KNX-1070 Newsradio: West Hollywood Begins Installation Of Rainbow Crosswalks (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/west-hollywood-begins-installation-of-rainbow-crosswalks/)
QuoteRainbow hue crosswalks are being installed in West Hollywood.
QuoteCity officials say the two crosswalks are a symbol celebrating the pride in the area's homosexual, bisexual and transgender residents.
If they're not 'official' crosswalks, it makes no legal difference, since then they're simply unmarked crosswalks.
They appear to be official crosswalks, just judging by the article photo.
I was expecting to see stripes of alternating colors (which, BTW, would look really cool), and was very surprised to see solid colors all the way across the road. I really don't see any difference between this and the more common practice of using a different pavement surface for crosswalks, though I really don't know what MUTCD has to say (and am too lazy to look right now).
Regardless of whether the MUTCD or CVC prohibit these colored crosswalks, I think they are a really bad idea. It would be much better to insert the rainbow motif in a context where it does not lead either drivers or pedestrians to be uncertain where they stand legally.
That's a similar question to whether the City of Rochester painting some of its crosswalks purple every spring for the Lilac Festival is okay. Or any number of places that paint green centerlines along their St. Patrick's Day parade route. I did learn on here that in Bristol, RI it is by statute permissible to have a red, white and blue centerline: http://goo.gl/maps/LTW25
Another part of the question is, supposing a rainbow crosswalk is non-compliant, what are the ramifications? Does it become somehow less malfeasant to run over a pedestrian who is using a rainbow crosswalk? (The question sounds loaded, but its intent is serious.) As for the pedestrian, could he be cited for jaywalking by using the rainbow crosswalk rather than a legal, marked one?
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 25, 2012, 01:59:01 PM
Regardless of whether the MUTCD or CVC prohibit these colored crosswalks, I think they are a really bad idea. It would be much better to insert the rainbow motif in a context where it does not lead either drivers or pedestrians to be uncertain where they stand legally.
Personally, I like the rainbow scheme that the City of Philadelphia has used on some of its distinctive "beveled" street signs (in general, I think Philadelphia does a commendable job of signing its streets).
Here is an image I got from a Google search:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jqhMl7jYZTw%2FThOW3n55CuI%2FAAAAAAAAGkI%2FW0u3f42IC1s%2Fs640%2FDSCF0083.JPG&hash=d8320f8e9964360bc5db510c47e1fa3ac578887a)
is Chancellor Street in the gay district, or is it an unrelated rainbow?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
is Chancellor Street in the gay district, or is it an unrelated rainbow?
I don't recognize it, but I think it is (I've been in the "gay" area of Philadelphia a few times).
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Another part of the question is, supposing a rainbow crosswalk is non-compliant, what are the ramifications? Does it become somehow less malfeasant to run over a pedestrian who is using a rainbow crosswalk? (The question sounds loaded, but its intent is serious.) As for the pedestrian, could he be cited for jaywalking by using the rainbow crosswalk rather than a legal, marked one?
I already covered this - since it's at an intersection, if it's not a marked crosswalk, it's still the location of an unmarked crosswalk, which has the same legal status.
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Another part of the question is, supposing a rainbow crosswalk is non-compliant, what are the ramifications?
There would be no ramifications. The intersection in question is stoplight-controlled with pedestrian signals.
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Does it become somehow less malfeasant to run over a pedestrian who is using a rainbow crosswalk? (The question sounds loaded, but its intent is serious.)
No, it would be no less malfeasant to run over a pedestrian, since that space would otherwise still be considered an unmarked crosswalk, to which drivers are expected to yield in the same way as marked crosswalks. Beyond that, drivers are expected to yield to illegally crossing pedestrians anyway.
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
As for the pedestrian, could he be cited for jaywalking by using the rainbow crosswalk rather than a legal, marked one?
No, the pedestrian would not be jaywalking. In the absence of a marked crosswalk in proximity to a signalized intersection, pedestrians are instructed by law to use the nearest marked crosswalk or signalized intersection. Since this is a signalized intersection, it would be exactly where he or she should cross the street.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 25, 2012, 01:59:01 PM
Regardless of whether the MUTCD or CVC prohibit these colored crosswalks, I think they are a really bad idea. It would be much better to insert the rainbow motif in a context where it does not lead either drivers or pedestrians to be uncertain where they stand legally.
To an extent, I agree. However, I highly doubt there are any pedestrians or drivers out there who would actually wonder "where they stand legally". The rainbow crosswalks are bounded by white lines, are in exactly the same spot as the crosswalks were before, have pedestrian signals and stop bars, and were already "temporarily" installed back in June.
From the 2009 MUTCD (Chapter 3G): Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the
contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.
Looking at the photo in the KNX-1070 story, I'd say the rainbow crosswalk violates the first provision of this statement.
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2012, 03:54:57 PM
From the 2009 MUTCD (Chapter 3G): Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the
contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.
Looking at the photo in the KNX-1070 story, I'd say the rainbow crosswalk violates the first provision of this statement.
On the other hand, they did successfully end up with greater overall contrast.....
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
In the absence of a marked crosswalk in proximity to a signalized intersection, pedestrians are instructed by law to use the nearest marked crosswalk or signalized intersection.
Not quite - it's legal to cross anywhere, as long as it is not between two adjacent intersections both of which have signals (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21955.htm), though you only have right-of-way if crossing at a marked crosswalk or an intersection (hence an unmarked crosswalk) (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21954.htm).
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 04:08:13 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
In the absence of a marked crosswalk in proximity to a signalized intersection, pedestrians are instructed by law to use the nearest marked crosswalk or signalized intersection.
Not quite - it's legal to cross anywhere, as long as it is not between two adjacent intersections both of which have signals (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21955.htm), though you only have right-of-way if crossing at a marked crosswalk or an intersection (hence an unmarked crosswalk) (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21954.htm).
Thanks. I stated that without looking at California's vechicle code. Most jurisdictions simply say something like "within a block of" or whatever. I'd never before seen it restricted to just between signals.
I think between signals is in the UVC - Florida does that too.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
I think between signals is in the UVC - Florida does that too.
Sure enough! Well, I'll be dipped...
QuoteUVC § 11- 503(c) Crossing at other than crosswalks [Crossing between adjacent intersections]
Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 04:08:13 PMbetween two adjacent intersections both of which have signals[/url]
I'm trying to think of an instance where there are two which are inconveniently far apart... maybe on US-395 between towns, or something?
though I don't recall any town where the most extreme intersection is signalized. usually the first few side streets on the outskirts of town have STOP signs for the side roads.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 11:24:38 AM
If they're not 'official' crosswalks, it makes no legal difference, since then they're simply unmarked crosswalks.
While NE2 and I don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues, I agree with him in this case. California does not differentiate between marked and unmarked crosswalks and there's no way the paint scheme can be misconstrued as another traffic control device.
Quote from: roadman
From the 2009 MUTCD (Chapter 3G): Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.
Looking at the photo in the KNX-1070 story, I'd say the rainbow crosswalk violates the first provision of this statement.
Since California recognizes unmarked crosswalks, I don't see how the rainbow crosswalk degrades the contrast of white crosswalk lines because you can have crosswalks that are not marked with any lines.
Edit: Corrected reference on the last quote. Sorry kphoger. :cool:
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 25, 2012, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 11:24:38 AM
If they're not 'official' crosswalks, it makes no legal difference, since then they're simply unmarked crosswalks.
While NE2 and I don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues, I agree with him in this case. California does not differentiate between marked and unmarked crosswalks and there's no way the paint scheme can be misconstrued as another traffic control device.
