Driving the argument home
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News
A campaign is under way to lower speed limits to 20mph in urban areas, but what's going to make drivers slow down? A bossy road sign, a hump in the road or a three-piece suite parked in the road?
There's no reason that traffic calming should be boring or without a sense of humour, says children's author and traffic campaigner, Ted Dewan.
And using his Oxford residential street as a test laboratory, Mr Dewan has been working on more creative ways to reduce traffic speed.
"People are too used to being scolded by warning signs telling them about lethal speed and driving. It's like 'tell me something new'. But they're not used to having their wit engaged," he says.
So in a spirit that combines a sense of entertainment with a serious intent, he has come up with the idea of "folk traffic calming".
This is where art installations meet road safety, a kind of sleeping policeman that's been influenced by Damien Hirst.
'We live here'
These type of "DIY traffic-calming happenings" are described by their creator as "roadwitches" and have included an 11-feet high rabbit, a big bed (for a sleeping policeman), a Casualty-style fake crash scene for Halloween and the setting up of a living room in the middle of the road.
"There's an element of fun and mischief, but underneath is the ambition to encourage people to re-examine how roads are used," says Mr Dewan.
"With the living room, it was the most direct way of saying 'We live here. This is our living space.'"
And he says that residents really enjoyed the strangeness of being able to relax outside in their own street, rather than feel it was a place only belonging to the cars that race up and down it.
Residents had forgotten what it was like to have a street without the usual high-volume and low-courtesy of passing traffic.
Initially the street was legally closed, to allow the setting up of this outdoor living room, including such middle-England touches as a standard lamp.
It was then re-arranged to allow traffic to pass through, but Mr Dewan says the reactions of motorists showed how motorists expect nothing to stand in their way.
'Psychotic'
"A driver of a 4x4 didn't so much disapprove - he was too crazed and violent for that. He seemed to be made psychotic by the idea that roads could exist for anything other than him to drive on," he says.
This motorist deliberately drove into pieces of the living room furniture and then called the council to demand that they shift whatever was left lying in the road.
There were gender differences too, says Mr Dewan. Male drivers didn't seem to like the idea of driving across the carpet. But female drivers were less sympathetic and more aggressive, with a stronger "get out of my way attitude".
It's this sense of entitlement that he says he wants to challenge - leaving a 4x4 blocking half the street is called parking but a couple of chairs and a magazine rack put in the same place is seen as a senseless provocation.
"My daughter isn't allowed to throw snowballs at school, because it's considered too dangerous. But it's meant to be acceptable that she can walk home only inches away from cars driving at lethal speeds. There is something weird about this, a deep cultural bias."
'Selfish'
As the owner of two cars, Mr Dewan says he's far from being anti-motorist, but he wants "mutual respect" between drivers and pedestrians and to stop the "deluded, selfish" way that traffic has come to dominate urban spaces.
Mr Dewan has plans to extend the roadwitch concept, sending the message that there are "creative, non-confrontational" ways that residents can control what's going on in their own roads - and to assert that roads do not only belong to drivers.
And Tuesday also marks a national day of campaigning by Transport 2000 to support a lower speed limit for residential areas. The "20's Plenty" campaign says a 20mph limit on residential streets would mean a two-thirds reduction in the number of children killed or injured by cars.
Linda Beard, Transport 2000's streets and traffic campaigner, says that "at the moment, we're failing to protect people, especially children, from traffic".
Road mosaic
The use of such lower speed limits in some residential areas is supported by the RAC Foundation, but executive director Edmund King says it has to be part of a balance - with sufficient through-routes to prevent traffic grinding to a halt.
"We support well-planned home zones, but mobility is also important and there have to be streets for movement, where people can go about their business," he says.
Mr King is also sympathetic to more imaginative approaches to traffic calming, and he points to street designs constructed to show drivers that they are entering a residential area.
This might be different coloured road surfaces, or a mosaic embedded in the road showing the street name or a gateway giving the impression that you are about to drive through a place where people are living.
"There needs to be something more creative than just a bump in the road," he says.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/4459056.stm
Published: 2005/11/22 11:28:17 GMT
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Someone posted awhile back about traffic engineers designing roads for better flow, greater safety and slower speeds without traffic signs. Basically, the shape and feel of the road and the visual cues about the safety of the area combine to tell the driver at what speed it's reasonably safe to drive and when it's reasonably safe to enter an area. That's the kind of thing I'd like to see. It seems counterintuitive, but unless you design roads to look less safe, to flow less traffic all at once, to be smaller, and to allow different kinds of traffic to intermingle, roads probably won't get safer. A number on a sign does nothing.
Bruce Rosar
Someone posted awhile back about traffic engineers designing roads for better flow, greater safety and slower speeds without traffic signs.
Here are some quotes from an article about a new (to Europe and North America) engineering approach to urban traffic design that has been called "Designing for negotiation" by some observers.
Note: Even though Hans Monderman is a road designer in Holland, this approach has been implemented in other countries (including some portions of the USA!)
