Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:




By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of
drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever
again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out
and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will
be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into
giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of
action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result.


I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a
reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes?



Oops, mis-post on the one before :-)

I'd hazard a guess that it's because of unfamiliarity. How long was it
left in place for, and to what extent were signs and markings removed?

--


Velvet

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 22/6/04 1:19 pm, in article
, "Velvet"
wrote:




By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of
drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever
again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out
and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will
be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers into
giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other sort of
action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result.

I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a
reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes?


I'd hazard a guess that it's because of unfamiliarity. How long was it
left in place for, and to what extent were signs and markings removed?

I'd hazard a different guess.

As these areas tend to be residential, the concept is then that rather than
having 'my space' and 'your space' where it is your fault for encroaching my
space, the concept is 'our space' and all may be using it.

Whatever it is, it works.


...d

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Velvet wrote:

By removing all signage and lines, I'm sure there would be a lot of
drivers who would feel too confused and intimidated to drive ever
again. This could be good, but consider that those who stick it out
and succeed in driving successfully in that sort of environment will
be those who already have a tendancy to intimidate other drivers
into giving way to them, letting them pass, and taking any other
sort of action to avoid an accident that would otherwise result.

I wonder why, then, when this has been tried, the result has been a
reduction in speeds and a substantial reduction in crashes?

I'd hazard a guess that it's because of unfamiliarity. How long was
it left in place for, and to what extent were signs and markings
removed?

Unfamiliarity and the fact that greater concentration is necessary. Nor is
that a new thing - JS Dean commented on in in 1946! The signs and markings
were expunged pretty much completely, as I recall; certainly centrelines and
give way markings, and in some cases they've tried removing traffic lights
as well.

Years ago a set of lights was demolishedby a truck in St Albans (King Harry
if anyone knows it). The lead time on a new controller was months, so the
council sent a man with a pot of paint and they made it a double mini
roundabout. Traffic flow improved immediately, and the lights were never
reinstated.

--
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
 

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:16:12 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
(Chris Malcolm) wrote this:-

Velvet writes:

Builders shouldn't wear hard hats, cos, obviously, they'll take less
care than if they do.

It is correct that they take less care.

That'll save lots of lives, oh yes.

However, that does not necessarily follow. Risk compensation is a
subtle thing.

The secret to a successful safety measure, given risk compensation, is
that it should be better than it seems to be.

Agreed.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Actually the grip on my current car is so good that I haven't managed
to trigger the ABS yet, even when I've tried.

Wet grass?

According to Pete that makes you drive slower, though...

--
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
 

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:18:50 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less):

Gawnsoft wrote:

In other words, yes and no, but for practical purposes no, unless
the wheels would be locking up. Which they generally don't.

You don't drive in the wet much, do you Guy?

I don't drive much at all these days. And I don't generally drive close
enough to the car in front that I need to brake sharply in the wet or in the
dry.
....

True, but saying wheels "generally don't" lock up is all very well.
But in those circumstances, ABS wouldn't be used in any event.

I thought we were discussing use of ABS?

Which, generally, only get used under emergency braking conditions.


--
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
 

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:55:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less):

Velvet wrote:

You very carefully say 'its not there to
stop you quicker', I say in a given circumstance it will. We aren't
talking about the same thing, and I know it, and I think you know it
too.

Possibly. I guess it's like the difference between "my helmet saved my
life" and "helmets save lives".

I dislike generalisations, and the 'ABS wont make you stop faster' is
just such a generalisation. It's become abundantly clear you're only
interested in the generalisation though.

I am indeed. The generalisation is what people will be thinking about as
they consume the safety benefit of ABS as a performance benefit. "I can
stop quicker thanks to ABS" therefore "I don't need to leave as much space".
....
Like the two old women exchanging words across the Shambles, we are arguing
from different premises.
....

But Velvet's generalisation is more generaly true that your
generalisation, Guy.

You say Guy 'ABS is not there to shorten braking distances'. In fact
it does.

/Generally/ by a lot for unskilled brakers who will lock up the tyres.
(This was its original selling point. Unlocked wheels stop faster than
locked wheels).

/Generally/ by a bit for highly skilled brakers who can keep their
wheels from locking up, but only by using the lowest common
non-locking braking force on all four wheels

It also will /generally/ extend braking distances on loose surfaces
where locked wheels may create wedges in front of the themselves.

Your main objection seems to be that if folk think of ABS as a way of
braking faster, they'll consume this as a performance benefit.

This is likely true.

But saying ABS does not provide braking distance benefits (in general)
is untrue, even if I agree with you that we should be trying to stop
drivers consuming all safety benefits in the form of increased
performance.


--
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
 

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:39:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote (more or less):

Velvet 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)...

Oh really, I didn't know that, only having had a driving licence for 20
years...

Different premises. What ABS is designed to do is prevent the wheels
locking, allowing you to maintain control when braking. As an aside it also
helps to ensure that hammering the brakes doesn't end up in a skid.
....

Original this was in reverse order.

ABS was to prevent skidding. It also allowed you to steer throughout
an emergency brake.


--
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
 

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:39:18 +0100, Gawnsoft
wrote in message
:

But Velvet's generalisation is more generaly true that your
generalisation, Guy.

You say Guy 'ABS is not there to shorten braking distances'. In fact
it does.

Actually we are both right. That's not what it's for, but as a side
effect it can.

Your main objection seems to be that if folk think of ABS as a way of
braking faster, they'll consume this as a performance benefit.

They do indeed. It's like telling people a helmet will save their
life. It could conceivably happen, but that's not what it's designed
for and you shouldn't rely on it.

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
 

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Unfamiliarity and the fact that greater concentration is necessary.
Nor is that a new thing - JS Dean commented on in in 1946! The signs
and markings were expunged pretty much completely, as I recall;
certainly centrelines and give way markings, and in some cases
they've tried removing traffic lights as well.

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

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