dangers of 'traffic calming'

[wafflycat]

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED11%20Jun%202007%2008%3A42%3A46%3A380


or

http://tinyurl.com/3bkmpy

"Traffic calming made our street more dangerous"

includes:-

"Since the money - £28,000 according to Norfolk County Council - was spent
last year at The Street, Costessey, there have been several crashes and
Andrew Brown believes it is now more dangerous for drivers, cyclists,
pedestrians.

Mr Brown, 60, a retired company director from The Glade, Old Costessey, said
he had seen a string of accidents at new 'pinch-points' and said there was
no longer room for a car to safely pass a cyclist, pedestrian or horse. He
said: “Recently a speeding car misjudged the space available and, to avoid a
collision with me and my dogs, hit the nearside kerb of the pinch-point
losing control of his vehicle.

“This pinch-point is on a blind bend down a significant hill with no warning
of its approach and on a wet or icy day is extremely dangerous.

“For a pedestrian walking along The Street it is necessary to cross the road
many times to take advantage of the footpath at the pinch-points which are
on alternate sides of the road.

“I believe the money spent on these 'improvements' has, in fact, resulted in
the road becoming more dangerous.”

Concerns about the traffic improvements have also been raised by other
neighbours, Costessey Parish Council clerk Rachel Jackson said."

[Squashme]

On 11 Jun, 20:45, "wafflycat" > wrote:
> http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline...
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bkmpy
>
> "Traffic calming made our street more dangerous"
>
> includes:-
>
> "Since the money - £28,000 according to Norfolk County Council - was spent
> last year at The Street, Costessey, there have been several crashes and
> Andrew Brown believes it is now more dangerous for drivers, cyclists,
> pedestrians.
>
> Mr Brown, 60, a retired company director from The Glade, Old Costessey, said
> he had seen a string of accidents at new 'pinch-points' and said there was
> no longer room for a car to safely pass a cyclist, pedestrian or horse. He
> said: "Recently a speeding car misjudged the space available and, to avoid a
> collision with me and my dogs, hit the nearside kerb of the pinch-point
> losing control of his vehicle.
>
> "This pinch-point is on a blind bend down a significant hill with no warning
> of its approach and on a wet or icy day is extremely dangerous.
>
> "For a pedestrian walking along The Street it is necessary to cross the road
> many times to take advantage of the footpath at the pinch-points which are
> on alternate sides of the road.
>
> "I believe the money spent on these 'improvements' has, in fact, resulted in
> the road becoming more dangerous."
>
> Concerns about the traffic improvements have also been raised by other
> neighbours, Costessey Parish Council clerk Rachel Jackson said."


Hang on:- "Mr Brown, 60, a retired company director from The Glade,
Old Costessey, said
.... "Recently a speeding car misjudged the space available and, to
avoid a collision with me and my dogs, hit the nearside kerb of the
pinch-point losing control of his vehicle."

"County council spokeswoman Mel Dye said:
"What is needed to help safety is for traffic to slow down and adhere
to the 20mph limit ..."

Yeahh, must be the fault of the traffic calming scheme - and the
bloody dogs.

[John Hearns]

If this scheme has been implemented at the cost of switching the
pavement from side to side it is stupid.

But "said there was no longer room for a car to safely pass a cyclist,
pedestrian or horse."
Well.... duhh..... its a pinch point.
But Mr Toad is obviously alive and well here.

[TerryJ]

> Well.... duhh..... its a pinch point.
> But Mr Toad is obviously alive and well here.
Yes.
Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
risk personally.

We have one on a long uphill that even I have difficulty going through
at much more than 10mph.It's a 40mph zone, so some cars are coming up
behind at 50.And we all know that a large enough percentage of them
try to squeeze through just before I get there.After all, it's not the
driver that will be killed if he gets it wrong.

TerryJ

[Bad Shorts]

wafflycat wrote:

>
> "Traffic calming made our street more dangerous"
>
> includes:-
>
> He said: “Recently a speeding car misjudged the space
> available

OK, so the car misjudged and not the driver. Let's blame the car and not
the road user.

>
> “I believe the money spent on these 'improvements' has, in fact,
> resulted in the road becoming more dangerous.”

Yes, these dangerous roads are such a menace. Blame them and not the
road user.

[POHB]

On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
> risk personally.

Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?

[naked_draughtsman[_2_]]

"POHB" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
>> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
>> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
>> risk personally.
>
> Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
> let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?