--------------
[...] a favorite intersection he [Monderman] designed. [...] It's the
confluence of two busy two-lane roads that handle 20,000 cars a day,
plus thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians. Several years ago,
Monderman ripped out all the traditional instruments used by traffic
engineers to influence driver behavior - traffic lights, road
markings, and some pedestrian crossings - and in their place created
a roundabout, or traffic circle.
The circle is remarkable for what it doesn't contain: signs or
signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave.
There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk,
so it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the
pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is
utterly ambiguous - and that's the point.
Monderman and I stand in silence by the side of the road a few
minutes, watching the stream of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians
make their way through the circle, a giant concrete mixing bowl of
transport. Somehow it all works. The drivers slow to gauge the
intentions of crossing bicyclists and walkers. Negotiations over
right-of-way are made through fleeting eye contact. Remarkably,
traffic moves smoothly around the circle with hardly a brake
screeching, horn honking, or obscene gesture.
"I love it!" Monderman says at last. "Pedestrians and cyclists used
to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the
cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone
looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street
markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it
into the design of the road."
It's no surprise that the Dutch, a people renowned for social
experimentation in practically every facet of life, have embraced new
ideas in traffic management. But variations of Monderman's
less-is-more approach to traffic engineering are spreading around the
globe, showing up in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain,
Sweden, the UK, and the US.
[...]
In the US, traffic engineers are beginning to rethink the dictum that
the car is king and pedestrians are well advised to get the hell off
the road. In West Palm Beach, Florida, planners have redesigned
several major streets, removing traffic signals and turn lanes,
narrowing the roadbed, and bringing people and cars into much closer
contact. The result: slower traffic, fewer accidents, shorter trip
times.
"I think the future of transportation in our cities is slowing
down the roads," says Ian Lockwood, the transportation manager for
West Palm Beach during the project and now a transportation and
design consultant. "When you try to speed things up, the system tends
to fail, and then you're stuck with a design that moves traffic
inefficiently and is hostile to pedestrians and human exchange."
The common thread in the new approach to traffic engineering is a
recognition that the way you build a road affects far more than the
movement of vehicles. It determines how drivers behave on it, whether
pedestrians feel safe to walk alongside it, what kinds of businesses
and housing spring up along it. "A wide road with a lot of signs is
telling a story," Monderman says. "It's saying, go ahead, don't
worry, go as fast as you want, there's no need to pay attention to
your surroundings. And that's a very dangerous message."
[...]
From the beginning, a central premise guiding American road design
was that driving and walking were utterly incompatible modes of
transport, and that the two should be segregated as much as possible.
The planned suburban community of Radburn, New Jersey, founded in
1929 as "a town for the motor age," took the segregation principle to
its logical extreme. Radburn's key design element was the strict
separation of vehicles and people; cars were afforded their own
generously proportioned network, while pedestrians were tucked safely
away in residential "super blocks," which often terminated in quiet
cul de sacs. Parents could let kids walk to the local school without
fearing that they might be mowed down in the street. Radburn quickly
became a template for other communities in the US and Britain, and
many of its underlying assumptions were written directly into traffic
codes.
The psychology of driver behavior was largely unknown. Traffic
engineers viewed vehicle movement the same way a hydraulics engineer
approaches water moving through a pipe - to increase the flow, all
you have to do is make the pipe fatter. Roads became wider and more
"forgiving" - roadside trees were cut down and other landscape
elements removed in an effort to decrease fatalities. Road signs,
rather than road architecture, became the chief way to enforce
behavior. Pedestrians, meanwhile, were kept out of the traffic
network entirely or limited to defined crossing points.
The strict segregation of cars and people turned out to have
unintended consequences on towns and cities. Wide roads sliced
through residential areas, dividing neighborhoods, discouraging
pedestrian activity, and destroying the human scale of the urban
environment.
The old ways of traffic engineering - build it bigger, wider, faster
- aren't going to disappear overnight. But one look at West Palm
Beach suggests an evolution is under way.
[...]
Today some of the most car-oriented areas in the US are rethinking
their approaches to traffic, mainly because they have little choice.
"The old way doesn't work anymore," says Gary Toth, director of
project planning and development for the New Jersey Department of
Transportation.
[...]
Instead of widening congested highways, New Jersey's DOT is urging
neighboring or contiguous towns to connect their secondary streets
and add smaller centers of development, creating a series of linked
minivillages with narrow roads, rather than wide, car-choked highways
strewn with malls.
[...]
--------------
Quoted from an article in Wired Magazine (Issue 12.12 - December 2004)
that had the sensational title Roads Gone Wild (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html)
Roody
Thanks Bruce, I love ya! I have been trying to find some reference to this wild new traffic planning for a long time. I have posted here 2 or 3 times trying to find this information.
One advantage of these roads is that they will be perfect for the gradual transition to all-human powered travel when autos are finally phased out. (A kooky idea of mine.)
I-Like-To-Bike
Even though Hans Monderman is a road designer in Holland, this approach has been implemented in other countries (including some portions of the USA!)
