How to Paint a Crosswalk(crosswalksla.org)
crosswalksla.org
How to Paint a Crosswalk
https://crosswalksla.org/how-to-guide.html
14 comments
This is a constant chicken-and-egg problem. Why would there be much foot traffic if pedestrians perceive that the local government thinks so little of them that it won't put down paint to remind the giant high-speed metal boxes not to kill them?
To be clear, it was a very low-traffic (both car and foot) location - neither would expect to encounter each other almost ever. I thought the decision to not encourage pedestrians into a false sense of security was a sensible one.
A lot of thought goes into making it possible for drivers to drive as fast as possible at all times and ignore most traffic laws.
If drivers aren't stopping for pedestrians at a place where pedestrians are legally allowed to cross (in most countries, the presence of a marked crosswalk does not affect this), then the solution should be to get the drivers to stop, not to stop people from crossing.
If drivers aren't stopping for pedestrians at a place where pedestrians are legally allowed to cross (in most countries, the presence of a marked crosswalk does not affect this), then the solution should be to get the drivers to stop, not to stop people from crossing.
at least a lot of thought about how to avoid creating a pedestrian friendly environment
Thankfully Australia is (for the most part) pretty pedestrian friendly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if it is this simple. Perhaps most drivers will learn to ignore the crosswalk, but not all. Eventually someone will notice a crossing pedestrian and they will be more likely to stop when there is painted crosswalk, adding convenience for pedestrians.
There is also the reverse perspective your local government failed to consider. If drivers get complacent and ignore potential pedestrians so will pedestrians learn to recognize that drivers might not stop and cross with added awareness (I actually live by one such crosswalk). In addition there might be a risk factor of forcing pedestrians to learn the lesson that it is OK to cross on unmarked locations.
Your initial no-brainer might have been wrong, but your local official’s explanation sounds equally malinformed.
There is also the reverse perspective your local government failed to consider. If drivers get complacent and ignore potential pedestrians so will pedestrians learn to recognize that drivers might not stop and cross with added awareness (I actually live by one such crosswalk). In addition there might be a risk factor of forcing pedestrians to learn the lesson that it is OK to cross on unmarked locations.
Your initial no-brainer might have been wrong, but your local official’s explanation sounds equally malinformed.
[deleted]
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.laweekly.com/richard-ankroms-freeway-art-caltran...
https://www.laweekly.com/richard-ankroms-freeway-art-caltran...
Paint = safety is a horribly misguided heuristic. Playing traffic engineer is just as bad an idea as playing dentist or attorney. Just don’t.
> Playing traffic engineer is just as bad an idea as playing dentist or attorney.
Given the absolutely abysmal track record of traffic engineers in the U.S as far as pedestrian safety goes, I hardly think you could do any worse by trying to do their job for them.
Given the absolutely abysmal track record of traffic engineers in the U.S as far as pedestrian safety goes, I hardly think you could do any worse by trying to do their job for them.
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).
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).
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.
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.
The right of way for pedestrians at intersections was recently added to the UK 'Highway Code':
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/29/highway-code...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/29/highway-code...
I think this all falls under "playing traffic engineer"
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).
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).
No doubt traffic engineers say the same thing about building web sites.
Are you suggesting that non-professionals are not capable of making simple websites?
I'm suggesting that whenever you think "it's not rocket science" is an appropriate criticism of someone else's thinking, you should consider whether you are looking at one of Chesterton's fences.
Ah the old "you probably don't know what you're talking about" fallacies. Trying to make a compelling argument using Chesterton's fence is classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Aren't you clever knowing all the hip kid memes? However, I'm not asserting I know more than you about traffic engineering. Just that traffic engineers do.
You're not asserting that traffic engineers know more about traffic engineering than me. You're asserting that I know so little about traffic engineering that I couldn't put a crossing in a sensible place (because there's some mysterious uber-knowledge required to do it that only professional traffic engineers possess).
As many others have commented, I'm asserting that people, in general, who follow the example of painting these bandit crosswalks don't appreciate the nuances of where it is dangerous to place them. If I have erred in crediting you with too little knowledge in this domain, you have my apology.
But before you encourage others to pursue this activity, you probably want to make clear, to them, notwithstanding any appearance of a lack of humility, the distinction between your knowledge and possible shortfalls in theirs.
