I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?

[cpzilliacus]

KNX-1070 Newsradio: West Hollywood Begins Installation Of Rainbow Crosswalks

Rainbow hue crosswalks are being installed in West Hollywood.

City officials say the two crosswalks are a symbol celebrating the pride in the area's homosexual, bisexual and transgender residents.

[NE2]

If they're not 'official' crosswalks, it makes no legal difference, since then they're simply unmarked crosswalks.

[kphoger]

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).

[J N Winkler]

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.

[empirestate]

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?

[cpzilliacus]

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:

[agentsteel53]

is Chancellor Street in the gay district, or is it an unrelated rainbow?

[cpzilliacus]

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).

[NE2]

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.

[kphoger]

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. 

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[kphoger]

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.....

[NE2]

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, though you only have right-of-way if crossing at a marked crosswalk or an intersection (hence an unmarked crosswalk).

[kphoger]

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, though you only have right-of-way if crossing at a marked crosswalk or an intersection (hence an unmarked crosswalk).

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.

[NE2]

I think between signals is in the UVC - Florida does that too.

[kphoger]

I think between signals is in the UVC - Florida does that too.

Sure enough!  Well, I'll be dipped...

UVC § 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.

[agentsteel53]

between 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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

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. 

[kphoger]

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.

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)

[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.

[mjb2002]

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.

[J N Winkler]

Thanks.  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.

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.

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.

[Zmapper]

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

[J N Winkler]

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?

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.

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.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.