(dissenting). The question presented is whether Wayne County is subject to liability for failure to post school warning signs. I would hold that it is.

The highway exception to the governmental tort liability act1 provides that a governmental agency shall be subject to liability for failure to keep a *140highway under its jurisdiction "in reasonable repair, and in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel . . .

The majority states that the "highway exception abrogates governmental immunity at 'points of special danger to motorists . . . ”2 For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Chaney v Dep’t of Transportation,3 the county is obliged to post signs necessary to keep the road "in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel.” Joslyn v Detroit, 74 Mich 458, 460; 42 NW 50 (1889); McEvoy v Sault Ste Marie, 136 Mich 172, 176; 98 NW 1006 (1904); Kowalczyk v Bailey, 379 Mich 568; 153 NW2d 660 (1967); Tuttle v Dep’t of State Hwys, 397 Mich 44; 243 NW2d 244 (1976); Salvati v Dep’t of State Hwys, 415 Mich 708; 330 NW2d 64 (1982); Mullins v Wayne Co, 16 Mich App 365; 168 NW2d 246 (1969).

The obligation to keep the road "in condition *141reasonably safe and fit for travel” extends not only to motorists and their passengers, but also to pedestrian travelers, and, indeed, to others injured as a result of the failure of a governmental agency to discharge its duty to keep the road "in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel.”

In Mechay v Detroit, 364 Mich 576, 578-579; 111 NW2d 820 (1961), this Court held that the City of Detroit was subject to liability, under a statutory provision containing language identical to that reenacted in the highway exception, to a worker injured when a streetlight pole broke, throwing him to the ground, and said:

In Rufner v City of Traverse City, 296 Mich 204 [295 NW 620 (1941)], and Cabana v City of Hart, 327 Mich 287 [42 NW2d 97 (1950)] (19 ALR2d 333), we ruled that CL 1948, § 242.3 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 9.593), requires cities to maintain in reasonable repair electric street light poles as part of their duty to keep in reasonable repair streets, highways, sidewalks, et cetera, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel. The argument is made by defendant that whether or not street light poles are required to be maintained in repair by that statute, the duty to do so does not extend to anyone except travelers and, since at the time of injury plaintiff was not traveling upon the adjoining street, defendant’s statutory duty did not extend to him.

We disagree. The reference to public travel[4] contained in the statute quoted above is not a restriction upon the persons to whom the duty is owed but, rather, deñnes the standard by which the duty is measured: "to keep in reasonable repair, so that they shall be reasonably safe and convenient for public travel.”

*142Liability is imposed upon municipalities in favor of "any person or persons” injured by reason of the municipality’s breach of its statutory duty. We have not squarely held that the beneñts of this section of the statute are limited only to travelers, nor do we see any ground upon which we should do so now. The opinion in Beaudin v Bay City, 136 Mich 333 [99 NW 285 (1904)] (4 Ann Cas 248, 16 Am Neg Rep 108), reasonably may be construed to suggest that the statutory cause of action is limited only to travelers lawfully upon the street, because it refers to cases outside Michigan which had so construed somewhat similar statutes and because the Court determined that the child plaintiff was entitled to recover so long as he was not unlawfully using the street. To the extent that there is any inference in that case inconsistent with this opinion, it is expressly overruled. [Emphasis added.]

Although the fourth sentence of the highway exception5 provides that the county is not obliged to repair and maintain crosswalks or sidewalks, it does not follow that the fourth sentence relieves counties from liability for failure to keep the roadway "in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel” for all travelers, including pedestrians. "The defect alleged by the plaintiff” is not a defect in crosswalks,6 but rather a failure of the county to discharge its obligation to keep the roadway "in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel” by a child on his way to school.

The fourth sentence imposes on cities and townships the duty to keep crosswalks and sidewalks "in condition reasonably safe and fit for travel.” *143The fourth sentence does not thereby relieve the state or the county of its obligation under the first and second sentences to keep the roadway "in condition reasonably safe, and fit for travel.”

