
12-Foot Traffic Lanes Are Bad for Safety and Should Be Replaced (2014) - panic
http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now/381117/
======
LukaAl
I'm reading a lot of comment from people complaining that this article is
wrong and we shouldn't make roads less safe.

Question: what are you talking about? A 10-foot road is wide enough for a car
or truck to drive safely at urban speed limits. The maximum vehicle width
under Federal law is 102 inches, or 8 feet and a half. And this is for trucks.
Cars are around 80 inches. This means over a foot per side for cars and more
than half a foot for trucks. If it is not enough for you at city speeds,
please give up your driver license, you are not good, and you shouldn't drive.

Yes, I agree, I don't want to drive 50 miles an hour next to a truck on a
10-foot wide lane, but that's not a city or a suburban speed, that's highway
speed. On the opposite, no problem at driving at 15 or even 25 MPH on a 10
feet lane. Yes, probably I need to give up texting and driving, and I need to
be focused on the road. Guess what: I need to do it anyway.

Honestly speaking, I have enough of our politicians of disregarding scientific
studies and expert analysis, but this is somewhat accepted. But a community
like Hacker News should have the smartest people, not the dumbest ones that
fail to understand reality.

~~~
slaman
I've found the older cities I've lived in with much tighter roads have much
better drivers as a result. People know their distances and are hyper-aware of
their surroundings because it is a necessity in order to avoid minor
collisions.

In cities that are more 'designed' by traffic engineers there is ample room so
people don't know the dimensions of their own vehicle and travel at greater
speeds while letting themselves be distracted more frequently. The accidents
that result are usually frame-bending as opposed to bumper replacements.

~~~
moyta
In a lot of older areas the roads were built just big enough for farm to
market purposes[1] either officially (as in Texas) or unofficially. This
resulted in narrow, twisty & curvy roads that encourage people to drive slower
and safer.

The safer a road is perceived to be through visual cues (wider, straighter,
less hilly, etc) the faster drivers will go. Hence why in Seattle and other
cities dangerous (read wide, "safe" feeling) roads are being put on a diet,
and going from 4 lanes to 2 lanes with a center turn lane and bike lanes
(sadly usually unprotected). The same thing is being done in Denmark, where
they actually add curves & planters to the roads to force cars to curve and
feel unsafe, which ultimately results in safer streets for everyone involved.

Another strategy that I've heard has better results is eliminating sidewalks
and getting rid of jaywalking laws, so that traffic of all types are forced to
intermingle at much lower speeds.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm-to-
market_road](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm-to-market_road)

~~~
dnzm
As for mingling different sorts of traffic - I've heard of several spots here
in the Netherlands where they've done just that, and it doesn't always result
in lower accident rates. At some point you cross the line between "less of a
comfort zone everybody is more aware" and "confusing mess that has so many
things going on that nobody is aware of everything". A narrow road can still
be predictable - you'll have to be alert to prevent minor bumps, but there's
no surprises that can result in rear-ends because you have to slam on the
brakes.

I don't have any studies numbers to back it up atm.

~~~
tonylemesmer
My town has in the past year eliminated raised sidewalks/pavements. All that
happens now in those areas is that cars drive all over the pedestrian bits and
park on them. It's called a "shared space" but car drivers, being rather
selfish, just drive and park wherever they wish with scant regard for
pedestrians.

------
valine
Making driving more dangerous forces drivers to focus harder, and focusing
harder makes drivers less likely to screw up. The thing the article fails to
address is the stress this adds to everyone's commute. The stress of a daily
commute can have a serious impact on a person's health. Deliberately
increasing the stress associated with driving without considering the
ramifications is irresponsible imo.

[http://time.com/9912/10-things-your-commute-does-to-your-
bod...](http://time.com/9912/10-things-your-commute-does-to-your-body/)

~~~
mcguire
" _Making driving more dangerous forces drivers to focus harder, and focusing
harder makes drivers less likely to screw up._ "

The inescapable conclusion is that we should get rid of seat belts, mount the
driver in a plexiglass bubble in front of the front bumper, and put a bloody
great spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

Any takers?

