Slashdot Log In
Life Without Traffic Signs
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Nov 19, 2006 03:52 PM
from the sign-language dept.
from the sign-language dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This in itself limits the safe speed any car can travel.
I think in town centres it can and will work.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Interesting)
All of the cities listed in the story are small towns, the largest boasts of reducing their traffic signals from 18 to 2. Imagine trying to eliminate traffic signals and signs in a city like New York City, where there are over 11,000 signals [nyc.gov], and almost 3,000 in Manhattan alone. If you've ever ridden in a cab at 5:00am, you have seen the chaos that ensues when there are no signals (since cabbies completely ignore all lights at that time). It's certainly not safer.
If we rely on courtesy to dictate our traffic patterns, we'll be victim to those who have no qualms with putting others lives and vehicles at risk. The U.S. has far too many people that fall into this category for the strategy to be effective.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't work, because it's designed on a grid system, which requires arbitration at each junction as soon as traffic flow rises above a trivial level.
But in my town of about 40,000 people, there are few if any traffic signs, no lights and two stop signs that I know of. Everything is designed with flow in mind, and it works just fine. Traffic slows down at peak times, but it almost never stops flowing. Almost every accident that I've seen here has involved a single vehicle driven badly, rather than multiple vehicles colliding through misunderstanding or aggression.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Interesting)
But yes, the grid is generally pretty nice compared to the suburban way. The main drawback to removing lights from a grid is that traffic can move really fast unless there are obstructions in the intersections. You would need to put in circles or something to keep speeds down. Circle have one huge disadvantage compared to traffic lights: if one cross street is backed up, the circle backs up and then prevents the other cross street from moving.
Interestingly enough, at rush hour (especially near the Holland Tunnel) the stoplights are pretty much ignored - you just sort of find a spot and go. Pedestrians just cross wherever - traffic is practically at a standstill anyway. I've never seen an accident in this tight driving situation, but I suppose that minor accidents must happen. However, even a "reckless" driver can't do too much damage because there is really nowhere to go.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [tfhrc.gov].
p.s. I'm not a highway geek, I'm a traffic engineer.
Eight lanes each side, or total? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I imagine reckless driving would still be reckless driving. If I were to cut across another car's line through an intersection after it had already entered the intersection, my driving would still be reckless according to any definition of reckless driving I have seen. And it would be reckless independent of any traffic markings or signals present.
And we already are victim to those who "have no qualms with putting others lives and vehicles at risk." This is the definition of reckless driving (for certain degrees of "risk"). Because they ignore traffic markings and signals right now, the elimination of traffic markings does not affect the risk they pose.
For anyone who has to sit at red lights at empty intersections for fear of cops hiding in the bushes or in a parking lot, this would be most welcome.
The only issue I see is with busy roads to which access is controlled by stop signs and signals without on ramps. In these cases a driver attempting to safely enter the road could conceivably wait the better part of an hour or more before being able to safely enter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:4, Informative)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-41579604
Even with signs, some cities are like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Works in what sense? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Works in what sense? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it is.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.
and yes, it is coming to the US.
Re:Works in what sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, as noted in the same article, today is World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims [google.com].
Noes. (Score:5, Funny)
Traffic Can Self-Regulate (Score:5, Informative)
It's a four lane highway that's why (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Do you wish to subscribe to my newsletter?
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Don't forget the communists and witches.
No more one way streets... (Score:3, Funny)
Cyclists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cyclists (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. [labreform.org]
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeez mister, just how wide is your car? A fifteen foot lane not enough for you? Are you that bad a driver? _That_ unskilled? Twenty years ago, as a racer, I spent thousands of miles on p
Bike Lanes (Score:4, Insightful)
-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 [eatgoodstuff.com] (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.
Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Germany also has roughly half the number of traffic fatalities per capita as the US, take that for what it is worth.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
rj
Re:Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Not in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :)
Re:Not in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
European societies tend to focus more on manners and personal responsibility, so this clearly wouldn't work in the US. ;)
What??? You have to be joking. Two real-life stories for you:
My visit to Venice: I was waiting politely in line for a water-taxi ticket. Just before my turn, a local steps in front of me and buys a ticket. I'm so shocked and stunned, I can only stare. Another one steps in front of me! Finally, I'm jarred and figure out the "system". That behavior was so -- alien -- here in the US as to be beyond comprehension.
Another story. My German uncle comes over to visit from Germany and goes to the bank (this is about, oh, 1970 or so). He is absolutely amazed and astounded watching people politely stand in line, no pushing, no shoving. My uncle gets back home and is telling my father the story. My father's classic answer (in a very dry, serious voice), "Well, of course. We carry guns." :D
And I KNOW that you're making a fall-down-in-hysterics joke to talk about Europe and Personal Responsibility. If they cared about the latter, they wouldn't embrace Socialism. The US is sadly lacking compared to how it used to be, but we're still the home for people who want to make it on their own with a minimum of nannyism.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Works if you make the roads bumpy (Score:5, Funny)
Notice the "everything will be covered in cobblestones" part. Bumpy roads as traffic control - that's a brutal solution to the problem. Coming up next, artificial potholes.
