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.
Yeah right, traffic signs and such were developed exactly because streets became (more) unsafe when horse carriages were replaced by automobiles.
OK there were road signs, traffic lights and the occaisional road marking, but most of the signs seemed to be twisted around so if you followed them you'd be going in the wrong direction, the traffic lights were largely ignored and road markings came and gone. However, despite it being a scary process for me it did seem to work, I never seen an accident there (although I was in constant fear that I'd cause one at first), traffic seemed to move well enough and the locals crossed the road with confidence (if you walked across the road confidently traffic would stop for you, but if you looked hesitant and waiting for traffic to slow down they'd just go right past you).
However, the article states that removing the rules creates an atmosphere or courtesy, certainly not in Napoli, they'd sound their horn if they thought you were being too hesitant at junctions or even if you were going a bit too slow.
Some have adopted the same strategy with respect to cyclists sharing the roads of inner cities with cars so cars would slow down instead of speeding when they've the whole road for themself. Cyclists as myself aklthough often feel -and I believe are- much safer on seperate bike lanes.
Seriously though, I think that the most worry is caused where drivers are unsure of what to do. That's the whole point -- at a traffic light, you (supposedly) know what the other drivers are going to do. Stop at red, go at green, etc. No worrying about someone cutting you off, no need to make a dangerous left turn through six lanes of unregulated traffic, and so on.
In the US, I see much more risk-taking in these situations -- people cutting each other off, etc. The road rage and anger (and occasional killings) not only point to a deep-seated inner hatred of everyone but oneself, but also show the ubiquitous "me-first" attitude manifesting itself. Given this psychological state, could a plan like this ever work? I think not.
But I'm probably just as biased and cynical. :)
It's a four lane highway. That's why you get some pretty decent order. Now try comparing that to a situation where you four way intersection with two lanes on each side. It's going to be a disaster without some form of order and rules because everyone isn't pshyic and that's why some rules like right of way exist.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
"You go first."
"No, you go first."
"No, you go first."
[Thinks] "Oh, he's letting me go."
[Thinks] "Oh, he's letting me go."
CRUNCH!
Or:
[Thinks] "I'm first to the junction, I have right of way. I'll pull out before that guy in the Vauxhall Vectra who's talking on his phone reaches it."
"'Old on, I'm at a junction, lemme just burn through-" CRUNCH! "Oh, fackin' 'ell! Some fackin' cahnt just pulled out right in front of me!"
You must think in Russian.
What about just getting rid of those damn noisy, smelly dangerous cars that ruin life in city centers? That's guaranteed to be safer than either alternative in this article.
--
make install -not war
If you're trying to compare the safety of the traffic systems, then a per capita figure is useless, since Americans spend a lot more time in cars than Europeans. You'd want to look at the number of accidents per unit of time spent on the road, or number of accidents per number of cars, or something like that.
Indeed, but I bet that's only because the morons that don't know how to drive are already dead... Maybe that's why the United States traffic system is so dangerous, it's too safe to where it protects the people who probably should die...
"There is no Honor, without Pie."
-Weeble
According to wikipedia, german Autobahns are actually safer the US Interstates, even though there is no general speed limit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Safety
KILLED per 1 BILLION VehKm on Motorways:
Germany 3.8
US: 5.2
Traffic in Germany is highly regulated by rules, probably much more then in most other countries.
Being german myself, I actually must say that I personally prefer the style of driving in southern-european countries though. Many other countries let drivers rely on their instincts and common-sense much more the we do. It feels more natural to me operating a car that way, then stubbornly following rules.
Probably the most un-german place I've ever driven in was Albania - even the captial, Tirana - a place of 700k inhabitants is basically free of any sort of signs, roadmarks or traffic lights except for some key intersections. Takes quite a different approach to handling traffic and navigating, but I if it weren't for the terrible road conditions, I would actually say that I like it.
I once saw a study (forgot where it was, though), comparing some South-American city (Lima?) with western cities, which came to the conclusion that the more "aggressive" style of driving there would actually yield a higher throughput of traffic. I wonder if there's some truth there.
That's because in Europe, driving drunk isn't as cool. Which accounts for most all of our accidents in the US.
That you have to actually take a class to drive may help also, here in California a large fraction of drivers can't even read the signs, since they aren't in Spanish. Every trip to work is a thrill ride tho!
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
This would better be represented as 'Unfamiliar is safe'. If people are in a new situation, they'll naturally be more cautious. Once everyone gets used to no roadsigns as the standard, things will be no safer than before.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Perhaps some of you bicyclists need to learn that stop signs apply to you as well. Since most bicyclists I've seen riding around don't stop at the signs and just plow right through.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
They already drive on the wrong side of the road. Now, this?!
No we don't.
I guess you can say there exist a "right side of the road", but I doubt there exist a "wrong side of the road".
Other than that, nearly all of Europe does actually drive in the right side of the road.
AI: When 'Lawyer == Lier' returns true.
I was terrified by the traffic signs and rules in California. I found the 4 way cross-roads with a stop sign on each entry particularly confusing. It seemed to work on the principle of "everyone knows when it's their turn to go". Here on the Gold Coast we have a lot of roundabouts, which are not a perfect solution, but are really very simple (1) traffic entering the roundabout gives way to all traffic on the roundabout, and (2) on a multi-lane roundabout, only exit from the first left if you entered in the left hand lane. Keep those 2 rules straight and it's near impossible for it to stuff up.
In general, the rule here is "whoever disturbs the flow of the traffic the most gives way", which seems simple enough. It's different in other states though. I can't see the idea of less signals and signs working in the USA though, as your society thrives on rules and regulations, and without them people will cause trouble asserting their "rights" and "freedoms" over other people. The other posters who have pointed out that politeness is a key to safe driving without signs are on the money too - and American's are not noted for their politeness in general.