~~~
paulddraper
I had an other smart acquaintance who believed replacing airbags with spikes
would make people safer.

Ridiculous.

That's like saying that decreasing did production will make people use food
smarter and starve less. It'll improve the efficiency of food usage, but fewer
people won't starve.

Steering wheel spikes will improve driver habits, but people won't be safer
overall.

~~~
paulddraper
Typo: decreasing _food_ production

------
soneca
I know I am not controlling for road conditions, car conditions, traffic
signals conditions and culture of respect to traffic laws, but... in Brazil,
IIRC, the lanes are 10 feet (3 meters) and we are world champions for road
fatalities per vehicle-km
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-
related_death_rate))

It does not disproof the OP, but it is good evidence that lanes width is not
the most important factor. But I honestly don't know if all other more
important factors are fairly good in the USA.

edit: I was checking brazilian regulations and it lane width is defined on a
rage from ~8 to 12 feet, depending on the "class" of the road (from small,
unused roads in small towns, passing through regular traffic heavy urban roads
to interestual highways with heavy trucks).

~~~
Reason077
Even 10 feet sounds ridiculously generous by UK standards! Only on motorways
would you normally find 12 foot lanes (and even then, they're not always so
wide).

I suspect many unfamiliar American drivers would be horrified by UK roads and
wouldn't consider them "safe" \- yet accidents and road deaths, per mile
driven, are significantly lower.

~~~
jandrese
As an American who got to drive over central Ireland on a vacation and my wife
spent half of the time covering her eyes as big farm trucks passed by with
just an inch or two of space on my side and an ancient looking stone wall just
inches from her side. We weren't even in a big vehicle, it was just a tiny
Ford.

It certainly didn't feel any safer, and I couldn't help but to notice all of
the sideswipe marks on various vehicles when we drove through towns.

~~~
Thlom
Sounds like the west coast of Norway, just replace the farm truck with a semi
trailer and the stone wall with a mountain or a 200 meter straight drop.

~~~
kwhitefoot
Sounds like parts of my journey to and from work: one side is a drainage ditch
backed by a rough granite cliff rising vertically, the other side a short drop
into the fjord (short drop because I live on the east coast of Norway not the
west).

------
AstroJetson
The author was on a roll, and then he decided to bring Florida DOT and Florida
drivers into the article. For anyone that's driven in or through Florida
you've seen first hand some of the worst traffic engineering in the US. FDOT
excels at creating weird intersections, dangerous on and off ramps, etc.

Likewise Florida drivers along the east coast are some of the worst I've seen.
Even with 12' lanes they seldom get up to the speed limit. Driving in
Jacksonville during rush hour is not for the faint of heart. Miami traffic is
own special version rapid lane switching without signals that is the hallmark
of Boston. Except in Miami, lane changes can take 1/4 of a mile and blinker
can stay on for miles afterwards.

Should have offered up another place to try the idea out, I'd suggest Dallas.
Those drivers would be happy with 8 and a half foot lanes, I've seen them
shove giant Dodge and Ford pickups in to smaller spaces at 60MPH.

~~~
hexane360
The article agrees with you.

"It is striking to hear this news from FDOT, the agency that may preside over
the greatest pedestrian massacre in U.S. history. Four out of the five
deadliest American cities for walking are currently in Florida. This is by
design: in no other state has the DOT had such a powerful influence on the
design of urban streets."

------
fanzhang
The evidence here doesn't seem that strong -- just manuals that hint that
"10-foot lanes are as okay as 12-foot lanes" and the odd (non-randomized or
large scale) study here and there.

I'm also curious whether a good part of the author's conclusion is driven by
his like of bicycles and pedestrians. I live in a city, and almost exclusively
walk and bike, so I'd be on his side. But a key part of his argument seems to
rest on it potentially being able to free up more bike lanes, about it being
faster for pedestrians to cross the street.