But before you encourage others to pursue this activity, you probably want to make clear, to them, notwithstanding any appearance of a lack of humility, the distinction between your knowledge and possible shortfalls in theirs.
It's not about raw skill or know-how. It's about society. I don't want to have to worry if Some Guy drew the crosswalk in a dumb location. Crosswalks should be maintained by the govt because that has guardrails despite other problems.
Well I agree, but that's because there are more safeguards against governments putting crosswalks in dumb locations (they still do it!) than there are against randos doing it.
That doesn't mean that individual people aren't smart enough to "play traffic engineer" because traffic engineering is so super complicated.
That doesn't mean that individual people aren't smart enough to "play traffic engineer" because traffic engineering is so super complicated.
Also in most countries paint is just a visual sign not a legal one. The signs before a crosswalk are the legal ones. The paint will not be visible in rain or snow for example.
Yup. They aren't going to be super jazzed when someone adds "Speed Limit 60 MPH" signs in retaliation.
It can be dangerous, too. For example if an accident happens, a false sign could harm your otherwise legitimate claims.
I see the moral idea and simplicity behind it, however not quite sure about law.
I see the moral idea and simplicity behind it, however not quite sure about law.
Surely if you're not aware that the sign is fake you shouldn't be punished because somebody installed a fake sign right?
it seems that these painted ones act as real ones
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
(so what I'm trying to say - even though I'm a complete layman - is that from the "personal injury" aspect every painted crosswalk is a real one)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
(so what I'm trying to say - even though I'm a complete layman - is that from the "personal injury" aspect every painted crosswalk is a real one)
I think building up expertise and understanding at a lower level is brilliant. Brushing your teeth is important (to stretch your comparison).
There are implicit assumptions in highway standards that people don't really understand. Engineers balance cost, safety, traffic flow, pedestrian flow etc. It is optimal within a particular set of assumptions about those things. The public should have more power to influence that balance at a local level.
I agree that this was misguided, but the impulse is good. Ideally we would have simple apps that could help people plan transport in their communities and understand the risks better. The problem of badly designed roads is too large to be solved by highway engineers alone. And the fact that we have so many terrible roads is not a good indorsement of the status quo.
There are implicit assumptions in highway standards that people don't really understand. Engineers balance cost, safety, traffic flow, pedestrian flow etc. It is optimal within a particular set of assumptions about those things. The public should have more power to influence that balance at a local level.
I agree that this was misguided, but the impulse is good. Ideally we would have simple apps that could help people plan transport in their communities and understand the risks better. The problem of badly designed roads is too large to be solved by highway engineers alone. And the fact that we have so many terrible roads is not a good indorsement of the status quo.
> Engineers balance cost, safety, traffic flow
And they generally don't wanna talk about it because lord knows a subset of the public throws a fit once you start trying to draw a line in the safety sand.
And they generally don't wanna talk about it because lord knows a subset of the public throws a fit once you start trying to draw a line in the safety sand.
It's understandable though. These are inherently political questions and people are locked out of that process. And there really isn't an objective solution to balancing those factors
I have worked in air quality assessment and you see something similar. A single development usually has statistically negligible effect on air quality. No measurable impact on health. But that isn't really the whole story. Vehicle exhaust absolutely does effect health. It is understandable that people object to that on a specific case by case basis even when tacitly consenting at a societal level
But mostly I think safety is used as a proxy for other things. Adding a lane to a highway can have a safety justification even when the real purpose is something else. Everyone is lazy, and the degree we allow a sense of entitlement changes over time.
I have worked in air quality assessment and you see something similar. A single development usually has statistically negligible effect on air quality. No measurable impact on health. But that isn't really the whole story. Vehicle exhaust absolutely does effect health. It is understandable that people object to that on a specific case by case basis even when tacitly consenting at a societal level
But mostly I think safety is used as a proxy for other things. Adding a lane to a highway can have a safety justification even when the real purpose is something else. Everyone is lazy, and the degree we allow a sense of entitlement changes over time.
Traffic engineers consistently prioritize traffic flow above all else. Civil disobedience is one of the few tools pedestrians have to fight back.
When a real traffic engineer comes along, how many of these crosswalks end up being kept, and how many removed?
I suspect that many may be kept because it's a good plan to have a crosswalk there, but traffic engineers don't have enough time or budget to make all the changes to the road they'd like to.
