There doesn’t need to be a victim but it’s actually fairly dangerous. Crosswalks typically, and maybe by law/code, have signage ahead of the crosswalk to warn drivers.
This could make things more dangerous for pedestrians by giving them false trust that this crosswalk is signed and known to drivers that frequent the route.
I generally approve of this kind of vigilante civil engineering. But, safety should be taken into account so I’m a bit torn.
Either way, it’s civil disobedience which comes with a potential cost. It has worked by drawing more attention to the issue and nobody got hurt. Hopefully, they get off with a slap on the wrist.
It was already a crosswalk, just unmarked. Adding road markings cannot make it less safe.
Ugh, I misread the article and thought he marked an unmarked crosswalk because of the article image and the comment I was responding to calling it “this crosswalk”.
Wait, is it the empty two-line path on the south side of the intersection? If so, that needs better marking anyways.
Just give the guy a list of materials, tools, and relevant safety and installation codes, and let him cook. He’s already willing to do the job for you, help him do it right, and also save some taxpayer dollars in the process.
There’s no such thing as an “unmarked crosswalk” in Virginia. Pedestrians can legally cross at “marked crosswalks” and intersections if there are no marked crosswalks.
The difference is that drivers are legally required to stop at marked crosswalks. This is not an “unmarked crosswalk. It’s just an intersection.
I get that you are referring to legal definitions here, but that’s exactly what an unmarked crosswalk is: an intersection without crosswalk markings. Same thing, different name.
Who is the victim in this “crime”?
There doesn’t need to be a victim but it’s actually fairly dangerous. Crosswalks typically, and maybe by law/code, have signage ahead of the crosswalk to warn drivers.
This could make things more dangerous for pedestrians by giving them false trust that this crosswalk is signed and known to drivers that frequent the route.
I generally approve of this kind of vigilante civil engineering. But, safety should be taken into account so I’m a bit torn.
Either way, it’s civil disobedience which comes with a potential cost. It has worked by drawing more attention to the issue and nobody got hurt. Hopefully, they get off with a slap on the wrist.
Here’s one of the best vigilante traffic control projects.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/how-an-artist-helped-millions-of-drivers-with-a-counterfeit-highway-sign
Uh, I’m pretty sure you can still buy reflective vests at Home Depot.
It was already a crosswalk, just unmarked. Adding road markings cannot make it less safe.Ugh, I misread the article and thought he marked an unmarked crosswalk because of the article image and the comment I was responding to calling it “this crosswalk”.
Wait, is it the empty two-line path on the south side of the intersection? If so, that needs better marking anyways.
Just give the guy a list of materials, tools, and relevant safety and installation codes, and let him cook. He’s already willing to do the job for you, help him do it right, and also save some taxpayer dollars in the process.
There’s no such thing as an “unmarked crosswalk” in Virginia. Pedestrians can legally cross at “marked crosswalks” and intersections if there are no marked crosswalks.
The difference is that drivers are legally required to stop at marked crosswalks. This is not an “unmarked crosswalk. It’s just an intersection.
I get that you are referring to legal definitions here, but that’s exactly what an unmarked crosswalk is: an intersection without crosswalk markings. Same thing, different name.
deleted by creator
And are drivers not required to yield to pedestrians at intersections? With or without crosswalks…