Abolish traffic signs and signals

I thought this might be interesting to those who take part in the ongoing
risk compensation discussion. Today's Wall Street Journal, in an article on
Houston traffic, says:

"And the Dutch are pushing perhaps the most radical idea: doing away with
signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, hoping that danger will
cause motorists to drive more carefully."

It doesn't give a source for that, but the reporting in the WSJ (in contrast
to the richly biased editorial pages) is usually fair and reliable.

--
Paul Turner

Paul Turner Wrote:
I thought this might be interesting to those who take part in the
ongoing
risk compensation discussion. Today's Wall Street Journal, in an
article on
Houston traffic, says:

"And the Dutch are pushing perhaps the most radical idea: doing away
with
signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, hoping that danger
will
cause motorists to drive more carefully."

It doesn't give a source for that, but the reporting in the WSJ (in
contrast
to the richly biased editorial pages) is usually fair and reliable.

--
Paul Turner

They are trying this out in a town in the north of The Netherlands i
think (cant remember really). It´s not a big town but apparently it is
going extremely well with people on foot, on bikes and in cars taking
extra care and looking out for each other.


--
oely

Paul Turner wrote:
I thought this might be interesting to those who take part in the
ongoing
risk compensation discussion. Today's Wall Street Journal, in an
article on
Houston traffic, says:

"And the Dutch are pushing perhaps the most radical idea: doing away
with
signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, hoping that danger
will
cause motorists to drive more carefully."

It doesn't give a source for that, but the reporting in the WSJ (in
contrast
to the richly biased editorial pages) is usually fair and reliable.

--
Paul Turner

Here's a link to a site with the story

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

Bike are everywhere in europe. They can't live without bike. It's just
the way it is
nobody can't blame why they don't driving more car. Expensieve gas good
for them
to ride more bike and make city clean. I can't believe some European
city not
allow any car to preserve their environment. Would chinese do that?
Wait 20 yr
from now, china will be the nitemare for the envirnometalist.

Beverly wrote:
Paul Turner wrote:

I thought this might be interesting to those who take part in the

ongoing

risk compensation discussion. Today's Wall Street Journal, in an

article on

Houston traffic, says:

"And the Dutch are pushing perhaps the most radical idea: doing away

with

signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, hoping that danger

will

cause motorists to drive more carefully."

It doesn't give a source for that, but the reporting in the WSJ (in

contrast

to the richly biased editorial pages) is usually fair and reliable.

--
Paul Turner


Here's a link to a site with the story

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

i think this is a rather stupid idea. Has anyone considered the impaired
people ? Physically (handicapped) or mentally (small children)? And all
other people who need a little help. In such a system, even a pedestrian
has to be as much alert as a driver of a vehicle.

my 2 cents,
+ravi

"Ravi" wrote in message
news:1107978002.287616@sj-nntpcache-3...
i think this is a rather stupid idea. Has anyone considered the impaired
people ? Physically (handicapped) or mentally (small children)? And all
other people who need a little help. In such a system, even a pedestrian
has to be as much alert as a driver of a vehicle.


In my experience, a pedestrian already has to be more alert than a driver.
In most instances you're competing for the crosswalk space with right-turn
yeilds (from the street you're crossing) and left-turn yeilds (from the
street you're on). Outside of intersections, you have to be on constant
lookout at each driveway because many drivers are so busy watching for other
cars that they don't think to check for pedestrians approacing from the
direction opposite traffic.

--
Scott Ehardt
http://www.scehardt.com

Beverly wrote:

Paul Turner wrote:

I thought this might be interesting to those who take part in the
ongoing risk compensation discussion. Today's Wall Street Journal,
in an article on Houston traffic, says:

"And the Dutch are pushing perhaps the most radical idea: doing away
with signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, hoping that
danger will cause motorists to drive more carefully."

It doesn't give a source for that, but the reporting in the WSJ (in
contrast to the richly biased editorial pages) is usually fair and
reliable.

Here's a link to a site with the story

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

This idea is not new, but it seems to be gathering steam. Wired Magazine had a
related story recently:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ffic.html?pg=1

CS Monitor hit the nail right on the head, though: "Uncertainty breeds
caution." It goes against the American common wisdom, but the science (accident
statistics) is on the side of the Dutch.

There's a lot to be said for "village" rather than "strip" design. I think that
in 100 years, we're going to look back on this era of automobile-centric design
as a stupid 50 year detour. The state of the art now is definately headed in
the other direction from where it's been going since WWII.

Matt O.

wrote:

Wait 20 yr
from now, china will be the nitemare for the envirnometalist.

It already is. Unfortunately we're not setting much of an example. With our
history, how can we wag our fingers at them for their two stroke motor scooters
and coal fired power plants? Unless we go out of our way to demonstrate a
cleaner way of doing things by doing it ourselves, we have no say in the matter.
If you think a couple hundred million cars in the US are an environmental
problem now, wait until five times as many Chinese can afford them -- which they
will.

Matt O.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:22:02 -0600, "Paul Turner"
wrote in message :

"And the Dutch are pushing perhaps the most radical idea: doing away with
signs, pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, hoping that danger will
cause motorists to drive more carefully."

Also being tried in London.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:34:56 -0800, Ravi wrote:


i think this is a rather stupid idea. Has anyone considered the impaired
people ? Physically (handicapped) or mentally (small children)? And all
other people who need a little help. In such a system, even a pedestrian
has to be as much alert as a driver of a vehicle.

Being the ones who would die, the pedestrians and the cyclists SHOULD be more
alert.

Ron