Making Driving Less Safe

SteveA said:

Someone rang in to 6WF the other morning when they were discussing the Christmas shortage of taxis. His view was that the taxi shortage only occurred after the state governments in Australia introduced drink driving laws. Allow everyone to drive home really, really [censored] and there would be enough taxis for everyone else. Bewdy maaate.

SteveA

Farkkkkkkkkk!

Resound said:

Compliancy or complacency?

could be.

I was riding home from dirt crits tonight on the bike path outa Docklands (looks like a footpath) & had to swerve to avoid a Nissan ute driving along it.
This made me reconsider my position on this topic........ :o

Marx SS said:

could be.

I was riding home from dirt crits tonight on the bike path outa Docklands (looks like a footpath) & had to swerve to avoid a Nissan ute driving along it.
This made me reconsider my position on this topic........ :o

I've experienced the same on the Moonee Ponds Creek path, ie: Transurban & council vehicles. Two quick phone calls sorted of cleared that up. Pays to be vigilant though.

SteveA said:

Brian Watson said:

Marx SS wrote:

[..snip..]

Quoted message said:

Nowadays, it is very easy to negotiate a lot of roads in Australia

with

Quoted message said:

the simple concept of red means stop & green means go. All the

thinking

Quoted message said:

has been taken out of driving, so motorists don’t [feel the need to]
concentrate on what they are doing.

That's why I drive _really_ fast - so I have to concentrate on what I
am
doing :-)

Brian

Someone rang in to 6WF the other morning when they were discussing the
Christmas shortage of taxis. His view was that the taxi shortage only
occurred after the state governments in Australia introduced drink
driving laws. Allow everyone to drive home really, really [censored] and
there would be enough taxis for everyone else. Bewdy maaate.

SteveA

When I drove cabs I discovered that for 11 months of the year their is
actually a fair shortage. And even in december it can be harder than
you think to make money. For example any radio job at a popular pub is
a waste of 20 mins or so.. they are never there. I can think of dozens
of addresses that were a waste of time. Not an easy job.
Dave

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb <[email hidden]> wrote
in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

A lengthy article, but worth delving into over a cuppa or
lunch. 🙂 If you're a traffic engineer, it might be wise to
have a relaxing camomile tea handy before reading this. 😉

Didn't bother with the relaxing tea.... and this response is
longer I think (damn)

Monderman's approach actually isn't that new. If you look at
lower order surburban streets you'll see that the trend in a
Australia for narrower streets with less markings. Two
reasons, save space and to slow people down. Similar things
have been happening in the second order urban roads (close to
city centres etc) again to slow things down and make people
think. But.....

Remember that this will only work where things are reasonably
congested (or the environment is) and the traffic speed is
low.

Congested because if there is no outside monitor (other
traffic) people will tend to behave quite differently....

Slow because if you are moving much faster than 60km/h you
need some distance to react hence the signage for motorway
exits. Australia adopted European practice for this by the
way.

Traffic engineers have two competing priorities that govern
design (depending on road hierachy). One is safety the other
efficiency.

Monderman's approach is good for safety but if you string
several of his type of intersections together the traffic is
moving too slowly to be efficient (more enforced stops/slower
travel times). As you reduce side friction (bike lanes,
reduced property access, removal of parallel, parking
improved directional signage etc) your lane capacity
improves, travel times reduce (depends on intersections) and
efficiency increases. So does speed and your brain in
neutral effects.

Much of the signage/linemarking you see has less to do with
safety and more to do with efficiency. Monderman is
advancing an arguement to reduce efficiency to improve
safety. Possible if you have a good PT/cycle/ped network,
dense population and a population that accepts such things.

Our problem is the design of roads for peak hour not off
peak. In many regional centres and most fringe metro areas
you often find a need for 4 and 6 lane roads and traffic
signals to accomodate the peak flow. Outside of peak hour
though these roads have too much capacity leading to high
travel speeds etc etc.

This design philosophy comes about because of what the people
demand (or what politicians think the people want). Everyone
hates traffic jams so we design to minimise these. My
preference is to let congestion happen to force people to
consider alternative transport options or SLOW DOWN AND
THINK. It also impacts on housing choice.

If people face more congestion they will generally move
closer to work to minimise travel time. The current
situation in Australia is the reverse of this. We let people
move futher and further away from work centres and then
increase road capacity to maintain travel times therefore
justifying the sprawl.

The article contains some inaccuracies btw. The distribution
of traffic accidents follows a traditional "bell" curve with
regards to speed and/or volume. Most accidents occur at
speeds less than 60. What does increase with speed is
accident severity (or outcome).

Can we use Monderman's work here?

Propably not in total. Why - because Australians are not
Dutch or French or .......