-Limited or no visibility at driveways and alleys, where buildings and parked cars obstruct sight lines for both drivers and cyclists
-Narrow lanes that leave no room for steering errors, or to avoid litter, broken glass, and other obstacles
-Speed limits on straight, level pavement that require using a mountain-climbing "granny gear"
-Pedestrians, dogs, roller skaters and other unpredicable living things (all legal at this California web-cam location, but risky never the less)
-Cyclists must pass to the inside of turning traffic, going from the driver's blind spot straight into the car's path
-Utility poles, garbage cans, decorative planters, news rack, mail boxes, and other fixed objects to collide with (all banished to the sidewalk because they would endanger drivers surrounded by a ton of steel!)
-Maintenance? What maintenance?
It's ironic that in most US cities bicycles are forbidden on sidewalks. But overnight, the city council can order a painted stripe and some "bikeway" signs forcing cyclists onto the same dangerous strip of concrete they were banned from the day before. It's a meaningless political gesture ("See what a bike-friendly city we are!") that wastes money while doing nothing for cycling safety. Unless, perhaps, discouraging cyclists is the goal of the safety program.
Here in Tony Blair's wonderful nanny state, you can't fucking move without some sign or jumped-up idiot in a uniform telling you what you can and can't do. This has been steadily getting worse over the years, and now it's at the point that sometimes as you're driving along, there's so many signs bombarding you with instructions that you don't have time to assimilate them properly. This is especially problematic if you're in a strange location, where simply finding your way around's hard enough, without also having to work out if you're allowed to drive on the inside lane at 4:30 on a Tuesday, and whether the 40MPH speed limit sign you passed thirty seconds ago is still in force, because here comes a speed camera and it would be just like the bastards to lower the limit yards before it. Next thing you know, you're in the back of a Land Rover which has just pulled up to drop the kids off at school, and to rub salt in the wounds, a traffic warden chasing the employee of the month award is writing up a parking ticket with your name on it.
Still, here comes Ken Livingstone to save us all with a £25 congestion charge for people driving gas-guzzling behemoths like, er, a Mondeo diesel estate. Take the Tube, you say, Ken? Certainly, but first can you explain to me why, if the congestion charge is subsidising improvements in public transport, you felt the need to jack prices by 50% in some cases? Is there anybody you wouldn't like to fleece?
It boils my blood, y'know.
Exactly, and here's a good description of India's problem. Interestingly, it notes that the US has been the least successful developed nation at reducing fatalities. I'd guess that it's probably because our policy is aimed at speeding, which is easy to enforce, but not necessarily dangerous, rather than bad driving.
Ironically, as noted in the same article, today is World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
I think there is some confusion between how Europeans and Americans count the number of lanes in a "road." In the U.S., typically an "eight-lane highway" would have eight lanes total, in both directions -- so four on each side of the median. Three or four lanes in each direction, for six or eight lanes total, is pretty close to average for a suburban Interstate. In contrast, in Europe (at least English-speaking Europe), I've heard people talk about a "dual carriageway" as a road that has two lanes in each direction, or four lanes total. So this might be causing some confusion.
The number of roads in the U.S. that have more than six lanes in one direction are fairly small, relative to ones with that many total in both, and mostly occur only in large metropolitan areas (Atlanta and L.A. have some highways that are 7 or 8 lanes in each direction, I think -- and I'm sure there are others) or in interchanges. But if I heard someone say "six lane highway," I wouldn't immediately assume that they meant that many lanes in each direction. Six lanes would be a far more common configuration if it was referring to the combined lanes, so three lanes each.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You do realize that U.S. traffic signs were designed in a time when literacy wasn't nearly as high as it is now, in fact, all U.S. traffic signs were designed, from the outset, so they can be understood by the illiterate. You don't need to know English to know that a red, octagonal sign is a stop sign. Nor do you need to know English to know you are on an interstate, considering that the sign is shaped and colored differently than state highways or local roads.
Numbers also are universally understood, a 4 is still written as 4 no matter if it its called "four" or "cuatro". This is the reason why all traffic signs in the U.S. look so different from each other to differentiate between different functions. Even the yellow, triangular, warning signs use icons rather than text. In my state, in order to get your license(after the written and driver's test), and to renew it afterward, you must identify signs WITHOUT the text, blank stop signs, blank wrong way signs, etc.
Even Speed limits aren't that much of a problem, however, because all American made cars used in America have speedometers that emphasize miles, but also list kilometers per hour as well. Basically, when in America, you match the big number with the MPH for the road you are on. When in a metric country, use the small numbers.
There are no facts in history, just a consensus of the majority.
The Armenian genocide for example. In western circles you won't find many people who disagree with this "fact". So people accept it as one. In turkey it is for the majority something that didn't ever happen and so for them there is no such event in the past.
I just want to clarify that there is no doubt in my mind that the holocaust happened (i live in germany and the memory is present here). But when we start to punish people for doubting historic "facts" we're no better than the people who persecuted Galileo because he just wouldn't accept the "facts". Let them be ignorant. Don't do business with them, isolate them socialy, do whatever you can in your *private* power to punish them. But as soon as you use the state to persecute those poeple you get on dangerous grounds.
I actually don't much care about the traffic in Manhattan... I don't have a car :)
The only time traffic impacts me is when the buses are slowed down, and that could be solved by putting in REAL bus lanes. Today, it means taking the subway if you are going in the same direction as everyone else. Bicycling is a little bit suicidal... I've tried it a few times since moving here, and I just don't have the stomach for it. Even the buses try to run you off of the road!
I really don't care if it becomes easier or harder for cars to drive in Manhattan - let them work it out for themselves, so long as their solution does not negatively impact public transit and does not involve some big expensive highway project through town.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.