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

[kphoger]

I'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.

[empirestate]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[Duke87]

[kphoger]

Is that on Super?

[Takumi]

^ N64 version.

[Sanctimoniously]

Halo: Custom Edition, anyone?

[mjb2002]

He took the shortcut. No way he'd be out front like that!

[kphoger]

Topic: 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 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?

[cpzilliacus]

Topic: 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.

OK, let's say I decided to make a bumper sticker that says "I have sex with my wife" (or a straight pride flag 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).

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.

[vdeane]

Topic: 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.

[agentsteel53]

Painting 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?

[cpzilliacus]

Painting 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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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

[myosh_tino]

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.

[NE2]

I suppose it could distract drivers from other stuff on the road. Whoa, rainbows.

[hbelkins]

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?

[NE2]

Getting one of those tacky family stickers on your car shows that you're hetero.

[kphoger]

Topic: 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 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.

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.

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.

Painting 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.

[Duke87]

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".

[agentsteel53]

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????

[NE2]

It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.