The roundabout is, for many situations, an ideal intersection
treatment. It removes the potential for the most severe
intersection accident (headon), slows traffic down without
necessarily stopping it and can be designed to include peds
and cyclists. Works wonderfully in Europe and is a pack of
pooh tickets in Australia.

Australia's seem (horrible generalisation following) to be a
weird mix of passive/reactive. Australian politicians (and
solicitors) are also opposed to personal responsibility
(which Monderman's solution emphasizes) We don't want to
force ourselves on anyone (claim the lane) but react poorly
to a perceived infrigement of our rights. So everyone still
tries to give way to right at roundabouts and if you actually
follow the rules (give way to traffic on the roundabout)
you'll often be abused. Also the issue with accelaration to
the roundabout so that I have right of way (which you don't
ever). The same for cyclists that claim a lane on the
roundabout and drivers reactions to same.

The four way stop is another intersection that generally
doesn't work because no one want't to be the first to go
(butting in).

As a result we are designing roundabouts so large (30+m
centres) that approaching traffic does not percieve the
traffic on their right as a give way situation. People the
appear to follow the appropriate rule - give way if the car
is close enough to be dangerous (ie on the roundabout).

And all of this is why traffic engineering is extremely hard,
open to interpretation etc. It really isn't engineering in a
classic sense, it is behavioural science. I don't remember
having any courses on behavioural science when I was a uni.

Being engineers we study the problem and derive a statistical
solution. Problem is that people aren't statistics and vary
considerably between each town/state/country.

For example in Mackay if the Merge in Turn sign is on a merge
lane people seem to be able work out how to merge, take it
away = chaos. If you put one up in Townsville (400k north)
people totally lose even their limited ability to merge.
They sit there and try to work out what it means and each
person makes up their own rules. Frustrating.

Personally I take a few risks with traffic design and derive
solutions that aren't in any of the manuals (similar to
Monderman's approach) many of which are intuitive (which
Monderman's are, they are not counter intuitive, our current
design practice is). If it all goes pear shaped and I wind
up in front of the coroner (again) then I rely on the fact
that it was my professional judgement. If that is questioned
or he/she makes an adverse ruling so be it. I just like
things that work even if I can't totally explain why or show
it too you in a manual.

And for those who deal with Meyers-Briggs - god it is funny
watching the ISTJ's trying to figure out what I'm up to or
why some things actually work.

Cheers
BrettM

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"BrettM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb <[email hidden]> wrote
in news:[email hidden]:

<<SNIP good stuff from an experienced point of view>>

Quoted message said:

And for those who deal with Meyers-Briggs - god it is funny
watching the ISTJ's trying to figure out what I'm up to or
why some things actually work.

Cheers
BrettM

Yep - I'm a strong INFP in a heavy industrial environment full of ESTJs, but
I reckon THEY are the ones with communication problems!

me 🙂

I'd be happy for 4WD's to have a large button on each corner, at an ideal height for a cyclist to reach. The other end of the button would be a clamp on the drivers gonads. Would work wonders for safe overtaking...

M.

Donga said:

Slightly different take:

when is there going to be a shame campaign about driving cars? We have
it for litter, for smoking, for domestic violence, for gambling. Car
driving is demonstrably a necessary, but over-used evil. Time to help
people see their social responsibility to drive less.

Donga

I'm not entirely sure if these shame campaigns work. We live in a disgusting, filthy country (sorry, but it's the truth), where most of the litter is probably - in fact I'm fairly certain it is - cigarette butts, domestic violence is a major problem and gambling is a huge problem, combatted by moving ATM's a few metres away from the machines.

My belief is that the only way to get less people driving/smoking/littering etc is to make them pay for it. Up the fuel excise, cost of cigarettes and police could perhaps actually fine people for littering (up that fine too)... and people should have to pay extra for spouses they wish to beat! But.... the future looks bleak because our politicians are weak, despicable, disgusting creatures and they'll never do anything about it.

That's my theory.

LotteAngryBum

Plodder said:

Yep - I'm a strong INFP in a heavy industrial environment full of ESTJs, but I reckon THEY are the ones with communication problems!

Bwhahahaha! As a INFJ, I know what you're theorising, even before you commence thinking about it... 😄

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:05:58 GMT, BrettM said (and I quote):

Quoted message said:

Traffic engineers have two competing priorities that govern
design (depending on road hierachy). One is safety the other
efficiency.

Efficiency towards what aim? Increasing people's dependence on cars or
decreasing it?

(I know what the answer is - I'm just making a point. Your two paras
below indicate that you somewhat agree with me.)

Quoted message said:

My
preference is to let congestion happen to force people to
consider alternative transport options or SLOW DOWN AND
THINK. It also impacts on housing choice.

