Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on December 29, 2011 at 6:50am

My answer would be "stealing them."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on December 29, 2011 at 6:54am

Well, you can read the article for the deets but *spoiler alert* they're both using and stealing them.

h' said:

When do we find out the answer? 

Kevin C said:

My answer would be "stealing them."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on December 29, 2011 at 6:58am

That would make it a trick question then. I've come to expect more intellectual honesty from Grid Chicago.

John Greenfield said:

Well, you can read the article for the deets but *spoiler alert* they're both using and stealing them.

h' said:

When do we find out the answer? 

Kevin C said:

My answer would be "stealing them."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on December 29, 2011 at 8:27am

I was going to post this on Grid but Disqus is not responding, so -- Thanks for the report. I was wondering how those flags were going over. It seems like a well-intentioned campaign but in the end so limited in scope that it won't have any meaningful effect on drivers' behavior. There are so many other measures that would have more impact, including a statewide campaign to publicize the "new" law (since July 2010), swapping out the thousands of existing, outdated signs that still tell drivers to "yield" and not "stop" for pedestrians, enforcement of speed limits, and undertaking street design changes like curb bump outs. I'm sure many of these will be part of the comprehensive Pedestrian Plan, which is due to be release in February 2012, I believe in draft form for further public comments/input.

 

It shouldn't require a person to wave a flag as if they're in distress in order to complete a simple task like crossing the street.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S.Presley☠ on December 29, 2011 at 8:34am

These flags near "The Abbey", on Elston west of Kimball, are all gone.(as of yesterday)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Greenfield on December 29, 2011 at 8:38am

I do feel the flags have done more good than harm. They're only $10/bucket of flags and the campaign has resulted in several news articles about the initiative, and countless conversations about ped safety, so this strategy has achieved CDOTs goal of raising awareness of the issue, with minimal cost or effort.

Michelle Stenzel said:

I was going to post this on Grid but Disqus is not responding, so -- Thanks for the report. I was wondering how those flags were going over. It seems like a well-intentioned campaign but in the end so limited in scope that it won't have any meaningful effect on drivers' behavior. There are so many other measures that would have more impact, including a statewide campaign to publicize the "new" law (since July 2010), swapping out the thousands of existing, outdated signs that still tell drivers to "yield" and not "stop" for pedestrians, enforcement of speed limits, and undertaking street design changes like curb bump outs. I'm sure many of these will be part of the comprehensive Pedestrian Plan, which is due to be release in February 2012, I believe in draft form for further public comments/input.

 

It shouldn't require a person to wave a flag as if they're in distress in order to complete a simple task like crossing the street.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle S on December 29, 2011 at 9:10am

Oh, of course I'm in favor of any effort to raise awareness of this important issue. My statement about how sad the flags are was a commentary on how sadly low the pedestrian has fallen on the hierarchy of street users. If the flags were just planned to be temporary and symbolic, really, then that's fine, as long as there are other, dazzlingly impressive plans in the works to be revealed soon.

John Greenfield said:

I do feel the flags have done more good than harm. They're only $10/bucket of flags and the campaign has resulted in several news articles about the initiative, and countless conversations about ped safety, so this strategy has achieved CDOTs goal of raising awareness of the issue, with minimal cost or effort.

Michelle Stenzel said:

I was going to post this on Grid but Disqus is not responding, so -- Thanks for the report. I was wondering how those flags were going over. It seems like a well-intentioned campaign but in the end so limited in scope that it won't have any meaningful effect on drivers' behavior. There are so many other measures that would have more impact, including a statewide campaign to publicize the "new" law (since July 2010), swapping out the thousands of existing, outdated signs that still tell drivers to "yield" and not "stop" for pedestrians, enforcement of speed limits, and undertaking street design changes like curb bump outs. I'm sure many of these will be part of the comprehensive Pedestrian Plan, which is due to be release in February 2012, I believe in draft form for further public comments/input.

 

It shouldn't require a person to wave a flag as if they're in distress in order to complete a simple task like crossing the street.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on December 29, 2011 at 9:33am

I follow Disqus so I'm usually aware of problems, but not in this instance. If you were able to submit the comment and the button says it was posted, then it most likely was. It may take a few minutes for Disqus to "synchronize" and have the comment show up on Grid Chicago.

I made a similar comment to John's article (on Grid Chicago) that so far, no "dazzlingly impressive plans" have yet been revealed. My fingers are crossed. 

In my Wednesday article, I advocated for experimenting with different road designs. This can include more frequently building bump outs (and maybe install bioswales along with them) and trying out stuff that other cities have tried. 

Michelle Stenzel said:

Oh, of course I'm in favor of any effort to raise awareness of this important issue. My statement about how sad the flags are was a commentary on how sadly low the pedestrian has fallen on the hierarchy of street users. If the flags were just planned to be temporary and symbolic, really, then that's fine, as long as there are other, dazzlingly impressive plans in the works to be revealed soon.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wig [ isaac ] on December 29, 2011 at 4:39pm

I'm making up a few wig flags to add to the mix by the abbypub. but to add to the conversation as of today at 9:00 AM all flags at this location " GONE" ... I like the idea of people waving a flag sure a flashlight mixed with a strobe would be more eye opening to on coming traffic but you need to start somewhere right. 

laws are well and fine but common decency on the part of a driver sitting in there warm safe car should be to STOP! fuck i would be ok with just slowing down for every one who's in cross walks. but lets face it we are all assholes and sometimes we wear that on our sleeves so why should we expect a driver to act decent ? because theres a law. that is just plan crazy.It is open season on the street bikers and walkers are prized game so do your part to avoid that 2 ton bullet of gas powered machine. " look both ways as you cross the street" 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 30, 2011 at 9:53am

+1  There are many locations where I think that bumpouts with bioswales could help.  So many almost-awesome bike streets in various neighborhoods would be really great if the traffic moved a little slower, and they'd be better for peds with shorter crossing distances.  Some of these same streets are also prone to flooding along the curbs when we have heavy rain.

Both speed and flooding suck if you're a pedestrian.  Flooding may force you to cross the street in a spot where drivers aren't expecting to see you.  I'd love to see bioswales in many of these locations.  They could help to counteract the flooding caused by rain blockers at many intersections.  If you've noticed that street corner moats during thunderstorms have gotten bigger and more frequent in recent years, it's not your imagination, and it's not just bigger storms.  Rain blockers are part of our problem.  They partially solved one problem (sewer backup/basement flooding), but caused another (ped-unfriendly moats) in the process.

Steven Vance said:

In my Wednesday article, I advocated for experimenting with different road designs. This can include more frequently building bump outs (and maybe install bioswales along with them) and trying out stuff that other cities have tried. 

• ▶ Reply