Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reducing Accidents By Removing Street Signs
Reader SPD points to a town in Germany that is taking a novel approach to reducing auto-related accidents: getting rid of all traffic signs.
The idea of removing signs to improve road safety, called "Shared Space," was developed by Dutch traffic specialist Hans Monderman, and is supported by the European Union.
The EU will cover half of the 1.2 million euros ($1.66 million) it will cost Bohmte to ditch its traffic lights.
Monderman's ideas have already been implemented in the town of Drachten in the north of the Netherlands, where all stop lights, traffic signs, pavements, and street markings have gone.
"It's been very successful there," Goedejohann said, adding that accidents in Drachten had been reduced significantly.
The area covered has about 13,500 car trips a day, plus pedestrians, etc. The theory apparently is that autos will need to be careful since they don't have the right of way. Or something. As a reflexive jaywalker, I applaud the experiment, even if it takes away the thrill of jaywalking.
|9.12.07 @ 10:25AM|#
Part of the trend of designing streets for people, not
machines.
Even the ones driving cars - they're still people. This treats them
as such, rather than as "operators" in a mechanistic system.
A street is a place, which is put to different uses. It isn't a
machine for moving cars.
Col. Panic|9.12.07 @ 10:28AM|#
I've ridden enough miles on motorcycles that I've learned not to
trust anyone to not kill me on the road. I'm certainly not inclined
to trust drivers to be safer when they don't have a right of
way.
Still, if this works, then that's fantastic.
|9.12.07 @ 10:31AM|#
"Just because it worked in the Netherlands doesn't mean it
will work here," said Werner Koeppe, a road specialist at Berlin's
Technical Traffic Institute.
Someone sounds threatened.
|9.12.07 @ 10:33AM|#
It does encourage people to be more careful. In the small town I'm living in, many of the intersections are unmarked. As long as there is not a tie to the intersection, the person ahead is given ROW. However, this slows down flow. Its fine for such a small city where no one is really in a hurry (as it takes max 10 minutes to cross the entire city, with stopping), but I can't see it working where there is alot of traffic and a large area to cover.
ed|9.12.07 @ 10:33AM|#
We conducted a similar experiment here in South Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma. Half the traffic lights were blown away, cops were manning the major intersections and the minor ones were left in seeming anarchy. The result was a tri-county area of clueless motorists who had long forgotten the rules of the road, yet things seemed to work out. Drivers who didn't have to stop stopped anyway, and only a few blew the intersections like they were the only drivers on earth. We survived, but I prefer the old model, where about 10% of the drivers can be counted upon to run the red lights, and the others must maintain vigilance.
|9.12.07 @ 10:35AM|#
As a reflexive jaywalker, I applaud the experiment, even if
it takes away the thrill of jaywalking.
A once got a jaywalking ticket at 0630 on a Sunday morning, in
downtown San Diego, on my way to work. Not a moving car in sight,
but I neglected to check for parked cops. This was in the '70s, and
the fine was only $5.00, but still...
|9.12.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Might as well. The chuckleheads driving on the street where I
live don't pay any attention to the speed limit signs or any other
sign for that matter.
Half the traffic lights were blown away, cops were manning the
major intersections and the minor ones were left in seeming
anarchy. The result was a tri-county area of clueless motorists who
had long forgotten the rules of the road, yet things seemed to work
out.
In Maryland the law is to treat dark traffic signals as if they are
stop signs. I seem to be the only one who is aware of this rule. I
stop, but I keep waiting to be rear-ended by some oblivious
clown.
|9.12.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Why shouldn't a road be a machine for moving
"cars?