Because cars will park along the side of the road and block it up, impeding
the visibility for cyclists as well as forcing them to go through the pinch
point.
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

[naked_draughtsman[_2_]]

How about instead of pinch points they install rising bollards which only go
down when you're quite close so if you're doing 20mph you won't have to slow
down for it but if you're doing 40 you'll have to brake hard while it goes
down?

I know someone's invented a deflating speed hump which deflates if you go
over it at low speed but if you're going fast the rapid expulsion of air
seals it so you have a nasty big bump to go over. It's not very cycle
friendly though unless they leave a gap at either side whereas with a
bollard there should be plenty of space for a bike to nip through.
--
peter

Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/

Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me

[Roger Merriman]

naked_draughtsman > wrote:

> "POHB" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
> >> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
> >> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
> >> risk personally.
> >
> > Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
> > let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?
>
> Because cars will park along the side of the road and block it up, impeding
> the visibility for cyclists as well as forcing them to go through the pinch
> point.

depends on the area, the onces in llanfoist as far as memory recalls
don't have cars parked blocking the way.

roger

[Roger Merriman]

wafflycat > wrote:

>
<http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&c
a
tegory=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED11%20Jun%202007%20
08%3A42%3A46%3A380>
>
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3bkmpy
>
> "Traffic calming made our street more dangerous"
>
> includes:-
>
> "Since the money - £28,000 according to Norfolk County Council - was spent
> last year at The Street, Costessey, there have been several crashes and
> Andrew Brown believes it is now more dangerous for drivers, cyclists,
> pedestrians.
>
> Mr Brown, 60, a retired company director from The Glade, Old Costessey, said
> he had seen a string of accidents at new 'pinch-points' and said there was
> no longer room for a car to safely pass a cyclist, pedestrian or horse. He
> said: "Recently a speeding car misjudged the space available and, to avoid a
> collision with me and my dogs, hit the nearside kerb of the pinch-point
> losing control of his vehicle.
>
> "This pinch-point is on a blind bend down a significant hill with no warning
> of its approach and on a wet or icy day is extremely dangerous.
>
> "For a pedestrian walking along The Street it is necessary to cross the road
> many times to take advantage of the footpath at the pinch-points which are
> on alternate sides of the road.
>
if true that does sound like a rather poor idea, to put it mildly.

> "I believe the money spent on these 'improvements' has, in fact, resulted in
> the road becoming more dangerous."
>
> Concerns about the traffic improvements have also been raised by other
> neighbours, Costessey Parish Council clerk Rachel Jackson said."

the main problem with all of these things is not them per say but where
and how they are placed.

roger

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, wafflycat
') wrote:

>
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED11%20Jun%202007%2008%3A42%3A46%3A380
>
> "Traffic calming made our street more dangerous"

Frankly, 'he would say that, wouldn't he'.

> includes:-
>
> "Since the money - £28,000 according to Norfolk County Council - was
> spent last year at The Street, Costessey, there have been several crashes
> and Andrew Brown believes it is now more dangerous for drivers, cyclists,
> pedestrians.
>
> Mr Brown, 60, a retired company director from The Glade, Old Costessey,
> said he had seen a string of accidents at new 'pinch-points' and said
> there was no longer room for a car to safely pass a cyclist, pedestrian
> or horse.

That is, after all, why they're there.

> He said: “Recently a speeding car misjudged the space available
> and, to avoid a collision with me and my dogs, hit the nearside kerb of
> the pinch-point losing control of his vehicle.
>
> “This pinch-point is on a blind bend down a significant hill with no
> warning of its approach and on a wet or icy day is extremely dangerous.
>
> “For a pedestrian walking along The Street it is necessary to cross the
> road many times to take advantage of the footpath at the pinch-points
> which are on alternate sides of the road.
>
> “I believe the money spent on these 'improvements' has, in fact, resulted
> in the road becoming more dangerous.�

I actually agree with him - it does make the road 'more dangerous', so
drivers have a choice of either slowing down or bending their nice shiny
metal. Drivers don't like bending their nice shiny metal, and there's
nothing else which will make them slow down. They won't obey signs unless
there's a camera present. They will obey chicanes with concrete bollards.
Hooray for chicanes with concrete bollards, say I.

