In Parker v. Davis, 900 F. Supp. 788 (D.Md. 1995), the Federal District Court further noted that there was no distinction in Section 21-201 between "flashing" and "steady" signals. On appeal, as she did below, Sue Ann urges us to read such a distinction into Section 21-203. As observed by the Federal District Court in Parker, "the statute makes no distinction between flashing "don't walk" signals and signals which are constantly lit," Parker, 900 F. Supp. at 793, as recognized by Sue Ann when she conceded that "there is no distinction between a steadily illuminated "Don't Walk" signal and a flashing "Don't Walk" signal in Section 21-203. In Parker, the Federal District Court found it to be contributory negligence as a matter of law for an eight year old child to attempt to cross a highway after the "Don't Walk" signal had begun to flash.