The way to break out of the pro-car, anti-car debate?



"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>

Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and serious
injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no road rules are
horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas. City traffic flows at
the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts are low speed and end up with a
few harsh words and maybe a skinned knuckle.

As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have congested
roads by any world standard - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to
stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.
 
"Roger Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> 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.
>>

> Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and
> serious injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no
> road rules are horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas.


The article clearly distinguishes between the different requirements of low
speed urban areas and higher speed non-urban areas.

> City traffic flows at the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts
> are low speed and end up with a few harsh words and maybe a skinned
> knuckle.


Which is the point of the exercise.

> As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
> congested roads by any world standard


As someone who has lived, worked and driven in a fair number of cities
around the world I can safely say that's utter ********.

> - you can drive at 100kph and
> be expected to stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.


I'll let someone else try to parse that little lot.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Plodder wrote:

> Accident rates are merely the output of the
> processes and limiting oneself to such a one-dimensional criterion of
> stupidity is way more stupid than the article...


you're right, accident rates just aren't worth worrying about...

Charlie
 
"Charlie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Plodder wrote:
>
> > Accident rates are merely the output of the
> > processes and limiting oneself to such a one-dimensional criterion of
> > stupidity is way more stupid than the article...

>
> you're right, accident rates just aren't worth worrying about...
>
> Charlie


I don't remember writing that.

The point is that accident rates are only a single output of the process.
There are others: fear, road rage, de-socialisation and a degree of safety.
No doubt there are more, but I can't be stuffed listing them.

I admit to being dumbfounded how people deal with a world that consists of
shades of grey in such black-and-white terms. The world is more complex than
my poor little mind can comprehend. I'm better off admitting I'm baffled
than reducing it to black-and-white terms and pretending understanding.

I like your sarcasm... keep it coming. But have it make sense! Read out of,
not into, what people write.

Frank
 
Roger wrote:

> > 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.
> >

> Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and serious
> injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no road rules are
> horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas. City traffic flows

at
> the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts are low speed and end up with

a
> few harsh words and maybe a skinned knuckle.
>
> As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have

congested
> roads by any world standard - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to
> stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.


I agree, the concept probably wouldn't work outside of cities and suburban
areas, especially in Aus where people travel many kilometers at high speeds
as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the concept
couldn't work in residential areas. Why not an artery system of major roads
retaining current road rules for high-speed, long-distance travel, changing
to the "intrigue" concept in city and residential streets? You can get to
where you want fast and when you get there, you slow down. Doesn't seem
hard...

Frank
 
"eb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>>>>>> "DRS" == drs <[email protected]> writes:

>
>> "Roger Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]

>
> >> As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont

> have >> congested roads by any world standard
>
>> As someone who has lived, worked and driven in a fair number of
>> cities around the world I can safely say that's utter ********.

>
> Agreed. 100 KM/H is the limit for normal roads like the Nepean
> Highway, Autobahns there is no limit. Driving on those roads 100
> KM/H will see you getting overtaken by trucks. 100 MP/H is the
> average speed on those roads.
>
> In the UK the speed limit on the motorways may be 70 MP/H yet the
> average speed is closer to 90 MP/H. Normal roads like the Nepean
> Highway have a limit of 60 MP/H which is roughly 120 KM/H
>
> You can say a lot of things about Australian traffic, saying it moves
> fast is not one of them.


He was talking about urban traffic. Autobahns aren't urban, nor are most
motorways (although the M25 may qualify as an exception). The Nepean
Highway, which is mostly 80kph not 100kph, is urban in the sense it's within
Melbourne's city limits (it starts 6 or 7 km from the CBD). Howeverm his
claim that Melbourne, Sydney etc are not congested is simply ****. I've
driven in London, Amsterdam, Rome, Boston, Singapore and our congestion
compares to any of them. To say they don't means you've either never driven
up Punt Road or Sydney Road (Melb) or Victoria Road or Parramatta Road (Syd)
in peak hour or you've simply never been overseas.

> >> - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to stop - bikes are a
> >> name for an easy woman.

>
>> I'll let someone else try to parse that little lot.