Best of all:

| . |
| .MO7S|
| . |
+\ |
|o\ |
| \ |
| o |
| / /+
|o/ /o|
+/ / |
| o |
| \ |
| \o|
| \+
| . |
|SLOW. |
| . |

Where each 'o' represents a nice solid 'hit this and die' concrete bollard.
Each end of the village/zone, and each end priority is for vehicles
leaving the zone. Any vehicle, including an HGV, can negotiate it safely
at low speed. No vehicle - except motorcycles - can negotiate it safely at
high speed, and the penalty for getting it wrong is at minimum a written
off car.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, naked_draughtsman
') wrote:

>
> "POHB" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
>>> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
>>> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
>>> risk personally.
>>
>> Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
>> let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?
>
> Because cars will park along the side of the road and block it up,
> impeding the visibility for cyclists as well as forcing them to go
> through the pinch point.

That's easy, impound all cars found parked where they shouldn't be. Self
financing - if the owner doesn't pay the pound fee in a reasonable time,
sell the car.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

[Adrian Boliston]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...

> Best of all:
>
> | . |
> | .MO7S|
> | . |
> +\ |
> |o\ |
> | \ |
> | o |
> | / /+
> |o/ /o|
> +/ / |
> | o |
> | \ |
> | \o|
> | \+
> | . |
> |SLOW. |
> | . |
>
> Where each 'o' represents a nice solid 'hit this and die' concrete
> bollard.
> Each end of the village/zone, and each end priority is for vehicles
> leaving the zone. Any vehicle, including an HGV, can negotiate it safely
> at low speed. No vehicle - except motorcycles - can negotiate it safely at
> high speed, and the penalty for getting it wrong is at minimum a written
> off car.

These "build outs" can still be quite dangerous for cyclists as oncoming
traffic often does not wish to give way to cyclists when they have the "big
arrow" priority sign in their favour.

[Neil Williams]

On Jun 12, 10:38 am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:

> depends on the area, the onces in llanfoist as far as memory recalls
> don't have cars parked blocking the way.

If there were marked bays for parking only, and *these were enforced*
periodically, it wouldn't be a problem.

Having seen it in action, I'm starting to prefer the German approach
of no parking outside marked bays in residential areas.

Neil

[Neil Williams]

On Jun 12, 9:45 am, "naked_draughtsman" >
wrote:
> How about instead of pinch points they install rising bollards which only go
> down when you're quite close so if you're doing 20mph you won't have to slow
> down for it but if you're doing 40 you'll have to brake hard while it goes
> down?

And the first time it doesn't drop at 20mph due to a fault and someone
hits it, or worse it goes up with a car on it?

I hate the things in all their forms. Fixed features (but preferably
not ramps) and speed cameras are far preferable.

Neil

[Peter Clinch]

Adrian Boliston wrote:

> These "build outs" can still be quite dangerous for cyclists as oncoming
> traffic often does not wish to give way to cyclists when they have the "big
> arrow" priority sign in their favour.

But if the traffic will be going slowly, all the cyclist needs to do is
have the nerve to sit there and point a phone at the registration plate...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Roger Merriman]

Neil Williams > wrote:

> On Jun 12, 10:38 am, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
>
> > depends on the area, the onces in llanfoist as far as memory recalls
> > don't have cars parked blocking the way.
>
> If there were marked bays for parking only, and *these were enforced*
> periodically, it wouldn't be a problem.
>
the village isn't big. essently there is no reason to park nr the pinch
points. low population in those parts.

> Having seen it in action, I'm starting to prefer the German approach
> of no parking outside marked bays in residential areas.
>
> Neil

roger

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> the village isn't big. essently there is no reason to park nr the pinch
> points. low population in those parts.

But... but... but that mean mean walking as much as an extra 30-40
meters! Are you *MAD*!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> That's easy, impound all cars found parked where they shouldn't be. Self
> financing - if the owner doesn't pay the pound fee in a reasonable time,
> sell the car.

