Everywhere Over a Rainbow

April 14, 2013 12:45 AM

Earlier this week, an Australian conservative state government minister for roads and other stuff... Duncan Gay, ordered the removal of Sydney's first and only rainbow crossing. It had been a highlight of the recent mardi gras celebrations. As it was ripped up. In the middle of the night. And now there is an organic backlash as people around Australia, and the world, create their own in chalk. Everywhere. (disclaimer.... we made one in Sydney Park, St Peters this afternoon.) The crossing on twitter The hashtag is diyrainbow. And they're being posted on facebook here. Some more here: here
posted by taff (79 comments total)

And of course, I forgot the Instagram link. Sorry.
posted by taff at 12:47 AM on April 14, 2013

what on earth is a "rainbow crossing"?
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:06 AM on April 14, 2013

A "rainbow crossing" appears to be a pedestrian crosswalk marked, not with the familiar zebra-style black and white stripes, but with a variety of pastel hues meant to signify a rainbow.

This goes beyond stupid.
posted by fredludd at 1:15 AM on April 14, 2013 [4 favorites]

Is the rainbow thing an Australian show of support for lgbqti people only? I thought it was international. I apologise if I've been parochial.
posted by taff at 1:18 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

The guy responsible for the removal is Duncan Gay. The jokes, they write themselves.

But seriously, I think this is a sensible decision. Road crossings are there to increase safety, not to brighten our lives with displays of colour.
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:25 AM on April 14, 2013 [10 favorites]

Wowserism.
posted by Segundus at 1:31 AM on April 14, 2013

If it was unsafe, why was it allowed to exist in the first place?
posted by But tomorrow is another day... at 1:33 AM on April 14, 2013 [9 favorites]

I don't know about all that traffic-safety jazz, but I do like quizzical dog.
posted by hap_hazard at 1:36 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

I really wish it had been done so as to mimic a regular crossing - as in black-red-black-yellow-black-pink-black-green and so on.

Because at night, the rainbow crossing DIDN'T really look like a pedestrian crossing, but didn't not look like one either. And given that it was in a pretty heavily trafficked area (both cars and pedestrians), why potentially confuse people?

Of course, as Joe pointed out above, if it was so confusing and/or dangerous, why was it installed, and were there any traffic incidents as a result? And if not, did it really matter? etc.
posted by Sedition at 1:43 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

The crossing in question wasn't actually a zebra crossing- it was a light controlled crossing, so two white lines with bitumen between them.
posted by PercyByssheShelley at 1:49 AM on April 14, 2013 [6 favorites]

Right, I know what I'm suggesting to the LGBT student org to fundraise for on our campus next....
posted by strixus at 1:51 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

I recommend chalking one up and posting it on the facebook page in solidarity. It would be fabulous to see it go further afield.

And yes, it was a crossing at an intersection with lights, not a zebra crossing.

If anyone is interested.... there is another one planned for Summer Hill piazza at 19:30. In Sydney's inner west.
posted by taff at 1:57 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

it was a light controlled crossing,

So the whole safety aspect therefore is a red herring, as motorists might be confused by a rainbow zebra, but still had to pay attention to the lights.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:59 AM on April 14, 2013 [5 favorites]

It's pandering to the christians in the upper house of our state parliament. They're hate filled homophobes.

It was our Lord Mayor, Clover Moore that installed it.
posted by taff at 2:06 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

taff, I think it's mainly that the USian word is "crosswalk" rather than "crossing". We do know rainbows.
posted by dhartung at 2:16 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

Clearly this is a road safety issue, a straw man might be run over
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 2:18 AM on April 14, 2013 [23 favorites]

So it costs 30k to rip it up. But I bet a fresh rainbow crossing could be laid down for 200$, by guerilla state actors. Sounds like an opportunity for bleeding the monster!
posted by special agent conrad uno at 2:24 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Clearly this is a road safety issue, a straw man might be run over

It's the zebras that are the real victims here.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:28 AM on April 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

(I think the town needs a big chinatown-like rainbow gate over the intersection, mayhaps.)
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:30 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

West Hollywood has a couple that were installed for gay pride and became permanent.
posted by taz at 2:40 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

Road crossings are there to increase safety, not to brighten our lives with displays of colour.

