lane boulevard. My university (University of Tennessee) removed roads with more than four lanes and raised most of the intersections within campus to pedestrian level and created raised crosswalks. This greatly improved the walkability and, what’s more, traffic has gotten so much better.
okay, but given how a lot of state DOT's are, it'd be quite hard to convince them. so sure, i think maybe some action then is warranted, protests, whatever, but it'll be quite the fight and probably require some organization
Omg, American stroads is truly hellish.
How tf are wheelchair users supposed to cross a 4 lane road. It doesn't even have a traffic island in the middle.
The city planner and traffic engineer should be sued
They don't care about disabled people.
But they can wave a yellow flag as they get hit by cars! What an abominably absurd “solution”.
@@andrewjohnston6631 welcome to America
I’m so glad I live in France where most road don’t look as crazy as yours does.
OMG!!! Rob came to my town of Tucson to explain how messed up our traffic is! I never saw a HAWK til moving to Tucson 6 years ago, and I used to live in Phoenix. They do work very well in Tucson, especially over at the university with the college students. And yes, Speedway and Broadway are amongst the WORST roads to put a crosswalk on expecting cars to yield to pedestrians for. Glad to hear Tucson is putting more of these in and looking forward to other cities following suit.
P.S. if you’re wondering why Tucson lacks freeways, you can thank the senior citizens and hippies in Tucson for shooting down a handful of voter propositions back in the 70s and 80s to fund freeway construction in the city.
Fun fact: In Wisconsin, any intersection is a crosswalk that drivers have to yield to pedestrians for. If it has a sign or painted lines, it is considered a marked crosswalk. If it doesn't have a sign, it is considered an unmarked crosswalk.
This is because, in Wisconsin, crosswalks aren't meant to keep you safe. They are there to hold drivers liable if they hit a pedestrian.
Interesting, in NY driver's are legally required to stop if a pedestrian is in any part of the crosswalk, which includes waiting on the sidewalk. From my anecdotal experience we have decent compliance with that law, or atleast with being let into the crosswalk. (Obviously a signalized crosswalk is controlled by signals instead of this law)
I'm honestly surprised at how a 6ft tall man in an orange high vis vest had such a hard time crossing a road in a crosswalk.
@@jasonreed7522 I'm not a lawyer, but a quick read of the laws in New York indicate that your information is not quite correct.
Yes, drivers are required to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk, but the definition of crosswalk in NY seems to match that in WI; a marked crosswalk is the painted section of the road, while an unmarked crosswalk is the part of the road between curbs at any intersection.
Based on these definitions, a pedestrian standing on the sidewalk is not considered to be in the crosswalk. The sidewalk isn't painted, and it is not between curbs. It makes sense to not include the sidewalk because otherwise a pedestrian could stand at the corner and force all traffic to have to stop. If the pedestrian never crosses the street, the traffic would be stuck waiting for them.
@@joeo3377 my cousin failed a roadtest for not stopping for someone obvious waiting to cross a painted crosswalk
@@jasonreed7522 Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. My reading of the law indicates that your cousin shouldn't have failed their road test, if that was the reason why they failed (although, I also doubt that's the case because usually a single infraction is not enough to make you fail your road test, but I don't know the context and I'm getting the story second-hand). I could be wrong, but also the person administering the test could have been wrong. It's easy for misinformation to spread and for people, even test administrators, to think they know the law when they don't.
I invite you to read up on the NY law yourself, to see if you agree with how I interpret the law.
Here's the crosswalk definition: www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/110
And here's the right-of-way rules:
law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/article-27/
I know that, personally, if I am waiting to cross, I don't want to play a guessing game with a death machine. I prefer to wait until the car has passed and nobody is coming. Right of way doesn't keep me from dying. If the NY law really truly extends to people standing on the corner, then I encourage you to contact your state representatives because such a system is rife for abuse.
@@joeo3377 unfortunately that website doesn't play nicely with mobile (the text goes off the screen and in desktop mode under ads).