Quote from: roadman
From the 2009 MUTCD (Chapter 3G): Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.
Looking at the photo in the KNX-1070 story, I'd say the rainbow crosswalk violates the first provision of this statement.
Since California recognizes unmarked crosswalks, I don't see how the rainbow crosswalk degrades the contrast of white crosswalk lines because you can have crosswalks that are not marked with any lines.
(Fixed the reference)
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: roadman
From the 2009 MUTCD (Chapter 3G): Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.
Looking at the photo in the KNX-1070 story, I'd say the rainbow crosswalk violates the first provision of this statement.
Since California recognizes unmarked crosswalks, I don't see how the rainbow crosswalk degrades the contrast of white crosswalk lines because you can have crosswalks that are not marked with any lines.
(Fixed the reference)
[/quote]
The rainbow crosswalk is bordered with white crosswalk lines. Unless I'm mistaken, that sure sounds like a marked crosswalk to me. Then again, we all know how well California conforms with the MUTCD.
And the real question is this: How long will the markings last? A while back, Stoneham Massachusetts decided to paint the interiors of all its crosswalks (even those at signalized intersections) in bright blue. The markings lasted about four months or so before they completely wore off. The Town never bothered to renew the paint.
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2012, 03:54:57 PM
From the 2009 MUTCD (Chapter 3G): Colored pavement located between crosswalk lines should not use colors or patterns that degrade the
contrast of white crosswalk lines, or that might be mistaken by road users as a traffic control application.
Looking at the photo in the KNX-1070 story, I'd say the rainbow crosswalk violates the first provision of this statement.
It is a guidance statement, which means, unfortunately, there is no violation.
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 04:12:35 PMThanks. I stated that without looking at California's vehicle code. Most jurisdictions simply say something like "within a block of" or whatever. I'd never before seen it restricted to just between signals.
It is the law in Kansas too (I think Kansas classifies as a UVC direct adopter). It can be a nuisance, especially when signals run on fixed timings. I can remember standing at an intersection in Hutchinson waiting for a mechanically actuated traffic signal to change (which it did with a loud and rather terrifying clap) so I could cross the street without breaking the law. There was no traffic coming from any direction and I could have crossed safely long before the signal changed, but I was on a street which had signals on every block, so I had a legal duty to wait.
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 03:42:41 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on September 25, 2012, 01:59:01 PMRegardless of whether the MUTCD or CVC prohibit these colored crosswalks, I think they are a really bad idea. It would be much better to insert the rainbow motif in a context where it does not lead either drivers or pedestrians to be uncertain where they stand legally.
To an extent, I agree. However, I highly doubt there are any pedestrians or drivers out there who would actually wonder "where they stand legally". The rainbow crosswalks are bounded by white lines, are in exactly the same spot as the crosswalks were before, have pedestrian signals and stop bars, and were already "temporarily" installed back in June.
I can envision a pedestrian looking at a crosswalk painted in those unusual colors and thinking, "Is that a real crosswalk? If I wait at it, will drivers stop for me just like they do at crosswalks in the usual colors? Or do the colors override the usual significance of the other markings and the location at an intersection, and make this something other than a pedestrian crossing?" Drivers might see the crosswalk and think, "Is that a real crosswalk? Do I have to stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross at it? Or is it something other than a crosswalk?"
It can be argued that in practice any difference between these rainbow crosswalks and the regular kind are negligible, especially in light of the provision which requires drivers to stop as soon as a pedestrian steps off the curb, no matter whether the pedestrian steps into a crosswalk or onto another part of the road surface. (I don't know whether this is just a Los Angeles city ordinance--in which case it would not apply in the separate municipality of West Hollywood--or if it is in the CVC. I don't even know whether municipal home rule in California allows cities to pass ordinances creating rules of the road more restrictive than those in the CVC.) And it is certainly true that drivers must attempt to avoid pedestrians on conflicting paths even if the pedestrian has ignored a legal duty to cede priority.
But I can see these crosswalks meaning the difference between drivers looking for pedestrians waiting to cross and drivers not reacting until pedestrians have already stepped into the road. Under really unfavorable conditions this distinction can translate into pedestrian injuries with the rainbow crosswalks.
Roadman argues that these rainbow markings should not be used because they violate a
MUTCD provision which requires that surface coloring not obscure the legally required portions of a crosswalk marking, but I'd argue that they fail the other portion of the
MUTCD statement he cites, which prohibits surface coloring applications that could be mistaken for a traffic control device.
While it isn't related to the LBGT movement or any other politics, Denver is experimenting with bright red painted crosswalks along Colorado Blvd. I like the concept, and my initial hunch is that it will reduce pedestrian collisions.
http://goo.gl/maps/SQSf1
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 04:27:01 PMI'm trying to think of an instance where there are two which are inconveniently far apart... maybe on US-395 between towns, or something?
We don't legislate for traffic with the same mathematical rigor as, say, the British. I am sure the legal accident you describe exists in at least one location.
Quotethough I don't recall any town where the most extreme intersection is signalized. usually the first few side streets on the outskirts of town have STOP signs for the side roads.
I wouldn't consider the possibility remote. A scenario where this could easily happen is a Wal-Mart on the outskirts, with a traffic signal controlling its access road, and strict limitation of access (residential driveways only, no side streets) in the rural area beginning right at that signal. If the town on the other side of the rural area has a similarly located Wal-Mart which also has signal control on its access road, you have your inadvertent 20-mile no-jaywalking zone right there.
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2012, 04:59:55 PMAnd the real question is this: How long will the markings last? A while back, Stoneham Massachusetts decided to paint the interiors of all its crosswalks (even those at signalized intersections) in bright blue. The markings lasted about four months or so before they completely wore off. The Town never bothered to renew the paint.
Swampscott has used bright blue for the interior of its crosswalks at one time as well. Marblehead and, I believe, Salem has used yellow for its crosswalk interiors as well.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 25, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 04:27:01 PMI'm trying to think though I don't recall any town where the most extreme intersection is signalized. usually the first few side streets on the outskirts of town have STOP signs for the side roads.
I wouldn't consider the possibility remote. A scenario where this could easily happen is a Wal-Mart on the outskirts, with a traffic signal controlling its access road, and strict limitation of access (residential driveways only, no side streets) in the rural area beginning right at that signal. If the town on the other side of the rural area has a similarly located Wal-Mart which also has signal control on its access road, you have your inadvertent 20-mile no-jaywalking zone right there.
I'm trying to find a location too. Grrrrr... I've decided that a more likely scenario would probably be a suburban highway where cross traffic is very limited and signals are far apart.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 03:39:59 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Another part of the question is, supposing a rainbow crosswalk is non-compliant, what are the ramifications? Does it become somehow less malfeasant to run over a pedestrian who is using a rainbow crosswalk? (The question sounds loaded, but its intent is serious.) As for the pedestrian, could he be cited for jaywalking by using the rainbow crosswalk rather than a legal, marked one?
I already covered this - since it's at an intersection, if it's not a marked crosswalk, it's still the location of an unmarked crosswalk, which has the same legal status.
I did read that; didn't know whether it was specific to California or West Hollywood per the OP, or just your general assessment nationwide.
But as it reminded me of some similar practices in other jurisdictions, are there any places in the U.S. where the ramifications would indeed be different? (Again, assuming that the installation in question is indeed invalid.)
Remember also that this is a mental exercise. In real life, most people aren't going to make a judgement call whether to strike down a pedestrian based on the legality of the crosswalk he's in. We all pretty much never hit anybody with our cars if we can at all help it.
