Do Traffic Signs And Signals Make The Roads More Dangerous?
Stossel writes at reason:
It ... turns out that government roads often run more smoothly when drivers have more, not less, freedom.This sounds paradoxical. Politicians often sneer at libertarians, saying, "You want to get rid of traffic lights?!" Well, yes, actually. In some cases, traffic moves better and more safely when government removes traffic lights, stop signs, even curbs.
It's Friedrich Hayek's "spontaneous" order in action: Instead of sitting at a mechanized light waiting to be told when to go, drivers meet in an intersection and negotiate their way through by making eye contact and gesturing. The secret is that drivers must pay attention to their surroundings--to pedestrians and other cars--rather than just to signs and signals. It demonstrates the "Peltzman Effect" (named after retired University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman): People tend to behave more recklessly when their sense of safety is increased. By removing signs, lights and barriers, drivers feel less safe, so they drive more carefully. They pay more attention.
In Drachten, Holland, lights and signs were removed from an intersection handling about 30,000 cars a day. Average waiting times dropped from 50 seconds to less than 30 seconds. Accidents dropped from an average of eight per year to just one.
On Kensington High Street in London, after pedestrian railing and other traffic markers were removed, accidents dropped by 44 percent.
"What these signs are doing is treating the driver as if they were an idiot," says traffic architect Ben Hamilton-Baillie. "If you do so, drivers exhibit no intelligence."
More at Wilson Quarterly, by Tom Vanderbilt:
A year after the change, the results of this "extreme makeover" were striking: Not only had congestion decreased in the intersection--buses spent less time waiting to get through, for example--but there were half as many accidents, even though total car traffic was up by a third. Students from a local engineering college who studied the intersection reported that both drivers and, unusually, cyclists were using signals--of the electronic or hand variety--more often. They also found, in surveys, that residents, despite the measurable increase in safety, perceived the place to be more dangerous. This was music to Monderman's ears. If they had not felt less secure, he said, he "would have changed it immediately."Not surprisingly, these kinds of counterintuitive findings made news. But often, the reports reduced Monderman's theories to a simple libertarian dislike for regulation of any kind. Granted, he did occasionally hum this tune. "When government takes over the responsibility from citizens, the citizens can't develop their own values anymore," he told me. "So when you want people to develop their own values in how to cope with social interactions between people, you have to give them freedom." But his philosophy consisted of more than a simple dislike of constraints. He was questioning the entire way we think about traffic and its place in the landscape.
From a commenter under Vanderbilt's piece:
New York
I had the unique experience of picking up a rental car in Manhattan the day after the blackout in August 2003. Being a visitor to New York, I was rather nervous about driving in Manhattan, a city where streets seem to be dominated by cabs with their own set of rules.The whole purpose of renting the car was to drive up to Boston with family for a wedding. When I picked up the car from a Upper East Side rental place, the first thing I noticed was that the traffic signals were not working at all.
Much to my surprise, as I navigated around central park to Columbus circle, where we were staying, the traffic was surprisingly light, and the cars that were moving about the area were doing so at a very moderate pace. There was eye contact (including smiling and waving) between drivers at intersections, directional signals were being used, and it was one of the more civil and pleasant driving experiences I've ever had in my life.
Of course, once we made it to I-95 going north, it was a traffic jam of nearly biblical proportions, and it took us nearly 7 hours to get to boston (about 200 miles). Ultimately though, my Manhattan driving experience was nothing less than lovely, and I don't think I ever want or need to do it again.
Posted by: TomH | 8/29/08
My guess is that this is highly dependent on culture. Note that the examples are from northern Europe.
In a more in-your-face place like Israel or Italy where existing law and signs are viewed as suggestions, removing them would probably result in more risk taking and confrontation.
Ben David at August 8, 2010 4:19 AM
It's long been known within risk management circles that when someone is doing something 'against the rules', they tend to be much more careful, resulting in fewer mishaps.
Builders using a saw with the blade guard removed to increase productivity, drivers substantially exceeding the speed limit and focusing intently on the road, or warehouse employees using unsecured ladders to reach upper shelves - all these folks, aware they are flouting safety protocols - tend to concentrate more on their task.
Of course, when an accident DOES happen, all we hear is how yet another injury occurred because the individual ignored safety regulations. Not a word on how many accidents did not happen due to increased vigilence on the part of the worker.
Too many safety laws lull us into a false sense of security.
Pete the Streak at August 8, 2010 6:44 AM
But if the police couldn't issue tickets for violating stop signs and traffic lights, how would they make any money?