However from what i can tell standing on the plate on the sloped part of the sidewalk doesn't count as in the crosswalk. (Maybe the law changed, maybe it never was)
As far as right of way goes, may parents have a saying "You can be right, or you can be dead right." Which sums up the sentiment of make sure a car will stop or no cars are comming before walking out into a crosswalk, but generally speaking most cars will stop to let you cross if its reasonable for them to do so at an uncontrolled crosswalk.
I would have to do a deep dive or ask a NY lawyer to be sure of the exact state of our crosswalk laws. (Which generally favor pedestrians acting without a death wish, one of the rules is pedestrians can't walk out in front of a car that isn't reasonably capable of yielding to them which is common sense.)
I have always wondered why an intersection of pedestrians and vehicles is different from an intersection of just vehicles. Why does a pedestrian crossing need to look any different from the signals we use for vehicles? Why can't it just be a register traffic light? We use things like induction and cameras to tell when a car is at a red light and needs to cross the intersection. Why is that different from a pedestrian pushing a button? It's always bugged me that they are different things. They shouldn't be. The hawk is a step toward that. But I don't understand why it needs to be side by side reds with a yellow under it. Why can't it just be a normal red, yellow, green? It can always be green and then when a pedestrian pushes the button it turns yellow for a bit, and then red the same way a normal light does when a car stops on an indication wire at a red light. It would remove _all_ confusion for drivers and is safe for pedestrians. I just don't understand why they are separate things. It's still an intersection whether it's people v cars, people v people, or cars v cars, or all of those.
One might argue that my solution doesn't solve the problem of cars being stopped too long. Okay, then instead of a "stop on red" sign, make it say "proceed with caution on flashing yellow". The pedestrian pushes the button. The light cycles from green to yellow to red. It counts x number of seconds and then goes to yellow flashing for x number of seconds. And then back to green.
@@xliquidflames I like your idea but I think it should go from solid red to flashing red.
@@constanttraveler at a regular traffic light, flashing red means stop, then proceed when clear. If you're switching from a solid red to a flashing red, it will make everyone stop when reaching the crosswalk, even if it's clear.
@@AlexandarHullRichter How about a flashing yellow instead of the wig wag red then?
@@odess4sd4d that is what the original commenter suggested.
They should make pedestrian islands. A road should have an island between each lane at the crosswalk. That should slow down drivers and improve safety and pedestrian experience.
Also, speed breakers are a nice idea for cars to slow down.
nope, right of ways for pedestrians at such crossigns must be absolute, and mechanisms need to exist to enforce that at the cost of extreme damage to vehicle, perhaps even serious injury to driver and passengers, should that right of way be violated.
I'd much rather a negligent party end up with serious injuries than for pedestrians to even have to endure a scratch from these bad drivers.
This is why nearly every crosswalk in New York City (especially all of those downtown and on major roads/boulevards with medians) have full traffic/pedestrian lights.
I live in tucson, my school has one of these beacons to go across the road. Drivers stop and use it correctly with no confusion. They should add more.
Your channel makes me consider switching my major to engineering even though I'm bad at math. Thank you for covering Arizona so much, too. You've been able to answer so many questions I've had about roads in my state!
You're not bad at math. You just haven't learned how to be good at it yet. 😉
Don't be scared of math. I didn't attempt Calc 2 until I was age 30. (I got a C-, which was good enough)
Interesting that a red wig wag is used instead of a flashing amber. I would assume, based on prior usage in places like railway crossings and swing bridges, that a red wig wag would mean "stop or you'll die". I guess as in the UK flashing amber already meant "give way to pedestrians" on zebra crossings, and isn't used anywhere else, it made sense here for pelican crossings.
Interestingly flashing amber phases seem to be less common nowadays than they used to be. I suspect it might be due to new sensor technology that turns the light green once it detects the road is clear of pedestrians.
you are right! a few years ago, one of these was installed in front of a local hospital. Usually, there’s only one or two occasional pedestrians and I always wondered why the vehicles would wait long after the pedestrians crossed for the red wig wag to completely stop before moving on.
Your comment made me think that a red wig wag was the wrong choice. Maybe a single flashing red would have been more appropriate.
They did post an instructional sign to help drivers understand that once the pedestrians have crossed you can move on, but I may be the only one who read it.