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 06:35:44 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 03:39:59 PM
Quote from: empirestate on September 25, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Another part of the question is, supposing a rainbow crosswalk is non-compliant, what are the ramifications? Does it become somehow less malfeasant to run over a pedestrian who is using a rainbow crosswalk? (The question sounds loaded, but its intent is serious.) As for the pedestrian, could he be cited for jaywalking by using the rainbow crosswalk rather than a legal, marked one?
I already covered this - since it's at an intersection, if it's not a marked crosswalk, it's still the location of an unmarked crosswalk, which has the same legal status.
I did read that; didn't know whether it was specific to California or West Hollywood per the OP, or just your general assessment nationwide.
But as it reminded me of some similar practices in other jurisdictions, are there any places in the U.S. where the ramifications would indeed be different? (Again, assuming that the installation in question is indeed invalid.)
Remember also that this is a mental exercise. In real life, most people aren't going to make a judgement call whether to strike down a pedestrian based on the legality of the crosswalk he's in. We all pretty much never hit anybody with our cars if we can at all help it.
I can't imagine there's anywhere that crossing the street at a stoplight is illegal.
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
I can't imagine there's anywhere that crossing the street at a stoplight is illegal.
There may be a 'no pedestrians' sign posted. Many Pennsylvania intersections have them on all four sides.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 06:59:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 25, 2012, 06:37:25 PM
I can't imagine there's anywhere that crossing the street at a stoplight is illegal.
There may be a 'no pedestrians' sign posted. Many Pennsylvania intersections have them on all four sides.
We have something similar in California. Restrictions on pedestrian crossings at intersections typically consist of a sign(s) mounted on what I would call a "railing" that prevents pedestrians from crossing in a particular direction.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg17%2F2967%2Frainbowroad.jpg&hash=882fa7882d2f1bcbeacc0faa89ef9caeb60de3d7)
Is that on Super?
^ N64 version.
Halo: Custom Edition, anyone?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F5Z1MC8KvJw8%2F0.jpg&hash=9a7e516cf1104756c47c6664b716d0bfe795f742)
Quote from: Duke87 on September 25, 2012, 07:33:34 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg17%2F2967%2Frainbowroad.jpg&hash=882fa7882d2f1bcbeacc0faa89ef9caeb60de3d7)
He took the shortcut. No way he'd be out front like that!
QuoteTopic: I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?
The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with people's sexual habits–gay or straight–being incorporated into a traffic device. It wouldn't be socially couth for me to have a bumper sticker that said "I have sex with my wife," so why is it OK to have a gay pride flag bumper sticker?
OK, let's say I decided to make a bumper sticker that says "I have sex with my wife" (or a straight pride flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity_symbols) sticker); that should be my right. Or let's say I decided to fly an actual flag outside my home; that should be my right. But having the city government incorporate it into the design of the traffic infrastructure? Well, that is something else, and I don't think it's appropriate. Painting paw prints on the pavement to support the local sports team: annoying yet innocuous. Painting a crosswalk to symbolize sexual habits: not acceptable.
The funny thing is that I hadn't really thought about all this stuff until I saw the article. I used to be rather ambivalent about things like gay pride parades, bumper stickers, and the like; whereas now I'm taking a dimmer view. Well, if their intent was to raise awareness, then I guess they've succeeded, but polarization works both ways.
What's next: rainbow STOP signs? route shields? police uniforms?
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
QuoteTopic: I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?
The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with people's sexual habits–gay or straight–being incorporated into a traffic device. It wouldn't be socially couth for me to have a bumper sticker that said "I have sex with my wife," so why is it OK to have a gay pride flag bumper sticker?
I am personally not so enthused about the rainbow-colored crosswalk for technical reasons. It's non-standard in a place where we should value conformity for reasons of traffic safety.
Much better to put the colors of the rainbow on street signs, as Philadelphia has done (see image up-thread).
If people want a gay pride (or, for that matter, a straight pride or a bisexual pride) sticker on their car, that's fine with me.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
OK, let's say I decided to make a bumper sticker that says "I have sex with my wife" (or a straight pride flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity_symbols) sticker); that should be my right. Or let's say I decided to fly an actual flag outside my home; that should be my right. But having the city government incorporate it into the design of the traffic infrastructure? Well, that is something else, and I don't think it's appropriate. Painting paw prints on the pavement to support the local sports team: annoying yet innocuous. Painting a crosswalk to symbolize sexual habits: not acceptable.
I respectfully disagree. Homosexuals have been subject to
a lot of discrimination over the years, and that they can now take pride in being openly homosexual does not bother me in the least. I think it pretty harmless.
Recall the "afro" (and "soul brother" and "soul sister") stickers that some African-American persons used to put on their vehicles? Also pretty harmless.
Even the Confederate Battle Flag that was once very common in states that did not issue a front tag was (in my opinion) harmless, even though I personally consider the leaders of the Confederacy to have committed a massive, collective, act of treason against the United States. I've seen the CSA battle flag as a front "tag" in rear-tag-only states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware and North Carolina (and probably other states as well, but this is where I have observed it).
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
The funny thing is that I hadn't really thought about all this stuff until I saw the article. I used to be rather ambivalent about things like gay pride parades, bumper stickers, and the like; whereas now I'm taking a dimmer view. Well, if their intent was to raise awareness, then I guess they've succeeded, but polarization works both ways.
What's next: rainbow STOP signs? route shields? police uniforms?
STOP signs?
No. Route shields?
No. Street signs (like Philly)? That's O.K. Police uniforms? Probably not.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
QuoteTopic: I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?
The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with people's sexual habits–gay or straight–being incorporated into a traffic device. It wouldn't be socially couth for me to have a bumper sticker that said "I have sex with my wife," so why is it OK to have a gay pride flag bumper sticker?
And yet you probably advertise that you have a wife all the time with your wedding ring. Being LGBT isn't just about sex.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AMPainting paw prints on the pavement to support the local sports team: annoying yet innocuous. Painting a crosswalk to symbolize sexual habits: not acceptable.
what is the difference?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AMPainting paw prints on the pavement to support the local sports team: annoying yet innocuous. Painting a crosswalk to symbolize sexual habits: not acceptable.
what is the difference?
Not much, though paw prints are usually much smaller in size (compare and contrast with the width of the crosswalks in West Hollywood).
In a perfect world, these sorts of things would be restricted to street signs, or perhaps signs directing road users to a school campus (and on the sign, the mascot is (in my opinion) acceptable).
The District of Columbia uses Chinese characters (in addition to English-language Latin ones) on street signs along the Chinatown corridor (H Street, N.W.). That is fine by me.
my question is: who is it harming?
if you're in West Hollywood, there are many other gay pride displays as well. if you want to ban this one - and not on the grounds that it reduces the effectiveness of the crosswalk as a traffic control device - you may as well be wanting to ban them all.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
my question is: who is it harming?
if you're in West Hollywood, there are many other gay pride displays as well. if you want to ban this one - and not on the grounds that it reduces the effectiveness of the crosswalk as a traffic control device - you may as well be wanting to ban them all.
I don't want to ban any of them, especially displays that are on private property (the rainbow flag, for instance) or symbols attached to private vehicles. And displays such as the rainbow "panel" on public street signs, Philadelphia-style, look to be relatively low-cost and those have (I believe)
zero safety impact.
I do want pedestrians and other users of the street network in West Hollywood to be
safe, and this
may not be safe (but I suppose we will find out if it is unsafe).
