Once again, the Dutch are being more innovative than anyone else when it comes to moving people around. They developed a philosophy called 'shared space' where roads are without sidewalks, stop signs, speed limits or any other control measures. They claim it makes the street safer for everyone. Motorists immediately slow down because there could be any number of other users sharing their space. They don't feel they have the right to the road.
Apparently, it has been tried in the Dutch town of Drachten, population 50,000, for the past seven years where stop lights, stop signs, yields, etc. have all been removed, except for three remaining traffic signals that are slated to be removed over the next year or so. I've read that they used to have one traffic fatality every three years, but have had none in the past seven---since the project when it went into effect and they've had a 60% reduction in accidents. It's also being tried in Germany and there are efforts to try it in England.
It sounds like anarchy, but it isn't. It removes the onus of responsibility from the government (traffic control) and returns the onus onto the user of the road, forcing them to act intelligently and rationally. It works because it's dangerous. It makes everyone more cautious. Motorists proceed slower, because pedestrians, cyclists---everyone---have the same right to the space as everyone else. It isn't necessarily 'theirs.' There's no sense of entitlement or assumption that pedestrians must remain on the sidewalk, cyclists to the right and motorists in the 'traffic lane.'
I donno. It is an interesting idea. Locally an "island" community has a somewhat similar approach... Coronado island has long been known for not using stop signs on the community streets, and their traffic situation is somewhat tame.
But I wonder if that approach would work in places where motorists might already be driving too fast... somewhat regardless of the law anyway?
sbhikes
It's worth a try. Not sure it would work in my neighborhood. A lot of people see lack of traffic control devices as legitimizing blasting through the intersection without looking for others.
rando
it might work. I'm trying to visualize how it would be on one of our local urban freeways where people like to drive about 50 mph. so, there's bikes, walkers, scooters, strollers and dogs and stuff all over the roadway, and no markings or lights? jeez. some people would be pissed, no doubt. but the chaos would slow people down. and would no doubt be a little dangerous? Hm.
Keith99
It's worth a try. Not sure it would work in my neighborhood. A lot of people see lack of traffic control devices as legitimizing blasting through the intersection without looking for others.
I remember the last major Quake in Los Angeles. A lot of traffic lights out. I went out (car) that morning and went right back home after crossing one major street. About 10% of the few cars out seemed to think no light means I can blow through anything.
With the recent winds did a pretty fair amount of damage, not counting the fires. One near me was just one traffic light out one day. That turned the one block between the previous light and that one from a less than one minute to over 5 minutes. Try taking out traffic control and you change 45 minute commutes to 4 to 5 hour commutes.
No thanks.
BTW the supposed safety increase is very likely transitory. Things are different so people slow down. But a few weeks to months later people are used to it and start speeding back up.
randya
Possibly, but I think Americans have too great a sense of entitlement
barba
Dutch ≠ American.
San Rensho
Oh this would work great here in Miami, road rage capital of the world. I'm sure all the Hummers with cow catchers on the front would immediately yield to others, stop, get out of their cars to escort little old ladies across the street, start a back and forth match of "No please, you go first, I insist" with cyclists.
Unfortunately, you can't compare the US with a civilized, forward looking, peaceable country like Holland.
maddyfish
It would work in my town just fine. Nice people, nice drivers, nice town.
noisebeam
iI'm trying to visualize how it would be on one of our local urban freeways where people like to drive about 50 mph. so, there's bikes, walkers, scooters, strollers and dogs and stuff all over the roadway, and no markings or lights? jeez. some people would be pissed, no doubt. but the chaos would slow people down. and would no doubt be a little dangerous? Hm.
Uhhh, the local urban freeway SLs are either 55 or 65mph and bicycles are banned. I think the idea is for non-freeway roads, roads that already serve pedestrians and cyclists.
This link provides nice overview of which freeways are open to cyclists in AZ:
http://www.azbikeclub.com/interst.html
Note that every urban freeway is closed to cyclists as there are always equivalent if not better routes available to every destination served by the freeway.
Al
joelpalmer
In a word, no. Not in Baltimore. In smaller communities where the driving is a little more reasonable to begin with I think it would, but reasonable and Baltimore are words that will never appear together.
Helmet Head
For the most part, I think bicyclists are better off the fewer traffic controls - including stripes, stop signs and traffic signals - there are.
