This happens all the time in cities. The good cities take it as prompting to perform a traffic study and determine whether a crosswalk would be safe there, then implement one if possible. This happens in Seattle sometimes.
Families took safety into their own hands by painting yellow cross walks. Now, the city of Los Angeles is removing them.
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
Comments
Sneptaur@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
ch00f@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Drivers are required to stop for pedestrians when crossing the street at marked crosswalks and at intersections as well. That’s right it’s perfectly legal to cross the street at an intersection even without the aid of crosswalk striping on the pavement.
sdotblog.seattle.gov/2014/…/crosswalk-law-1-0/
Not like anybody stops for pedestrians, but they’re supposed to at least.
Sneptaur@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
komonews.com/…/crosswalk-capitol-hill-removed-una…
No I’m talking about things that happen in the city I live in
01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
the city is sending crews to remove them.
The city seems to be overreacting. It’s just a crosswalk, there’s no reason to remove the families who painted them. Sheesh
Witchfire@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Straight to El Salvador /s :(
Baguette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Oh hey I used to live near Sawtelle. Honestly the city department there is fucking terrible.
I parked there once using street parking when I was first looking for apartments and I got ticketed for being in a no parking zone when there wasn’t a sign or a red line saying no parking.
Went to the city’s office and despite photo evidence we still got denied an appeal.
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Huh. Sounds like an easy way for the city to generate revenue.
Gork@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
I think he might have had better success if he painted the crosswalks to the same specifications as the ones the city uses.
If it blends in with all the other crosswalks, nobody will likely notice, at least until it gets repaved and the lack of documentation would be written off as some sort of administrative error.
grue@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Anybody know where to source the correct type of road-marking paint?
Asking for a friend.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Does painting a crosswalk really increase safety? I feel like the type of person not pay attention and run someone over is the type of person to not care if there’s a crosswalk, not pay attention, and run someone over.
ozymandias117@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I don’t understand why you would expect it not to increase safety.
It gives a visual cue to drivers that it is more likely someone is intending to cross at this location.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Any time I see an intersection I assume there might be people. Downtown where I’m at there’s rarely crosswalks at intersections unless it’s a major through road.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yeah. Our brains are conditioned to assume people are more likely to be in a crosswalk. It’s also why I drive slowly past long rows of parked cars. I’ve been conditioned to assume a kid is going to jump out.
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Most folks are not conditioned to be thoughtful.
KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s probably incremental but, IMO, a crosswalk does imply a certain amount of pedestrian traffic that might encourage a smidge of extra attention and double checking from some drivers, vs a location that gives the appearance of having very infrequent pedestrian crossingsmay be far less frequent. That not to say that complacency is any kind of excuse. But it is how people are on average.
LilB0kChoy@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
On a large scale I have no idea but it does for me when I’m driving.
A crosswalk at an intersection, especially an unmetered one, serves as a warning that there’s enough regular pedestrian traffic or a risk that dictated it was needed.
Helps me, personally, to be extra aware for crossers.
Kissaki@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Checking Wikipedia; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_crossing#Safety
The safety of unsignalled pedestrian or zebra crossings is somewhat contested in traffic engineering circles.
Research undertaken in New Zealand showed that a zebra crossing without other safety features on average increases pedestrian crashes by 28% compared to a location without crossings. However, if combined with (placed on top of) a speed table, zebra crossings were found to reduce pedestrian crashes by 80%.
A five-year U.S. study of 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 unmarked comparison sites found that on most roads, the difference in safety performance of marked and unmarked crossings is not statistically significant, unless additional safety features are used. On multilane roads carrying over 12,000 vehicles per day, a marked crosswalk is likely to have worse safety performance than an otherwise similar unmarked location, unless safety features such as raised median refuges or pedestrian beacons are also installed. […] The marking pattern had no significant effect on safety. This study only included locations where vehicle traffic was not controlled by a signal or stop sign.
Traffic accidents are reduced when intersections are daylighted, i.e. visibility increased such as by removing adjacent parked cars.
fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Research undertaken in New Zealand showed that a zebra crossing without other safety features on average increases pedestrian crashes by 28% compared to a location without crossings.
See, that’s mostly what I was thinking. “Zebra stripes” make pedestrians feel safe to cross, and have virtually no impact on drivers who can easily just ignore them. But paired with other things they are a good addition, especially since it tells pedestrians where to cross.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’d like to see the methodology. A zebra crossing also increases foot traffic compared to a location without crossings.
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Isn’t the government “we the people”? So you know the government DID paint them. Fuck those guys, they just mad because the contractor that paid them off didn’t get their cut and now they are.
If the “government” can’t be bothered to do the job they were elected to do the people will have to step in.
Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
But the city said they never received a request for crosswalks in that area
Assuming this is truthful, at least submit the request first. Maybe save yourself a little work.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
And specifically in this case, Angelenos can download the MyLA 3-1-1 app to make requests easily. I do it all the time.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Hard to paint them over if the cars driving thru the area dont stop or swerve to avoid the crew in them.
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Oh no, people might think they are real and look out for pedestrians!
Naich@lemmings.world 2 weeks ago
Or pedestrians might think they are real and get run over because they aren’t up to proper spec for a crossing.
moody@lemmings.world 2 weeks ago
Besides being painted in reflective road paint, which these ones are, what else would cause a pedestrian to be run over?
As long as it looks like a crosswalk, and drivers can see it, I’m not sure what else you would need.
ameancow@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll go ahead and do the devil’s advocate thing because I get tired of this algorithmic bubble that feeds us sensational headlines that rile up our emotions. This is a scourge that needs to end.
As weird as all this seems, there is some level of planning and engineering that goes into designating crosswalks otherwise the city is liable for whatever accidents and mistakes drivers and pedestrians may make. Privately made crossings also need to be studied to ensure they’re not making more danger than less, because there’s a LOT to consider before you can just say “lets make THIS a crossing!” (Road speeds, turns, signals nearby, the locations of existing businesses or parking areas, etc.)
spankmonkey@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You are both technically correct and also describing a system where the average person can make a request and get the results of a study to find out whether a crosswalk can exist where people are already crossing the street. Many of thses kinds of requests are ‘lost’ or actively ignored because the city doesn’t have the budget to even look into the feasibility. That also results in statements about never receiving requests because people don’t know how to get them to the right place to count as a request.
In my experience cities aren’t liable for very much at all. Sure aren’t liable for potholes destroying tires, why would they be liable for crosswalk injuries?
Seaguy05@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll also add that Seattle had some renegade sidewalks put in by residents as well. The city replied with a statement about paint being the main reason. Anti slip, reflection, ADA requirements to get to the crosswalk, and bicycles/motorcycle considerations being the main reasons to remove them. Seattle did come back through and put in a crosswalk but it took resident action to get the city to do something about it.
Riding both motorcycles and bicycles I don’t want my tire washing out taking a turn or stopping only to find out the city never put that in.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Yes except this has happened several times where residents have made it exactly to specifications in areas where crossing is already fully legal.