1040
Florida Deploys Police To Stare At Crosswalks, Stop Them From Being Painted Rainbow Colors
(www.erininthemorning.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1040 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
18386 readers
1506 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
While I'm 110% supportive of LGBT+, I don't think people painting crosswalks anyway they like is OK. They are safety features, recognizable from a distance, and it's not far fetched to think that casualties may occur. Painting official building's walls could be an alternative, for example. Both are technically vandalism, but these walls would not be a hazard.
Vertical faces of entrance steps? that'd be cool!
Have you never actually seen a crosswalk before? Because I'm having trouble figuring out which part of these rainbow flag colored crosswalks makes them look any less like a crosswalk or makes them less visible or recognizable in any way. Literally the only other pavement marking that comes anywhere near looking like or being placed in the same way on a road is a stop bar. And guess what, car drivers routinely mistake the plain crosswalks for stop bars, thereby blocking the crosswalk. Making the claim that painting a pedestrian crosswalk in bright colors somehow makes them less visible or recognizable has got to be the dumbest argument I've heard this week.
You could have stopped at dumbest. I believe I'm making a civil and reasonable comment.
Also, a black and white contrast is objectively more un-equivocal than a flurry of colors. For example, my mother, in her 80's is a surprisingly safe driver for her age, but her visual acuity is just not the same as before, and at night she may have trouble with a rainbow.
You come across as a “well ackchyually” dipshit. You might think you are making a point, but think this one through, is it a good one in this context? Is it even a good one at all?
I think you may have anger issues. If that is the case (I'm not trained to diagnose) you may want to explore professional attention.
I rest my case.
It's funny how they're only replying to comments with a somewhat "aggressive" tone, to complain about the tone while ignoring the actual point.
Which is? Please people, read.
the person speaking doesn't get to decide how their tone is perceived. repeating "civil and reasonable" in the face of people who say you're acting oppositely in some way is unlikely to change their opinion. even if it did, there is no way to phrase "painting a rainbow onto a sidewalk makes it less visible" in such a way that your tone makes up for the fact that the claim is absurd on its face. doubly so when you're not providing traffic data to support the claim. also, 'reasonable' suggests you subscribe to some reasoning, but the 'reasoning' provided is "it’s not far fetched to think that casualties may occur." okay well, color me skeptical. why do you believe that. i'll give you civil for whatever you think that's worth on its own though.
Have you read the comment? My reply does not allude to content, but to the insult. Part of my job is ergonomics. I'm stating a fact. That there has not been a casualty yet, does not invalidate my point.
you aren't stating a fact, you're speculating that colorful chalk on the crosswalk could contribute to an accident in some unspecified way. I've asked for what data could support your opinion (by way of observing its absence) and- you'll correct me if i'm wrong here- you've just agreed that in almost the decade since the pulse shooting there have been exactly no incidents that can be traced back to this potentially dangerous political statement that you 100% agree with. do i have this about right?
I assume the original memorial crosswalk had reflective paint used on its markings, if people are just using chalk or regular paint now it would end up reducing the reflective properties of crosswalks which would effect low light visibility. Im not sure if people have been doing this for other crosswalks but if that is the case the person you are responding to does actually have a bit of a point, we are better off just painting walls, steps, or making signs as they originally suggested, considering the state isnt just going to accept and standardize rainbow crosswalks under this administration. That also removes the hiding of motivation for the police from this being a safety act to being purely bigoted which is important. Don't allow the fascists some reasonable cover to do what they do, force them to do it with their motivation on clear display.
The possibility that a random person would go to the lengths of adding micro-beads, or go to the trouble of procuring reflective pavement paint of the colors used seems a bit far-fetched to me. Could be, but unlikely in my view.
Yeah, like your point was reasonable, which is why i wanted to step in. I dont think that its tuning into reddit per say but I do think people are just getting extremely tired of this administrations rhetoric, which is completely understandable, but if we have any chance of fighting it we all need to be able to take a step back and view others with out the bickering or they win out easily and allow us to be fractured to easily. Plus your point of using other means for memorials or painting is better as it removes the administration's ability to just act like this is being done for safety reasons and forces them to admit its out of bigotry. Eh I'm probably preaching to the choir by saying this to you. Hopefully we all can take the steps back when needed I know even I fall into the trap sometimes. Have a good day, though.
a. they don't need an excuse. they have power. if you are in doubt of that, please check the actual reasons ron desantis and co. are saying out loud with their words directly that they are doing this for.
b. the fact that the chalk was colored inside the lines of the crosswalk after this supposed safety issue was pointed out and the chalk still being removed is sufficient to give that lie its character.
with the notable exception of observing basically, 'you don't have to place the memorial directly on the spot where a tragedy occured,' yall are just carrying water for ron desantis.
No, I'm sorry but no.
