Yes! I've driven a lot in France where at least in smaller cities there are way fewer signals and stop signs than on North America. Like a lot of trips you don't encounter any. Traffic is managed by roundabouts and priority to the right. The consequence is you have to watch what other cars are doing and actively drive.
When traffic signals mediate everything for you, it's much easier to turn your brain off and when something unexpected, like a pedestrian crossing the road occurs, you don't see them because you're only watching the signals.
The added benefit is much better traffic flow. I wish we could get more roundabouts, unfortunately I think it would be a tough transition.
I have mixed feelings about roundabouts. Like, when done well they obviously work and they are even mildly entertaining to drive around when traffic is light but many towns slapped them in places where obviously there barely enough space for intersection, let alone roundabout and it is just awkward to drive around.
I guess in Europe roundabouts are often just the alternative to stop signs since it's the only way you can have an intersection between equal priority streets without traffic lights.
Roundabouts are quite a bit safer than alternatives like stop signs and traffic signals. Hard to have T-bone crashes plus it forces the speed to be reduced.
And never ending road constructions, which is for weird reasons -not weird but most likely constructions mafia- Canada in general and Montreal specifically have them all year round!!
Yes! A family member actually had an accident because they had “right of way” and thus just drove onwards.
I no longer trusts road signs and will still look in an intersection even if, for example, there is no stop sign but I can’t see that no cars are actually coming!
Yep, in the uniform traffic code, nobody "has" the right of way, they can only yield it. Failing to yield can get you a ticket, but acting like you deserve the road can get you killed.
I feel that traffic is much worse since before COVID, drivers more aggressive, etc. You have to accept that people are going to make terrible decisions and roll with it.
Incidentally, we had storms knock out the power and some typically backed up intersections were moving along very well, with people being cautious but assertive, and not aggressive.
> I feel that traffic is much worse since before COVID, drivers more aggressive, etc.
From what I've seen, it seems like people are less afraid of the consequences of bad driving behavior. There's less of a police presence on the roads. I'm not sure why that's the case, but I have a few guesses.
As someone once said--I forget who--if you put a giant metal spike on the steering wheel, pointing straight at the driver's heart--unsafe driving will plummet.
I mean, that's the same attitude. There is a truth to it, but only if you don't get carried away.
Motorcycle riding is basically that, but motorcyclists still ride like crazy. They do wheelies on public roads, exceed the speed limit by 50 km/h or more, ignore red lights, filter through moving traffic and so on. The fact that their vehicle has 0 safety features doesn't make them ride more carefully. It's the opposite.
I used to ride one (before I had a kid), and I was generally a pretty careful rider.
After I took my license exam, the instructor sat me down and told me every stupid thing I had done in great detail. He then said "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you passed. But if you keep riding like that, you will be another road statistic.". I got the point.
Anyway, despite becoming careful, I still loved riding it. It is way more physical than driving a car and that was pleasurable in itself.
But there are indeed a lot of completely crazy bike riders out there.
Jeremy Clarkson. Obviously it was meant as a joke. I can't believe people take this sort of thing seriously, it would require having no life experience at all.
Fewer car-miles would in fact reduce car-related deaths. Make cars less appealing for a lot of trips relative to e-bikes, bike, public transit, walking, or getting things delivered is perfectly rational. Especially when you look at the rest of this thread in which several people have good arguments that nothing else will work.
If you have ever been to cities in Holland, you would know that removing cars helps enormously.
Bicycles, pedestrians, trams, all going through the town quite safely. There are some cars too (they are not banned) but not many, and they crawl along.
It was so liberating to be in that environment. Obviously not for petrolheads, but much safer and nicer for everyone else.
There is an upward limit on how much drivers can effectively pay attention to. So, I tend to think that this approach works for small intersections, but not for very busy ones, all the scary videos of people doing it daily nothwithstanding. I'm fairly certain people get killed all the time.
I am from Ethiopia. I can confirm that it does not work. I wouldn't recommend tourists to drive here unless they stay at least a month observing how traffic works. Years ago when I started driving, I use to slow down, be attentive, allow people to go first but through time I learned (was forced?) to be like the average driver or I couldn't get anywhere.
