Want fewer car accidents? Remove traffic signals and road signs (2017)
bigthink.com
bigthink.com
All of this means that an experiment of one intersection doesn't necessarily tell us anything useful about the results of a broader implementation.
The article even does mention places with less traffic regulation that serve as much better test beds, and then waves away the obvious conclusion.
Interesting hypothesis but where is the evidence? I can think of country-wide counter examples such as the UK (among the safest roads in the world) where they've been removing central line markings on country roads for years in the name of safety. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
I'm a great beliver in getting rid of most traffic lights when its less busy - say by just having a flashing amber light, meaning its a free for all
reply
The paper argued that we have an internal risk level that we like to drive at, regardless of speed limit. Speeds higher than that risk level feel dangerous and are avoided. Speeds lower than that risk level are basically too boring and the task is not stimulating so you speed up. That risk level is individual dependent, hence some people like to speed more than others.
In this context, one weird “lawless” intersection is a novelty that requires attention and is likely perceived as riskier since it is unfamiliar. However, if all intersections were like that, they become normal and people will face them more aggressively.
A lot of American speeding happens because engineers apply Interstate-like design standards to local roads and then are surprised by interstate speeds.
Also, bad paint is worse than no paint, in particular dividing the road into more lanes than there is room for.
This very much aligns with my (admittedly anecdotal) evidence. I find riding on the road is typically much safer than riding on a bike path on the side of the road (like the typical German ones). On the road you are in the way so drivers pay attention to you, if you are on a bike path next to he road, cars will overlook you at the next intersection). That said completely separate paths with minimal intersection with cars are obviously even better.
Please share - this seems in opposition to all the other research I’ve seen that proximity between cars and bikes (esp with even painted bike lanes) is more dangerous for cyclists than separate lanes.
When traffic signals mediate everything for you, it's much easier to turn your brain off and when something unexpected, like a pedestrian crossing the road occurs, you don't see them because you're only watching the signals.
The added benefit is much better traffic flow. I wish we could get more roundabouts, unfortunately I think it would be a tough transition.
But: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Looks like its worse by a factor of around 5.
When traffic becomes busy some order is needed
"In 1947 Ruben Smeed, the founding father of transport studies in Britain, discovered an intriguing statistical relationship [for 20 countries] between the number of cars per person, and the road accident fatality rate per car. The data revealed that as numbers of cars increased, the death rate per car plummeted.
"The Smeed Curve might be considered a societal learning curve. As one encounters more cars people, literally, learn how to live with them. Another part of the explanation might be found in contemplation of other societal changes that accompany rising car ownership. Car ownership correlates highly with measures of affluence. Death rates per car decrease as affluence increases.
"When cars are few in number most fatalities are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists). As vehicle numbers increase the vulnerable retreat."
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/shared%20...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law#Empirical_contradi...
- Remove markings (such as crosswalks)
- Remove signals (such as pedestrian crossings)
- Remove curbs (so that cars can, and will, drive on what is supposed to be sidewalk)
- Where there are sidewalks, block them with cafes (so that pedestrians must walk in the road)
This is the land where the very concept of walking somewhere, or riding a bike, is utterly foreign and incomprehensible to most people. It's the land of selfishness, where anyone else on the road is an inconvenience 'in your way'.
We need more controls, not less. And, ideally, solid barriers to separate the death-machines from the living people. They should have to go around the places where there are people, instead of barreling carelessly through them.
This isn't a "some people don't pay attention" problem. And some "clever" hackish solution to try to deal with this narrow avenue will have precisely zero impact on fatalities and an oversized impact on driver irritation.
Want fewer accidents? Outlaw alcohol, use a "provisional" plate system for new drivers, and limit the amount of horsepower drivers under 24 can legally drive.
This place looks like it’s a roundabout downhill from a straight bridge, so plenty of room to speed. Probably should narrow the bridge.
It is already illegal to drive while intoxicated
And prohibition has already been tried.
Some people just don't care, even if they know the penalties are going to be harsh.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I believe better street design (meaning slowing cars down) and roundabouts could help. Building more public transport is also an option, but it might not be a feasible solution due to US City design.
US: 12,9 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants Europe: 9.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants Sweden: 2,2 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants Netherlands: 3,8 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
For example, Texas has fewer inhabitants than California, yet more people die on Texas roads than California roads. Perhaps there's something to be examined there?
Further.. again, so many fatalities in the US involve alcohol that you immediately want to think about how Europe, Sweden and the Netherlands handle drunk driving behavior and what sorts of drunk driving diversion programs they engage in.
It's also why I mentioned Australia's "provisional plate" system. I think that's a great idea, and it specifically puts horsepower limits on vehicles for "provisional" drivers. This is also a known risk factor, and it's why insurance coverage for young men under 24 is significantly more expensive than for females in the same age bracket. The fatality ratio is 8:1 across the sexes.
So.. sure, roundabouts and traffic calming might be it, but my reading of the data suggests more interesting problems.
I mean, that's the same attitude. There is a truth to it, but only if you don't get carried away.
After I took my license exam, the instructor sat me down and told me every stupid thing I had done in great detail. He then said "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you passed. But if you keep riding like that, you will be another road statistic.". I got the point.
Anyway, despite becoming careful, I still loved riding it. It is way more physical than driving a car and that was pleasurable in itself.
