3 ms·

Very easily. Crosswalks are designed to create reasonable expectations where peds can cross a roadway safely. They are designed to channelize ped crossings to

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
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Moving in public spaces is a right the government can't take away. Driving a motor vehicle, on the other hand, isn't a right.
  - raldi 4y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=no+pedestrian+crossing https://www.google.com/search?q=no+pedestrian+crossing
  - ghaff 4y ago
    To name just the most obvious example, you can't walk (or cycle or ride a horse) along or across most interstates in the US.
runarberg 4y ago
I mean there is an obvious conflict here between pedestrians and drivers. And one of these groups feels alienated. Taking direct action is only natural if you’ve been trying to make your case but consistently ignored by your local rulers, which favor drivers again and again. You could just as well ask: why do car makers get to design giant SUVs which kill people on impact? Why do drivers get this much space to allow them to drive so fast that it kills people? etc. Of course you could chicken out of an answer by citing policy made by elected officials. But elected officials make bad policy all the times, and you might be justified in questioning their logic. And at some point you’ve had enough and resort to direct action. And that is happening here, not an ego trip at all.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Absolutely an ego trip, and an uninformed one. Many groups doing many things to increase walkability and things like bikeability. There are very few city that I'm aware of that are going backwards in this area, and many that are going forwards. Again, I'm fine with it, as long as they can be sued, their mansions taken etc if they kill people with this. If they don't, great, but they need to take responsibility for what is very likely to be a horrible idea.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    What are you talking about. As far as I’m aware walkability is increasing at a snails pace and people all over America are tired of it. Pedestrian and bicycle deaths are increasing in many cities, as people drive more dangerous cars. I mean here is a pretty well done case study on how hard it is for advocacy groups to increase pedestrian safety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 Also, I don’t think you understand direct action. Most people engaging in direct action know the risks and are willing to accept it. There is also a little sense of relativity that you might be missing. Painting a crosswalk might theoretically increase risk to passengers (might, as you’d have to conduct a study to actually know) but that risk is irrelevant in the greater context of dangerous activities that drivers regularly engage in, such as speeding, drunk driving, etc. LA (and other cities) really need to up their game in adding walkability, the fact that people are taking matters into their own hands is an obvious call for that.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
They're not adding new crosswalks, they're painting ones that already exist.

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
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Moving in public spaces is a right the government can't take away. Driving a motor vehicle, on the other hand, isn't a right.
- raldi 4y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=no+pedestrian+crossing https://www.google.com/search?q=no+pedestrian+crossing
- ghaff 4y ago
  To name just the most obvious example, you can't walk (or cycle or ride a horse) along or across most interstates in the US.

runarberg 4y ago

I mean there is an obvious conflict here between pedestrians and drivers. And one of these groups feels alienated. Taking direct action is only natural if you’ve been trying to make your case but consistently ignored by your local rulers, which favor drivers again and again. You could just as well ask: why do car makers get to design giant SUVs which kill people on impact? Why do drivers get this much space to allow them to drive so fast that it kills people? etc. Of course you could chicken out of an answer by citing policy made by elected officials. But elected officials make bad policy all the times, and you might be justified in questioning their logic. And at some point you’ve had enough and resort to direct action. And that is happening here, not an ego trip at all.

onphonenow 4y ago
Absolutely an ego trip, and an uninformed one. Many groups doing many things to increase walkability and things like bikeability. There are very few city that I'm aware of that are going backwards in this area, and many that are going forwards. Again, I'm fine with it, as long as they can be sued, their mansions taken etc if they kill people with this. If they don't, great, but they need to take responsibility for what is very likely to be a horrible idea.
- runarberg 4y ago
  What are you talking about. As far as I’m aware walkability is increasing at a snails pace and people all over America are tired of it. Pedestrian and bicycle deaths are increasing in many cities, as people drive more dangerous cars. I mean here is a pretty well done case study on how hard it is for advocacy groups to increase pedestrian safety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJlB4eVv2F8 Also, I don’t think you understand direct action. Most people engaging in direct action know the risks and are willing to accept it. There is also a little sense of relativity that you might be missing. Painting a crosswalk might theoretically increase risk to passengers (might, as you’d have to conduct a study to actually know) but that risk is irrelevant in the greater context of dangerous activities that drivers regularly engage in, such as speeding, drunk driving, etc. LA (and other cities) really need to up their game in adding walkability, the fact that people are taking matters into their own hands is an obvious call for that.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

They're not adding new crosswalks, they're painting ones that already exist.