It's true that some are just eye-catchers that distract.
But that bridge sign in the article? It's not for when you CAN see the bridge, it's for all those times in inclement weather when you CAN'T.
Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
21–30 of 49 posts
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#22I have one doubt about this idea. It might be possible that it only works because such "naked" roads are rare and thus prompt a (temporary) raise in drivers' alertness. Even the article provides a hint in this direction: "They also found, in surveys, that residents, despite the measurable increase in safety, perceived the place to be more dangerous. This was music to Monderman’s ears. If they had not felt less secure…
Sometimes I wonder if A/B tests we run suffer from this syndrome.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
What definitely does not work is drawing cyclist lanes onto the road. In Germany at least I think for a while it was believed that cycling lanes should be drawn on the roads rather than on the sideway. The result is that the cycling lanes become very dangerous, because car use them for short term parking all the time (it is not unusual to have a parking car every 100 meters). That would mean cycling around the car an…
I don't see why this is a big deal. Philadelphia has some recently added cycling lanes that I use all the time. If a car is parked you just look and cautiously veer around it. Sometimes you have to wait for a few seconds if there's heavy traffic and the space is narrow. But usually there's even enough room to get around a car without actually going back into the normal lane, since our bike lanes are converted from fu…
I believe the big deal is that you are asking "regular folks" to weave in and out of traffic on a bicycle on the way to work. Not to mention all of the other hazards with the bike lane, at least in DC area, such as being the wasteland for crap left over after the plowed snow banks melt. I'm usually comfortable on even the worst roads but wouldn't want my wife to bike to work on many of them.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#24I used to think shared space was a great alternative to car-centric streets but after reading David Hembrow's blog about bicycling in the Netherlands for a while it's clear that shared space is just a half-measure. If you want a society where people other than (mostly male) daredevils in their 20s and 30s can cycle then you need segregated biking facilities. Holland's percent of trips by bike (modal share) is around…
I used to think shared lanes were good too, until I was hit (in SF) and my cousin was killed (in London) on the same day.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#25Here's a set of videos on YouTube with Monderman on site in Drachten explaining what's been done
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#26I have one doubt about this idea. It might be possible that it only works because such "naked" roads are rare and thus prompt a (temporary) raise in drivers' alertness. Even the article provides a hint in this direction: "They also found, in surveys, that residents, despite the measurable increase in safety, perceived the place to be more dangerous. This was music to Monderman’s ears. If they had not felt less secure…
My perspective is that people are better at what they're doing when they're paying attention. Give them hints (signs) and shortcuts (straight roads), and their minds wander to something else, until something exceptional happens. There are few if any exceptionally good things that can happen in a car (most revolve around avoiding exceptionally bad things).
In becoming a "native" Boston driver, I have noticed that not all drivers pay equal attention. In other places I have lived, the attention that other drivers paid was not as obvious, because roads were straight and everyone was a "good" (rigid rule obeying) driver most of the time. The roads here are twisty, bumpy, often full of holes, merge in odd manners, have roundabouts, unconventional signs, and generally more difficult to drive. Yet I seem to see fewer road-side accidents on the roads that I drive every day.
Drivers new to the area see narrow lanes (more frequent lane violations), reduced traffic control (fewer clear opportunities to change lanes or turn), and faster drivers as chaotic and aggressive. It is also scary for tourists to cross the street in the midst of this apparent chaos (you'll see natives walking right through). So you might say that Boston has been in this sort of traffic chaos for a rather long time, and it has never been significantly more dangerous in reality (certainly in perception). I can only conclude that drivers who rely on a rigid rule-set have difficulty in unexpected situations, but when the exceptional is unexceptional, they will develop a more sophisticated model.
The net benefit of signs might not be to increase safety, but to allow for lazier, more distracted drivers. Some signs are generally helpful (construction / traffic / drawbridge ahead ), but I would like to see a general reduction. People are smart, and only do what is required. We can tell them not to talk on the phone or "drive distracted" with little effect. Give them a couple of (hopefully temporarily) bad experiences while they are not paying attention, and they will certainly pay more attention all the time.
EDIT: I should also point out that many people refuse to drive in Boston, making the driving population more self-selective than other cities. I don't think that this is a problem, but as society becomes more reliant on driving it becomes one. People who do not drive here can still get around by means of the subway, cabs, or plain walking (Boston isn't geographically large). I can't say the same of most other American cities.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#27Copied from the other thread on this topic.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#28People walking on the edge of a 100' drop tend to walk very carefully. The end result of this sort of reasoning is a steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel in the place where the airbag sits now.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#29Good article, but lacks some pictures. Drachten: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=opera&q=Drachten&... Makkinga: http://maps.google.com/maps?client=opera&q=Makkinga&...
Thanks for the pictures. I can definitely see how the traffic circle in Makkinga is safer than just a through street.
I didn't expect to see a bunch of Japanese labels on the maps of these German towns, though... :)
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#30I used to think shared space was a great alternative to car-centric streets but after reading David Hembrow's blog about bicycling in the Netherlands for a while it's clear that shared space is just a half-measure. If you want a society where people other than (mostly male) daredevils in their 20s and 30s can cycle then you need segregated biking facilities. Holland's percent of trips by bike (modal share) is around…
One more thing: the author of the article, Tom Vanderbilt, wrote a terrific book called "Traffic" and has a excellent blog (at http://www.howwedrive.com/). It was from his blog that I found out about David Hembrow's blog.