11 ms·

How to Paint a Crosswalk

131 points by clairity 4y ago

onphonenow 4y ago
Interesting. Can folks killed by these efforts sue the Crosswalk Collective? I think if you are going to do things like this you probably should also take the liability costs as well.
- neves 4y ago
  How could someone be killed by extra crosswalks?
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Very easily. Crosswalks are designed to create reasonable expectations where peds can cross a roadway safely. They are designed to channelize ped crossings to specific areas which are safer to cross - so for example with good sightlines, with appropriate stop markers with good speeds (slower). Crosswalks are often combined with other traffic calming measures (stop signs, stop lines at the right distance, road narrowing features, tree clearing etc). For example, they are recommending adding these at "dangerous" intersections. So for example, a crossing that occurs just after a bend (we have one near my house). This is pretty horrifying, because by encouraging peds to cross where there is a bend blocking sightlines, those peds are at MUCH greater risk of injury or death. Similarly, speeds over 40mph, you wouldn't generally do a a painted x-walk. Similarly multilane without appropriate controls. For example, they have a crosswalk painted 6 inches from a stop line. In a road with 2 lanes of traffic, you can't have have stopline that close or no stopline, because the car in lane 2 or 1 does not have enough of a sightline to see that a pedestrian is crossing and so the risks go way up if you attract pedestrians to cross in that situation (a car will generally be shielding the view when they stop that close). The list goes on. In short, by painting crosswalks at "dangerous" intersections (high speeds, poor sightlines, etc) you attract pedestrian crossings there. This will get folks killed. If a city did this, they might be sued for violating guidelines on crosswalk placement. What they normally would do is evaluate a bunch of things, then do OTHER things to increase safety at the crossing (lots of things), THEN paint the crosswalk. Why do these guys get a free pass to kill people for an ego trip?
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      Given that all intersections are crosswalks by default in CA, if the intersection is dangerous to cross at, then maybe there should be a "no crossing sign" rather than just an absence of a painted crosswalk?
      - onphonenow 4y ago
        The rules at a dangerous (and all) intersections are basically due care by the pedestrian. "No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk ... into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." The problem with dangerous intersections (think 40 mph or multi-lane, or with a bend in road) is that it may be difficult to cross (think at night etc) is that many vehicles will pose an immediate hazard as they come around the bend or at speed when you looking at standardized stopping distances and reaction times. We have a crossing near me that is around a modest bend where folks are moving at speed. There is almost no time to stop even if paying attention. To paint a crossing here at an unsignalized intersection that would attract folks to cross would be criminal in my view.
        aidenn0 4y ago
        I get your point, but if there is a 40mph road with a bend right before a crosswalk, I don't think it's particularly material whether there is paint on the crosswalk or not.
        onphonenow 4y ago
        It is, because if the crosswalk collective idiots paint a crosswalk there, pedestrians will be more likely to choose this terrible crossing and be killed. That's the point their ego's seem totally unable to grasp in all this. That's literally part of how this design works. They've painted a crosswalk in the straight before the bend, and the straight after at a stop sign (goal is every 300 feet minimum to have a high quality crossing) to draw folks away from this dangerous crossing. Rule of thumb is 40mph traffic requires 400 feet sightlines to stop and if you have a multilane crossing more
- brewdad 4y ago
  That's the beauty of this project. By law, every intersection in California is a crosswalk regardless of whether or not there is any paint. This new paint stands as a reminder to drivers but the driver would be at fault even if there were no markings on the road.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    As long as they can sued and bankrupted for the fatalities they cause by doing this I'm fine with that. However, if they want to start messing with roadways and won't accept responsibility I'm not. As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      > As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not. Do you have examples of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk (which these intersections already are; just not painted ones), and not against the signal, getting successfully sued by a driver that hits them?