If part of the motivation is that towns need to be more pedestrian and cyclist
friendly (potentially at the cost of cars) that's fine, though I would
appreciate it being explicitly pointed out. Right now it's a bit confounded.

------
mantas
Over there in Europe, we have mixed approach which IMO is great

\- Highways (including city bypasses etc highway-like roads, not only posted
highways) are plenty wide. Like, dual-carriage can easily fit 3 or even 4
trucks next to each other.

\- Major fast traffic city streets (no pedestrians, good visibility,
preferably crossings are 2-level or controlled) Are wide-ish to drive
comfortably, 3 trucks could barely fit on dual-carriage, but 3 cars - easily

\- City streets (pedestrians highly possible, cars coming in/out of drives, no
speed-up/slow-down lanes, uncontrolled crossings) are just wide enough to
drive comfortable at 50km/h. May have speed control features.

\- Residential streets. Narrow streets. Parked cars on the sides. Driving at >
30km/h is not comfortable. 2 trucks could hardly pass. Lots of speed control
features.

In addition to that, we usually have traffic features that warn of upcoming
speed limit. For example, small towns frequently got an artificial S turn or
shallow speed bump-. You can easily pass it at 50-ish km/h. Sometimes it's
possible at 30 or 70. Which is usually the speed limit for upcoming stretch of
the road.

I love this approach. The road itself should tell it's limit. Safe-looking
roads that are actually not safe suck. Point in case, we recently had some
2-wide-lanes-one-way streets converted to 2-narrow-lanes + bus lane. I was
sceptical at first, but in general traffic calmed down, less assholes, less
speeding.

This approach sucks if there're no enough highway(-ish) roads and bypasses
though. It's a torture to do a long drive through small cities. On the other
hand, it's safer to residents of those cities if people passing through don't
speed 2x the limit..

------
ars
In summary: Make lanes narrower to annoy drivers into driving slower.
(Although 12 foot does seem excessive to me.)

~~~
toast0
I think narrowing lanes/roadways to slow down drivers is probably one of the
least annoying ways to do it, while remaining effective.

Posting low limits isn't very effective without enforcement which is annoying.
Speed bumps can be effective but are annoying. Poor road conditions or
shifting lanes are effective but annoying, but effectiveness depends on
traffic: When there's no traffic, I may straddle lanes if they're going back
and forth all the time.

As a driver it's also annoying to be driving on a road where the safe speed is
much lower than the apparent safe speed, because I have to keep slowing down.
I don't really intend to go 40 mph on streets with houses, but when they have
wide, well paved lanes, sometimes it happens.

~~~
tbihl
Absolutely. The road's design language should communicate these things to
drivers. Knowing 65 vs 70 may require signs, but you should be clearly
informed by overhanging trees, narrow lanes, and activity when you are in a
busy area.

It also builds aversion to law enforcement, who have to stand in for proper
design by charging people large fines. I don't think it's a stretch to assume
some link between police enforcing seemingly malicious and arbitrary rules,
and growing public mistrust of police.

------
gok
"If we make driving less safe people will drive safer"

~~~
dasil003
Yes. This is absolutely true. People don't speed around mountain passes on
snowy nights. So I'm not clear what your point is.

A better way to frame it is do we want to optimize everything for automobile
travel speed and convenience? That's what the US has done for the last 100
years, and the result is poor public transit, unwalkable neighborhoods, urban
cycling as extreme sport, and an epidemic of road rage.

~~~
bcook
You're implying that slippery, curvy roads are safer?

~~~
mhalle
No. The implication is that driver behavior adapts to road conditions, and
that slippery curvy roads demand higher attention and care to navigate. In
many instances, improved driver attention compensates for the increased risks
of dangerous road conditions: more "dangerous" roads may not have
proportionally increased accident rates or fatalities.

In the extreme case where a road appears life-threatening, a driver with that
knowledge chooses not to drive.

The most dangerous conditions occur if the road appears safe but has
unforeseen or transient hazards.

------
elihu
I expect a lot of resistance to this idea, no matter it's actual impact on
safety, from drivers. I know that driving in narrow lanes makes me nervous,
and I feel better driving in wider lanes. If narrower lanes will make driving
slightly more unpleasant and stressful for most drivers, they're likely to be
opposed to it.