ORLY? (Score:3, Funny)
In the UK, this would go one of two ways (Score:5, Insightful)
"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!"
Pedestrian Uprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Letting yourself go (Score:4, Interesting)
What you need is simple and clear rules.
Here in NSW, Australia you have to travel at 40km/hr in a school zone but only during certain times. Our main highways even have school zones. It's a joke. If you're doing 41km/hr at 3:29pm you're speeding and can lose a quarter of your license, but at 3:31pm you're fine. (We have a demerit system. You have 12 points. Points you lose are lost for 3 years. If you reach zero you lose your licence. Speeding, even 1km/hr over the limit loses you 3 points). It's getting even more ridiculous. We have one speed zone being trialed that's 90km/hr in the wet and 100km/hr in the dry. There's a speed camera and the variable limit is posted only where the camera can nab you. Talk about a bunch of revenue raising horse shit. So now the driver has to know exactly what time of day it is (to the minute) and judge the weather before they know what their speed limit is. What's worse is that everyone speeds - except at the known speed cameras - and if you stick to the limit you make everyone around you angry (which isn't safe!!!)
Reminds Me Of This Article (Score:5, Interesting)
-------
As Cars Collide, Belgian Motorists Refuse to Yield
A Shortage of Stop Signs And Quirky Driving Rules Create Culture of Crashes
By MARY JACOBY
September 25, 2006; Page A1
BRUSSELS -- The intersection outside Isabelle de Bruyn's row house in a quiet residential neighborhood here is a typical Belgian crossroads. It has no stop signs. Now and then, cars collide outside her front door.
"The air bags explode. One car flipped over in the street. Part of one car ended up here," says Ms. de Bruyn, a real-estate agent, pointing to her front steps. Her brother-in-law, Christophe de Bruyn, adds: "In America, they have stop signs. I think that's a good idea for Belgium, too."
The suggestion isn't popular at the Belgian transport ministry. "We'd have to put signs at every crossroads," says spokeswoman Els Bruggeman. "We have lots of intersections."
But insurance companies seeking an easier way to sort out who's at fault in Belgium's frequent fender benders have lobbied for a solution. And so now the government is in the process of making changes to a traffic rule at the heart of Belgium's problems. It is known as priorité de droite, or "priority from the right."
The law evolved from a rule adopted nearly a century ago in neighboring France, intended to offer drivers a simple rule of thumb: Always yield to any vehicle coming from one's right unless a sign or other road marking instructs otherwise.
That was meant to modernize an even more unwieldy rule of the time: Right of way went to the driver of the highest social rank. Horse-drawn carriages were still in common use, and, after accidents, "it wasn't unusual for the passengers to get out of their carriages and compare their titles and ranks in the nobility," says Benoit Godart, a spokesman for the government-financed Belgian Road Safety Institute.
Even more confusing, a driver in Belgium who stops to look both ways at an intersection loses the legal right to proceed first. Such caution might seem prudent, given the lack of stop signs. But a driver who merely taps his brakes can find that his pause has sent a dangerous signal to other drivers: Any sign of hesitation often spurs other drivers to hit the gas in a race to get through the crossing first.
The result is a game of chicken at crossings, where to slow down is to "show weakness," says Belgian traffic court lawyer Virginie Delannoy. Neither driver wants to lose this traffic game, she says, adding: "And then, bam!"
To make matters worse, cars on many of the smallest side streets still qualify for priority over those on major thoroughfares -- so long as they are coming from the right. That forces drivers on many boulevards to slam on their brakes without warning, and some get rear-ended as a result. On certain roads, the rule is suspended, but the only indication of that is a small yield sign drivers often overlook.
Today, failing to yield is the cause of more than two-thirds of the accidents at unmarked Belgian intersections that result in bodily injury.
It contributes to Belgium's relatively high traffic fatality rate, analysts say. Last year, deaths in Belgium from driving accidents were 11.2 per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in Paris.
Other countries have more stop signs and traffic lights. By comparison, deaths in the Netherlands were 4.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, 6.1 in Germany and 8.7 in France -- countries that border Belgium.
Although the U.S. has a higher number of fatalities in absolute numbers -- 14.5 per 100,000 inhabitants -- there are more cars on the street in the U.S., as a percentage of the population, than in Belgium. Americans also spend on average more time in their cars, traveling longer distances.
When the difference in the number of cars is accounted for, Belgium has
Unfamiliar (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wellingtongrey.net]
Woonerven (Score:5, Informative)
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 [salon.com], Anthony Flint's 2004 Boston Globe article [boston.com], and walkinginfo.org's page about woonerven [walkinginfo.org].
Denmark! (Score:5, Funny)
Clutter is a huge problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too safe? (Score:5, Insightful)