Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:31:22 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote in message
:

So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except
direction signs) and lining schemes were removed?

Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by
doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been
treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers
simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

In ,
Velvet typed:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
It's not just about driving too close to the car in front, there's
always the idiot that swerves into your path as an oncoming, or the
one that pulls out right in front from the side junction *despite*
the fact that you saw him look at (or was it *through* you)...

Isn't that to say that otherwise you would have eased off the accelerator
when passing the oncoming car or the mouth of the junction. That's certainly
what my copy of the HMSO's /Driving/ advises as best practice. In that case
you may well have swallowed or more than swallowed the benefit of the ABS in
the additional speed.

A

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:31:22 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote in message
:

So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs
(say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed?

Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by
doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been
treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers
simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged.

Hmm, bit of a weasel answer, that one. I suspect when put on the spot you'd
find reasons for keeping most of the signs - those round white ones with a
red border and black numbers on them in particular ;-)

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Banning things others enjoy is the only pleasure some people get."

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

In ,
Velvet typed:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
It's not just about driving too close to the car in front, there's
always the idiot that swerves into your path as an oncoming, or the
one that pulls out right in front from the side junction *despite*
the fact that you saw him look at (or was it *through* you)...


Isn't that to say that otherwise you would have eased off the accelerator
when passing the oncoming car or the mouth of the junction. That's certainly
what my copy of the HMSO's /Driving/ advises as best practice. In that case
you may well have swallowed or more than swallowed the benefit of the ABS in
the additional speed.

A


Um, no. Round here in the south east (london) if you did that at every
junction or oncoming car you'd be doing a grand 0mph in very short
order, unfortunately.

--


Velvet

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

PeterE wrote:

So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs
(say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed?

Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by
doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been
treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers
simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged.

Hmm, bit of a weasel answer, that one. I suspect when put on the spot
you'd find reasons for keeping most of the signs - those round white
ones with a red border and black numbers on them in particular ;-)

No, a straight answer. Speed limit signs are, of course, not present in the
first place in the places this has been tried, being either restricted roads
or NSL.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message


Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by
doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been
treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers
simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged.

DfT research would appear to suggest otherwise.

A number of test villages covering 30, 40, 50 and 60 limits. A variety of
signage and paint changes. Every one resulted in lower mean and 85th
percentile speeds.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504760-02.hcsp

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

"PeterE" wrote in message
...

So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except
direction signs) and lining schemes were removed?

and height restrictions, width restrictions, weight restrictions,
parking restrictions, level crossing warnings and lights....

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

In message , "Just zis Guy, you know?"
writes
It is a commonly held view, and it is responsible for risk
compensation behaviour which means that overall what advantage there is
is consumed as a performance benefit. As ever.
This is like saying "replace the airbag with a six inch steel spike."
the driver will be much more careful, though I not sure any safer.
--
Clive

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:31:47 +0100, Clive
wrote (more or less):

In message , "Just zis Guy, you know?"
writes
It is a commonly held view, and it is responsible for risk
compensation behaviour which means that overall what advantage there is
is consumed as a performance benefit. As ever.
This is like saying "replace the airbag with a six inch steel spike."
the driver will be much more careful, though I not sure any safer.

Depend swhat you mean by 'safer'.

'Less likely to be involved in a fatality' is different from 'less
likely to die him/herself'
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Clive wrote:

It is a commonly held view, and it is responsible for risk
compensation behaviour which means that overall what advantage there
is is consumed as a performance benefit. As ever.

This is like saying "replace the airbag with a six inch steel spike."
the driver will be much more careful, though I not sure any safer.

It's more like telling someone a helmet will Save Their Life [tm]

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk