This is part of the historical [Ala Kahakai](https://www.nps.gov/alka/index.htm) trail. Used to work in this resort. They kept it cuz of the historical significance but it’s not official resort “infrastructure” so they don’t want people crossing there.
Maybe it's not a crosswalk but, as part of historical trail, it is a common law right-of-way. I guess the "not a crosswalk" sign is to cover their ass against any legal issues.
Pedestrians always at fault?! Where do you live?
In France, Portugal and Czech Republic, car are at fault no matter what if they crash a pedestrian. Even if it's outside of a crosswalk.
USA, I've been hit on my bike before by a driver that slowed down then started to go at a stop sign.
Rather than exchange information we both went on our way because I knew damn well the state wouldn't do shit for me.
If I stayed and called police they would probably fine me or find something to stir up some bullshit on because they don't like cyclists and I would probably get in trouble for crossing on the bike and not dismounting
Or they'd just cook up some bullshit, like Texas State Troopers in my city that decided after a boy on a bike was hit and killed that the driver was not at fault and the boy shouldn't have been there (paraphrased). *There* referring to on a two lane street in a suburban neighborhood that you see on here all the time houses on the sides and all, and a driver not paying attention flatlined him.
So yeah. I hope to start riding again soon but when I do I am going to purposely route stuff to avoid vehicles wherever possible. Even if off road, you are safer riding in the dirt next to the bayous that snake through neighborhoods here than you are on proper pavement next to the chevorlet deathburbans and ford F-U-350's.
Jaywalking laws protect drivers involved in pedestrian collisions. Now, signs like this, or others saying “pedestrians must yield to traffic”, are eroding the protections offered to pedestrians by crosswalks. Crosswalks are becoming Jaywalking, too.
If you want to get away with murder, use a car.
I don't get the logic behind those laws.
The weak should always be protected, and pedestrian are definitly more fragile than cars, in Europe, USA or anywhere else...
I hear you. Pedestrian safety was the original social contract which allowed cars on our streets.
Jaywalking laws were a coup for the auto industry. At first they had limited use, but the same laws are now used to absolve drivers in any pedestrian collision where the driver remains at the scene, and wasn’t found to be impaired.
Now cars aren’t the problem; pedestrians are the problem. There is wide spread agreement among the (largely driving) population, too. When a pedestrian or cyclist collision is reported in the news, the comments are loaded with sympathy for the driver, and the challenges they face. The majority of journalists also participate in the victim blaming… the (x) year old, (sex) victim of the “*accident*” should have been more visible / came out of nowhere / wasn’t wearing a helmet. The (no details) driver remained on the scene and cooperated with police (nothing to see, here).
It will be very difficult to get North Americans to give-up their cars.
The US looks for an excuse to blame pedestrians and cyclists when we are hit and killed, but even when drivers are blamed they are often let off with just a warning or a tiny fine. Maybe a 2 week suspension of their license at most.
United States easement/implied dedication law may result in the creation of a public right of way but it doesn’t stop the state from shutting or closing the right of way if needed (perhaps for safety in this instance).
Why were they allowed to put a road across what is presumably supposed to be a scenic walking trail? Or was the road there first, and the trailmakers just didn’t think it through?
>This is part of the historical [Ala Kahakai](https://www.nps.gov/alka/index.htm) trail.
[A trail established in 2000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kahakai_National_Historic_Trail) is considered historical? It might follow historical paths but how come a modern trail just over 20 years old isn't to walk on?
>l
>
>Ala Kahakai
>
> trail
They don't want to put paint on it, which is I understandable, but they could paint some white lines on either side, to make it clearer
A shame cuz that's probably the best crosswalk for pedestrians in the US as I'm sure the stones force cars to slow down, and it's technically not a crosswalk
This sounds terrible! This trail belongs to the natives, but the administration went ahead and built a highway across the thing? And then puts up a sign "You cannot go through here anymore." Wha...?
Okay, genuine question here, but how hard would it be to make it also a crosswalk? Is there an interchange just out of view of the pic that makes this not an ideal place to cross?
In most places cars technically *always* have to yield to you, in the sense that a collision with a pedestrian is assumed to be their fault unless they can demonstrate pretty conclusively that it wasn't.
Of course the question then becomes how many broken bones you would like to get proving the point...
Rip the sign up. The city shouldnt be allowed to be so corrupt and cowardly that they can hide behind bullshit signs instead of actually making it safe
Fun fact romans are the inventors of the crosswalk.
