Making Driving Less Safe

A lengthy article, but worth delving into over a cuppa or lunch. If
you're a traffic engineer, it might be wise to have a relaxing camomile
tea handy before reading this.


Making Driving Less Safe
http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displays...2/12/222649/62

The first person to be killed in a car accident was Bridget Driscoll,
1896, in London. Reportedly, when crossing the Crystal Palace she was
hit by an automobile driving a little faster than 6 km/hour. The
coroner expressed the hope that, "such a thing would never happen
again". Of course, one could wonder a little how factual this all is,
or whether Bridget Driscoll just happened to be the first to draw
attention by her tragic demise. Whatever it may be, Mrs. Driscoll is
the first on the list of statistics that has grown lamentably long.

Accidents like the one cited above fed the idea, held during the early
twentieth century, that it is dangerous to mix cars with pedestrians
and cyclists unchecked. For the effectiveness of traffic and the safety
of its occupants, it was believed far better to separate cars from the
other traffic fluxes: the segregation of traffic. To this day, we
experience the results of this philosophy.

Yet now we live in two worlds. Most of the day, we live in the World of
Humans where we engage with each other and behave according to our
socially formed guidelines. Yet when we seat ourselves behind the wheel
of our cherished gas-guzzler, we enter a different world: the World of
Cars, which has created its own guidelines, do's and don'ts. It
wouldn't be all that bad, weren't it that the World of Humans and the
World of Cars often need to share the same space. Public space. Since
there is a limit to the degree cars can be segregated from the World of
Humans, full segregation of worlds is never attained. And where both
worlds overlap, we find deadly car accidents with the highest
frequency.

This is not my own philosophy. It's the one of Hans Monderman, or at
least it is how I understood his. Hans Monderman is a Dutch traffic
engineer, who recently received national and international attention
for his work to create more safe and more efficient roads. His approach
is nothing short of counter-intuitive: create safer roads by making
roads look more dangerous.

There's a libertarian, perhaps even anarchistic, streak to his approach
- although Monderman would probably refuse to label it as such. To him,
the World of Cars suffers from a variety of ills. First of all, the
World of Cars sends out the wrong signals and ultimately it
de-humanises traffic behaviour. Secluded within a car, you don't see
people. You see other cars. Cars are dead things, and the guidelines
we've been grown up with do not apply to them. Ponder this: How often
have you had a near-accident or witnessed anti-social behaviour on the
road where you did not see the driver? Or felt like kicking the car
that had almost harmed you (or the extension of yourself, your car)?
Monderman's conclusion: behaviour in traffic is different than social
behaviour.

On another tack, the guidelines for the World of Cars are a construct
which did not grow bottom-up within a social context. It was
superimposed, top-down, by a government institution and always done so
within a legal framework. Roads were designed accordingly. An engineer
of the government automatically puts extra road signs and measurements
in place to reduce the hypothetical "What if...?" situations, to avoid
civil responsibility. The paternal furnishing of the roads results in
removing a big chunk of the personal responsibility of the driver.

Monderman argues that public space should not be cut up. In fact,
traffic should be just one function of many of common space, not a
separate one. But how to achieve this? His answer: by again merging the
segregated traffic fluxes. By removing road signs that "enforce"
responsibility on the driver. Or, in short: by returning the
responsibility of the social guidelines back to the individual driver.

Accidents are inherently linked to driving speed. There is a 1 : 1
relation between the increase of driving speed and the frequency of
car-accidents. In turn, the driving speed of a car is related to the
level of safety which the driver experiences. This is backed up by a
range of statistics: the safer the car gets, the faster it gets driven.
In fact, even the addition of the safety belt in cars results in a
slight increase of speed. This was observed in countries in Africa
before and after the introduction of the safety belt. The rate of
accidents increased comparably. This does not apply just for cars: I
can remember that Nike Air shoes equipped with extra ankle support
resulted in more, not less, sprains. Why? Because the wearers believed
it would protect them better, got a sloppier concentration and took
higher risks, resulting in more accidents.

But Monderman does not believe in enforced speed reduction. It does not
affect the attitude of the driver. Instead, he wants the driver to feel
less secure, which results in a decrease of speed and a larger
interaction of the driver with his surrounding.

From a very readable piece about Monderman and his ideas:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

- Suddenly, there it is: the Intersection. 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. -


These roundabouts are nothing new; Monderman confesses he took the
example from another city: Paris. Most people who have driven through
Paris have developed something of a trauma for the traffic (I sure
have!), but the truth is that there are relatively few deadly accidents
on the roundabouts while they also more efficiently take care of the
traffic than traffic lights would. The general flux of cars is far
higher.

Monderman also favours the "first comes, first leaves" system on
four-way crossings, common in the United States, for a same reason: it
engages interaction between drivers. He often stresses that his
solutions are not the end-all of everything and argues that for every
situation a new approach might be the best solution. But the goal
always should be: better interaction between road occupants and an
abandonment of segregation.

The approach of Monderman, and those who think like him, would not have
gained so much traction internationally, if it wasn't so successful.
Monderman is now working in a EU group with similar minds, and the
group has been implementing several projects in more and more
countries. Where his solutions are introduced in the Netherlands the
death toll in car accidents has decreased staggeringly. Mind: the total
amount of accidents has risen, yet those are the bumps and scratches
type of accidents resulting in relatively low-cost damage. For most
Parisian habitants, these kind of accidents must sound familiar too;
they are the kind which Paris is notorious for.