That's what the sidewalk is for, silly.
|9.12.07 @ 10:40AM|#
This reminds me of the mountain roads in CO that eschew guard rails for safety's sake. It works, too. Counter-intuitive, but people are more courteous and careful when there's no artificial insulation from your environment. Bring it on, I say.
|9.12.07 @ 10:40AM|#
There shouldn't be tickets for jaywalking, just tickets for stupidity. I can't tell you how many times I've been driving in an urban area only to have a pedestrian talking on a cell phone just step out in front of me while I'm traveling at many mph.
|9.12.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Also, I'd like to note that in Germany, it costs over $1000 and weeks of classroom training, along with a real test to get a drivers license. In the US, it costs like 50 pesos and the only requirement is that you have a face.
|9.12.07 @ 10:43AM|#
After katrina in NO (and still to this day) many of the street
lights and stop signs are gone. In the case of street lights, many
of them simple show the wrong colors for no reason. I havn't seen
to many wrecks. People revert to the primary directive of
driving-don't hit anything.
As an aside I would consider a unregulated intersection more
"libertatrian" then one with a street light. Whatever works best is
best.
|9.12.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Ed,
I don't remember driving in the aftermath of Wilma quite so fondly.
I think such a system can work fine in a small town with a
homogeneous culture, but in a major metro area like So Fla, where
thrid world driving standards mix with senile old farts and
traditional anglo protestant rules of the road, such a plan is a
recipie for disaster. Not that it isn't a disaster anyway. But an
interesting experiment perhaps for small towns in the
heartland.
|9.12.07 @ 10:44AM|#
Also, I'd like to note that in Germany, it costs over $1000
and weeks of classroom training, along with a real test to get a
drivers license. In the US, it costs like 50 pesos and the only
requirement is that you have a face.
Thanks L_I_T. I was about to make the same point. It's one thing to
trust people who are skilled drivers to do this. It's another thing
to trust the average American driver to be more aware/less
oblivious.
|9.12.07 @ 10:44AM|#
--I mean would not rather the would.
"As an aside I would consider a unregulated intersection more
"libertatrian" then one with a street light. Whatever works best is
best."
|9.12.07 @ 10:45AM|#
L. I. T.,
It shouldn't ONLY be a machine for moving cars.
Otherwise, you are giving up on its other uses, such as pedestrian
movement, or at least, degrading the safety, comfort, and efficacy
of those other uses.
Limited-access highways are one thing, but not the street system in
the center of town.
|9.12.07 @ 10:48AM|#
There shouldn't be tickets for jaywalking, just tickets for
stupidity. I can't tell you how many times I've been driving in an
urban area only to have a pedestrian talking on a cell phone just
step out in front of me while I'm traveling at many mph.
That happened to me the other day. As I was getting ready to turn
onto a side street, I saw 2 women walking dogs, talking to each
other. I could see what was coming, so I prepped myself.
Just as I figured, one of the women, never bothering to look,
stepped right out in front of my car. I slammed on the brakes and
hit the horn, since the idiot wasn't going to bother to look out
for herself.
They both looked at me like I was nuts. They're pedestrians. They
have the right of way!
|9.12.07 @ 10:50AM|#
"only to have a pedestrian talking on a cell phone just step out
in front of me while I'm traveling at many mph."
I once got a ticket and went to one of those asinine "driving
school" classes. The 'teacher', several times, pointed out that if
someone steps out in front of you when you're driving, and you hit
them, it's the pedestrian's fault, not yours. Odd thing to point
out, I thought. Dark secrets in the past, I think.
|9.12.07 @ 10:52AM|#
On the application of this idea, it's not practical for major
urban areas, where traffic controls will be needed not for safety
but to maintain flow and avoid gridlock. It's also not practical
for rural areas or sprawlly suburbs, where traffic and pedestrian
volumes are so far below capacity (either because of very low
volumes or because the road system is overbuilt, et, divided four
lane roadways with 15' lane widths) that there aren't enough
conflicts to force drivers to react to other users.
The middle ground would seem to include the centers of towns or
neighborhoods, and non-high-rise areas of cities.
|9.12.07 @ 10:54AM|#
I'm confused joe. Are we talking about preexisting road usage or designing of roads to accomodate pedestrian traffic. The former just decreases the efficiency of moving cars and pedestrians. I would think that you'd rather design a center to do your best to segregate pedestrians and vehicles as best as possible to improve the efficiency of moving both.
|9.12.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Also, I'd like to note that in Germany, it costs over $1000
and weeks of classroom training, along with a real test to get a
drivers license.