This[1] place is renovated now but there are other squares where people drive like this. It's prone to traffic accidents
Amazing video. My jaw dropped watching it. However I then realized the video playback is quite speed up. Perhaps as much as x4. Still a very interesting video.
And it's not even adjusted by miles/km driven which I assume is significantly lower there (e.g. the US is not that bad compared to Eastern Europe or Belgium if you take into account that Americans driven much more on average).
This factor of 5 difference in 3rd world countries might actually be explained by Smeed's Curve:
"In 1947 Ruben Smeed, the founding father of transport studies in Britain, discovered an intriguing statistical relationship [for 20 countries] between the number of cars per person, and the road accident fatality rate per car. The data revealed that as numbers of cars increased, the death rate per car plummeted.
"The Smeed Curve might be considered a societal learning curve. As one encounters
more cars people, literally, learn how to live with them. Another part of the explanation might be found in contemplation of other societal changes that accompany rising car ownership. Car ownership correlates highly with measures of affluence. Death rates per car decrease as affluence increases.
"When cars are few in number most fatalities are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists). As vehicle numbers increase the vulnerable retreat."
> His hypothesis in relation to road traffic safety has been refuted by several authors, who point out that fatalities per person have decreased in many countries, when according to Smeed's law requires they should increase as long as the number of vehicles per person continues to rise.
So, if you make one special road intersection that breaks all the rules of how road intersections normally work people will slow down and pay extra attention. If you make a million of them people will get used to them and/or they will get tired of paying all that extra attention. The cost of going slower all the time will add up, so people will go back to going fast.
All of this means that an experiment of one intersection doesn't necessarily tell us anything useful about the results of a broader implementation.
The article even does mention places with less traffic regulation that serve as much better test beds, and then waves away the obvious conclusion.
> The cost of going slower all the time will add up, so people will go back to going fast.
Interesting hypothesis but where is the evidence? I can think of country-wide counter examples such as the UK (among the safest roads in the world) where they've been removing central line markings on country roads for years in the name of safety. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
I read a psychology study a long while back (might be able to find it idk) that I think would agree with this line of thinking but with a slightly different mechanism.
The paper argued that we have an internal risk level that we like to drive at, regardless of speed limit. Speeds higher than that risk level feel dangerous and are avoided. Speeds lower than that risk level are basically too boring and the task is not stimulating so you speed up. That risk level is individual dependent, hence some people like to speed more than others.
In this context, one weird “lawless” intersection is a novelty that requires attention and is likely perceived as riskier since it is unfamiliar. However, if all intersections were like that, they become normal and people will face them more aggressively.
Which is why you need to engineer to a target maximum speed. The article kind of glosses over this but a big thing is that the intersection was also converted to a roundabout, which if you take too fast you’ll just wind up crashing into the side or the center.
A lot of American speeding happens because engineers apply Interstate-like design standards to local roads and then are surprised by interstate speeds.
I mean, what is the difference between this proposal and what happens in overcrowded cities in third world countries? I'm pretty sure this approach does not increase safety in those countries.
With that said one easier way to increase road safety is to reduce the width of lanes since people drive fast proportionally to the size of the lane, not the speed limit.
To backpedal just a little, I take offence at the simple conclusion, that removing lines, signs and lights will make things better. If you read a bit closer most of the experiments are a bit more nuanced, for instance "a traffic circle, an extended cycle path, and a pedestrian area". It seems that in the famous experiment Monderman actually did add a fair amount of paint to the asphalt.
Also, bad paint is worse than no paint, in particular dividing the road into more lanes than there is room for.
Well if you look at thr pictures/Videos it's not really more paint it's just that he created shared space. In other words he put all different road users more closely together without obvious separations. This is much in line with research which shows that bike paths are much safer when put on the road than when put together with footpaths off the road.
This very much aligns with my (admittedly anecdotal) evidence. I find riding on the road is typically much safer than riding on a bike path on the side of the road (like the typical German ones). On the road you are in the way so drivers pay attention to you, if you are on a bike path next to he road, cars will overlook you at the next intersection). That said completely separate paths with minimal intersection with cars are obviously even better.