Cities and townships are obliged under the first, second, and fourth sentences of the highway exception to provide signs and traffic signals reasonably necessary for pedestrian travel on city and township roads, sidewalks, and crosswalks, and also on sidewalks and crosswalks of state and county roads. But the state and the county have the obligation under the first and second sentences to provide signs and traffic signals respecting use of the highway reasonably necessary for the protection of motorists, their passengers, and other travelers, including pedestrians.

The majority errs in stating, as a matter of law, that "a school does not present a special danger to vehicles,” and that "a school crossing is not a danger to vehicles and the vehicle passengers.”7 School advance signs, school crossing signs, school speed limit signs, school pavement markings, overhead walkways, and flashing red stoplights are installed at schools for the protection of motorists and their passengers, as well as for the protection of school children, to guard against the risk of collisions resulting from diversion of vehicles from the line of travel to avoid hitting a child.

Outer Drive at this school crossing is a busy thoroughfare. Outer Drive is a boulevard for approximately a mile preceding the east boundary of the school, and for approximately a mile preceding the west boundary of the school. But it is not a boulevard for the few blocks immediately east and immediately west of the school. The speed limit is thirty-five miles an hour, but actual speeds exceed *144forty-five miles an hour. The need for special precautions is apparent. Minimally, the county could have stenciled across the roadway "school” in each lane of travel—a precaution seen throughout the metropolitan area.' Such a school advance warning would not be an "other installation outside of the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel” under the fourth sentence.

As the Great Depression was about to descend on this nation, this Court observed that a highway authority "cannot confine its citizens in a traffic groove. It must take into account the natural inclination of children to run about in play and the perverse insistence of adults to cut corners and cross streets and grass plats instead of following precisely the beaten or provided path. Such departure from the sidewalk is not negligence per se in the individual, nor does it relieve the city of the duty to keep its streets in proper condition for travel at the places where people may reasonably be expected probably to walk. Lincoln v City of Detroit [101 Mich 245; 59 NW 617 (1894)];[8] Baker v City of Grand Rapids, 111 Mich 447 [69 NW 740 (1897)]; Finch v Village of Bangor, 133 Mich 149 [94 NW 738 (1903)]. In all of these cases pedestrians were injured when off the side or crosswalks.” Jablonski v Bay City, 248 Mich 306, 310; 226 NW 865 (1929).

The majority’s disposition makes it unnecessary, in this dissenting opinion, to consider the other issues addressed in the briefs of counsel.

The question presented is whether a governmental agency is immune from liability arising out of an accident involving a driver who drove through a red light near an elementary school and a ten-year-old student who had raced into the street. The student and his mother sued Wayne County on the theory that it was negligent because it failed to post school warning signs on that street. We hold that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground of governmental immunity.

i

This case arises out of an accident that occurred on June 10, 1987, at the intersection of Outer Drive and Mendota in the City of Detroit. The plaintiff, Anthony Mason, who was engaged in a *133race with a friend, ran out into the street and struck the side of a car that had just run the red light at the intersection. He sustained a closed head or traumatic brain injury.

Anthony Mason and his mother sued numerous defendants. Count v of the plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint alleged that the City of Detroit, Wayne County, and their employees breached their duties pursuant to MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102) to maintain the streets and the intersection in reasonable repair. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to install stop signs, a pedestrian overhead walkway, a flashing red stoplight, school advance signs, school crossing signs, school speed limit signs, and school pavement markings.

Before trial, the plaintiffs settled with the driver of the automobile. In addition, the court granted defendant City of Detroit’s motion for summary disposition on the ground that the county had exclusive jurisdiction over the streets in question. Defendant Wayne County’s motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity was denied.