That's all fine and well, but is there any evidence that this leads
to better drivers or just more expensive training?
Personally, I'd rather the insurance companies issue driver's
licenses, if we have to have such a thing. They at least have a
vested interest in your skill level and accident avoidence ability.
To the DMV, you're just another body in line to deal with.
|9.12.07 @ 10:56AM|#
Jaywalking tickets are another example of mechanistic street
operations. There should only be tickets for impeding traffic or
creating a hazard.
If you're in a city center that's busy enough that there need to be
dedicated phases to allow pedstrians to cross the street, then
"jaywalking" means you are blocking cars that are trying to go
during their turn. Crossing against the light in such a case should
be assumed to be impeding traffic, legally.
If volumes are low enough that there are periods when a pedestrian
can cross outside of his dedicated phase, then doing so isn't
likely to impede traffic flow.
There's no need to make jaywalking per se an offense.
|9.12.07 @ 11:00AM|#
As a personal preference, I like downtown areas that were design with pedestrians in mind, with fairly narrow streets and densely packed commercial areas. Many European cities fit that profile and it tends to make things easier to get around and more enjoyable to walk in. By contrast, I hate cities that have downtown centers with wide streets meant for multiple lanes of traffic. It tends to spread out point A to point B and leads to problems. Therefore, I loathe Manhatten.
|9.12.07 @ 11:00AM|#
L.I.T.,
Both. We should
Segregating pedestrians and cars rarely works. You always end up
with someone walking unsafely down the side of the road that you
deliberately made unsafe for pedestrians, if that's the straightest
route.
Sending pedestrians out of their way is inefficient
|9.12.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Unstated above, but perhaps obvious is that this will work only
in areas where there is adequate "set back" of buildings/houses
from corners, to allow sufficient visibilty for intersecting cars
to speed up/slow down to avoid "conflict" at an intersection.
With buildings separated from the street only by a sidewalk, a
driver would have to stop at EVERY intersection and look "around"
the buildings on the corner.
Also interesting - it takes over a million and a half dollars to
take down stuff!!?? WTF! Just turn the teenagers loose one weekend;
tell 'em they can have any street signs, stop signs or traffic
lights they want.
CB
|9.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
On the application of this idea, it's not practical for
major urban areas, where traffic controls will be needed not for
safety but to maintain flow and avoid gridlock. It's also not
practical for rural areas or sprawlly suburbs, where traffic and
pedestrian volumes are so far below capacity (either because of
very low volumes or because the road system is overbuilt, et,
divided four lane roadways with 15' lane widths) that there aren't
enough conflicts to force drivers to react to other users.
The middle ground would seem to include the centers of towns or
neighborhoods, and non-high-rise areas of cities.
Spoken like a true urban planner. Got any research to back that up?
I'd guess that in congested cities, traffic lights
and signs are preferable. But in rural areas and "sprawley"
suburbs, I suspect otherwise.
Let's do the testing and find out!
|9.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
New Orleans french quarter actually works pretty well from a pedestrian, driving way. I don't feel the need to drive from place to place to get around and am willing to park outside the area and walk into it. By contrast, downtown Houston was designed by cars and I hate walking around it, even in light traffic. Everything is so spread out by 5 lane roads. Remove those lanes and you could fit the area in half the space.
|9.12.07 @ 11:06AM|#
As a pedestrian, I routinely have to dodge cars turning right
when I'm in the crosswalk. Or drivers who block the crosswalk or
roll through the crosswalk, oblivious of me.
As a driver I see pedestrians do stupid things as well.
ed|9.12.07 @ 11:07AM|#
I don't remember driving in the aftermath of Wilma quite so
fondly....a major metro area like So Fla, where thrid world driving
standards mix with senile old farts and traditional anglo
protestant rules of the road...