> This is much in line with research which shows that bike paths are much safer when put on the road than when put together with footpaths off the road.
Please share - this seems in opposition to all the other research I’ve seen that proximity between cars and bikes (esp with even painted bike lanes) is more dangerous for cyclists than separate lanes.
well, that is completely opposite to my experience. on or next to the road i have to constantly pay attention to traffic. every moment a car could get to close and scrape me or worse. away from the road i can ride much more relaxed. only at intersections i need to watch out for traffic.
In many cases, there will be pedestrian crosswalks on each exit/entrance to the roundabout. At least that's how I have experienced roundabouts in central Europe.
As a road runner and bike commuter in the before times who's been run over a couple of times, crosswalks are a shit idea that cause far more harm than good, full stop. Fuck crosswalks. This is actually a good example of what the article discusses, because there's only two possible states: one, in which there's little enough traffic that crossing normally is obvious and trivial, and two, where there's enough traffic that no quantity of flashing lights, neon striping, reflectors and such could ever make crossing truly safe. Staying alive on the roads without a death cage requires assuming that anyone in a car can and will ignore any rule at any time, because, eventually, someone will - and if you trusted that little green man to keep you alive, well, whoops. Crosswalks encourage the sort of head-down passivity in inherently dangerous situations that just gets people killed, and the more flashing shit you attach to them the more you alert fatigue drivers into ignoring them.
Crosswalks are similar to speed limits in this context in that they're utterly ineffective but provide an excuse to not actually fix the problem, i.e. build a lot of nonvehicular overpasses/underpasses. The point of criticizing a rules-based approach to traffic safety isn't to encourage some orgy of vehicular homicide, but to move to actually workable solutions involving changing the built environment.
And in my area, anyway, roundabouts are more likely to come with nonvehicular bypass structures than other forms of interchange. I'll take a roundabout + overpass over a traffic light + crosswalk every day of the week. In the most walkable places I've lived, that walkability was delivered not by an obsession with figuring out the precise set of rules or the precise enforcement mechanism needed to finally make it work, but by an acknowledgement that the sort of infrastructure you build is inextricably linked to how people use it. Build a stroad and you'll get pedestrian deaths regardless of the rules you try to layer on top of it. Build a walking bridge and you dodge the problem entirely.
On the otherhand, I feel like roundabouts are more frustrating, and flow worse. I don't know about safer, my anecdotal evidence is much too sparse; I'm willing to accept they may be safer as they narrow the scope of collisions, mostly eliminating head-ons; although I have a lot more close calls with pedestrians in congested roundabouts: as a driver, I need to turn my head so I can look to the left (upstream) for a gap, while also looking right (downstream) for pedestrians which have many approaches and it's difficult to do both. A true scotsman roundabout moves the pedestrian crossings away, where pedestrians don't actually want to cross, which makes the conflicts easier, but only if the pedestrians follow the controls (but, if we're relying on people following controls, why not a traffic signal).
I've been at roundabouts where there's a seemingly interminable number of cars from the entrance upstream of me that are exiting to exits downstream of me, and that's terribly frustrating, because there's no fairness mechanism.
And then there's the many roundabouts shoehorned into much too small of a space.
This completely fails to account for the fact that 50% of roadway fatalities in the US involve alcohol. Many of the rest involve youth, drugs or inexperience of one form or another.
This isn't a "some people don't pay attention" problem. And some "clever" hackish solution to try to deal with this narrow avenue will have precisely zero impact on fatalities and an oversized impact on driver irritation.
Want fewer accidents? Outlaw alcohol, use a "provisional" plate system for new drivers, and limit the amount of horsepower drivers under 24 can legally drive.
At least if you replace signals with roundabouts, the theory is that it is just not possible to speed in a straight line for very long, since you’d hit a roundabout circle.
Croatia had 0 blood alcohol for a few years if I remember correctly, it was deemed not successful after statistic didn't show a reduction in accidents and fatalities, although I believe it was probably reversed back to 0.5 per mille because of lobbying and tourism. We also had horsepower limits for young drivers, but that was deemed unconstitutional. I think they're now considering a trial driver's license for young drivers, might be an eu thing, I'm not sure about the details.