[...] a favorite intersection he [Monderman] designed. [...] It's the
confluence of two busy two-lane roads that handle 20,000 cars a day,
plus thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians. Several years ago,
Monderman ripped out all the traditional instruments used by traffic
engineers to influence driver behavior - traffic lights, road
markings, and some pedestrian crossings - and in their place created
a roundabout, or traffic circle.
Where in the U.S. has Monderman's idea for intersections been implemented? How significant a "portion" in other countries has this new idea been implemented? Anything more than one street for a block or two in the whole country, if that? Surprise me.
jamesdenver
i read somewhere how to make "bake" some fake broken glass out (candy mixture, then break and throw into street)
budster
Where in the U.S. has Monderman's idea for intersections been implemented? How significant a "portion" in other countries has this new idea been implemented? Anything more than one street for a block or two in the whole country, if that? Surprise me.
Charlotte
These are just two places I visit frequently where I routinely encounter traffic circles. Although the linked NJ article mentions that NJ has been eliminating them, I've seen some new circles lately and others "restored" in order to "calm" traffic. It works. It's my impression that traffic circles are being used this way all over the US.
Roody
Where in the U.S. has Monderman's idea for intersections been implemented? How significant a "portion" in other countries has this new idea been implemented? Anything more than one street for a block or two in the whole country, if that? Surprise me.
This is a pretty radical concept, and potentially risky. It seems wise to test it on a small scale before going nation wide.
I think it's exciting. I can't wait to see what happens!
What do you think, ILTB?
budster
i read somewhere how to make "bake" some fake broken glass out (candy mixture, then break and throw into street)
Please don't. It would be worse for cyclists than for motorists.
scarry
Hey, how about we get a large mass of bicycle riders and travel together in the streets at a safe and comfortable pace around the city. That should slow cars down. We'll call it Critical Mass. :D
Some bikes can even tow furniture behind.
http://guest.xinet.com/bike/COUCH!!!!/
http://guest.xinet.com/bike/couch/pics/couch9.jpg
These are just two places I visit frequently where I routinely encounter traffic circles. Although the linked NJ article mentions that NJ has been eliminating them, I've seen some new circles lately and others "restored" in order to "calm" traffic. It works. It's my impression that traffic circles are being used this way all over the US.
Traffic circles are nothing new. As your URL points out NJ has been getting rid of them for years. And having personal experience driving in the traffic circles that used to be on the roads to the NJ shore from Philadelphia - Good F'ing riddance. Find a single dang soul in the country who liked that set up; not a chance. No-darn-body!!
Traffic calming ideas are newer, especially retrofitting on city streets, but again, are nowhere near as radical a proposal as promoted by Rosar and Monderman. What is being proposed (at the confluence of two busy two-lane roads that handle 20,000 cars a day, plus thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians, no less) requires a radical change in current driver/pedestrian expectations and behavior. To wit: Ripping out all the traditional instruments used by traffic engineers to influence driver behavior - signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. Removing lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, deliberately creating intersections that are "utterly ambiguous" so that it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins.
This proposal is based, IMO, on wishful thinking that harmonious, gracious cooperation of all travelers will ensue because it sure would be nice if it did. If only pipe dreams could become reality this plan might work in this millennium.
oscaregg
One answer would be fines high enough to hurt, whether in dollars or pounds. Add two, or even three zeroes to the price of a traffic offense that has potentially life-threatening consequences to beings outside of the car. Doing something potentially homicidal with a car should be fined to the degree of a significant financial hardship.
I-Like-To-Bike
One answer would be fines high enough to hurt, whether in dollars or pounds. Add two, or even three zeroes to the price of a traffic offense that has potentially life-threatening consequences to beings outside of the car. Doing something potentially homicidal with a car should be fined to the degree of a significant financial hardship.
How could anything be considered illegal in a scenario designed for utterly ambiguous conditions? Every action in such a situation has the potential to be fatal, but homicidal intent could never be established, since, anything goes in this traffic circle of the future.
budster
Traffic circles are nothing new. As your URL points out NJ has been getting rid of them for years. And having personal experience driving in the traffic circles that used to be on the roads to the NJ shore from Philadelphia - Good F'ing riddance. Find a single dang soul in the country who liked that set up; not a chance. No-darn-body!!
Well...at least one darn body -- me.
Given the choice between a traffic circle and either a four way stop or a traffic light, I'll take the circle every time. And while it is true that NJ has been "getting rid of them for years," they are also creating new ones and restoring some removed ones. And guess what? Traffic flows smoother with the circles than it does with lights or stop signs. That's been my experience, anyway. Your experience (and opinion) may vary. You may be talking about different circles; the only one I've seen near the Jersey shore is between the GSP and Belmar/Spring Lake and even heavy traffic seems to flow through it smoothly.
banerjek
A campaign is under way to lower speed limits to 20mph in urban areas, but what's going to make drivers slow down? A bossy road sign, a hump in the road or a three-piece suite parked in the road?