      - onphonenow 4y ago
        Maybe take a look here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have... In general because a driver is so unlikely to be hurt, I can't imagine them suing? But these lawyers say this: "If the pedestrian did not have the right of way and got hit by a car, the pedestrian may be responsible for the accident. With that responsibility comes liability. If the pedestrian is liable, he or she may have to compensate the driver for the costs of the crash, even if the pedestrian was more severely hurt." I didn't pull caselaw here, because the issue here is that liability WOULD be very easy to show against the crosswalk collective attracting ped crossings to dangerous intersections. That is my (very unpopular) point. I would hope someone would sue them if they had a relative killed though or particularly a child. Editing to add: The "right of way" is not automatic, pedestrians have a duty of care still. I think folks are getting confused between pedestrians can cross at all intersections (true, it is not jaywalking even if no crosswalk) and things like a driver is always at fault etc. i. Pedestrians must use reasonable care at all times. Pedestrians are required by statute to obey traffic signs and signals. Further, every pedestrian has the duty, before entering a street, to make reasonably careful observations to ascertain traffic conditions to be encountered; thus, a pedestrian has a duty to look in the direction from which an approaching motorist might endanger the pedestrian’s safety, to exercise reasonable care at all times while crossing the street and to continue to be alert to safeguard against injury. ii. Pedestrians cannot walk in front of a motor vehicle. Under the law, a pedestrian who is aware of the approach of a vehicle should not begin or continue crossing a street in such proximity to the crossing or traveling at such speed as to constitute an imminent peril. A driver has the right to assume that a pedestrian will not leave a place of safety to step directly in front of the driver’s vehicle.
- lalopalota 4y ago
  If a pedestrian + vehicle collision occurs, the fault is with either the pedestrian or the driver of the vehicle. People wont be killed by paint on the road (unless they slip on it while wet, maybe?).
wonder_er 4y ago
The Collective painted some crosswalks in LA. The people comprising the government of the city of Los Angeles then spent time and money to remove the crosswalks: https://twitter.com/CrosswalksLA/status/1527809785545928704 https://twitter.com/CrosswalksLA/status/1527809785545928704 I'm hoping this causes a bit of a Streisand Effect, and thousands of people around the country (and the world!) decide to paint crosswalks themselves. I'm going to paint some in my city soon!
- hairy_callous 4y ago
  [dead]
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    As I noted below (likely going to be voted down for being uncool even if accurate), just painting crosswalks may significantly increase pedestrian risk by attracting crossings to dangerous intersections. So don't get too energized. Most real efforts here include OTHER steps to calm traffic, and then a painted cross-walk is added to attract pedestrians to that area. I hope Boston is doing more than just slapping crosswalks down with paint on high speed multi-lane roads - because people will be killed. Reducing lanes of traffic where peds cross, slowing traffic (stop signs, lights, speed limits with enforcement) all are much better starting point.
    - indecisive_user 4y ago
      Sample size of 1 here, but the existence of a crosswalk definitely makes me slow down and pay more attention, because I generally assume if an intersection doesn't have a crosswalk then there's probably not any pedestrians crossing. This is especially true when turning right at a yield sign, e.g. https://drivinginstructorblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/intersection_Yield.jpg https://drivinginstructorblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06...
      - ghaff 4y ago
        I think that's fair, especially if there are some other indicators in addition to just the paint. In Cambridge MA there are some otherwise uncontrolled crosswalks across Mass Ave and, as a driver, I'm definitely a bit more prepared for there to be a pedestrian at that location compared to darting across a random stretch of busy road (though that happens too all the time and I keep my eyes out). That said, as a pedestrian, I don't really trust a driver to see me especially in lower visibility so I generally won't cross at those locations unless I have plenty of opening.
gen3 4y ago
Reminds me of the story of Richard Ankroms, who installed his own Interstate 5 exit sign. It hung for 8 years. Video of the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM https://www.laweekly.com/richard-ankroms-freeway-art-caltrans-buys-into-the-prank/ https://www.laweekly.com/richard-ankroms-freeway-art-caltran...
