Council being sued for transflag crossings

[lcakethereforeIam]

Apologies if there's already a thread but I've not found one

https://archive.ph/dCRzW

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/06/camden-council-pedestrian-crossing-legal-action/

'Unlawful political messaging'. Is this a thing? If it is and the complainant wins then it could have a wider implications regarding flag flying, possibly even pin badges and lanyards.

I did indulged in a small eyeroll at this statement from the Council

A spokesman added: “Camden is ‘no place for hate’ and we have a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone in our borough. We fight discrimination in all its forms, and this includes being an ally to our trans residents.

'Everyone'!? Clearly not the complainant or anyone else who doesn't buy into this divisive ideology. But, the statement implies those people are hateful.

How is the paint for grip by tyres? There is a reason why specific paint is used.

This isn’t about discriminating; no LGB person is discriminated against by not having a pride flag painted on the road in contravention of traffic codes.

Agreed. Because virtue signalling is exactly what it is, and the DEI budget might as well be re-named the Virtue-Signalling budget.

"Look how right-on we are, and you're a bigot if you don't agree"

But if it's not a crossing @Shedmistress , I think if people vote for a party that wants to spend £10k + on a trans mural on the road, that's their perogative.

I don't agree it should be overruled by someone (or several someone's) being upset by it. My point stands that it is legal activism overturning a democratic decision taken by representatives who are actually accountable in some way (and can be got rid of).

The charity Epilepsy Action have debunked claims pride coloured crossings can trigger migraines or seizures.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/07/baroness-claims-rainbow-crossing-trigger-epilepsy-debunked-medical-experts/

"Was there not a video of police horses being spooked by them too as they are not standard crossing colours"

If you know anything about horses you'll know they can be spooked by almost anything.

How exactly are religious or gender critical people "discriminated" against if a crossing or something is painted temporarily in pride colours?

Hilarious that you reference Pink News are a source

I thought they were the LGB colours?

I can't believe you linked to pink news @Christinapple 😂. The horses needed special training to get them to cross the rainbow colours. Maybe should have stuck to black and white!

Could you miss the point any more spectacularly?

Nonidea, as I'm a pedestrian! And there was a crossing there before, 4 actually as it's at a crossroads.

Irony to question sources on here given the most common source used on this forum is by far the daily mail.

uk.pcmag.com/news/119288/microsofts-edge-browser-says-not-to-trust-the-daily-mail

Transphobic police horses 😂

There's a rainbow one outside one of our local hospitals and it's a fucking death trap. With the black and white one the paint isn't slippy and you've got the unpainted black stripes as well - I don't know what they used to paint the rainbow... fucking crayola? but it's an absolute slip hazard in the rain, and the darker rainbow colours have worn off so it's now a red, orange and a bit of blue stripe of embarassment... and drivers don't know what the fuck to do with it - so some stop for everyone, some stop for no one and the average taxi driver takes no prisoners anyway. If only there was some uniform system for road markings so everyone knew what the expected rules of driving conduct were.

At least you're nicely positioned for A+E when someone inevitably gets knocked over I guess.

There's a rainbow one outside one of our local hospitals and it's a fucking death trap. With the black and white one the paint isn't slippy and you've got the unpainted black stripes as well - I don't know what they used to paint the rainbow... fucking crayola? but it's an absolute slip hazard in the rain, and the darker rainbow colours have worn off so it's now a red, orange and a bit of blue stripe of embarassment... and drivers don't know what the fuck to do with it - so some stop for everyone, some stop for no one and the average taxi driver takes no prisoners anyway. If only there was some uniform system for road markings so everyone knew what the expected rules of driving conduct were.

At least you're nicely positioned for A+E when someone inevitably gets knocked over I guess.

But what about blind and visually impaired people, Christinapple, does their safety not matter?
Multi-coloured road crossings pose a threat to people with sight loss, warn charities | RNIB

edited to say that the crossing are in rainbow, not trans colours. If it is a gesture of inclusion directed at me as a lesbian, thanks but no thanks - it doesn't do anything for me, and I don't want people put in danger to make a council feel good about themselves.

unless it is actually a pelican crossing with traffic lights, the paint means absolutely nothing as far as drivers and pedestrians are concerned. Drivers still have priority are free to drive over it as they would any unpainted stretch of road, and pedestrians have to wait to cross.

If you step out and get knocked down, you should sue the hospital not the driver. The driver’s insurance should also sue the hospital.

People who are visually impaired or have other disabilities are always at the bottom of the heap when it comes to EDI.

Yes - like the rebadging of accessible toilets as 'gender neutral' ones😡

All these many orgs, councils, businesses, with DEI budgets, are they ever asked the question, what proportion of your DEI budget is spent on measures to benefit, say, blind and partially-sighted people, wheelchair users, etc.

The Dept of Transport are useless on this. They say that because "Art Crossings" are not actually official crossings, despite pedestrians and some other road users thinking that they are, they are not covered by Traffic Sign Regulations:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rainbow_crossings_traffic_sign_r/response/2391420/attach/html/4/22573.pdf.html

Rainbow Crossings: Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016

14 August 2023

Dear M Panton

Freedom of Information Act request – F0022573

Thank you for your information request of 16 July. You requested Information
regarding rainbow crossings and other types of road art.