I think that this HAWK is an ideal solution, but I would be confused about the wig-wag red phase. To me, that seems more insistent even than solid red. I think a flashing single red phase would better convey the impression to Americans that you must stop and then may go if the way is clear.
The wigwag phase is my only complaint about these, since in every other use case, it means Stop and Stay. Though going from solid red (also Stop and Stay) to wigwag does imply a change in state, but I would argue that the reds flashing together (Stop, proceed if safe) would be a better choice. That said, there is a sign at all installations in MN stating that the wigwag is a permissive stop, but still, why use a phase that requires a sign to explain it?
a fair point: all other uses of alternating red are "do not proceed under any circumstances" it really would be more consistent for the hawks to be reprogrammed to flash alternating red for the stop and then a non alternating yellow flash to proceed if clear. so the phases would be: full dark when inactive. solid yellow for prepare to stop. alternating flash for about 5 seconds for you must stop. solid red for another 5 to give more cushion for stragglers to see to stop. then flashing yellow to let cars proceed if it is clear.
Just curious, where are alternating red lights that mean "stop and stay?" The only other example I can think of is a railroad crossing, and they do NOT mean "stop and stay" (at least by the statutes in my state, but I can only assume this railroad crossing requirement is consistent nationwide). Our statute only requires a prolonged stop if the train is so close that there is a hazard of collision - otherwise, cars may proceed if the red lights are still alternating but the train is far enough away or has passed. (I know there'll be comments if I don't mention... cars ARE required to "stop and stay" if crossing gates exist and are down.)
ADDENDUM: I just scanned the US national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the only other signal that uses alternating red lights is the "Emergency Vehicle Hybrid Beacon" which includes a light beacon exactly the same as the HAWK. Section 4G.04(6) of the Manual reads, "The alternating flashing red signal indications shall only be displayed when it is required that drivers on the major street stop and then proceed subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign." So, it is to be treated like a Stop sign - stop, but proceed when clear, even if the signal to stop still is displayed.
OK, I just thought of an example of alternating red lights that DO require MOST, not all, drivers to stop until extinguished - school bus warning light systems. These are a little different, as these aren't stationary signals on the roadway. There are specific rules to this lighting system (at least in my state), and not all drivers need to stop - like drivers in the opposite direction must stop, but not if there is a median dividing the two sides of the roadway - so I would say this lighting system is a separate entity in-and-of itself, which is why there's a separate state statute in my state addressing the intricacies of the rules of this lighting system. And I would guess that, since these lights are on vehicles, they decided to have them alternately flash to distinguish them from regular hazard lights on vehicles (that can be either amber or red) that flash simultaneously, not to assimilate them to warning beacons that alternately flash and the rules that come with them. Just a note: school bus lights are not governed by the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is why associated rules are not on the same page (literally or figuratively) with rules for other alternating red light traffic systems, but all traffic control devices in the Manual with alternating red lights are to be treated like Stop signs (stop, then proceed if clear, even if lights are flashing)... nationally... so there seems to be a consistent pattern with them (literally and figuratively 😉😛 ) ... and no one can say that "all other alternating red light systems mean 'stop and stay.'" ijs
My problem hasn't been wide roads, but left turns. Over 40 years ago. I would often almost get hit by cars coming from behind me and making a left hand turn. Because of this I try to avoid crossing at intersections, in favor of crossing in the middle of the block, where I only have to look left and right, and don't have to look behind me for cars turning left.
Several years ago I broke this rule, and waited at the intersection. Before I started across the road, I looked left, and saw there wee no cars waiting to turn left, so I started across the road. I got half way across the lane on the far side of the road, and got struck from behind by a car making a left hand turn.
In my opinion, cars making left hand turns should have a red light while the walk signal is on.
The amount of people that go through the red lights is crazy! In South Australia, I rarely see people going through a red. If they do it is because they don’t realise.
I’ve Nearly been hit multiple times at that crossing at 4:45. Worst crossing in Redlands.
This video is perhaps the most informative in the Las Vegas Area.