mhb 4y ago
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm
- glasshug 4y ago
  See in particular, §3B.18 Crosswalk Markings https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part3/part3b.htm#section3B18 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part3/part3b.htm#sec... One interesting subtlety unnoticed on the L.A. Crosswalk site: > The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible [...]
josephcsible 4y ago
halffaday 4y ago
Paint = safety is a horribly misguided heuristic. Playing traffic engineer is just as bad an idea as playing dentist or attorney. Just don’t.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Exactly. The standard heuristic is to put the paint down AFTER increasing safety through OTHER measures. Crosswalks are literally used as a signal to pedestrians that this is a recommended crossing point that probably meets standards (that make it very likely a driver would be entirely at fault if they hit you crossing there but also very possible for them to avoid hitting you if they are following the law).
  - clairity 4y ago
    the guide has a section on "How to select an intersection", which considers the other measures like a stop sign and a limit line (common at LA intersections, but not universal). note that pedestrians have right-of-way at every intersection unless explicitly marked otherwise, regardless of crosswalk markings, so drivers should be looking for pedestrians at every intersection.
    - whateveracct 4y ago
      I think this all falls under "playing traffic engineer"
      - IshKebab 4y ago
        Traffic engineers don't have magical abilities. It's not rocket science to select a crossing location. I seriously doubt most traffic changes are even modelled properly. In the UK they still rely on road tubes to count traffic and I don't know if they've even considered networking traffic lights yet (maybe in London).
        mhb 4y ago
heax 4y ago
For cyclists and motorcycles they create additional road hazards by adding paint that gets as slippery as ice when wet. Thanks for nothing.
- seszett 4y ago
  Paint that doesn't get slippery exists. Here, bike lanes are painted red (not the border of the lanes, but the lane itself) and it works just fine. If your city uses bad paint you might be able to convince them to change it.
  - heax 4y ago
    I know it exists and it is used here everywhere. But those from the article are just using some latex paint, creating road hazards in their self righteous cause.
    - Freak_NL 4y ago
      They specifically mention “traffic marking latex paint suitable for asphalt”.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  The paint they use on the streets has equivalent or better traction than the asphalt. That's why there hasn't been a huge increase in cyclists falling over when the bike lanes get totally filled in with paint (e.g. the first one here: https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20028/Green-bike-lanes-user-guide https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20028/Green-b...)
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    You're assuming that these will use the same paint that legitimate crosswalks do.
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
ssl232 4y ago
This wouldn't work in the UK where Zebra crossings like this need to be accompanied by yellow "lollypop" lights.
joppy 4y ago
I applied to my local council (in Australia) for a pedestrian crossing to be painted somewhere near my home where a footpath from a park comes out onto the road, and pedestrians need to cross to the other side of the road. Seemed like a real no-brainer to me. I got a letter back several months later saying that they had reviewed my request, measured the foot traffic in the area on several days, and decided to not paint a pedestrian crossing because there was low enough pedestrian traffic that cars would get complacent and ignore it (therefore endangering pedestrians who would have expectations that cars would stop at a pedestrian crossing). It's the first time I realised there is actually a lot of though that goes into where to place a pedestrian crossing, and when to not place one.
- pixiemaster 4y ago
  at least a lot of thought about how to avoid creating a pedestrian friendly environment
  - pas 4y ago
