Female traffic light signals to go up at pedestrian crossing as Committee for Melbourne tackles 'unc - Polidicks

[QUOTE=geel9;51925065]Not necessarily. Even though they're not costing the taxpayers anything, the actual cost will likely be more expensive than a non-gendered light. At the very least, they'll have to pay someone to reconfigure the lights to display a woman as opposed to a man. It depends on how traffic lights are actually structured, but it's going to cost something.[/QUOTE] Well sure but at the end of the day it's a company commissioning a set of lights and that's not really objectionable in any way This is a relatively small deal and the only reason you guys give a shit is because it made the news really. Like it's ten traffic lights, it's a nice free gesture, it probably took like two weeks on and off to organise and was done through a sponsorship, it's a kooky idea but it's not offensive in any way Personally I'd love to see a bit more uniqueness in walking signals, women and people with hats and stuff. So long as it's recognisable it doesn't really introduce any significant risk

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51925078]Well sure but at the end of the day it's a company commissioning a set of lights and that's not really objectionable in any way This is a relatively small deal and the only reason you guys give a shit is because it made the news really. Like it's ten traffic lights, it's a nice free gesture, it probably took like two weeks on and off to organise and was done through a sponsorship, it's a kooky idea but it's not offensive in any way Personally I'd love to see a bit more uniqueness in walking signals, women and people with hats and stuff. So long as it's recognisable it doesn't really introduce any significant risk[/QUOTE] Your response doesn't really have anything to do with my post. I was responding to a falsely-made claim.

That sign is actually less clear than your usual walk sign. It doesn't look much like walking. If I were color blind I might get confused. [QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/8331244-3x2-700x467.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6RBW-tUYAEnnev.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=geel9;51925065]Not necessarily. Even though they're not costing the taxpayers anything, the actual cost will likely be more expensive than a non-gendered light. At the very least, they'll have to pay someone to reconfigure the lights to display a woman as opposed to a man. It depends on how traffic lights are actually structured, but it's going to cost something.[/QUOTE] I'm actually extremely doubtful about that. I've never made traffic lights, but I've worked in quite a few factories. Traffic lights are essentially just a housing for LEDs hooked up to a simple computer. Changing the programming simply involves marking a few extra lights to activate, and given that they're not made in bulk the manufacturers likely run 100% testing on each one anyways. As well, there [i]are[/i] already variations of crosswalk signals, so it's not as if any company will lock themselves into one set program. I think you'd see more variance in the cost based on the prices of materials than the designs. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] That being said, I did try to look up prices, and only found companies that required you to call for a quote. If you happen to find any actual numbers, let me know. I'm genuinely interested in finding out.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51925088]That sign is actually less clear than your usual walk sign. It doesn't look much like walking. If I were color blind I might get confused.[/QUOTE] Only if you were short sighted, not wearing glasses and blind to their relative positioning Ie retarded

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51925044]Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist at this being a waste of taxpayers money, the lights were funded by the sponsorship of a private electrical company and were not taxpayer funded Not here to offer an opinion but just here to say if you think it's taxpayer funded, it's not[/QUOTE] Sponsored also by an organisation that takes donations and memberships too. Wonder how their members felt about them funding something as pointless as this. [QUOTE=Paramud;51925047]Nice to know you guys can get pissed off over ten traffic lights. This is going to cost exactly as much time and money as ten standard traffic lights.[/QUOTE] Except it's not. They weren't new traffic lights - and those traffic lights had recently been replaced with LED lights. Especially if there is a push to have VicRoads (the government organisation) change more of the lights. No one is pissed off - it's just pointless.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51925088]That sign is actually less clear than your usual walk sign. It doesn't look much like walking. If I were color blind I might get confused.[/QUOTE] To be honest, that's more of an issue with crosswalks in general. A lot of places have adopted accessibility enhancements to help with those kinds of issues, but those can get expensive.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51925049]That was to commemorate their first female councilwoman and seems fine to me[/QUOTE] I'm well aware: [URL]http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-to-light-up-pedestrian-lights-for-the-first-time-20160307-gnctll.html[/URL] Paid for by the Council too. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=AntonioR;51925088]That sign is actually less clear than your usual walk sign. It doesn't look much like walking. If I were color blind I might get confused.[/QUOTE] Maybe so - but there are boopers on all the traffic lights, so it's pretty obvious when to go or not to go: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBiRvBbjv2M[/URL] These are used all over Australia and were imported by Ireland and New Zealand.

"Hey guys, we changed the traffic lights, you're all equal now, mkay?"

