
To Make Streets Safe, Make Them Dangerous - Mz
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/to-make-streets-safe-make-them-dangerous/
======
raarts
Background: I am Dutch, in my fifties and recently moved to the US.

Mondermans ideas are only implemented in a very limited part of the
Netherlands: only in one of the 12 provinces, and only in about hundred
locations. And this is one of the least inhabited provinces..

So, the fact that the Netherlands has a 60% lower fatality rate can absolutely
not be attributed to just his work.

In my personal view the real causes are:

    
    
      - mandatory traffic lessons in elementary school
      - standards for drivers licenses are much higher
      - kids must be 18 to get a license
      - less big cars
      - smart road design, more lighting, better road quality
      - narrower roads with more variety make drivers more careful, especially wrt bikers
      - slower traffic must keep right on highways
      - maximum speed for trucks is 15mph lower than other cars
      - much attention to traffic safety everywhere
      - stricter traffic laws and enforcement
    

So even though Monderman was on to something, many more things are needed, to
keep the stupid and irresponsible from ruining lives.

~~~
Swizec
It is terrifying to me as a European how easy it is to get a driver's license
in the US. Everything I hear from friends beggars belief. No wonder speed
limits have to be kept annoyingly low everywhere. I recently drove on some
mountain roads in Californias[1] where I could safely drive 2x above the
posted speed limit most of the time. Driving as slowly as the rules wanted
would be no fun at all.

And, naturally, I will never understand why people are allowed to operate 2
tonne death machines before they are allowed to look at tits.

[1] the speed limit was 35mph, in the Alps we'd have the speed limit set at
55mph and the road would be about half the width with cliffs on each side
right next to the road (no shoulder, just railings or even just stone pillars
every few meters). For example:
[http://irena.blog.siol.net/files/2009/02/cesta.jpg](http://irena.blog.siol.net/files/2009/02/cesta.jpg)

~~~
joshAg
Were those posted limits on white or yellow signs? Just in case there's a
cultural barrier (like right turn on red) you know the yellow signs are not
mandatory in CA, right?

~~~
Swizec
I did not know that about yellow signs. This changes everything!

Except for the being allowed to drive before being allowed to see tits thing.
This doesn't change that.

~~~
joshAg
Have fun going faster. :D

just beware CA has am absolute limit of 65 (unless marked up to 70) above
which any speed is considered a priori unsafe, which means you can be cited
regardless of road conditions.

And beware you can always be cited for unsafe speed (as determined by the cop)
regardless of the marked limit and whether you were under it or not.

In my experience that means you won't be cited unless you are doing something
truly outrageous compared to the indicated limit or conditions (eg 60 in a
rainstorm at night around a turn with an advised speed of 35, >78ish, etc., 65
on a freeway in a blizzard), or weaving out of your lane, or in a speed trap
at the edge of a small town.

------
Theodores
A lot of traffic is derived from people just looking for somewhere to park. In
parts of London people will drive around a dozen streets just looking for that
elusive parking space hoping they will catch someone just leaving. This
driving is seriously anti-social. Yet planners see this as traffic to
accomodate.

We also have one way systems to steer this flow of 'traffic' around so that it
'flows'. This means that even more traffic is generated. People just drive
round and round. The distance seems absurd if you cycle and obey the signs yet
motorists just go with it. It might be much better if we thought again about
that and allowed for natural congestion.

I could build a spare room in the street, it would not take long though for
the council to tear down that extra bedroom, studio or whatever it was that I
built. Yet I could buy a £200 car, pay a similar sum in tax and park right
outside my door to leave the £200 heap there in perpetuity just so long as I
paid the tax, which is a fraction of a month's rent for a room.

Why do we have it so motorists have a god given right to park on the streets?
We need to think whether we need our streets walled in by tin boxes. Fixing
this is easy, we make it so that you cannot park within a distance of a
junction, whether that be a junction on to a big road or a side street. Then
we increase that distance year by year. In so doing we remove the tin boxes
and those looking for that elusive parking space. We could then get back to
natural streets where you can drive/ride/walk safely.

~~~
twic
Reminds me of a situation in Brighton, where the council is forcing people to
move bike sheds from their own front gardens, while allowing cars to continue
to be parked willy-nilly. As a journalist writes [1]:

 _I suppose it depends on how you view a street scene. A small shed is, for
me, considerably less intrusive than a parked car. And yet the residential
streets of Withdean are full of cars. But that’s seen as normal. Bike stores
are not._

 _More anomalous still is the fact that if you have a sufficiently big front
garden and don’t live in a conservation area you can, in most circumstances,
turn that garden into a driveway to leave your car, without the need for
without planning permission. There are conditions on using water-permeable
materials to avoid cumulative flood risks, but it’s fairly straightforward._

 _I don’t know about you, but when if comes to local impact I’d say a driveway
containing a Humvee (or even something smaller) might be slightly more
significant than a discreet bike shed._

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-
blog/2014/aug/01...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-
blog/2014/aug/01/brighton-green-council-crackdown-cycle-stores-barriers-
cycling)

------
ANH
I recently drove from my home near DC to Manhattan and back. Exiting the
Lincoln Tunnel and heading north, my expectations of "normal" traffic behavior
were shattered. I wondered why there aren't bodies littering the streets and
hulking wrecks of naive visitors' cars abandoned, leaking, everywhere. It was
truly mind-expanding. NYC pedestrian deaths are on the rise, says Google.

Meanwhile, I look out my window as I type this and see the suburban road
adjacent to my group of homes being resurfaced. It's a beautiful expanse of
asphalt they're laying down. It's smooooove, and fast. The neighborhood
toddlers want to cross that road, and parents have trouble explaining to them
that this road in sight of their homes is just too dangerous. We live in a
town renowned for its planning and quality of life.

I don't really have a point, but something is obviously amiss.

~~~
wozniacki
Commonsense dictates that you would have more people on foot rather than in
their cars ( especially single-occupant driving cases ) if cities actually
paid attention to the plight of persons on foot, on sidewalks.

It has to be said that I am uniquely referring to cities like SF known for
their less than splendid sidewalk conditions. I am discounting the fact that
SF is quite hilly and thus not very conducive for walking, unlike other
flatter cities.

SF is notorious for its grubby, thrash-discharged, excrement-laden and
generally deplorable sidewalks.

Just this week :

[http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Jay/poop-
map.jpg](http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Jay/poop-map.jpg) [1]

Anyone familiar with SF knows that whether you are on the sidewalks abutting
the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society and right next to an upscale
mall or in seedier parts of Inner/Outer Mission, you can never take a pleasant
walk for granted.

Prominent sidewalks are openly defecated on.

Casual violence of vagrants and the professionally-homeless is quite common.

Entire sections of neighborhoods are poorly-lit, with dodgy surfaces to boot.

All this not even accounting for the unenthusiastically enforced sit-lie
ordinances [2], a thriving homeless industrial complex supported by the city's
SROs and rising crime in parts of the city [3]

This irks even otherwise civic minded, forward-thinking residents who have all
but given up on the city's frowziness and its celebration of the unhygienic
and unsanitary.

I think there is a strong _Well that is SF for you. If you don 't like it, go
live in Marin_ ethos prevalent here (and in other cities like SF). And that is
not one bit helpful.

[1]
[http://sfist.com/2014/09/03/photo_du_jour_poop_map.php](http://sfist.com/2014/09/03/photo_du_jour_poop_map.php)

[2] [http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sit-lie-law-primarily-
enf...](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sit-lie-law-primarily-enforced-in-
Haight-3763521.php)

[3] [http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Duboce-Triangle-
neighb...](http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Duboce-Triangle-neighborhood-
getting-scary-with-5706948.php#photo-6764035)

edit:rewording

~~~
Swizec
On that note, I run barefoot barefoot (no vibrams or such) in SF a couple of
times a week and it is _perfectly fine_. I don't know what everyone is whining
about.

The real issue with SF sidewalks is that they are made with those cement slabs
and thus have giant cracks that make it extremely unpleasant to longboard.

------
Tiktaalik
Increasingly I think cars are the core problem. We need to decrease car use
much like we have with smoking. It's just not healthy for our society. They're
too dangerous.

There's many very valid uses for cars, but most people shouldn't need to use
them every day and we should be building cities and towns designed such that
you rarely if ever need to use a car.

~~~
johndevor
While I think your statement may be hyperbole, I do agree that bicycles would
help. In particular, I'm very hopeful to see more electric bicycles on the
streets soon.

~~~
Tiktaalik
Even if bicycles didn't exist I'd feel the same way. Why not walk? We can
build trains for short and long distances. Cars are only necessary because
we've made it so.

------
zo1
Can someone explain to me why pedestrians are being hit in NYC? Are they
wandering onto the roads? Are the cars driving onto the pavement? Are
pedestrians stepping in front of cars? Cars running red lights while
pedestrians assume that "green" means they can go?

I'm honestly curious what sorts of "pedestrian accidents" people have seen in
NYC?

~~~
defen
The number one cause is the "left hook". This is when someone is turning left
and doesn't notice pedestrians in the crosswalk moving across the street the
driver is turning onto. Unless there is a dedicated left-arrow green, these
pedestrians almost always have the right of way, but the driver doesn't notice
them because they are too focused on the oncoming traffic or other hazards,
and completely forget to check. I've attempted a crude ASCII diagram. C is a
car with a green light, attempting to turn left, P is a pedestrian walking up

    
    
              | | |
              | | |
           ____   ____
           --P-   ----
           ‾‾‾‾   ‾‾‾‾
              | |C|
              | | |
              | | |

~~~
punjabisingh
The pedestrians may also not be visible due to the car's left pillar blind
spot, especially while turning left.

~~~
freditup
Bought an (almost) new Sonata a few months back and it's been great. __But
__the A-pillars are pretty thick and sloped in the perfect was to block my
visibility. I have to often lean up a foot or so and turn my head if I want to
see to my left clearly. It can actually be rather scary at times to not have
that line of sight, recommend checking that out on any cars you buy. It 's not
a complete deal-breaker, but if I did a lot more urban driving it might be.

------
userbinator
I've never understood why pedestrians seem to be given the right of way by
default in many countries - pedestrians can see cars, stop, and change
directions far easier and faster than vice-versa, so this makes for a more
dangerous situation. If you slow down the cars to compensate, doesn't that
somewhat defeat the purpose of having cars in the first place?

As anyone who has experienced the traffic in Beijing probably knows, having a
mix of pedestrians, cars, bicycles, and other vehicles of various construction
in the same space is not efficient nor particularly safe at all.

~~~
Russell91
I was in Shanghai last summer and started crossing the cross-walk with cars
approaching from both directions. Instead of slowing, the cars just started
honking and racing towards me. Had to play some hardcore frogger to cross the
street. Just goes to show that driver opinions really are different in China.
Oh, and don't use the crosswalks.

~~~
jamesash
Ditto for Cairo, worst traffic I've ever experienced. Noticed an unusually
high number of people walking with limps, too.

------
samirmenon
According to the Department of Transportation Commissioner, “the chances of a
person being killed is cut in half when you reduce the speed limit of the
moving vehicle from 30 to 25.”

[http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/08/09/gov-cuomo-signs-
bill-...](http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/08/09/gov-cuomo-signs-bill-
lowering-nyc-speed-limit-to-25-mph/)

~~~
streptomycin
And then we have the other side of the argument which says that speed limits
have a small impact on how people drive [http://priceonomics.com/is-every-
speed-limit-too-low/](http://priceonomics.com/is-every-speed-limit-too-low/)

~~~
thrownaway2424
The blurb incorrectly cites a real fact. It is the impact speed, not the speed
limit, which makes a difference.

------
BrandonMarc
I once read about a city in Europe - maybe it's the one in the article - which
ripped out half of the signs along the roads, and found the drivers paid much
closer attention and drove more carefully. I heard of another city in England
which removed its street lights (and didn't install stop signs / roundabouts)
with the same result.

It's fascinating to look at some 3rd world locations, where there are far
fewer rules, and many modes of transport sharing the same street.

This YouTube video really drives the point home. Scooters, walkers (some heavy
laden), and cars all chaotically (at first glance) going every direction on a
piece of asphalt.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4BN9kInXg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4BN9kInXg)

As Richard Fernandez says, look closer ... watch a few times ... and a few
basic rules pop out.

[http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/12/into-heart-of-
ch...](http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/12/into-heart-of-chaos.html)

 _As the veteran of many a Third World traffic jam, I think the vehicular flow
situation is a little more complex than Economics with a Face suggests. But he
may be correct in thinking that under certain circumstances and in particular
cultures fewer rules or perhaps the appropriate rules make more sense than the
overly regulated forms the First World is used to._

It reminds me of that old Artificial Life program "Boids", which implemented
just 3 very basic rules, and from this produced very organic flocking and
obstacle-avoidance behaviors.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUkjC-69vaw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUkjC-69vaw)

~~~
twic
This business about taking out the road signs and so on is called "naked
streets", and is part of a broader "shared space" theory. It is far from
settled that it is a helpful tool in any situations, let alone all situations.

We have to be very careful in interpreting the outcomes of experimental
applications of naked streets (or other large interventions). Firstly, because
of a Hawthorne effect - when a road is changed, drivers become more cautious
because it's different, so safety improves, whether or not the change itself
improves safety. Secondly, because it's a change that is very context-
specific; naked streets seem to work well if the motor traffic level is
intrinsically (or is engineered to be) low, but that doesn't mean they're a
good way to handle a flow at a higher level.

The English example you may be thinking of was Exhibition Road, in Kensington,
London. This rather long blog post takes a good look at it:

[http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/lessons-...](http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/lessons-
from-exhibition-road/)

------
hasenj
I was in Damascus around 6 years ago, and I noticed that most major downtown
intersection are basically "shared" roads for cars and pedestrians alike. In
my head, I was making a joke about how North Americans should learn "co-
existence" from these streets where everyone has equal rights to access the
street.

I have no stats about accident rates, but it seemed that somehow everyone
manages to make it "work out".

I don't think this was due to any vision about how to make roads safe ... it
was just ad-hoc city planning.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
It was only a very deliberate and expensive efforts that created car supremacy
in America. Drivers who killed walkers were at first tried as murderers, as
makes perfect sense. Of course people should be free to walk over public
thoroughfares. Only well funded measures created the legal idea that a driver
is not in all circumstances responsible for injuries and deaths.

~~~
eru
Shouldn't that be manslaughter?

Anyway, I agree with your point. And those does the NYT:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-
to...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-
cyclists.html?pagewanted=all)

------
martingordon
I don't know what percentage of cars on New York City streets are cabs, or how
many deaths are caused by taxis, but could a potential solution be to raise
the slow-speed fare to incentivize drivers to slow down?

A cab driver makes $0.50 per 1/5 of a mile if going over 12 mph or $0.50 per
minute if going under 12 mph. The average speed of a taxi hovers around 13
mph[1], but I bet most cab drivers think its higher, meaning they think they
make more by getting to their destination quickly (e.g., if they think they
average 15 mph, they think they're making $37.50/hour instead of $30 using the
timed rate). Suppose the slow-fare rate was raised to $1-$2? Would that help
reduce cab-involved accidents (at the expense of longer cab rides)?

Further, introducing traffic signal patterns with dedicated turning periods
would help a lot. Without fail, I get dirty looks daily from drivers turning
onto a street I'm crossing because I'm not scampering out of their way,
despite having the right of way (even still, more pedestrians were killed in
2010 when crossing with the signal than against it[2]). I've been fortunate to
never been hit, but it is a significant problem.

[1]: [http://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/93845043909/quantifying-
the-...](http://iquantny.tumblr.com/post/93845043909/quantifying-the-best-and-
worst-times-of-day-to-hit-the)

[2]: [http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-02-05/news/nyc-
pedestrian-d...](http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-02-05/news/nyc-pedestrian-
deaths/2/)