In Bristol, RI, the center double divider line is done up as red, white and blue stripes along the length of its busiest main road, in honor of it being the town with the oldest annual 4th of July parade. The number of deaths and accidents caused by this terribly unsafe road marking can be summed by the following figure: 0.
posted by Slap*Happy at 2:44 AM on April 14, 2013 [9 favorites]

The number of deaths and accidents caused by this terribly unsafe road marking can be summed by the following figure: 0.

Well, that's 0 too many.
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 2:49 AM on April 14, 2013 [22 favorites]

what on earth is a "rainbow crossing"?

I don't know, man, if only there was, I don't know, a link or something that might tell us. People will still be asking this question in decades.

This goes beyond stupid

Yeah, paying to rip it up in the dead of night from arguably the location in Australia most synonymous for LGTBI pride certainly is beyond stupid. It's freakishly trivial, and seems also - to me as a Sydney-sider - an appropriate metaphor for the creeping tide of straight (and often homophobic) bogans that are progressively (ha) flooding the area.

I do love all the road-safety ambassadors that pop out of the woodwork at times like this, though. There's certainly no better targets in Sydney.
posted by smoke at 3:20 AM on April 14, 2013 [12 favorites]

I think the lede is being buried here: why does Sydney's mayor insist on being called 'Lord'?

Oh this is standard in Australia. The title is "Lord Mayor" everywhere.
posted by smoke at 3:26 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

His title is actually "Lord Mayor". It's a title that goes with the office, and historically it was conferred by the monarch upon cities in the UK as a sign of favour. In Australia the biggest cities mostly have Lord Mayors (Lords Mayor?)

As far as I'm aware it doesn't actually convey anything other than the title itself, even in the UK. It's not one of those deals where the holder has the right to a brace of partridge from the Queen's forest or anything.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:32 AM on April 14, 2013

His?
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 3:36 AM on April 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

Of course, as Joe pointed out above, if it was so confusing and/or dangerous, why was it installed, and were there any traffic incidents as a result? And if not, did it really matter? etc.

It was put in for the Sydney Mardi Gras; it was originally intended to be a temporary measure, planned to be removed after a month.

I don't think anyone anticipated that it would be so popular. People have actually been lying down or standing in the crossing to get photographs taken - this is a six lane intersection between two arterial roads.

Yes, they're morons. This is why we can't have nice things.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:36 AM on April 14, 2013 [4 favorites]

His title is actually "Lord Mayor".

Her title. Lord Mayor Clover Moore is a lady person.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:38 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oops. Yeah, her photo, clearly labelled "lord mayor Clover Moore" should have tipped me off. As I recall there's something funny about the title: it doesn't have a female form, and male spouses of Lord Mayors (Lords Mayor? I hate not knowing this.) are sometimes called "Lady Mayoresses" in a jocular attempt to conform to protocol.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:44 AM on April 14, 2013

As far as I'm aware it doesn't actually convey anything other than the title itself, even in the UK. It's not one of those deals where the holder has the right to a brace of partridge from the Queen's forest or anything.

BRB, got to buy some new partridges.
posted by jaduncan at 3:47 AM on April 14, 2013

Is this right-wing red-meat politicking, like the mayor of Toronto being photographed ripping up bike lanes or virtually anything from Queensland these days, or is there a less obnoxious explanation?
posted by acb at 3:59 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

Is this right-wing red-meat politicking, like the mayor of Toronto being photographed ripping up bike lanes or virtually anything from Queensland these days, or is there a less obnoxious explanation?

Well, the Coalition NSW Government despises Clover Moore - they would do pretty much anything to hurt her. She was an independent State MP for over two decades. In 2012 (as soon as they got in), the Coalition Government passed laws specifically to prevent her from being both a MP and Lord Mayor, despite her having managed both roles admirably for years. She felt she could serve the community better as Lord Mayor, so she resigned from Parliament.

She's done great things, encouraging community events, live performance venues, small bars, bike infrastructure. And she's clashed with the NSW Government (both Labor and Coalition) on all of those things.