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51925117]I'm well aware: [URL]http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/woman-to-light-up-pedestrian-lights-for-the-first-time-20160307-gnctll.html[/URL] Paid for by the Council too. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] Maybe so - but there are boopers on all the traffic lights, so it's pretty obvious when to go or not to go: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBiRvBbjv2M[/URL] These are used all over Australia and were imported by Ireland and New Zealand.[/QUOTE] Yeah good on them, first female councilwoman is probably something that should be celebrated locally because that's not insignificant [QUOTE=DogGunn;51925114]Sponsored also by an organisation that takes donations and memberships too. Wonder how their members felt about them funding something as pointless as this. Except it's not. They weren't new traffic lights - and those traffic lights had recently been replaced with LED lights. Especially if there is a push to have VicRoads (the government organisation) change more of the lights. No one is pissed off - it's just pointless.[/QUOTE] Well it's not like they're obliged by law to continue their membership, they can leave if they don't like what the organisation is doing. So that line of argument doesn't really work. If they have a serious moral objection, they're not paying taxes, nothing is making them stick around if they consider 10 fun looking traffic lights the line at which they refuse to cross It's pretty clear the traffic lights don't serve much purpose - but we never say that when a council decides to put in a nice installation in the street or pay some painters to paint art on a wall or whatever, which they do all the time. This is no different. It's just private funds being used to put some nice and interesting things in and about the area which municipal funds have been doing for ages without objection. So I don't see why people have to have such a problem with it. To be honest I don't see why it was even reported by the news in the first place except that news outlets probably new they'd get a lot of angry viewers from it. If it gets accepted by vicroads, then there's cause to start questioning it, but really even the idea of that seems to me to be a couple of excited people buoyed by their successful project and wanting to take it further. Again, nothing unique, will likely get shot down, so who cares [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Goldhammah;51925131]"Hey guys, we changed the traffic lights, you're all equal now, mkay?"[/QUOTE] literally noone even implied this

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51925133]Yeah good on them, first female councilwoman is probably something that should be celebrated locally because that's not insignificant [/QUOTE] And I agree, but they should have done it on new traffic lights or ones that were being replaced, rather than replace them for no reason other than to celebrate it. I have no problem with the ones I linked, because they were installed in late last year (probably a month before the Google Street View image was taken), but they weren't just placed there. [QUOTE=killerteacup;51925133]Well it's not like they're obliged by law to continue their membership, they can leave if they don't like what the organisation is doing. So that line of argument doesn't really work. If they have a serious moral objection, they're not paying taxes, nothing is making them stick around if they consider 10 fun looking traffic lights the line at which they refuse to cross If it gets accepted by vicroads, then there's cause to start questioning it, but really even the idea of that seems to me to be a couple of excited people buoyed by their successful project and wanting to take it further. Again, nothing unique, will likely get shot down, so who cares[/QUOTE] My problem is really this: "The idea is to install traffic lights with female representation, as well as male representation, to help reduce unconscious bias," she said. "The aim is to move towards one-to-one male and female representation across the state of Victoria." I mean really? Did anyone actually think that the traffic light manufacturers were bias towards men, or that that people at the lights possibly thought less of women because the stick figures on the lights supposedly looked like men?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51925166]And I agree, but they should have done it on new traffic lights or ones that were being replaced, rather than replace them for no reason other than to celebrate it. I have no problem with the ones I linked, because they were installed in late last year (probably a month before the Google Street View image was taken), but they weren't just placed there. My problem is really this: "The idea is to install traffic lights with female representation, as well as male representation, to help reduce unconscious bias," she said. "The aim is to move towards one-to-one male and female representation across the state of Victoria." I mean really? Did anyone actually think that the traffic light manufacturers were bias towards men, or that that people at the lights possibly thought less of women because the stick figures on the lights supposedly looked like men?[/QUOTE] I can see your point, but I think I'm looking at this in terms of effect rather than intention. It's obviously not going to reduce unconscious bias that much (although, both of us being males, I hardly think we're the ones best-qualified to make that statement, I have no idea if women find it to be a problem. If the majority of women in that area thought they'd like it, then I'd probably come down on her side more), but I think the effect it will have is still a net positive as opposed to a net negative really I like public oddities, what can I say. At the end of the day I reckon this is all it will turn out to be

How about these feminists tackle some real issues like domestic violence rather than going at the most unimportant things they can think of like these traffic lights.