FDAS,
Oh, I wasn't "fond" of it, believe me. And your assessment of SF
drivers is accurate if not indelicate. I prefer order over
chaos.
|9.12.07 @ 11:11AM|#
J sub D,
I think I understand what joe is saying, but that doesn't mean we
need to put up stop signs on every dirt road. When you're in a
rural area, you won't have alot of new people (which, to be honest,
is the main point of traffic signs, to provide training for the
visitors, not the locals) so there's no reason to put a stop sign
at a T intersection in the middle of corn country. The people that
utilize that road know they need to yield to the major road before
entering it.
Rhywun|9.12.07 @ 11:13AM|#
I would think that you'd rather design a center to do your
best to segregate pedestrians and vehicles as best as possible to
improve the efficiency of moving both.
Except this sort of design always benefits autos at the expense of
pedestrians. Good for suburban shopping malls perhaps, but nowhere
else.
|9.12.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Traffic signs and signals have never been about traffic. They
have always been about bureaucrats asserting that their existence
has meaning.
(It doesn't.)
|9.12.07 @ 11:16AM|#
Personally, I'd rather the insurance companies issue
driver's licenses, if we have to have such a thing. They at least
have a vested interest in your skill level and accident avoidence
ability. To the DMV, you're just another body in line to deal
with.
True, but I'd rather road owners determine who could drive on their
roads. Insurance companies would work too, I guess, if the road
owners had a list of insurance companies licenses that they
approved, but I'm just sayin :)
|9.12.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Small, discrete neighborhoods of South Minneapolis used to have
uncontrolled intersections.
I was going to visit some friends of mine and didn't know that this
was true and just drove thru intersections because there were no
lights or stop signs. Someone pulled out in front of me as if I was
supposed to stop and that she had the right of way. I slammed on
the brakes, took a few deep breaths, went on, and got to my
friends' house. I told the story how some idiot almost almost
caused an accident and they told me the scoop on the lack of stop
signs.
This is not a good idea unless everyone knows the
situation and I'm not sure how you clue everyone in including
non-residents.
|9.12.07 @ 11:19AM|#
This is not a good idea unless everyone knows the situation
and I'm not sure how you clue everyone in including
non-residents.
Perhaps a road sign that indicates that there you're entering a
zone of no traffic control? Or does that defeat the purpose? :)
|9.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Reinmoose,
Might as well have a gated city where theres a 5 minute video on
how the traffic laws are structured at the gate before you enter.
:)
Then that gate can be dually used as a checkpoint when the fascists
take over. :) :)
|9.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#
LIT:
"What I want and what ends up happening ain't always been
similar."
That sounded like a line straight out of Al Swearingen's mouth on
Deadwood (minus the obligatory profanity). Fan?
|9.12.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Bugsbunny,
While I did like that show, the comment was a slight modification
on a quote from the movie "Serenity" ;)
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 11:36AM|#
Recently read a piece in the AAA mag about the problems inherent
in parking lots that emphasized just how accident prone these
places are. For people and cars. Reason: No traffic controls, just
one big free for all. The only reason it isn't worse is that nobody
can get enough speed up as they zip across empty parking stalls to
park next to Macy's front door. Maybe that's different than a
normal street.
Also noticed that this new rule only applies to downtown. That
might work there but I can't imagine how it would work in a small
town like Sonora Ca where everything in the county is funneled
through downtown on Hwy 49 and the daytime population goes up from
3k at daybreak to 25k by ten.
And on a semi-related note: Why do Arizona drivers make right turns
in front of oncoming traffic? You can make book on it. 50 mph,
green light ahead, somebody is guaranteed to turn right from the
opposing street in front of you.
|9.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Cheer up TWC. If you lived in Pennsyltucky you'd have to write a
book on inability to merge or comprehend using ramps to get up to
(or even remotely near) highway speed.
Nothing better than being stuck in the right lane with a large
volume of quick moving traffic and have some jackass, who's stopped
at the end of the on-ramp, pull in front of you and only make it up
to 25mph after 2 minutes... oh wait, I guess they are kinda the
same thing, huh?
But what about construction zones? Lanes merge, 5 miles ahead! That
means "everyone get in the right lane, NOW, or we'll flip you
off!"