Too slow. Cars are already in the way because they take so long to turn, respond to traffic signals, hunt for parking spaces (or pull out of them), etc. 30 mph is better. Even when there are no impediments and traffic is moving, you can draft. It's one of the few times I like big pickups -- you can see right through them and they punch a nice hole in the air.
Sure, you inhale plenty of carbon monoxide, but that's a small price to pay for speed and the exhaust feels warm in the winter :D
DataJunkie
Lower it to 20 in residential areas. I hardly ever go anywhere near 20 in residential areas. Too many kids playing in the street. Heck, lower it to 15.
I-Like-To-Bike
Well...at least one darn body -- me.
Given the choice between a traffic circle and either a four way stop or a traffic light, I'll take the circle every time. And while it is true that NJ has been "getting rid of them for years," they are also creating new ones and restoring some removed ones. And guess what? Traffic flows smoother with the circles than it does with lights or stop signs. That's been my experience, anyway. Your experience (and opinion) may vary. You may be talking about different circles; the only one I've seen near the Jersey shore is between the GSP and Belmar/Spring Lake and even heavy traffic seems to flow through it smoothly.
Fine, you like driving in circles but that isn't the principal feature being promoted. It is the wierd concept of utter ambiguousness and lack of conformity with traffic rules elsewhere. How is anyone supposed to navigate this mess with any assurance that the other users will drive/walk/ride in any predictable manner? Psychic power? Radar? Tarot Cards? Vulcan Mind Tricks?
budster
Fine, you like driving in circles but that isn't the principal feature being promoted. It is the wierd concept of utter ambiguousness and lack of conformity with traffic rules elsewhere. How is anyone supposed to navigate this mess with any assurance that the other users will drive/walk/ride in any predictable manner? Psychic power? Radar? Tarot Cards? Vulcan Mind Tricks?
Yeah. My intuitive reaction is the same. Without any guides, it seems like it would be...odd...at best. But probably it's best to be open-minded about the concept. See if it works there, try it other places, see if it works there... If, as the article suggests, it keeps everyone moving and causes everyone to pay more attention, that would be good, wouldn't it?
I-Like-To-Bike
But probably it's best to be open-minded about the concept. See if it works there, try it other places, see if it works there... If, as the article suggests, it keeps everyone moving and causes everyone to pay more attention, that would be good, wouldn't it?
Yes if it works, that would be good and worth evaluating for use in suitable environments. Proof of its goodness will depend on more than an enthusiastic "reporter" repeating what he has been told by the proponent-designer.
I think the liklihood of success is tiny if implemented anywhere but low traffic environments populated by uniformly intelligent, gracious and polite motorists. If anyone can think of such a place in the U.S. please post where this Magical Kingdom can be found.
sggoodri
It's interesting to me that when avid cyclists promote conformity with the "rules of the road" Stanley (ILTB) likes to call them elitists and calls for more individual judgement and flexibility in traffic negotiation, but when avid cyclists promote road systems that encourage individual judgement and flexibility in traffic negotiation, Stanley shoots this approach down as creating unpredictable chaos. I suspect Stanley is merely shooting the messenger out of prejudice. Perhaps some day Stanley will define what he prefers as a strategy for better cycling transportation, but meanwhile other people are looking for constructive solutions.
The trouble with Monderman's approach is that he can't - or doesn't - adequately explain why it works, and thus he and others cannot defend it against skeptical arguments like Stanley's. Why do some ambiguous situations generate more crashes, and others generate less? This requires serious investigation into issues of human cognition, control, culture, and transportation facility design. Do the locations that succeed with Monderman's approach succeed because they seem more dangerous to drivers than they are? Or do they create more social pressure to reduce speed than do other locations? Is there a threshold approach speed below which eye contact and negotiation between operators works, and above which it is too unreliable? And are the number of roads that the public is willing to limit to such speeds too few to make this strategy applicable to more than a handfull of special locations?
I'm all for low-speed traffic negotiation in special urban or residential locations, but if I want to travel more than a couple of miles by bike or car, I prefer somewhat higher performance roads and the more predictable traffic interactions that go with them.
-Steve
banerjek
I think the liklihood of success is tiny if implemented anywhere but low traffic environments populated by uniformly intelligent, gracious and polite motorists. If anyone can think of such a place in the U.S. please post where this Magical Kingdom can be found.
It's not the Magical Kingdom itself, but it's not too far away. How about Marineland, FL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marineland,_Florida
genec
I'm all for low-speed traffic negotiation in special urban or residential locations, but if I want to travel more than a couple of miles by bike or car, I prefer somewhat higher performance roads and the more predictable traffic interactions that go with them.
-Steve
Don't they call those "somewhat higher performance roads and the more predictable traffic interactions," freeways?
randya
Are 'avid' cyclists the same as 'real' cyclists?
Roody
[. . .]