But as a motorist, and one who benefits from motoring, there is something to be said for optimizing throughput on arterials.
In short, I think the approach has good application in many business and residential "pockets", but not along main arterials.
StephenH
I don't see how this is innovative at all. Isn't this what most places were like a 100 or 150 years ago? Weren't all these stripes, barriers, speed bumps, signals, signs, etc., put up specifically to try to solve problems that were there in their absence?
Maybe they've proved that if you have nice considerate people, you don't need traffic laws. But the same is true of most of our legal system; if we'd just all get along, we wouldn't need all these silly laws.
Bruce_B
Would it work where you live?
It might, after enough people were killed.
Bruce_B
It would work in my town just fine. Nice people, nice drivers, nice town.
Where is this? I might want to move there :)
rando
Uhhh, the local urban freeway SLs are either 55 or 65mph and bicycles are banned. I think the idea is for non-freeway roads, roads that already serve pedestrians and cyclists.
This link provides nice overview of which freeways are open to cyclists in AZ:
http://www.azbikeclub.com/interst.html
Note that every urban freeway is closed to cyclists as there are always equivalent if not better routes available to every destination served by the freeway.
Al
Al,
I'm talking about 4-6 lane surface streets, that's what I meant by urban freeway.
EnigManiac
It might, after enough people were killed.
The results say just exactly the opposite happens. In every community where the project has been applied, they have experienced anywhere from 30-50% reduction in speed, whereas conventional methods only achieved 10-20% reduction. A sharp decline in serious accidents has already occured with a dramatic decrease in deaths as well.
Dchiefransom
It would work here, and the sales of larger and larger vehicles would increase exponentially.
Bruce_B
The results say just exactly the opposite happens. In every community where the project has been applied, they have experienced anywhere from 30-50% reduction in speed, whereas conventional methods only achieved 10-20% reduction. A sharp decline in serious accidents has already occured with a dramatic decrease in deaths as well.
Has it been tried in the US? I just can't imagine it working with the psychopaths driving around my area.
noisebeam
Al,
I'm talking about 4-6 lane surface streets, that's what I meant by urban freeway.
Those are usually called arterials, hardly like freeways in design nor traffic patterns & speeds.
I think fewer traffic controls would work for residential streets, but not for arterials, nor the roads that intersect them.
Another issue is crossing arterials. I find during rush hour when I have a stop sign to cross a multilane arterial there often is never a sufficient gap to cross. At one intersection I use 1/wk a traffic light was installed 2wks ago. I find it much more relaxing (and possible) to cross between 4-6pm with the traffic light in place.
If instead the stop sign was removed for the x-street I don't see how it would change the ROW, the 45mph arterial would still not stop for the smaller 25mph cross street. Unless the law was change to require every intersection to be treated like a 4-way stop.
Now if all streets were changed to 25mph streets, the concept would work better, but with disparities in traffic volumes, road width (# lanes) and speeds, I can't see it working.
Al
noisebeam
There has to be an widespread acceptance of such a system for it to work, one that depends deeply on a shared social responsibility for each other vs. everyone for themselves, winner take all.
I spent many weeks in Argentina, half of which of which I drove myself (and the others I spend many hours in buses often in the front seat 2nd deck over the driver). While there are traffic controls at intersections, they are not in place in many. ROW is determined fully by who is the most assertive driver with the largest vehicle. Pedestrians are lowest, no where even at cross walks will a motorist stop for a pedestrian, even one trying to start crossing. At intersections the driver who is 'bigger' takes the ROW, bigger in vehicle size and in driving style including increasing speed at intersection approach and flashing headlights.
Overtaking constantly on 'highways' is universal, on a busy freeway like roads (but one lane each way with no paved shoulder) a typical driver may spend 30-40% of the time overtaking slower vehicles. I was able to approach 25-30% ;) The bus drivers would often over take with an approaching vehicle in the opposing lane, then honk and flash lights forcing oncoming vehicle to move onto dirt shoulder, force is too strong a word, it was just normal to move to shoulder if a vehicle was coming your way and flashing lights. Might takes the ROW, sometimes if the vehicle in the other lane was an even larger truck or more assertive driver, the bus driver would move to the dirt shoulder. Tailgating was redefined for me. How close drivers followed each other before pushing a crazy overtake on steep curving mountain roads was measured in inches, not feet.
