Hero Mom Fined By Police for Vigilante Traffic Calming

Kristi Flanagan just wanted to stop the speeding on her street. Image via Fox San Antonio
Kristi Flanagan just wanted to stop the speeding on her street. Image via Fox San Antonio

Frustrated with speeding drivers on her street, San Antonio mom Kristi Flanagan posted a homemade sign that said “Drive like your kids live here.” But motorists ignored it.

So Flanagan stood outside and pointed at the sign. When that failed, she held the sign over her head and stood in the middle the street.

Her reward for this act of everyday heroism? San Antonio police slapped her with a “jaywalking” ticket, reports Fox San Antonio. You know, for safety. (Hat tip to Systemic Failure for highlighting this story.)

Vigilante traffic calming in action. For her efforts, Flanagan got a jaywalking ticket. Photo: Nextdoor via News4SA
Vigilante traffic calming in action. For her efforts, Flanagan got a jaywalking ticket. Photo: Nextdoor via News4SA

Flanagan is not backing down. She told the local news that she’s “received nothing but support from the community.” She said she wants through traffic off her street. Her City Council representative is looking into whether that’s a possibility.

What we’re also reading today: Transport Providence compares Rhode Island lawmakers’ caution about raising fees on drivers to their relative indifference to rising transit fares. And Spacing weighs in on Toronto Mayor John Tory’s plan to spend revenue from new tolls on two urban highways.

  • Sometimes, vigilante action is needed to solve a problem the government won’t do. Hero mom indeed.

  • Todd

    Well, I think in a sense anyone who breaks laws that they don’t agree with are engaged in some kind of civil disobedience. This includes:

    Pedestrians who jaywalk

    Cyclists who blow through stop signs

    Drivers who speed

    and so on

  • Pot smokers
    Shop lifters
    Terrorists

    Large Banking Corporations Foreclosing Mortgages Fraudulently

    If every law breaking is civil disobedience then the concept becomes meaningless don’t you think?

  • Todd

    But it’s not every case, is it? People obey laws for a very limited number of reasons:

    1) They agree with the law
    2) They disagree with the law but fear the consequecnes
    3) They respect the law-making institution

    A low probability of being caught, which applies to most traffic offenses, means that either (1) or (3) applies, and either can be seen partly as a political act. Like evading taxes not to save money but because you disagree with the government.

    When cyclists ride through stop signs, a major factor is that they don’t like the law that says that they should not

  • Corvus Corax

    He says so many stupid things that if there’s any payment going on it must be he who is paying whomever.

  • Corvus Corax

    socal donna loves sarcasm – when it is explained to him.

  • Corvus Corax

    It’s his only look.

  • Corvus Corax

    Oh, boy. Here we go again. Here’s Ol’Todd equating driver’s desire to speed with a mother’s desire to keep her kids alive. How many of her children should die in order to keep you from arriving at your destination 5 minutes later? Don’t worry, Todd, I support your right to say such monumentally stupid things.

  • Corvus Corax

    I think that must mean everywhere! Totally agree.

  • Corvus Corax

    Sure. You know. Like bridges, tulips, and chicharrones. They’re all nouns. Don’t worry, Todd, I support your right to say such monumentally stupid things.

  • My own take is that for cyclists, personal feelings about the law is a minor rather than a major factor. My guess is that most cyclists don’t have feelings about the law one way or the other. For most cyclists it is merely a matter of practicality. For drivers as well. Most drivers don’t stop at stop signs either for practical reasons and feelings. I mean really coming to a true complete stop is just not necessary.

    So then yes after that your reasons may come into play.

    For #2 which consequences are you referring to. Legal. physical or both?

    #3 really? I suppose there are some people who pay attention to whether govt body A created the law or govt body B did. Or maybe a private body wrote the law they obey. As in private insurance company rules.

  • Kevin Crawford

    Oh right, *people* are dangers. Is that why there are so many pedestrians killing other people on streets? I thought all this time it was actually cars killing 30,000+ people a year in the US. Silly me.

  • Corvus Corax

    And don’t forget the numerous incidents of pedestrians killing cars! I do love Todd’s phrase ‘artificially constricts’ and hope I can find a use for it, somewhere, sometime.

