If rainbow sidewalks were actually unsafe, the engineers would know it already (because that’s their fucking job) and wouldn’t need a goddamned politician to tell them.
That’s 100% proof by itself (as if we needed any more) that Abbott is a bigot and a liar.
Whatever happened to that “libertarian” way of thinking? Used to be that they wouldn’t listen to no goddamn politician now every one of those gadsden flag touting fucks are on their knees awaiting their favorite politician to tell them to say “ah”.
This is a good thing.
Why?
Seems like a waste of time. Rainbow not rainbow, whatever.
Studies show rainbow crosswalks are slower and safer.
Also, unmarked crosswalks are perfectly safe because drivers know pretty much every intersection has an implied crosswalk whether marked or not. This comment has been brought to you by the letter S and viewers like you.
“Texans expect their taxpayer dollars to be used wisely,” which apparently means removing already existing crosswalks and making new ones, for no other reason than the manbaby is afraid of rainbows.
dont forget about the state freezing over each year, people dying, and the govt not doing shit to negate this problem for next year.
The Texas governor is a safety issue
It’s an issue for the safety of his fragile worldview and values.
We should remove all safety and handicap ramps that lean to the left. For safety
So far Austin has sworn to comply and SAN ANTONIO has refused! Cant believe we lost Austin first!!
Keep Austin Bland!
…as a resident of both cities, austin is f*cking provincial as heck with delusions of grandeur while san antonio is legitimately cosmopolitan…
They both only care about leftist issues when it makes property owners more money.
America’s war on color continues.
Waiting for them to ban rainbows from kindergartens.
So there’s this daycare down the street from me. It has had a rainbow colored access ramp for as long as I can remember.
It’s now painted black.
It could be completely unrelated, but I highly doubt it.
You should complain.
Or at least, the non-bigoted daycare parents should. A huge part of this problem is caused by a relatively few assholes going full Karen about their own fucking hangups and making them everyone else’s problem. The solution is that decent people need to get EVEN LOUDER AND MORE PISSED OFF than they are, so that decision makers understand whose opinion actually matters here.
I just had a very similar conversation last night with some family and friends. There was a time when I would ignore shitty people’s opinions… After all, neither of us will change each other’s minds. However, that’s exactly how we got here. Those seemingly fringe, hurtful opinions now decide things for everyone. I’m not quiet any more.
Just like the famous Rolling Stones song. “I see a kindergarten access ramp and I want it painted black…”
If it had grip sand integrated into the paint it would make sense that it needed repainted, and getting one color of deck paint is cheaper, and black paint absorbs more sunlight so they need to salt less.
Still sucks, but it’s the same reason we can’t have cool cars anymore.
It did not have sand in the paint. It had the adhesive strips on top of the paint.
Well then fuck those fascists
…all the props in the world to peter cullen, but the fascist party have become f*cking rainbow brite villains…
So which is it, a safety issue, or a “political ideology” issue?
And since when has a group of people existing been a “political ideology”?
The problem is that there pushing their culture onto everyone else.
They know what they’re doing. They want to encourage more people to be gay.
If giving people judgment free spaces to be themselves makes more people gay then so bit, I’m sorry freedom scares you.
The existence of anyone not straight, white, wealthy and christian has always been political in the USA
Good riddance, those rainbow crosswalks jumped me stole my wallet, and dressed me up as a woman 6 times last week.
Maybe you should have worn something less provocative. Rainbow crosswalks will be rainbow crosswalks, after all.
Terrified of a rainbow.
Look. I don’t disagree on the safety thing. We chose white reflective lines for high contrast and visibility for what it is. We don’t paint our stop signs brown or green, and we don’t wear blue high-vis vests.
The crosswalk is a bad thing to colour up. I like what the Iceland solution was:
Anyway, here I’ve gone and agreed with a Republican and suggested safety markings should be consistent, so get with the downvoting.
You definitely can wear blue high vis vests. I have them in orange, yellow, blue ,green, pink, red and white.
I’m going to downvote you but only because you didn’t even glance at the article.
The pictured approach is clearly one in which the safety markings remain visible and contrast sufficiently with the bright rainbow colors.
Something someone did in Iceland isn’t relevant. Maybe in their culture it’s considered polite to mow down pedestrians, there’s no way to know.
I kind of suspect that it’s not safety driving his concern — this isn’t exactly something that would warrant state-level concern — but I do think that it’s a bad precedent to be modifying street markings for political reasons.
-
I doubt that this particular incident is likely all that risky, but if it becomes normalized to modify street markings, someone sooner or later is going to do something that they think is clever and really does muck up drivers.
-
This stuff goes both ways. If you have the left modifying street markings and it’s let stand, it’s not as if streets are some sort of left-exclusive forum. You can be pretty sure that if this sort of thing is let stand, then the right is going to do so too. I’m pretty confident that if someone started painting anti-LGBTQ markings on streets, plenty of people here would be pretty unhappy. I don’t really want political discourse to wind up being who is willing to throw more graffiti down.
It should be possible to find plenty of places in Austin that are okay with putting up signs or murals — things that aren’t street markings — that are pro-LGBT messages. That avoids the whole issue that they’re arguing over.
kagis
After an LGBTQ±inclusive church in Austin, Texas, was vandalized on Thursday, the community came together to transform the act of hate into something beautiful.
The vandals tore down the Pride flag at Life in the City UMC and graffitied “Pride was the 1st sin” on the front of the building. Afterward, volunteers joined the church for a “creative restoration project” to transform the graffiti into a mural featuring two Progress Pride flags flanking the church doorway.
I really think that this is a better approach if one wants to put out a message.
EDIT: Also, on purely-pragmatic grounds, I suspect that the road surface is probably about the most wear-heavy place to paint something. Like, paint something on a wall, and it doesn’t have vehicle tires tearing it up and requiring frequent repainting to look decent.
EDIT2: You can even see a mural on a building about ten feet behind the rainbow crosswalk in the article’s picture. Which one looks in better condition to you, the crosswalk or the mural?
I think something people might be missing here with painting the crosswalk is that paint can make the crosswalk much more visible. Streets murals, and crosswalk paint can cause drivers to slow down. Going further paint can be used to create an optical narrowing effect which causes drivers to subconsciously be more cautious and thus slow down. Slower speeds makes streets safer which directly saves lives. It’s not just political, it’s proven - Look up daylighting and optical narrowing.
In general agree, the small counterpoint is that it makes the surface slicker – so long stretches is bad. Within the crosswalk should be fine, I just wouldn’t make a 40ft painted stretch in front of the crossing, you know? Sudden change in grip is bad.
(This is anecdotal, I assume it’s feasible to make a sufficiently grippy paint, it’s just something I notice when driving)
-