Nearly all areas were built in the last several decades where it is unfriendly to pedestrians. Not to mention a high chunk of the people especially Blacks who were gentrified from inner cities of CA who do not drive. In fact many areas according to the John Birch Society were built to prevent Blacks from moving in.
@Road Guy Rob this is hands down the best video you have ever produced. Thank you. As a traffic engineer, there's a few, small caveats that I'd like to suggest. You hit the nail on the head about pedestrian safety versus car convenience, however my agency is completely focused on pedestrian safety over car convenience. To that end, the MUTCD is not necessarily the end all, be all. The MUTCD does not always fit well in more urban environments and there's a lot of engineers who have decided to disregard it to engineering judgment for vulnerable road user safety. Also, The PHB has a lower speed limit of 35 mph. On roads 35 MPH or below, other solutions such as an RRFB or raised crosswalk is more appropriate. However, all of the examples you show are fantastic examples of PHBs as a decent solution if reducing lane number and width are not open for discussion. Again, thank you for such a great video. Really well done.
As a pedestrian I have found that HAWKs are significantly worse than a standard pedestrian activated traffic light. There's one street I cross regularly that has one that has 4 lanes of traffic. What will happen is while I'm waiting for the HAWK to kick on is one driver will stop because they see me waiting on the side. At that point I can either a. wait for the walk sign and that one driver who stopped will get pissed at me for not crossing or b. start to cross and hope the other 3 lanes of traffic stop for me.
I also find that most drivers ignore the flashing red phase of the HAWK
anywhere that has a pedestrian crossing should not have a speed limit over 50km/h , thats just stupid and dangerous
You mean 30km/h, right? 50 is still reckless
@@sblack53 yes 30 is preferable but 50 as a limit. 50 can still be fine in places with only sparse pedestrians with only one lane in each direction and a center island and good visibility :D
American roads don’t have km/h, we use freedom units.
@@danieldaniels7571 oh how independent of you using the units of your former colony rulers :D
@@sblack53 30 km/h is ridiculously slow. school zones allow people to drive faster than 30 km/h.
My one criticism of these signals is the flashing red, which looks too much like a railroad crossing signal and would tell drivers to “stop” rather than “stop and check.”
This makes me feel so bad for North Americans. The absolute state of your infrastructure, holy moley.
Another excellent video. There was an attempt to install a mid block crosswalk in downtown salt lake, but the city said the data didn't indicate any auto pedestrian "accidents". It's ridiculous that the threshold for installing a crosswalk includes human lives. The city planners sat on the street and counted the number of jay walkers and with enough push, the city finally built the cross walk.
Honestly, walking is a fundamental human activity. Walking and bicycling should have priority over vehicles. That would help us build human scale development instead of the deserts of asphalt we currently have.
5:03 "Don't Mess with Texas" I got a good lol out of that.
The problem with hawk signals is that they are based in the idea that pedestrians are hit because they are not visible enough, but that's untrue. Car hit people because drivers aren't paying attention, and cars are going too fast. If you really want to make pedestrians safer you need to force drivers to slow down and pay attntion. This means narrowing lanes near crossings, raised crosswalks etc.
It feels like in USA you are like 50 years behind Europe in basic pedestrian infrastructure. There is a lot of work to be done!!
We're 50 years behind Europe in a lot of things
It's city design, and reflection of when many US cities really became established. European and East Coast US cities were mostly built pre-car, so the city was built more around pedestrians, because people lived walking distance from work. Other US cities, particularly in the sun belt which was mostly too hot to attract people before air conditioning, were built firmly into the car age.
Really you can build as much pedestrian infrastructure as you like, but the layout of the city is going to mean it won't be used nearly as much as it would in London or New York.
@@Croz89 That's simply not true. With the notable exception of Tucson and Las Vegas, most cities in the frontier had well established themselves by the time 1950 came around (which is when car ownership seriously took off); having populations ranging from the low hundreds of thousands into the millions.
Unless all those freeways, 6 lane roads and carparks were built by the indians, it's safe to say that these places were just demolished for the car.
@@flopsinator5817 Compared to what they were back then, those cities were tiny, some were barely more than frontier outposts. Almost all of their growth came during the car age.
