Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 at 23:41:20, David Off
wrote:

Marc Brett wrote:
The pilot
projects were so successful in fostering better urban environments
that the ideas spread rapidly to Belgium, France

France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never been to France.

That's why it doesn't work..... if you go to St-Omer from the Tunnel via
the N road, not the motorway, you used to go through a village (now,
happily, bypassed) which had no fewer than 9 pedestrian crossings, as
advertised at the start of the speed limit signs. Never saw any
pedestrians using them, though, or any traffic taking any notice.

Some "passages cloutés" are raised up, though, making their own speed
bumps.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Annabel Smyth wrote:

[ ... ]

..... if you go to St-Omer from the Tunnel
via the N road, not the motorway, you used to go through a village
(now, happily, bypassed) which had no fewer than 9 pedestrian
crossings, as advertised at the start of the speed limit signs.
Never saw any pedestrians using them, though, or any traffic taking
any notice.

I have stopped at such crossing-places (in France and Belgium) in the past,
only to be met with bemused stares from the waiting pedestrians (who seem
not prepared to cross until all the traffic is dissipated - thereby undoing
the purpose of the the crossings) and blasts of the horn from following
drivers.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.707 / Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/04

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:02:20 +0100, "JNugent"
wrote:

Annabel Smyth wrote:

[ ... ]

..... if you go to St-Omer from the Tunnel
via the N road, not the motorway, you used to go through a village
(now, happily, bypassed) which had no fewer than 9 pedestrian
crossings, as advertised at the start of the speed limit signs.
Never saw any pedestrians using them, though, or any traffic taking
any notice.

I have stopped at such crossing-places (in France and Belgium) in the past,
only to be met with bemused stares from the waiting pedestrians (who seem
not prepared to cross until all the traffic is dissipated - thereby undoing
the purpose of the the crossings) and blasts of the horn from following
drivers.


Same happened to me when I was cycling in France; stopped at "zebra
crossing" to allow waiting peds to cross. Result; peds continue to
wait, I continue to wait and motorised traffic continues to flow.
Bemused looks between cyclists and French people.

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

In article ,
says...
Nathaniel Porter wrote:

This reminds me of something I saw on the Discovery channel once.

Bascially, they took one one driver, and tested him on a private
track.

They found him to be aggressive, selfish, and unwill to acknowledge
his limitations

They then gave him a joint to smoke, and repeated the test.

His driving improved - the theory being that the cannabis, whilst
limiting his ability to drive, made him more relaxed and made him
more aware of his limitations.

Obviously (and as was pointed out in the programme), this doesn't mean
driving while stoned should be legal, but it was an interesting, if
unexpected result - and certainly worthy of more investigation.

Thought I'd just throw that in for the sake of conversation :-)

Dope messes with your perception of speed, smoke enough and try to drive and
the cops will pull you over for doing 10 mph on a clear road.

Sounds like that episode of "The Detectives" where Jasper Carrot and Robert
Powell eat the "oxo" cubes they found, and ended up driving down the road,
noses to the windscreen, and Carrot screaming "We're going too fast" while
going slower than walking pace!

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the
received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the
separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets:

Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's 1946 book
"Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The Streets". Or Mayer
Hillman's "One False Move".

Guy

Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he expressed in a meeting I
attended. He suggested all car bumpers should be made of glass and drivers
seated on them. His view was that standards of driving will go up
immediately. Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total disregard for their
and all other road users' safety, I suspect the safety cocoon they have
purchased has lulled them into a sense of false security - at least for the
rest of us!

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 18:22:59 +0100, "Paul Dicken"
wrote in message
:

Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he expressed in a meeting I
attended. He suggested all car bumpers should be made of glass and drivers
seated on them. His view was that standards of driving will go up
immediately. Seeing how Volvo drivers seem to have total disregard for their
and all other road users' safety, I suspect the safety cocoon they have
purchased has lulled them into a sense of false security - at least for the
rest of us!

For varying values of Volvo drivers.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/.../Documents/GPV

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Paul Dicken wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in
message ...
Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to
the received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that
the separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets:

Now that really /is/ new. Unless you've read JS Dean's 1946 book
"Murder Most Foul". Or Bob Davis' "Death On The Streets". Or
Mayer Hillman's "One False Move".

Guy

Mention of Mayer Hillman reminded me of a view he expressed in a
meeting I attended. He suggested all car bumpers should be made of
glass and drivers seated on them. His view was that standards of
driving will go up immediately.

.... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more
safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented,
when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen.
Indeed it still happens. We've all read stories of late-night crashes
where a carful of young people were killed or injured after they were
thrown from their car, presumably because they were too drunk or high to
remember to put on their seat belts.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote in message
:

... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more
safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented,
when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen.
Indeed it still happens.

On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by
airbags, abs and seatbelts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 20:08:54 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote in message
:


... because people driving in a vulnerable vehicle would drive more
safely? That idea didn't seem to work before seat belts were invented,
when occupants used to die by being ejected through the windscreen.
Indeed it still happens.


On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by
airbags, abs and seatbelts.

Guy

Not all of them do, ta :-) I don't rely on ABS to stop me quicker - I
use it to even out the fact that the car in front probably has it and
will stop quicker than I can if I don't have it... so my driving hasn't
changed in that respect. Seatbelts - always worn one, always will, so
can't comment on how I'd drive without one. Airbags? I'd rather it
didn't go off, ta, so it's another incentive to not have an accident
that'll make it explode in front of me.

Airbags have been implicated in some rather nasty accidents that might
have been less nasty had the airbag not gone off, so I have very mixed
feelings about being in a car equipped with several of the things.

Yes it might stop me cracking my head open on the steering wheel, but on
hte other hand I'd rather not have massive chest injuries caused by it..

So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety stuff makes
people drive less carefully :-)

--


Velvet

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Velvet wrote:

Snipped Text
On the other hand, they drive less carefully when protected by
airbags, abs and seatbelts.

Guy

Not all of them do, ta :-) I don't rely on ABS to stop me quicker - I
use it to even out the fact that the car in front probably has it and
will stop quicker than I can if I don't have it... so my driving hasn't
changed in that respect. Seatbelts - always worn one, always will, so
can't comment on how I'd drive without one. Airbags? I'd rather it
didn't go off, ta, so it's another incentive to not have an accident
that'll make it explode in front of me.

Airbags have been implicated in some rather nasty accidents that might
have been less nasty had the airbag not gone off, so I have very mixed
feelings about being in a car equipped with several of the things.

Agreed, although not because of what they do, I know how reliable they
are(n't).

Yes it might stop me cracking my head open on the steering wheel, but on
hte other hand I'd rather not have massive chest injuries caused by it..

Actually it's wearing a seat belt that causes the chest injuries. An air
bag only causes friction burns on your arms. All an air bag is designed
to do is to stop whiplash injuries by absorbing your forward momentum.
The bag is actually deflating as you hit it. If you don't wear a seat
belt your face hits the steering wheel as the bag is deployed. This is
where injuries occur - usually fatally. Hence the term 'Supplementary
Restraint System'.

So it's not quite as clear cut that all the extra safety stuff makes
people drive less carefully :-)

It is, there are always a few exceptions. Unfortunately you can't easily
measure it, but observations suggest that having the safety devices does
indeed 'encourage' more aggressive driving.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online