Pirate Jo at August 8, 2010 7:09 AM
See also, this three minute video.
Regulation is cancer. These are not nice people.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 7:18 AM
I sort of suspected this after all the years of patiently waiting at red lights while nobody else was near the intersection.
OT: Amy, can you get your beloved to add a "share" feature to your blog? Would be great for making Facebook and blog spreading of your observations a little easier. (unless I am missing where you have it, or unless you are against my level of "lazy" lol)
Suki at August 8, 2010 7:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/08/do_traffic_sign.html#comment-1740818">comment from SukiThanks for asking, Suki. Good idea.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2010 8:32 AM
Ben David: good point. I'd add that it may depend on the level of driving skill in the area. Driving tests in most of the US are a joke. Road tests in Holland are, I hear, quite stringent, and people often don't pass the first time. Result is that the average level of skill for those who can pass the test is a lot higher.
When I was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia I noticed people doing the most hair-raising moves (turning left across 4 lanes of traffic at a stoplight, or merging on a curvy freeway with about 10 feet of visiblity) Everyone else was very alert and would just move out of the way - flow was maintained. Malasian drivers could stop on a dime for jaywalkers, too. I wouldn't trust the average U.S. driver to respond in time.
There are traffic circles all over Boston, which is notorious for bad driving and terrible road design. They were a bit of a clusterfuck, although they were far from the worst thing there. Driving in Boston or any surrounding town was pure torture if you didn't know the "secrets". I wished they had used more street signage and had a few left turn only traffic signals.
vi at August 8, 2010 9:38 AM
In Europe, they also use roundabouts more frequently instead of intersections with stop lights. This forces the driver entering the roundabout to carefully watch what the cars already on the roundabout are doing before entering it. Traffic flows more smoothly because none of the cars actually stop as they enter and exit the roundabout.
Tony at August 8, 2010 10:36 AM
I do think removal of the signs would make things more safe, however, what about that 16 year old kid who has been brought up not in a culture promoting self-sufficiency, respect for others, consequences for their own actions and responsibility but, rather, one of dependency, reliance on outside government and hand holding.
There may be some time that needs to pass (a generation?) until these folks have cycled through the learning curve until we are able to see a any benefit from traffic sign-type removal. In my experience, teenagers these days view driving as a social event.
It also may mean that we get to be choosy about who gets to have a license - driving is a privilege, right?
Feebie at August 8, 2010 10:41 AM
> they also use roundabouts more frequently
> instead of intersections with stop lights
I just read a book about this. What Tony says is true. Roundabouts are both safer and faster than intersections.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 10:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/08/do_traffic_sign.html#comment-1740836">comment from Crid [cridcomment at gmail]Roundabout in my neighborhood seems that way, and it's HUGE. Drivers actually use their brains and have to watch to see how to get around without killing each other or pedestrians.
Amy Alkon at August 8, 2010 10:58 AM
NJ used to have lots of traffic circles. They removed most of them some years ago b/c of the numerous accidents they caused. Supposedly roundabouts are different than traffic circles, but I don't see how. I recently drove in a town in Colorado with roundabouts and found them to be a royal pain.
kishke at August 8, 2010 12:12 PM
> I recently drove in a town in Colorado
> with roundabouts and found them to be
> a royal pain.
Exactly! A SAFE royal pain.
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 12:20 PM
No, not particularly safe. People would dart in and cut off traffic already in the roundabout. Others were too timid, and would wait forever to enter, holding back a line of cars behind them. Neither approach is especially conducive to safety.
kishke at August 8, 2010 12:51 PM
The numbers don't lie: You appear to be arguing that Americans are too addled to be bothered with their own safety, and that it's better that their fate be left with technologies which maim.
It requires more attention— THAT'S THE POINT. As with so many other things in life, when you take responsibility for your own outcome, you get better value than government can deliver.
I sympathize, OK? I've written before about a big moment I had at this one... But that was mostly because it's a former British colony, so those assholes drive on the left. The mind can handle only so much math at one time.....
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 1:05 PM
I'm not saying anything about Americans generally, only about my experience with the drivers in this particular place (Avon, CO). And what I saw was less safety not more. Although I'll admit it was convenient to move quickly through a traffic circle and not wait for a light. But I didn't see where it's safer.
kishke at August 8, 2010 2:22 PM
Ah-ha!