@@Croz89 Los Angeles had a pop. of nearly 2 million in 1950, Phoenix 100.000, Albuquerque 100.000, Houston 600.000, San Fransisco 750.000, Fresno 100.000, Dallas 400.000, Denver 400.000, you get the point...
What do all of these cities have in common today? They have multiple freeways and highways running through their core.
14:11 is exactly why this is a bad design. This trains people to ignore lights that are out and just blast right through them.
Incidentally I think the flags are a great idea, but let's make it so that every car has to be preceded by a safety officer on foot that's holding it.
Agree, we should also make drivers press a button at each intersection to activate the traffic lights
Yes and when the driver presses the button, he should be made to wait for 90 seconds, so that people can cross the street. Those people on foot have places to be you know!
@@misha.michael hey it might have escaped your notice but roads are for cars
@@leprechaunbutreallyjustamidget if you haven't noticed this was a joke, i was trying to convey the point that US transportation planners are willing to do almost anything to inconvenience pedestrians in the name of safety, while ignoring simple solutions that slightly delay drivers.
@@leprechaunbutreallyjustamidget but cities and countries are for people.
And guess where roads are located?
We've got a similar crosswalk here in Lexington, KY. It's 4 lanes and I've stated for years that they need a crossing bridge or the like there because I've more than once watched cars in 3 of the lanes stop and a car in the 4th lane just blast right past them. I'm warned them that at some point there will be a fatality if something isn't done soon but of course nobody wants to listen until after the fact.
Why not have a green light on the Hawk instead of training drivers to not stop when traffic lights are out? Decades ago we treated out lights as stop signs. In recent years (New England here) I've seen fewer folks do that, main road just keeps going like it's green, side streets nose out gradually until far enough out the more timid main road driver slows to allow them in. (It might be due to yield/stop laws for pedestrians in crosswalks regardless of signal, but here signal rules legally where there is a signal, if pedestrian enters without, it's jaywalking.)
i guess they're treating these HAWK signals the same as beacon lights, like a school zone area, no one stops and treats a school zone during after hours like a stop sign, plus these signals don't look like a regular 3 stacked signal.
the really stupid part is the wig wag red, i experienced one of these about a month ago, and i remained stopped while it was zig zagging, i thought it meant, EXTRA stop while the light is red incase more traffic is coming and don't see the solid red, to get your attention more, rail roads have this same setup, and you're not allowed to cross the rail road tracks till the wig wag red flashing lights are completely out, why is this different? it's stupid.
they should honestly have both reds blinking at the same time, i know what that means at an intersection after a strong storm hits and takes the lights out, either that or have the flashing yellow after it was solid red for 10 seconds or so, to let drivers know it's good to proceed once a pedestrian or multiple pedestrians have crossed, and after 30 seconds or so the yellow can go away.
@@Omar-em7rl That's a good take, I do get the alternating reds, because without a green they show it's not off/out like a blinking red is at times for a glancing driver, there's always a red apparent. Without having seen this video, I'd react like you, alternating flashing seems a stronger signal to stop to me akin to RR. I agree that there isn't an obvious meaning to that, and feel going to yellow would be more appropriate when it's OK to move although it's not customary to go to yellow after red, I believe there is another use case I can't recall that does so. My SO just came up with the idea of alternating red/yellow instead of red/red. This also eliminates a lightbulb assembly. Since yellow is more a yield type situation, and blinking red a stop sign where you can proceed after stop, alternating red/yellow would clearly be something most drivers haven't seen, but a different condition than solid red, and not the alternating RR big hazard stop situation.
@@RJFerret you know, i didn't think about that, Americans haven't seen a signal go from Red to Yellow in 90 years, the last of those signals were the W.S. Darley 3 light signals that were discontinued in 1928 due to green being ontop of the other way for traffic, while the other flow of traffic had red ontop.
that's probably why the yellow method idea i mentioned wasn't approved and they went this way instead.
the yellow red alternating flashing you mentioned, i think we're just overthinking it at this point, they use 3 signal heads, so the cost of a regular traffic light is there anyways, they should have just done a regular traffic light instead of doing this confusing stuff, but it's too late now, they should honestly just reprogram the lights and have both reds flash at the same time, so the signal is treated as a stop sign.