For any movement to cohere they have to fundamentally agree about the nature of reality. As long as you continue to insist that the artwork in this image displays some legitimate traffic risk, we're not living in the same reality. until the day that you understand why i can't pretend you didn't just say two incompatible things about the nature of this erasure: that it's an excuse to exercise bigotry and also a reasonable point about safety, we are not on the same side. it's past time to figure out which reality you're living in.
say what you will about conservatives, they struggle to see the world differently than how they are told to see it. They share a very firm consensus reality.
This has been described multiple times throughout this thread that describes why this can be a traffic risk. Without a reflective paint you impeed visibility in low light conditions, fog, night time, heavy rain, etc. Without the right paint you reduce friction in wet conditions that can cause accidents for those on motorcycles or bikes. Unfortunately this administration is clearly not going to repaint this memorial with the appropriate paint to facilitate that, which means its going to pose a risk unless those repainting it can use something appropriate. Its not the art itself that is a problem but the quality of paint used to make it. I have no problem with the memorial when its done right but to ignore that it does carry risk with its current implementation that people are using is being obtuse and means you are fundamentally ignoring parts of basic physics.
Like seriously no one is trying to applaud the conservatives efforts to erase this monument, we are only pointing out better ways to do this in the future. Like make your gripes make sense please because it seems you are to hung up to admit the reality that this memorial was implemented in a sub optimal way originally, there is no reason why we cant accept something wasnt done right the first time and strive for it to be done better next time. Like why continue to paint the crosswalk when people could be painting the sidewalk or using chalk on the sidewalk instead. that doesnt fuck with road safety and continues to keep a memorial in place. Like seriously, how is pointing something like that out incompatible with your reality?
the crosswalk was painted at some point with highly the reflective white paint commonly found on american roads in the expected pattern for a crosswalk, but the paint has not been maintained for some time. it is dirty and not a very good reflector, even in places where chalk and standard-issue road grime has been washed off. I base this analysis exclusively on the image of the chalkwalk in the OP article. when you go back to review that image in the article, please observe the flooding overhead light directly illuminating the entire crosswalk. I would be willing to grant that, in the event of a power outage or service interruption on that light, the chalk would probably not be significantly more effective at catching a car's headlights than plain asphalt- or cracked, broken, flaking, dirty, generally neglected 'reflective' paint.
and yes you're absolutely right. there are plenty other crosswalks and walls for that matter in florida. They want that particular crosswalk to not be flamboyantly homosexual? well. there's more of us than there are of them, put it that way.
edit: and in looking up the government's line on this: ron desantis is plainly displeased with the fact that public property is being used for political speech. stop carrying the fascist's water for them. this argument is not made in good faith by the people actually carrying out the erasure.
https://x.com/GovRonDeSantis/status/1958583393714667572
The article says "Paint", a whole different ball game from chalk. Visibility aside, I'm a motorcyclist, and I can assure you that slick paint on the road is deadly. Pointing out that there hasn't been an accident yet, and declaring it safe is a textbook example of logical fallacy.
Want data? Ask google for "high contrast safety". Here is a result, in case your google-fu is not up to date
it's hard to be up-to-date with google fu these days. I tried looking for traffic data on that intersection (eg pulse nightclub traffic safety before:2025-01-01) only to find it either doesn't exist as such or is so obscure to me that it might as well not exist. visibility on the road is a very different thing than slickness i hadn't considered, granted full stop.
I still need to be convinced that whatever paint it is they're using is actually causing the road to be slick before i retract or make any edits to previous statements, but that's definitely a more serious point in my opinion and thanks for specifying. like i could see latex as an issue but i wouldn't agree spray paint is an issue. and then the problem would be how should we both allow these people to memorialize a tragedy in such a way as to safely allow for the passage of traffic, not unilateral denial of a precedented memorial on grounds that can not at this time be shown to be supported by evidence, whatever you may say about the fallacious nature of my skepticism.
and not for nothing, but i just actually checked and, only the headline could have its ambiguity be interpreted to suggest the memorialists were 'painting.' at least according to this article, the floridian state are the ones using paint and the pulse memorialists are using chalk, and despite the OP's headline referring to "repeainting," the images of the crosswalk show it 'painted' with chalk within that article, so actually, are you sure you didn't just read the headline and come to a 'reasonable' conclusion and 'civilly' express your '100%' support for the cause while actually thoughtlessly supporting the erasure of a tragedy's memorial for some reason?
then, from your source:
are you honestly suggesting a colorful pattern instead of black would tend to reduce visibility? this is the part i was saying is absurd on its face earlier. and i'm sure you'll forgive me as i return the accusation of "did you even read this?" i was not going to slap you with this earlier because it's such an obvious retort as to be insulting, but, how are you not constantly struggling with visibility on the road with all the different colors of car?
