5 ms·

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 crosswalk

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.
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      Right, and one piece is normally to reinforce that feeling by selecting crossings that actually DO get pedestrian traffic (normally 20 / hour for any one hour or at least 60 over some combination of 4 potentially non consecutive hours). What happens when you splatter crosswalk everywhere is they lose some of their subconscious meaning because you de-link them from actual pedestrian use potentially.
jonas21 4y ago
They removed the crosswalks because they were converting the intersection to a roundabout. You can see in the third photo that there's a circle painted in the middle of the intersection. This had apparently been planned long before the crosswalk was added. Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic. However, when you add a roundabout, you need to displace the crosswalks a few feet away from the intersection because otherwise the crosswalk leads pedestrians directly into the path of traffic. Here is what the intersection looks like now: https://twitter.com/RyFons/status/1527776660187119616/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RyFons/status/1527776660187119616/photo/... It would be nice if Step 1 of the how-to guide was to check with the city to see what it's plans are first. But I guess that wouldn't be as cool.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Are they going to add any crosswalks back? Where else would it go based on where the curb cuts are?
  - mjmahone17 4y ago
    The logical thing in this case seems to be to make the crosswalks an X pattern: have them go right through the roundabout. Could probably add a mid-block crosswalk for crossing to the other side. I doubt that’s what will be done, but it seems like that could work.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Can you really call it a roundabout if they left the stop signs?
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Some bureaucrat probably decided that too large a proportion of people wouldn't understand that you're supposed to yield to the traffic in the roundabout (and that a yield sign would somehow be insufficient) hence the creation of a "dual purpose roundabout and fishing stop pretext/revenue generator".
Taniwha 4y ago
Remember that in California there is always a nominal crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection, whether it's painted in or not, they're really just drawing attention to an existing crosswalk, not creating a new one
- curiousgal 4y ago
  Yeah as a pedestrian I wouldn't risk it. The rules are only useful if everyone follows them. Being right is not worth it.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    Risk what? Walking? > The rules are only useful if everyone follows them. Then no rule would ever be useful because no man-made rule is ever followed by everyone. > Being right is not worth it. It what? Crossing the road?
    - maccard 4y ago
      In case you're being serious, it's not worth the risk of being hit. it doesn't matter who had right of way in a car - pedestrian collision, the car always wins.
      - krisoft 4y ago
        I am serious, thank you for asking. But what is “it” which is not worth the risk of being hit? It sounds like you are advocating agains the general concept of crossing roads? Onviously people shouldn’t throw themselves in front of speeding cars. Nobody in the tread or elsewhere is advocating for that. You should check that the incomming traffic can see you and has enough time and space to stop and then you should cross in a manner which makes it easy to predict what are you doing.
        Sebb767 4y ago
        > But what is “it” which is not worth the risk of being hit? Crossing the road when a car is close. Even if they could see you and you have the right of the way, you never know whether they abide the rules and are paying attention. It's much safer to wait until it's free enough that you are out of the way when the next car arrives.

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.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Right, and one piece is normally to reinforce that feeling by selecting crossings that actually DO get pedestrian traffic (normally 20 / hour for any one hour or at least 60 over some combination of 4 potentially non consecutive hours). What happens when you splatter crosswalk everywhere is they lose some of their subconscious meaning because you de-link them from actual pedestrian use potentially.

jonas21 4y ago

They removed the crosswalks because they were converting the intersection to a roundabout. You can see in the third photo that there's a circle painted in the middle of the intersection. This had apparently been planned long before the crosswalk was added. Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic. However, when you add a roundabout, you need to displace the crosswalks a few feet away from the intersection because otherwise the crosswalk leads pedestrians directly into the path of traffic. Here is what the intersection looks like now: https://twitter.com/RyFons/status/1527776660187119616/photo/1 https://twitter.com/RyFons/status/1527776660187119616/photo/... It would be nice if Step 1 of the how-to guide was to check with the city to see what it's plans are first. But I guess that wouldn't be as cool.

majormajor 4y ago
Are they going to add any crosswalks back? Where else would it go based on where the curb cuts are?
- mjmahone17 4y ago
  The logical thing in this case seems to be to make the crosswalks an X pattern: have them go right through the roundabout. Could probably add a mid-block crosswalk for crossing to the other side. I doubt that’s what will be done, but it seems like that could work.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Can you really call it a roundabout if they left the stop signs?
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Some bureaucrat probably decided that too large a proportion of people wouldn't understand that you're supposed to yield to the traffic in the roundabout (and that a yield sign would somehow be insufficient) hence the creation of a "dual purpose roundabout and fishing stop pretext/revenue generator".

Taniwha 4y ago

Remember that in California there is always a nominal crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection, whether it's painted in or not, they're really just drawing attention to an existing crosswalk, not creating a new one

curiousgal 4y ago
Yeah as a pedestrian I wouldn't risk it. The rules are only useful if everyone follows them. Being right is not worth it.
- krisoft 4y ago
  Risk what? Walking? > The rules are only useful if everyone follows them. Then no rule would ever be useful because no man-made rule is ever followed by everyone. > Being right is not worth it. It what? Crossing the road?
  - maccard 4y ago
    In case you're being serious, it's not worth the risk of being hit. it doesn't matter who had right of way in a car - pedestrian collision, the car always wins.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      I am serious, thank you for asking. But what is “it” which is not worth the risk of being hit? It sounds like you are advocating agains the general concept of crossing roads? Onviously people shouldn’t throw themselves in front of speeding cars. Nobody in the tread or elsewhere is advocating for that. You should check that the incomming traffic can see you and has enough time and space to stop and then you should cross in a manner which makes it easy to predict what are you doing.
      - Sebb767 4y ago
        > But what is “it” which is not worth the risk of being hit? Crossing the road when a car is close. Even if they could see you and you have the right of the way, you never know whether they abide the rules and are paying attention. It's much safer to wait until it's free enough that you are out of the way when the next car arrives.