Precisely the point. We drive trillions of miles in a year and the number of fatalities and even permanent disability from accidents is astonishingly low. As modern people in a free democratic society, I wonder if we at some point have to accept, "this is as good as it gets." Your only other options are complete tyranny of the state over motorists.
Looking at the raw statistics, it seems that the US could do more to improve road safety
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I believe better street design (meaning slowing cars down) and roundabouts could help. Building more public transport is also an option, but it might not be a feasible solution due to US City design.
US: 12,9 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants
Europe: 9.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants
Sweden: 2,2 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants
Netherlands: 3,8 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants
It's tempting to pull statistics for the "entire USA" and then try to imagine policy around it. What you should do is pull statistics for different states and then consider policy.
For example, Texas has fewer inhabitants than California, yet more people die on Texas roads than California roads. Perhaps there's something to be examined there?
Further.. again, so many fatalities in the US involve alcohol that you immediately want to think about how Europe, Sweden and the Netherlands handle drunk driving behavior and what sorts of drunk driving diversion programs they engage in.
It's also why I mentioned Australia's "provisional plate" system. I think that's a great idea, and it specifically puts horsepower limits on vehicles for "provisional" drivers. This is also a known risk factor, and it's why insurance coverage for young men under 24 is significantly more expensive than for females in the same age bracket. The fatality ratio is 8:1 across the sexes.
So.. sure, roundabouts and traffic calming might be it, but my reading of the data suggests more interesting problems.
If traffic spacing is maintained, speed is not a problem. Speed is a problem when one car is going 20mph slower than everyone else and creating a logjam.
Speed is absolutely a problem because it reduces the time you have to react to oncoming and crossing traffic and because it increases the impact of collisions.
Introduce a stupid 45mph speed limit on drivers for 1 year after they've passed their test in NI. That means I could be on a motorway or big A road where people are going 70+mph, and be supposed to do 45mph.
Of course I don't do that unless I see a car that I think is a police car. I've been flashed at before for doing 45mph and find it way easier to drive at the same speed as other cars.
> People want to speed, and they are willing to accept thousands of dead and disabled as the price.
Is speeding the primary reason of most traffic fatalities? Also it's highly variable, in some case it might result in a significant increase in risk and in others it might be completely negligible.
Urban speeds above 20mph are way more deadly, and "stroads" are bad. Speeding on limited access highways where you don't have vulnerable traffic is probably a minor factor if any.
This reminds me of the story about American football padding and feedback loops. Whenever stats are published showing that high schoolers are getting more concussions when playing football, the natural reaction is to add more padding. But what ends up happening is that the players get more confident and hit even harder, resulting in more concussions. So the counterintuitive solution might be to remove padding, not add more. Presumably if you feel more "naked" and vulnerable your subconscious will restrain how hard you hit.
I heard this story in the feedback loops section of 101 Universal Design Principles. I haven't looked into the research, so take the idea with a grain of salt.
That only applies when you are intentionally hitting your head into things. I would personally wear an appropriate helmet for pretty much everything and do risk analysis to prevent overconfidence and excessive risk taking.
A similar concept applies to combat sports. Most people see big padded boxing gloves and think they are for limiting damage to the opponent. It's actually the opposite. The gloves protect against breaking your hand on a punch, allowing a boxer to hit their opponent more aggressively.
Boxing or MMA without gloves would actually be less harmful, but it appears more brutal so most leagues use gloves.
Yeah, traffic calming can reduce accidents: speed bumps, 90 degree turns, road lanes reduction, safe islands on crosswalks. With all these in place, signals&signs will be treated just as mini informative help instead of a full guide
They’re the most dangerous form of road in terms of traffic and pedestrian fatalities because they don’t know what they want to be. They are designed to maximize speed but also with a high number of conflict points (driveways and intersections).
They are neither a road (high speed way to get between destinations) nor a street (low speed set of destinations).
If you keep traffic at 25mph or below with narrow roads and other traffic calming properties, everyone is safer. Coincidentally, city streets like this tend to not need much signage - usually just stop signs at intersections.
