Rupert Goodwins wrote:

Very interesting article on Wired
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...w=wn_tophead_7
reporting on experiments in removing road signs, traffic lights,
marking, even the edge beween the pavement and the road. If the
results mentioned are true, it seems the best way to cut down on
accidents and increase mobility is to remove anything that tells you
what to do and instead force drivers, cyclists and pedestrians to use
their eyes.

This has been discussed on usenet (misc.transport.urban-transit, I
think) a few years ago. I suspect it generally works better in medium to
low traffic situations, in the same way that roundabouts can be better
than traffic lights (where you've got space) if the road is not too
busy. But if traffic levels are too low, motorists won't realise there's
a problem and accidents will be more likely. 'Tis no use forcing them to
use their eyes if they don't know they're being forced to use their
eyes!

How this would compare with traffic lights and signs depends on whether
everyone's willing to obey the traffic lights and signs - as long as
everyone is, I'd stick with them.

Undefined edges are a different matter - it depends on your objective. A
lack of hard edges slows motorists down, but often makes pedestrians
feel less safe.