Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sure, but why?

There is a general good in traffic safety of making everything look the same. The font being different on speed limit signs is annoying. That Playground/school zone signs are different between Alberta and Calgary is annoying.
That school zones exist is annoying
That traffic lights are hung vertically in some places and horizontally in others is annoying. (Looking at you Saskatoon)

There is value in making the look and feel of driving the same everywhere. We should make them all rainbow if that’s the direction we want to go.

I think there is a reasonable question of whether traffic controls is where we also want to practice advocacy. It’s a weird marriage.


No once someone bans these things people should go out and paint random rainbow crosswalks in these towns for the stupidity of wasting time on a petition to ban them. And in any kind of referendum I would vote to keep them because the fact that there would be a referendum to get rid of them means that the advocacy being done by having them is more important than the benefit of standardization road markings.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is a general good in traffic safety of making everything look the same. The font being different on speed limit signs is annoying. That Playground/school zone signs are different between Alberta and Calgary is annoying.
That school zones exist is annoying
That traffic lights are hung vertically in some places and horizontally in others is annoying. (Looking at you Saskatoon)

There is value in making the look and feel of driving the same everywhere. We should make them all rainbow if that’s the direction we want to go.

I think there is a reasonable question of whether traffic controls is where we also want to practice advocacy. It’s a weird marriage.


No once someone bans these things people should go out and paint random rainbow crosswalks in these towns for the stupidity of wasting time on a petition to ban them. And in any kind of referendum I would vote to keep them because the fact that there would be a referendum to get rid of them means that the advocacy being done by having them is more important than the benefit of standardization road markings.

Strathmore has a rainbow crosswalk at the entrance to the Town Hall parking lot. It’s not on a road so that should be fine, right?

https://www.strathmorenow.com/articl...cal-supporters

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Strathmore has a rainbow crosswalk at the entrance to the Town Hall parking lot. It’s not on a road so that should be fine, right?

https://www.strathmorenow.com/articl...cal-supporters

It’s still a non standard road marking on an areas where pedestrians and cars meet. So if you believe in the benefits of standard markings then it being there marginally increases risk for people.

But I don’t really care and if anyone is trying to get rid of them they are worth keeping.

[Doctorfever]

I wish we didn’t have any rainbow crossings, but sadly, I think we are getting rid of them for the wrong reasons.

It’s a small thing that is meant to bring inclusiveness and acceptance to a group of people who may find every day life more difficult than the masses.

I wish we didn’t have rainbow crosswalks because we don’t need them anymore. Because people aren’t judged for who they are, even if they are different in some ways than others.

Sadly, this is not the case here. I think we as a society have taken a step or two backwards rather than a step forward.

Just my two cents.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Because its part of traffic and any changes to a standard should be questioned. Do the whole sidewalk, do private parking lots, just leave roads alone period.

I do kind of agree here. Traffic markings and signage standards do exist for a reason, so people who aren't from here know what they're looking at and what their expected behaviour is whether they're driving or walking. It's why things like the MUTCD and Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals were developed -- a shame that we couldn't settle on one or the other, although there is a great deal of overlap between the two.

Seems dumb that 'flags' were also outlawed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Here’s a little good news for a change. He tried to stop potentially life-saving vaccines because he thought they might cause girls to have sex.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/former-ca...t-81-1.7132883

Just spreading strong Christian values. Top notch dude.

[Engine09]

Hillbillies angry because they don't want to be reminded that gay people deserve respect, they probably think they're brave for "pushing back".

I know more than a few of these people, they're not very bright, don't travel much and are allergic to books. They also tend to think they're champions of "common sense".

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by GGG

There is a general good in traffic safety of making everything look the same. The font being different on speed limit signs is annoying. That Playground/school zone signs are different between Alberta and Calgary is annoying.
That school zones exist is annoying
That traffic lights are hung vertically in some places and horizontally in others is annoying. (Looking at you Saskatoon)

There is value in making the look and feel of driving the same everywhere. We should make them all rainbow if that’s the direction we want to go.

I think there is a reasonable question of whether traffic controls is where we also want to practice advocacy. It’s a weird marriage.


No once someone bans these things people should go out and paint random rainbow crosswalks in these towns for the stupidity of wasting time on a petition to ban them. And in any kind of referendum I would vote to keep them because the fact that there would be a referendum to get rid of them means that the advocacy being done by having them is more important than the benefit of standardization road markings.

Do you think the people in Barrhead who voted against the Rainbow / Pride Crosswalks voted No for the "general good in traffic safety of making everything look the same"? Only my thinking, but I am somewhat certain Mr. and Miss Barrhead are voting no to Rainbow / Pride Crosswalks for another reason. I appreciate you would vote to keep them.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by BowRiverBruinsRule

Do you think the people in Barrhead who voted against the Rainbow / Pride Crosswalks voted No for the "general good in traffic safety of making everything look the same"? Only my thinking, but I am somewhat certain Mr. and Miss Barrhead are voting no to Rainbow / Pride Crosswalks for another reason. I appreciate you would vote to keep them.