I still have my own questions about the methods described above. For
instance, I haven't seen a good take on how Monderman envisions
combining trucks/lorries with biking children, who are less aware of
surrounding traffic. Nevertheless, his ideas read like a refreshing
alternative to something that is so frustrating on a daily basis. That,
and the fact that the yearly death toll in traffic has been a sting and
curse in my consciousness from early on.


--
cfsmtb

I kinda believe this sort of stuff as well.
It took me looking at photos from 1800’s Melbourne to suddenly realise
that traffic lights, signs & painted lines actually created a lax in
driver/pedestrian care & responcibilit, and that roads can be shared.


--
Marx SS

"cfsmtb" wrote in message
...

A lengthy article, but worth delving into over a cuppa or lunch. If
you're a traffic engineer, it might be wise to have a relaxing camomile
tea handy before reading this.

good article..

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:46:56 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:

A lengthy article, but worth delving into over a cuppa or lunch. If
you're a traffic engineer, it might be wise to have a relaxing camomile
tea handy before reading this.

Sounds like the kind of stuff they've been experimenting with in a number
of locations over the years. There's is one place (either in Germany or
Denmark, I can't remember) where an entire suburb has NO road markings
(signs, lines, etc.) and no pavements. Traffic accidents (car v car, car v
ped. etc.) fell drastically as drivers had to *think* about what they were
doing.

If you can get hold of a copy, have a read of "Death on the Streets" by
Robert Davies. It goes some way to explaining why such a scheme works.

I'd love to see this introduced to at least all residential areas.

Graeme

cfsmtb Wrote:
A lengthy article, but worth delving into over a cuppa or lunch. If
you're a traffic engineer, it might be wise to have a relaxing camomile
tea handy before reading this.

snip snip




The critical/socialist theorist in me is lovin' it


Sitting in traffic on Monday I was wondering what we would all do if
suddenly there were no speed limits or traffic signals and came to the
conclusion that we would have to "talk" to each other as road users &
as human beings - egads! the horror

Thanks cfsmtb - thoughtful article.


--
warrwych

Graeme Dods wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:46:56 +1100, cfsmtb wrote:

A lengthy article, but worth delving into over a cuppa or lunch. If
you're a traffic engineer, it might be wise to have a relaxing camomile
tea handy before reading this.

Sounds like the kind of stuff they've been experimenting with in a number
of locations over the years. There's is one place (either in Germany or
Denmark, I can't remember) where an entire suburb has NO road markings
(signs, lines, etc.) and no pavements. Traffic accidents (car v car, car v
ped. etc.) fell drastically as drivers had to *think* about what they were
doing.

If you can get hold of a copy, have a read of "Death on the Streets" by
Robert Davies. It goes some way to explaining why such a scheme works.

I'd love to see this introduced to at least all residential areas.

Graeme

I had an idea many years ago that there should be a big
steel spike pointing at the driver out of the middle of
their steering wheel. And no seat belt. That should make
'em a bit more careful.

DeF

--
e-mail:
To reply, you'll have to remove finger.

cfsmtb Wrote:

An engineer of the government automatically puts extra road signs and
measurements in place to reduce the hypothetical "What if...?"
situations, to avoid civil responsibility. The paternal furnishing of
the roads results in removing a big chunk of the personal
responsibility of the driver.


In my view that is the nub of much of society's problems; avoidence of
personal responsibility.

It seems to me that whenever a number of individuals experience a
problem then it is almost always cast as a problem which needs to be
legislated, mitigated, engineered and solved by the government. It's
increasingly rare for government to point the finger and say `no, you
fscked up and you will wear the consequences.'

The government likes the civil angle as it gives them something to do.
`Oh we'll form a comitte to look at the problem' etc etc. The populace
likes the civil angle 'cause it removes responsibility from them. The
result is a society where care for your fellow man is diminished
because there's not a lot that will happen to you as a result of that
lack of care.


--
EuanB

cfsmtb wrote:
The first person to be killed in a car accident was Bridget Driscoll,
1896, in London. Reportedly, when crossing the Crystal Palace she was
hit by an automobile driving a little faster than 6 km/hour

I once read that when there were only four motor vehicles in the United
States, two of them managed to collide with each other. I suppose there
were immediate demands for extra government spending to make the roads
safer.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Slightly different take:

when is there going to be a shame campaign about driving cars? We have
it for litter, for smoking, for domestic violence, for gambling. Car
driving is demonstrably a necessary, but over-used evil. Time to help
people see their social responsibility to drive less.

Donga

Donga Wrote:
Slightly different take:

when is there going to be a shame campaign about driving cars? We have
it for litter, for smoking, for domestic violence, for gambling. Car
driving is demonstrably a necessary, but over-used evil. Time to help
people see their social responsibility to drive less.

Can't see that ever happenning. In the eyes of the general public
litterring, domestic violence, smoking and gambling are activities
carried out by the minority. Just about everybody drives.

The government's not going to sanction a shame campaign which shames
the whole electorate. Political suicide.


--
EuanB