Life Without Traffic Signs 604
zuikaku writes, "Der Spiegel has an article titled European Cities Do Away with Traffic Signs reporting that seven cities and regions in Europe are doing away with traffic signs, signals, painted lines, and even sidewalks. With the motto 'Unsafe is Safe,' the idea is that, when faced with an uncertain, unregulated situation, drivers will be naturally cautious and courteous. Then again, they may end up with streets jammed with pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars like some places in India and China." I can't see this idea getting traction in the U.S.
Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even with signs, some cities are like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK there were road signs, traffic lights and the occaisional road marking, but most of the signs seemed to be twisted around so if you followed them you'd be going in the wrong direction, the traffic lights were largely ignored and road markings came and gone. However, despite it being a scary process for me it did seem to work, I never seen an accident there (although I was in constant fear that I'd cause one at first), traffic seemed to move well enough and the locals crossed the road with confidence (if you walked across the road confidently traffic would stop for you, but if you looked hesitant and waiting for traffic to slow down they'd just go right past you).
However, the article states that removing the rules creates an atmosphere or courtesy, certainly not in Napoli, they'd sound their horn if they thought you were being too hesitant at junctions or even if you were going a bit too slow.
Cyclists (Score:4, Insightful)
Not in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, I think that the most worry is caused where drivers are unsure of what to do. That's the whole point -- at a traffic light, you (supposedly) know what the other drivers are going to do. Stop at red, go at green, etc. No worrying about someone cutting you off, no need to make a dangerous left turn through six lanes of unregulated traffic, and so on.
In the US, I see much more risk-taking in these situations -- people cutting each other off, etc. The road rage and anger (and occasional killings) not only point to a deep-seated inner hatred of everyone but oneself, but also show the ubiquitous "me-first" attitude manifesting itself. Given this psychological state, could a plan like this ever work? I think not.
But I'm probably just as biased and cynical. :)
It's a four lane highway that's why (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a four lane highway. That's why you get some pretty decent order. Now try comparing that to a situation where you four way intersection with two lanes on each side. It's going to be a disaster without some form of order and rules because everyone isn't pshyic and that's why some rules like right of way exist.
Re:Not in the USA (Score:0, Insightful)
Exactly. And that's why the United States in just a couple hundred years from conception has become the most powerful country in the history of the world. We are the richest, mightiest, most influential nation because our individualist spirit has enabled the best and brightest to shine.
European societies also live in the past and slows development because of it, while the US looks ahead to dominate and outperform all others.
God Bless America, and thank God I live here.
In the UK, this would go one of two ways (Score:5, Insightful)
"No, you go first."
"No, you go first."
[Thinks] "Oh, he's letting me go."
[Thinks] "Oh, he's letting me go."
CRUNCH!
Or:
[Thinks] "I'm first to the junction, I have right of way. I'll pull out before that guy in the Vauxhall Vectra who's talking on his phone reaches it."
"'Old on, I'm at a junction, lemme just burn through-" CRUNCH! "Oh, fackin' 'ell! Some fackin' cahnt just pulled out right in front of me!"
Pedestrian Uprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're trying to compare the safety of the traffic systems, then a per capita figure is useless, since Americans spend a lot more time in cars than Europeans. You'd want to look at the number of accidents per unit of time spent on the road, or number of accidents per number of cars, or something like that.
Too safe? (Score:1, Insightful)
Indeed, but I bet that's only because the morons that don't know how to drive are already dead... Maybe that's why the United States traffic system is so dangerous, it's too safe to where it protects the people who probably should die...
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I imagine reckless driving would still be reckless driving. If I were to cut across another car's line through an intersection after it had already entered the intersection, my driving would still be reckless according to any definition of reckless driving I have seen. And it would be reckless independent of any traffic markings or signals present.
And we already are victim to those who "have no qualms with putting others lives and vehicles at risk." This is the definition of reckless driving (for certain degrees of "risk"). Because they ignore traffic markings and signals right now, the elimination of traffic markings does not affect the risk they pose.
For anyone who has to sit at red lights at empty intersections for fear of cops hiding in the bushes or in a parking lot, this would be most welcome.
The only issue I see is with busy roads to which access is controlled by stop signs and signals without on ramps. In these cases a driver attempting to safely enter the road could conceivably wait the better part of an hour or more before being able to safely enter.