I don't think anyone is kidding themselves and suggesting that the vote itself was motivated by anything other than an anti-LGBTQ agenda. Only that -- as disheartening as it is for social progress that these kinds of votes are happening -- there's a good argument to be made for sticking with the set standards of road signage and markings. There are certainly other ways of showing Pride that these luddites can't vote against because they have no legal standing in the matter.

[Fuzz]

Is there a good argument though? I dunno, it's a cross walk, usually in an area with lots of pedestrian activity. I'd argue they are more visible and thus safer. Are there stats disputing this?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a good argument though? I dunno, it's a cross walk, usually in an area with lots of pedestrian activity. I'd argue they are more visible and thus safer. Are there stats disputing this?

Just looking through this now but will take a while. Its the research report on non-standard crosswalks. Curious what it says.
Edit: Try this, the last link was direct to the PDF which might get blocked.


https://prestoworks.lucidea.com/Pres...&rrtc=VHJ1ZQ==

[TorqueDog]

^Link is dead.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a good argument though?

Start at post #21941.

Having a set of standards that we adhere to for things like traffic control and safety is undoubtedly a good thing. In the majority of places in the world, it doesn't even matter if you know how to read the native language or any language, you know that a red octagon with a white outline is a stop sign.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

^Link is dead.
Start at post #21941.

Having a set of standards that we adhere to for things like traffic control and safety is undoubtedly a good thing. In the majority of places in the world, it doesn't even matter if you know how to read the native language or any language, you know that a red octagon with a white outline is a stop sign.

Sure, but lets look at that further. In the MUTCD, pedestrian crossings in Canada is a white sign with a person walking. That signage would remain the same regardless of the crosswalk colouring. Crosswalks are also marked or unmarked on the pavement creating differing standards already. If you maintain the white pedestrian signage on the side of the road, and the white markings delineating the extent of the crosswalk on the road, then the fact that the crosswalk itself is coloured in is a negligible difference.

[TorqueDog]

Sure, except just in Calgary I've seen Pride crosswalks that don't include the white marking delineating the pedestrian corridor, and I've seen those that do, both without the crosswalk signage being present. [shrug] In any case, the question was if there's a good argument to maintain a standard. I really don't care what we colour in the crosswalks with, more so trying to find the tiniest of silver linings in a crappy vote result.

[Raekwon]

I'm not arguing safety as I don't think safety is an issue, the issue is the slippery slope of who gets to make changes to road markings. Want to make every crosswalk rainbow? Go for it. I'm not going to pretend this specific ruling was made on anything but hate but sadly a decision made on hate is the same decision I would make based on reason and we are not the same.

[KelVarnsen]

Let's pretend the Pride crosswalk isn't bigotry but safety.

Explain the Pride flag ban.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Let's pretend the Pride crosswalk isn't bigotry but safety.

Explain the Pride flag ban.

According to Alberta guidelines there shouldn't be an issue besides the order in which they are displayed.

Canadian flag
other national flag (for example, visit of ambassador or high commissioner)
Alberta flag
Others

There is nothing to explain about this decision it was all made for the wrong reasons.

[TheIronMaiden]

Evangelicals know what's best for the world and try to push it on everyone.

They take their hateful Christianity and force it on everyone.

I went to school with a bunch of these whack jobs and they were the bitchiest, know it all, elitist people. Straight up bullies.

the worst part is that they show up to vote. Lord knows that the barhead zionist church showed up in force on the day that votes were cast.

Just disgusting people honestly.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Just looking through this now but will take a while. Its the research report on non-standard crosswalks. Curious what it says.
Edit: Try this, the last link was direct to the PDF which might get blocked.


https://prestoworks.lucidea.com/Pres...&rrtc=VHJ1ZQ==

Thanks, I did have to search for "non-standard crosswalks" and it was the first result, for anyone else trying to get there.


It seems to me from the report there aren't any safety issues around them.

Drivers are more likely to yield to pedestrians at locations with rainbow crossings (no other literature source was found regarding other types of non-standard pavement markings).
• Non-standard pavement markings at crosswalks result in increased driver caution as well as reduction in the 85 th percentile speed. In addition, these markings have been attributed to a decrease in pedestrian crossings involving a conflict with drivers and an increase in frequency of drivers immediately yielding to pedestrians.
• There is limited evidence of driver distraction associated with non-standard pavement markings. On the contrary, the literature shows that the presence of standard twin parallel lines in the crosswalk may be able to deter distraction of drivers (and improve conspicuity)

There is no statistical difference related to the type of crosswalk setting (standard pavement markings or non-standard pavement markings) and distraction from the message the crosswalk was conveying. In all cases, the percent of drivers who saw that a pedestrian was at the
crosswalk remained approximately equal, hence, indicating no distraction because of the different types of pavement markings.

[SebC]

These are the best crosswalks (at least until drivers get used to them).

Spoiler!