The plaintiffs proceeded to trial against both Wayne County and the crossing guard who was stationed at the intersection. The jury found in favor of the crossing guard, but against Wayne County and awarded the plaintiffs two million dollars in damages.1

Both the plaintiffs and Wayne County appealed. The Court of Appeals resolved several issues, all in favor of the plaintiff. With respect to governmental immunity, the Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying the county’s motion for summary *134disposition. It reasoned that the duty to repair and maintain the highway "includes the duty to post adequate traffic signage, including school signs, because they serve an integral part of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued June 11, 1992 (Docket No. 127003), slip op, p 6.

The county appealed, and we granted leave to appeal. 442 Mich 924 (1993).2

ii

By statute, governmental agencies are immune from tort liability while engaging in a governmental function, except activities that fall within one of the narrowly drawn exceptions. See MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107); Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing.), 420 Mich 567, 618; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). This case involves the highway exception. See MCL 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1).3

*135Defendant Wayne County argues that it cannot be liable under the highway exception for failing to install school warning signs because a school crossing is not a danger to vehicles and the vehicle passengers. We agree. The plaintiffs’ action does not fall within the highway exception because a school does not present a special danger to vehicles. The highway exception abrogates governmental immunity except at "points of special danger to motorists . . . .” Grof v Michigan, 126 Mich App 427, 434; 337 NW2d 345 (1983); Comerica Bank of Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Transportation, 168 Mich App 84, 86; 424 NW2d 2 (1987).4 The plaintiffs’ argument that prior decisions abrogate governmental immunity for all "traffic control devices,” which include signs, reads those decisions far too expansively. The cases cited by the plaintiff involve signs warning vehicular traffic as opposed to pedestrians.

The highway exception specifically excepts the state and counties from liability for defects in crosswalks, the defect alleged by the plaintiff: "[t]he duty of the state and county road commissions to repair and maintain highways, and the liability therefor, shall extend only to the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel and shall not include sidewalks, crosswalks, or any other installation outside of the *136improved portion . . . .”5 That limiting sentence definitively excludes from the exception specific installations whose only rational purposes narrowly service the unique needs of pedestrians.6 As *137we explained in Roy v Dep’t of Transportation, 428 Mich 330, 336; 408 NW2d 783 (1987), "the exclusion of sidewalks, crosswalks, and other installations from the duty of maintenance and repair, reflects a [legislative] conclusion that pedestrians and users of these installations have been sufficiently protected by the separation of them from motorists, without any need to impose a duty of maintenance and repair enforced by liability for resultant injuries.” The fact that liability under the statute does not extend to those using the excluded installations may seem harsh. However, the phrase "designed for vehicular travel” can only be reasonably interpreted to mean "intended for vehicular travel.” The explicit removal of exclusively pedestrian installations from the highway exception, coupled with the express language of the provision itself, permits but one conclusion: Pedestrians who trek upon Michigan highways must and do venture beyond the protective mandates of MCL 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1).7

The exclusion of crosswalks from the highway exception is consistent with the idea underlying the highway exception—that drivers of vehicles should be able to keep their minds on the traffic, and should not have to worry that dangerous *138surprises lie ahead. Pedestrians are situated differently than vehicular traffic, which may approach obstacles in the highway too quickly to avoid them, or may avoid obstacles only by jeopardizing traffic in the adjoining lanes.

This legislative line drawing is also explicable on the ground that expanding the right to sue past a certain point does not prevent accidents, and amounts to nothing more than an expanded obligation to pay.8 The Legislature may well have concluded that governmental liability for injuries to pedestrians crossing the street will not enhance vehicular safety.

iii

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and hold that the trial court erred when it denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of governmental immunity. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to grant the defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground of governmental immunity._

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the conclusion that the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the ground of governmental immunity because "[t]he highway exception specifically excepts the state and counties from liability for defects in crosswalks, the defect alleged by the plaintiff . . . Ante, p 135 (opinion of Boyle, J.). I write separately to distance myself from the dicta contained in my sister’s opinion: "The highway exception abrogates governmental immunity at 'points of special danger to motorists Id. (citations omitted). The instant case can be decided on the basis of the highway exception’s specific exclusion of crosswalks.