>
> Bike ~= something that gets ridden a lot ~= easy woman. Hence terms
> in the military like "camp bike" or "Regimental Bicycle."


<sigh>
I knew that. But how does it fit within the overall text?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"Plodder" <CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Roger wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>>

>> Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and
>> serious injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no
>> road rules are horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas.
>> City traffic flows at the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts
>> are low speed and end up with a few harsh words and maybe a skinned
>> knuckle.
>>
>> As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
>> congested roads by any world standard - you can drive at 100kph and
>> be expected to stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.

>
> I agree, the concept probably wouldn't work outside of cities and
> suburban areas,


Nobody, especially not the article, ever said it would, so can we please put
this strawman down once and for all?

> especially in Aus where people travel many kilometers
> at high speeds as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I see no reason
> why the concept couldn't work in residential areas. Why not an artery
> system of major roads retaining current road rules for high-speed,
> long-distance travel, changing to the "intrigue" concept in city and
> residential streets? You can get to where you want fast and when you
> get there, you slow down. Doesn't seem hard...


Which is precisely what the article says.

Sheesh.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Plodder wrote:

> I don't remember writing that.
>
> The point is that accident rates are only a single output of the process.
> There are others: fear, road rage, de-socialisation and a degree of safety.
> No doubt there are more, but I can't be stuffed listing them.


fair enough, but accident rates are of enough importance (to your
average person, afaik) to make any sort of traffic management suggestion
that ignores them totally, as in the initial post, beyond ridiculous...

> I admit to being dumbfounded how people deal with a world that consists of
> shades of grey in such black-and-white terms. The world is more complex than
> my poor little mind can comprehend. I'm better off admitting I'm baffled
> than reducing it to black-and-white terms and pretending understanding.


I agree, though usenet discussions with crazed cyclists are often more
amusing if you don't :)

> I like your sarcasm... keep it coming. But have it make sense! Read out of,
> not into, what people write.


sure :)
It did sound like you were suggesting the examination of processes
without any understanding of the consequences (which leads to wild,
invented conclusions of 0 value, imho) to be posessing of merit though.
But I accept that's not what you meant...

Charlie
 
Plodder wrote:

> I agree, the concept probably wouldn't work outside of cities and suburban
> areas, especially in Aus where people travel many kilometers at high speeds
> as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the concept
> couldn't work in residential areas. Why not an artery system of major roads
> retaining current road rules for high-speed, long-distance travel, changing
> to the "intrigue" concept in city and residential streets? You can get to
> where you want fast and when you get there, you slow down. Doesn't seem
> hard...


cars make up ridiculously large portions of the traffic percentage.
Drivers wouldn't cope with the occasioanl random cyclist / pedestrian
doing whatever they wanted, until perhaps there were enough of them
doing it to get used to. Whether you reach that point before the
elimination of the cyclist / pedestrian population, I'm not confident :)
I'll stick to advocating large subsidies for scooters / motorbikes...

Charlie
 
s wrote:

> How much time do you spend sitting stationary at traffic lights? ..don't you
> wish they would install drive overs or unders. I'd welcome anything to
> reduce my braking and waiting time at traffic lights.


a 4th colour, to indicate give way, is a much simpler solution than
giving up all road rules imho... I agree with the wasting time at
lights, one's in the congested city generally work fine, but there are
plenty of lights in suburbia that are only needed during peak times...

Charlie
 
>>>>> "DRS" == drs <[email protected]> writes:

DRS> "Roger Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
DRS> news:[email protected]

>> As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
>> congested roads by any world standard


DRS> As someone who has lived, worked and driven in a fair number of
DRS> cities around the world I can safely say that's utter ********.


Agreed. 100 KM/H is the limit for normal roads like the Nepean Highway,
Autobahns there is no limit. Driving on those roads 100 KM/H will see
you getting overtaken by trucks. 100 MP/H is the average speed on those
roads.

In the UK the speed limit on the motorways may be 70 MP/H yet the
average speed is closer to 90 MP/H. Normal roads like the Nepean
Highway have a limit of 60 MP/H which is roughly 120 KM/H

You can say a lot of things about Australian traffic, saying it moves
fast is not one of them.

>> - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to stop - bikes are a
>> name for an easy woman.


