Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

<http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/18/everything_we_know_a.html> (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_desig-
n/>

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
<marc@fordson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<21j6d0tadg0p3g0cun0af6san9on1668ti@4ax.com>:

>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 (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)

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

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.

David Off wrote:
>
> France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never
> been to France.

They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-)

Tony

"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
news:2jh64eF11o96oU1@uni-berlin.de...
> David Off wrote:
> >
> > France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never
> > been to France.
>
> They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-)
>
> Tony
>

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 :-)

"Marc Brett" <marc@fordson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:21j6d0tadg0p3g0cun0af6san9on1668ti@4ax.com...
>
> <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:

<snipped>

Recently in Orkney, did some driving around the main
street of Stromness. Very narrow, 2-way traffic and
pedestrians mingling, standing in doorways to let cars
past, etc. I paid a lot of attention and initially found
it daunting to drive, but soon realised it was one of
the safest non-pedestrianised "main streets" I ever
experienced. Locals found it second nature to look both
ways before stepping out of shop doorways. Likewise
drivers patiently waited for pedestrians to go about
their business. It all seemed to work quite well. The
only "traffic control" measures there were single yellow
lines to discourage long-term obstructions. In short,
because of higher perceived danger levels, much more
caution is exercised, and a street ends up being safer.

...........................................................-
.....
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com (http://www.titannews.com/) <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message news:2jh64eF11o96oU1@uni-
> berlin.de...
>> David Off wrote:
>>>
>>> France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has never
>>> been to France.
>>
>> They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-)
>>
>> Tony
>>
>
> 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.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

AndyMorris wrote:
>
> 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 might have been personal experience there
;-)

Tony

"AndyMorris" <AndyMorris@DeadSpam.com> wrote in message
news:cavvst$flj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> > "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.com> wrote in message
> > news:2jh64eF11o96oU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >> David Off wrote:
> >>>
> >>> France? Traffic Calming... I guess the author has
> >>> never been to France.
> >>
> >> They calm their drivers with a bottle of vin rouge ;-)
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >
> > 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.
>

Which is what you'd expect - but this didn't happen in the
(obviously relatively unscientific) experiment shown above.
What did happen was he drove slowly (but not that slowly),
and was so paranoid about hitting anything or messing up
(which is one of the effects of dope) that he actually drove
carefully and did manage to spot all the hazards thrown at
him, and he dealt with them well.

Just to reiterate, I'm not meaning to say that driving while
stoned should be legal - but as I say the results of this
experiment were rather unexpected and most interesting :-)

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> Which is what you'd expect - but this didn't happen in the
> (obviously relatively unscientific) experiment shown
> above. What did happen was he drove slowly (but not that
> slowly), and was so paranoid about hitting anything or
> messing up (which is one of the effects of dope) that he
> actually drove carefully and did manage to spot all the
> hazards thrown at him, and he dealt with them well.
>
> Just to reiterate, I'm not meaning to say that driving
> while stoned should be legal - but as I say the results of
> this experiment were rather unexpected and most
> interesting :-)

{Puff} Like yeah man {puff}

Tony ;-)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 at 23:41:20, David Off
<david.off_dumpthisbit_@voila.fr> 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 mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated
6 June 2004

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 (http://www.grisoft.com/)). Version: 6.0.707 /
Virus Database: 463 - Release Date: 15/06/04

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 13:02:20 +0100, "JNugent"
<JNugent@AC30.freeofspamserve.co.uk> 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.

In article <cavvst$flj$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
AndyMorris@DeadSpam.com 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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83n6d01cf92qmt1hhh6f4lcmq9o6ba6ef0@4ax.com...
> >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"
<g1pcd@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
<pBkBc.428$mM2.154@newsfe3-win.server.ntli.net>:

>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/public.nsf/Documents/GPV

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

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

Paul Dicken wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com>
> wrote in message
> news:83n6d01cf92qmt1hhh6f4lcmq9o6ba6ef0@4ax.com...
>>> 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."
<rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message
<q9mBc.1219$L_6.10764499@news-text.cableinet.net>:

>... 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 (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."
> <rjnews@blueukder.co.yon> wrote in message <q9mBc.1219$L_6.10764499@news-
> text.cableinet.net>:
>
>
>>... 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

Velvet <velvet@not.a.valid.domain> 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 (http://www.thehewitts.plus.com/) - now online