Traffic calming by confusion in Europe
From Cyburbian Joe Iliff: Bohmte, Germany is the latest of several European cities to remove traffic signs, signals, and even road striping in an effort to calm vehicluar traffic in town:
A Green Light for Common Sense: To Slow Drivers, German Town Drops Traffic Signals and Lane Markers
"The assumption is that drivers are accustomed to owning the road and rarely pay attention to speed limits or caution signs anyway. Removing traffic lights and erasing lane markers, the thinking goes, will cause drivers to get nervous and slow down. "Generally speaking, what we want is for people to be confused," said Willi Ladner, a deputy mayor in Bohmte. "When they're confused, they'll be more alert and drive more carefully."
What do we think of this? Will it work?
A video clip actually exists of a roundabout in Europe with no signage or lights. Some news person interviewed either the Mayor or Town Engineer (I forget) but the interviewee challenged the newsperson to walk into the intersection backwards, The cars yeilded! Quite interesting.
Didn't uniform signage and pavement marking emerge because of concerns about road safety in the 1930s and 1940s?
Pavement was mostly unmarked before the 1950s. Marking was intended to make streets safer.
Today, removing pavement marking supposedly makes streets safer. Were the unmarked and poorly signed roads of the 1930s and 1940s actually safer than those of later decades? Personally, I have my doubts.
I do think a lot of regulatory and warning signage is redundant, though. When I see three or four "RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT" signs while approaching an intersection, I think "OKAY! I GET IT ALREADY!"
Well, as they said, Dan, by being different from what people expect, they are creating confusion, anticipating cars to move slower under confusing circumstances. Maybe the idea behind signs and lane markings 60 years ago was the same: Put up a bunch of signs people aren't expecting and they'll slow down to read them and obey. Now because that's the norm, we have to change it back to freeform to confuse them again. I drive slower in unfamiliar circumstances, when I'm not sure which lane does what, or who has the right of way.
Or, maybe all that was about the efficient movements of massive amounts of cars, not necessarily wanting cars and other people or modes to share the same public space safely. In an area where you want safe, but inefficient, movement of vehicles, maybe chaos works.
I agree with Dan that the current idea may be underestimating the possible chaos.
Can the town get sued if it decides to do away with all its traffic control devices and someone dies at an intersection? What about other liability issues? In normal accidents can you judge "fault" in a similar way without traffic controls?
Our last thread on this had a link to a recent book on the subject. I'm still skeptical :-|
Perhaps it can work up to a certain density (as most things civilization-based). I found it interesting to find so many more traffic control devices in India (Hyderabad) on my most recent trip in 2006, as compared to 2002. If you haven't driven in an uncontrolled environment, it is quite a trip. Tremendously exciting to see it work. But in 2006 signals were much more common and actually enforced, lots of center medians to prevent wrong-way driving, etc. As a visitor it made it much less fun to be driven places, less excitement and more out and out traffic jams. But the traffic pressure in general was much heavier in 2006, with many more cars (40 added per day, or was it 100?), bicycles changing to scooters and scooters changing to motorcycles, many fewer cycle rickshaws or animal-powered carts.
There may be a sweet spot buried in there somewhere, but you can't hope to stay there unless you restricted growth and mobility everywhere.
A Green Light for Common Sense: To Slow Drivers, German Town Drops Traffic Signals and Lane Markers
What do we think of this? Will it work?
Two reasons to make the removal practice staple policy.
The first is aesthetic. Why is San Francisco burying all the public utilities? Yes, public safety is a consideration. The neighborhoods then argue on behalf their own, not very dense, places because things just look a whole lot nicer. The examples are coming in a torrent that I am going to cut off, but consider just how much of planning administration is bent on making things look nicer. Presumably the feel of that carries on to the human spirit.
The second is environmental. Just how much gasoline is wasted by traffic calming devices? Anyone ever seen a study? Pittsburgh, PA went to an awful lot of trouble to undermine Jimmy Carter's conservation efforts by installing "No Right Turn on Red" signs at nearly every intersection in the city.
Meanwhile, the San Francisco papers are talking about limousine drivers reporting their license plates stolen in to cover up their suspended driver's licenses. Those who have gone astray, Paris Hilton and other friends of mine, fear their probation officer more than any other living being because of the certainty of enforcement. Anybody got web cams that are clear enough to pass legal muster?
It's going to be a brave new world and maybe more enjoyable because of the absence of ineffective visual clutter.
Can the town get sued if it decides to do away with all its traffic control devices and someone dies at an intersection? What about other liability issues? In normal accidents can you judge "fault" in a similar way without traffic controls?
When they have done this in Holland and other European countries (France is moving towards this in town centres), they enforce a strict road user heirarchy. Everything gives way to Trams, then Pedestrians, then Cyclists and finally Motor vehicles. In Denmark if you run over a cyclist you are pretty much assumedat fault i think.
Well.....
Agree with Random Traffic Guy, there is places in urbanized areas where this will work, such as subdivisions and residential areas. This would likely not work along arterial routes.
That being said, is one drunk driver blowing a stop sign killing a family worth it versus the typical numerous fender-benders as seen at many intersections? Personally, I would take 100 fender-benders over a fatality due to lack of traffic control. This would take years of a learning curve for most drivers here in the states. I think it may promote a race to the intersection mentality, because whoever gets there first has the Right of Way, correct? Additionally, if this ever came to the states, there should be uniform application (handed down by the DOT's or FHWA even) of what types of intersections can have traffic control removed, so that people from other cities could have SOME familiarity with it.