~~~
Zigurd
People bought big SUVs to feel safer, but it's an illusion. 10 foot lanes
would do much to contain this trend. They would also stop texting and pay
attention.

------
ihoz
Completely anecdotal, but I agree with this article 100%

I spent the first 6 years of my (oldest) kid's lives in the immediate
bordering towns of Madison, WI. Nice, straight, flat, wide lanes. The people
tore through those streets; I did as well, before I had kids.

We moved a few years ago and now live outside of Boston. Narrow, winding
streets that are easily 1/2 as wide as WI.

I feel much safer with my kids in this neighborhood than in WI. And it's for
every reason listed in this article.

------
thinkmassive
In 50 years, when autonomous vehicles have become a reality, all the 4x 12'
lane roads can be converted to 6x 8' lane roads. Everyone wins!

------
Rapzid
So.. New Zealand has 3.25m wide lanes typically. If you are interested in
studies about how variables such as this and speed affect yearly fatality
outcomes, NZ Transport may be a good place to start. With ACC and public
health in general safety and reducing healthcare costs(read: traffic
accidents) is a huge concern.

That being said, anyone driving from back to Auckland from the snow at 120kph+
knows that you don't drive slower due to the narrow lanes and crazy windy
roads as much as you drive to the tolerances ;) Just like in US mountain areas
you may be timid at first and get smoked by and annoy the locals, but you will
soon learn to push the envelope.

------
phkahler
I've said it before. Putting sidewalks right next to vehicle traffic is
stupid. I suggested to a friend that putting walkways through the back yards
in a suburban neighborhood would be a better idea. You'd also have half as
many because they'd run between two properties. He said oh yeah, they do it
that way in... I think it was Texas?

~~~
Baeocystin
They've started doing exactly that in a couple of the newer developments here
in Gilroy (California). The roads within the development are significantly
narrower, but there are now bike lanes separated from the traffic by actual
curbs instead of just a painted line, and the sidewalks are a bit wider, too.
The biggest walkability boost is that all cul-de-sacs now have walkways at the
top of the 'bubble', so that foot and bicycle traffic can pass straight on
through. Also, roundabouts have replaced stoplights.

On the more negative side, the other feature of these development is the size
of the lots vs. the size of the homes on them. The houses are close enough
that you could probably reach out a window and hand something to your neighbor
without much effort, and while each house does have a (small) garage, there is
very limited on-street parking.

I have mixed feelings about whether it will succeed, simply because the
locations chosen for these developments are many miles away from the nearest
stores, so anyone who lives there is going to need to drive most of the time
anyway. Some of this is just the chicken/egg problem, some of it unchangeable
without completely flattening and rebuilding the city. It will be interesting
to see how it goes. I personally am glad not to live in such a place, as it as
cramped as any city dwelling, but without the positives that dense cities
provide.