The trouble with Monderman's approach is that he can't - or doesn't - adequately explain why it works, and thus he and others cannot defend it against skeptical arguments like Stanley's. Why do some ambiguous situations generate more crashes, and others generate less? This requires serious investigation into issues of human cognition, control, culture, and transportation facility design. Do the locations that succeed with Monderman's approach succeed because they seem more dangerous to drivers than they are? Or do they create more social pressure to reduce speed than do other locations? Is there a threshold approach speed below which eye contact and negotiation between operators works, and above which it is too unreliable? And are the number of roads that the public is willing to limit to such speeds too few to make this strategy applicable to more than a handfull of special locations?-Steve
I believe (that connotes a hypothesis, ILTB, not a wild-eyed assertion :)) that one reason Monderman's ambiguous situations slow traffic is that they present users with a novel situation, not necessarily a dangerous one, nor even because of social pressure.
It seems to be a natural cognitive reaction for many animals (including humans) to slow down in novel situations, to sniff the air or test the water, and proceed with caution, so to speak. I would further opine (opinion Stan, not self-proclaimed factoid) that these intersections would work better when they are more ambiguous, not less. I haven't had time to read all the articles I've just found, now that I know what to look for, so maybe my hypotheses have already been tested by Monderman or others.
Roody
Fine, you like driving in circles but that isn't the principal feature being promoted. It is the wierd concept of utter ambiguousness and lack of conformity with traffic rules elsewhere. How is anyone supposed to navigate this mess with any assurance that the other users will drive/walk/ride in any predictable manner? Psychic power? Radar? Tarot Cards? Vulcan Mind Tricks?
I suspect (opinion, not half-baked rant) that it is the "utter ambiguousness" that makes the things work.
An analogy (not a dogmatic diatribe about bike paths): When I'm riding on the bike path, and children, Canada geese and rollerbladers are all or one present, I slow way down. Why? Because I am uncertain how these other "vehicles" (not meant as an elitist putdown) are going to behave, I slow down for their safety and even more for my own safety. If there are cracks in the pavement, trees at the side of the road, or blind curves, I will slow down even more. Why? Because I don't know how these confusing elements in or near the path are going to affect my ability to proceed, so I have to go slow to explore them, more or less. Personally, this is my theory about why Monderman's idea works, if it does work.
Now you can read the small print:
Disclaimer for ILTB: I do not have a degree in, or even much knowledge of traffic engineering. I merely state my opinions freely on this, a public internet forum. Thank you for your support.
spandexwarrior
The ultimate traffic calming device which costs no money- pot holes. Just demand that your city stop wasting tax money to repair them. You could even rally those tax phobic Republicans to support it. After some *#@& face blows out a tire on a pothole, maybe they'll think twice about going 40 in a 25 mph zone. I'm kidding, of course. I don't care for pot holes when I have to bike over them.
webist
If everyone takes individual responsibility for their own behavior in an otherwise unregulated traffic situation, whom would we sue? Fault rules, written by lawyers, prosecuted and defended by lawyers, and when injurious violations ensue, litigated on both sides by lawyers are essential for the well-being and prosperity of lawyers. We aren't going to change that are we? :o
I-Like-To-Bike
It's not the Magical Kingdom itself, but it's not too far away. How about Marineland, FL? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marineland,_Florida
How 'bout Marineland? Has the free-for-all method of handling traffic at intersections been implemented there?
chipcom
Are 'avid' cyclists the same as 'real' cyclists?
How about a 'serious' cyclist? Who's minding the glossary?
huhenio
How about seriously pompous cyclists?
John E
In the interest of safety, I want to see the speed limits on some of local the prime arterials lowered by 5 to 10mph or 10 to 15kph. I don't think we need to lower residential speed limits from 25mph/40kph to 20mph/32kph.
We will soon have our first traffic circle in Encinitas. I'll report back after I have biked it, jogged it, and driven it.
I-Like-To-Bike
I suspect Stanley is merely shooting the messenger out of prejudice. Perhaps some day Stanley will define what he prefers as a strategy for better cycling transportation, but meanwhile other people are looking for constructive solutions.
The irony is that the so-called constructive Monderman solution is just another manifesto/call for action with little to no credible evidence of producing any positive results, anywhere; and Steve agrees with my observation on the subject. There is no strategy proposed here for better cycling transportation, just a wacky unproven, untested theory that defies common sense.
What's the problem, Steve? Not your usual polite self, but cutesy poo like a handful of your mouthy comrades. Bent out of shape because your humantransport.com treatise on the science :rolleyes: of vehicular cycling has been outed today on the BF as just another self confessed manifesto from an acolyte of John Forester? Granted it IS less offensive than the master's rants, but a quite UNSCIENTIFIC manifesto, none the less. And did you really write it all by yourself? It sure smacks of Rosarisms in the use of legal artifices.
Roody
Steve please realize that NOBODY else agrees with the post. Your contributions to cycling and this forum are widely recognized. Sorry man.
I-Like-To-Bike
Steve please realize that NOBODY else agrees with the post. Your contributions to cycling and this forum are widely recognized. Sorry man.