I got to enjoy it somewhat, putting all that assertiveness and sometimes aggressiveness into driving, but I was still an underdog and it wore me out especially in larger cities. It takes nerves and an intense vigilance. It was somewhat miserable being a pedestrian. I suppose it feels the norm for most, I hardly had time to adapt, let alone have it become habitual to the point it felt more comfortable.
How well it works from a safety/accident perspective, I don't know, probably quite a bit better than one would expect.
Al
Bruce_B
Would it be similar to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
csr
Or to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9DLlMMXhKg
I think combined with some disincentives for motor vehicle ownership it could work. Note that bicycles are well-established in the Netherlands anyway, moreso than here (US).
genec
Uhhh, the local urban freeway SLs are either 55 or 65mph and bicycles are banned. I think the idea is for non-freeway roads, roads that already serve pedestrians and cyclists.
This link provides nice overview of which freeways are open to cyclists in AZ:
http://www.azbikeclub.com/interst.html
Note that every urban freeway is closed to cyclists as there are always equivalent if not better routes available to every destination served by the freeway.
Al
Al a bit of clarification about the term "urban freeways." These are high speed arterials that motorists treat as a freeway.... but they in fact have stoplights and pedestrians and cyclists... however, the movement of traffic on such roads tends to be heavy and fast, well above the speed limit.
W McDowell Road in PHX might be a good illustration... (I remember driving into PHX and getting on this road and not believing how motorists "pushed" on this road)
Baseline may be another one of these "urban freeways."
The other distinguishing characteristic is the use of free merges, multilane merges and wide radius sweeping turns at intersections... almost freeway like "ramps." Some of these urban freeways go directly to real limited access freeways, not even having true on-ramps but simply becoming the actual freeway.
noisebeam
Al a bit of clarification about the term "urban freeways." These are high speed arterials that motorists treat as a freeway.... but they in fact have stoplights and pedestrians and cyclists... however, the movement of traffic on such roads tends to be heavy and fast, well above the speed limit.
W McDowell Road in PHX might be a good illustration... (I remember driving into PHX and getting on this road and not believing how motorists "pushed" on this road)
Baseline may be another one of these "urban freeways."
The other distinguishing characteristic is the use of free merges, multilane merges and wide radius sweeping turns at intersections... almost freeway like "ramps." Some of these urban freeways go directly to real limited access freeways, not even having true on-ramps but simply becoming the actual freeway.
OK, but these roads (locally - these elements you refer to in the last paragraph are very limited) have none of the characteristics of freeways, with at speed exists usually far apart (except urban ones ;) ) and speeds 20-30mph faster than arterials. Arterials here have many driveway, side street entrances, stoplights every .5-1mi, a shared left turn lane. Traffic is stop and go in nature vs. constant higher speed on a freeway. Negotiation with traffic/drivers is quite possible on arterials, on limited access freeways I would not stay in the outside lane (illegal anyway) and would never try to negotiate a left merge, or into the right lane when passing an exit.
I cycle on McDowell fairly often (mainly weekends) and Baseline even more so. The roads are not any different than any of the other arterials that are spaced on a 1mi grid in metro-phx. Baseline has a NOL, but also three same direction lanes, so taking the lane even in rush hour for my commute home is quite manageable. Yes these roads are busy and fast, but that does not make them like a freeway.
Al
-=£em in Pa=-
Oh this would work great here in Miami, road rage capital of the world. I'm sure all the Hummers with cow catchers on the front would immediately yield to others, stop, get out of their cars to escort little old ladies across the street, start a back and forth match of "No please, you go first, I insist" with cyclists.
Unfortunately, you can't compare the US with a civilized, forward looking, peaceable country like Holland.
+1
'Merican kulture would ensure this to be a Deathrace 2000
style bloodbath.
donnamb
I tend to lean towards Lem's direction of thought.
noisebeam
I tend to lean towards Lem's direction of thought.