    in that case that would require something like a traffic light with a button for the rare pedestrians. or, of course, a complete reversal of the car-centrism of the last century, but this quick fix was probably not in the toolbox of that particular bureau.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      But that would be expensive, compared to just painting the road. And so we get into opportunity cost. Resources are finite, and even deciding what to do costs resources which you then can't expend on doing something. In my country you can't just paint the road, at all, the minimum intervention is a lit crossing, orange lamps at each side, called "Belisha Beacons", which together with the paint forms a mandatory (ie if somebody is on the crossing or appears to be intending to cross vehicles must stop) crossing. This means you need electric power (for the lighting) and the resulting crossing is significantly safer but more expensive. Even deciding whether, and how, to allow the simpler painted crossings is a significant opportunity cost, it would require legislation, and the government has other things it wants to do (e.g. sell off irreplaceable cultural treasures to spite enemies) with that legislative time.
chmod775 4y ago
At my university in Berlin, students, desiring an easy connection between two major parts of the campus, painted a crosswalk across the "Straße des 17. Juni"[0] every day. And every day police would come and remove it.[1] This went on until finally the government relented and there's now a permanent pedestrian crossing with signal lights.[2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fe_des_17._Juni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fe_des_17._Juni [1]: https://books.google.de/books?id=eqYI9QTu-y8C&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=tu+zebrastreifen https://books.google.de/books?id=eqYI9QTu-y8C&pg=PA92&lpg=PA... [2]: https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B030'46.6%22N+13%C2%B019'36.3%22E/@52.5130432,13.3258042,19z/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B030'46.6%22N+13%C2%...
- kiliantics 4y ago
  I love Berlin for how people really own their democracy and freedom there by taking it into their own hands and living it, not just talking about it while the government silently removes all their rights as happens in the US.
- boruto 4y ago
  Is there anyway to request for a cross walk or a light in Berlin. There is a street near my house, would like to apply if it is straight forward
  - chmod775 4y ago
    Here's some contact information: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussverkehr/infrastruktur/standortvorschlaege/ https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussve... Here's some things to look out for: https://www.stvo2go.de/fussgaengerueberweg-einrichten/ https://www.stvo2go.de/fussgaengerueberweg-einrichten/
blisterpeanuts 4y ago
Interesting. During the summer between college and grad school, I worked in a public park in St. Louis and one day we had to paint a crosswalk. The older guys, who had high school degrees (if that) tasked me with figuring out the distance between stripes, which proved surprisingly complicated. The stripes needed to be evenly spaced and uniform in size. Lacking a calculator (no mobile phones in those days) and armed only with a tape measure, a pencil and a piece of paper, I thus managed to chalk out evenly spaced stripes which they proceeded to paint more or less as described in the article. I came away with renewed respect for people who did this type of work. It also drove home just how important the maths are even in manual labor. Nothing good can come of dumbing down math education in secondary schools.
rendall 4y ago
I am reminded of this open letter from a civil engineer accusing the city of Springfield, Massachusetts of gross negligence for refusing to put a crosswalk between the main library and its parking lot, directly across the street. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/5/29/an-open-letter-to-the-city-of-springfield https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/5/29/an-open-letter...
stagas 4y ago
In Barcelona, where I used to live, you never have to think about cars if you are a pedestrian. There are two kinds of crosswalks. Those with traffic lights and those without and they're marked differently. In both cases, you never have to look if there's a car coming. If it's green, you simply cross. At the crosswalks without a traffic light, the drivers must slow down and anticipate your decision while they see you near the first sidewalk about to cross. They have to let you go first and then wait until you are standing on the next sidewalk across the street before they go, regardless if there's space for them after you moved ahead. You never have to think about it, if your foot goes on the crosswalk, it's certain that cars around, buses, everything will have stopped even before that. That said, when the cars light is green they go full speed because they also know that there is zero possibility for a pedestrian to jaywalk (and get pretty mad if you try to, even for very small road with very small distance between the sidewalks and good visibility, everybody waits). That system works amazingly well for both pedestrians and cars because it's the most efficient and safe and I'm surprised it's not everywhere.
jimmydeans 4y ago
We raise taxes so we can build rainbow crosswalks.