~~~
secabeen
I love cul-de-sacs with open ends for pedestrians. I'm glad to hear they're
starting to get more love.

~~~
Baeocystin
Yeah, that is probably my favorite aspect of the entire system. The slow road
speeds and open space that allow kids to safely play outside, but close to the
walkability of a grid.

------
paulsutter
Human drivers are bad for safety[1] and should be replaced. Good news is that
we're already on track to solve the real problem.

[1] 1.25 million deaths per year:
[http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/](http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/)

------
heisenbit
In a neighborhood I drive through every day the city cut off with a painted
divider roughly 4 feet on each side off the road for bikes. I think as a
result the speed I drive has decreased somewhat.

Drivers adjust speed according to visual clues. The speed limit is only one
factor and probably not even the most important one.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
I'll keep this bit:

 _we, as a society, are more than willing to sacrifice lives for automobility_

Perhaps that's the point we need to reconsider, the cause-not-symptom behind
the effect that the OP associates with a simple metric (which, to me, sounds a
bit superstitious: why precisely 10 foot lanes, and not 9.5 or 10.5 ones?)

------
tempestn
All kinds of things can go wrong when the lanes are too wide:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwinnODU0yo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwinnODU0yo)

------
mdip
I had a difficult time agreeing with very much of the author's arguments made
in this article. In particular, the opening argument " _What 's the number one
most important thing that we have to fight for? ... Well that's easy: 10-foot
lanes instead of 12-foot lanes._", which caused me to read the rest of the
article. This argument was, at best, poorly supported and at worst, an attempt
to inflate the argument and keep me reading the remainder of the article.

To back up this statement, he cited two studies and states that there's few
good studies. The lack of studies is, in itself, a big problem. Making large
changes on little data invites unintended consequences -- much like those he's
stating were caused by the original change to 12-foot lanes[0]. This would be
OK if the studies had a very strong supporting conclusion about current
circumstances facing drivers, today, but the studies' conclusions are weak.
One states that "10 feet or more [rather than 12 feet] resulted in accident
rates that were either reduced or unchanged" and the other indicated "analyses
conducted were generally either not statistically significant or indicated
that narrower lanes were associated with lower rather than higher crash
frequencies."

He later draws a few conclusions about drivers "feeling more safe" in 12-foot
lanes, causing more risky driving (supported only by anecdote). He stretches
quite a bit with the anecdote about how when we merge onto a freeway with
their really wide lanes, we set the cruise control 5MPH higher than the speed
limit and relax more because the 12-foot lanes give us the illusion of
additional safety. This is presented as a "Common Sense" anecdote, but I'd be
willing to bet there's more data that people feel safer on highways because
traffic all moves around the same speed, there are no traditional
intersections, and no sudden stops except in cases of high traffic volumes
(where it's anticipated) and accidents. I've never even noticed that highway
lanes are wider, but I can picture it now. He then goes on to compare things
that are not comparable -- residential roads that are 12-foot wide with
traffic going in both directions -- those streets are safer because there's
almost no traffic to compete with and people are usually driving far slower
than they are on county roads.

I support the last part of the article, about adding bike lanes, but that
argument suffers from the same weaknesses. Though I suspect adding marked bike
lanes improves roadway safety for cyclists, I can't point to data showing that
and the author did not provide it. In addition, his original argument that
reducing lanes to 10-foot is "The #1 most important thing" isn't covered by
this unless road engineers -- in designing roadways at 10 feet --
automatically include bike lanes as a result. We have a strong drivers lobby
in the state that I live -- Michigan. In areas where shrinking the lanes would
leave a half or more of another lane, you're more likely to see the road
widened that extra half-lane to increase capacity for vehicles, not cyclists.
That would make intersections like 12-mile and Telegraph[1] more dangerous
with yet another lane of traffic that might not notice a pedestrian.

As much as I'm sure this is something the author feels strongly about, the
facts provided don't add up to the conclusion he drew and if I'm being
particularly uncharitable, after reading this article, I felt like I'd been
taken in click-bait fashion. Before reading the article, I thought
_interesting, here 's an issue I didn't know about and apparently I might want
to care about it_ and after reading, unfortunately, I concluded almost the
opposite -- that we shouldn't change anything until we have solid data proving
that 12-foot lanes are a problem.

[0] One that comes to mind is _how does this change affect the safety of self-
driving vehicles that we 're likely to see in a few years_?

[1] About a decade ago, this intersection was in the top 20 or so of most
dangerous in the United States. It's still high on the list in Michigan, so
either a bunch of new intersections became more dangerous or when they
reconstructed the intersection, they improved safety. I'm not sure, but I
worked near there and the reconstruction, which moved the sidewalk _closer_ to
the road, made it a lot easier to notice pedestrians preparing to cross the
street when turning.

------
mahyarm
But with 12 foot lanes, you can adjust the lanes after the fact to 10 foot
lanes and put bike lanes everywhere!