I do too. See my first paragraph in post #21
Al
-=£em in Pa=-
^^^^ Yep(#21)....We have radio talk show hosts, newspaper
editors and businesss like cafepress profiting off of anti-cycle
sentiments. How do you change something soooooo wrong ?
donnamb
There will always be people who feel compelled to pick on others they think are different or odd. The only way I can think of for the situation to improve is for there to be more of us.
noisebeam
While I agree in general this won't work in most places in the US, I do also think that over control of traffic is a problem as well. Over use can lead to reliance vs. paying attention. For example as described in this city outline of proper/improper use of stop signs, cross walks and traffic signals:
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/Traffic/signsandsignals.htm
Al
rando
OK, but these roads (locally - these elements you refer to in the last paragraph are very limited) have none of the characteristics of freeways, with at speed exists usually far apart (except urban ones ;) ) and speeds 20-30mph faster than arterials. Arterials here have many driveway, side street entrances, stoplights every .5-1mi, a shared left turn lane. Traffic is stop and go in nature vs. constant higher speed on a freeway. Negotiation with traffic/drivers is quite possible on arterials, on limited access freeways I would not stay in the outside lane (illegal anyway) and would never try to negotiate a left merge, or into the right lane when passing an exit.
I cycle on McDowell fairly often (mainly weekends) and Baseline even more so. The roads are not any different than any of the other arterials that are spaced on a 1mi grid in metro-phx. Baseline has a NOL, but also three same direction lanes, so taking the lane even in rush hour for my commute home is quite manageable. Yes these roads are busy and fast, but that does not make them like a freeway.
Al
check out those arterials during non-rush hour times. speeds are 50-65 in the 45 zones. it is like a freeway between lights.
Bruce_B
check out those arterials during non-rush hour times. speeds are 50-65 in the 45 zones. it is like a freeway between lights.
You should see the main 4 lane we have. The speed limit is 65 so the average speed is around 75 to 80. And this is through areas with stores and side roads with lots of traffic turning on and off. And that's topped off with a general Nascar mentality and a -center of the universe- attitude. Oh what fun :rolleyes:
noisebeam
check out those arterials during non-rush hour times. speeds are 50-65 in the 45 zones. it is like a freeway between lights.
If you ride in Chandler you pass by lots of these:
http://optionnz.com/users/afs/070628-PM.3551speed0000b.jpg
It is a 45mph zone and just about every car passing is 50mph+, 55-56 is very common. But it is rare to see over 60 on any arterial in the valley especially the east valley, let alone 65mph on arterials in any city in the valley, even on weekend mornings or late at night. The rare cases are the occasional aggressive drivers.
And on such weekend mornings (I actually rode both on Baseline and McDowell and several other arterials this morning) traffic is so light, that if a driver is going 60mph they are in inside lane.
Sure, it may seem fast, but don't exaggerate, nor kid yourself, how fast drivers really are going, 10mph over SL is the norm, not higher.
I drive a motor vehicle a fair amount too around the valley and I never go over SL and accelerate very slowly. Other drivers pass, but not like they do on the freeways when I am going the SL, but many are at the SL as well - all times of the day.
Al
San Rensho
If you ride in Chandler you pass by lots of these:
http://optionnz.com/users/afs/070628-PM.3551speed0000b.jpg
It is a 45mph zone and just about every car passing is 50mph+, 55-56 is very common. But it is rare to see over 60 on any arterial in the valley especially the east valley, let alone 65mph on arterials in any city in the valley, even on weekend mornings or late at night. The rare cases are the occasional aggressive drivers.
And on such weekend mornings (I actually rode both on Baseline and McDowell and several other arterials this morning) traffic is so light, that if a driver is going 60mph they are in inside lane.
Sure, it may seem fast, but don't exaggerate, nor kid yourself, how fast drivers really are going, 10mph over SL is the norm, not higher.
I drive a motor vehicle a fair amount too around the valley and I never go over SL and accelerate very slowly. Other drivers pass, but not like they do on the freeways when I am going the SL, but many are at the SL as well - all times of the day.
Al
There's something elso going on here. Car traffic tends to go at a speed that they "feel" safe at. If you have a narrow two lane road, and a four lane divided street, and they are both posted at 40 mph, cars will go above the speed limit on the 4 lane road and less than the speed limit on a two lane road because the divided street with multiple lanes makes them feel safe while they are leary of the narrow two lane street and slow down.
Bruce_B
and less than the speed limit on a two lane road
Not around here. If you try to go ONLY the speed limit on our narrow 2 lane roads you will be tailgated and passed and generally made to feel like you're blocking the road. The speed limits are 45 and 55 on some, but 10mph over is considered the minimum by most. This situation probably exists because we have 0 enforcement of traffic.
making
I dunno, Hoosiers are learning to use round a bouts, I thought that would be a real C/F but it seems to be working out real well.
JoesInBoston
How would car insurance work in this instance? How do you decide who is at fault when there is no signs/lights at an intersection?
making
How would car insurance work in this instance? How do you decide who is at fault when there is no signs/lights at an intersection?
No fault insurance.
JoesInBoston
What is that?
making
When I lived in Philly I had no fault insurance, it was incredibly expensive. Your insurance company fixes your car and the other guy's company fixes his own, who is at fault does not matter. Costed me 4-5 times as much.
noisebeam
In Argentina fault at non signalled intersection collision is the driver who hit the side of the other.
Al
making
In Argentina fault at non signalled intersection collision is the driver who hit the side of the other.
Al
That is really cool, so if you go fast enough and beat the other guy into the intersection it is his fault. But it does make sense.
andrelam
I remember the last major Quake in Los Angeles. A lot of traffic lights out. I went out (car) that morning and went right back home after crossing one major street. About 10% of the few cars out seemed to think no light means I can blow through anything.
With the recent winds did a pretty fair amount of damage, not counting the fires. One near me was just one traffic light out one day. That turned the one block between the previous light and that one from a less than one minute to over 5 minutes. Try taking out traffic control and you change 45 minute commutes to 4 to 5 hour commutes.
No thanks.
BTW the supposed safety increase is very likely transitory. Things are different so people slow down. But a few weeks to months later people are used to it and start speeding back up.
Strangely we had the opposite happen here in the Greater Buffalo area last October. Last year we had a freak snow storm in mid October that dumped a few feet of very wet and heavy snow on the area and the trees still had a good portion of their leaves on... end result were millions of trees were damaged. The snow laden trees started to fail around 8:00 PM, and by the following morning, there was an almost 100% failure in the power grid and over 1 million people were without power. There were very few traffic lights that worked still worked the following day in Erie County. Everyone just approached an intersection and treated it as a 4 way stop. Traffic actually moved pretty well. It was dodging all the downed trees and their limbs that were the real problem preventing anyone from getting around. There was no chaos on the roads. Even near my house where I come onto a large 4 lane road, drivers on the main road would come to a stop to let the side traffic cross. It truly was a strange experience.
Happy riding,
André
andrelam
How would car insurance work in this instance? How do you decide who is at fault when there is no signs/lights at an intersection?
In the Netherlands there is a no-fault situation for the pedestrian and cyclist, for all motorized traffic there is 100% fault. Therefore is a car gets cut off by a cyclist and hit the cyclists, the car driver is still 100% at fault and the cyclist is not at fault. I am not going to debate the fairness of it other than to state that is does make motorists "worried" about hittin either a pedestrian or cyclists. This is 100% opposite of what appears to happen in the USA, where even drunk drivers seem to sometimes get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist after taking out cyclists.
Happy riding,
André
shortbus901
Oh this would work great here in Miami, road rage capital of the world. I'm sure all the Hummers with cow catchers on the front would immediately yield to others, stop, get out of their cars to escort little old ladies across the street, start a back and forth match of "No please, you go first, I insist" with cyclists.
Unfortunately, you can't compare the US with a civilized, forward looking, peaceable country like Holland.
From another Floridian (Tampa)...
what he said.
syn0n
Just because it comes out of the Netherlands, doesn't make it amazing or innovative. This is what the roads were like back in the middle ages. While I agree that the current road system allows for that often dangerous sense of entitlement, at least it allows people to get from A to B in a fairly efficient manner.
I already ride through a system like what the Dutch are trying every day: a large, spread out, college campus. People don't give a **** about each other, really. And it's not just moody college students there; we have an open campus with a park and a pond so lots of people like to walk/jog/bring their children.
There are pedestrians everywhere, stepping out in front of you, and generally not having a sphere of awareness beyond their cell phone conversation. Stupid Vespa riders go way to fast around all of the pedestrians. The bicyclists go too fast as well. Not to mention the skateboards flying by, weaving around people, all without any decent way It's not really that difficult to deal with but it's annoying and I've had more close calls with people there then I do in the heavy motor vehicle traffic just off of the campus. People just don't share very well, because an "I don't care about you" attitude prevails.