Yeah man. Roody must be the new spokesman for the weVCer gang, or have his duties been expanded to speak for everybody; or at least to speak for the REAL members of this forum?
Steve has often contributed with intelligent posts, that is why his personal rant, apparantly written out of some quirky fit of pique was surprising. However praise from someone who is wowed by the cycling wisdom of HH is worth whatever you think it is worth.
sggoodri
Don't they call those "somewhat higher performance roads and the more predictable traffic interactions," freeways?
Only on the extreme end; as a cyclist I am talking about are *somewhat* higher performance roads such at nice 2-lane wide-lane collector roads that carry average free-flow motor traffic speeds of around 35 mph. These speeds are too high for the anything-goes eye-contact negotiation thing to work; right of way rules and traffic control are key. Yet these roads are excellent for cycling. And I dare say, there are lots of well-designed 45 mph arterial roads that are also excellent for cycling significant distances. Monderman's approach is irrelevant to these locations.
sggoodri
The irony is that the so-called constructive Monderman solution is just another manifesto/call for action with little to no credible evidence of producing any positive results, anywhere; and Steve agrees with my observation on the subject. There is no strategy proposed here for better cycling transportation, just a wacky unproven, untested theory that defies common sense.
The difference between Stanley/ILTB and myself is that I seek to model the causality behind observed phenomena and make useful policy recommendations based on such models, while Stanley never attempts to provide useful explanations or policy recommendations.
Monderman should be credited with discovering, or at least drawing attention to, something important in the field of traffic engineering. The fact is that in many situations his approach works very well. THere is solid evidence that at some locations the negotiation-oriented traffic un-control approach works best. The challenge is to understand why, so that success can be replicated, without making mistakes due to misunderstanding of the mechanisms involved. Monderman's failure is only that he is unable to adequately explain his discovery. My own (inadequate) explanation is that drivers approaching Monderman's intersections can immediately tell from the traffic pattern and geometry that they need to be very careful, and so they slow down enough so that they can negotiate with other people in a more personal, individual level and stop in time if something unexpected happens.
This is very different from the vehicular cycling theory, which claims that cyclists who operate according to vehicular traffic rules fair better than those who operate contrary to them. The rules that vehicular cyclists promote are designed to limit the vehicle operator's actions to those that can be seen, predicted and responded to by other drivers. As speeds increase, the operator discipline becomes ever more important in order to accomplish this. But like Monderman's approach, the vehicular cycling theory claims that once users see and predict each other, they don't try to injure or murder one another. Certainly there are rare exceptions to this, but in general, one observes that the assaults are far more rare than the injuries and fatalities that result from unpredictable and unseen movements. This is the challenge of traffic engineering, to provide efficient and convenient travel while minimizing conflicts that are so sudden or difficult to see or predict that they become difficult to respond to appropriately.
Unfortunately, some people are less interested in traffic engineering that works well for all parties than they are in traffic engineering that reinforces their prejudices about other groups. These people seek segregation of one user class from another regardless of the operational advantages or disadvantages. These people are not interested in science, and so scientific explanations are lost on them. They require alternative forms of persuasion that draw upon observations of culture, ethics and law. So no, not everything that responsible scientists write is science.
-Steve
I-Like-To-Bike
I seek to model the causality behind observed phenomena and make useful policy recommendations based on such models
If that's how you wish to describe your agenda driven manifesto ("The Science and Politics
0f Bicycle Driving") for the advancement of the interests of "avid" cyclists, fine- it's your manifesto, describe it any way you like. I'd recommend deleting the term "science" from it, though.
genec
Only on the extreme end; as a cyclist I am talking about are *somewhat* higher performance roads such at nice 2-lane wide-lane collector roads that carry average free-flow motor traffic speeds of around 35 mph. These speeds are too high for the anything-goes eye-contact negotiation thing to work; right of way rules and traffic control are key. Yet these roads are excellent for cycling. And I dare say, there are lots of well-designed 45 mph arterial roads that are also excellent for cycling significant distances. Monderman's approach is irrelevant to these locations.
Interesting... so you feel that speeds up to and including 45MPH can be quite excellent for cycling. OK perhaps true depending on the contour of the land. I feel speed differential is a key factor in whether a road is usable by cyclists... for instance if I am riding at 8MPH up a huge hill, then traffic moving past me at 45MPH can see quite fast and difficult to negotiate with if for instance I need to make a left turn at the top of the hill. By the same token I find traffic moving at speeds of 50, 55, and 65 MPH quite difficult to negotiate with... oh it can be done, but it is difficult. I would like to see surface streets in cities limited to no more then 45MPH. Does this seem reasonable to you?