Love your videos and I'm not an engineer or a guy who cares about traffic stuff. I just like how you highlight something that impacts us all yet is rarely pondered. Plus your personality is awesome and your method of delivery is superb so thanks for being who you are and doing what you do!
I live in Tucson, and I love these things. I watched them when they were introduced through the present. Compliance is high.
The one issue I see with them is that when it transitions to wig-wags not everyone knows what to do and a meaningful portion of cars don't proceed under the wig-wags even when clear. But that's a small gripe. Mostly it just works.
I see the same issue with them in Phoenix. I guess it’s too much effort to read the sign on them that says what to do. The other more alarming issue I’m seeing with the flashing red is that since drivers see other drivers proceeding through them, they don’t stop or even slow down for them.
As a German it's just hilarious to see the us struggling with something this simple. SLOW THE TRAFFIC! One of the most important things to do! It's the design of the street, not thousand blinking lights and signs.
Here are some tips:
Don't have such width roads. Make it narrower, so people don't drive over the speed limit or generally slower.
Make the crosswalk be raised tho the height of the sidewalk to slow drivers down and make them go over the sidewalk, not the people over the street.
Have a lightend sign on top of the crosswalk crosswalk
Rob!! Thank you so much for taking my video idea! I can’t begin to stress how underrated your content is, though I feel greater success is a matter of time.
HAWK stands for High-intensity Activated... crossWalK. It’s not really an acronym, heh. PHB makes sense though. 🙂
I’m pleasantly surprised compliance is that high - surprising you got two red-light runners if that's the case! I think a lot of the confusion stems from “doesn’t flashing red mean stop for danger like a RR crossing?” But at least that’s still a driver complying, and they’ll hopefully learn quickly. MUTCD, I believe, also permits a sign that adds “PROCEED ON FLASHING RED WHEN CLEAR” for added clarity.
They put one on 27th Avenue just North of Bethany Home Road in Phoenix. For that one the acronym is Hookers Are Walking Karefully
UK has a pelican, US has to have a hawk. I suspect it's something of a backronym.
In South Australia, literally every road that isn’t a side street has many pedestrian traffic light crossings along it. They usually have like 5 lights for each direction!
This reminds me of how my city had to install traffic lights at LRT crossings... because drivers ignore the flashing red railroad warning lights too.
Wow… this is great. I’ve been a pedestrian now for four months in Phoenix and vlogging about it on my channel. Lately I’ve been focusing on crosswalks. Particularly on how many drivers don’t know what to do at these HAWK lights, and also what Arizona calls an “unmarked crosswalk.” Just as you mentioned that there is an amount of pedestrian traffic required for a signal, ADOT requires a certain amount of pedestrian traffic to mark a crosswalk. Drivers in general don’t even know unmarked crosswalks are a thing, and assume those using them are jaywalking.
please watch the Not just Bikes how do the dutch cross the street and traffic light videos
@@burgerpommes2001 been subscribed to that channel for quite a while now. I loved his video about Houston.
Why do you find excuses for these horrible stroads in the comment section?
Happy New Year to all the infrastructure homies.
Enforcement seems like another component to me. I grew up in Vermont where yielding to pedestrians at a crosswalk is required by law, and cops will actually pull you over for not doing it. I never had difficulty crossing at a crosswalk until I moved out of the state.
In greater Vancouver, British Columbia, mid-block pedestrian crossings often make use of a standard, three-aspect traffic signal which continuously flashes green when not in use. When a pedestrian pushes the crossing button, the signal first goes to solid green (the first indication to drivers that someone wishes to cross) and then to yellow and red. After a set amount of time, the signal returns to flashing green. This seems to me to accomplish the same objective as the HAWK beacon and is easier to understand.
These style HAWK crossings have been going in all over Phoenix and many drivers clearly don’t understand them. In my Vlogs on my channel I have video of drivers staying stopped at the flashing red and others flying through, ignoring it completely. What you described sounds better.
