http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/18/everything_we_know_a.html

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong

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:

"The more you post the evidence of legislative control, such as
traffic signs, the less the driver is trying to use his or her own
senses," says Hamilton-Baillie, noting he has a habit of walking
randomly across roads -- much to his wife's consternation. "So the
less you can advertise the presence of the state in terms of
authority, the more effective this approach can be." This, of course,
is the exact opposite of the "Triple E" traffic-calming approach,
which seeks to control the driver through the use of speed bumps,
photo radar, crosswalks and other engineering and enforcement
mechanisms.

The "self-reading street" has its roots in the Dutch "woonerf" design
principles that emerged in the 1970s. Blurring the boundary between
street and sidewalk, woonerfs combine innovative paving, landscaping
and other urban designs to allow for the integration of multiple
functions in a single street, so that pedestrians, cyclists and
children playing share the road with slow-moving cars. The pilot
projects were so successful in fostering better urban environments
that the ideas spread rapidly to Belgium, France, Denmark and Germany.
In 1998, the British government adopted a "Home Zones" initiative --
the woonerf equivalent -- as part of its national transportation
policy.

"What the early woonerf principles realized," says Hamilton-Baillie,
"was that there was a two-way interaction between people and traffic.
It was a vicious or, rather, a virtuous circle: The busier the streets
are, the safer they become. So once you drive people off the street,
they become less safe."

Salon Link (Reg/Ads Req'd) (via Kottke)

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/

Why don't we do it in the road?

A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs
and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It
sounds insane, but it works.

May 20, 2004 | It's rush hour, and I am standing at the corner of
Zhuhui and Renmin Road, a four-lane intersection in Suzhou, China.
Ignoring the red light, a couple of taxis and a dozen bicycles are
headed straight for a huge mass of cyclists, cars, pedicabs and mopeds
that are turning left in front of me. Cringing, I anticipate a
collision. Like a flock of migrating birds, however, the mass changes
formation. A space opens up, the taxis and bicycles move in, and
hundreds of commuters continue down the street, unperturbed and
fatality free.

In Suzhou, the traffic rules are simple. "There are no rules," as one
local told me. A city of 2.2 million people, Suzhou has 500,000 cars
and 900,000 bicycles, not to mention hundreds of pedicabs, mopeds and
assorted, quainter forms of transportation. Drivers of all modes pay
little attention to the few traffic signals and weave wildly from one
side of the street to another. Defying survival instincts, pedestrians
have to barge between oncoming cars to cross the roads.

But here's the catch: During the 10 days I spent in Suzhou last fall,
I didn't see a single accident. Really, not a single one. Nor was
there any of the road rage one might expect given the anarchy that
passes for traffic policy. And despite the obvious advantages that
accrue to cars because of their size, no single transportation mode
dominates the streets. On the contrary, the urban arterials are a
communal mix of automobiles, cyclists, pedestrians, and small
businesses such as inner-tube repairmen that set up shop directly in
the right-of-way.


[...]

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:29:44 +0100, Marc Brett
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
--
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

"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!

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 19:26:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less):

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.

Up to point, Lord Copper... ;-)
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

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)

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

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

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 at 23:15:30, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

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

When I tried, abortively, to learn to drive many years ago now, my
father commented that one should always remember that *every* other car
on the road was driven by a murderer. A lesson which I passed on to my
daughter when she learnt to drive.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

"Richard J." wrote in news:q9mBc.1219$L_
:

... 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.

"more safely" not "safely". The introduction of seat belts didn't result in
less accidents, just people driving a little more carelessly.

Graeme