More financially lucrative than crushing the car to a small cube and
selling it for scrap, but not quite as satisfying... ;-)

Cubing unlicensed cars seems to be getting done around the SE according
to my dad, so just move it up to parking. As with speeding, parking law
is routinely violated simply because it isn't perceived to matter. If
it's made to matter, it will mean something...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

POHB wrote on 12/06/2007 08:29 +0100:
> On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
>> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
>> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
>> risk personally.
>
> Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
> let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?
>

That would defeat the planners' objective of using cyclists to slow the
traffic ;-)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Neil Williams wrote on 12/06/2007 10:18 +0100:
> On Jun 12, 9:45 am, "naked_draughtsman" >
> wrote:
>> How about instead of pinch points they install rising bollards which only go
>> down when you're quite close so if you're doing 20mph you won't have to slow
>> down for it but if you're doing 40 you'll have to brake hard while it goes
>> down?
>
> And the first time it doesn't drop at 20mph due to a fault and someone
> hits it, or worse it goes up with a car on it?
>

Cue video of Manchester numpties trying to beat the bollards.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Marcus Red]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> naked_draughtsman > wrote:
>
>> "POHB" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
>>>> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
>>>> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
>>>> risk personally.
>>> Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
>>> let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?
>> Because cars will park along the side of the road and block it up, impeding
>> the visibility for cyclists as well as forcing them to go through the pinch
>> point.
>
> depends on the area, the onces in llanfoist as far as memory recalls
> don't have cars parked blocking the way.
>
llanfoist is hardly inner-city parking though!

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > the village isn't big. essently there is no reason to park nr the pinch
> > points. low population in those parts.
>
> But... but... but that mean mean walking as much as an extra 30-40
> meters! Are you *MAD*!
>
> Pete.

well no as the pinch are on the edge of the village so much better to
park in the middle where, pub/shop and houses are.

roger

[John Hearns]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
>
> That would defeat the planners' objective of using cyclists to slow the
> traffic ;-)
>
Just to amplify on what Tony is saying, I think the following phrase has
been used here before:
"Traffic engineers are using the soft squishy bodies of cyclists as
mobile speed humps" (in connection with pinch points).
I'll let that one sink in.


Very much IMHO, this is only too true. 999 out of 1000 drivers are
reasonable, and some may be agressive though would not harm you.
All it takes is that one Neil Baxter.

[Adrian Godwin]

Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
> I actually agree with him - it does make the road 'more dangerous', so
> drivers have a choice of either slowing down or bending their nice shiny
> metal. Drivers don't like bending their nice shiny metal, and there's
> nothing else which will make them slow down. They won't obey signs unless
> there's a camera present. They will obey chicanes with concrete bollards.
> Hooray for chicanes with concrete bollards, say I.
>

I believe they're INTENDED to make the road 'more dangerous'.

We all drive or ride in our comfort zone : a combination of
achieving the aim of the trip, feeling in control of the vehicle,
and avoiding any limitations of the vehicle from spoiling the
experience (e.g. road noise, engine noise or lack of leg muscle).
Bear in mind that for some people an aim of the trip is to raise
adrenaline levels. For others, it's to sightsee.

The problem is that for most people, a modern car is comfortable on a
straight road in top gear between about 50-80 mph, which, despite
feeling in control, is faster than our reactions can handle unless
we're 100% concentrating. This is perhaps a problem on a quiet
road. It's certainly a problem in an uncongested town.

This overspeed has become the focus of safety efforts, to the
exclusion of all else, partly because it's easier to quantify and
police than driver skill or concentration. It's possible to reduce the
speed of the comfort zone by making the driver less comfortable .. by
keeping responsibility to other users (or, more effectively, licence
points) in his mind, but the effect is too gradual and patchy to
satisfy the needs of improving road safety.

So the intent of chicanes is to reduce the speed of his comfort
zone by giving him obstacles to negotiate etc, effectively making
the road more dangerous so that he compensates by reducing speed.

Chicanes aren't the only method - all the supermarket car
parks near me are laid out for the worst possible traffic flow
with entry and exits crossing, tight corners and awkward angles.
Some new roads have been built with unnecessary double curves
and poor sight lines.

That's all very well and does reduce the speeds, but only at the cost
of putting his concentration elsewhere. I believe the effect is to
slow just enough that the extra concentration required to negotiate
the obstacle leaves the driver fully occupied. This is probably not a
good idea : in normal progress, even at mildly excessive speed, the
driver has some spare time to keep an eye out for hazards. It doesn't
always work - if there aren't any obvious hazards, daydreaming will
result (cf. motorways). But if there's an artificial hazard, he's now
fully occupied and when another, real hazard appears at the same time
he won't be able to cope.

It's never really sensible to make any activity (that you want to be
safe) deliberately more dangerous than necessary. The real problem is
that we overestimate safe speed, because we're overconfident and
modern cars make us feel so safe and comfortable. Changing the
equilibrium by adjusting real or perceived danger is likely to have
unwanted side effects. Even making the cars less comfortable (e.g. by
increasing the awareness of engine noise, or ensuring that occupants
are thrown about by cornering) isn't likely to help much - it will
still take concentration that's better reserved for the road. The
challenge is to train drivers to drive in a way that leaves them
with capacity to handle the unexpected.