Re:Not in the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Same is valid for Switzerland, which hadn't had any foreign troups on its soil since 1477 [Battle at Murrgarten] and wasn't involved in any other wars since 1515 [against the Dukedom of Milano]. Wonder why Switzerland one of the richest countries of the world...
For some reason NOT losing your people, resources, infrastructure and industry in armed conflicts helps.
Re:Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:1, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Safety [wikipedia.org]
KILLED per 1 BILLION VehKm on Motorways:
Germany 3.8
US: 5.2
Traffic in Germany is highly regulated by rules, probably much more then in most other countries.
Being german myself, I actually must say that I personally prefer the style of driving in southern-european countries though. Many other countries let drivers rely on their instincts and common-sense much more the we do. It feels more natural to me operating a car that way, then stubbornly following rules.
Probably the most un-german place I've ever driven in was Albania - even the captial, Tirana - a place of 700k inhabitants is basically free of any sort of signs, roadmarks or traffic lights except for some key intersections. Takes quite a different approach to handling traffic and navigating, but I if it weren't for the terrible road conditions, I would actually say that I like it.
I once saw a study (forgot where it was, though), comparing some South-American city (Lima?) with western cities, which came to the conclusion that the more "aggressive" style of driving there would actually yield a higher throughput of traffic. I wonder if there's some truth there.
Re:Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:5, Insightful)
That you have to actually take a class to drive may help also, here in California a large fraction of drivers can't even read the signs, since they aren't in Spanish. Every trip to work is a thrill ride tho!
Re:Not in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
European societies tend to focus more on manners and personal responsibility, so this clearly wouldn't work in the US. ;)
What??? You have to be joking. Two real-life stories for you:
My visit to Venice: I was waiting politely in line for a water-taxi ticket. Just before my turn, a local steps in front of me and buys a ticket. I'm so shocked and stunned, I can only stare. Another one steps in front of me! Finally, I'm jarred and figure out the "system". That behavior was so -- alien -- here in the US as to be beyond comprehension.
Another story. My German uncle comes over to visit from Germany and goes to the bank (this is about, oh, 1970 or so). He is absolutely amazed and astounded watching people politely stand in line, no pushing, no shoving. My uncle gets back home and is telling my father the story. My father's classic answer (in a very dry, serious voice), "Well, of course. We carry guns." :D
And I KNOW that you're making a fall-down-in-hysterics joke to talk about Europe and Personal Responsibility. If they cared about the latter, they wouldn't embrace Socialism. The US is sadly lacking compared to how it used to be, but we're still the home for people who want to make it on their own with a minimum of nannyism.
Unfamiliar (Score:4, Insightful)
This would better be represented as 'Unfamiliar is safe'. If people are in a new situation, they'll naturally be more cautious. Once everyone gets used to no roadsigns as the standard, things will be no safer than before.
-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
Re:Might make right (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not in the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Regarding this traffic thing, 'they' tried it in a small town near me a few years ago, and have since reverted to normal. It turned out that drivers were only more cautious because they sensed something unusual. As soon as everyone got used to the lack of markings, the safety effect wore off.
But yes, thank god you live there.
Re:Noes. (Score:2, Insightful)
No we don't.
I guess you can say there exist a "right side of the road", but I doubt there exist a "wrong side of the road".
Other than that, nearly all of Europe does actually drive in the right side of the road.
Re:Too safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Driving tests consist of driving around the block. Literally.
And as far as laws are concerned:
- People running stop lights do not get cited
- People ignoring right of way do not get cited
- People who do not signal turns do not get cited
- People who pass in right-turn-only lanes do not get cited
- Drunk drivers are not chased and caught if you report them (I do not bother reporting them any more)
- Laws restricting traveling in the breakdown lane are unenforced
Instead, police focus on pulling over speeders on the highway outside of rush hour (more revenue for the town), which does not improve safety at ALL.
Also, we've made our cars far too safe (causing them to become heavier, require more fuel, AND slower than european models) which gives asshole drivers the feeling of confidence. After all, if you have an integral rollcage, airbags, and law-required seatbelts, why should you have to drive courteously? Fuck everyone else, after all, you're #1.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct -- proper traffic signage doesn't eliminate reckless driving. However, the lack of visible and unambiguous signage prevents the public, via the police and the courts, from prosecuting people for reckless driving and taking away their license if they continue to do so. After all, without any signage, reckless driving becomes a matter of opinion, my word against a police officers'.
