In a comment down the thread Vena you say you understood the article and few others did. In fact you didn't understand and your comments suggest you are every bit as skewed in your determination to brand all people of Euopean ethnic orign 'racist' as the author.
It was perfectly clear in the article that the traffic signal is not racist but the way a man describes it to a child offends the hypersensitive author.
The first thing you need to understand is that the traffic signal is literally white. No human being was ever literally white just as no human being was ever literally black. Take a look in any mirror. Are you literally black or are you actually brown.
OK, now the guy who talked about the white, walking man is talking to a child. We simplify things for children, so they can understand. It's important that children understand crossing signals isn't it?
So the guy speaks of the (literally) red man and the (literally) white man to reinforce the difference in the shape of the two figures.
So we have someone talking about two simple, vaguely humanistic figures, no mention of one of them being of European ethnic origin and the other being seriously ill, because they are not real.
And then we have someone of African or possibly mixed ethnic origin expending almost superhuman effort on trying to find racism somewhere in that.