131 points by clairity 4y ago

Interesting. Can folks killed by these efforts sue the Crosswalk Collective? I think if you are going to do things like this you probably should also take the liability costs as well.

neves 4y ago
How could someone be killed by extra crosswalks?
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Very easily. Crosswalks are designed to create reasonable expectations where peds can cross a roadway safely. They are designed to channelize ped crossings to specific areas which are safer to cross - so for example with good sightlines, with appropriate stop markers with good speeds (slower). Crosswalks are often combined with other traffic calming measures (stop signs, stop lines at the right distance, road narrowing features, tree clearing etc). For example, they are recommending adding these at "dangerous" intersections. So for example, a crossing that occurs just after a bend (we have one near my house). This is pretty horrifying, because by encouraging peds to cross where there is a bend blocking sightlines, those peds are at MUCH greater risk of injury or death. Similarly, speeds over 40mph, you wouldn't generally do a a painted x-walk. Similarly multilane without appropriate controls. For example, they have a crosswalk painted 6 inches from a stop line. In a road with 2 lanes of traffic, you can't have have stopline that close or no stopline, because the car in lane 2 or 1 does not have enough of a sightline to see that a pedestrian is crossing and so the risks go way up if you attract pedestrians to cross in that situation (a car will generally be shielding the view when they stop that close). The list goes on. In short, by painting crosswalks at "dangerous" intersections (high speeds, poor sightlines, etc) you attract pedestrian crossings there. This will get folks killed. If a city did this, they might be sued for violating guidelines on crosswalk placement. What they normally would do is evaluate a bunch of things, then do OTHER things to increase safety at the crossing (lots of things), THEN paint the crosswalk. Why do these guys get a free pass to kill people for an ego trip?
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Given that all intersections are crosswalks by default in CA, if the intersection is dangerous to cross at, then maybe there should be a "no crossing sign" rather than just an absence of a painted crosswalk?
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      The rules at a dangerous (and all) intersections are basically due care by the pedestrian. "No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk ... into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." The problem with dangerous intersections (think 40 mph or multi-lane, or with a bend in road) is that it may be difficult to cross (think at night etc) is that many vehicles will pose an immediate hazard as they come around the bend or at speed when you looking at standardized stopping distances and reaction times. We have a crossing near me that is around a modest bend where folks are moving at speed. There is almost no time to stop even if paying attention. To paint a crossing here at an unsignalized intersection that would attract folks to cross would be criminal in my view.
      - aidenn0 4y ago
        I get your point, but if there is a 40mph road with a bend right before a crosswalk, I don't think it's particularly material whether there is paint on the crosswalk or not.
        onphonenow 4y ago
        It is, because if the crosswalk collective idiots paint a crosswalk there, pedestrians will be more likely to choose this terrible crossing and be killed. That's the point their ego's seem totally unable to grasp in all this. That's literally part of how this design works. They've painted a crosswalk in the straight before the bend, and the straight after at a stop sign (goal is every 300 feet minimum to have a high quality crossing) to draw folks away from this dangerous crossing. Rule of thumb is 40mph traffic requires 400 feet sightlines to stop and if you have a multilane crossing more
brewdad 4y ago
That's the beauty of this project. By law, every intersection in California is a crosswalk regardless of whether or not there is any paint. This new paint stands as a reminder to drivers but the driver would be at fault even if there were no markings on the road.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  As long as they can sued and bankrupted for the fatalities they cause by doing this I'm fine with that. However, if they want to start messing with roadways and won't accept responsibility I'm not. As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    > As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not. Do you have examples of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk (which these intersections already are; just not painted ones), and not against the signal, getting successfully sued by a driver that hits them?
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      Maybe take a look here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have... In general because a driver is so unlikely to be hurt, I can't imagine them suing? But these lawyers say this: "If the pedestrian did not have the right of way and got hit by a car, the pedestrian may be responsible for the accident. With that responsibility comes liability. If the pedestrian is liable, he or she may have to compensate the driver for the costs of the crash, even if the pedestrian was more severely hurt." I didn't pull caselaw here, because the issue here is that liability WOULD be very easy to show against the crosswalk collective attracting ped crossings to dangerous intersections. That is my (very unpopular) point. I would hope someone would sue them if they had a relative killed though or particularly a child. Editing to add: The "right of way" is not automatic, pedestrians have a duty of care still. I think folks are getting confused between pedestrians can cross at all intersections (true, it is not jaywalking even if no crosswalk) and things like a driver is always at fault etc. i. Pedestrians must use reasonable care at all times. Pedestrians are required by statute to obey traffic signs and signals. Further, every pedestrian has the duty, before entering a street, to make reasonably careful observations to ascertain traffic conditions to be encountered; thus, a pedestrian has a duty to look in the direction from which an approaching motorist might endanger the pedestrian’s safety, to exercise reasonable care at all times while crossing the street and to continue to be alert to safeguard against injury. ii. Pedestrians cannot walk in front of a motor vehicle. Under the law, a pedestrian who is aware of the approach of a vehicle should not begin or continue crossing a street in such proximity to the crossing or traveling at such speed as to constitute an imminent peril. A driver has the right to assume that a pedestrian will not leave a place of safety to step directly in front of the driver’s vehicle.
lalopalota 4y ago
If a pedestrian + vehicle collision occurs, the fault is with either the pedestrian or the driver of the vehicle. People wont be killed by paint on the road (unless they slip on it while wet, maybe?).

wonder_er 4y ago

The Collective painted some crosswalks in LA. The people comprising the government of the city of Los Angeles then spent time and money to remove the crosswalks: https://twitter.com/CrosswalksLA/status/1527809785545928704 https://twitter.com/CrosswalksLA/status/1527809785545928704 I'm hoping this causes a bit of a Streisand Effect, and thousands of people around the country (and the world!) decide to paint crosswalks themselves. I'm going to paint some in my city soon!

