Slashdot Mirror
Life Without Traffic Signs
zuikaku writes, "Der Spiegel has an article titled European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs reporting that seven cities and regions in Europe are doing away with traffic signs, signals, painted lines, and even sidewalks. With the motto 'Unsafe is Safe,' the idea is that, when faced with an uncertain, unregulated situation, drivers will be naturally cautious and courteous. Then again, they may end up with streets jammed with pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars like some places in India and China." I can't see this idea getting traction in the U.S.
It's long been said that traffic, if devoid of speed limits, can self-regulate itself. It's why two four-lane highways, one with a 55 mph speed limit and one with a 65 mph speed limit will both see the same basic average speed of travel.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
"Works in India."
Not so much. It's done that way sure, and India has a stupidly high rate of traffic fatalities.
The assertion of the proponents of this, that less traffic rules means more safety, is not supported by the evidence.
The Dutch have a more restrained version of this that works quite well, called the "woonerf." (It means "street for living.")
In heavily-trafficked areas where cars will always move slowly and multiple modes of transportation come together (bicyclists, pedestrians, mass transit, scooters, cars, etc.), it seems that it works better if they self-regulate. Woonerven came into being in The Netherlands in the '60s and '70s, and the idea is to have a common space shared by all of these types of transit. Obstacles are placed in the street (planters, trees, parking spaces, etc.) to prevent traffic from moving quickly. This also turns pedestrians into the primary users of the space, making vehicles the intruders. Cars seldom exceed 10mph in woonerven.
Holland and Denmark have converted 6,500 brief stretches of road into woonerven. Traffic fatality rates have dropped to nothing. Intersections were a few annual fatalities were routine haven't seen a single death. That's a) because automobile drivers cannot drive through quickly because they're so varying and b) because 20mph is the cap of speed at which pedestrians can avoid serious injury when being struck by a car.
Happily, 18.5mph is the speed at which urban traffic flows best, many studies have shown. Coincidentally, this is also a speed at which there's no need for traffic control systems.
We have woonerf-like traffic patterns (and self-regulating patterns, as in the article) throughout the world now. Look at rush hour on Paris' Avenue de la Grande Armee: it's got four lanes of traffic at noon on a Sunday, but come rush hour people up and decide that maybe six is better. Look at Beijing during rush hour -- hordes of bicyclists mingling with packed autos, scooters weaving through the chaos.
England's got them, too. They call them "home zones." They're in a few dozen places now. They can't be more than a third of a mile long, and can't be used by more than 100 vehicles per hour. More traffic means that it's just not a viable home zone.
For more on this see Linda Baker's 2004 article for Salon, Anthony Flint's 2004 Boston Globe article, and walkinginfo.org's page about woonerven.
Nope.
Sidewalks have poor safety records for bicyclists. The problem is the intersections--drivers crossing crosswalks or sidewalks (such as at driveways) check for pedestrians, but not cyclists, who (due to higher speed) are generally a lot farther away from the potential collision point at the time the driver checks.
Sharing the road between people going different speeds is a problem with or without cyclists--especially in a dense urban environment with lots of people turning, parking, etc.--and cyclists can sometimes be easier to pass than other cars thanks to being narrower and easier to see around.
Which isn't to say that there can't be slowdowns--the typical example I notice is the narrow winding country roads without a lot of space or good visibility for passing.
And on-street bike lanes can have a place for keeping traffic of different speeds flowing. But note people have a false expectation that they'll totally segregate car and bike traffic; that's not really a good idea: (assuming US drive-on-the-right conventions in the following)
In general there's this expectation that total segregation of cars and bicycles is going to make cyclists safer--but the big accident risk is at intersections, and cars and bicycles have to interact there anyway.... So getting people to take predictable, conflict-minimizing paths through intersections is more important than segregating the different types of traffic.
yes, in many parts of denmark the streets are regulated by round-abouts and it works quite well for the medium-population areas around copenhagen. copenhagen itself doesnt really have the same level of strict traffic regulation as london but still can fairly smooth flow and few accidents(as far as my experience goes anyways)
But I can see it totally working in India.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Please note that I said roundabout, not "traffic circle." A modern roundabout is a subtly different beast than a traffic circle of old.
If you're interested in roundabouts, a good reference is here .
p.s. I'm not a highway geek, I'm a traffic engineer.
That video is time distorted. Here's the actual video whose length is 2min and not 1min as the one linked above.
0 7243163215&q=india+traffic
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-41579604