So it's not impossible that the NSW Government are doing this just to spite Clover. But there's also a road safety argument being put forward by the Government which, irrespective of whether it is correct or not, may actually be sincere.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:18 AM on April 14, 2013 [5 favorites]

Here's one we just finished. With me being interviewed by the police.
posted by taff at 4:38 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

A whole other side of this, however, is demonstrated by the half-a-dozen queer folks I've heard in the last week declaring that they're sick to death of bloody rainbows...
posted by Jimbob at 4:54 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm sick to death of the fact that we need them. But till we don't any longer, I love them to bits.
posted by taff at 4:59 AM on April 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

I like to think that the arbitrary enforcement of petty rules helps us all be better people, but if the NSW rules are like the Victorian ones then:

1. Pedestrian crossings are specifically defined to be a part of the road with white stripes running lengthwise along the road;
2. These fancy art-student colours don't make a legal pedestrian crossing;
3. But this crossing never actually had white stripes and was not a pedestrian crossing;
4. In fact it was "a place on the road with pedestrian lights", which is something different;
5. As such, it doesn't legally matter whether anything is painted on the road.;
6. Look! Over there! A distraction!

posted by Joe in Australia at 5:03 AM on April 14, 2013

The original rainbow crossing was a joyful reminder of Sydney's LGBTQ history. It was perfectly placed at the epicentre of our cultural, political, social and health battles and victories.
Immediately after it was painted, my Facebook feed was filled with my LGBTQ peers of all ages and my straight friends, joyfully(& safely) posing on it.
And now that they have taken it away, my Facebook feed is again full of images that have made me cry with joy.So many people, LGBTQ and straight alike, kids, parents, couples, share-houses, friends, pets, random groupings of people, joyfully resisting and joyfully saying LGBT people are a valuable part of this community. With this community being anything from my home in Newtown, to my birthplace in Perth, to country towns all over the east coast.
This community response has meant a lot to me.
posted by MT at 5:04 AM on April 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

There are some nice photos of the crossing here that make it clear that it wasn't ever anything like a normal (i.e, zebra-striped) pedestrian crossing. I am astonished that it allegedly cost $100,000 though. I think some leprechauns must have misplaced their gold.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:10 AM on April 14, 2013

If there was some level of sanity in this RE: road safety, some guys with power washers would have removed this as best they could and repainted a standard cross walk. That they came in with equipment to literally remove and replace asphalt says this was all about making a point.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:54 AM on April 14, 2013 [4 favorites]

Slight derail: I have learned from this article the word "wowserism." Can anybody tell me what it comes from? Who was the original wowser?
posted by Diablevert at 5:58 AM on April 14, 2013

Who was the original wowser?

Lord Wowser. He was a hardline protestant.

But seriously, according to wiki it's a loval word for local people.

Personally, I am fine with them "ripping it up" although I am not sure why the local council is paying for all this. Sensible people would have used paint, that washes away.


a rare patch of Sydney colour

Methinks the SMH writer had not been to Sydney.

Why was it done late at night? Some scheming?
Or is it common-sense to do roadworks in the night when there is minimal traffic?
Who can tell?
posted by Mezentian at 6:13 AM on April 14, 2013

Methinks the SMH writer had not been to Sydney.

Or more likely just clunky hacks on a deadline with subcontracted subeditors (who are, incidentally, in Brisbane). I worked at that newspaper for eight years. The local reporters are in Sydney. How could it be otherwise?

Or is it common-sense to do roadworks in the night when there is minimal traffic?

Well, what do you think? This is a hugely busy road in the middle of town. Any ideas?
posted by Wolof at 6:35 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

To answer the hugely important question about the plural of 'Lord Mayor', I feel we can safely turn to Debrett's. They say it is Lord Mayors (scroll down to note 'i'), and I'm not going to argue with them.
posted by YAMWAK at 6:46 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Why the need to tear up the Tarmac? They could have simply cleaned it up and painted it over. This was about making a political point and the money could have been better spent elsewhere.
posted by arcticseal at 6:57 AM on April 14, 2013

I don't think painting it over would have worked - the paint would have just worn away to expose it again. Covering it with a layer of tarmac would have put a bump in the road. Even if the rainbow was just painted on, stripping it off would likely have involved considerable use of dangerous and environmentally unfriendly chemicals.

The authorities would already have the equipment and people with the right skills to tear up the road. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, etc.
posted by YAMWAK at 7:03 AM on April 14, 2013

Pick your battles. Is this really a hill worth dying over?
posted by Ghost Mode at 7:21 AM on April 14, 2013

Slight derail: I have learned from this article the word "wowserism." Can anybody tell me what it comes from? Who was the original wowser?

I note that the article refers to it only once:

But on the street and in social media, many found the insistence on spending $30,000 to rip up the rainbow unnecessary wowserism.

