Ludington Schools Breaking the Rules

[XLFD]

On April 6, 2013, when I noticed that the Ludington Police Chief was going to put up a bunch of portable yield signs around our schools I wondered if he had yielded what was left of his regards to traffic engineering, as more explained here in this thread:  portable-yield-signs-for-local-schools-good-or-bad and encapsulated by the idea that  portable yield signs for crosswalks are not a Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standard or is it ever warranted by this manual.  Non-standard, unjustified traffic control is unsafe traffic control.

 

At the April 8 Ludington City Council meeting it was revealed that the school resource's officer Tony Kuster was approached by the 'schools' because they thought nearby crossings were currently unsafe and the school district had received money from two local businesses to purchase portable yield signs. 

 

"These signs are a safer device than what is currently being used"?  Under what logic principle is that made?  No traffic control is better than misused traffic control

 

"...the problem with the present signs is that people tend to be confused as to whether they should stop when there is no one in the crosswalk..."?  If there is an existing sign they should obey that before the crosswalk as per the law, and if there isn't already a sign, they still won't stop at clear crosswalks with the Yield signs unless they see kids in it.

 

"... with the new signs people will now know when to stop."   These are yield signs, so they will still have to use their own judgment.  Would putting yield signs up along the freeway make people know when to stop?

 

The ordinance was passed, here is the official version, passed unanimously 7-0, with accolades:

 

 

As you will note the traffic control order took place immediately, which means that it's been effective for over five weeks as of this writing.  Over five school weeks, that's over 200 hours of these portable yield signs having been in effect at the eight different locations. 

 

But nobody in the schools are following orders.  I have regularly went to these school areas during the period of eight to four on school days and haven't seen a portable yield sign once.  Not near Lakeview (the 1st location), Frankin Elementary (the 2nd location), Ludington High School or OJD Junior High (the 3rd-5th locations) or Foster Elementary (the 6th- 8th locations).  These are supposed to be out there eight hours doing their magic-safety-thing but they are nowhere to be found. 

 

So these school people asked for this asinine order for signs, got Police Chief Mark Barnett to draft a traffic control order for their benefit without any regard to what traffic-educated people think is prudent, the council resoundingly applauded this wasteful effort, and then the schools flagrantly disregard the order once it's in force!

So has Lakeview Principal Randy Fountain decided that those two portable yield signs do not belong on North Gaylord Street? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And has Foster Principal Michael Ritter decided that safety patrol officers are a better overall deal than using these ludicrous portable yield signs in three locations around his school?

 

 

 

 

And has High School Principal Dale Horowski decided (with Missy Bansch, the Middle School Principal) that seventh graders and up have no need for arbitrarily and capriciously placed yield signs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And has the Superintendent-in-waiting, Franklin Elementary School Principal Andrea Large (showed here, small) decided that the traffic control order is useless and non-enforceable if the schools do not wish to participate?

 

 

 

Or, has the Interim Superintendent Dave Killips decided to add onto his list of recent accomplishments which include a dash of plagiarism, a bit of dishonesty to explain his violation of the Open Meetings Act, by now allowing his whole school district to violate a standing traffic control order, that he may have himself asked for.   Do we have to keep the Weasel from Chelsea in a cage for the last few weeks of his interim status to keep him from damaging our school district further?

 

 

[XLFD]

Bless the safety patrol kids and the crossing guards for doing such a great job at the beginning and end of the school day.  One of my fears with this TCO was that the LASD would cut back on the crossing helpers. 

The "safety zone" (basically a crosswalk that is not adjacent to an intersection) north of the middle school should have a permanent "yield to pedestrians" sign assigned to it (that won't tip over), unlike any of the other locations.  And as I've said countless times before, sidewalks within school zones would be great, there's a lot of dangerous territory for children pedestrians to cross near our schools, and just about everyone knows it.  

[Willy]

X. That's exactly what I thought when I read this topic. If the school officials and City Council are so concerned with the children's safety then why is there no effort to install sidewalks so the kids do not have to walk in the street? Is it possible that all of these public employees do not realize  that many areas near the schools lack sidewalks?

[XLFD]

There may be a lack of knowledge about the issue of sidewalks, though there may just be unconcern because the people who could help fix the problem have other issues they feel strongly about, like building a totally useless sidewalk connecting a parking lot and a breakwall for almost a cool half of a million at the beach. 

In the same topic, I have seen that Carr Creek has been fixing at least three sidewalks on Rath Street over the last couple of days.  These aren't within school safety zones, nor are they doing anything other than repairing some sidewalks that weren't too bad in the first place.  If the city would conform to its own laws, every new construction would have sidewalks within a year, but few actually do install them.