  • Kevin Crawford

    Yes, great points! I too was also just thinking about how people in the “highway/street” (because those two things are *definitely* the same!) are “artificial” and cars are not! Surely, those artificial things should never be allowed to be in the street – unless of course, they are in something “real” like a car! DAMN THOSE PEOPLE. ALWAYS CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR REAL THINGS. The “urban terrorism” is now so bad, I’m almost afraid to venture outside in my car! Remember the days when the WORST you might have to encounter was a distracted driver doing 50 through the hood? Those were the days! BAN PEOPLE, I say! BAN THEM BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!11!1

  • Corvus Corax

    Exactly! I for one cannot wait until I can get an AV, have it drive a half-block in front of my limousine to draw the marauding hordes of pedestrians to attack it so I can speed by unscathed, here on the highway I live on in the Mission where those damned inconsiderate artificial pedestrians – not to mention the deadly bicyclists who think they are ENTITLED to be on MY street, er, I mean my highway – are totally out of control. Distracted drivers sure do have the right idea; much better not to pay attention to the idiots who are too poor or too stupid not to be in a car.

  • Corvus Corax

    Exactly! I for one cannot wait until I can get an AV, have it drive a half-block in front of my limousine to draw the marauding hordes of pedestrians to attack it so I can speed by unscathed, here on the highway I live on in the Mission where those damned inconsiderate artificial pedestrians – not to mention the deadly bicyclists who think they are ENTITLED to be on MY street, er, I mean my highway – are totally out of control. Distracted drivers sure do have the right idea; much better not to pay attention to the idiots who are too poor or too stupid not to be in a car.

  • Tom

    Stepping into the roadway is not jaywalking. It needs to occure between two signalized intersections with no intervening intersections, which is highly unlikely in this case of a rural residential neighborhood. Police give bogus citations all the time, that’s what traffic court is for. It’s also been proven in many studies that police can show bias, so I think it’s fair to call them on it when they only give a citation to a ped and not the speeders.

  • Todd

    Details like that will vary by State, but the over-riding rule is that pedestrians should not step out into the highway unless they have the light or are on a crosswalk.

  • Todd

    A pedestrian is more a danger to himself or herself. But could also injure a driver who swerved to avoid you and hit another vehicle. Not sure why you are advocating for peds to place themselves in danger.

  • Todd

    The words I cited are used interchangeably.

  • Todd

    The law applies to both. Drivers should not speed and pedestrians should not wander out into traffic.

  • Alicia

    A pedestrian is more a danger to himself or herself.

    The rationalization is strong with this one.

  • Alicia

    Her need for her children not to die does trump the “needs” of drivers to speed through a residential neighborhood.

  • Todd

    Society typically balances needs. It doesn’t give one class of people totally victory over the other, but rather provides for a compromise whereby nobody gets everything that they want but nobody totally loses everything either.

  • Todd

    What is your alternate theory?

  • Alicia

    Due to inadequate driver education (including no requirements for ongoing driver education), due to inadequate penalties for careless driving (drunk driving is bad, careless but sober is only worth a token fine), and due to increased texting while driving and other forms of distracted driving, car drivers are not careful enough to watch where they are going.

  • Corvus Corax

    Not by people with working brains.

  • Todd

    They may technically have different definitions but, in everyday parlance, people use those words to mean the same thing

    And it’s illegal for a pedestrian to step out into any of them, which is why she was cited.

  • Todd

    Is there any evidence in this situation that the problem was drivers texting? That’s already illegal, as is speeding, careless driving etc.

  • Corvus Corax

    What a monumentally stupid thing to say; no one I know uses those words interchangeably. You are a tiresome, noisome boob with WAY to much time to waste saying such trite and banal nonsense. I will no longer reply to your ultra-lame statements, so go ahead and have the last word as I know you must, you ridiculous twit.

  • Alicia


    Not really. they are all very different from sidewalk.

    That’s very flexible – and some places, the line between the two is pretty thin. For example, look up “Monument Circle” in Indianapolis.

  • Alicia

    It’s illegal, but happens often. (Laws generally aren’t passed against a problem unless people actually do it.)