Talk:HAWK beacon

Move proposal

Since the official term in the MUTCD is "hybrid pedestrain beacon," I suggest moving this page to that title, and HAWK beacon should redirect there.--Triskele Jim (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Or the reverse. The official terms actually vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. HAWK is universal. Jef (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation

For reasons that are not completely clear, someone previously asked for a citation to back up the claim that the pedestrian signal works the same on the HAWK beacon as it does on a conventional signal crossing. It does, and the information comes from the same source as the bulk of the information about the signal (Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009), but I've added an inline citation at that point, rather than simply removing the citation-needed tag. (I've also named the reference in case others ask for additional in-line citations that ultimately lead back to that same source.) Another user had (just today) deleted the sentence (which is the same one I am talking about above) that started with "As at conventional signalized crossings..." but I have restored that sentence as it is correct and was making a comparison to the identical operation of the walk/don't walk pedestrian signal, not calling the HAWK beacon a traffic light. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

At a signal, most traffic engineers set the walk interval to the minimum 4 or 7 seconds, then fill the rest of the time with a pedestrian change interval. They only use the pedestrian clearance time as a minimum. Can you supply a citation to the particular section of the MUTCD? I'm aware of 4E.06 paragraph 14, but that's a "Guidance" and is mostly ignored. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to railroad crossing

The article currently includes this note about railroad crossings: "Additionally, motorists sometimes remain stopped during the flashing red phase when the crosswalk is clear due to the similarity to a railroad crossing signal. (Which are also legal to cross after stop)" There's a footnote pointing to a newspaper article which requires registration to read. As far as I know, proceeding through an active railroad crossing signal is both illegal and extremely dangerous! Contradicting this should require more than just a newspaper article. Jef (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the cost of HAWK systems?

It is proving difficult to impossible to find out the cost for these systems, which leads me to believe the costs are high - otherwise the low cost would be touted... Are they as cost effective and as safe, as pedestrian bridges which can be relatively lightweight and low-cost since they do not have to be designed to carry heavy traffic, compared to vehicle bridges? 74.221.2.51 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)