hairy_callous 4y ago
[dead]
- onphonenow 4y ago
  As I noted below (likely going to be voted down for being uncool even if accurate), just painting crosswalks may significantly increase pedestrian risk by attracting crossings to dangerous intersections. So don't get too energized. Most real efforts here include OTHER steps to calm traffic, and then a painted cross-walk is added to attract pedestrians to that area. I hope Boston is doing more than just slapping crosswalks down with paint on high speed multi-lane roads - because people will be killed. Reducing lanes of traffic where peds cross, slowing traffic (stop signs, lights, speed limits with enforcement) all are much better starting point.
  - indecisive_user 4y ago
    Sample size of 1 here, but the existence of a crosswalk definitely makes me slow down and pay more attention, because I generally assume if an intersection doesn't have a crosswalk then there's probably not any pedestrians crossing. This is especially true when turning right at a yield sign, e.g. https://drivinginstructorblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/intersection_Yield.jpg https://drivinginstructorblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06...
    - ghaff 4y ago
      I think that's fair, especially if there are some other indicators in addition to just the paint. In Cambridge MA there are some otherwise uncontrolled crosswalks across Mass Ave and, as a driver, I'm definitely a bit more prepared for there to be a pedestrian at that location compared to darting across a random stretch of busy road (though that happens too all the time and I keep my eyes out). That said, as a pedestrian, I don't really trust a driver to see me especially in lower visibility so I generally won't cross at those locations unless I have plenty of opening.

gen3 4y ago

Reminds me of the story of Richard Ankroms, who installed his own Interstate 5 exit sign. It hung for 8 years. Video of the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clgl63CWOkM https://www.laweekly.com/richard-ankroms-freeway-art-caltrans-buys-into-the-prank/ https://www.laweekly.com/richard-ankroms-freeway-art-caltran...

mhb 4y ago

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm

glasshug 4y ago
See in particular, §3B.18 Crosswalk Markings https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part3/part3b.htm#section3B18 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part3/part3b.htm#sec... One interesting subtlety unnoticed on the L.A. Crosswalk site: > The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible [...]

josephcsible 4y ago

halffaday 4y ago

Paint = safety is a horribly misguided heuristic. Playing traffic engineer is just as bad an idea as playing dentist or attorney. Just don’t.

onphonenow 4y ago
Exactly. The standard heuristic is to put the paint down AFTER increasing safety through OTHER measures. Crosswalks are literally used as a signal to pedestrians that this is a recommended crossing point that probably meets standards (that make it very likely a driver would be entirely at fault if they hit you crossing there but also very possible for them to avoid hitting you if they are following the law).
- clairity 4y ago
  the guide has a section on "How to select an intersection", which considers the other measures like a stop sign and a limit line (common at LA intersections, but not universal). note that pedestrians have right-of-way at every intersection unless explicitly marked otherwise, regardless of crosswalk markings, so drivers should be looking for pedestrians at every intersection.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    I think this all falls under "playing traffic engineer"
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      Traffic engineers don't have magical abilities. It's not rocket science to select a crossing location. I seriously doubt most traffic changes are even modelled properly. In the UK they still rely on road tubes to count traffic and I don't know if they've even considered networking traffic lights yet (maybe in London).
      - mhb 4y ago

heax 4y ago

For cyclists and motorcycles they create additional road hazards by adding paint that gets as slippery as ice when wet. Thanks for nothing.

seszett 4y ago
Paint that doesn't get slippery exists. Here, bike lanes are painted red (not the border of the lanes, but the lane itself) and it works just fine. If your city uses bad paint you might be able to convince them to change it.
- heax 4y ago
  I know it exists and it is used here everywhere. But those from the article are just using some latex paint, creating road hazards in their self righteous cause.
  - Freak_NL 4y ago
    They specifically mention “traffic marking latex paint suitable for asphalt”.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
The paint they use on the streets has equivalent or better traction than the asphalt. That's why there hasn't been a huge increase in cyclists falling over when the bike lanes get totally filled in with paint (e.g. the first one here: https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20028/Green-bike-lanes-user-guide https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/20028/Green-b...)
- josephcsible 4y ago
  You're assuming that these will use the same paint that legitimate crosswalks do.
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago

ssl232 4y ago

This wouldn't work in the UK where Zebra crossings like this need to be accompanied by yellow "lollypop" lights.

joppy 4y ago

I applied to my local council (in Australia) for a pedestrian crossing to be painted somewhere near my home where a footpath from a park comes out onto the road, and pedestrians need to cross to the other side of the road. Seemed like a real no-brainer to me. I got a letter back several months later saying that they had reviewed my request, measured the foot traffic in the area on several days, and decided to not paint a pedestrian crossing because there was low enough pedestrian traffic that cars would get complacent and ignore it (therefore endangering pedestrians who would have expectations that cars would stop at a pedestrian crossing). It's the first time I realised there is actually a lot of though that goes into where to place a pedestrian crossing, and when to not place one.