Crid [cridcomment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 2:48 PM
You got it. Lovely hamlet. As you can see, there is a string of 5-6 roundabouts.
kishke at August 8, 2010 3:19 PM
The reason this would never get tried in America is that if a town tried removing stop signs, or traffic signals, if the number of fatalities at a particular intersection went down from ten to one, the family of the one would sue the city and probably collect.
clinky at August 8, 2010 3:32 PM
clinky, you are so right, sigh.
murkie at August 8, 2010 5:02 PM
clinky has a point.
Robert at August 8, 2010 5:10 PM
Yes and no.
I lived in England for seven years, and have plenty of experience with roundabouts.
In general, for roads with one or two lanes, they work pretty well. However, there are circumstances where one road will take control of the entire roundabout. (if one of the feeder roads into the roundabout has substantially more traffic than the others, the others won't get a turn).
I was back in the UK last summer. Some of the larger roundabouts now have traffic signals.
----
I was at work in Dearborn, MI, when the 2003 blackout happened.
What was ordinarily a 40 minute commute turned into just over four hours. People were amazingly civil, and took turns as much as they could -- very tough to do when there are three lanes each direction.
The next day, driving was a breeze.
Because nearly everyone stayed home.
Hey Skipper at August 8, 2010 10:35 PM
I dunno, the expense of people suing for (the more deadly) intersections isn't so high that communities simply forgo roads.
This isn't meant to resist Clink's point entirely. I get it.
But until someone comes up with a really concise, handy term for what you're doing, description for what you're doing in this argument, let me point out that it's the kind of reasoning under which you'll never get out of bed in the morning.
If the resistance to even suggesting such a small change in our society –an indisputable improvement for efficiency, expense, speed, environmental tenderness and human safety– is so strong that we're overwhelmed, then we're really going to be fucked when the revolution comes... When someone starts saying that the freeways have to close down four times a day for prayer, or something like that. Let's not assist the bastards before they even make they're case.
We didn't resist seat belt laws because they did nothing alleviate the weakness of our inner-city schools. We shouldn't suffer extra bleeding at intersections just because some dickweek in your community will threaten a law suit. When someone makes that threat, CHALLENGE HIM. Mock him, etc.
Anyone remember when Willie Shoemaker got drunk, wrecked his car, wound up in a wheelchair and (successfully) sued Ford Motor for a million? At appearances thereafter, he was booed. The situation is far from hopeless.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 10:37 PM
Nope, read the book, the link I bungled earlier.... It happens to be the same author Amy's quoting here. We all enjoy your anecdotes, but....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at August 8, 2010 10:39 PM
A few cities in the phoenix metro area, or maybe it was at the direction of the highway dept, took out a number of traffic lights and put in round-a-bouts at a number of busy freeway on/off ramps almost a year ago
lujlp at August 8, 2010 10:48 PM
Don't know if these cretins want to stop traffic four times/day for prayer, but they sure don't like the traffic police.
Jason S. at August 9, 2010 12:17 AM
However, there are circumstances where one road will take control of the entire roundabout. (if one of the feeder roads into the roundabout has substantially more traffic than the others, the others won't get a turn).
I noticed this too in my very brief experience with roundabouts.
kishke at August 9, 2010 8:10 AM
I sure wouldn't go so far as to remove stop signs. I was a kid in the '50s, in a rural area, and the few stop signs were rather a novelty. People would just blow through them and, in our little town of 3000 people, there was almost always at least one totaled car behind the gas station, the windshield shattered and the interior drenched in blood (no seat belts then either, and a lot of cars were so old they didn't have safety-glass windows). We lost a couple of school teachers and at least two or three kids from every class that way. Watch those old classics "Signal 30" and "Red Pavement" for chilling depictions of how people actually drove in those days. Death and mayhem weren't enough to change bad driving habits, but now, at least, the prospect of a hefty fine and ticket have forced people to pay more attention to stop signs.
Steve H at August 9, 2010 8:55 AM
I'd really like to believe this would work, but the drivers here in Colorado are idiots. Any time a traffic light goes out, everyone scrambles to be first and the hell with everyone else. (I blame a lack of driver's ed in this state).
And don't even get me started about how many times I've been nearly mowed down in a roundabout. I will say though, they are better than four-way stops, which NO ONE here seems to understand.
Maybe it's just my corner of the state, but damn.
Ann at August 9, 2010 9:01 AM
While traffic circles might be faster and safer in the general case, they still have to be designed with some thought. There is a traffic circle system near my house where several roads and a highway come together. There are five linked traffic circles which are themselves arranged in a loop. Each traffic circle leads to a specific roads in specific directions. Each circle has specific lanes which leads you to the next circle. To navigate this nightmarish mess you must know which circle gets you to the road/direction you want, and then you must know which lanes in each circle that will take you to the next circle. While there are roadsigns in the circles, there are no directions to get to the next circle, or any indication of what roads they might link to. Making matters worse is that a few of the circles are in the middle of the highway entrance/exit ramps. Make the wrong choice and you may have to drive several miles on the freeway to get to the next exit to come back.
