|
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 14:27:07 +0100, Graeme wrote
(in message ): And on a related subject http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/index_new.shtml Bloody excellent! Now if only I can sort out timed recordings so I don't have to get up at 2am! Or go and buy it from the BBC shop ! Simon |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
|
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:38:58 +0100, Grant Mason wrote
(in message ): There is a difference here. The study you quote is specifically about traffic calming - a mix of reducing speed limits, reducing road widths, signage, road markings etc. I would expect, in general, that if you lower the speed limit AND give the appearance that it may be enforced then speeds are likely to drop. Indeed. But a number of the villages (including the one I live in) in the study had no reduction in speed limit - only changes to signage. And average speeds did drop, contrary to the original assertion. I don't think anyone asserted that traffic calming won't reduce speeds - the discussion was over something totally different. Basically, if there were no bend hazzard warning signs at all, would drivers tend to drive slower in general on the basis that they have to concentrate on the road and be prepared for bends, rather than stick their foot down, rely on signs to announce bends, and complain if they get caught out on an unsigned bend ? It's notable that only 3 (ie one third) of the test sites did NOT have a speed limit reduction. All had some form of speed camera, and the signage to go with it. I would suggest that lowering a speed limit and putting a speed camera somewhere is likely to reduce speeds - but not neccessarily increase safety overall. One of the key things here is that many of the markings are not there as 'signs' in the 'here is a piece of information for you to read' sense. It seems that the main message from the report is that the most effective measures were those that either physically or visually made the road smaller (dragons teeth, painted out areas, hatched areas, chicanes, and refuges), together with surface features that break the smooth black strip (especially the rumble strips). IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate - eg (in simplistic terms) if a road is wide and straight then it's fast, but if it's narrow and windy it is much slower. Removing ALL road markings is a variation on this - remove road markings and it's not clear how much road is 'yours', whether there are any tight bends, etc. What concerns me though, is this ... If EVERY place has all the features used in this study, do you not think that drivers will simply become immune to them and speeds go up again ? And what does it do to nearby places that DON'T have these measures - relatively speaking, they are now 'visually safer' roads and speeds might actually increase there. Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? As an analogy, if you hear a siren from an emergency vehicle, it grabs your attention. If you heard it very frequently (like every few minutes) then you'd more or less ignore it. Modern signage is like that, it's no longer informative to see a sign because they are too commonplace ! Simon |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Simon Hobson wrote:
IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate snip Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? That's because many of the limits are arbitrary, and in particular are generally not lowered at specific hazards. In France, however, if a bend on a 90kph road requires 50kph, that's the limit that is imposed, often with an intermediate limit to give a smooth reduction in speed. With intelligent limits like that, I find I am much more inclined to obey them than the blanket UK ones. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
In ,
Richard J. typed: Simon Hobson wrote: IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate snip Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? That's because many of the limits are arbitrary, and in particular are generally not lowered at specific hazards. In France, however, if a bend on a 90kph road requires 50kph, that's the limit that is imposed, often with an intermediate limit to give a smooth reduction in speed. With intelligent limits like that, I find I am much more inclined to obey them than the blanket UK ones. Let me get this straight: you prefer to obey the speed limit in France because it's lower in some places. Right. Why not just slow down when your judgement tells you to on the British roads? A |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
In , Richard J. typed: Simon Hobson wrote: IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate snip Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? That's because many of the limits are arbitrary, and in particular are generally not lowered at specific hazards. In France, however, if a bend on a 90kph road requires 50kph, that's the limit that is imposed, often with an intermediate limit to give a smooth reduction in speed. With intelligent limits like that, I find I am much more inclined to obey them than the blanket UK ones. Let me get this straight: you prefer to obey the speed limit in France because it's lower in some places. No, because it's set more intelligently in France than in the UK. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:13:29 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: That's because many of the limits are arbitrary, and in particular are generally not lowered at specific hazards. In France, however, if a bend on a 90kph road requires 50kph, that's the limit that is imposed, often with an intermediate limit to give a smooth reduction in speed. With intelligent limits like that, I find I am much more inclined to obey them than the blanket UK ones. This is even done on motorway exit sliproads, where the limit is reduced progressively in several steps from the motorway one to that of the road you are joining. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To e-mail use neil at the above domain |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
In ,
Richard J. typed: Ambrose Nankivell wrote: In , Richard J. typed: Simon Hobson wrote: IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate snip Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? That's because many of the limits are arbitrary, and in particular are generally not lowered at specific hazards. In France, however, if a bend on a 90kph road requires 50kph, that's the limit that is imposed, often with an intermediate limit to give a smooth reduction in speed. With intelligent limits like that, I find I am much more inclined to obey them than the blanket UK ones. Let me get this straight: you prefer to obey the speed limit in France because it's lower in some places. No, because it's set more intelligently in France than in the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the maximum permitted speeds in France are broadly comparable to those in the UK, with the difference that, in France, they put extra speed limitations in the bits of the road that require you to go more slowly, whereas in the UK, they leave it to the discretion of the driver. So in the UK, where the law relies on your discretion, you ignore it in a fit of pique instead of merely driving more slowly than the limit. I can't see the logic in that. Unless you're just flinging mud at the enforcement of speed limits in the UK, so as to discredit them. If you want to discredit speed limits, then give examples of where they're set too low or too high, rather than criticising signing policy. Ambrose |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
"taywood" wrote in message ...
Marc Brett wrote: Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong But is there a proven alternative to speed bumps, round or flat tops, and the raised platforms our Council are fitting at each minor road junction? Yes. Cobbled Streets. Durable and encouraging of slower driving. Oh and I kinda like that Yankee idea of 4-way stops! |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk