Who removes red lights?

Erik Sandblom said:

A while back we discussed biking across red lights.

Well, it turns out that a street in London is actually having the red lights
removed. And the pavement markings, sidewalks, and create a single "shared
space" for everyone, motorized or not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

Neat eh?

I think we've discussed it here before (note Jan 2005 article date),
but, yes, very "neat" indeed.

Some interesting quotes from the article:

"It really is now questionable as to whether the traditional approach to
traffic is promoting road safety or not. People are genuinely sick of
[cluttered] streets full of guardrails."

"... a driver will happily ignore a sign telling him to drive at 20
miles per hour, but will rapidly assimilate signals from a changed
environment. If he drives onto a campsite for example or into a parking
garage, he will kill his speed, start looking out for pedestrians and
behave in a totally different fashion."

Quoted message said:

Where I live they have these signs. They mean all traffic is allowed,
pedestrians have the right of way, and I think it might be max 30 km/h
though I'm not sure. Only used on roads with little traffic, so different
from the London project.
http://www.vv.se/filer/bilder/vagmarken/1_4/1_4_9.gif

We have similar things here called "home zones", which have had mixed
success, as the article says. More quotes from the article, about
homezones:

"The trouble with most homezones is that they are halfheartedly
reconfigured,"

"Signs have very little influence on human behavior; we pick up signals
about behavior from the environment in much more complex ways."

Where have I heard similar messages to those in the article on here
recently ;-)

--
Matt B

Erik Sandblom said:

A while back we discussed biking across red lights.

Well, it turns out that a street in London is actually having the red lights
removed. And the pavement markings, sidewalks, and create a single "shared
space" for everyone, motorized or not.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html

There has been a successful scheme already in Seend in Wiltshire on the
A361. You might also enjoy the BBC report on the Dutch town of
Friesland where it has been applied across the town.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40777000/rm/_40777687_traffic_sillito_vi.ram

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Thanks for this link Tony, I had heard of the scheme but I couldn't
remember the details of where it was and on what scale they had
implemented the changes.

I found the report from the Netherlands tremendously uplifting, I shall
watch it whenever I feel down about the future of the world! I think
this is because the core value of the project is not being anti-car,
but about improving all road users' respect for each other, and
increasing eye contact and communication. This, for me, is the way
forward.

The quotes in Mark Rice-Oxley's report were similarly inspiring -
better traffic flow and fewer (and less severe) accidents - paradise! I
am really into the idea that public space has to be shared space with
more equality and more safety (I've been reading Mayer Hillman).

"... we want to design the public space more as a meeting place where
social activity is important." Koop Kerkstra, official in Drachten,
Netherlands

"People want their space back... People are genuinely sick of
[cluttered] streets full of guardrails." Daniel Moylan, deputy leader
of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council

Also the campsite model is a powerful one; most drivers will drive
according to the conditions - so if we change the environment and get
away from roads which look like racetracks for cars and lorries, then
we will improve standards of driving. This is why cyclepaths are not a
very good thing - they imply that roads are just for cars, and drivers
should not have to think about the presence of other road users.

IMO, anything we can do to drag this country back from becoming a
car-dominated society like the USA is a good thing.

Further thoughts arising from the Friesland experiment are: what do
they do with people who do not conform to the rules? Or are the Dutch
just very sociable and cooperative? I know their laws and police are
still operative, but it strikes me that this project to a large extent
has to be self-policing. It would only take a few idiots to
drive/cycle/whatever in selfish or reckless way and the whole thing
would be scrapped on safety grounds.

On one level this is really an experiment in anarchism - the core
philosophical issue being "Can humans be trusted to behave well and
cooperate in the absence of compulsion or authority?" So, is there
anything implicit in the Dutch model which promotes cooperation, which
would be transferable to our society? Or are we destined to be a nation
with the wrong temperament for this sort of thing? Can our public
spaces ever become self-policing in this way?

It's enough to make one really interested in urban planning - there are
so many interesting issues. I guess if we had the willingness - and the
budget - to transform our public spaces into shared spaces, then the
"campsite model" would kick in. But I doubt there is anything like the
political will necessary for this to happen in most cities and towns.

Francis Barton said:

Thanks for this link Tony, I had heard of the scheme but I couldn't
remember the details of where it was and on what scale they had
implemented the changes.

There is also an updated (31st Jan 2005) and better quality BBC video
report available. I cannot figure-out what the direct link is but it is
easy to find. Go to http://news.bbc.co.uk and in the search field enter
['Shared space' to make roads safer] (without the square brackets).
You'll get 11 results (I did), pick the one of the searched for title in
the right-hand column under "BBC NEWS: VIDEO AND AUDIO".

Quoted message said:

I found the report from the Netherlands tremendously uplifting, I shall
watch it whenever I feel down about the future of the world! I think
this is because the core value of the project is not being anti-car,
but about improving all road users' respect for each other, and
increasing eye contact and communication. This, for me, is the way
forward.

If you enjoy this sort of traffic scheme search the www for stuff
related to Hans Monderman, and 'Shared space' schemes. They are
becoming more widely discussed, and even implemented in some places!

Quoted message said:

The quotes in Mark Rice-Oxley's report were similarly inspiring -
better traffic flow and fewer (and less severe) accidents - paradise! I
am really into the idea that public space has to be shared space with
more equality and more safety (I've been reading Mayer Hillman).

Yes, apparently Seven Dials in London has a small 'Shared space' scheme,
but the most adventurous ones seem to be in Drachten and towns in
Fryslân in the Netherlands.

Quoted message said:

Also the campsite model is a powerful one; most drivers will drive
according to the conditions - so if we change the environment and get
away from roads which look like racetracks for cars and lorries, then
we will improve standards of driving. This is why cyclepaths are not a
very good thing - they imply that roads are just for cars, and drivers
should not have to think about the presence of other road users.

It all sounds counter-intuitive - but, apparently, works in NL.

Quoted message said:

IMO, anything we can do to drag this country back from becoming a
car-dominated society like the USA is a good thing.

Hear hear.

Quoted message said:

Further thoughts arising from the Friesland experiment are: what do
they do with people who do not conform to the rules?

I think the point is that there /are/ no rules. Cars aren't given
priority on a plate, so they don't take it.

Quoted message said:

Or are the Dutch
just very sociable and cooperative?

It can't be that because it works in Germany too ;-)

Quoted message said:

I know their laws and police are
still operative, but it strikes me that this project to a large extent
has to be self-policing. It would only take a few idiots to
drive/cycle/whatever in selfish or reckless way and the whole thing
would be scrapped on safety grounds.

There are problems in some places because there are some
laws/regulations, to do with signing and the like, which need to be
ignored for it to work properly.

Quoted message said:

On one level this is really an experiment in anarchism - the core
philosophical issue being "Can humans be trusted to behave well and
cooperate in the absence of compulsion or authority?"

No, it's a removal of the reliance on instructions and orders to dictate
who goes first. It is a reversion to human interaction, we've evolved
the instincts, abilities and skills to tolerate each other, and interact
with each other for thousands of years, and those skills are still
present if we remove the commands which overrule them.

Quoted message said:

So, is there
anything implicit in the Dutch model which promotes cooperation, which
would be transferable to our society? Or are we destined to be a nation
with the wrong temperament for this sort of thing? Can our public
spaces ever become self-policing in this way?

Only by trying it will we find out :-)

Quoted message said:

It's enough to make one really interested in urban planning - there are
so many interesting issues. I guess if we had the willingness - and the
budget - to transform our public spaces into shared spaces, then the
"campsite model" would kick in. But I doubt there is anything like the
political will necessary for this to happen in most cities and towns.

We need to campaign, and apply pressure at every opportunity.

Another interesting question is: If removing laws and regulations makes
roads work better - what else could be thus improved?

--
Matt B

Francis Barton said:

Also the campsite model is a powerful one; most drivers will drive
according to the conditions - so if we change the environment and get
away from roads which look like racetracks for cars and lorries, then
we will improve standards of driving.

I learned all my bike handling skills racing up and down the gravel roads of
campsites on my first cycling holiday (aged 10), so the campsite model would
result in more cuts and grazes for me, at least. 🙂

--
Ambrose

Quoted message said:

If you enjoy this sort of traffic scheme search the www for stuff
related to Hans Monderman, and 'Shared space' schemes.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further thoughts arising from the Friesland experiment are: what do
they do with people who do not conform to the rules?

I think the point is that there /are/ no rules. Cars aren't given
priority on a plate, so they don't take it.

Understood. I meant general rules as in "it's illegal to plough your
car into a pedestrian and knock them over" aot "rules of the road".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On one level this is really an experiment in anarchism - the core
philosophical issue being "Can humans be trusted to behave well and
cooperate in the absence of compulsion or authority?"

No, it's a removal of the reliance on instructions and orders to dictate
who goes first. It is a reversion to human interaction, we've evolved
the instincts, abilities and skills to tolerate each other, and interact
with each other for thousands of years, and those skills are still
present if we remove the commands which overrule them.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other here. No?
It's the human interaction element of this system that I think is
really valuable.

