Hacker News Reader

Comment by sprout | Hacker News Reader

No, they haven't. There was one recently linked on HN, but it was a fairly recent experiment, and it's far more likely to be attributable to the strangeness of it; people used to signs go into hyper-defensive-driver mode when they get to an area with no signs. You take away signs entirely the novelty wears off and people go back to driving like assholes.

View on HN

Looking at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3... it looks like the increased safety effect was documented over a period of 25 years in over 100 different locations.

That's strong enough data for me to strongly doubt your theory.

I still don't see any evidence that it will scale - especially in the US. Most areas still have signs, so the areas without signs remain exceptions that put people on the defense.

> You take away signs entirely the novelty wears off and people go back to driving like assholes.

[citation needed]

Have you ever had the chance to drive in a third-world country?

I have - so what you're trying to get across is that the only difference between culture (driving or otherwise) in first and third world countries is in lack of necessary regulations in third world (traffic signs included)?

I call bullshit on this.

What does make a difference IMHO is having as few rules as necessary - BUT making sure that those few are sensible and respected.

Thus - "Don't be a jackass" is a worthy and sufficient rule - if enforced thoroughly.

Moscow is as full of signs as it was 10 years ago, but nowadays people drive better because the fines have skyrocketed and the overall culture kind of increased.

Your rebuttal appears to be unsubstantiated. I did some brief googling to see if I could find evidence one way or the other and came up with the article mentioned but little else in terms of studies or stats. Interesting theory though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com