LCI_Brian
Most of the suburban arterial roads I ride have speed limits of 45-65 (!) mph. The only time I negotiate with traffic to make lane changes is on one of the roads when I'm going downhill at 40+ mph. Almost every other time I wait for gaps in traffic instead of negotiating. Large enough gaps form to do this, as the "platoons" of traffic are broken up by traffic lights.
sggoodri
Interesting... so you feel that speeds up to and including 45MPH can be quite excellent for cycling. OK perhaps true depending on the contour of the land. I feel speed differential is a key factor in whether a road is usable by cyclists... for instance if I am riding at 8MPH up a huge hill, then traffic moving past me at 45MPH can see quite fast and difficult to negotiate with if for instance I need to make a left turn at the top of the hill. By the same token I find traffic moving at speeds of 50, 55, and 65 MPH quite difficult to negotiate with... oh it can be done, but it is difficult. I would like to see surface streets in cities limited to no more then 45MPH. Does this seem reasonable to you?
I am able to enjoy, i.e. for pleasure, riding on roads posted 45 mph and carrying significant traffic if the outside through lane is wide. Like Brian, if traffic is moving fast I wait for a gap before moving to the left turn lane to turn left. I require a slower speed differential if I want to do two-way communication with other drivers in order to create gaps for lane changes.
45 mph streets with narrow lanes can become unpleasant for cycling if the traffic volume is high and drivers are impatient. I often don't like these roads, but I will use them if the convenience of using them is more important than my enjoyment at that time and place. This is why I advoacate wide outside lanes on new and improved arterials.
High-speed merge and exit lanes with heavy traffic create me the biggest grief as a cyclist. These lanes are designed for similar speeds in each lane, which makes them unsuitable, in my opinion, for streets that carry both fast and slow vehicle traffic. I advocate that slip and merge lanes, if included on urban surface streets, be designed for slower speeds. I have cycled on freeway shoulders, but when I reach on and off ramps I depart from vehicular cycling there and I yield to the ramp traffic. I think that forced merges and the way drivers approach them, often looking behind them, are one of the few special situations where high speed differential warrants special attention.
50-55 mph roads aren't bad for cycling if the traffic volume is low enough or the pavement is wide enough to allow a really wide passing distance. I find that this is less often the case in urban areas than in rural areas.
banerjek
High-speed merge and exit lanes with heavy traffic create me the biggest grief as a cyclist. These lanes are designed for similar speeds in each lane, which makes them unsuitable, in my opinion, for streets that carry both fast and slow vehicle traffic.... I depart from vehicular cycling there and I yield to the ramp traffic. I think that forced merges and the way drivers approach them, often looking behind them, are one of the few special situations where high speed differential warrants special attention.
+1, though just today someone actually slowed the entire merge lane down so I could cut across. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On one hand I appreciate the gesture since I would have been stranded and would have had to wait for a break in the traffic. On the other hand, it's dangerous to have cars entering a 65mph stream at 25mph.
Add to your list people using the shoulder to deaccelerate from 65mph (particularly in the evenings when they are tired). My mirrors have saved me more than once.
webist
I would like to see surface streets in cities limited to no more then 45MPH. Does this seem reasonable to you?
My city is slightly under 50K population in size and I know of no "streets" in the city with speed limits above 45. There is a 55 MPH bypass but the bike lane/WOL are well marked, ample and not crowded and without permitted legal parking. There are a couple of crowded highways in and out of town where speeds limits are 65. Traffic on these move at about 75. Therefore I am probably not the most qualified to comment on negotiating with high-speed traffic.
I will say though that there are routes which are more comfortable for cycling over what are perhaps more direct routes. When confronted with streets which are uncomfortable due to speed or other conditions, I plan a different route. I also don't see anything wrong or shameful in stopping and waiting for safe conditions to evolve for me to make necessary maneuvers, even if I am technically giving up my right-of-way.
genec
My city is slightly under 50K population in size and I know of no "streets" in the city with speed limits above 45. There is a 55 MPH bypass but the bike lane/WOL are well marked, ample and not crowded and without permitted legal parking. There are a couple of crowded highways in and out of town where speeds limits are 65. Traffic on these move at about 75. Therefore I am probably not the most qualified to comment on negotiating with high-speed traffic.
I will say though that there are routes which are more comfortable for cycling over what are perhaps more direct routes. When confronted with streets which are uncomfortable due to speed or other conditions, I plan a different route. I also don't see anything wrong or shameful in stopping and waiting for safe conditions to evolve for me to make necessary maneuvers, even if I am technically giving up my right-of-way.
What if no alternatives exist and "waiting" could mean until the next morning.
In my area there are several mesas and canyons that are tied together by isolated roads... in fact, for me to get to work I have but two choices... one a 45MPH road, the other a 65MPH road where two cyclists have been killed. There are 3 freeways that also go north, but I can't use these. Now since motorists have "alternate routes," why do the surface streets have to resemble freeways?
In fact... why not lower the speeds of all surface streets to under 45MPH, and enforce that, and then make the freeway unlimited speeds like the autobahn. Then motorists can do what the ads tout and go "zoom zoom."