-adrian

[[email protected]]

On 13 Jun, 10:12, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
> Even making the cars less comfortable (e.g. by
> increasing the awareness of engine noise, or ensuring that occupants
> are thrown about by cornering) isn't likely to help much - it will
> still take concentration that's better reserved for the road.
>
> -adrian

I forget who it was that suggested that driving standards would
improve by several orders of magnitude if all cars were fitted with a
sharp metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel. Crash if you
dare!

[Paul Rudin[_2_]]

writes:


> I forget who it was that suggested that driving standards would
> improve by several orders of magnitude if all cars were fitted with a
> sharp metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel. Crash if you
> dare!

Armen Alchian.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 13, 10:12 am, Adrian Godwin > wrote:
> I believe they're INTENDED to make the road 'more dangerous'.

<snip>

> It's never really sensible to make any activity (that you want to be
> safe) deliberately more dangerous than necessary. The real problem is
> that we overestimate safe speed, because we're overconfident and
> modern cars make us feel so safe and comfortable. Changing the
> equilibrium by adjusting real or perceived danger is likely to have
> unwanted side effects. Even making the cars less comfortable (e.g. by
> increasing the awareness of engine noise, or ensuring that occupants
> are thrown about by cornering) isn't likely to help much - it will
> still take concentration that's better reserved for the road. The
> challenge is to train drivers to drive in a way that leaves them
> with capacity to handle the unexpected.

I agree with your general line. Many traffic calming devices may make
the road more dangerous, although it does depend who they are
targetting. A road near where I used to live in London was quite wide,
lots of shops, people, parked cars, 30 mph speed limit. I used to
drive along there at 30 mph or slightly less, looking out for
pedestrians behind cars, etc. Then they installed pillow type bumps
and I stopped looking for pedestrians and my effort went into lining
up my car to go over the bump as smoothly as possible. The pillows
undoubtedly made me more dangerous, but as they slowed the 40 mph guys
down to 30 mph maybe their overall effect was an increase in safety.

There is an important distinction to be made between perceived and
actual danger. I remember an example on a TV programme of a road where
there were regularly minor accidents. There was an exit from a car
park on a difficult narrow bend. They wanted to reduce the accidents;
constraints mades this difficult, but they chopped a few trees down
and widened the road a bit. The accident rate went up significantly,
and the accidents were worse. The original road was dangerous and
looked it, so people took it fairly carefully. The new version looked
much safer so people drove faster and failed to up their concentration
in the way they had before, hence more accidents.

As you say most people are overconfident. They tend to underestimate
risk. Random chicanes make the road look dangerous because they are
dangerous. What we need are measures that make roads look more
dangerous than they actually are, which will compensate for over
confidence/underestimation of risk. Maybe this is why removing white
lines works, it makes the road an unprotected open space rather than a
track to race along.

Rob

[[email protected]]

On Jun 13, 12:24 pm, wrote:
> I forget who it was that suggested that driving standards would
> improve by several orders of magnitude if all cars were fitted with a
> sharp metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel. Crash if you
> dare!

Maybe instead of pop-up bollards we need pop up spikes in cars,
automatically triggered in 30 mph limits.
And maybe linked to the speedo - the faster you go, the closer it gets
to your throat.

Rob

[Adrian Godwin]

wrote:
> As you say most people are overconfident. They tend to underestimate
> risk. Random chicanes make the road look dangerous because they are
> dangerous. What we need are measures that make roads look more
> dangerous than they actually are, which will compensate for over
> confidence/underestimation of risk. Maybe this is why removing white
> lines works, it makes the road an unprotected open space rather than a
> track to race along.
>

I was going to argue that people would soon get used to that and speed
up again .. but perhaps that's a strategy : change features regularly
so that a road never becomes familiar, and is always treated as
cautiously as new territory.

Rerouting roads every couple of months might turn out a bit expensive
though ..

-adrian

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Adrian Godwin
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>
>> I actually agree with him - it does make the road 'more dangerous', so
>> drivers have a choice of either slowing down or bending their nice shiny
>> metal. Drivers don't like bending their nice shiny metal, and there's
>> nothing else which will make them slow down. They won't obey signs
>> unless there's a camera present. They will obey chicanes with concrete
>> bollards. Hooray for chicanes with concrete bollards, say I.
>>
>
> I believe they're INTENDED to make the road 'more dangerous'.