~~~
mrob
2 feet is inadequate for a bike lane. I just measured the width of my bicycle
and it's 23.5 inches, so even if I rode perfectly central I'd have only a
quarter inch clearance each side. And my bike is not unusually wide.

~~~
mahyarm
But if it's a 2 lane road (4 total), then you'll have 4 feet for the bike
lane.

------
sickbeard
Sounds like bro-science to me

------
trevyn
I'm confused, why are we designing streets for human drivers? :)

~~~
tomschlick
Because while AI driving will no doubt be popular over the next 50 years, its
not right now and won't be ubiquitous for another 20 or so.

------
eveningcoffee
If you care about pedestrians, add more pedestrian controlled pedestrian
crossings. Train pedestrians to use them correctly.

~~~
riffic
Are you talking about beg buttons?

~~~
eveningcoffee
I am talking about pedestrian crossing traffic lights, that can be called by
pedestrians to turn green. Appears that these are indeed called _beg buttons_.

~~~
mamon
They are called like that because they don't actually do anything. They are
there just to calm down impatient pederastians by giving them illusion of
control ;)

~~~
vonmoltke
Not universally true. I have seem some crossings in Texas and elsewhere where
the light is solely for pedestrian crossing and will change (after a short
delay) on command. On intersections that are sensor-controlled they will also
change the light if there is no cross traffic to change it for you.

That said, on intersections where the lights are purely timed or where there
are always cars waiting in both directions, it pretty much is a "beg button".
At that point, there is no way to allow on-demand pedestrian crossing without
making the roads useless to cars. In fact, some places like NYC don't even
have buttons because they are pointless and possibly counterproductive.

------
revelation
Traffic "engineers" don't deserve the name. I'm certain not one of them has
ever taken a bike and tried to travel on their own design.

Their allegiance is to parking spaces and car throughput, in that order.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Meet Seattle'a traffic engineer:

[https://twitter.com/dongho_chang](https://twitter.com/dongho_chang)

Scroll through his Twitter a bit and you'll probably find him taking pictures
of interesting things and possible safety concerns he encounters as he bikes
through his own city.

~~~
riffic
the exception, not the rule.

------
briandear
I highly disagree. This article assumes perfect driving conditions it also
suggests that people drive faster with wider lanes -- then the problem is a
function of speed limit and not lane width and also assumes that pedestrian
safety is somehow affected solely because of lane width. If pedestrians are
getting hit by cars one of two things has happened: the pedestrian jaywalked
or a driver didn't stop when required -- both cases which have nothing to do
with lane width.

I live in rural France with narrow roads and it's incredibly stressful to be
driving with nearly no margin of error preventing a head on collision.

What about a stalled vehicle on the road? Debris?

I get it, the author doesn't like cars, but making lanes narrower to improve
safety is counterintuitive. if the problem is excessive speed, then traffic
enforcement is the problem.

This is like reducing the size of your front door to make it harder for
thieves to steal your couch.

~~~
toast0
If you build a road through downtown the same way you build a superhighway,
people are going to drive on it at superhighway speeds, which is unsafe for
pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers because downtown has more intersections and
interactions between modes of travel and directions of travel.

You can try to fix that by posting a low limit and ticketing. However, that
only works while enforcement is high. It's much simpler to build the road to
encourage appropriate speed, which means narrowing the lanes. You can still
have a wide shoulder for avoidance of debris or stalled vehicles: It helps to
have it well marked so drivers don't feel it's part of their lane.

It's not jaywalking to cross the street at unmarked intersections, but it can
be dangerous when drivers are traveling faster than speeds where humans are
good at estimating, or where there is poor visibility due to turns in the road
or vegetation or whatever.

Also, since the author is writing about Florida, age and humidity are factors.

