Trump Allies Pressure Healey And Lamont to Ban “Woke Crosswalks” — But Are Rainbow Crosswalks Actually Unsafe?

On July 1st, U.S. DOT Acting Secretary Sean Duffy sent a sharply worded letter to all 50 governors, announcing a new federal initiative to reduce traffic deaths: SAFE ROADS — Safe Arterials for Everyone through Reliable Operations and Distraction-Reducing Strategies.

Buried in the bureaucratic language was a clear message: clean up the streets — not just physically, but visually. The letter singles out “non-standard” traffic control devices and calls for “consistent and recognizable” crosswalk markings, clearly taking aim at rainbow-colored crosswalks and other “decorative” paint jobs that have popped up in cities around the country.

Let’s be real: this isn’t about traffic safety. This is political. It’s part of a broader push from Trump-aligned figures to go after so-called “woke infrastructure” — a culture war packaged as concern for public safety.

Do I believe Donald Trump is suddenly passionate about pedestrian injuries? No. If he was, we’d see a national push to lower speed limits, fund public health systems that actually treat crash victims, or modernize our fragmented and outdated traffic standards. That’s not happening.

But while the motives are clearly political, the question itself — are rainbow crosswalks actually safe? — is still worth examining.

As a personal injury lawyer, I spend my days talking to people who were hit by cars. I see the broken bones, the reconstructive surgeries, the PTSD. So if something even marginally increases risk, I think it’s fair game to look at it critically — even if the people raising the issue are doing it in bad faith.

From a design perspective, standard crosswalks use high-contrast markings for a reason: visibility and predictability. That’s what helps drivers and pedestrians quickly identify what’s happening, especially in low-light or high-traffic conditions. Swapping those out for rainbow stripes might be aesthetically uplifting, but it also reduces contrast, introduces unfamiliar visual patterns, and potentially confuses people — especially kids.

And here’s where child psychology comes in: kids are impulsive. They’re still developing the part of the brain that governs caution and risk. They’re also drawn to color — bright, saturated, playful color. A rainbow crosswalk might not register as a “safe-to-cross-only-when-clear” signal. It might just look fun.

To be clear, we don’t have robust data showing rainbow crosswalks cause more crashes. The only incident I know of happened in Northampton, MA, where a child was reportedly hit in a rainbow crosswalk. Does that prove anything? Probably not. It could have happened on any crosswalk. But it does raise a theoretical — and valid — concern.

Does this kind of design increase risk in any measurable way? Maybe a little. Probably not a lot. But even if it’s a small increase — is it worth it? Especially when it doesn’t actually serve the LGBTQ+ community in a meaningful way?

Even queer voices have questioned this trend. WUSSY Magazine famously mocked Atlanta’s $44,000 rainbow crosswalk project as performative fluff: “At least we have rainbow crosswalks. For one fucking weekend.” It’s hard to argue with that critique. The money could’ve gone to housing trans youth, funding queer healthcare, or preventing hate crimes. Instead, it went to road paint and hashtags.

So no, this federal pressure campaign isn’t about safety. It’s about stoking a culture war. But if it accidentally prompts cities to rethink whether style is compromising function, that’s not the worst conversation to have.

Rainbow crosswalks are well-intentioned. But good intentions don’t stop cars. Visibility, consistency, and data-driven planning do. And in a world where 40,000 people die on U.S. roads each year, every design decision should be made with safety — not symbolism — at the forefront.

IF YOU’VE BEEN INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT CONTACT US