Slower = faster?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
10,610
Location
Las Vegas NV
Quote:
In Denmark, the town of Christianfield stripped the traffic signs and signals from its major intersection and cut the number of serious or fatal accidents a year from three to zero. In England, towns in Suffolk and Wiltshire have removed lane lines from secondary roads in an effort to slow traffic - experts call it "psychological traffic calming." A dozen other towns in the UK are looking to do the same. A study of center-line removal in Wiltshire, conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory, a UK transportation consultancy, found that drivers with no center line to guide them drove more safely and had a 35 percent decrease in the number of accidents.

In the US, traffic engineers are beginning to rethink the dictum that the car is king and pedestrians are well advised to get the heck off the road. In West Palm Beach, Florida, planners have redesigned several major streets, removing traffic signals and turn lanes, narrowing the roadbed, and bringing people and cars into much closer contact. The result: slower traffic, fewer accidents, shorter trip times. "I think the future of transportation in our cities is slowing down the roads," says Ian Lockwood, the transportation manager for West Palm Beach during the project and now a transportation and design consultant. "When you try to speed things up, the system tends to fail, and then you're stuck with a design that moves traffic inefficiently and is hostile to pedestrians and human exchange."

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

Quote:
London major Boris Johnson has announced plans to remove traffic lights and white lines from the capital's streets after the measures reduced the number of accidents in Kensington High Street by 44 per cent over the last two years.

http://www.trl.co.uk/trl-news-hub/transp...s_800023121.htm

Fewer lights and signs seems to give better safety and traffic flow. Sounds like a great idea to me.
 
I read in New Scientist some time ago about the psychologist who developed the concept. It was remarkably logical (particularly given my thoughts on that particular "science").

Basically, his first effort was a town main street, which was notorious for pedestrian/vehicle interactions.

This guy argued that by having a path/kerb/road/kerb/path it created a mindset of ownership of particular areas.

Pedestrian gets on road, angers drivers who then behave aggressively. Car mounts kerb to deliver a parcel, pedestrians get bent because their space is invaded. People step out in front of cars, as the zebra stripes REQUIRE the car to stop. Throw in a cyclist or two running a red, or crossing the crossing still mounted, and everyone's angry, and trying to get the "invaders" to see the right way.

A 60km/hr sign makes the drivers feel that they should be able to do 60.

He took away the barriers, making it all one non delineated surface, took away the signs, except for one demarking a shared area.

Cars got slower and more cautious, as did pedestrians.

As an aside, I found California's 4 way stops to be thoroughly civilised, versus my country's obsession with roundabout jousting.
 
Finally some common sense... Drive according to conditions not according to dictation.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest


Fewer lights and signs seems to give better safety and traffic flow. Sounds like a great idea to me.


Tempest, you are starting to sound like a socialist.
grin2.gif
A good capitalist will grab every opportunity presented them.

I seriously doubt that would work at all with the US "screw you my SUV is bigger than your tin-box" mentality in the US.
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
Originally Posted By: Tempest


Fewer lights and signs seems to give better safety and traffic flow. Sounds like a great idea to me.


Tempest, you are starting to sound like a socialist.
grin2.gif
A good capitalist will grab every opportunity presented them.

I seriously doubt that would work at all with the US "screw you my SUV is bigger than your tin-box" mentality in the US.



Exactly. Boy, I bet Denmark has a rush hour like LosAngles.

Denmark has probbaly 1/10th the per capita traffic that the US has.

Nice try though Temp!
 
Quote:
Tempest, you are starting to sound like a socialist.

No, that end of the spectrum relies on lots of rules and regulations...like we have now, causing lots of inefficiency. The system being demonstrated here is the interaction of people via natural law...freedom.

Quote:
I bet Denmark has a rush hour like LosAngles.

If you'd take the time to actually read what I posted, you'd see that London (small town
smirk2.gif
) is doing this as well cities in the US, with the same results.
 
Denmark has probbaly 1/10th the per capita traffic that the US has.

They sure have one Heck of a lot of Bicycles.
But the driving standard as I experienced it was HERY high.
 
