The [Monday] Papers
"Signs placed in the road alerting motorists they must stop for pedestrians in crosswalks are a popular safety tool in Chicago neighborhoods, city officials say. Among drivers, they're another kind of big hit," the Tribune reports.
"Some 268 of the 344 signs have been replaced after being dinged or wiped out by vehicles, according to data the Tribune obtained from the Chicago Department of Transportation.
"Many of the signs have been replaced more than once, at a cost of more than $500 per sign, officials added.
"The stop signs have been installed citywide at 220 locations since mid-2012 to increase compliance with a 2010 state law requiring drivers to stop whenever a pedestrian has entered a crosswalk.
"The law amended a previously existing law, which safety officials considered vague, requiring drivers only to yield to pedestrians. It also applies to all intersections across Illinois, sign or no sign."
I hate those signs. First, they're confusing - to both drivers and pedestrians. "Do I have to stop here? Or just when there are pedestrians? Are those people waiting to cross? Is that a real sign? Can we just cross here? Do the cars have to stop?"
Second, they're in the middle of the road. Bad idea.
"CDOT estimated the cost to install initial and replacement must-stop signs at $265,000 to date. The money comes from the aldermanic menu program, which pays for infrastructure investments in each ward.
"The money spent has been a good investment in safety, said Chicago Transportation Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld, because 'the signs have gone a long way in increasing driver awareness of the 4-year-old state law,' she said."
Yes, increasing awareness one hit at a time - awareness that there is a sign in the middle of the road.
"The fact that these signs are getting hit by cars (shows) they are doing their jobs in some ways," Scheinfeld said.
Name those ways!
I can only think of one: If the job is to turn our streets into obstacle courses.
Previously in Rebekah Scheinfeld:
It reminds drivers of a law that may not even know about!
"I told him he got through this campaign for governor without kind of saying a lot about where he was on a whole lot of specific issues and, governmentally, that's great because now he can take positions based off of what he finds as governor, not what he promised in a campaign and I think that's a great plus for him."
Yes, it's so great that he got away with getting elected without enunciating his stand on just about anything.
Save The Spire, Ditch DePaul, Nuke The Luke
Segments also include: Harold Washington & Slim Coleman On The Real Jane Byrne; Exercises In Disdain: City Council vs. Board of Ed; Pension Police Powers; Solving The NYT's Middle East Coverage As An Example Of Newspapers' Continuing Failure To Think Digitally First And Let Print Be An Afterthought.
Trestman Outruns Lovie
Burt Reynolds, The Statue Of Liberty & Lost Rainbows
Love In Vain In A Station Of The Metro
Abe Lincoln: Good For The Jews
Tom Turkey Cake
The Weekend In Chicago Rock
"At press time, the family was preparing to file suits against USA Swimming in Colorado and against the YMCA in both Massachusetts and Illinois, home to the Y's national headquarters."
Parents, medical professionals and school officials all missed multiple intervention opportunities.
Won't say which ones.
1. The seemingly unbreachable divide between readers reflects the intractability of the conflict itself, no? 2. Digital tools can go a long way toward resolving or at least easing some of these matters; Sullivan calls for more context as space allows, for example. Space? In digital, there is no limit. Beyond that, context can be provided in many cases through links. If the NYT would *truly* embrace 3D journalism as an everyday state of being, it would go a long way. 3. Same with transparency and explanation. Another idea: create a blog for Middle Eastern coverage. Store it all in one place so readers can see the whole of the work, not just singular articles/photos to complain about. A blog could aggregate from other sources to provide further coverage beyond the NYT, including partisan sources. 'twould be enlightening. Finally, moderate the blog hard - meaning comments/interactivity - even attempting to settle factual disputes, contextual disputes and bring readers together. An unaffordable investment? I'd say it would be quite the learning experience for reporting interns or legacy newsroom workers who need reassigning.
The lessons of North Dakota.
The last thing I want to do is answer a bunch of questions.
The Beachwood Tip Line: Injunction junction.
Posted on November 24, 2014
© 2006 - 2017, The Beachwood Media Company