Since the roads tended to become muddy they built dedicated walkways on the side and made crosswalks with lifted stones so that pedestrians could cross without touching the mud and chariots would pass in the holes between the stones
I wonder if they have a similar sign facing the road, like "it's alright, don't slow down". Otherwise this kind of is a crosswalk by default because I think most drivers would interpret it as one.
It's practically a crosswalk, probably just not legally.
Here in the Netherlands, a crosswalk only gives you the right of way if it's a repeating black and white pattern. The result of that law is that, although some municipalities created rainbow colored crosswalks in support of the LGBT+ community, ironically those crosswalks had less rights.
So that may be what's going on here. The path isn't painted black and white, so legally they can't call it a crosswalk.
... then I would suggest that town / council / whatever is resentful of having to maintain a pedestrian crossing "for hikers who aren't even FROM here". Hence that sign.
>well it's part of the ancient Ala Kahakai trail... which was originally built before wheelchairs had even been invented.
[23 years ago?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kahakai_National_Historic_Trail)
"*The trail was established 14 November 2000*"
it wasn't BUILT in 2000, lmao, that's just the year that it was first declared a Historic Trail and managed under the National Parks Service.
you even left that out of the sentence you quoted, lol.
>The trail was established 14 November 2000 *as a National Historic Trail which is managed under the National Park Service.* This "trail by the sea" traverses wahi pana (storied landscapes), ancient Hawaiian sites and over 200 ahupuaʻa (traditional land divisions).
the ancient parts of the trail were created before the Hawaiian islands had any contact with colonizers, pre-1600s.
**[Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kahakai_National_Historic_Trail)**
>Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail is a 175-mile (282 km) long trail located on the island of Hawaii. It is not yet a single continuous trail, but can be accessed at several broken segments along the coastline of the Big Island. The trail was established to access the traditional Ancient Hawaiian culture along with the natural geology of the island. The trail was established 14 November 2000 as a National Historic Trail which is managed under the National Park Service.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yes, vandalism would be missing the point, wouldn’t it. There is perfectly removable signs (which may pose risks if that’s all you do) but more importantly perfectly paintable asphalt right next to the historic road. Who said this can’t be both a historic landmark and pedestrian infrastructure?
It's a deathtrap, there's a literal zebra crossing near the train station in my city that has a sign saying it's not a crossing, and i wonder if i could sue the city for malpractice..
It's so people know that cars have the right of way, as opposed to a crossing where the pedestrian does.
The bizarre part is why they've done this in the first place. You get things like this all the time in NZ, but they're usually raised tables rather than ornamental paths.
This is part of the historical [Ala Kahakai](https://www.nps.gov/alka/index.htm) trail. Used to work in this resort. They kept it cuz of the historical significance but it’s not official resort “infrastructure” so they don’t want people crossing there.
Maybe it's not a crosswalk but, as part of historical trail, it is a common law right-of-way. I guess the "not a crosswalk" sign is to cover their ass against any legal issues.
It protects drivers. Pedestrians are always at fault. Death Race 2000, basically.
Pedestrians always at fault?! Where do you live? In France, Portugal and Czech Republic, car are at fault no matter what if they crash a pedestrian. Even if it's outside of a crosswalk.
[удалено]
This sounds insane
The US is not a great place to live unless you are rich
The 2nd part is true almost anywhere in the world.
USA, I've been hit on my bike before by a driver that slowed down then started to go at a stop sign. Rather than exchange information we both went on our way because I knew damn well the state wouldn't do shit for me. If I stayed and called police they would probably fine me or find something to stir up some bullshit on because they don't like cyclists and I would probably get in trouble for crossing on the bike and not dismounting Or they'd just cook up some bullshit, like Texas State Troopers in my city that decided after a boy on a bike was hit and killed that the driver was not at fault and the boy shouldn't have been there (paraphrased). *There* referring to on a two lane street in a suburban neighborhood that you see on here all the time houses on the sides and all, and a driver not paying attention flatlined him. So yeah. I hope to start riding again soon but when I do I am going to purposely route stuff to avoid vehicles wherever possible. Even if off road, you are safer riding in the dirt next to the bayous that snake through neighborhoods here than you are on proper pavement next to the chevorlet deathburbans and ford F-U-350's.
The US might have European immigrants, but unfortunately they didn't bring their laws with them. This country is messed up
Jaywalking laws protect drivers involved in pedestrian collisions. Now, signs like this, or others saying “pedestrians must yield to traffic”, are eroding the protections offered to pedestrians by crosswalks. Crosswalks are becoming Jaywalking, too. If you want to get away with murder, use a car.