- Remove markings (such as crosswalks)
- Remove signals (such as pedestrian crossings)
- Remove curbs (so that cars can, and will, drive on what is supposed to be sidewalk)
- Where there are sidewalks, block them with cafes (so that pedestrians must walk in the road)
As a frequent pedestrian, on the already pedestrian-hostile streets of the U.S., many of which do not have sidewalks, I have zero faith that this would make drivers behave better. Quite the opposite.
This is the land where the very concept of walking somewhere, or riding a bike, is utterly foreign and incomprehensible to most people. It's the land of selfishness, where anyone else on the road is an inconvenience 'in your way'.
We need more controls, not less. And, ideally, solid barriers to separate the death-machines from the living people. They should have to go around the places where there are people, instead of barreling carelessly through them.
I mostly agree. While visiting Italy was nice and being walkable is great, the drivers were mostly insane and there aren’t a lot of places where areas that are safe to walk are clearly defined so drivers will happily drive in the middle of the road.
I was thinking about Italy while reading through the comments. I've seen people crossing the roads in between drivers. Lovely place and I'd love to visit again but the streets scare me LMAO
I'll never forget what a professor said in college:
If you're serious about eliminating traffic fatalities, outlaw seat belts and airbags, then install a 6-inch steel spike in the center of every steering wheel. The few people who still dare to drive will be far too cautious to cause an accident.
That is, of course, about as ridiculous as A Modest Proposal. Still, over the years it's caused me to repeatedly notice that no matter how hard society complains about something (e.g., traffic fatalities), we keep implicitly deciding that some lifestyles are worth sacrificing lives to preserve.
Absolutely no thanks. Where to start? There are so many poorly thought out ideas here it's like a firehose. Videos of crazy intersections somewhat "working" in the third world does not at all suggest a superior, safer, less congested, or more just system.
How about this:
> 5. See eye to eye: Right-of-way is negotiated by human interaction, rather than commonly ignored signs.
First of all, signs are definitely not "commonly ignored". The opposite is true. Right-of-way should be defendable in a fair court. Rules are the only way to do that. If two people see each other fine, what happens when they both "feel" right and enter each other's path?
89 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 187 ms ] threadWhen traffic signals mediate everything for you, it's much easier to turn your brain off and when something unexpected, like a pedestrian crossing the road occurs, you don't see them because you're only watching the signals.
The added benefit is much better traffic flow. I wish we could get more roundabouts, unfortunately I think it would be a tough transition.
I no longer trusts road signs and will still look in an intersection even if, for example, there is no stop sign but I can’t see that no cars are actually coming!
I feel that traffic is much worse since before COVID, drivers more aggressive, etc. You have to accept that people are going to make terrible decisions and roll with it.
Incidentally, we had storms knock out the power and some typically backed up intersections were moving along very well, with people being cautious but assertive, and not aggressive.
From what I've seen, it seems like people are less afraid of the consequences of bad driving behavior. There's less of a police presence on the roads. I'm not sure why that's the case, but I have a few guesses.
I mean, that's the same attitude. There is a truth to it, but only if you don't get carried away.
After I took my license exam, the instructor sat me down and told me every stupid thing I had done in great detail. He then said "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you passed. But if you keep riding like that, you will be another road statistic.". I got the point.
Anyway, despite becoming careful, I still loved riding it. It is way more physical than driving a car and that was pleasurable in itself.
But there are indeed a lot of completely crazy bike riders out there.
I think I probably heard it from an economist colleague of mine, who knew of Tullock's thought experiment.
Bicycles, pedestrians, trams, all going through the town quite safely. There are some cars too (they are not banned) but not many, and they crawl along.
It was so liberating to be in that environment. Obviously not for petrolheads, but much safer and nicer for everyone else.
But: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Looks like its worse by a factor of around 5.
[1] https://youtu.be/UEIn8GJIg0E
When traffic becomes busy some order is needed
"In 1947 Ruben Smeed, the founding father of transport studies in Britain, discovered an intriguing statistical relationship [for 20 countries] between the number of cars per person, and the road accident fatality rate per car. The data revealed that as numbers of cars increased, the death rate per car plummeted.