That being said, is one drunk driver blowing a stop sign killing a family worth it versus the typical numerous fender-benders as seen at many intersections?
There would be no stop sign to blow through. The family would need to slow and look down either approach, instead of flying through the intersection without stopping assuming they had the right-of-way.
It already has come to the states. Try driving in Boston sometime, especially downtown. The colonial streets have few, if any lane markings and signals and traffic controls act as more of a suggestion than a rule. When we moved to NC, it was hard getting used to how strict everyone is in regard to legal right-of-way and how timid most drivers and pedestrians are. Because of this rigidity and timidity, the roadway network functions much less efficiently.
I'm all for any kind of relief from all that visual clutter.
This isn't all that new a concept. In the book "Sustainable Communities" which came out about 17 years ago, there is a chapter on a residential development in France "Les Vignes Blanches" where traffic routes and parking is very unstructured and unmarked. The paved areas are very free-form, but there is some protection from errant vehicles with small bollards.
Sustainable Communities and Shaping Neighborhoods, both by Hugh Barton (et al.), pretty much represent the current paradigm in the UK, although really just repackage what mainland Europe has been doing since the end of WW2.
It hasn’t necessarily been implemented as is, but that’s not practical, especially in the UK where building densities are often lower, but is held up as the ideal. Most of the new urban extensions consider these principles. It’s a win win as it allows for much higher development footprints and developers have cottoned onto the fact that it makes developments both more marketable and allows for higher building densities and more units. For example large distributor roads can become ´streets´ minimising dead space at the side of roads. Its different in smaller towns and country towns but as another example Taunton, the archetypal English county town has an ambitious masterplan for regeneration of old industrial and railway land in the won centre. (Google).
Its not a cheap way of building so works best in town centres where land values are higher. Of course we are still building a lot of traditional family homes in the suburban style, but then English speaking countries tend to…
In Britain there is a move for "home zone" streets which have limited markings and shared surfaces. This seems to work well in medium density housing estates - the safety of a cul de sac but with connectivity...
There is one significant 'shared surface' road right through our town centre and it works wonderfully - drivers have to go slow and the peds/bikes are definitely dominant.
But no, you wouldn't want to do it on a major through road.
I was recently in Poundbury (aka Prince Charles' Toy Town) where there are no road markings. None. It was very unsettling and disorienting as a driver. It was impossible to tell where parking was allowed. There is no way one would have moved faster than dead crawl. But in showing us around the town, the fellow from the town management noted there had not been a single traffic accident in the town's history (OK - that's only less than 10 years, but still...).
I don't see, especially based on your observations above ^, why you need to denigrate Poundbury as "Pince Charles' Toy Town". Do you prefer Ted Heat's blasted wastelands of council housing?:-(
Sorry Luca - I did not mean disrespect. It's just a phrase that had stuck with me. I thought for some Americans the name wouldn't be instantly recognisable, but that they would know it in the context of the New Urbanism debate and HRHs name is associated with the town...
I like Poundbury and find it fascinating and instructive for any planner - but that's another topic...
A google of "home zone" or shared space on google.co.uk will point to several other traffic calming examples. I was just commenting on my personal experience....
Cheers All
Would have to agree with Mary a little, it smacks of upper class toffism. “Lets make the proles a lovely little town town with lovely little houses, whilst I live in my several castles and stately homes”...
Although that said, overall I really like the Poundbury approach, tends to be the view of most planners i've spoken to about it, they're not overly enamoured with the ethos behind it, but the practicalities, well it works, its attractive and its good example of good design which respects traditional layouts and architecture. Of course you can't get a bus through it and theres no real link into Dorchester town centre, but details details...
Does it? The alternative for the “proles” is that they live in brutalist or tacky-low-rise council housing. It’s not like anyone’s going to build a castle for the “proles”. BTW, it thought Poundbury was solidly curtain-twitching middle-class.
Also, does that comment mean that any developer/planner that lives in a mansion or castle is to be criticized?
Could that be because of their own ideological slants/general distaste for “HRH”. I would bet my entire estate that if Poundbury had been built out of concrete , steel, glass and horizontal wood planks in some fashionable modernist way (but with the same urbanism), the starchitectural commentators/whores would be falling all over themselves to gush lavish praise upon it.
In the sense that the streets are too narrow?
I don’t suppose the Poundbury people would have been able to modify / are responsible for the entire layout of Dorchester…
I should know not to write off the cuff comments with you around =p
The point is that HRH does like to talk a lot about architecture, and whilst most of what he says is good sense, in terms of better built and planned communities, HRH does seem to have a problem with modern architecture, especially 'landmark led' regeneration of docksides and city centres (national gallery et al.).
The Duchy of Cornwall owns over 10% of the entire SouthWest region, and yes, i think there is an issue with someone using their influence and wealth to promote their own views on a subject whilst there is such an apparent contrast between there own lifestyle and the lifestyle they seek to encourage for others; neo-traditionalism, a return to an idealised past of the village or country town, which does contrast with the fact that HRH owns a large portfolio of very large properties and masses of agricultural land in the region.
I'm not sure about the demographic make up of Poundbury, i suspect your right. IMD says the following, higher being worse.
Poundbury SOA's:
010E - 8.65
009A - 15.12
Dorchester SOA's:
009C - 11.21
009E - 17.45
010F - 2.15
010B - 9.43
Sure. But there will certainly be learni....er...unlearning curve. ;) :-D