Who Needs Streets Signs Or Lanes -- Part II
from the making-things-better-by-making-them-worse dept
Earlier this year, we talked about an article in Salon.com about how a new theory on traffic engineering was gaining more adherents, suggesting that by removing almost all street signs and lane markings, it would actually make traffic flow much better and safer. The concept is, as you might imagine, controversial. The basic idea is that by making things worse, you make them better by making people much more careful. If there are no street signs or lane markers, and the road is shared with pedestrians and bicyclists, drivers have to be much more careful. They drive slower, they make eye contact, and they pay more attention. The end result, though, is that typical causes of congestion are removed and people actually reach their destinations faster -- and the roads are more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists. It appears that Wired Magazine has basically written a nearly identical article on this concept of psychological traffic calming, with a few more examples of places where it appears to be working. As mentioned last time, the whole concept reminds me of driving in Manhattan, where street signs really don't matter and lanes don't exist (even if there are some painted on the pavement). However, driving in Manhattan, while it requires more attention, always feels somewhat safer than driving elsewhere. Of course, you could take this to the opposite extreme. If making it seem more dangerous makes people drive better, why not remove seatbelts and airbags and replace the big steering column with a pointed stick facing the driver? That, certainly, would be more incentive to drive carefully, right? The trick is creating the right balance between efficiency and safety, where drivers are encouraged to drive safely -- but that the throughput of the overall system is maximized.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes, this already works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, this already works
I can attest first hand from all the countries places I’ve driven in, that the absence of street signs and lane markings may change the driving experience but in no way will make it safer.
It is true that drivers get lazy when most people follow the rules; in which case if you accidentally run a red light the other car will not be expecting it at all and an accidents much more likely. The way I’ve seen it is in the absence of markings/rules there are more accidents at lower speeds, while in places where the vast majority follow marking/rules(and are expected to), then there are fewer but at higher velocities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
How about the cops actually give a ticket for failure to signal a lane change? Novel concept. Where I live, pretty much anything goes unless you're speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No signs = safer?
In general, this whole idea strikes me as similar in a way to anarchy: as a political philosophy it might look pretty good on paper, but it's likely to have some hellacious consequences if it's ever put into wide practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No signs = safer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No signs = safer?
accidents are caused by "people" regardless of the environment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was in Egypt a few years ago ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]