All formal pedestrian crossings are regulated by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). This includes zebras, puffins, toucans,
equestrian crossings and pedestrian facilities at junctions. TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. A ‘rainbow crossing’ is not a specific crossing type and the term has no agreed definition, but it may refer to the use of coloured surfacing within the studs of a formal signal controlled crossing. It may also refer to the use of coloured surfacing to create an informal or uncontrolled crossing, at which as with a pedestrian refuge, there is no priority in law for pedestrians over vehicles.

It is a long-standing position that in the Department’s view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore does not come within the scope of the TSRGD. It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a formal signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction. I attach a copy of the current standard line used in response to queries on the use of coloured surfacing at formal crossings.

You asked: ‘if “Rainbow Crossings” are not considered by the Dept for
Transport to be traffic signs or road markings under the Traffic Sign
Regulations and General Directions 2016, are they therefore exempt from
Rules 191 – 199 of the Highway Code?’

Rules 191-199 apply to formal controlled crossings, whether or not coloured
surfacing is present.

You asked: ‘if “Rainbow Crossings” are not considered by the Dept for
Transport to be traffic signs or road markings under the Traffic Sign
Regulations and General Directions 2016, are they therefore also not covered by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Part III, Section 25 “Pedestrian crossing regulations”?’

The status of a ‘rainbow crossing’ is described above. TSRGD contains the
regulations made under section 25 of RTRA 1984. Section 25 applies to zebra and puffin crossings, both of which are prescribed in TSRGD. There are no other pedestrian crossing regulations.

Technical advice on designing formal and informal crossings is given in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual. Under section 21 of the FOI Act, we are not obliged to provide information which is already reasonably accessible to you. Chapter 6 can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual 

"Temporarily" is quite a word to use when these pseudo-crossings have been in place for several years now.

Unless you think Camden Council remove them after every Pride Month? I assure you, in Camden it's Pride all year round.

The is the "current standard line used in response to queries on the use of coloured surfacing at formal crossings" referred to in that reply to my FOIR:

8 Dec 2021

Coloured surfacing at pedestrian crossings

The Department for Transport is aware that this has been used in a few places and our views are as follows. You would need to seek your own legal advice as to whether your proposals comply with relevant legislation.

TSRGD prescribes the signs, signals and markings that must be used to create the different types of crossing. Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual gives guidance on design of crossings, including road markings, but the requirements of TSRGD take precedence over any good practice guidance. Chapter 6 can be found at:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual 

In the Department’s view, coloured surfacing is not considered a traffic sign or road marking and therefore doesn’t come within the scope of the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). It has no legal meaning and therefore could be placed within the crossing studs at a signal-controlled crossing, or pedestrian facility at a junction.

Coloured surfacing as ‘highway art’ is not placed to address any issue with use of the road (e.g. with the aim of improving safety) but is usually decorative in nature. The use of surfacing in this way needs careful thought. Striped designs must be avoided as our view is that any crossing that is not a zebra must not resemble one. That would extend to using a striped pattern at a signalled crossing. Zebra crossings have a defined priority in law, and anything that looks like one could lead pedestrians to assume priority when it doesn’t exist.

It must not interfere with the appearance or operation of the crossing signs, signals or markings. Zebra crossings must have black and white stripes – the ‘black’ can be the colour of the road surface provided it creates sufficient contrast, but rainbow striped zebra crossings are not permitted.

Local authorities are responsible for installing crossings, and decisions on installation of coloured crossings are ultimately a matter for them. The Department recommends local authorities carry out a risk assessment, looking at safety and compliance issues (for example whether the patterns could be distracting to drivers and therefore influence compliance with red lights). They should also carry out an Equalities Impact Assessment, to fully understand possible impacts on people with protected characteristics, particularly disabled people. People with sensory impairments could be adversely affected, and we have been made aware that some people with dementia may also experience difficulties. Local authorities should also consider monitoring the site post-installation, and ensure there is a plan for maintenance, if it is to be in place permanently.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rainbow_crossings_traffic_sign_r/response/2391420/attach/html/5/Coloured%20surfacing%20at%20ped%20crossings.pdf.html

I just used to cross next to them as the road had more grip in the rain.

I believe they probably cost more than the standard colours. The companies that make the paints won't charge the same for a large order as they would for a small amount of a bespoke colour. It's likely these niche shades cost more.

I'm surprised though that they're more slippy than the standard colours. I assumed they'd be made the same just pigmented differently. Perhaps Councils are using different paints to save money or if they can't source trans/progress paints.

I've only seen one in Cardiff. It looked tatty but it was a piece with the potholed road it was crossing.

Eta I'm not a sufferer myself so I'm prepared to be wrong but I'd be surprised if they triggered seizures or migraines. At least no more than any similar coloured building, flowerbed, billboard, etc. might. I've not read the article though. Don't want to give Kink News the clicks.