Posted over in the 'living car free' forum, interesting:

https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/582000-shared-space-removing-traffic-signs-road-rules.html

Comments? Maybe it would work in the US if 3 ton SUVs came with something besides an ON/OFF switch...

Traffic speeds seem very slow, both bikes and motorized vehicles. Wonder what happens when Hans decides to try out his fast new wheels?

cool! thx...
t

From what I recall having read somewhere else about this, it is being tried in villages or towns that have existing speed limits of 40 km or so.

Tom Vanderbuilt visited this issue in his book, Traffic.

What the news report failed to mention (or maybe I just missed it) is a crucial point (and visible in a brief shot of video). There is one law. The speed limit is 30 kph (roughly 19 mph). At that speed everyone can adjust their travel to accommodate others. It's also easier to slow, stop or turn and if there is a collision, the injury rate is much lower than at higher speeds.



(This is also why I don't understand why cops don't enforce speed limits. If they want to save lives, just a small increase in speed results in more likely deaths)

The only 20mph limits I can think of are school zones, and most folks seem to hardly be able to handle that. Sigh.

The concept was poorly explained in the video. Everybody proceeds more carefully in a "shared space" street because the street situation is ambiguous and requires travellers to think and plan as they proceed through the space. Ambiguity is deliberately created by the lack of signage and pavement markings, as well as the presence of different types of road users in the same space. Sometimes obstacles such as benches and even playgrounds are placed in the street to further increase ambiguity.

Google "monderman" and "shared space" for a better understanding of this fascinaing idea. It holds great promise of improving many streets for cycling.

They also forgot to mention that the motorist there are held responsible for any collision that occurs, regardless of fault.

However, the collision rate between bikes and cars was still high--even with this responsibility law--until the shared space road was consructed.

Mind you, I am not a lawyer, but I think that motorist negligence is assumed unless proven otherwise. Is that not the case?

Not by my understanding, but I am not positive on the "unless proven otherwise". Anyone got a for sure answer to this?

Even in the US, with some no-fault laws, the motorist insurance pays for cyclist and pedestrian medical bills, regardless who is at fault.

https://accident-law.freeadvice.com/a...-accidents.htm

Looks like no-fault means that you can't be negligent. You could still be criminally negligent, and I'm guessing grossly negligent.

That's only for personal injury though. Your car, which is more important than a human being, can still be sued for. It's a ridiculous way to avoid expensive legal battles I think.

It just sounds like a mess to me. I'm glad I'm not in one of those states.

Personally I think shared space is cool. It looks like there are two rules: Speed limit, and lanes. These seems, to me, like the two REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT rules you want to keep. The other rules may actually do more for efficiency than safety.

It's the greedy algorithm for the traffic problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_algorithm

It's an interesting prospect. You could easily speed on a decent road bike without the aid of a hill or tail wind. Some people could even maintain speeding and I think quite a few could maintain the speed limit.

19mph is definitely within reach. And 23mph (a lot less within reach, but I'm sure quite a few athletes could manage, and there are always windy days) would be pretty excessive speeding. It's only 4mph over, but it's speeding by over 20%.

I have always thought there were too many signs and too much reliance on people following them. This stuff is very interesting.


Don't enforce speed limits? The is the only traffic law I have ever even seen enforced regularly. You don't need to use signals or stop on red or even stay in your lane for the cops to leave you alone.

EDIT - Oh, maybe you mean how they allow people to drive 5-10mph over the limit all the time. I still think speeding is one of the least dangerous things on the road, to a point. Someone who is speeding and paying attention would make me feel way safer than a driver who is below the limit but not paying attention.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Look at the difference in fatalities in impacts at 30 and 40 mph. Most people think, "I'm only going 10 mph over the limit" not thinking an extra 10 mph has any real significance.

But how many folks are speeding and NOT paying attention... heads in cell phones or even a cheese burger... and are they even aware how fast they are driving. In many modern cars you can just zip along and not even be aware of your speed... especially with windows rolled up and the AC on and the radio all helping to isolate you from the road...