It is the racing about on surface streets that kills the pedestrians and cyclists and where most auto accidents occur.
noisebeam
I wonder if high freeway speeds condition drivers to drive to fast on 45mph arterial streets? Here urban freeway speeds are mostly 65mph (55 is a few places) with typical driving speed of 75-85mph. Freeway speed limits are 75mph outside of the urban core with 85mph the slow lane speed (my last trip on I-10 west I set cruise control to 85mph and was passed far more often than I passed others). When folks get of the freeway where they were traveling at 75mph, going the 45mph speed limit feels very slow. I'm sure you've experienced that effect.
Al
genec
I wonder if high freeway speeds condition drivers to drive to fast on 45mph arterial streets? Here urban freeway speeds are mostly 65mph (55 is a few places) with typical driving speed of 75-85mph. Freeway speed limits are 75mph outside of the urban core with 85mph the slow lane speed (my last trip on I-10 west I set cruise control to 85mph and was passed far more often than I passed others). When folks get of the freeway where they were traveling at 75mph, going the 45mph speed limit feels very slow. I'm sure you've experienced that effect.
Al
Sure I know what you mean... the thing that drives me nuts about all this is that roads were designed to handle traffic moving at a certain speed... especially signage and signals... along with turn lanes and the like. Yet according to the recent searchs I did on the net, traffic engineers adjust road speeds to meet the 85% percentile speed of motorists on that road... so if there is a ramp nearby or a parallel freeway, motorists may just happen to pace themselves according to that road rather then drive the practical speed to find the business address on the road they are actually on... thus speed limits are constantly pushed upward. And if the new vehicles on the road handle better (or isolate the feeling of the road from the driver better) then again, motorists will drive faster... ON ROADS THAT WERE NEVER DESIGNED FOR THOSE SPEEDS! Yet this does not seem to be a concern to traffic engineers.
LittleBigMan
A campaign is under way to lower speed limits to 20mph in urban areas, but what's going to make drivers slow down?
"There needs to be something more creative than just a bump in the road," he says.
I like those big speed humps. I wish I had some on my street! :)
webist
What if no alternatives exist and "waiting" could mean until the next morning.
In my area there are several mesas and canyons that are tied together by isolated roads... in fact, for me to get to work I have but two choices... one a 45MPH road, the other a 65MPH road where two cyclists have been killed. There are 3 freeways that also go north, but I can't use these. Now since motorists have "alternate routes," why do the surface streets have to resemble freeways?
In fact... why not lower the speeds of all surface streets to under 45MPH, and enforce that, and then make the freeway unlimited speeds like the autobahn. Then motorists can do what the ads tout and go "zoom zoom."
It is the racing about on surface streets that kills the pedestrians and cyclists and where most auto accidents occur.
Well I certainly wish you had more ideal commuting conditions. You need to be talking with your city engineer. I guess now the point of my post is that your solution doesn't necessarily apply in all metro areas, though perhaps it does in SD. I guess there are places where cycling just isn't the way to travel unless you are willing to accept increased risk.
You are apparently venting here since we are not going to be able to change your traffic laws. I think you are fighting a futile battle though. Your desire to bend the conduct of the motoring public to accommodate the needs of the cycling community (or perhaps just one cyclist) is likely to be seen as unreasonable. It'd be like a British immigrant trying to get us all to use the other side of the road.
randya
It'd be like a British immigrant trying to get us all to use the other side of the road.This is what is known as a strawman. It is completely reasonable to expect motorists to behave more responsibly when operating in proximity to a bicyclist. It is a failure of the system that they do not, and even moreso, that there are often no real consequences for motorists who act in an unsafe manner.
noisebeam
It is completely reasonable to expect motorists to behave more responsibly when operating in proximity to a bicyclist. It is a failure of the system that they do not, and even moreso, that there are often no real consequences for motorists who act in an unsafe manner.
I'd say it is completely reasonable to expect motorist to behave more responsibly when operating. This could be in the known (or unknown) presence of other motor vehicle, in the known (or unknown) presence of bicyclist, the known (or unknown) presence of pedestrians.
Specific to bicycles is it the irresponsible behavior in the unknown presence of bicycles that is particularly concerning.
Al
webist
This is what is known as a strawman. It is completely reasonable to expect motorists to behave more responsibly when operating in proximity to a bicyclist. It is a failure of the system that they do not, and even moreso, that there are often no real consequences for motorists who act in an unsafe manner.
Not intended as a strawman. OP wants surface street speed limits adjusted to more safely accommodate cyclists. Your position is that motorists should show extra care around cyclists. My strawman would be that roadway design efficiently accommodate traffic of all types with both safety and efficiency. I am not at all certain that being hit by a careless motorist at 45 mph rather than 65 mph solves the problem. I do think it unreasonable to slow down otherwise safely moving traffic for the comfort of a few (if not just one) cyclists.
Your point that consequences for misbehavior are not sufficient is well taken. I do not favor "extra" legal protection for cyclists. I do favor stricter enforcement of traffic laws and real consequences for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians when their behavior deviates from standards. I don't advocate that killing a cyclist is somehow more wrong than killing another motorist, a passenger in one's own vehicle or a pedestrian.