An excellent example of something that is safe and still conveys the intended public message is the municipal seal for the City of West Hollywood (from Wikipedia, I presume it is current and correct):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:West_hollywood_logo.jpg
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 26, 2012, 12:45:54 PM
I do want pedestrians and other users of the street network in West Hollywood to be safe, and this may not be safe (but I suppose we will find out if it is unsafe).
I don't see how this colorful crosswalk "may not be safe". Like it's been said previously, if this crosswalk is not marked, it's still a crosswalk per the California Vehicle Code (unmarked crosswalks). I would much rather, in the name of safety, have the rainbow crosswalk painted on the road than no crosswalk marked at all.
I suppose it could distract drivers from other stuff on the road. Whoa, rainbows.
Quote from: deanej on September 26, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
And yet you probably advertise that you have a wife all the time with your wedding ring. Being LGBT isn't just about sex.
Don't people who are married to members of the same sex also wear wedding rings?
Getting one of those tacky family stickers on your car shows that you're hetero.
Quote from: deanej on September 26, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
QuoteTopic: I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?
The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with people's sexual habits–gay or straight–being incorporated into a traffic device. It wouldn't be socially couth for me to have a bumper sticker that said "I have sex with my wife," so why is it OK to have a gay pride flag bumper sticker?
And yet you probably advertise that you have a wife all the time with your wedding ring. Being LGBT isn't just about sex.
It's called homo
sexuality or hetero
sexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
Of course there's more to being LGBT than just sex, but only because there's more to being
human than just sex. But it is sex which sets gay apart from straight.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2012, 12:37:58 PM
my question is: who is it harming?
if you're in West Hollywood, there are many other gay pride displays as well. if you want to ban this one - and not on the grounds that it reduces the effectiveness of the crosswalk as a traffic control device - you may as well be wanting to ban them all.
Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children. I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex. That's part of my job as a father.
I'm not advocating all gay pride displays; this is America, we enjoy such freedoms, and they should be defended. But I can generally attend, pass by, or avoid whatever displays I wish. The difference is that the government is including it as part of the permanent infrastructure. If the city decided to paint "Marriage = 1 man + woman" on the side of City Hall, people would be outraged, and rightly so. I feel the same way about a gay pride painted crosswalk.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 26, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AMPainting paw prints on the pavement to support the local sports team: annoying yet innocuous. Painting a crosswalk to symbolize sexual habits: not acceptable.
what is the difference?
Sports and sex. What's the difference? Seriously? I don't know anybody who is afraid of what his child might be learning about basketball, but I know plenty of people who are afraid of what their children might be learning about sex. If you really can't tell the difference, then it's a sad testament to how we view the responsibility of parenting.
So, again I say:I wish the government had just stayed out of it. Let a crosswalk be a crosswalk.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
Of course there's more to being LGBT than just sex, but only because there's more to being human than just sex. But it is sex which sets gay apart from straight.
At the core, perhaps, but consider as well that this also affects what kind of relationships people develop with whom, and that there is absolutely a lot more to
that than just sex. It is perfectly possible to explain homosexuality to little kids without explaining to them what sex is. "Johnny loves Jimmy the same way Daddy loves Mommy".
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
I don't ... I can't even begin to ...
wait,
what????
It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.
I wouldn't worry so much about the sex part. Most of us have no trouble avoiding thoughts of sex when we see a mother, father and their child out in public, yet of course sex is the one absolutely essential ingredient in producing that group of people. We're more interested in their relationship as parents and child.
So, think of the rainbow as celebrating something more on those lines, in the same way you'd look at a pro-fatherhood billboard from the DSS, which promotes the healthy relationship between a man and his son rather than the sex he had to get one.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
ETA: Really? This had to be my 500th post? Damn.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
ETA: Really? This had to be my 500th post? Damn.
I wish I could like or heartclick this post.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
Very well stated. And I happen to strongly agree with the last sentence above.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
ETA: Really? This had to be my 500th post? Damn.
I want to friend you on Facebook.
EDIT: Your post inspired me to edit my avatar. I'm a straight supporter of the pride movement and happy to show it.
I'm a proud supporter of the straight movement... wait, what?
Quote from: Steve on September 26, 2012, 11:44:12 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
ETA: Really? This had to be my 500th post? Damn.
I want to friend you on Facebook.
EDIT: Your post inspired me to edit my avatar. I'm a straight supporter of the pride movement and happy to show it.
I just have to remark at the irony of a sign from Oklahoma, of all states, being altered in such a way. Especially considering the Biblical button copy that can be found in Oklahoma.
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children. I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex. That's part of my job as a father.
You can't shelter your kids forever. Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school. Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?
I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts. Why are you so threatened by gays? I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
True. Someone younger might associate the rainbow flag with gay politics. But the original meaning was more along the lines of "diversity" as the symbol came out of the civil rights movement. As one Baptist minister said, "Red or Yellow or Black or White, we're all God's children in his sight."
Still, I think painting on the crosswalks is kinda cheap and touristic. Hang it on the lightpoles like we do here in San Francisco.
QuoteThe permanent installation is expected to be completed next week and is estimated to cost nearly $70,000.
$70,000 for a crosswalk installation?!?!?!?! WTF?
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 01:50:21 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children. I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex. That's part of my job as a father.
You can't shelter your kids forever. Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school. Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?
That is
exactly why I took my (teenaged) stepsons (both straight) to a gay eating establishment for brunch (with an openly gay) friend of mine.
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 01:50:21 AM
I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts. Why are you so threatened by gays? I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.
I did not, and I hope you are incorrect regarding your detection.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 27, 2012, 02:08:57 AM
QuoteThe permanent installation is expected to be completed next week and is estimated to cost nearly $70,000.
$70,000 for a crosswalk installation?!?!?!?! WTF?
I
assume that the material
and the labor costs are
much higher than if it had been just one color.
Now I get the impression that as a municipality, West Hollywood is pretty well-off, so perhaps that's a non-issue.
I am to blame for starting this thread.
Can I make it perfectly clear (and no, I am
not related to Richard Nixon) that:
- That they are honoring gay people is irrelevant to me (what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is simply not my concern);
- If any political subdivision wants to honor some segment of its population for whatever reason, it's usually fine by me; - but -
- In doing the honoring, serious consideration should be given to the safety aspects of what is proposed (I don't think West Hollywood did that).
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2012, 12:34:29 AM
I'm a proud supporter of the straight movement... wait, what?
I support movement. Poo on, everyone!
(eliminate comma as needed.)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2012, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 01:50:21 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children. I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex. That's part of my job as a father.
You can't shelter your kids forever. Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school. Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?
That is exactly why I took my (teenaged) stepsons (both straight) to a gay eating establishment for brunch (with an openly gay) friend of mine.
Obviously I can't shelter my children forever; in fact, that would be a very dangerous thing to try to do to a child. But I would like to have as much control as possible over when and how my child is exposed to things sexual. Most parents I know feel the same way. My four-year-old is a very observant child–he already shows signs of roadgeekiness–and you can bet he would ask why the crosswalk looks like a rainbow. Now, you and I may disagree on whether or not homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality, but can you really not understand how a parent wouldn't want to give
any answer to that question until the child has reached a certain level of maturity and understanding?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2012, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 01:50:21 AM
I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts. Why are you so threatened by gays? I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.
I did not, and I hope you are incorrect regarding your detection.
Homophobia is an overused word. I have a moral stance against homosexuality, but it's certainly not based on a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. I have no problem with equal rights etc., and certainly don't try to avoid interacting with the gay community. Heck, we went to Chick-fil-A not only their Appreciation Day last month, but also during the "Kiss In" the following Friday (which, incidentally, ended up being just a bunch of people with signs standing by the road). My wife and I are currently working our way through
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
It's not that I feel 'threatened' any more than I do by anything else I believe is morally wrong–by which I mean that what individuals do affects society as a whole; though it may not threaten me personally, I find it impossible to say flat out that certain things are 'threats'. As John Donne said (though Donne was writing about death, the same applies):
QuoteNo man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
ETA: Really? This had to be my 500th post? Damn.