There is no hope that the relative newcomer to these circles will be able to get to where they want to go quickly. The local merchants tell stories of people abandoning their cars in these circles and walking over to the shop owners to ask for help in getting out.
The other amusing (sad) story is that after the circles were completed, they had to be torn up and redone because the circles were too tight for 18-wheelers to navigate them.
AllenS at August 9, 2010 9:02 AM
Ann, I'm glad to see residents too are leery of the Colorado roundabouts. I thought it was just me. But I loved the 75 mph speed limit in some places there.
kishke at August 9, 2010 10:58 AM
I love the 75mph speed limit too, basically because no one goes slower than 80. :D
I think I've been in those roundabouts in Avon, though. We have one here that is two lanes - if you stay in either the inside or outside lane you can make a 3/4 (left) turn, and I can't tell you HOW MANY times I've been cut off by some moron in the inside lane just bebopping over into mine without looking. And, if you honk at them to let them know they're about to hit you, you get the "WTF?" look.
Insanity.
Ann at August 9, 2010 1:05 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by a left turn. Since all traffic in a roundabout moves counterclockwise, aren't all turns out of the roundabout to the right?
kishke at August 9, 2010 2:08 PM
By "left turn" Ann means that the direction you are going leaving the roundabout is left with respect to the direction going in.
The beauty of roundabouts is that you always look the same direction to enter, and always turn the same direction to exit, which eliminates the possibility of the T-bone collision between cars going through an intersection, and those turning left. (Actually, there are other advantages, but that is the primary one from a safety point of view).
The downside to roundabouts (besides one direction sometimes seizing control) is that they take lots of space; as a guess, with two lanes each direction roughly twice as much area as for a signal-controlled intersection.
There are a few new roundabouts in Anchorage, replacing signals at freeway on and off ramps. After a bit of learning curve, they seem to be working very well.
Hey Skipper at August 9, 2010 2:50 PM
Thanks, Skipper. Yeah, I saw that too. People would just slide over from inside lane w/o looking. In fact, I think I did it once or twice before I got the hang of how the circle worked.
kishke at August 9, 2010 5:32 PM
I wonder if this is based on the same study I read about awhile back - sounds very similar anyway. If so, I believe they are not being true to the results. That study indicated that the US had way too many signs such that it confused drivers and drivers became dependent on the signs to tell them what to do. In rural driving, it found it made sense to eliminate stop signs and in some cases put in circles. Traffic control (lights/stop signs) was required for urban and sub-urban driving.
Traffic circles and roundabouts are about the same things -- one is bigger than the other. the smaller ones are death traps. One was put in near the apartment I was renting in college because of "all the near collsions" - I had not seen one. In the next three months there was 5 collisions that I know of (at that time I moved home for the summer) and they were planning on ripping them out because a fire engine had gotten stuck in one.
The larger ones are OK, but still not great. It really depends on the traffic volume. Low volume works. I went to a shop out south and had to go through some of them. The one was fine when I went through on my way south, but on my way back north - maybe 15 minutes later -- it was back up a block and stop-n-go. It was functioning like 5 T intersections with stop signs.
Based on my experience when the power went out here a few months ago - every intersection functioned like an all-way stop. Every significant intersection that I experienced was backed up.
I read a research proposal to research computer controlled cars. The interesting (to me) part was that it went into great detail as to how most traffic studies assume drivers behave close to perfectly...people know how to drive the road such that it works optimally. And his computer driver could actually do that. Thus, most studies that tried to predict how traffic would work fail.
The Former Banker at August 9, 2010 5:55 PM
when it comes to safety people are more concerned with what feels safe rather than what is safe. Try telling someone you don't believe in red light cameras because study after study shows that increasing yellow light time lowers accidents (and other changes like larger lights, an all-way stop period between cycles, walk signal countdowns help too) but they say "if the yellow is longer i'll just go through" or "you just want to run reds." they refuse to address the facts.
It's like that for other areas of society, don't let kids around single men even though the facts are the kids are in more danger from relatives, etc. People don't care about actual risk, only what feels risky, and they would rather not feel risky than actually reduce risk.
basically people don't understand what risk is.
plutosdad at August 10, 2010 6:52 AM
Leave a comment