Spiked - When Virtue Signalling Goes Wrong

[Tesla73]

www.spiked-online.com/2021/10/06/when-virtue-signalling-goes-wrong/

Jo Bartosch writing here how this woke agenda has real implications for those who are far more marginalised in our modern society.

Wonder how much it cost taxpayers to paint these crossings and how much it will cost to paint over them? all at a time when real issues in the real world are arguably more important but as this article points out they take a little more work than just painting a road

What I find dismaying about this is that there is apparently no one at any of these local councils who said: "Hang on. What might be the potential harms of changing traditional black-and-white crossings to rainbow colours? What might be the safety risk?" Surely councils have someone who is responsible for road traffic signage and safety whose job it is to think about this?

It's the same with all these people. Apparently there is no one in a senior position at an NHS trust to say: "What might be the downsides of allowing biological males on a women's ward?" No one at Girl Guiding UK who says: "What could go wrong if we allow a teenage boy to share overnight accommodation with teenage girls?"

We're supposed to live in an age where health and safety has gone mad. Yet apparently on this one issue health and safety is considered less important than signalling one's support for LGBT - or rather it's not even considered at all.

no one at any of these local councils who said: "Hang on. What might be the potential harms of changing traditional black-and-white crossings to rainbow colours? What might be the safety risk?"

Where is the basic commonsense of Chesterton's Fence when we need it.

@RainbowCrossing They've moved it a bit further up the road, that's why they painted over it. I started to complain to the council yesterday, but thought it would only be seen by some jobsworth anyway, so gave up. And I don't think Stephen Hammond would want to get involved. Perhaps I'm being too defeatist (I'm sure I'm being too defeatist) It infuriates me that my money is going into this while vital services are going short....

Are they crossings though? There's regulations around basically everything, from width of yellow lines to distances between road signs and junctions - I'm sure there must be something somewhere that specifies what a crossing has to look like?

Right, yes, yes they do:

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/schedule/4/made

^Colour and illumination of road markings

1. Subject to paragraph 7, the road markings shown in the diagrams in this Schedule shall be coloured white and may be illuminated by retroreflecting material.^

So they're not road crossings. Not legally I would presume, and surely there are rules about removing road crossings?

Also - and I recognise this is a minor thing given the problems posed to guide dogs, police horses etc. - I am expecting my first baby soon. In a few years I will need to teach her about how and where to cross the road safely - zebra crossings, waiting for the green man, etc.

So now I will have to explain that sometimes the crossing might be rainbow coloured (I'm trying to think if there would there be any occasions where a rainbow might appear in a road or at the side of the road for a reason other than a crossing, which I would need to take into account) and also explain why in some parts of London there are odd circles with arrows and crosses instead of a green or red man. ("Mummy, why do the lights look different?" "They just do". "But why?" Yeah, I'm looking forward to the conversations now.)

I mean, it's not making my job of teaching my child how to cross the road safely any easier, that's for sure.

Also, the last thing, is the stripes are the wrong way. Why are the stripes the wrong way? How could they not even get that right?

@Kotatsu

Right, yes, yes they do:

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/2400/schedule/4/made

^Colour and illumination of road markings

1. Subject to paragraph 7, the road markings shown in the diagrams in this Schedule shall be coloured white and may be illuminated by retroreflecting material.^

So they're not road crossings. Not legally I would presume, and surely there are rules about removing road crossings?

This is very interesting. Either they are road crossings, in which case their design is illegal, or they're not road crossings, in which case councils have been removing road crossings without consultation and quite possibly illegally.

From a firm of barristers that specialise in defending motorists charged with road traffic offences:

"Although the focus of this article is on the rules relating to pedestrian crossings rather than their design, it is worth highlighting that there may be scope for a defence if the local authority has not complied (to a material extent) with the prescribed design when constructing a particular type of crossing."

www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings-what-are-the-rules/

They should have asked why crossings were designed to be black and white in the first place and actually all over the world. That would have quickly given them the answer. Easy to see even at night, visually impaired people, guide dogs etc. I’m sure other reasons too. Then that would lead to so what problems might occur if we change the colours, stripes, design, well road traffic accidents might increase due to driver, pedestrian, guide dog confusion. Ok well are we ok with accepting that risk, answer no. So idea binned. Presumably that conversation did not take place?