This implies that there is a more restrained level of necessary wowserism.

Necessary Wowserism is, in my view, an underrated sophomore album.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:21 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

The government is covering up the true reason for tearing up the rainbow crossing: fear of Silver Surfer attacks.
posted by MegoSteve at 7:46 AM on April 14, 2013 [5 favorites]

Aaah! Normally this would be "news of the far away" for me but I was just there! There is a picture of me standing on the rainbow crossing still in my camera.

Also for people who are all "who cares" --- what MT said.
posted by sweetkid at 8:33 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Painting it over doesn't work. The top layer wears away revealing a patchy version of the lower layer. At least around here where they only paint lines once a year or less.

I'm going to guess that pressure washing also doesn't work because I've never seen line removal done this way. Line removal (like in the case of realignment) is always done by removal of a layer of asphalt. Highways here even has a special machine that can remove just a stripe wide layer so you end up with phantom stripes on the road where the machine reveals unweathered asphalt.

The white machine with the boom in the first link looks like that sort of machine. It has a set of grinders on the bottom that can remove a thin layer of asphalt off the pavement. If so it's likely they didn't bring a hoe in to dig up the intersection. They just scraped the top layer which is the standard procedure to remove markings on the road.

The 30K bill is probably not out of line. Little projects like this are expensive because you have to transport all your machinery to the site at a cost of hundreds of dollars an hour per machine. Then you have the salaries of the operators plus the costs of closing the road.
posted by Mitheral at 9:39 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Maybe it was removed for the sake of public safety. Perhaps herds of homophobes were afraid to cross the street on that particular rainbow for fear of catching gayness and were subsequently in danger of being run down when they crossed anywhere but the crosswalk.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:03 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

The sad thing is that there are good technical reasons not to have rainbow crossings or any other nonstandard pavement markings. Drivers take in an amazing amount of information and the more you add, the more you get confused, overwhelmed drivers making mistakes. And one crossing isn't going to really do much, but there's already an outpouring of people wanting one in their communities, and next will come an Italian neighbourhood painting red/white/green, and then the Armenians next and business districts and so on. And eventually there will be crossings painted "57 Ave Festival Market sponsored by Doritos" except painted "57 Ave Festival Market sponsored by DORITOS". And we will have lost the last place that wasn't for messages about products or even community inclusivity, but is for messages about how to safely operate your two ton steel death machine.

Standards are particularly important, because the technology for really good coloured pavement isn't that old, and we are finding good uses like bike lanes and bike boxes that use this to increase public safety. And it's not like there isn't every other surface, walls, banners and so on that we can use to proclaim our support of the LGBT community.

The road engineers who agreed to this should have known that allowing a temporary violation for a short time is like taking your five year old to the pound to hold the puppies only. Because now they look petty and mean spirited in holding up their end of the arrangement.

Obviously the only thing worse than painting the crosswalk is removing it, which sends the worst possible message and now makes this a focal point of protest. And the LGBT community is right that this feels shitty and they were right to be outraged. But it's the engineers who allowed this in the first place who made the mistake.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 10:18 AM on April 14, 2013 [8 favorites]

Really what they should have done is painted the rainbow crossing onto steel checker plate that could have been just bolted to the intersection. Removal would have involved two men and a Hiab and the bolted on nature would have strongly signaled the impermanence of the installation.
posted by Mitheral at 10:32 AM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

So the whole safety aspect therefore is a red herring,

actually a red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet herring.
posted by roger ackroyd at 11:39 AM on April 14, 2013

It might be unsafe if someone got confused and thought you had to be gay while crossing.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:59 AM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'd be more concerned about the safety aspect if it were a zebra crossing, without lights. That was the impression I got from the initial reports and their photos, which clip the scene in a confusing way. But the lines run at right angles to the street; the only cause for concern is a general issue of having colored paint on the roadway. Is that really a cause for concern? The quotes from road safety experts make it sound as if they think it might be, but they're also the sort of answer you get if you ring someone up and say "Do you think it can be dangerous to have a rainbow-coloured pedestrian crossing?" So I'm left with a feeling of maybe.

I'm glad the bit about Lord Mayors has been cleared up, though.
posted by Joe in Australia at 12:08 PM on April 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

1. The City of Sydney initially got permission for it from the State Government on the understanding it would only be temporary.