Oh, and by the way it took me a little while to twig that you're
(presumably) not the other Matt B. Was rather confused for a while :-)

Francis Barton said:

Oh, and by the way it took me a little while to twig that you're
(presumably) not the other Matt B. Was rather confused for a while :-)

What other Matt B?

--
Matt B

Francis Barton said:

Quoted message said:

If you enjoy this sort of traffic scheme search the www for stuff
related to Hans Monderman, and 'Shared space' schemes.

Thanks.

Did you get that other BBC video?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Further thoughts arising from the Friesland experiment are: what do
they do with people who do not conform to the rules?

I think the point is that there /are/ no rules. Cars aren't given
priority on a plate, so they don't take it.

Understood. I meant general rules as in "it's illegal to plough your
car into a pedestrian and knock them over" aot "rules of the road".

Those sorts of laws, although they /do/ exist, are not exclusively
required for road vehicle use. It is also illegal to drop a bucket of
paint onto a pedestrian from up a ladder, but it isn't embodied in a
specific law. Road users will still be held liable for their actions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On one level this is really an experiment in anarchism - the core
philosophical issue being "Can humans be trusted to behave well and
cooperate in the absence of compulsion or authority?"

No, it's a removal of the reliance on instructions and orders to dictate
who goes first. It is a reversion to human interaction, we've evolved
the instincts, abilities and skills to tolerate each other, and interact
with each other for thousands of years, and those skills are still
present if we remove the commands which overrule them.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other here. No?

The difference is in the emphasis I think. You say can they "be trusted
to behave well... in the absence of compulsion and authority". I say
they don't need compulsion and authority, behaving well is instinctive,
and possibly undermined by compulsion and authority.

Quoted message said:

It's the human interaction element of this system that I think is
really valuable.

I agree whole-heartedly :-)

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

What other Matt B?

Oops, you are the same.

Quoted message said:

Did you get that other BBC video?

Yes, thanks, it is much better quality.

Quoted message said:

The difference is in the emphasis I think. You say can they "be trusted
to behave well... in the absence of compulsion and authority". I say
they don't need compulsion and authority, behaving well is instinctive,
and possibly undermined by compulsion and authority.

Well it looks like we're saying the same thing in a different way. I
would want to say that a society probably needs to have reached a
certain point in its development with respect to what is acceptable
public conduct for this sort of thing to work. I don't agree with you
that cooperative social behaviour is instinctive; I think it's very
much a case of what is implicitly and explicitly taught by "society",
and not something we do in a state of nature. Instinctively I think
humans, without the educative influences of society in its various
forms, tend to be competitive and selfish - that's just simple
Darwinism. I think we can develop out of this state, through rules and
norms and social pressure (which I would want to be as minimal as
necessary, although essential) to a civilised state.

What this experiment with shared space is exploring, IMO, is what
happens if you take a highly civilised and tolerant populace and then
remove the "scaffolding" of the rules and regulations to give people
more freedom. In the case of road traffic, this experiment is saying,
the rules and regulations have become excessive, so why don't we remove
them and see how people respond?

I think I would only agree that "behaving well is ... possibly
undermined by compulsion and authority" where that compulsion exceeds
the necessary minimum for social cohesion. Then it just starts to
frustrate people. But I do think it would be problematic to remove all
sources of regulation and authority from societies - chaos and the
exploitation of the weakest would ensue IMO. As we develop greater
social cohesion, we can gradually experiment with removing the
frameworks bit by bit.

Are we ready for it in our society? I hope so, but much of evidence I
see around me suggests not.

Francis Barton said:

Quoted message said:

What other Matt B?

Oops, you are the same.

There was another one around about 5 years or so ago.

Quoted message said:

Are we ready for it in our society? I hope so, but much of evidence I
see around me suggests not.

The principle of shared space where predetermined 'rights' are removed
is one that is now generally accepted as workable in some situations.
These are characterised by having a sufficient balance of users that
the expectation of finding users with conflicting movement patterns is
high. Where there is a strong imbalance (as in the majority of British
streets) the more plentiful and powerful can bully their way.
There are solutions. Legislate to improve response to others through
mechanisms like presumption of responsibility for those weilding heavy
equipment, and work all out to encourage people to 'reclaim the
streets'.

It is not a universal paradigm. It works well in appropriate
situations, but other solutions have to be found for other situations.

IMO the majority of non-through route residential areas could be
managed like this if we didn't insist on making them defacto car parks.
Maybe removing the pavements and insisting that cars park right on the
very edge, with pedestrians in the main part of the road would be
better for all concerned in such roads. Coupled with a maximum speed of
20 mph to really cap tendencies to treat them as before.