"The Smeed Curve might be considered a societal learning curve. As one encounters more cars people, literally, learn how to live with them. Another part of the explanation might be found in contemplation of other societal changes that accompany rising car ownership. Car ownership correlates highly with measures of affluence. Death rates per car decrease as affluence increases.
"When cars are few in number most fatalities are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists). As vehicle numbers increase the vulnerable retreat."
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/shared%20...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law#Empirical_contradi...
All of this means that an experiment of one intersection doesn't necessarily tell us anything useful about the results of a broader implementation.
The article even does mention places with less traffic regulation that serve as much better test beds, and then waves away the obvious conclusion.
Interesting hypothesis but where is the evidence? I can think of country-wide counter examples such as the UK (among the safest roads in the world) where they've been removing central line markings on country roads for years in the name of safety. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
I'm a great beliver in getting rid of most traffic lights when its less busy - say by just having a flashing amber light, meaning its a free for all
reply
The paper argued that we have an internal risk level that we like to drive at, regardless of speed limit. Speeds higher than that risk level feel dangerous and are avoided. Speeds lower than that risk level are basically too boring and the task is not stimulating so you speed up. That risk level is individual dependent, hence some people like to speed more than others.
In this context, one weird “lawless” intersection is a novelty that requires attention and is likely perceived as riskier since it is unfamiliar. However, if all intersections were like that, they become normal and people will face them more aggressively.
A lot of American speeding happens because engineers apply Interstate-like design standards to local roads and then are surprised by interstate speeds.
Also, bad paint is worse than no paint, in particular dividing the road into more lanes than there is room for.
This very much aligns with my (admittedly anecdotal) evidence. I find riding on the road is typically much safer than riding on a bike path on the side of the road (like the typical German ones). On the road you are in the way so drivers pay attention to you, if you are on a bike path next to he road, cars will overlook you at the next intersection). That said completely separate paths with minimal intersection with cars are obviously even better.
Please share - this seems in opposition to all the other research I’ve seen that proximity between cars and bikes (esp with even painted bike lanes) is more dangerous for cyclists than separate lanes.
And for big ones, well, you can just have traffic lights. Or not have passing for pedestrians in same place as for cars
As a road runner and bike commuter in the before times who's been run over a couple of times, crosswalks are a shit idea that cause far more harm than good, full stop. Fuck crosswalks. This is actually a good example of what the article discusses, because there's only two possible states: one, in which there's little enough traffic that crossing normally is obvious and trivial, and two, where there's enough traffic that no quantity of flashing lights, neon striping, reflectors and such could ever make crossing truly safe. Staying alive on the roads without a death cage requires assuming that anyone in a car can and will ignore any rule at any time, because, eventually, someone will - and if you trusted that little green man to keep you alive, well, whoops. Crosswalks encourage the sort of head-down passivity in inherently dangerous situations that just gets people killed, and the more flashing shit you attach to them the more you alert fatigue drivers into ignoring them.
Crosswalks are similar to speed limits in this context in that they're utterly ineffective but provide an excuse to not actually fix the problem, i.e. build a lot of nonvehicular overpasses/underpasses. The point of criticizing a rules-based approach to traffic safety isn't to encourage some orgy of vehicular homicide, but to move to actually workable solutions involving changing the built environment.
And in my area, anyway, roundabouts are more likely to come with nonvehicular bypass structures than other forms of interchange. I'll take a roundabout + overpass over a traffic light + crosswalk every day of the week. In the most walkable places I've lived, that walkability was delivered not by an obsession with figuring out the precise set of rules or the precise enforcement mechanism needed to finally make it work, but by an acknowledgement that the sort of infrastructure you build is inextricably linked to how people use it. Build a stroad and you'll get pedestrian deaths regardless of the rules you try to layer on top of it. Build a walking bridge and you dodge the problem entirely.
I've been at roundabouts where there's a seemingly interminable number of cars from the entrance upstream of me that are exiting to exits downstream of me, and that's terribly frustrating, because there's no fairness mechanism.
And then there's the many roundabouts shoehorned into much too small of a space.
Marin and Masonic (bart track underpass): flashing red most of the day lately -> safe.
What we got was a whole lot of dead people and no one wanted to ride bicycles anymore.