2. The City's own safety audits show that people were lying down and photographing themselves on it, and that it needed a marshal stationed there to prevent accidents. This is not an exaggeration. It's right next to Sydney's major nightclubs; there is a constant stream of drunk idiots around it.

3. It was super ugly and dirty

4. It didn't look like a zebra crossing at all, so it was highly confusing

5. It was done in the middle of the night like all other roadworks; this is one of Sydney's busiest intersections.

6. The State Govt may be homophobic, but the Roads minister made a point of saying he'd be happy to support another major rainbow/queer themed public artwork there, just not a zebra crossing

7. It stole the idea from WeHo anyway

8. This is another case of rich white gays caring only about trivial symbolic issues that affect rich white gays
posted by dontjumplarry at 2:01 PM on April 14, 2013 [8 favorites]

Just to add, I think it was still on balance a bad idea to remove it, because it sends a signal that Sydney is homophobic when it's really, generally speaking, nothing of the kind. But I'm just fed up with my Facebook feed being filled with outrage by my fellow gays over how their identity was erased when this rainbow was torn up in the dead of night. I'm fed up that so many gay dudes have a hair trigger for symbolic outrage, but only when it affects them.
posted by dontjumplarry at 2:09 PM on April 14, 2013

It didn't look like a zebra crossing at all, so it was highly confusing

The fixed crossing doesn't look like a zebra crossing either. Because it isn't a zebra crossing. Any driver confused by the rainbow crossing would also need to be confused by how traffic lights work.
posted by PercyByssheShelley at 2:18 PM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

My first thought was it would be like a deer crossing sign; a warning to drivers to be on the lookout for rainbows crossing the road. Not a lot of zebras where I am.
posted by RobotHero at 2:37 PM on April 14, 2013

PercyByssheShelley when it comes to road marking it's not so much been unable to identify the crossing that is the problem; like you said there is the traffic lights plus the road corners and intersection in general to alert drivers that pedestrians might be crossing the road. The real problem is drivers are unfamiliar with the rainbow markings (understandable when it's essentially unique) and can be so distracted trying to figure it out that they blow the intersection completely.

This is a very real problem in road design. Drivers don't handle systems they aren't familiar with very well. See for example roundabouts or left hand freeway exits.
posted by Mitheral at 3:37 PM on April 14, 2013

Thanks, Taff, for making a rainbow crossing. I'll check it out this week. I saw one yesterday in Newtown, connecting Camperdown Park to the Courthouse Hotel.

Tearing up the one in Oxford Street is such a stupid decision. That area is already the gay capital of Sydney, and anything that adds to that is good for tourism. Plus Taylor Sauare always feels alive, whether at 3pm or 3am, so more color is great!
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 4:11 PM on April 14, 2013

Pick your battles. Is this really a hill worth dying over?

Sydney gets more bland by the day. Live music venues and warehouse art spaces get shut down. Odious planning restrictions make it hard to set up anything. So yes, we need to fight these battles.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 4:15 PM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

5. It was done in the middle of the night like all other roadworks; this is one of Sydney's busiest intersections.

If they wanted to minimize disruption to Oxford Street they would have done it on Sunday afternoon.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 4:17 PM on April 14, 2013

Drivers don't handle systems they aren't familiar with very well.

Yeah this is what concerns me. I know, I know, people who drive big four-wheel death machines are dumb-asses. But if I were driving along a street and came across huge, rainbow stripes on the road, I would be confused - it would cross my mind that I was about to drive somewhere I wasn't supposed to, that the road was closed, that there was some kind of event happening, and I would hesitate. Which isn't the end of the world, I guess, but it can't totally be dismissed with "well drivers should know it's just a normal crossing".

So yes, we need to fight these battles.

Or move to Melbourne and leave Sydney to rot. That would be my plan.
posted by Jimbob at 4:18 PM on April 14, 2013

I am astonished that it allegedly cost $100,000 though.

I'm not, really. Have you seen how many workers they employ for roadworkers? A lot, at least up here.

Pick your battles. Is this really a hill worth dying over?

I dunno, I don't really see anyone dying round here. I agree, there are certainly many battles that can be fought against homophobia in Sydney and Australia, but this has a simple and clear narrative that is easier to both understand, and too react against. I'm not very surprised by the whole thing.

Normally this would be "news of the far away" for me but I was just there!