If people face more congestion they will generally move
closer to work to minimise travel time. The current
situation in Australia is the reverse of this. We let people
move futher and further away from work centres and then
increase road capacity to maintain travel times therefore
justifying the sprawl.

I agree, and it's what bothers me about the emphasis on solving the
"congestion problem" in the city centre, and "solutions" like congestion
charging, or even the cross-city tunnel. I think inner-city congestion
serves a useful purpose and is basically self-limiting.
Traffic/planning engineers should be thinking up ways to create similar
disincentives to driving in the places where driving is most popular -
the outer suburbs.

From John Adams
<http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PDFs/Road%20Pricing%20Traffic%20Engineering%20and%20Control.pdf>:

"A policy that sought to reduce dependence on the car would seek to
restrict traffic in the areas where its growth is fastest ? not in
congested urban areas, where it has already stopped, but in the suburbs
and beyond."

More from John Adams (very interesting stuff, some of which is directly
related to "making driving more dangerous and some that is tangential):
http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/publish.htm

And check out http://www.lesstraffic.com/ which has some articles on
using "mystery and intrigue" in road design in order to slow down
drivers and make the streets safer.

--
What was I thinking?

LotteBum said:

I'm not entirely sure if these shame campaigns work. We live in a disgusting, filthy country (sorry, but it's the truth), where most of the litter is probably - in fact I'm fairly certain it is - cigarette butts, domestic violence is a major problem and gambling is a huge problem, combatted by moving ATM's a few metres away from the machines.

My belief is that the only way to get less people driving/smoking/littering etc is to make them pay for it. Up the fuel excise, cost of cigarettes and police could perhaps actually fine people for littering (up that fine too)... and people should have to pay extra for spouses they wish to beat! But.... the future looks bleak because our politicians are weak, despicable, disgusting creatures and they'll never do anything about it.

That's my theory.

Here, here. Hear, hear. Her hair? Whatever..

Not just your theory either. I'd love to see the cost of fuel, ciggies, plastic shopping bags and, okay, everything else that pisses ME off, rise.. massively.

Even better would be a Smoker Cull, but that would go against my law-abiding, peaceful nature. 😉

hippy

DeF said:

I had an idea many years ago that there should be a big
steel spike pointing at the driver out of the middle of
their steering wheel. And no seat belt. That should make
'em a bit more careful.

Are you sure that was your idea? 🙂

"Plodder" <[email hidden] (remove DAKS to reply)>
wrote in
news:43a1f354$0$1401$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.
au:

Quoted message said:

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"BrettM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

cfsmtb <[email hidden]>
wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

<<SNIP good stuff from an experienced point of view>>

Quoted message said:

And for those who deal with Meyers-Briggs - god it is
funny watching the ISTJ's trying to figure out what I'm up
to or why some things actually work.

Cheers
BrettM

Yep - I'm a strong INFP in a heavy industrial environment
full of ESTJs, but I reckon THEY are the ones with
communication problems!

me 🙂

ENTP with a almost equal T/F (ENFP). I communicate the
others tell. Of course I get excited and use my hands to
talk, that's what they're for isn't it???? And make intuitive
leaps, leave things to the last minute, lack organisation,
not into control, detail sucks etc etc.

Scary that this stuff is reasonably accurate. What I can't
get is how people can live with out the big
picture/percieving stuff. I think how dull it must be for
them to see only facts and consequences not possiblities.

Cheers

BrettM

Note: I don't think any "type" is better than any other
"type" I just don't understand them.

cfsmtb <[email hidden]> wrote
in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Plodder said:

Yep - I'm a strong INFP in a heavy industrial environment
full of ESTJs, but I reckon THEY are the ones with
communication problems!

Bwhahahaha! As a INFJ, I know what you're theorising, even
before you commence thinking about it... 😄

Arrrgh you're right (ENTP/INFJ counterparts). I know a few
INFJ's and have a weak spot for them. They really draw you in.

Cheers

BrettM

Thanks for reminding me how much the Myers-Briggs test annoys me!

Bleve said:

DeF said:

I had an idea many years ago that there should be a big
steel spike pointing at the driver out of the middle of
their steering wheel. And no seat belt. That should make
'em a bit more careful.

Are you sure that was your idea? 🙂

Well, my memory of it is discussing it with my Dad after
witnessing someone do something daft on the road. This was
before I had my license so we're talking ~25-30 years ago.

--
e-mail: [email hidden]
To reply, you'll have to remove finger.

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"deejbah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for reminding me how much the Myers-Briggs test annoys me!

--
deejbah

Yeah - it annoys me too. I don't believe a word of it - but that's just a
typical INFP response ;-P

Frank