I suspect that many may be kept because it's a good plan to have a crosswalk there, but traffic engineers don't have enough time or budget to make all the changes to the road they'd like to.
Thank you for perfectly encapsulating a large part of why municipalities can't get anything done for a reasonable price these days.
There's a lot of "copy paste engineering" that anyone with a little care can do with an acceptable success rate but we prevent them from doing "because liability". So then we go engage the services of an engineering firm which does the copy paste, makes the client sign some boilerplate that disclaims most of the liability anyway and charges a lot of money for the privilege.
There's a lot of "copy paste engineering" that anyone with a little care can do with an acceptable success rate but we prevent them from doing "because liability". So then we go engage the services of an engineering firm which does the copy paste, makes the client sign some boilerplate that disclaims most of the liability anyway and charges a lot of money for the privilege.
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
[1]: 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%...
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
[1]: 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%...
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
Here's some contact information: https://www.berlin.de/sen/uvk/verkehr/verkehrsplanung/fussve...
Here's some things to look out for: https://www.stvo2go.de/fussgaengerueberweg-einrichten/
Here's some things to look out for: https://www.stvo2go.de/fussgaengerueberweg-einrichten/
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.
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
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!
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
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!
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/...
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.
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/...
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.
> Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic
They may be safer and reduce top speed when traffic is low but otherwise improve flow so that pedestrians have less opportunity to cross.
It's normal to have pedestrian crossings at our plentiful roundabouts in the UK. If they are particularly busy or multi-lane, they will also have traffic lights to stop traffic just for the pedestrian's benefit.
They may be safer and reduce top speed when traffic is low but otherwise improve flow so that pedestrians have less opportunity to cross.
It's normal to have pedestrian crossings at our plentiful roundabouts in the UK. If they are particularly busy or multi-lane, they will also have traffic lights to stop traffic just for the pedestrian's benefit.
Are they going to add any crosswalks back?
Where else would it go based on where the curb cuts are?
Where else would it go based on where the curb cuts are?
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.
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.
>Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic.
I wonder--if it's a busy roundabout. There's a lot going on and drivers are looking at traffic in the roundabout and in the upcoming entrance to the roundabout and mentally calculating if it's safe to merge in. At one particularly busy pair of local roundabouts (aka "the twin doughnuts of death") there's actually been a pedestrian/cyclist stop light installed because otherwise you'd be taking your life in your hands to get across the road.
I wonder--if it's a busy roundabout. There's a lot going on and drivers are looking at traffic in the roundabout and in the upcoming entrance to the roundabout and mentally calculating if it's safe to merge in. At one particularly busy pair of local roundabouts (aka "the twin doughnuts of death") there's actually been a pedestrian/cyclist stop light installed because otherwise you'd be taking your life in your hands to get across the road.
Can you really call it a roundabout if they left the stop signs?
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".
Nope. That would be a traffic circle.
> Roundabouts generally make streets safer for pedestrians as they slow the flow of traffic
This is rubbish. Roundabouts are a lot harder to cross, and more unsafe.
This is rubbish. Roundabouts are a lot harder to cross, and more unsafe.
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
Yeah as a pedestrian I wouldn't risk it. The rules are only useful if everyone follows them. Being right is not worth it.
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?
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
You don't know if oncoming traffic sees you, so unless you see them actively stopping, is is not safe to step out in front of them (you still have to watche like a hawk), even if they have enough room to stop. This "asserting your right of way" is the it to which the commentor is presumably referring.
The vast majority of days drivers are not looking and/or do not care and will not yield. I've been yelled at by drovers for crossing with the pedestrian light, I've had an entire light's worth of cars make a right turn at speed through a pedestrian lights and had to act like I was going to jump in front of them to get one to slam on their brakes.
"Right of way" for pedestrians won't mean anything until people start getting tickets regularly for violating it. Asserting right of way is dangerous and you are better off assuming cars never see you and will not stop.
You don't know if oncoming traffic sees you, so unless you see them actively stopping, is is not safe to step out in front of them (you still have to watche like a hawk), even if they have enough room to stop. This "asserting your right of way" is the it to which the commentor is presumably referring.
The vast majority of days drivers are not looking and/or do not care and will not yield. I've been yelled at by drovers for crossing with the pedestrian light, I've had an entire light's worth of cars make a right turn at speed through a pedestrian lights and had to act like I was going to jump in front of them to get one to slam on their brakes.