But there are indeed a lot of completely crazy bike riders out there.
I think I probably heard it from an economist colleague of mine, who knew of Tullock's thought experiment.
Bicycles, pedestrians, trams, all going through the town quite safely. There are some cars too (they are not banned) but not many, and they crawl along.
It was so liberating to be in that environment. Obviously not for petrolheads, but much safer and nicer for everyone else.
If you're serious about eliminating traffic fatalities, outlaw seat belts and airbags, then install a 6-inch steel spike in the center of every steering wheel. The few people who still dare to drive will be far too cautious to cause an accident.
That is, of course, about as ridiculous as A Modest Proposal. Still, over the years it's caused me to repeatedly notice that no matter how hard society complains about something (e.g., traffic fatalities), we keep implicitly deciding that some lifestyles are worth sacrificing lives to preserve.
I heard this story in the feedback loops section of 101 Universal Design Principles. I haven't looked into the research, so take the idea with a grain of salt.
Boxing or MMA without gloves would actually be less harmful, but it appears more brutal so most leagues use gloves.
How about this:
> 5. See eye to eye: Right-of-way is negotiated by human interaction, rather than commonly ignored signs.
First of all, signs are definitely not "commonly ignored". The opposite is true. Right-of-way should be defendable in a fair court. Rules are the only way to do that. If two people see each other fine, what happens when they both "feel" right and enter each other's path?
The article is overloaded with fallacies.
What we got was a whole lot of dead people and no one wanted to ride bicycles anymore.
I no longer trusts road signs and will still look in an intersection even if, for example, there is no stop sign but I can’t see that no cars are actually coming!
I feel that traffic is much worse since before COVID, drivers more aggressive, etc. You have to accept that people are going to make terrible decisions and roll with it.
Incidentally, we had storms knock out the power and some typically backed up intersections were moving along very well, with people being cautious but assertive, and not aggressive.
From what I've seen, it seems like people are less afraid of the consequences of bad driving behavior. There's less of a police presence on the roads. I'm not sure why that's the case, but I have a few guesses.
What could go wrong, you would ask...
Distracting driver with signs surely has a cognitive and alertness cost.
They’re the most dangerous form of road in terms of traffic and pedestrian fatalities because they don’t know what they want to be. They are designed to maximize speed but also with a high number of conflict points (driveways and intersections).
They are neither a road (high speed way to get between destinations) nor a street (low speed set of destinations).
If you keep traffic at 25mph or below with narrow roads and other traffic calming properties, everyone is safer. Coincidentally, city streets like this tend to not need much signage - usually just stop signs at intersections.
And for big ones, well, you can just have traffic lights. Or not have passing for pedestrians in same place as for cars
As a road runner and bike commuter in the before times who's been run over a couple of times, crosswalks are a shit idea that cause far more harm than good, full stop. Fuck crosswalks. This is actually a good example of what the article discusses, because there's only two possible states: one, in which there's little enough traffic that crossing normally is obvious and trivial, and two, where there's enough traffic that no quantity of flashing lights, neon striping, reflectors and such could ever make crossing truly safe. Staying alive on the roads without a death cage requires assuming that anyone in a car can and will ignore any rule at any time, because, eventually, someone will - and if you trusted that little green man to keep you alive, well, whoops. Crosswalks encourage the sort of head-down passivity in inherently dangerous situations that just gets people killed, and the more flashing shit you attach to them the more you alert fatigue drivers into ignoring them.
Crosswalks are similar to speed limits in this context in that they're utterly ineffective but provide an excuse to not actually fix the problem, i.e. build a lot of nonvehicular overpasses/underpasses. The point of criticizing a rules-based approach to traffic safety isn't to encourage some orgy of vehicular homicide, but to move to actually workable solutions involving changing the built environment.
And in my area, anyway, roundabouts are more likely to come with nonvehicular bypass structures than other forms of interchange. I'll take a roundabout + overpass over a traffic light + crosswalk every day of the week. In the most walkable places I've lived, that walkability was delivered not by an obsession with figuring out the precise set of rules or the precise enforcement mechanism needed to finally make it work, but by an acknowledgement that the sort of infrastructure you build is inextricably linked to how people use it. Build a stroad and you'll get pedestrian deaths regardless of the rules you try to layer on top of it. Build a walking bridge and you dodge the problem entirely.
I've been at roundabouts where there's a seemingly interminable number of cars from the entrance upstream of me that are exiting to exits downstream of me, and that's terribly frustrating, because there's no fairness mechanism.
And then there's the many roundabouts shoehorned into much too small of a space.
Marin and Masonic (bart track underpass): flashing red most of the day lately -> safe.
Self driving cars are the next step in this.
people will make up a million stories how going above the speed limit is essential for their safety. It’s all BS.
People want to speed, and they are willing to accept thousands of dead and disabled as the price.
Speed is absolutely a problem because it reduces the time you have to react to oncoming and crossing traffic and because it increases the impact of collisions.
Of course I don't do that unless I see a car that I think is a police car. I've been flashed at before for doing 45mph and find it way easier to drive at the same speed as other cars.
Is speeding the primary reason of most traffic fatalities? Also it's highly variable, in some case it might result in a significant increase in risk and in others it might be completely negligible.
anyone drive in India? that's what they're describing.