Easy to see even at night

Do they even use proper reflective road paint for these crossings? I imagine not - is it even available in those colours?

So now I will have to explain that sometimes the crossing might be rainbow coloured (I'm trying to think if there would there be any occasions where a rainbow might appear in a road or at the side of the road for a reason other than a crossing, which I would need to take into account) and also explain why in some parts of London there are odd circles with arrows and crosses instead of a green or red man. ("Mummy, why do the lights look different?" "They just do". "But why?" Yeah, I'm looking forward to the conversations now.)

This is kind of a metaphor for a lot of the whole "gender" nonsense. Those games with language assume you already know what the reality of sex is so you can fuck with it.

Similarly, those road signs are predicated on "well, you know what this is supposed to look like".

This is very interesting. Either they are road crossings, in which case their design is illegal, or they're not road crossings, in which case councils have been removing road crossings without consultation and quite possibly illegally.

True.
As it stands the only safe assumptions are for road traffic to assume they are crossings and pedestrians to assume they aren't. Unfortunately, I'd expect in reality people are likely to do the opposite, with likely serious consequences. This seems to be what the PP experienced in Leamington.

[quote ArtemesiaK]@RainbowCrossing They've moved it a bit further up the road, that's why they painted over it. I started to complain to the council yesterday, but thought it would only be seen by some jobsworth anyway, so gave up. And I don't think Stephen Hammond would want to get involved. Perhaps I'm being too defeatist (I'm sure I'm being too defeatist) It infuriates me that my money is going into this while vital services are going short....[/quote]
I don't suppose he would but I wonder if we both wrote to him saying, 'Hi Stephen, you're the kind of guy who likes being in power, I wrote to you before Stephen and I think you told me to 'be kind' but that was many years ago now and surely you can see the direction of travel? I think you need to vote against all this wokery Stephen - look at this crossing the council have put in, it's not even safe. You know what a woman is don't you Stephen? Let's have a bit of a commitment Stephen while I'm a floating voter' it might sharpen his mind?

Anyway, it's lovely to know there are fellow TERFs on my turf

I too hate the one in Wimbledon!!

And are they actually "zebra" crossings or just pretty road paint, as neither I or the motorists whizzing past were entirely sure.......I crossed further down.........I'm not dying on one of these bloody rainbows!

There are traffic lights there aren't there? So I think they are just any other bit of traffic light tarmac. Not a zebra crossing??

So how could it have moved then? Did it move from one crossing to another?

I am so confused.

I did show DD1 the Andrew Doyle thing last night. She is in Y8 somewhere very woke (now where could that be in Wimbledon???) We both agreed the cat was funniest and that that's what she should do next time a teacher introduces herself using her pronouns

@RainbowCrossing, the crossing used to be opposite the side of the Theatre, by the barbers. Now it's by the Theatre entrance, lights and all. (I think I'm right about this, I don't actually go that way much...)
Anyway, it's good to know that Wimbledon is Terf Central :)
I think I'm a bit reluctant to complain about the rainbow because I might sound homophobic, which I'm not.
Here's an idea. They could do a crossing in support of the LGBA and make it black and white :)

@TimeToDateOnline

no one at any of these local councils who said: "Hang on. What might be the potential harms of changing traditional black-and-white crossings to rainbow colours? What might be the safety risk?"

Where is the basic commonsense of Chesterton's Fence when we need it.

I am pretty sure that Chesterton has been very canceled.

But in all seriousness, the thing that always strikes me is that initiatives like this don't really do anything.

The idea I guess is that they show support for the gay community. And maybe a few people feel warm fuzzies. But it really doesn't improve anyone's life in a real way. And I've known a few people who get the rage from them, some for reasons that are dodgy and some more reasonable, but the point is it does nothing to change bad attitudes.

It really is just a check box item for "supporting diversity".