@@danieldaniels7571 Most of these are not stroads, they're thoroughfare roads that allow pedestrians. The only way to make them less stroad is to ban pedestrians and cyclists.
the biggest issue the hawk is trying to accommodate is that pedestrians don't need the crosswalk for a consistent length of time. you may have missed that many cities try to synchronize the lights on long through roads so cars obeying the speed limit will hit every light at the same phase - I.E. green. adding a pedestrian light forces them to either have the cars hitting lights that are red at the wrong time, or requiring pedestrians to wait for their allotted point in the synchronization. the crossing specific design allows them to protect a crosswalk for he time they calculate is needed for the slowest pedestrian, while allowing cars to proceed if the pedestrian is faster. keep in mind that the time allowed by a multiphase traffic light is usually shorter if there are no pedestrians wanting to cross than it is if there are pedestrians waiting to cross.
There's almost the same here in japan, the problem is even after people have crossed cars still has to wait til it's green.
The pedestrian stop light also is connected to the traffic grid so it won't go red in a bad timing. Not all but most I;ve used
the computer bit made me lol, great video!
16:10 "It's hard to justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river."
You should make a video on Michigan Lefts / New Jersey Lefts and call it "Turn RIGHT to go LEFT??" with Lightning McQueen in the thumbnail or something silly. A very unique intersection that most people outside of those states have likely never seen and could make an interesting video topic
Always stoked when a Road Guy Rob video comes out! You do great work!
I saw one of these pop up in Casa Grande, AZ a couple months ago driving through. They're easy for drivers to understand, easy for peds to understand, and they shine so much on the massive stretches that connect the I-10 to the city making the once impossible to walk city so much safer
I don't know why transport departments punish pedestrians by removing crosswalks when an accident occurs. What we SHOULD do is install those pop up spikes on the road so drivers are incentivized to pay attention or else get their tires popped.
That would be AWESOME
When I lived in Des Moines, I had one of these on my block - I loved using them and it definitely made crossing the street feel more safe and convenient. I wish we had these in NYC!
As someone living in the Netherlands: WTF!?
Yeah... That is basically all I can say about it. This is just a very strange solution. Why alternating red lights? In every part of the world, alternating red lights mean: you REALLY need to stop here or you will die. Even in the US this is a thing.
Watching this video, it feels like pedestrians are seen as a problem. Pedestrians are also people that want to go somewhere. Why is it so hard to respect that?
jaywalking is really common in towns, cities most people prefer the shortest route but people do tend to use the intersection, it just depends on where
As mentioned in the video, americans dont pay attention to flashing yellow lights
As soon as the car was invented, American city planners forgot that legs exist. It's how our lovely Tucson ended up a waffle-iron cement nightmare of broken dreams and hell-like blistering heat islands devoid of life.
Another outstanding video. As a former resident of Tucson it was great to see the city and the roads. The HAWK looks like a great system! One thing I hope you noticed about Tucson was the 'trailing' turn signals and I'd love to see a video on whether it's really safer (as I was told) or not. Thanks.
As someone who used to live in Tucson without a car, I wish he’d mentioned how dark the roads are at night and how few have sidewalks.
@@danieldaniels7571 That is a valid point, it is not a very pedestrian friendly city.
I never even knew what these were in my trucking days going through Tucson. I just thought they were weird looking stoplights for seemingly non-existent intersections. Great video as always Rob!
They basically are
If you were a trucker in the UK or EU it'd be your job to know about things like this As a professional driver, you'd need to be up to speed on changes like this. We go on courses known as Certificate of Professional competence (CPC). They are an ongoing process and have to be completed in 5-year cycles.
@@grahamlive I’ll admit I don’t know everything about the road and im always learning, but these pedestrian crossings in particular are still somewhat exclusive to Tucson, so I was unfamiliar with them at the time
@@Lkendrick they’re all over Phoenix
I was in Miami the other day where many areas are entirely stroads with few, if any, protected crosswalk opportunities. We tried to cross a 4 lane road with a button initiating the flashing yellow lights in a clearly marked crosswalk and *nobody* even slowed down. We were almost hit by a city bus!