[QUOTE=Nope guy;51925186]How about these feminists tackle some real issues like domestic violence rather than going at the most unimportant things they can think of like these traffic lights.[/QUOTE] makes me sad to think there are people like you out there who think feminists don't already address real issues like domestic violence on a day to day basis particularly when governments in america & australia led by predominantly male staff cut funding from planned parenthood and women's shelters on a regular basis [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] Sorry we don't live in a world where every woman with pretension to equality needs to immediately give up their day job and chain themselves down at a domestic violence shelter to prove their credentials to you

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51925197] Sorry we don't live in a world where every woman with pretension to equality needs to immediately give up their day job and chain themselves down at a domestic violence shelter to prove their credentials to you[/QUOTE] Oh please, this is a thread about changing walk signals in order to un-oppress women. This isn't a "well why aren't you worried about cancer" argument. This is just a stupid idea.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51924909][URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/melbourne/"]/r/Melbourne is looking fantastic at the moment [/URL][/QUOTE] I like the upvote icon :v:

[QUOTE=geel9;51924982]What do you think racketeering is?[/QUOTE] [quote=Wikipedia, the ultimate and definitely best source of information and definitions]A [b]racket[/b] is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is [b]racketeering[/b].[/quote] I think "solving a problem that does not exist" would be a pretty darn apt way to sum up a female traffic light signal. In fact, you could probably pretty safely expand it to "charging money to solve a problem that does not exist", because something tells me those traffic lights weren't made for free. So yeah, I think one could make an argument that this is, indeed, a "social justice version of racketeering." I'm not, by any means, saying it is. I'm just saying that I think the argument could be made.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is a gross violation of rights. Assuming all women can WALK. What the fuck.

[QUOTE=Thlis;51925211]Oh please, this is a thread about changing walk signals in order to un-oppress women. This isn't a "well why aren't you worried about cancer" argument. This is just a stupid idea.[/QUOTE] The guy I was responding to actually made a "well why aren't you worried about cancer". Read upwards

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51925242]The guy I was responding to actually made a "well why aren't you worried about cancer". Read upwards[/QUOTE] The reason why I said "this isn't a why aren't you worried about cancer argument" is that the thing they are focusing on is that inane. It is that dumb an idea.

[QUOTE=Thlis;51925246]The reason why I said "this isn't a why aren't you worried about cancer argument" is that the thing they are focusing on is that inane. It is that dumb an idea.[/QUOTE] And the point I'm making is that it is harmless, paid for privately so not taking money from the public, and not subtracting from efforts made in other areas related to gender equality Whether or not it's inane is entirely irrelevant. It's just a reason to get uppity about something that harms no one

Jesus, if this upsets you all so much I hope you never go to Vienna: [img]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03520/Gay_themed_traffic_3520161b.jpg[/img] Why does this have to solely "solve a problem" or even "reduce unconscious bias"? The new lights look good, are interesting, don't harm anyone, don't cost much and inject a little variety into the city as do the lights above. The feminist ramblings to back it up are to justify what little cost there is and if they see positive change in it, why not cheer them on?

Safety lights aren't supposed to look good or create variety, they're there for safety. It needs to be instantly recognizable to everyone regardless of gender.

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;51925278]Safety lights aren't supposed to look good or create variety, they're there for safety. It needs to be instantly recognizable to everyone regardless of gender.[/QUOTE] I think they're still instantly recognisable - especially in Australia where the positions are 100% standardised.

They're just crossing lights. You man get upset over everything [QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;51925278]Safety lights aren't supposed to look good or create variety, they're there for safety. It needs to be instantly recognizable to everyone regardless of gender.[/QUOTE] So are you now going to struggle to cross the road?

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;51925278]Safety lights aren't supposed to look good or create variety, they're there for safety. It needs to be instantly recognizable to everyone regardless of gender.[/QUOTE] Top & bottom, red & green. Very hard to mistake. In fact, when the lights I posted went up, one of the main supporting points is because they're varied people are more likely to look at and thus pay attention to them.

I reckon the time and resources should have been invested into a system that could replace the current one, improving traffic lights in general to benefit pedestrian crossings and how information could be delivered, somehow giving more information, like if an ETA could be calculated. I won't call it a waste, but I don't t think many people would have given a shit, a sign is a sign tbh

Fuckin' silly thing to do. You might as well change half the Pedestrian Crossing signs as dads take their kids to school too. [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/3BglI1p.png[/img_thumb]

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;51925230]I think "solving a problem that does not exist" would be a pretty darn apt way to sum up a female traffic light signal. In fact, you could probably pretty safely expand it to "charging money to solve a problem that does not exist", because something tells me those traffic lights weren't made for free. So yeah, I think one could make an argument that this is, indeed, a "social justice version of racketeering." I'm not, by any means, saying it is. I'm just saying that I think the argument could be made.[/QUOTE] Not really, no: [quote] A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not exist, [b]that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist.[/b] Conducting a racket is racketeering. [/quote] Bolded the actually important part. [editline]7th March 2017[/editline] Racketeering is more apt when a gang asks for "protection money" to protect a local business owner from the gang itself. You have to be charging to solve a problem that [b]would not even exist[/b] if you weren't making it so.

Putting a skirt on somebody doesn't automatically make them female. Could be a fucking Scotsman.