"Right of way" for pedestrians won't mean anything until people start getting tickets regularly for violating it. Asserting right of way is dangerous and you are better off assuming cars never see you and will not stop.
> 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.
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.
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...
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/5/29/an-open-letter...
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
See in particular, §3B.18 Crosswalk Markings 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 [...]
One interesting subtlety unnoticed on the L.A. Crosswalk site:
> The design of the lines and gaps should avoid the wheel paths if possible [...]
For cyclists and motorcycles they create additional road hazards by adding paint that gets as slippery as ice when wet. Thanks for nothing.
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-b...)
You're assuming that these will use the same paint that legitimate crosswalks do.
Yes, but considering that's what their own guide says to do I think that's a fairly safe assumption.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This wouldn't work in the UK where Zebra crossings like this need to be accompanied by yellow "lollypop" lights.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
Maybe take a look here:
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.
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.
yes but this is California, by law there is a crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection (ie those with no traffic lights) pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way
The page at the link that @onphonenow provided details numerous ways, written into California law, that a pedestrian may not always have the right of way.
IANAL but I read this differently. The pedestrian has the right of way at any intersection unless indicated otherwise. However there are also restriction on when a pedestrian can cross. So in practice this means that a driver should always yield before a pedestrian, however failing to do so the pedestrian is not allowed to walk in front of the car.
So technically both are in the wrong, but I would argue that in reality a pedestrian usually becomes frustrated when a line of cars don’t stop (even when they are supposed to). At this point multiple drivers have failed to abide by traffic law. Now the pedestrian ignores their end of the deal and crosses in front of cars, hoping they would stop.
What I’m getting at is that a pedestrian most often wouldn’t illegally cross if drivers wouldn’t illegally cross first.
So technically both are in the wrong, but I would argue that in reality a pedestrian usually becomes frustrated when a line of cars don’t stop (even when they are supposed to). At this point multiple drivers have failed to abide by traffic law. Now the pedestrian ignores their end of the deal and crosses in front of cars, hoping they would stop.
What I’m getting at is that a pedestrian most often wouldn’t illegally cross if drivers wouldn’t illegally cross first.
The pedestrian isn't even crossing illegally in that scenario. They are forbidden from crossing if it creates an "immediate hazard". If the driver has room to safely stop, it's not an immediate hazard.
I think the parent’s point is that the pedestrian already has the right of way, but drivers are ignoring that.
But that's still not relevant, because pedestrians inherently have the right of way at intersections under California law.
The "duty of care" exists whether or not there is paint on the road. How can the painters be liable?
Could you add some citations.
> As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect
You may have to retake driver's ed because when a pedestrian is crossing an intersection, they have right of way.
> In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases
Do you have any proof of this?
> As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect
You may have to retake driver's ed because when a pedestrian is crossing an intersection, they have right of way.
> In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases
Do you have any proof of this?
PLEASE PLEASE do not give bad advice here, you may get folks killed.
"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."
That is the LAW.
The issue is at some intersections particularly at night, a car coming around a bend at 40mph will almost always pose an immediate hazard particularly if you look at standardized reaction times and stopping distances.
A city doing this properly, before painting a crosswalk, would look at doing things like reducing multi-lane travel, reducing speed, signalizing the intersection, doing bumpouts, increasing sightlines (red curb pain, tree and vegetation removal) and much more. Then once it is safe enough, they would paint a crosswalk to attract crossings to this safer crossing.
"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."
That is the LAW.
The issue is at some intersections particularly at night, a car coming around a bend at 40mph will almost always pose an immediate hazard particularly if you look at standardized reaction times and stopping distances.
A city doing this properly, before painting a crosswalk, would look at doing things like reducing multi-lane travel, reducing speed, signalizing the intersection, doing bumpouts, increasing sightlines (red curb pain, tree and vegetation removal) and much more. Then once it is safe enough, they would paint a crosswalk to attract crossings to this safer crossing.
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?).
People wont be killed by paint on the road (unless they slip on it while wet, maybe?).
How could someone be killed by extra crosswalks?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
They're not adding new crosswalks, they're painting ones that already exist.
We raise taxes so we can build rainbow crosswalks.
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.