Considering the low amount of freeways Tuscon has, it should really put into consideration how ineffective these "wide urban boulevards" are for cars. The city needs to focus on transit, then narrowing down the stroads so that cars go naturally slower, so it's safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
That's what I was thinking too. Why not turn the outer lane on every other boulevard into a bus lane and run high capacity buses every 3 mins in a straight line through the city
I lived in Tucson for years, and was a pedestrian for a year of that. No one will use transit that has access to a car, and damn near everyone drives. It also has, by US standards, pretty decent transit.
or, here's a crazy thought: build a way for people who just need to pass through a sizable chunk (or all) of tucson to drive on a road that has no interaction with local traffic and then prohibit any business from trying to connect to that road. - since stroads are created when businesses are allowed to build along a bypass route.
Fantastic video!! The production quality on your videos is so high, I almost can't believe this isn't a real TV show. Thank you so much for putting in all the effort to create such fantastic content!
Please tell me the part about the pedestrian flags was a joke. That's not real, right?
Totally real over here
very real. we have them around old town parts of Seattle
These are common in Phoenix, with accompanying signage explaining each phase. Driver compliance seems quite good, unlike previous arrangements. Definitely a highly effective innovation.
2:21 Grand Prix Circuit - easily the best F1 racing game of the late 1980s.
Btw, that people won't stop at a zebra crossing is insane. In Europe, failing to stop for a pedestrian would incur traffic points and a heavy fine. Then again, on a road as wide as this one and with a speed limit way above 50 km/h / 30mph, you'd probably not see a zebra crossing to begin with, but rather a traffic light, or some kind of pedestrian under/overpass.
In my area you're not even allowed traffic lights above 60 km/h! But America has unmarked crossings at 80+!
@@briannem.6787 yeah, that's another point.
I believe the limit for traffic lights in my country is 70 km/h.
In the UK, the crossings are known as Pelican (PEdestrian LIght CONtrolled) and the more modern Puffin (Pedestrian User-Friendly INtelligent) crossings. I see he was inspired to keep the bird theme going by naming his variant Hawk!
Happy New Year Rob! May your all your street crossings this year be safe ones :)
Honestly I hate these, recently my city put these up, but they placed them all super close together and like 100 feet away from stop lights, now it’s made a nice road into a city nightmare with traffic backing up and people panicking, and still most pedestrians still j-walk and don’t even use the dang things
Also, your videos are amazing Rob. The videography, production quality, expert analysis and subject matter. This should be required educational content for every driver 😊
Also for every traffic engineer, every mayor, and every city council member
@@danieldaniels7571 no absolutely not this is horrible backwards stuff that is shown here
all these solutions are still pedestrian killers
Thank you
I still cannot believe you don't have more subscribers.... This content is the stuff of gold that I soak in for hours when I find it
I'm sure Rob's well-presented videos are useful and informative to Americans but people watching from European countries are sitting back in awe at just how backward the American road system is.
Transportation is responsive to land use.
American land use (by law) is really spread out. Engineers get no say in this (city councils do). So we build a network to serve spread-out suburbs.
Tools like HAWK beacons are first steps toward fixing decades of neglect (back in the 1960s, pedestrians weren't considered at all).
This video was great! I'm a Civil Engineer in LA, tasked with implementing HAWK Beacons for out clients, an I found this video very informative and helpful. I am a lot more motivated for this project, thanks!
Not surprisingly, we have one in downtown Mesa. They're needed elsewhere in the city - the highest need being at the various canal path crossings, where a full stoplight exists instead of a HAWK.
As of Mesa is going to spend anything on pedestrian infrastructure. Keep dreaming.
In British Columbia, we just use a regular traffic signal that flashes green. It turns solid green when a pedestrian prompts a crossing and the signal phases to a red light.
Somet detail gets me every time. Today, it's the one-up/over-the-top decals on the desktop PC "baby." 😂
Im not even American and I haven’t really driven there yet. But i love your videos. It’s something of the style and specially the quality you invest in these videos that are so entertaining. I wish you succeed in your yt career so you still keep making this vids.
10/10 channel. Id say its even better than most real tv channels ive seen