Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
wilsonquarterly.com
Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#2So local traffic knows local roads?
Signs and indicators are for people who are not from the area.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#3Good article, but lacks some pictures.
Drachten:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=opera&q=Drachten&...
Makkinga:
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#4So local traffic knows local roads? Signs and indicators are for people who are not from the area.
It's a long article and I didn't read all of it, but the changes they made seem more fundamental than that:
A year after the change, the results of this “extreme makeover” were striking: Not only had congestion decreased in the intersection—buses spent less time waiting to get through, for example—but there were half as many accidents, even though total car traffic was up by a third. Students from a local engineering college who studied the intersection reported that both drivers and, unusually, cyclists were using signals—of the electronic or hand variety—more often. 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, he said, he “would have changed it immediately.”
That the locals who know the roads perceived the intersection as more dangerous indicates to me there's something more than "people familiar with roads don't need signs."
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#5I 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, he said, he “would have changed it immediately.”
It is possible that once people get used to it, they'll feel more secure -> less alert -> things'll go back to normal.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#6I 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 30% (America is about 2%). It got there by having world-class segregated cycling facilities, not shared space.
David Hembrow on shared space: http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/11/shared-space.html
If you have the time check out John Pucher's "Cycling for Everyone: Lessons for Vancouver from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany": http://www.sfu.ca/city/city_pgm_video020.htm
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#7So local traffic knows local roads? Signs and indicators are for people who are not from the area.
So, you mean that the locals can ignore traffic signs because they know the place? Like in "oh, yes, there's a speed limit, but it's useless, see, the street is safe enough, screw that". That could be actual quote, I've heard it so many times. And I guess it's much better to remove such sign and make the street actually look like it's not safe so you have to pay attention.
And of course, routine and automatization are a grave danger for any driver. Especially at the roads where the conditions are constantly changing. Traffic signs would just provide a false sense of security.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#8Now just do something about auto insurance since everyone doesn't worry about smacking into someone else when they know that their car will be paid for afterward. That will really raise people's alertness.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#9Alex Tabarrok linked to a video of a British town's experiment with this on a roundabout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0meiActlU&feature=playe... . They saw a 75% decrease in waiting time at the intersection.
Re: Removing street signs, lights and arrows increases safety and road capacity
#10I 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…
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 and hitting the normal road. I think it is safer to just stay on the road all the time, rather than cycle in and out.
The parking on the cycling lane is actually illegal, but people don't care. Sometimes I consider just calling the police for every car that parks there, but I suspect they wouldn't really bother.