If someone is driving recklessly, we can cite them for failing to stop at a red light or failing to yield. If there is no designation for yielding, red lights, or stop signs, how can we say what they are doing is wrong?
Re:Cyclists (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeez mister, just how wide is your car? A fifteen foot lane not enough for you? Are you that bad a driver? _That_ unskilled? Twenty years ago, as a racer, I spent thousands of miles on public roads. I've been passed (albeit slowly) by semis so close I could stick out my left hand and touch their trailer, and I never felt endangered; because they were skilled, engaged and caring. These days almost nobody pays attention to anything but their cellphone or their ipod when they drive. The interior of the car has become such an extension of the home nobody feels a need to regulate their behavior while driving one. Of course, this is not just a change in driving habits, it's a change in Americans themselves. It's not the disease, it's the symptom.
By the by, thanks for sharing the road; you might not like bicyclists, but each one is one less car you have to deal with. And that makes your drive easier, safer and better. So thanks, and stay alert.
As a non-American who lived in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, the rule here is "whoever disturbs the flow of the traffic the most gives way", which seems simple enough. It's different in other states though. I can't see the idea of less signals and signs working in the USA though, as your society thrives on rules and regulations, and without them people will cause trouble asserting their "rights" and "freedoms" over other people. The other posters who have pointed out that politeness is a key to safe driving without signs are on the money too - and American's are not noted for their politeness in general.
Bike Lanes (Score:4, Insightful)
-Limited or no visibility at driveways and alleys, where buildings and parked cars obstruct sight lines for both drivers and cyclists
-Narrow lanes that leave no room for steering errors, or to avoid litter, broken glass, and other obstacles
-Speed limits on straight, level pavement that require using a mountain-climbing "granny gear"
-Pedestrians, dogs, roller skaters and other unpredicable living things [eatgoodstuff.com] (all legal at this California web-cam location, but risky never the less)
-Cyclists must pass to the inside of turning traffic, going from the driver's blind spot straight into the car's path
-Utility poles, garbage cans, decorative planters, news rack, mail boxes, and other fixed objects to collide with (all banished to the sidewalk because they would endanger drivers surrounded by a ton of steel!)
-Maintenance? What maintenance?
It's ironic that in most US cities bicycles are forbidden on sidewalks. But overnight, the city council can order a painted stripe and some "bikeway" signs forcing cyclists onto the same dangerous strip of concrete they were banned from the day before. It's a meaningless political gesture ("See what a bike-friendly city we are!") that wastes money while doing nothing for cycling safety. Unless, perhaps, discouraging cyclists is the goal of the safety program.
Clutter is a huge problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, here comes Ken Livingstone to save us all with a £25 congestion charge for people driving gas-guzzling behemoths like, er, a Mondeo diesel estate. Take the Tube, you say, Ken? Certainly, but first can you explain to me why, if the congestion charge is subsidising improvements in public transport, you felt the need to jack prices by 50% in some cases? Is there anybody you wouldn't like to fleece?
It boils my blood, y'know.
Re:Works in what sense? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, as noted in the same article, today is World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims [google.com].
Re:Too safe? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is people refuse to learn to drive properly. Trying to drive your SUV like it's a Ferrari or Corvette WILL result in a rollover. The vehicle is not going to spin out, it's not going to oversteer, and it's not going to give you much of warning at all when you approach the limits like sportscars do. What will happen is your high-profile tire will suddenly "fold" (the sidewall will not support the additional stress and will wrinkle) and your SUV is going to roll over almost instantly.
As far as trucks and SUVs being heavy: they've got strong frames for lugging anywhere from 1,000lbs to 6,000lbs (500kg to 3000kg as a rough conversion for you), and are built to take a beating, so naturally they are going to be heavy. That's their nature.