This isn't a "some people don't pay attention" problem. And some "clever" hackish solution to try to deal with this narrow avenue will have precisely zero impact on fatalities and an oversized impact on driver irritation.
Want fewer accidents? Outlaw alcohol, use a "provisional" plate system for new drivers, and limit the amount of horsepower drivers under 24 can legally drive.
This place looks like it’s a roundabout downhill from a straight bridge, so plenty of room to speed. Probably should narrow the bridge.
It is already illegal to drive while intoxicated
And prohibition has already been tried.
Some people just don't care, even if they know the penalties are going to be harsh.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I believe better street design (meaning slowing cars down) and roundabouts could help. Building more public transport is also an option, but it might not be a feasible solution due to US City design.
US: 12,9 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants Europe: 9.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants Sweden: 2,2 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants Netherlands: 3,8 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
For example, Texas has fewer inhabitants than California, yet more people die on Texas roads than California roads. Perhaps there's something to be examined there?
Further.. again, so many fatalities in the US involve alcohol that you immediately want to think about how Europe, Sweden and the Netherlands handle drunk driving behavior and what sorts of drunk driving diversion programs they engage in.
It's also why I mentioned Australia's "provisional plate" system. I think that's a great idea, and it specifically puts horsepower limits on vehicles for "provisional" drivers. This is also a known risk factor, and it's why insurance coverage for young men under 24 is significantly more expensive than for females in the same age bracket. The fatality ratio is 8:1 across the sexes.
So.. sure, roundabouts and traffic calming might be it, but my reading of the data suggests more interesting problems.
Self driving cars are the next step in this.
people will make up a million stories how going above the speed limit is essential for their safety. It’s all BS.
People want to speed, and they are willing to accept thousands of dead and disabled as the price.
Speed is absolutely a problem because it reduces the time you have to react to oncoming and crossing traffic and because it increases the impact of collisions.
Of course I don't do that unless I see a car that I think is a police car. I've been flashed at before for doing 45mph and find it way easier to drive at the same speed as other cars.
Is speeding the primary reason of most traffic fatalities? Also it's highly variable, in some case it might result in a significant increase in risk and in others it might be completely negligible.
I heard this story in the feedback loops section of 101 Universal Design Principles. I haven't looked into the research, so take the idea with a grain of salt.
Boxing or MMA without gloves would actually be less harmful, but it appears more brutal so most leagues use gloves.
What could go wrong, you would ask...
Distracting driver with signs surely has a cognitive and alertness cost.
They’re the most dangerous form of road in terms of traffic and pedestrian fatalities because they don’t know what they want to be. They are designed to maximize speed but also with a high number of conflict points (driveways and intersections).
They are neither a road (high speed way to get between destinations) nor a street (low speed set of destinations).
If you keep traffic at 25mph or below with narrow roads and other traffic calming properties, everyone is safer. Coincidentally, city streets like this tend to not need much signage - usually just stop signs at intersections.
This is the land where the very concept of walking somewhere, or riding a bike, is utterly foreign and incomprehensible to most people. It's the land of selfishness, where anyone else on the road is an inconvenience 'in your way'.
We need more controls, not less. And, ideally, solid barriers to separate the death-machines from the living people. They should have to go around the places where there are people, instead of barreling carelessly through them.
If you're serious about eliminating traffic fatalities, outlaw seat belts and airbags, then install a 6-inch steel spike in the center of every steering wheel. The few people who still dare to drive will be far too cautious to cause an accident.
That is, of course, about as ridiculous as A Modest Proposal. Still, over the years it's caused me to repeatedly notice that no matter how hard society complains about something (e.g., traffic fatalities), we keep implicitly deciding that some lifestyles are worth sacrificing lives to preserve.
anyone drive in India? that's what they're describing.
How about this:
> 5. See eye to eye: Right-of-way is negotiated by human interaction, rather than commonly ignored signs.
First of all, signs are definitely not "commonly ignored". The opposite is true. Right-of-way should be defendable in a fair court. Rules are the only way to do that. If two people see each other fine, what happens when they both "feel" right and enter each other's path?
The article is overloaded with fallacies.