And no meet up? Shame on you!

next will come an Italian neighbourhood painting red/white/green, and then the Armenians next and business districts and so on.

Hmm, I don't really have a lot of time for slippery slope arguments - especially in regards to anything around homosexuality, where they are regularly abused. I want to discuss the thing that was painted on the road, not the stuff that could be but isn't painted on the road.

it sends a signal that Sydney is homophobic when it's really, generally speaking, nothing of the kind.

Hmm, I don't know about that one, how do you even start to assess it? Not homophobic compared to Kabul? To Hong Kong? etc etc. I think there is plenty of homophobia in Sydney; indeed it happens on Oxford St itself pretty regularly.
posted by smoke at 4:51 PM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Any driver confused by the rainbow crossing would also need to be confused by how traffic lights work.

I'm fairly certain that most Sydney drivers have suffered a brain injury, given the way they they drive. So the less possible confusion, the better.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:12 PM on April 14, 2013

I'm fairly certain that most Sydney drivers have suffered a brain injury, given the way they they drive.

Spent much time in QLD? Try merging up there; it's like Thunderdome compared to Sydders.
posted by smoke at 5:17 PM on April 14, 2013

While the NSW Parliament has more than a few homophobes, I really don't think Duncan Gay is one of them. It's worth noting that he (through the responsible department) offered to repaint the rainbow on the pavements on Oxford Street [not a great article, but the best I could find] - the Council turned this down in favour of creating a stoush about the crossing.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:19 PM on April 14, 2013

That's a real shame, it would look nice on the pavements.
posted by smoke at 5:40 PM on April 14, 2013

Social media is blowing up about this, with Helen Razer thinking it's a waste of time compared to fighting Tony Abbot, my friend making an argument that we should volunteer at LGBTQ spaces instead of painting rainbows, and the DIY Rainbow Crossings FB page posting a photo a minute.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 7:11 PM on April 14, 2013

I have to admit my opinion is strongly biased towards slavishly accepting and integrating into my world view anything Helen Razer has to say about anything.
posted by Jimbob at 7:29 PM on April 14, 2013

Normally this would be "news of the far away" for me but I was just there!

And no meet up? Shame on you!

I know, I really should have. I was "holding time" for this one person who kinda let me down. Long story.
posted by sweetkid at 8:52 PM on April 14, 2013

Hmm, I don't really have a lot of time for slippery slope arguments - especially in regards to anything around homosexuality, where they are regularly abused. I want to discuss the thing that was painted on the road, not the stuff that could be but isn't painted on the road.

We are on something of a slippery slope already, where a temporary relaxation of the rules was permitted, but the community is attempting to turn it into a permanent relaxation, and already similar permanent relaxations are being sought elsewhere. And I don't think it's entirely beyond imagination that other communities will seek similar relaxations if this one succeeds; I'm posting this from San Francisco, where North Beach is as well-dressed with the Italian flag as the Castro is with the rainbow.

But in any case, the temporary measure was temporary. Hopefully transportation departments are looking at this and take away the lesson that temporary changes should be either refused or at least made to clearly be temporary.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 8:52 PM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Would it be such a bad thing if we had more rainbow crossings? They look pretty cool. I hear the safety argument but as long as they're used in conjunction with pedestrian lights it doesn't really convince me.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:59 PM on April 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Probably the main precedent for this kind of thing is the "intersection repair" movement in Portland, OR.

I am mostly of the mind that anything that makes drivers question whether they have the right of way is a good thing, unless they conclude that they do and then hit somebody.
posted by enf at 11:34 AM on April 15, 2013

Anonymous hacked created the Westboro Baptist Church facebook page.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:03 PM on April 17, 2013

Barry O'Farrell, Premier of NSW, declared today that he supported marriage equality, and would vote for it in NSW if it wouldn't cause constitutional problems.

Going against the leader of his party to do the right thing. Not bad, Barry. Not bad.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:32 AM on April 18, 2013 [3 favorites]

Is Abbott actually the leader of the NSW Liberals?

It should be noted that, when he is PM, Abbott says that it will be up to his party room, after the election, to re-define a policy on gay marriage during its first term.

So, he's going to take a policy of "there will be no conscience vote under a government I lead" policy into the election and maybe after the election do a complete 180.

Gosh. That sounds familiar.
posted by Mezentian at 2:58 AM on April 20, 2013 [1 favorite]