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 11:44AM|#
de stijl
I spent ten years of my childhood in a huge subdivision that had no
stop signs except at major intersections where the residential
streets opened onto the major, 4-lane roads. BUT, in Californicate,
the law says that the speed limit is 25 in a residential area, that
u turns are not permitted, and that the guy on the right has the
right of way at uncontrolled intersections. In theory, that's how
people know how to behave in those situations, because they studied
the driver license booklet. [Yeah, right]
Now that Ca has a huge immigrant population from Asia and points
south, I'm not sure how that's working out, but in my old
neighborhood there still are many uncontrolled intersections,
although not as many as there once were.
I wonder why Mn doesn't have similar laws. Maybe because, as my
grandfather used to say, Sorry, Officer, where I come from it's
every man for himself. My family is originally from St Paul.
:-)
|9.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
I'm sorry, I mistyped that. Let me try again:
But what about construction zones? Lanes merge, 5 miles ahead! That
means "everyone get in the right lane, NOW! And I, the jackass
Pennsylvanian, will get in the left lane, stopped, to make sure
that people don't jump this stopped for no reason 1 lane line that
has a second lane that is (other than me) unobstructed for the next
5 miles, essentially creating the merge point that happens 5 miles
ahead, but much much earlier"
|9.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Cobb Country Georgia (Metro Atlanta) is thinking of using
traffic circles (round-abouts) to reduce traffic congestion.
They better put a collision repair shop smack dab in the middle of
it. Most people are just too stupid to drive.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 11:48AM|#
RM, [chuckles]
In the old days it was VolksHoles. Chugging up the freeway onramp
with all 1200cc's working overtime, spewing noxious fumes out the
mini tail pipes, finally at the end of the ramp with speeds
approaching 35-40 mph ZIP TO THE FAST LANE!
I nearly had a religious experience when VW announced they couldn't
meet the smog requirements and the Bug would be decommissioned. I
hoist a glass every time one of them is hauled to the scrap
yard.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Cobb County needs to check in with Long Beach Ca on how well traffic circles work. Maybe Orange, too.
|9.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Reinmoose-
By far the worst roads I've ever been on are in Pennsylvania. I
swear to God, as soon as you cross the state line from Maryland in
some places the road instantly deteriorates into a maze of potholes
and poorly maintained asphalt. Theres this one road that goes
through Lancaster (Route 30 maybe?) that even makes me pray to
whatever god exists for my life every time I drive on it.
|9.12.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Disclaimer: I'm from NY, not PA, but have to drive through it everytime I want (have?) to visit my relatives.
|9.12.07 @ 11:56AM|#
I seem to recall a rule for dealing with unsigned intersection
that everyone knew. It was Give Way to the Right. It was
practically universal.
In Central Florida when we had three hurricanes in a six week
period in '04 was to treat intersections with the signals out as
four-way stops.
That worked real well (test sarcasmometers at this point; if yours
did not read at maximum it needs to go to the shop for
calibration).
It worked especially well at intersections of roads with four or
more lanes. How anyone was supposed to keep track of who got there
before him and who after I never figured out.
Of course in the absence of any other rule it was certainly better
than nothing.
Fortunately the various responsible agencies were pretty good at
getting things operating again.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Cesar, ditto on the PA roads. Although, I once took a back road from the 'Burgh to the Md state line that was in perfect condition and was as awesomely beautiful as anything I've ever seen. Lovely little towns with stone bridges and well kept homes and not a pothole in sight. The big surprise was at the beginning before we got onto the country road at a rest stop (may have been 376). The bathroom was tiled, it had real mirrors, and it was sparkling clean. I was shocked, every rest stop in California looks and smells like a porta potty in need of pumping (plus the floor is sticky)
The Wine Commonsewer|9.12.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Just try driving through downtown Washington
sometime.
You could have left it at that
|9.12.07 @ 12:01PM|#
TWC-
I bet that road was in Bud Schuster's district. Probably the fruits
of his pork.
|9.12.07 @ 12:07PM|#
On the application of this idea, it's not practical for
major urban areas, where traffic controls will be needed not for
safety but to maintain flow and avoid gridlock.