That's what I said, isn't it? And a very good thing too.

> So the intent of chicanes is to reduce the speed of his comfort
> zone by giving him obstacles to negotiate etc, effectively making
> the road more dangerous so that he compensates by reducing speed.

Yup...

> Chicanes aren't the only method - all the supermarket car
> parks near me are laid out for the worst possible traffic flow
> with entry and exits crossing, tight corners and awkward angles.
> Some new roads have been built with unnecessary double curves
> and poor sight lines.

Yup...

[snip]

> It's never really sensible to make any activity (that you want to be
> safe) deliberately more dangerous than necessary. The real problem is
> that we overestimate safe speed, because we're overconfident and
> modern cars make us feel so safe and comfortable.

OK, but, making cars less comfortable is not going to happen, in a
capitalist economy. So we have a choice between vastly increasing
enforcement of traffic law (which provokes strong resistance), making the
road more dangerous /at/ /speed/, or banning the motor car all together.
I'd personally be in favour of option three, but frankly that's not going
to happen either.

As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I think making the roads
more dangerous /at/ /speed/ is the best solution which is possible in real
politics.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>,
(' ') wrote:

> As you say most people are overconfident. They tend to underestimate
> risk. Random chicanes make the road look dangerous because they are
> dangerous. What we need are measures that make roads look more
> dangerous than they actually are, which will compensate for over
> confidence/underestimation of risk. Maybe this is why removing white
> lines works, it makes the road an unprotected open space rather than a
> track to race along.

If the things you introduce into the road look dangerous but aren't,
drivers will quickly learn that they aren't and will ignore them. If they
look dangerous and are, the most dangerous drivers will be permanently
removed from the gene pool, and everyone else will slow down. Both these
outcomes seem to me a good thing.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ye hypocrites! are these your pranks? To murder men and give God thanks?
Desist, for shame! Proceed no further: God won't accept your thanks for
murther
-- Robert Burns, 'Thanksgiving For a National Victory'

[[email protected]]

On Jun 13, 5:48 pm, Simon Brooke > wrote:
> in message . com>,
>
> If the things you introduce into the road look dangerous but aren't,
> drivers will quickly learn that they aren't and will ignore them. If they
> look dangerous and are, the most dangerous drivers will be permanently
> removed from the gene pool, and everyone else will slow down. Both these
> outcomes seem to me a good thing.
>
> --
> (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

De-lurking for the first time in about 2 years.

That road is a couple of miles from where I live. It's part of a rat-
run for avoiding the (admittedly dreadful) A1067 when coming into
Naaarje from the north-west. I was in the car today, and drove the
stretch in both directions to see what it's actually like.

That part of the village doesn't have much pavement to speak of
anyway, so the 'peds crossing back and forth to use the ped part of
the pinch-point' has some validity. But it's a narrow road at the best
of times; halfway through I found an Escort & a Focus crawling through
in opposite directions, nearly touching mirrors due to the narrowness
of the road. And that bit was away from a pinch-point.

The pinch-point bollards are made from dark-coloured wood, and blend
into the background far too much. They do have reflectives on them
(some white, some red), but they badly need hi-vis flashes too. It's a
nice old bit of the village; maybe there's a conservation policy
preventing hi-vis materials being used? Just guessing.

Drove back through at exactly 20mph (the limit). Found the bollard
which has already been part-crunched - half-blind left-hand bend on a
slight downhill, then it's right there in front of you. Not the
cleverest placement.

Overall, the scheme is not bad, but not brilliant either - and it
depends *massively* on cagers sticking to the 20 limit. And there's
the real rub: on the way back through (at exactly the limit), some
tosser behind me was going much faster, had to slow down and then
tailgated me all the way through the village. If I wasn't there, I'm
sure he'd have steamed through there as fast as possible. Do that
here, and it looks very easy to get it wrong. This facility needs a
couple of bi-directional speed-camera on top of what they've already
got. Only that'll stop the *******.

PS: the tailgater then overtook me dangerously while I was doing
exactly 30 on a 30-limit residential road just past the above bit.
Ignorant motorists = accidents. No use the local resident just blaming
the traffic-calming measures, even if they aren't perfect.