I understand the truth underlying what you say. But "the rainbow has absoutely nothing to do with sex" is simply false. People are not disqualified from jobs, adoption rights, etc. because of the attractions they feel inside their own minds. Nor does society have a problem with people of the same sex living together, being devoted or loving toward each other, spending time together, or whatever (they're called roommates, relatives, or friends, respectively). It's only when that relationship becomes sexual in nature that the real discrimination begins. While it may be true that being gay is more than
just sex (such as associated gender roles, social identity, etc.), it's crazy talk to say that it's simply
not about sex.
Quote from: NE2 on September 26, 2012, 07:28:17 PM
It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.
Why is this a hard concept to understand?
___
But, that's as may be. People's views on this topic are obviously not equal, and it's obviously a hot topic. Just look at our nation's history. I just think it was an inappropriate action by a government agency.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PMJust look at our nation's history.
it has progressed steadily towards more and more equal rights for people of all kinds.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 26, 2012, 07:28:17 PM
It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.
Why is this a hard concept to understand?
Why is what? My biting sarcasm?
:banghead: And it got political. I get enough from CNN, and come to this site and get hit with more. :pan:
Quote from: intelati49 on September 27, 2012, 03:23:05 PM
:banghead: And it got political. I get enough from CNN, and come to this site and get hit with more. :pan:
well, that's what you get when there's one reactionary on the forum who refuses to leave behind the "eww, gay people are gay" attitude that most of us abandoned by middle school.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 03:29:04 PM
eww, gay people are gay
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2012, 02:57:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 26, 2012, 07:28:17 PM
It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.
Why is this a hard concept to understand?
Why is what? My biting sarcasm?
Ha! You and me both, man... No, that sexuality is actually about sex. :nod:
Enquiring minds still want to know: Why are 'the politics of this' and 'MUTCD' even in the same sentence?
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 03:41:14 PM
Ha! You and me both, man... No, that sexuality is actually about sex. :nod:
It is, if by sex you mean gender. Duh.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 03:41:14 PM
... sex. :nod:
In this context this gif is quite creepy. :eyebrow:
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2012, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 01:50:21 AM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children. I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex. That's part of my job as a father.
You can't shelter your kids forever. Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school. Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?
That is exactly why I took my (teenaged) stepsons (both straight) to a gay eating establishment for brunch (with an openly gay) friend of mine.
Obviously I can't shelter my children forever; in fact, that would be a very dangerous thing to try to do to a child. But I would like to have as much control as possible over when and how my child is exposed to things sexual. Most parents I know feel the same way. My four-year-old is a very observant child–he already shows signs of roadgeekiness–and you can bet he would ask why the crosswalk looks like a rainbow. Now, you and I may disagree on whether or not homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality, but can you really not understand how a parent wouldn't want to give any answer to that question until the child has reached a certain level of maturity and understanding?
First, I am going to defer to your sensibilities and values as a parent. He's
your son.
Having said that, I have told my stepsons that there are people out there who are "wired" to have preferences that are for persons of the same sex, instead of the opposite sex. One of them understands that even better since he started in a high school where the principal is openly Lesbian. My understanding is that straight or gay is
not something that people can choose (even though I just used the word
preference).
But more to the point, as I said up-thread, I don't have any concern about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (unless it involves
me or someone I am in a relationship with).
Unlike when I was in school (I graduated high school in 1976), there are also persons who are openly homosexual in school these days (and I don't have a problem with that either), so it's not as much of a big deal as it once was. In my opinion, that is a good thing.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on September 27, 2012, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 01:50:21 AM
I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts. Why are you so threatened by gays? I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.
I did not, and I hope you are incorrect regarding your detection.
Homophobia is an overused word. I have a moral stance against homosexuality, but it's certainly not based on a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. I have no problem with equal rights etc., and certainly don't try to avoid interacting with the gay community. Heck, we went to Chick-fil-A not only their Appreciation Day last month, but also during the "Kiss In" the following Friday (which, incidentally, ended up being just a bunch of people with signs standing by the road). My wife and I are currently working our way through Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.
It's not that I feel 'threatened' any more than I do by anything else I believe is morally wrong–by which I mean that what individuals do affects society as a whole; though it may not threaten me personally, I find it impossible to say flat out that certain things are 'threats'. As John Donne said (though Donne was writing about death, the same applies):
QuoteNo man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...
I am sure as Hades not going to try to tell you what your morals should be regarding sexuality. It's not my place to do such a thing.
But a certain percentage of the human population
is gay. That seems to be a fact, and it does not matter what the race or ethnic origin or other demographic group you want to use, and no amount of moral or religious objection is going to change that. I object vigorously to efforts to use government and government powers to discriminate against persons that happen to be gay. In a sense it is unfortunate that gay people have seen it necessary to move to areas like West Hollywood and San Francisco, but apparently they do.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 05:02:27 PM
It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex. If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.
To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No. Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to. Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc. A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.
Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community. The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
ETA: Really? This had to be my 500th post? Damn.
I understand the truth underlying what you say. But "the rainbow has absoutely nothing to do with sex" is simply false. People are not disqualified from jobs, adoption rights, etc. because of the attractions they feel inside their own minds. Nor does society have a problem with people of the same sex living together, being devoted or loving toward each other, spending time together, or whatever (they're called roommates, relatives, or friends, respectively). It's only when that relationship becomes sexual in nature that the real discrimination begins. While it may be true that being gay is more than just sex (such as associated gender roles, social identity, etc.), it's crazy talk to say that it's simply not about sex.
I agree with
Kacie Jane regarding the above.
It is quite possible to be celibate and gay. Or celibate and straight. Or celibate and bisexual.
Even celibate gay people have been discriminated against. And fighting back against that discrimination is what the rainbow colors and the rest of it are about. At least that's how I see it.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 03:42:04 PM
Enquiring minds still want to know: Why are 'the politics of this' and 'MUTCD' even in the same sentence?
Because presumably West Hollywood is run by politicians, like most municipalities, and presumably they are supposed to be subject to the MUTCD, like the rest of the United States.
inquiring minds want to know, why the hangup about sex? how does it better us as a society to be tittery and weird and avoidant?
while small children certainly shouldn't be having it, it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.
kinda like alcohol... oh wait, fuck, we're assholes about that too, as evidenced by the 16 year olds drinking themselves into a stupor because it's forbidden.
maybe we should treat sex like taxes. "it's just something we do." (okay, hopefully more often than once a year!)
no rebellious teen is gonna fill out a 1040.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.
But this is not what I would teach my child about sex. Surely you could have guessed that. I, like 38% of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
kinda like alcohol... oh wait, fuck, we're assholes about that too, as evidenced by the 16 year olds drinking themselves into a stupor because it's forbidden.
maybe we should treat sex like taxes. "it's just something we do." (okay, hopefully more often than once a year!)
No, sorry, I cannot lump sex together with taxes and what people drink. There's a fundamental difference. Sex is more than just something we do, any more than love is just an emotion we feel. Sex is fundamental to human nature in a way that nothing else is, and I could never in good conscience teach my children otherwise.
That's why a rainbow crosswalk, to me, is more than just advocating equal rights. To me, it is advocating
moral equality, and that is a realm I firmly believe the government should stay out of.