While this isn't the same thing exactly, I think it's similar enough to make the idea of a road system like this undesirable. I'm positive it would be slower for cyclists as well as any motor vehicle traffic. Do you guys really want to spend more time than you already do getting from A to B? I don't.
The problem really isn't the road system, it's the attitudes of Americans in general.
chipcom
There's something elso going on here. Car traffic tends to go at a speed that they "feel" safe at. If you have a narrow two lane road, and a four lane divided street, and they are both posted at 40 mph, cars will go above the speed limit on the 4 lane road and less than the speed limit on a two lane road because the divided street with multiple lanes makes them feel safe while they are leary of the narrow two lane street and slow down.
Bingo. Although not to the extent of no traffic control at all, many rural roads already are 'shared' by cyclists, motor vehicles, peds, buggies, horses and wagons - simply because there are no sidewalks, wide shoulders or multiple lanes. Something like this CAN and DOES work in some situations. There's the rub, it's not a one solution fits all proposition. While safe, shared transportation has it's benefits, so does fast, efficient transportation. You have to carefully plan, experiment and innovate to accommodate both.
Roody
As a psychologist, I think there's a good chance the "naked streets" approach would work in any culture. Humans, like all mammals, are hard-wired to respond with certain cognitive approaches in a given situation. In novel situations, we will instinctively slow down to analyze the situation before proceeding. Have you ever let a house cat in or out of the house? They hesitate so long to scope out the situation that they drive you crazy. People behave similarly, as many psychology experiments have demonstrated.
The principle to the unmarked streets is that it presents a novel situation each time somebody encounters it. Even if you ride that way every day, a different combination of traffic makes it different each time. The totally natural response will be for users to slow down and check out the new situation as they proceed through it, much like the cat in the doorway. This response would be independent of culture or nationality, and should work as well in Mexico or the US as in the Netherlands.
Naked streets are not considered suitable for freeways or high-speed arterials. They also probably won't work well in very low traffic areas. They are intended for high use, complex and mixed-use situations like downtown business areas. I also think continued experimentation is called for, to make sure that the concept works even after several years, when the situation has lost some of its novelty for most users.
EnigManiac
As a psychologist, I think there's a good chance the "naked streets" approach would work in any culture. Humans, like all mammals, are hard-wired to respond with certain cognitive approaches in a given situation. In novel situations, we will instinctively slow down to analyze the situation before proceeding. Have you ever let a house cat in or out of the house? They hesitate so long to scope out the situation that they drive you crazy. People behave similarly, as many psychology experiments have demonstrated.
The principle to the unmarked streets is that it presents a novel situation each time somebody encounters it. Even if you ride that way every day, a different combination of traffic makes it different each time. The totally natural response will be for users to slow down and check out the new situation as they proceed through it, much like the cat in the doorway. This response would be independent of culture or nationality, and should work as well in Mexico or the US as in the Netherlands.
Naked streets are not considered suitable for freeways or high-speed arterials. They also probably won't work well in very low traffic areas. They are intended for high use, complex and mixed-use situations like downtown business areas. I also think continued experimentation is called for, to make sure that the concept works even after several years, when the situation has lost some of its novelty for most users.
Excellent summary, Roody. You nailed it. It doesn't matter what culture you're from, human nature remains a constant. Americans are no less civilized than The Dutch (though sometimes everyone wonders :) ) and are no more prone to recklessly running people down with their cars as anyone else. Indeed, the concept could work in a number of cities in the US.
The reactions we have witnessed here are curious. On one hand, they buy into the misconception that more control means safer when we have 80 years of evidence that prove otherwise. On the same hand, many Americans profess to have an inherent distrust and dislike of greater state control, yet deman more bike lanes, separation of bike lanes, bicycle-only traffic signals, etc.
But, on the other hand, lawless streets seems to conflict with logic when it actually is perfectly logical. I mean, we can all walk through a crowded theme park or along jammed downtown sidewalks without knocking people over. We can skate on a rink with everyone moving in unpredictable directions without colliding. Naked Streets are not much different.