People 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.
Or a canister of gunpowder?
Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
41–49 of 49 posts
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#42It'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.
And are speeding down the road, secure in your knowledge that even though you cant see, if the road turned, there'd be large reflective warnings beforehand?
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#43I 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…
This is absolutely correct. The cycle lanes in Amsterdam took up relatively little space, had physical dividers, and at busy intersections there would be separate small traffic lights for cyclists - they get the green light about 10 seconds before the cars, which is usually enough time to get through the intersection and makes life easier for both cyclists and drivers.
I just wanted to double-check your comment about "ten seconds" - really that much? As in, timed with a watch, or it "feels like" ten seconds?
I'm only asking because ten seconds is actually quite a long time at an intersection, and it fascinates me that such a concession to bike safety would be made - and work.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#44People 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.
If applying a steel spike sticking out of the steering wheel resulted in a measurable decrease in deaths from traffic accidents, would you support it?
That's a really good question. I think I should, but I find the concept somewhat disconcerting.
There are a fairly large number of single vehicle accidents so I don't think that it really would lead to a measurable decrease though.
Alternatives: everybody should drive cars with bodies made of hardened but very thin glass (I'd support that one).
Maximum weight of a personal car 750 Kg.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#45Morro Bay, CA, is a small town that replaced a freeway offramp/frontage road 4-way stop intersection with a roundabout. Transit time through the intersection improved because you no-longer had to stop and wait for your turn. It seems like a good model for low to moderate volume intersections. Flow is increased and speed is reduced.
Roundabouts are the New Big Thing here in Sweden, they're building them everywhere. On average it seems to be an improvement, and I have a local anecdote where a very busy intersection was rebuilt and improved vastly (while "everyone" said that it was a bad idea before it was completed).
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#46I 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…
Strong agreement on this point. Roads like River Drive in Philadelphia and Storrow Drive in Boston have twisty, blind corners and a 35 mph speed limit, but a regular flow of traffic that is at least 20 mph faster than that. It seems that once people become familiar with a road they fly along way faster than is actually safe. They promote their speed to their level of incompetence, if you will.
On the other hand, it makes me consider (but doesn't remotely convince me of) the possibility that all of Boston's rotaries maybe aren't the dumbest road designs possible.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#47I can see this working for traffic circles / roundabouts, as long as people know how to use them, and you have them. They're far simpler to use than a regular intersection. They're exceedingly rare in Wisconsin, for example, especially in any residential area that's more than about 20 years old. The cost of replacing intersections with them (especially as they're often bigger, to handle fire trucks, busses, and whatnot) would be astronomical. In the meantime, I'll take stop signs to nothing at intersections. There are too many rude people in the world, and it only takes one to ruin someone else's life.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#48People 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.
Or a canister of gunpowder?
I don't think we need hollywood car crashes in real life.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is absolutely correct. The cycle lanes in Amsterdam took up relatively little space, had physical dividers, and at busy intersections there would be separate small traffic lights for cyclists - they get the green light about 10 seconds before the cars, which is usually enough time to get through the intersection and makes life easier for both cyclists and drivers.
I just wanted to double-check your comment about "ten seconds" - really that much? As in, timed with a watch, or it "feels like" ten seconds? I'm only asking because ten seconds is actually quite a long time at an intersection, and it fascinates me that such a concession to bike safety would be made - and work.
Feels like. I dithered between 5 and 10, but although it was a decade ago that I lived there I remember thinking that dutch drivers were remarkably patient. Mind you, traffic laws there are such that motorists are almost automatically at fault if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, so they have an incentive to be careful.