I know what you mean. The paint is forcing us to accept the equivalence of zebras and cartoon ponies.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
38% of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable;
a more realistic question is: how many percent of Americans have had sex outside of marriage?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2012, 04:41:19 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
38% of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable;
a more realistic question is: how many percent of Americans have had sex outside of marriage?
That's a very good point. It would also be interesting to see a breakdown by age group.
Count me as one who has had sex before marriage, is currently married, and still believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong–due in part to my own experience. Count my wife as another, whose history is nearly the same as mine–except that she never had a child out of wedlock, whereas I have a 12-year-old daughter (now legally and realistically the child of her stepfather) in the Chicago suburbs.
....and now we've totally lost track of the the topic.....
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
That's why a rainbow crosswalk, to me, is more than just advocating equal rights. To me, it is advocating moral equality, and that is a realm I firmly believe the government should stay out of.
In a way, that's exactly the point. The rainbow symbol celebrates people's right to practice diverse lifestyles without oversight of government (along with other societal judgements). So, by employing the rainbow, the government of West Hollywood is indeed affirming its duty as a government to be permissive of these lifestyles. It is akin to displaying any of the various symbols of liberty and freedom we see so frequently at public and private locations around the nation.
That there's an element of sex is unquestionable, just as there's an element of sex in any celebration of parenthood, or of religious family principles. But we don't consider them explicitly when we celebrate these things, and they are not what the rainbow symbolizes. When we advocate for second amendment rights, we're referring to our right to protect ourselves with weapons; the second amendment isn't about the pathological details of how a bullet creates injury or death. And when we go to a wedding in a church, we don't feel the need to explain to the children present what the newlywed couple is now anatomically permitted to do in the church's eyes.
So if you ever need to explain the rainbow to children (who will probably be more interested in it as just a bunch of pretty colors anyhow), just say that it means people have the right to live their lives as the people they are, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 05:03:33 PM
Count me as one who has had sex before marriage, is currently married, and still believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong
therefore, by your own logic, if homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, then they should not ever be having sex.
doesn't that seem just a little bit
cruel to you?
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.
But this is not what I would teach my child about sex. Surely you could have guessed that. I, like 38% of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?
I hope you don't teach them to be bigots like you are.
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 07:16:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.
But this is not what I would teach my child about sex. Surely you could have guessed that. I, like 38% of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?
I hope you don't teach them to be bigots like you are.
Whoa guys, put down the sticks and play nicely please?
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 02:49:18 PM
I understand the truth underlying what you say. But "the rainbow has absoutely nothing to do with sex" is simply false. People are not disqualified from jobs, adoption rights, etc. because of the attractions they feel inside their own minds. Nor does society have a problem with people of the same sex living together, being devoted or loving toward each other, spending time together, or whatever (they're called roommates, relatives, or friends, respectively). It's only when that relationship becomes sexual in nature that the real discrimination begins. While it may be true that being gay is more than just sex (such as associated gender roles, social identity, etc.), it's crazy talk to say that it's simply not about sex.
And again, no. You're simply wrong.
Since I've recently told two people this through PM, I might as well tell the rest of you. I am male -- Kacie Jane bears no resemblance to my actual name.
Allow me to tell you something else. I am bisexual. I know this because Jude Law is by far the most attractive person in
The Holiday -- among other reasons. I know this despite being in a monogamous relationship with my wife whom I adore. And I know this despite never having had sex with another man, although I have kissed one.
If I were to come out at work, no one would give two shits because I live and work in a liberal college town and because I work at a very friendly place with competent managers and HR and strict anti-discrimination policies. However, if I lived in Podunk, Red State, this would not be the case. There are still places where I would be fired on the spot.
There are schools (fortunately not ones that I have attended) where if I'd worn a rainbow shirt to school, I would have been suspended for 3 days (http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=192376).
I would have been a victim of "real discrimination" despite not having had a relationship that became sexual in nature.
Discrimination isn't about what goes on in the bedroom. It's about idiots making idiotic assumptions.
Quote from: intelati49 on September 27, 2012, 07:23:02 PM
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 07:16:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 27, 2012, 03:48:35 PM
it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.
But this is not what I would teach my child about sex. Surely you could have guessed that. I, like 38% of Americans (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx), do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?
I hope you don't teach them to be bigots like you are.
Whoa guys, put down the sticks and play nicely please?
If it quacks and waddles like a duck, then it's probably a duck. I'm not going to hold back on speaking the truth just because it might make somebody uncomfortable.
Ok guys, please get back on topic about the MUTCD points about this crosswalk. We don't need all this bashing of other people here as it's also getting a little too political for my tastes in here. Thanks.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 27, 2012, 07:57:46 PM
Ok guys, please get back on topic about the MUTCD points about this crosswalk. We don't need all this bashing of other people here as it's also getting a little too political for my tastes in here. Thanks.
About an hour too late in my book.
Quote from: intelati49 on September 27, 2012, 07:58:34 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 27, 2012, 07:57:46 PM
Ok guys, please get back on topic about the MUTCD points about this crosswalk. We don't need all this bashing of other people here as it's also getting a little too political for my tastes in here. Thanks.
About an hour too late in my book.
Couldn't help it. Wasn't on my computer till now.
So you're saying it's OK to promote bigotry on here, but it's not OK to call somebody out on it? Seems your priorities are backwards.
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 08:02:45 PM
So you're saying it's OK to promote bigotry on here, but it's not OK to call somebody out on it? Seems your priorities are backwards.
let's just agree to stop feeding the troll.
kphoger, please quit trolling.
Actually I was pleasantly surprised that it went so well for so long. :-P
Quote from: bugo on September 27, 2012, 08:02:45 PM
So you're saying it's OK to promote bigotry on here, but it's not OK to call somebody out on it? Seems your priorities are backwards.
I never said that bugo. I said we don't need to bash other people here. I don't care if you're straight or gay, we shouldn't let a thread go into bashing each other for their personal preference. Also, we do have to remember that some members here are under 14. So, unless this thread gets back on topic now, I'll just lock it and/or just delete everything except the first post and then re-open it with a strong warning. If we can't all discuss the topic on hand without getting into homophobia or hate speech, then it just might be best to eliminate this thread completely.
Threads like these are useful because you can see a person's true colors. Many posters in this thread have proven themselves to be open minded and some have proven the opposite. I'll stay out of it from here on out, but I stand by what I said.
Quote from: intelati49 on September 27, 2012, 07:23:02 PM
Whoa guys, put down the lorries and play nicely please?
Fixed for you.
Wonder if the various colors of paint will meet reflectivity standards? Or how long it will hold up under constant vehicular traffic?
One would expect the red to fade over the years.
And for that matter, what are some other examples of "novelty" pavement marking like this? I mentioned lilac-themed crosswalks in Rochester and some green or red-white-blue centerlines; what else? :hmmm:
Green bike lanes to attempt to mitigate shitty design (e.g. bike lane to right of right turn lane).
Quote from: NE2 on September 27, 2012, 10:39:10 PM
Green bike lanes to attempt to mitigate shitty design (e.g. bike lane to right of right turn lane).
The entirety of Broadway being painted I believe blue for several blocks, or red, or something like that. A particular agency considered making a particular HOV lane a different color in the NYC area (I can't go into details for various reasons, so don't ask), but decided the maintenance of paint would be too much, and pigmented pavement is unproven under heavy traffic loads.
...then you have engineering students painting street center stripes green for St. Patrick's Day.
