• w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Political banners have no place on public roads,” he said in a social media post. “Taxpayers expect their dollars to fund safe streets, not rainbow crosswalks.”

    I would argue it’s safer because it’s easier to see, especially for those who have some form of colorblindness.

    • painteddoggie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Lol. Lmao. I thought the same thing when they painted the thin blue line down the middle of street in front of the police station in my city.

    • y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      They’re removing one in a town near me due to the same bullshit line but the tax payers didn’t pay for it lol it was privately funded.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      especially for those who have some form of colorblindness.

      black/white color blindness is not really a thing… Adding colors for color blind people could in theory make it harder to distinguish the crosswalk pattern.

      The real “risk” here is that new things make drivers turn stupid. If you’ve ever lived in a small city that added some traffic feature after 20 years of not having it… you’ll hear about how people have crashed or broken all sorts of shit for years after. I would be most worried about that… But if that’s not happening, then I don’t see an issue.

      • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        I didn’t mean black/white colorblindness specifically.

        I mean in terms of the contrast of the white paint on the road. It works in certain conditions, but it fades and becomes hard to see. Eyesight disabilities come in many forms!

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The white paint used to mark roadways is much more durable than the apparent chalk that is being used in this image… A mild rain will turn the coloring into a mushy color mess that will cover the white markings.

          That would be much more detrimental to anyone with eyesight disabilities than anything else.

          I would like to reiterate the last paragraph…

          The real “risk” here is that new things make drivers turn stupid. If you’ve ever lived in a small city that added some traffic feature after 20 years of not having it… you’ll hear about how people have crashed or broken all sorts of shit for years after. I would be most worried about that… But if that’s not happening, then I don’t see an issue.

          • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah that isn’t chalk. It’s paint.

            Don’t mean to sound rude but it feels like you don’t actually want to talk about the problems with crosswalks but just talk about how people are bad drivers.

            Appreciate that both of us don’t think the color is a real problem either way though, which is really the point of the article!

            That puts things in perspective. Even though we don’t agree on how to get there, we do agree on the goal.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Don’t mean to sound rude but it feels like you don’t actually want to talk about the problems with crosswalks but just talk about how people are bad drivers.

              I don’t see how you can separate the these items? Crosswalks are there to give safe passage for pedestrians… If a driver plows through a family… and can walk into court and say “I couldn’t tell it was a crosswalk because it wasn’t properly marked” and get away with it… That’s a problem. The point of the crosswalk is to put onus on the driver to drive “Correctly” specifically at those points to make pedestrians safer.

              Yeah that isn’t chalk. It’s paint.

              Okay… so a little more durable than chalk. but certainly nowhere near as durable as the actual road markings. It will eventually wear weird and probably stain the white crosswalk markings themselves as well…

              I dunno… I could be wrong. But I’ve seen too many times where the person who is clearly in the wrong get away with something that they have no right getting away with just because of some technicality that the letter of the law supports. As long as a person doesn’t die because of this I don’t care all that much. But the itching feeling is there that someone might.