pixiemaster 4y ago
at least a lot of thought about how to avoid creating a pedestrian friendly environment
- pas 4y ago
  in that case that would require something like a traffic light with a button for the rare pedestrians. or, of course, a complete reversal of the car-centrism of the last century, but this quick fix was probably not in the toolbox of that particular bureau.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    But that would be expensive, compared to just painting the road. And so we get into opportunity cost. Resources are finite, and even deciding what to do costs resources which you then can't expend on doing something. In my country you can't just paint the road, at all, the minimum intervention is a lit crossing, orange lamps at each side, called "Belisha Beacons", which together with the paint forms a mandatory (ie if somebody is on the crossing or appears to be intending to cross vehicles must stop) crossing. This means you need electric power (for the lighting) and the resulting crossing is significantly safer but more expensive. Even deciding whether, and how, to allow the simpler painted crossings is a significant opportunity cost, it would require legislation, and the government has other things it wants to do (e.g. sell off irreplaceable cultural treasures to spite enemies) with that legislative time.

chmod775 4y ago

At my university in Berlin, students, desiring an easy connection between two major parts of the campus, painted a crosswalk across the "Straße des 17. Juni"[0] every day. And every day police would come and remove it.[1] This went on until finally the government relented and there's now a permanent pedestrian crossing with signal lights.[2] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fe_des_17._Juni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fe_des_17._Juni [1]: https://books.google.de/books?id=eqYI9QTu-y8C&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=tu+zebrastreifen https://books.google.de/books?id=eqYI9QTu-y8C&pg=PA92&lpg=PA... [2]: https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B030'46.6%22N+13%C2%B019'36.3%22E/@52.5130432,13.3258042,19z/ https://www.google.com/maps/place/52%C2%B030'46.6%22N+13%C2%...

kiliantics 4y ago
I love Berlin for how people really own their democracy and freedom there by taking it into their own hands and living it, not just talking about it while the government silently removes all their rights as happens in the US.
boruto 4y ago
Is there anyway to request for a cross walk or a light in Berlin. There is a street near my house, would like to apply if it is straight forward
- chmod775 4y ago
  Here's some contact information: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussverkehr/infrastruktur/standortvorschlaege/ https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussve... Here's some things to look out for: https://www.stvo2go.de/fussgaengerueberweg-einrichten/ https://www.stvo2go.de/fussgaengerueberweg-einrichten/

blisterpeanuts 4y ago

Interesting. During the summer between college and grad school, I worked in a public park in St. Louis and one day we had to paint a crosswalk. The older guys, who had high school degrees (if that) tasked me with figuring out the distance between stripes, which proved surprisingly complicated. The stripes needed to be evenly spaced and uniform in size. Lacking a calculator (no mobile phones in those days) and armed only with a tape measure, a pencil and a piece of paper, I thus managed to chalk out evenly spaced stripes which they proceeded to paint more or less as described in the article. I came away with renewed respect for people who did this type of work. It also drove home just how important the maths are even in manual labor. Nothing good can come of dumbing down math education in secondary schools.

rendall 4y ago

I am reminded of this open letter from a civil engineer accusing the city of Springfield, Massachusetts of gross negligence for refusing to put a crosswalk between the main library and its parking lot, directly across the street. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/5/29/an-open-letter-to-the-city-of-springfield https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/5/29/an-open-letter...

stagas 4y ago

In Barcelona, where I used to live, you never have to think about cars if you are a pedestrian. There are two kinds of crosswalks. Those with traffic lights and those without and they're marked differently. In both cases, you never have to look if there's a car coming. If it's green, you simply cross. At the crosswalks without a traffic light, the drivers must slow down and anticipate your decision while they see you near the first sidewalk about to cross. They have to let you go first and then wait until you are standing on the next sidewalk across the street before they go, regardless if there's space for them after you moved ahead. You never have to think about it, if your foot goes on the crosswalk, it's certain that cars around, buses, everything will have stopped even before that. That said, when the cars light is green they go full speed because they also know that there is zero possibility for a pedestrian to jaywalk (and get pretty mad if you try to, even for very small road with very small distance between the sidewalks and good visibility, everybody waits). That system works amazingly well for both pedestrians and cars because it's the most efficient and safe and I'm surprised it's not everywhere.

jimmydeans 4y ago

We raise taxes so we can build rainbow crosswalks.