</$0.02>

-- Chris Bardell
[exiled in Norwich]

[_[_2_]]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:35:21 -0700,
wrote:


> Overall, the scheme is not bad, but not brilliant either - and it
> depends *massively* on cagers sticking to the 20 limit. And there's
> the real rub: on the way back through (at exactly the limit), some
> tosser behind me was going much faster, had to slow down and then
> tailgated me all the way through the village. If I wasn't there, I'm
> sure he'd have steamed through there as fast as possible. Do that
> here, and it looks very easy to get it wrong.

Should have pulled over just far enough from the village for him to get up
a good head of steam - while you followed at a safe distance, camera at the
ready...

[Adrian Godwin]

Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
> As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
> remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I think making the roads
> more dangerous /at/ /speed/ is the best solution which is possible in real
> politics.
>

In gung-ho mood, I'd agree. But more sensibly, I don't think this is possible
without making the roads more dangerous even at 'reasonable' speed.
Even more difficult to accept is the collateral damage those drivers will
cause to other road users while they remove themselves from the gene pool.

-adrian

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>,
(' ')
wrote:

> Drove back through at exactly 20mph (the limit). Found the bollard
> which has already been part-crunched - half-blind left-hand bend on a
> slight downhill, then it's right there in front of you. Not the
> cleverest placement.

I think that is the cleverest placement. The problem was that it wasn't
strong enough to do serious damage. If motorists get the idea that round
the next blind bend there may well be something which will wreck their car
and may kill them if they're not driving within the speed limit, they'll
stick to the speed limit. A tricky chicane between the sort of obstacles
which will stop a 40ton artic dead is /just/ what you want round a blind
bend.

> Overall, the scheme is not bad, but not brilliant either - and it
> depends *massively* on cagers sticking to the 20 limit. And there's
> the real rub: on the way back through (at exactly the limit), some
> tosser behind me was going much faster, had to slow down and then
> tailgated me all the way through the village. If I wasn't there, I'm
> sure he'd have steamed through there as fast as possible.

Exactly. So you need to make sure the fastest that a top formula one driver
on a dry road could negotiate it without crunching into something solid is
the speed limit and not 1mph more.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Adrian Godwin
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>>
>> As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible,
>> whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I think making
>> the roads more dangerous /at/ /speed/ is the best solution which is
>> possible in real politics.
>>
>
> In gung-ho mood, I'd agree. But more sensibly, I don't think this is
> possible without making the roads more dangerous even at 'reasonable'
> speed. Even more difficult to accept is the collateral damage those
> drivers will cause to other road users while they remove themselves from
> the gene pool.

Apart from passengers in the same car, I don't think they will. A
one-car-width chicane between rock solid bollards will see a lot of
one-vehicle accidents, but not many two vehicle accidents (unless both
drivers are total loonies).

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:30:03 +0100 someone who may be Simon Brooke
> wrote this:-

>If motorists get the idea that round
>the next blind bend there may well be something which will wreck their car
>and may kill them if they're not driving within the speed limit, they'll
>stick to the speed limit. A tricky chicane between the sort of obstacles
>which will stop a 40ton artic dead is /just/ what you want round a blind
>bend.

Unfortunately there is a fashion amongst road builders for things
which are as weak as possible.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Roger Merriman]

Marcus Red > wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > naked_draughtsman > wrote:
> >
> >> "POHB" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >>> On 11 Jun, 22:15, TerryJ > wrote:
> >>>> Pinch points are scary for non motorists.I know it's because some
> >>>> motorists are incompetent or sociopathic but I do not like the extra
> >>>> risk personally.
> >>> Why don't they make them all with those little lanes up the side that
> >>> let bikes etc avoid getting pinched?
> >> Because cars will park along the side of the road and block it up, impeding
> >> the visibility for cyclists as well as forcing them to go through the pinch
> >> point.
> >
> > depends on the area, the onces in llanfoist as far as memory recalls
> > don't have cars parked blocking the way.
> >
> llanfoist is hardly inner-city parking though!

well no but then niether is the village in the news story. and in that
area some traffic calming works and some doesn't.

roger

[TerryJ]

be right there in front of you. Not the
> > cleverest placement.
>
> I think that is the cleverest placement. T

It could be your wife pushing a pram or your old dad walking the dog .

I spoke to a young man recently who was walking home along a local
lane at night and suddenly found himself in the hedge with some big
bruises

TerryJ