I'm not sure about that. Everytime I've ever been in Chicago or New
York in heavy traffic, everyone just ignores the traffic lights.
It's like they're not even there. I also know lots of Indians who
say that their cities have virtually no signs or signaling, and
pedestrians and cars share the same road, so people are constantly
weaving through traffic. They don't even have defined lanes. Do a
youtube search for "Indian Intersection" to see what I mean.
That said, anyone have any more information about the success of
this experiment in the places it's been done? I'm curious to see
the full statistics of it, specifically it's impact on number of
accidents and the like.
rho|9.12.07 @ 12:08PM|#
Re: Pennsyltucky, a pal used to regale me with tales of the
"Pittsburgh Left".
I like the driving dictum "Don't hit anything, moron." It works
reasonably well, and cheaply, too.
|9.12.07 @ 12:09PM|#
My brief experience with Germany was that the drivers were much
more disciplined than in the USA. Some of that might be due to
their stricter licensing, but a lot more I suspect has to do with
the German culture and its love of Ordnung. They do take
their driving a lot more seriously there.
As opposed to Italy, where the rules of the road appear to be
optional, or at least to consist primarily of lots of swearing and
vigorous hand gestures. Every other car seemed to have fender
damage when I visited there many years ago.
|9.12.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Haven't browsed the whole article yet, but I can see a rationale
for at least reducing the number of signs.
Driving in an unfamiliar town can be a nightmare when there are
literally dozens of signs for a zillion local ordinances plus
directions to the train station, the zoo & every church while
you are trying to spot the one which tells you where the through
road makes a left turn.
|9.12.07 @ 12:17PM|#
TWC,
The difference between parking lots and roads like this is that the
road system has just so many movements and directions of movement,
while in a wide-open paved area, you never know where other cars
could be coming from.
Cesar, Washington's rotaries don't work because they are a
bastardized hybrid of roundabouts, rotaries, and signalized
intersections.
wsdave|9.12.07 @ 12:19PM|#
A friend once suggested that the best way to have better drivers is to put a big, sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel, aimed at the drivers head/chest.
|9.12.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Traffic circles would make sense if people figured out how to use them.
They work fine for low speeds and low volumes. At high speeds the
circle has to be excessively large and it is cheaper and more
efficient to use an interchange. The low speed version is generally
called a "roundabout" to distinguish it from the now out of style
circles>
All thru the seventies and eighties I watched as traffic circles or
rotaries were torn up and replaced with interchanges or signalized
intersections. That was mostly in the Northeastern states and
Canada which were the places they had gotten the most
acceptance.
Then in the mid nineties I went to Australia and saw they were
using roundabouts and loving them. I though "How quaint".
When I got back to my office there was a bulletin from the FDOT
instructing all design engineers to consider using these newfangled
roundabouts where appropriate on state and local projects.
I then had to read up on the things. apparently they'd become all
the rage in England, OZ, Germany and France and were spreading like
wildfire.
I've only done one and it was an alternative design that nobody
ended up liking. They picked my conventional intersection
alternative instead.
|9.12.07 @ 12:29PM|#
"Traffic circles would make sense if people figured out how to
use them."
Traffic LIGHTS would make sense if people figured out how to use
them.
CB
|9.12.07 @ 12:29PM|#
FYI,
The difference between a roundabout and a rotary is in the type of
approach. When you come to a roundable, it's like approaching a
T-intersection. You have to stop, or almost stop, to make the
turn.
When you come to a rotary, it's like taking an exit ramp.
|9.12.07 @ 12:44PM|#
joe - thanks for the explanation of the difference. I am
fortunate to be able to drive a lot in the UK and the RoI. They
refer to everything as a roundabout over there. The smaller ones (2
lanes intersecting with 2 lanes) are laid out as you describe a
roundabout, but the "circle" in the middle is so small, there's no
real need to stop if no one's coming; you can just continue through
the roundabout. The bigger ones are constructed like the
rotaries.