Quote from: Steve on September 27, 2012, 10:50:56 PM
The entirety of Broadway being painted I believe blue for several blocks, or red, or something like that. A particular agency considered making a particular HOV lane a different color in the NYC area (I can't go into details for various reasons, so don't ask), but decided the maintenance of paint would be too much, and pigmented pavement is unproven under heavy traffic loads.
The pedestrianized parts of Broadway are variously blue or some kind of weird blue/white/black/purple swirly mix:
http://goo.gl/maps/D6IOQ
Also: http://goo.gl/maps/mhOCy (but step just one click to the right to see it pre-pedestrianization!)
And dedicated bus lanes, a form of HOV I suppose, are a dull red:
http://goo.gl/maps/jZ7dB
And yes, the green bike lanes as well:
http://goo.gl/maps/SgSsE
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 27, 2012, 08:37:27 PMand/or just delete everything except the first post and then re-open it with a strong warning.
To be fair, we did perform the miracle of making it a page and a half before we got into the politics of it. Plenty of on-topic stuff here.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 27, 2012, 11:29:07 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 27, 2012, 08:37:27 PMand/or just delete everything except the first post and then re-open it with a strong warning.
To be fair, we did perform the miracle of making it a page and a half before we got into the politics of it. Plenty of on-topic stuff here.
No way I 'm going to read all this shit. Let me guess, whatever the other person thought is wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself for taking away the rights of those who feel differently.
:bigass:
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 04:27:01 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2012, 04:08:13 PMbetween two adjacent intersections both of which have signals[/url]
I'm trying to think of an instance where there are two which are inconveniently far apart... maybe on US-395 between towns, or something?
though I don't recall any town where the most extreme intersection is signalized. usually the first few side streets on the outskirts of town have STOP signs for the side roads.
South Bloomfield, OH has traffic lights at the extreme ends of US 23's passage through the town. On the north end, the next intersection along US 23 (with a public road) is also signalized, and it's a half-mile up the road. Crossing between those points would be illegal, right? A few more miles to the north, at OH 762, signs prohibit pedestrians crossing any of the 4 sides of the intersection. How's that for a clusterf***?
Quote from: kphoger on September 26, 2012, 10:55:34 AM
QuoteTopic: I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?
The more I think about it, the more uncomfortable I am with people's sexual habits–gay or straight–being incorporated into a traffic device. It wouldn't be socially couth for me to have a bumper sticker that said "I have sex with my wife," so why is it OK to have a gay pride flag bumper sticker?
OK, let's say I decided to make a bumper sticker that says "I have sex with my wife" (or a straight pride flag (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity_symbols) sticker); that should be my right. Or let's say I decided to fly an actual flag outside my home; that should be my right.
If I saw a bumper sticker on a car that says "I have sex with my wife" I'd want to give the owner a high-five. It doesn't matter if the owner is a man or a woman. You could replace "wife" with "husband" and I'd have the same reaction. Because married couples don't always have decent sex lives (with each other). It's like when that foot-fetish video surfaced that an NFL coach took of his wife, and I was like "A man married for so many years has an interesting sex life with his wife?
Good for him!" And yes it's your right to display "straight pride" stuff, though it seems to me sometimes people say "straight pride" when they really mean "gay bashing" – do you really need to express pride at being in a majority?
Anyway, I think this kind of recognition of a minority enclave neighborhood is cool. It doesn't always have to be expressed in a modified traffic control device, but it sounds to me like they didn't mess up too badly in this case.
Yes, I totally jumped on the bandwagon and added a rainbow to my avatar. I assume that trend is a result of this thread...
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:18:32 PM
Wonder if the various colors of paint will meet reflectivity standards? Or how long it will hold up under constant vehicular traffic?
The only aspect of the crosswalk that would need to meet reflectivity standards would be the longitudinal white lines surrounding the rainbow coloring, as that is what legally establishes the crosswalk. The rainbow paint colors are not part of the traffic control device, and aren't necessarily governed by the MUTCD unless they interfere with the contrast of white lines or appear to too closely resemble some other traffic control device.
The more interesting question is how long the colors will last under vehicular traffic. Being a solid paint application, it will definitely wear down quicker within the typical wheel path and possibly become not so aesthetically pleasing after a short time.
Appreciating the symbolism of what the rainbow represents, I don't think I would have chosen this application which would wear out to the point of needing frequent reapplication to maintain the look--especially given the initial cost. The street name sign example shown previously would have been more cost effective long term and easier to do on a larger scale--this crosswalk method, however, provides a bold impact and statement, which I assume is what the city may have felt was more meaningful or desired.
Quote from: hbelkins on September 27, 2012, 10:18:32 PM
Wonder if the various colors of paint will meet reflectivity standards? Or how long it will hold up under constant vehicular traffic?
That is a very good question.
I don't think it's going to last very long (though at least they don't get all that much rain in West Hollywood).
Quote from: empirestate on September 27, 2012, 10:32:06 PM
And for that matter, what are some other examples of "novelty" pavement marking like this? I mentioned lilac-themed crosswalks in Rochester and some green or red-white-blue centerlines; what else? :hmmm:
Various purple paint schemes on the pavement leading to E-ZPass (
Only) lanes, though they don't seem to be consistent at all.
Boston's Freedom Trail is marked with a red stripe, and I seem to recall that at some point the centerline of a road open to motor vehicles is red, white and blue.
(this info is from personal experience when I was a kid - i.e. early 90s. it may not be accurate, or the case anymore. someone please verify?)
Quote from: empirestate on September 27, 2012, 06:13:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2012, 04:10:15 PM
That's why a rainbow crosswalk, to me, is more than just advocating equal rights. To me, it is advocating moral equality, and that is a realm I firmly believe the government should stay out of.
In a way, that's exactly the point. The rainbow symbol celebrates people's right to practice diverse lifestyles without oversight of government (along with other societal judgements). So, by employing the rainbow, the government of West Hollywood is indeed affirming its duty as a government to be permissive of these lifestyles. It is akin to displaying any of the various symbols of liberty and freedom we see so frequently at public and private locations around the nation.
That there's an element of sex is unquestionable, just as there's an element of sex in any celebration of parenthood, or of religious family principles. But we don't consider them explicitly when we celebrate these things, and they are not what the rainbow symbolizes. When we advocate for second amendment rights, we're referring to our right to protect ourselves with weapons; the second amendment isn't about the pathological details of how a bullet creates injury or death. And when we go to a wedding in a church, we don't feel the need to explain to the children present what the newlywed couple is now anatomically permitted to do in the church's eyes.
So if you ever need to explain the rainbow to children (who will probably be more interested in it as just a bunch of pretty colors anyhow), just say that it means people have the right to live their lives as the people they are, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
A hundred thanks for this well-spoken reply. Your reply alone has done more to change my feelings towards the rainbow crosswalk than every other post on here put together. In fact, I keep marvelling at the reasonableness of your remarks. If you just put that together off the cuff, then I am awed; if you took a long time to carefully construct the argument, then I am humbly grateful for your consideration. I can now appreciate the rainbow flag/crosswalk/bumper sticker/whatever. Not only am I no longer upset by it (as opposed to my ho-hum, noncommittal attitude towards it before this thread), but I can now appreciate it as a symbol of noble democratic values. Again, I thank you.
Quote from: empirestate on September 27, 2012, 10:32:06 PM
And for that matter, what are some other examples of "novelty" pavement marking like this? I mentioned lilac-themed crosswalks in Rochester and some green or red-white-blue centerlines; what else? :hmmm:
I recall reading an article about the whole surface of a highway being a different color to alert drivers of a reduced speed limit. It was somewhere on the Arabian peninsula, but I'm unable to hunt down the article on Google based on my shoddy memory right now. The colorant may also have been added to the paving material, rather than applied on top. Does anyone remember this?