What I was referring to was subcompact cars here that weigh almost the same as mid-sized sedans because of all of the "safety" equipment we've added thanks to our litigious society. We can't get the 1,000lb super-micro compact cars you can get in Europe because they do not pass unrealistic crash tests. The only way to achieve that here is to build your own "kit" or "experimental" car, and although they are easy to register and inspect, they can sometimes be difficult to insure unless you have a pristine driving record. (mine is clean, I behave around here on the roads to keep my insurance low)
Eight lanes each side, or total? (Score:5, Insightful)
The number of roads in the U.S. that have more than six lanes in one direction are fairly small, relative to ones with that many total in both, and mostly occur only in large metropolitan areas (Atlanta and L.A. have some highways that are 7 or 8 lanes in each direction, I think -- and I'm sure there are others) or in interchanges. But if I heard someone say "six lane highway," I wouldn't immediately assume that they meant that many lanes in each direction. Six lanes would be a far more common configuration if it was referring to the combined lanes, so three lanes each.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd hate to see what it's like at night. So many of the pedestrians in that video should have been run over! The attention to conditions there is amazing.
But it wouldn't work in the US. Some teenager on a cellphone or someone swapping radio stations or a CD would inadvertently hit 5 pedestrians, 2 mopeds, and a bus.
Re:Cyclists (Score:3, Insightful)
I think everyone is for the seperate bike lanes. It's a real pain to share a 40 MPH road with someone driving 20 MPH, especially when they're driving a bike and it will fit on the sidewalk.
Roadways contain much of the infrastructure necessary to promote operation of all sorts of vehicles, including bikes. Sidewalks *don't*; this is why, in many urban areas, sidewalk cycling is illegal. There are no rules regarding direction of travel, lane demarcations, or anything else along those lines on the sidewalk. Sidewalks are not designed to facilitate wheels rolling on them for prolonged distances, nor are they wide enough to accommodate multi-directional vehicular traffic. Motorists turning through intersections are watching for slow-moving pedestrian traffic before completing a turn; bicycles move much faster and are less easily detected by a turning motorist.
In short, sidewalks are generally *awful* places for bicyclists to ride. The only points of your argument seem to be that they shouldn't be on the roads because they inconvenience you by moving half the speed of your car, and because they take up so little space as to fit on the sidewalk. The truth is that bicyclists take up a much smaller percentage of the road than they do of the sidewalk, and therefore they're not inconveniencing you all that much. Pass them when you've got room (give them at least three feet); if you haven't got room for that, you're either in moderate to dense traffic or the road curves too much, in which case you're better off slowing down in the first place.
Re:Having lived in both Germany and the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Numbers also are universally understood, a 4 is still written as 4 no matter if it its called "four" or "cuatro". This is the reason why all traffic signs in the U.S. look so different from each other to differentiate between different functions. Even the yellow, triangular, warning signs use icons rather than text. In my state, in order to get your license(after the written and driver's test), and to renew it afterward, you must identify signs WITHOUT the text, blank stop signs, blank wrong way signs, etc.
Even Speed limits aren't that much of a problem, however, because all American made cars used in America have speedometers that emphasize miles, but also list kilometers per hour as well. Basically, when in America, you match the big number with the MPH for the road you are on. When in a metric country, use the small numbers.
Re:Unsafe is safe, war is peace... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Parent isn't a flaimbait (Score:2, Insightful)
The Armenian genocide for example. In western circles you won't find many people who disagree with this "fact". So people accept it as one. In turkey it is for the majority something that didn't ever happen and so for them there is no such event in the past.
I just want to clarify that there is no doubt in my mind that the holocaust happened (i live in germany and the memory is present here). But when we start to punish people for doubting historic "facts" we're no better than the people who persecuted Galileo because he just wouldn't accept the "facts". Let them be ignorant. Don't do business with them, isolate them socialy, do whatever you can in your *private* power to punish them. But as soon as you use the state to persecute those poeple you get on dangerous grounds.
Re:Manhatten needs a $20/day congestion charge [nt (Score:3, Insightful)
The only time traffic impacts me is when the buses are slowed down, and that could be solved by putting in REAL bus lanes. Today, it means taking the subway if you are going in the same direction as everyone else. Bicycling is a little bit suicidal... I've tried it a few times since moving here, and I just don't have the stomach for it. Even the buses try to run you off of the road!
I really don't care if it becomes easier or harder for cars to drive in Manhattan - let them work it out for themselves, so long as their solution does not negatively impact public transit and does not involve some big expensive highway project through town.