The really hard part is... when I encounter either of them in
Germany, Austria, and very occassionally, the US... deciding which
way to go! Left or right??!!! Clockwise or counterclockwise! Let's
see... if the shifter's in my left hand, I'm going left... if it's
in my right, I'm headed right... I think. And where's the freaking
blinker!!!
CB
wsdave|9.12.07 @ 1:21PM|#
No, but it sounds like something my freind would read. Is that where the idea comes from?
|9.12.07 @ 1:21PM|#
CB
The UK pioneered the modern roundabout.
In 1966, the UK adopted a mandatory "give-way" rule at all circular intersections, which required entering traffic to give way, or yield to circulating traffic.
(from Roundabouts: An Informational Guide - US Dept of
Transportation - Federal highway Administration)
This rule has now been adopted everywhere that has adopted the
modern concept of roundabout design.
Note that they say "all circular intersections". In effect the UK
was doing away with any notion that a all circular intersection
could function in a high speed free flow condition.
My own less than wellfounded opinion is that older American drivers
have a problem with roundabouts because in giving way to
circulating traffic they have to "give way to the left" instead of
"giving way to the right". This may also explain why British and
Australian drivers like them.
Of course, others will find, "No they're just idiots" a more
plausible explanation.
|9.12.07 @ 1:39PM|#
In the USA, I've seen roundabouts touted as a way to SLOW traffic flow, not improve it, as a way of discouraging traffic on neighborhood streets. And D.C. does indeed have plenty of true "rotaries" that are mostly effective in causing accidents and consternation. Of course, the circles with the stoplights and multiple layers are even worse...
|9.12.07 @ 2:48PM|#
And on a semi-related note: Why do Arizona drivers make right turns in front of oncoming traffic? You can make book on it. 50 mph, green light ahead, somebody is guaranteed to turn right from the opposing street in front of you.
When I figure it out, I'll let you know. It's one of the holy
trinity of Arizona driving rules.
1) turn right in front of oncoming traffic (which includes oncoming
traffic that is making a left on green)
2) pass on the right when the left lane is completely open
3) when making a turn, turn into the farthest lane possible
|9.12.07 @ 2:56PM|#
I miss some of the old traditions in driving, like using signal lights before lane changes.
|9.12.07 @ 4:10PM|#
I've never been to Arizona, but I'm pretty sure I can explain
the dumb driving apparently prevalent there:
Retirees.
Robert|9.12.07 @ 4:19PM|#
A thread several yrs. ago in alt.fan.cecil-adams explained that
traffic circles were most efficient in moderate
traffic volume -- that they're a waste in low volume, and choke in
high volume.
Here in the Bronx the controls on entering circles have been
progressively tightened. "Merge" has become "yield" (which is the
default and the reversal to the usual ROW), and "yield" has become
"stop" or traffic light (which of course applies to traffic already
in the circle too).
cb|9.12.07 @ 4:39PM|#
By contrast, downtown Houston was designed by cars and I hate walking around it, even in light traffic. Everything is so spread out by 5 lane roads. Remove those lanes and you could fit the area in half the space.
Actually, it was designed to allow wagons to turn around in. That's
why it's so wide. And that's also not why it's unpleasant to walk
around. When friends from the hottest parts of India are
complaining, you know it's hot. (Also, the tunnels aren't all that
useful to people not skating between courthouses.) Besides, if the
roads were one lane each way, then there would be no room for
pedestrians because the cars would be stacked and none would obey
traffic signals.
|9.12.07 @ 4:41PM|#
"Traffic signs and signals have never been about traffic.
They have always been about bureaucrats asserting that their
existence has meaning.
(It doesn't.)"
Ruthless has been talking about doing away with street signs right
here at Hit & Run for years!
Ever since I heard him talking about it, I wondered how it work in
practice. ...score one for Ruthless!
He was right again.
|9.12.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Part of the trend of designing streets for people, not
machines.
Even the ones driving cars - they're still people. This treats them
as such, rather than as "operators" in a mechanistic system.
A street is a place, which is put to different uses. It isn't a
machine for moving cars.
Rubish.