I'd like to hear what florida state law or traffic data or the people actually using the crosswalk have to say about the matter, not this unrecognizable messageworks public interest group on the first page of a "traffic visibility" google-fu session, or some ergonomical motorcyclist who i frankly suspect will never come across this intersection in their life.
It sounds like you made a point without thinking a whole lot about it, and now you're just doubling down instead of just saying "yeah you're right, my bad."
If you bothered to look at the way these are painted you would know this isn't a problem.
As someone who deals with ergonomics as part of his job I KNOW there is a problem.
As someone who deals with UX and the psychology of recognizing and distinguishing things, I can tell you that you know jack shit about the situation here, and working in a field close to ergonomics is evidently not the expertise you think it is.
I did not say I work in a field close to ergonomics, I said that my work INVOLVES ergonomics. Also, pretending that someone who "deals with UX" has any serious knowledge of ergonomics, is like a chiropractic saying they are an actual medical doctor, or that a software "engineer" is anything near a real engineer.
The problem we're talking about is a UX one. The ability to quickly distinguish a visual sign / interface.
And I'm both an actual electrical engineer and a software engineer, I understand the distinctions between the two very well.
But do please cite your ergonomic data showing that rainbow crosswalks are hard to see, or you can admit that you're just baselessly pearl clutching.
Visibility of Targets. Werner Adrian. A classic and a reference on the subject.
Oh, BTW, you are using the concept of UX incorrectly. Not all system -> human interfaces are UX. I'm not completely ignorant on the subject. Several years teaching programming at the university level + many more developing for the private sector does give me a certain base to talk about the subject.
Why is your mom, at 80, driving around the part of town where there are nightclubs, alone, at night..?
I dunno? Freedom?
Aren't we a wee opinionated and with fascist tendencies? Surprising how you defend some groups freedom but deny others.
Objectively?
Based on what?
Based on you thinking that a specific series of white lines on a black background amongst a large series of white lines on a blackground is more distinct than a completely different rainbow pattern?
You spend much time working in UX, psychology, or vision analysis?
I dont understand why you all are getting on this persons case. They brought up a pretty reasonable point, traffic markings are better when they are standardized. There are avenues where having a memorial doesnt detract from that standardization. They gave reasonable alternatives in addition. They arent sitting here praising the motivations behind the enforcement yet you all are acting like thats the commenters motivation.
So because people already have issues with standardization we should allow less of it? This doesnt improve the argument you are trying to make. Stop being reactionary because of the subject matter here and take a step back first.
Its honestly pretty sane in this context when you step back instead of getting reactionary. Is the paint being used reflective? Is it causing the crosswalks to be less reflective in low light conditions? Its not like all the painting being done is standardized. Not all places in the world have cross walks painted out and in night conditions where we constantly have headlights blinding people and some that arent bright enough to compensate for those differences those painted crosswalks could have an impact on safety if the decrease visibility of them in low light conditions.
In the case of the original crosswalk memorial that got defaced by the fascists I am assuming there was reflective paint used, so if people are using something with the same reflective properties as regular road paint I dont see an issue at all with a colorful crosswalk. But when you have people without that style of paint covering up crosswalks it can become a safety issue in night conditions and you arent going to see stats/studies for this as there is not enough sample data to even make that case. Not every rule or standard needs to be written in blood sometimes we can use common sense before allowing people to get injured enough to make a study and dataset to back a point.
Having a memorial that is off the road one would be more visible and also take away the hiding of motivation when the fascists try to deface it by acting like its just a safety thing. Which they recommended, paint walls, the faces of steps etc.
Like I get this is a sore topic due to the state of shit right now but we need to stop fighting with those who are trying to be helpful or offer other valid viewpoints. If we want to fight back against the rising fascism around the world we need more unity which comes from being open to dialog not just being reactionary. All being reactionary is going to do is push people away and make us more fractured and disorganized.
You do actually know why they're doing this, right? Because there was already a rainbow crosswalk to commemorate the Pulse Nightclub victims. It's so weird that there were no casualties in that one! The fascists painted it over because they're homophobic knuckleheads, and so now protesters are painting it and others back. You know, it takes zero effort not to be a pedantic but also ignorant ass just for the sake of it.
I could go on a flame war over "it takes zero effort not to be a pedantic but also ignorant ass just for the sake of it." as an answer to a civilized, reasoned comment, but I don't want this place to be Reddit. Insults really detract from your argument.
Please do tell us how rainbow is less visible than white lines that blend into all the other white lines.
Please do cite any stats you have that show increased accident rates during pride month or in cities with rainbow cross walks.
Nice try. Now back to the topic at hand...
I'm sure they are very concerned about savety and that's why they need to repaint them
Have I said that? I do despise the the motivation, but that does not detract from the cold facts.
Which are...? Surely you're able to innumerate them with actual real life evidence
Safety