Quote from: roadfro on September 28, 2012, 04:44:44 AM
The only aspect of the crosswalk that would need to meet reflectivity standards would be the longitudinal white lines surrounding the rainbow coloring, as that is what legally establishes the crosswalk. The rainbow paint colors are not part of the traffic control device, and aren't necessarily governed by the MUTCD unless they interfere with the contrast of white lines or appear to too closely resemble some other traffic control device.
The color contrast was called into question further upthread, but I don't think it was really discussed, what with the heated debate over freedom, sexuality, and what it means to be human [ :hmm: ]. I would like to hear from the more engineer-ish folks on here what their take is on the color contrast aspect of the crosswalk.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 12:04:47 PM
and I seem to recall that at some point the centerline of a road open to motor vehicles is red, white and blue.
Bristol, Rhode Island (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=bristol,+ri&hl=en&ll=41.666924,-71.275217&spn=0.000519,0.000976&sll=40.755732,-73.985978&sspn=0.001061,0.001953&t=k&hnear=Bristol,+Rhode+Island&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.666924,-71.275217&panoid=sLuA8yOo-Ol1ncN_zs2S7g&cbp=12,176.56,,0,2.72), along the route of the nation's oldest 4th of July parade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Fourth_of_July_Parade).
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
The color contrast was called into question further upthread, but I don't think it was really discussed, what with the heated debate over freedom, sexuality, and what it means to be human [ :hmm: ]. I would like to hear from the more engineer-ish folks on here what their take is on the color contrast aspect of the crosswalk.
We're talking really bright colors on black pavement. Even if the adjacent colors in the rainbow don't contrast well with each other (the very nature of a rainbow is that each color fades into the next, after all), the rainbow as a whole will contrast perfectly well with the pavement on either side - which is what matters from a functional standpoint.
Actually, what I'd tend to worry about in this circumstance is all that paint ending up wet. Slick paint = handling nightmare. Luckily, this is in Southern California...
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2012, 07:24:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 12:04:47 PM
and I seem to recall that at some point the centerline of a road open to motor vehicles is red, white and blue.
Bristol, Rhode Island (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=bristol,+ri&hl=en&ll=41.666924,-71.275217&spn=0.000519,0.000976&sll=40.755732,-73.985978&sspn=0.001061,0.001953&t=k&hnear=Bristol,+Rhode+Island&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.666924,-71.275217&panoid=sLuA8yOo-Ol1ncN_zs2S7g&cbp=12,176.56,,0,2.72), along the route of the nation's oldest 4th of July parade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Fourth_of_July_Parade).
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
The color contrast was called into question further upthread, but I don't think it was really discussed, what with the heated debate over freedom, sexuality, and what it means to be human [ :hmm: ]. I would like to hear from the more engineer-ish folks on here what their take is on the color contrast aspect of the crosswalk.
We're talking really bright colors on black pavement. Even if the adjacent colors in the rainbow don't contrast well with each other (the very nature of a rainbow is that each color fades into the next, after all), the rainbow as a whole will contrast perfectly well with the pavement on either side - which is what matters from a functional standpoint.
I agree that it contrasts well with the pavement. But are there specific criteria that are used to determine if it contrasts
enough, or is this something that's just generally not called into question? Also, I was actually thinking more of the contrast between the rainbow and the white lines. To my eyes, it contrasts less with the white, simply because I naturally view the entire painted portion as one whole.
Quote from: kphoger on September 29, 2012, 12:13:57 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on September 28, 2012, 07:24:06 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 28, 2012, 12:04:47 PM
and I seem to recall that at some point the centerline of a road open to motor vehicles is red, white and blue.
Bristol, Rhode Island (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=bristol,+ri&hl=en&ll=41.666924,-71.275217&spn=0.000519,0.000976&sll=40.755732,-73.985978&sspn=0.001061,0.001953&t=k&hnear=Bristol,+Rhode+Island&z=20&layer=c&cbll=41.666924,-71.275217&panoid=sLuA8yOo-Ol1ncN_zs2S7g&cbp=12,176.56,,0,2.72), along the route of the nation's oldest 4th of July parade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Fourth_of_July_Parade).
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
The color contrast was called into question further upthread, but I don't think it was really discussed, what with the heated debate over freedom, sexuality, and what it means to be human [ :hmm: ]. I would like to hear from the more engineer-ish folks on here what their take is on the color contrast aspect of the crosswalk.
We're talking really bright colors on black pavement. Even if the adjacent colors in the rainbow don't contrast well with each other (the very nature of a rainbow is that each color fades into the next, after all), the rainbow as a whole will contrast perfectly well with the pavement on either side - which is what matters from a functional standpoint.
I agree that it contrasts well with the pavement. But are there specific criteria that are used to determine if it contrasts enough, or is this something that's just generally not called into question? Also, I was actually thinking more of the contrast between the rainbow and the white lines. To my eyes, it contrasts less with the white, simply because I naturally view the entire painted portion as one whole.
The white lines itself are the primary concern. As long as those remain clear and reflective to denote the crosswalk, the colors in the middle should not do anything to lessen the appearance of "something's going across the road here that looks crosswalkish."
Quote from: kphoger on September 28, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
A hundred thanks for this well-spoken reply. Your reply alone has done more to change my feelings towards the rainbow crosswalk than every other post on here put together. In fact, I keep marvelling at the reasonableness of your remarks. If you just put that together off the cuff, then I am awed; if you took a long time to carefully construct the argument, then I am humbly grateful for your consideration. I can now appreciate the rainbow flag/crosswalk/bumper sticker/whatever. Not only am I no longer upset by it (as opposed to my ho-hum, noncommittal attitude towards it before this thread), but I can now appreciate it as a symbol of noble democratic values. Again, I thank you.
I am very gratified–your humble servant.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on September 25, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
is Chancellor Street in the gay district, or is it an unrelated rainbow?
If you knew Philly, the pizza place in the background would have answered that question for you.
Quote from: Darkchylde on September 29, 2012, 07:14:18 AM
Actually, what I'd tend to worry about in this circumstance is all that paint ending up wet. Slick paint = handling nightmare. Luckily, this is in Southern California...
I find the green-painted bike box here to have adequate traction during wet conditions. I don't know about the sidewalk in question here, but the stuff used for green bike lanes typically is done with a special thermoplastic that has extra traction built in.
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2012, 08:32:09 PM
The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.
That's not entirely true:
Quote from: Wikipedia
The original gay-pride flag was hand-dyed by Gilbert Baker. ... The flag consisted of eight stripes; Baker assigned specific meaning to each of the colours:
hot pink: sexuality
red: life
orange: healing
yellow: sunlight
green: nature
turquoise: magic/art
indigo/blue: serenity/harmony
violet: spirit
After the ... assassination of ... Harvey Milk, demand for the rainbow flag greatly increased. To meet demand, the Paramount Flag Company began selling a version of the flag using stock rainbow fabric consisting of seven stripes of red, orange, yellow, green, turquoise, blue, and violet. As Baker ramped up production of his version of the flag, he too dropped the hot pink stripe because of the unavailability of hot-pink fabric.
In 1979 the flag was modified again. When hung vertically from the lamp posts of San Francisco's Market Street, the center stripe was obscured by the post itself. Changing the flag design to one with an even number of stripes was the easiest way to rectify this, so the turquoise stripe was dropped, which resulted in a six stripe version of the flag – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet.
Due to mundane practical reasons, the sex stripe is no longer part of the pride flag – but it used to be!