People won't be driving cars in 15 years...machines will...and by
doing so will make urbanscapes more pedestrian friendly.
|9.12.07 @ 7:22PM|#
People won't be driving cars in 15 years...machines
will...and by doing so will make urbanscapes more pedestrian
friendly.
jc
I hope you're right, because I hate driving. I'd much rather read a
book or watch the scenery.
However, I have seen too many things that were supposed to happen
in 10 - 20 - 30 years that didn't to get my hopes up on this
one.
The computing problems with self-driving vehicles in the real world
are immense.
Even if you could build a program that could cope with all the
problems in driving, it would still have glitches. It might
eliminate 99% of all traffic injuries and fatalities, but the
company that built the system would get their butts sued off by the
1% remainder. No one could afford the financial risks of building
such a system.
|9.12.07 @ 8:03PM|#
This idea of no signs/no traffic control really only works at a
certain volume and certain speed. It also slows people down
considerably.
Example: if a traffic signal in your area gets knocked out by
lightning and everyone defaults to the "instant stop signal"
mode--check the difference in time it will take you to get through
the intersection. At very low traffic density, it works better. At
moderate to high traffic density, you will be waiting much, much
longer and will be swearing up and down and why don't they get the
bloody light fixed already.
In other words, we use traffic signals because they are more
efficient at higher levels of traffic.
(I used to work in ITS in Japan, so have a lot of stories about
traffic control in Tokyo.)
|9.12.07 @ 8:05PM|#
Oh, and speaking of roundabouts, has anyone ever run into that
hellish invention called a "magic roundabout"?
I've never been able to use one of those without going off
hopelessly lost in the wrong direction.
|9.12.07 @ 8:25PM|#
but the company that built the system would get their butts
sued off by the 1% remainder. No one could afford the financial
risks of building such a system.
We live in a world of Open Source, money grubbing insurance
companies and fanatical urban planners. Less people dying from car
accidents is to cherry to be missed.
The technical problems have already been over come. It is now just
a matter of reducing costs...which are dropping fast.
By the way I am not saying that in 15 years we can buy cars that
can drive themselves...we will have that in 5...i am saying most if
not all cars by that time will drive themselves.
|9.12.07 @ 9:23PM|#
ChrisO,
In the USA, I've seen roundabouts touted as a way to SLOW
traffic flow, not improve it, as a way of discouraging traffic on
neighborhood streets.
They can do both, depending on how they're designed and used.
Also, improving the efficiency of an intersection and increasing
the velocity of the vehicles travelling through it are two
diffferent, often contradictory, goals.
|9.12.07 @ 9:28PM|#
joshua,
A road system that consists of very wide streets with high
vehicular speeds is not pedestrian friendly, even if the
robot-drivers screech to a halt with perfect dependability when
someone approaches one of the strictly-designated crosswalks.
We are softy, lumpy, organic creatures, with hard-wired instincts
and senses that turn unpleasant quite easily.
A house is not a machine for living; it is a place. A street is not
a machine for moving; it is also a place.
|9.13.07 @ 9:47AM|#
One shouldn't assume that the elimination of road signs and markings will get rid of the rules of the road - especially in Germany. There are countless unmarked intersections here - just get off the main routes. The law is that, if there is no traffic light/stop/yield sign at an intersection, then you have to yield to any car coming from your right. It doesn't matter who got to the intersection first. If your car car has a dent on its right side after the collision, then the polizei will write you a ticket. All in all, this works pretty well, and I prefer it greatly to the over-use of stop signs in the US.
miche|9.13.07 @ 7:24PM|#
As a reflexive jaywalker, I applaud the experiment, even if it takes away the thrill of jaywalking.
I crossed the DART tracks in Dallas against the light. I could see
the train stopped a couple blocks down and knew it to be safe. A
DART bicycle cop chased me down and wrote me a $250 ticket for the
infraction. I wanted to fight the fine, but after a year's worth of
phone calls, nobody in the Dallas court system could even locate
the ticket. I called another half dozen times during the second
year and finally gave up.
For all I know, there could be a warrant for my arrest in Dallas
County.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245