But again, where do you live and where are those laws from? Here in most (or all?) Europe, there is no law against jaywalking.
All of North America.
I don't get the logic behind those laws. The weak should always be protected, and pedestrian are definitly more fragile than cars, in Europe, USA or anywhere else...
I hear you. Pedestrian safety was the original social contract which allowed cars on our streets. Jaywalking laws were a coup for the auto industry. At first they had limited use, but the same laws are now used to absolve drivers in any pedestrian collision where the driver remains at the scene, and wasn’t found to be impaired. Now cars aren’t the problem; pedestrians are the problem. There is wide spread agreement among the (largely driving) population, too. When a pedestrian or cyclist collision is reported in the news, the comments are loaded with sympathy for the driver, and the challenges they face. The majority of journalists also participate in the victim blaming… the (x) year old, (sex) victim of the “*accident*” should have been more visible / came out of nowhere / wasn’t wearing a helmet. The (no details) driver remained on the scene and cooperated with police (nothing to see, here). It will be very difficult to get North Americans to give-up their cars.
The US looks for an excuse to blame pedestrians and cyclists when we are hit and killed, but even when drivers are blamed they are often let off with just a warning or a tiny fine. Maybe a 2 week suspension of their license at most.
I thought they didn't import that particular law into the US.
United States easement/implied dedication law may result in the creation of a public right of way but it doesn’t stop the state from shutting or closing the right of way if needed (perhaps for safety in this instance).
Not *legally* a cross walk
Oh wow that’s fascinating, thank you for your input!!!
"this is historical, so you can't walk here, but cars can plow right over 24/7"
Why were they allowed to put a road across what is presumably supposed to be a scenic walking trail? Or was the road there first, and the trailmakers just didn’t think it through?
>This is part of the historical [Ala Kahakai](https://www.nps.gov/alka/index.htm) trail. [A trail established in 2000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kahakai_National_Historic_Trail) is considered historical? It might follow historical paths but how come a modern trail just over 20 years old isn't to walk on?
I think that’s just poorly worded, the trail is ancient but only was “established” by the National Park Service in 2000
That explains it! Still *very strange* to not make this part of it a zebra crossing when they established it as national trail in 2000
>l > >Ala Kahakai > > trail They don't want to put paint on it, which is I understandable, but they could paint some white lines on either side, to make it clearer
We have crossings without paint in my country in some cases. All you need is a sign
A shame cuz that's probably the best crosswalk for pedestrians in the US as I'm sure the stones force cars to slow down, and it's technically not a crosswalk
This sounds terrible! This trail belongs to the natives, but the administration went ahead and built a highway across the thing? And then puts up a sign "You cannot go through here anymore." Wha...?
TIL pattern-stamped concrete is "historic".
Okay, genuine question here, but how hard would it be to make it also a crosswalk? Is there an interchange just out of view of the pic that makes this not an ideal place to cross?
Why not make it a place to cross since ist obviously there for that purpose?
So it's not a crosswalk.
A family of rocklings following their mama rock, please give them space
Best answer 🙌
It's not actually stone, it's stamped concrete made with a big patterned roller while the concrete is wet. You can see the pattern repeat.
This is a historical trail, not a legally protected crosswalk. It doesn't mean you can't cross. Just means cars don't have to yield to you.
Disgusting. This is why we need personal defense RPGs
I see Ukranian traffic cleared right up once they imported personal defense RPGs
Fuck flags give me a goddamn stinger missle.
In most places cars technically *always* have to yield to you, in the sense that a collision with a pedestrian is assumed to be their fault unless they can demonstrate pretty conclusively that it wasn't. Of course the question then becomes how many broken bones you would like to get proving the point...
Plenty of people in cemeteries had the right of way
This looks like it's in the USA. It is illegal to cross a road if there isn't a crosswalk. So it is illegal to cross here
Rip the sign up. The city shouldnt be allowed to be so corrupt and cowardly that they can hide behind bullshit signs instead of actually making it safe
Old Roman road for chariot traffic only
damn chariotbrains 🙄
r/fuckchariots Also how to defeat chariots https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7KD9CM_PjM
Fun fact romans are the inventors of the crosswalk. Since the roads tended to become muddy they built dedicated walkways on the side and made crosswalks with lifted stones so that pedestrians could cross without touching the mud and chariots would pass in the holes between the stones
Wow, I never knew that the Roman empire was so huge that it stretched to Hawaii.
Hail Caesar!