DRS> I'll let someone else try to parse that little lot.

Bike ~= something that gets ridden a lot ~= easy woman. Hence terms in
the military like "camp bike" or "Regimental Bicycle."
--
Regards
Euan
 
DRS wrote:
>
> 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.
>


Does it, the articles seems to ignore the huge amount of death and
injury on Chinese roads, a friend who recently did 2 trips to China says
that the death and injury rate there is horrendous.
He also said that car travel in Shanghi is so slow its quicker to walk
provided you are willing to take the risk of breathing the severely
polluted air.
Its a very interesting article but it seems to ignore anyones need to
travel large distances in an urban area which is common in Australia.




Daryl
 
>>>>> "DRS" == drs <[email protected]> writes:

DRS> "eb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
DRS> news:[email protected]
DRS> He was talking about urban traffic. Autobahns aren't urban,
DRS> nor are most motorways (although the M25 may qualify as an
DRS> exception). The Nepean Highway, which is mostly 80kph not
DRS> 100kph, is urban in the sense it's within Melbourne's city
DRS> limits (it starts 6 or 7 km from the CBD).

Point taken. A road similar to Nepean in UK would have a limit between
40 to 60 MPH depending. It's ironic that this country has cars with 4-5
litre engines and there's nowhere to use them.
--
Regards
Euan
 
"sheik yerbouti" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 23 May 2004 02:45:41 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "sheik yerbouti" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> they have much higher death rates in those countries

>>
>> Your sources?

>
> are you serious? their road death rates are many times ours


I am absolutely serious. I want to know the sources for your claims.
"Everybody knows" doesn't count.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"D Walford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>>
>> 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.

>
> Does it, the articles seems to ignore the huge amount of death and
> injury on Chinese roads, a friend who recently did 2 trips to China
> says that the death and injury rate there is horrendous.


Cites?

> He also said that car travel in Shanghi is so slow its quicker to walk
> provided you are willing to take the risk of breathing the severely
> polluted air.


Maybe that's so, yet how does he explain away the empirical evidence coming
out of Europe to the contrary?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Maybe that's so, yet how does he explain away the empirical evidence

coming
> out of Europe to the contrary?


Dos anyone here actually care what's going on in Europe, apart from you?

--
Regards,
Noddy.
 
eb wrote:
>>>>>>"DRS" == drs <[email protected]> writes:

>
>
> DRS> "Roger Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> DRS> news:[email protected]
>
> >> As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
> >> congested roads by any world standard

>
> DRS> As someone who has lived, worked and driven in a fair number of
> DRS> cities around the world I can safely say that's utter ********.
>
>
> Agreed. 100 KM/H is the limit for normal roads like the Nepean Highway,
> Autobahns there is no limit. Driving on those roads 100 KM/H will see
> you getting overtaken by trucks. 100 MP/H is the average speed on those
> roads.
>
> In the UK the speed limit on the motorways may be 70 MP/H yet the
> average speed is closer to 90 MP/H. Normal roads like the Nepean
> Highway have a limit of 60 MP/H which is roughly 120 KM/H


When I was in london oh maybe 2 months ago I was way impressed with the
higer skill levels, generally high level of courtesy and the low
accident levels. In a fortnight and maybe 1000 kph I ever even saw any
glass on the road.

Driving was mostly fun, looking at the road instead of the speedo and
yep at 95 mph we were nothing like the fastest people on the motorway.

Having said that the odd street sign wouldnt hurt
>
> You can say a lot of things about Australian traffic, saying it moves
> fast is not one of them.
>
> >> - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to stop - bikes are a
> >> name for an easy woman.

>
> DRS> I'll let someone else try to parse that little lot.
>
> Bike ~= something that gets ridden a lot ~= easy woman. Hence terms in
> the military like "camp bike" or "Regimental Bicycle."
 
"Noddy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Maybe that's so, yet how does he explain away the empirical evidence
>> coming out of Europe to the contrary?

>
> Dos anyone here actually care what's going on in Europe, apart from
> you?


They do if they've got any sense. Our system is far from perfect and we'd
be fools to ignore what's going on in other parts of the world.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 

Similar threads