For highways where high speed is appropriate, wide lanes are too.

~~~
throwaway1X2
> If you build a road through downtown the same way you build a superhighway,
> people are going to drive on it at superhighway speeds, which is unsafe for
> pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers because downtown has more intersections
> and interactions between modes of travel and directions of travel.

Sorry, but that contradicts itself. If you build a road through downtown with
the properties of superhighway (side barriers, on/off ramps, only motorized
vehicles allowed, separated oncoming lanes), there would be none of said
intersections and interactions between other modes of transport and the only
concern would be noise pollution and more frequent merging ramps.

People don't drive at superhighway speeds only because they have wider lane
markings and there is a sign posted, but because there are no oncoming cars
with potential for head-on collision, because merging cars speed up almost to
the same speed and you suddenly don't get a car appear sideways in front you
from a side street and other similar factors (e.g. empty peripheral vision on
highway vs. fast moving tall buildings downtown). If you put a sidewalk with
people or 90-degree intersection on a highway, you wouldn't get highway speeds
neither. Speed is not a simple function of lane width.

There is however another issue - why is the problem of safety reduced only to
speed, especially when the speed is obtained by placing more cognitive load
onto the driver? When the driver must constantly check the oncoming vehicle
whether it doesn't swerve too far into his lane, eyeball the vehicles next to
him whether they won't start changing the lanes without indicators (being
closer, there is less time to use the horn or react quickly, and having less
space to the another lane/oncoming lane, there is less elbowroom to avoid
them) - then, yes, drivers would drive slower, but also pay way less attention
to pedestrians on sidewalks, cars pulling away from intersections, parallel
parked cars about to pull away and other things. Even the argument with the
crossing pedestrian - yes, when you have narrower lanes, there is less
distance to cover. At the same time, the pedestrian appears right in front of
the cars in their lane. Another problem related to the cognitive load and
perception - you may just be shifting your problem elsewhere. If you have a
city and suddenly, four blocks have narrower streets, people will slow down,
because it is suddenly different and driving through takes some of their
brainpower. If you have the entire city like that, then: a) it will become the
norm and the speed will go up again after some acclimation, b) after a drive
to the other end of the city, the drivers will be much more exhausted and
likely to be involved in an accident.

Anecdata: 150-200 mile drive, one break. If you drive that on highway, in the
end of the journey back in your city, you are somehow tired physically from
all that sitting and paying attention, but otherwise still alert and still
would spot suspicious behavior (car about to pull in front of you, pedestrian
in dark clothing in the night, etc.). If you ride that on country roads (think
central Europe), you eyeball every tree and bush while driving to forest (a
boar or deer jumping right in front of you, common occurrence), you drive
through sharp corners with who-knows-what behind them, you drive through many
small cities and villages with no sidewalks and pedestrians in dark clothing.
Yes, you drive way, way, way slower than on highway, but in the end, you are
tired not only physically, but also mentally and you just drive home following
the central lane marking ignoring surroundings to a certain level. Is that
more safe?

This approach just tightens the safety of drivers to the limit, so instead of
using other tricks working on the same human brain principles, you make it
really more dangerous. Yes, it will make a few people catching pokemons while
driving put their phone down and pay attention, but at everyone else's
expense. And this is road to hell - just like the "phase out schools for
talented children" discussion we had in Europe some time before - surely it
will help other children in normal (slow) classes, where these children will
move.

And it is the same stupid move as installing tall metal speed bump - it works,
it lowers the speed, eureka! But:

\- it is PITA to drive through,

\- it slows down emergency services (here, we have two speed bumps right on a
road from ambulance standby post, genius),

\- it increases dust emissions (from brake pads, really nasty - try washing
your rims from the inside), because the cars have to brake almost to stop,

\- it increases fuel emissions, because the cars has to pull away again,

\- drivers are trying to hypnotize the speed bump finding the best path
through and in the end completely ignore the poorly marked, lit and signed
pedestrian crossing behind it, not mentioning the approaching pedestrians.

Yet, you can install optical speed retarder markings, which doesn't impede
ambulances, cars instinctively slow down, but doesn't have to almost stop. You
can install speed-detecting traffic lights. You can use retroreflective
marking built into the crossing. Replace streetlamp to better lit not only the
crossing, but also the "approaching" area. But bolting a piece of metal to the
road is the easiest, just like narrowing the lanes and - hey, let's ding
yourselves, run over pedestrians, drive more fatigued, but you will do that
more slowly!