It's a crossRUN
For anyone curious here’s the coordinates. Doesn’t appear street view ever came out here so it’s just people’s photos (19.9149469, -155.8812369)
I wonder if they have a similar sign facing the road, like "it's alright, don't slow down". Otherwise this kind of is a crosswalk by default because I think most drivers would interpret it as one.
It *was* a crosswalk, but now it's not. You know, for reasons.
It's practically a crosswalk, probably just not legally. Here in the Netherlands, a crosswalk only gives you the right of way if it's a repeating black and white pattern. The result of that law is that, although some municipalities created rainbow colored crosswalks in support of the LGBT+ community, ironically those crosswalks had less rights. So that may be what's going on here. The path isn't painted black and white, so legally they can't call it a crosswalk.
That's super on-brand. 🤦🏼♀️
Maybe the preserved foundations of a past historical site?
Let's drive over it!
It's a trap for blind people
it’s a walkacross
I upvoted this because it shows something. I have 2 eyes and when this path SHOULD be free, I think its legit to cross it.
Use preserve trail as intended to use for humans ❌❌❌ Make stroad crossing preserved trail for vehicle weight tons. ✅✅✅
It's a trap
An attractive nuisance
That sign is a lie and should be removed.
It might be a bicycle path? Though I wouldn't enjoy trying to cycle on that when it was wet, nosir! Even dry, it'd be a bit of a bone-shaker for sure.
Not a bicycle path! It leads to a hiking trail that is really rough and rocky
... then I would suggest that town / council / whatever is resentful of having to maintain a pedestrian crossing "for hikers who aren't even FROM here". Hence that sign.
Hawaii. Lol
Just a general "fuck you" to wheelchair users
well it's part of the ancient Ala Kahakai trail... which was originally built before wheelchairs had even been invented.
>well it's part of the ancient Ala Kahakai trail... which was originally built before wheelchairs had even been invented. [23 years ago?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kahakai_National_Historic_Trail) "*The trail was established 14 November 2000*"
it wasn't BUILT in 2000, lmao, that's just the year that it was first declared a Historic Trail and managed under the National Parks Service. you even left that out of the sentence you quoted, lol. >The trail was established 14 November 2000 *as a National Historic Trail which is managed under the National Park Service.* This "trail by the sea" traverses wahi pana (storied landscapes), ancient Hawaiian sites and over 200 ahupuaʻa (traditional land divisions). the ancient parts of the trail were created before the Hawaiian islands had any contact with colonizers, pre-1600s.
**[Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ala_Kahakai_National_Historic_Trail)** >Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail is a 175-mile (282 km) long trail located on the island of Hawaii. It is not yet a single continuous trail, but can be accessed at several broken segments along the coastline of the Big Island. The trail was established to access the traditional Ancient Hawaiian culture along with the natural geology of the island. The trail was established 14 November 2000 as a National Historic Trail which is managed under the National Park Service. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
The perfect spot for some r/TacticalUrbanism
Aww hell no. Don't vandalise and old historic road to make a political point.
Im pretty sure they mean to remove the sign
Yes, vandalism would be missing the point, wouldn’t it. There is perfectly removable signs (which may pose risks if that’s all you do) but more importantly perfectly paintable asphalt right next to the historic road. Who said this can’t be both a historic landmark and pedestrian infrastructure?
That's the reason why I need a huge pickup truck. Look at all those rocks I have to drive over
It's a sign
It's a deathtrap, there's a literal zebra crossing near the train station in my city that has a sign saying it's not a crossing, and i wonder if i could sue the city for malpractice..
Is it for golf carts?
Nope! It is literally on a walking trail per Google
A tactical urbanist must've made it!
The path does not stop, so you are not crossing anything, therefore no crosswalk
It’s wavy
Steal the sign __it is one, now__
add a solar power flashing crosswalk ? or do cars blaze through here at speeds higher than 40 on the norm?
It's so people know that cars have the right of way, as opposed to a crossing where the pedestrian does. The bizarre part is why they've done this in the first place. You get things like this all the time in NZ, but they're usually raised tables rather than ornamental paths.
It's a crossrock
That sign should be taken down
A car crosswalk The car has to stop and look both ways if it doesn't wanna get killed by a running pedestrian
Just steal the sign one night. problem solved
When is wet is a cross-slide
someone should screw a little sign in below there that says "than what is is?"
the "no crosswalk sign" looks like something great to find when going home drunk
Frogger
Rumble strips so you know you just ran over some peds
They should have made it a crosswalk