We've already had minimal signs and lights in the past. They were added for good reason. Why would anyone want to relearn history?
 
Our city planners are obsessed with adding more stop signs (particularly 3 way stop signs in bizarre places) and traffic lights. The three major traffic routes through the city got so congested as a result, that they extended the Trans Canada Highway to wrap around the outside of the city (the "outer ring road"). Ironically its usually the fastest way from point A to point B (and the less stressful).

Meanwhile our accident rate has continued to climb. We now have some kind of consultant hired by the city who has put the statistics together and they published the 5 or 10 most dangerous intersections and stretches of road. One was where a yield sign was replaced by a stop sign. Others on some of the most traffic light congested parts of the city. The consultant is now studying these locations in an attempt to design something "safer". I'm expecting more lights and stop signs.

-Spyder
 
Yeah, but does that work with idiots? To many drivers aren't smart enough to drive without very strict guides on what they're allowed to be doing at any moment in time. I don't know how it is for everyone else, but over here most drivers are selfish and in their own little world with no consideration to how their driving affects anyone else around.
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
We've already had minimal signs and lights in the past. They were added for good reason. Why would anyone want to relearn history?


You seem to speak of something like we should all know about it so I assume the era of "minimal signs and lights" you refer to was pre-Henry Ford?

Clark
 
Minimum lights, signs, and lane lines might work in very small towns, say, under 5,000 population, but all you have to do in a large city with, say, 30,000 vehicles passing any given point daily, and have a traffic light go out. Absolute chaos barely controlled by a traffic policeman. How are you going to control two or three lanes turning left without having lane lines?
 
Quote:
Initially, it was believed that the shared-space approach was appropriate only in small communities and those with low traffic volumes. But as the British traffic and urban design consultant Ben Hamilton-Baillie points out in an impressively comprehensive article — “Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places and Traffic,” in Vol. 34, No. 2, of the journal Built Environment — more recent experience has shown that shared-space principles can work in places traversed by 20,000 or more vehicles per day. In West London, shared-space ideas have been successfully applied to Kensington High Street in the Borough of Kensington despite its stream of more than 40,000 vehicles a day.


Quote:
Most large parking lots — for example, those at shopping centers and grocery stores — effectively function in ways that are very similar to shared spaces on European shopping streets,” he observes. Siegman suggests that Americans have been operating in shared spaces — if drab ones — for decades, without being aware of it.

http://newurbannetwork.com/article/‘shared-space’-streets-cross-atlantic
 
Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
We've already had minimal signs and lights in the past. They were added for good reason. Why would anyone want to relearn history?


You seem to speak of something like we should all know about it so I assume the era of "minimal signs and lights" you refer to was pre-Henry Ford?

Clark



Go to Boston and the surrounding boroughs. They pretty much leave you to "natural law". I recall one intersection in Somerset that was just a massive intersection. About 8 streets intersected it with only stop signs. No lines ..no arrows ..just manage your way across about 150ft of bare macadam to the street you want to travel on. I only saw it at 3am ..but I'd imagine it would be not unlike a demo-derby. For all I know they had police directing traffic during the day.
 
When one studies an intersection/street/town against the natural flow they get into a macro vs micro problem.

Make one intersection safer/slower and the driver makes up for it elsewhere.

I bet the above-mentioned 3-way stop signs are an effort in "traffic calming", a misnomer if I ever saw one. Take the most direct route from A to B, put some rich, well connected jerks in houses on it, then they'll do everything in their power to make you want to detour. Said detour takes longer so you want to go faster. Then the detour gets "calmed" and they start talking about speed bumps.

Pedestrians (and horses) have the RIGHT to a road while motor vehicles a privilege, something taught in driver's ed and since often forgotten. I like when the cops run crosswalk stings; hopefully it gets some of the cataract crowd before they do real damage.
 
Yeah we have a 2-lane street with lots of traffic that goes by a shopping center intersection with no light. It is about impossible to make a left turn out of there with cars coming from 4 different directions plus turning. Just this Friday there was a fatal accident. A Saturn and Ford Expedition collide. The expedition was overturned and someone in it was killed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom