No Traffic Signs, Lights - Shared Spaces

[iacas]

What do you think?

[JonMA1]

For the right kind of intersections, it may be a more logical way. Although as a pedestrian in a shared space, I'd probably still cross at 90°.

Do you think it would be an easy transition for American drivers and pedestrians? I think we tend to practice some of this whenever there are disruptions in normal marked intersections.... events such as festivals, power outages... so maybe it wouldn't be that difficult.

Not that this is the same thing, but I never understood the logic of a roundabout.... until they put one in our town. My point is, in some circumstances conventional isn't always better.

[dennyjones]

We have idiots that don't navigate a 4 way stop well.  I don't think the current set of drivers are ready for something new like this.   I do see the merit but it would be a very slow transition. 

[saevel25]

Europe is different than in the US, especially those older towns and cities. You notice that everyone looks be driving at a crawl. You have people that drive 35-45 mph in downtown areas in the US. I think there are hurdles for this to be used more widely in the US. I think there are certain places it might work out well. Especially those with less number of lanes, and more pedestrian friendly designs to begin with.

[billchao]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, the concept makes sense. On the other, the reason traffic signals were designed in the first place was to reduce traffic accidents. I think the key is the speed at which traffic flows. Cars are capable of going much faster than pedestrians so it is hard to get the two to mix together smoothly unless you either slow down cars or speed up pedestrians.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Europe is different than in the US, especially those older towns and cities. You notice that everyone looks be driving at a crawl. You have people that drive 35-45 mph in downtown areas in the US. I think there are hurdles for this to be used more widely in the US. I think there are certain places it might work out well. Especially those with less number of lanes, and more pedestrian friendly designs to begin with.

I think that's the idea behind it, that knowing you are going to be in a shared space will make you drive slower. There are towns and urban areas I drive through where I'll drive slower because of the tendency of pedestrians to cross the road anywhere and anytime they want. There are other roads where I don't expect that kind of traffic so it's safer to move faster.

It really depends on the traffic culture of the specific area, though. In Midtown Manhattan, pedestrians pretty much own crosswalk areas simply due to numbers. A car trying to make a right hand turn for example, just can't make it through the volume of pedestrians. In a suburban area like around my house, I'll often see a car make that turn and pedestrians yield the intersection to the car.

[Jack Watson]

I think it's funny.  Looks like a joke.

Its like saying what if everyone had guns and there were no laws against killing people.  People would be very respectful to one another and much more cautious.  

 

[Patch]

I think in smaller towns,  this shared space idea would be viable. Even in out lying areas of large metropolitain areas it would probably work. The number of cars would dictate how well this idea would work. 

In larger cities, with 10s of thousands of drivers trying to get some where, at the same time, while using the same roads, it would be pretty iffy at best.

Look at it from a golfing, slow play point of view. The biggest problem with slow play is that all the golfers do not all play at the same speed. It would be the same with all the 1000s of drivers not driving at the same speed. Some drivers would be faster, while some would be slower. 

We have round abouts is Vegas that work better now than when they were first installed. Lots of wrecks in the beginning. Most folks have now learned how to use them over the years. Then again, there is always going to be that one driver, who never saw one before causing an accident. 

As for those folks who are handicapped, that could be handle with dedicated handicap travel ways, that would keep them out of harm's way.

So, imho, smaller communities, yes it would work. Metropolitain areas not so much. 

[JonMA1]

56 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Its like saying what if everyone had guns and there were no laws against killing people.

Yes, the shared intersections system is exactly like giving everyone guns and eliminating 1st degree murder laws. 

 

 

Sorry Jack. I understand what you meant... just giving you a hard time.

[nevets88]

After decades of stagnant or little to no thinking on improving flow and safety, the proliferation of cameras, more sophisticated analysis and stultifying congestion I'm guessing have encouraged more transportation officials to, "think outside the box" (Don't block the box!), so to speak. I see this as an extension of bike lanes. People think they're for cyclists exclusively, but they are traffic calming. Also people drive less and more slowly and safer when there is less space - there is a huge difference between 30 and 40 mph, especially w/regard to pedestrian safety. Put in more lanes, people will come and there will be more traffic if you read the studies. People are more and more are driving like maniacs (it's anecdotal, but I am seeing more and more people blowing through stop signs, disregarding rules), US and Europe, just go to the roadcam subreddit. I don't think European drivers are any less prone to emotional road rage although they are better trained and certified in some countries compared to the US. I like Vox, but found the title to be a little bit troll like. These measures are trying to slow people down, but a more staggered approach would be better imho.

The US version of shared space is different, having used these spaces myself, am a proponent :

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2017/08/09/dots-new-flatiron-shared-space-a-rarity-or-the-first-of-many/

[saevel25]

There is something to be said about simplicity. Humans are not as good at multi-tasking as they think they are. If a person is listening to two conversations they can only take in an understand one of the conversations and half of the other. Going to a more simplistic; less signing, less markings, allow then to keep their eyes on other cars and people is important. 

[jsgolfer]

7 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

I think it's funny.  Looks like a joke.

Its like saying what if everyone had guns and there were no laws against killing people.  People would be very respectful to one another and much more cautious.  

 

Unfortunately it is actually a very good idea, not a joke at all.  It makes perfect engineering sense.  Hans Monderman, came up with this back in 2004.  I'm totally in his camp, that we as drivers are bombarded with too many sensory objects on our roads.  We drive to the signs, not to what is going on around us while we are driving.   

https://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/

"A wide road with a lot of signs is… saying, go ahead, don’t worry, go as fast as you want, there’s no need to pay attention to your surroundings. And that’s a very dangerous message.”

“When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”

And we have a lot of idiot drivers in America becasue of it.

[saevel25]

Just now, jsgolfer said:

"A wide road with a lot of signs is… saying, go ahead, don’t worry, go as fast as you want, there’s no need to pay attention to your surroundings. And that’s a very dangerous message.”

“When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”

And we have a lot of idiot drivers in America becasue of it.

From a few traffic studies I read a few years back, wide roads do not necessarily cause an increase in speed. There are more important factors besides road width. 

Outside of losing volume, there are a lot of benefits to having a road diet (less lanes, and narrower lanes). It can help improve signal timing and coordination because you do not have long walk and flash don't walk times. Those are dependent on a person's walking speed and the distance they need to travel. Also, you can implement things like bicycle lanes.

In terms of signing, an aspect of traffic engineering is not to overload the driver with information. This is why using symbol sings is much better than using signs with words. Even the complexity of the sign can matter. 

[jsgolfer]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

From a few traffic studies I read a few years back, wide roads do not necessarily cause an increase in speed. There are more important factors besides road width. 

Outside of losing volume, there are a lot of benefits to having a road diet (less lanes, and narrower lanes). It can help improve signal timing and coordination because you do not have long walk and flash don't walk times. Those are dependent on a person's walking speed and the distance they need to travel. Also, you can implement things like bicycle lanes.

In terms of signing, an aspect of traffic engineering is not to overload the driver with information. This is why using symbol sings is much better than using signs with words. Even the complexity of the sign can matter. 

And shared space isn't for everywhere.  

[saevel25]

6 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

And shared space isn't for everywhere.  

I mentioned that already earlier. My post in no way is in support of shared spaces. 

They do work out, when used wisely. 

[Jack Watson]

Hey @jsgolfer

The signs tell people how fast they can go it's called a speed limit.  Also determined by engineers.

To me I think this is a joke.  What geniuses dream this up?

Maybe have a shared space in BFE USA pop 230.  Outside that it's funny to me.

 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Jack Watson

[saevel25]

Just now, Jack Watson said:

Hey @jsgolfer

The signs tell people how fast they can go it's called a speed limit.  Also determined by engineers.

 

It is primarily determined by governments. 

Can speed limits be determined by things like roadway geometry (see your on and off rams), sure. I worked as a traffic engineer. I never once had to analyze what a speed limit should be on a road. We pretty much just went with what was existing on the roadway. The City of Dayton had their own base speed limit ordinance if we didn't want to sign the roadway. For Dayton it was 30 mph. Some cities might make it 25 mph, some might make it 35 mph. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Hey @jsgolfer

The signs tell people how fast they can go it's called a speed limit.  Also determined by engineers.

To me I think this is a joke.  What geniuses dream this up?

Maybe have a shared space in BFE USA pop 230.  Outside that it's funny to me.

Wow, you're so open minded.

[jsgolfer]

Just now, Jack Watson said:

Hey @jsgolfer

The signs tell people how fast they can go it's called a speed limit.  Also determined by engineers.

 

Really, I didn't know what those meant.  

And unfortunately they are not always determined by engineers, at least not in the Cities and Town's I did traffic engineering work for many moons ago.

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I mentioned that already earlier. My post in no way is in support of shared spaces. 

They do work out, when used wisely. 

I wasn't applying that you did agree, I took your response that you didn't, so I was clarifying my opinion that it shouldn't;t be considered everywhere.

11 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Hey @jsgolfer

The signs tell people how fast they can go it's called a speed limit.  Also determined by engineers.

To me I think this is a joke.  What geniuses dream this up?

Maybe have a shared space in BFE USA pop 230.  Outside that it's funny to me.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

The genius would be this guy.  

The only joke is that people are too short sighted to see if there are better ways to do things.  

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Wow, you're so open minded.

+1