...d

Francis Barton said:

Quoted message said:

What other Matt B?

Oops, you are the same.

I'm intrigued as to why you thought I might not be!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The difference is in the emphasis I think. You say can they "be trusted
to behave well... in the absence of compulsion and authority". I say
they don't need compulsion and authority, behaving well is instinctive,
and possibly undermined by compulsion and authority.

Well it looks like we're saying the same thing in a different way. I
would want to say that a society probably needs to have reached a
certain point in its development with respect to what is acceptable
public conduct for this sort of thing to work.

Of course, but I think most, developed countries at least, have been
there for some while.

Quoted message said:

In the case of road traffic, this experiment is saying,
the rules and regulations have become excessive, so why don't we remove
them and see how people respond?

It is not simply a case of removing excessive rules because people
should behave in a reasonably civilised fashion without them, because of
social pressures, although that is an important condition for the
removal of some of the rules. There is also another human instinct
coming into play - risk management. When things appear to be more
dangerous we are more careful. Part of the 'shared space' philosophy
relies on individuals taking responsibility for their own actions
(taking a measured risk when crossing a road junction and so on), when
all cues, commands and comforters are removed - in the form of traffic
lights, road markings, speed limits and the like, certain manoeuvres
appear more risky, so more care is exercised.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Francis Barton said:

Are we ready for it in our society? I hope so, but much of evidence I
see around me suggests not.

The principle of shared space where predetermined 'rights' are removed
is one that is now generally accepted as workable in some situations.
These are characterised by having a sufficient balance of users that
the expectation of finding users with conflicting movement patterns is
high. Where there is a strong imbalance (as in the majority of British
streets) the more plentiful and powerful can bully their way.

Did you see the BBC clip from NL with the old guy on a tricycle stopped
in the middle of the road talking to the reporter? There were several
cars waiting patiently until he moved out of the way. There was nobody
else crossing or blocking the way - there was no bullying.

Quoted message said:

There are solutions.

It /is/ the solution - no rules.

Quoted message said:

Legislate to improve response to others through
mechanisms like presumption of responsibility for those weilding heavy
equipment, and work all out to encourage people to 'reclaim the
streets'.

All citizens are equal, except motorists, sounds slightly biased to me
;-) You won't need to 'reclaim' the streets if they have already been
given back to you.

Quoted message said:

It is not a universal paradigm. It works well in appropriate
situations,

Yes, in traditional and conventional public space such as town centres,
villages, residential areas and urban streets and country lanes. Of
course this relies on there being an inter-town network of decent
highways to keep motorised traffic moving and to keep it out of the way.

Quoted message said:

but other solutions have to be found for other situations.

What other situations were you thinking of?

Quoted message said:

IMO the majority of non-through route residential areas could be
managed like this if we didn't insist on making them defacto car parks.

Cars are part of modern life. Individuals should have as much right to
keep and use a car as they have to keep and use a pushchair or bicycle.

Quoted message said:

Maybe removing the pavements and insisting that cars park right on the
very edge,

You're back to making rules again. The basis of these schemes is /no/
rules.

Quoted message said:

with pedestrians in the main part of the road would be
better for all concerned in such roads.

There should be no assigned space - it should be a free-for-all.

Quoted message said:

Coupled with a maximum speed of
20 mph to really cap tendencies to treat them as before.

With speed cameras every 50 yards, and traffic calming to enforce it?
What rules would we need to keep the hordes of pedestrians in tow in
town centres on a Saturday afternoon? You've missed the point I think ;-)

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

people should behave in a reasonably civilised fashion without them

Agreed, but that "should" is a pretty big one.

Also I agree with you that the risk management instinct is crucial to
the success of shared spaces. But of course the reality is that some
road users and vehicles are more capable of causing harm than others.
And some vehicles have a greater ability protect the user than others.
So I wonder what the "risk management" philosophy implies for air bags,
side impact protection etc in cars. If they make drivers feel safer, do
they therefore make them more dangerous to others (and possibly
themselves)? We're back to the issue of drivers' isolation from the
outside world in their metal "cage."

Quoted message said:

Part of the 'shared space' philosophy
relies on individuals taking responsibility for their own actions

I wonder if the majority of motor vehicle drivers/riders on British
roads are ready to take that responsibility, without the "cues,
commands and comforters." After all, part of the reason why so many
young men are injured and killed in car accidents is precisely because
they enjoy taking risks - so increased riskiness is not necessarily
going to influence the boy racers to drive more carefully.

Again, I hope that we are ready for shared space schemes as I think
they're really exciting, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Anyone got any information on the progress of the Seven Dials scheme?

On 25 Apr 2006 14:41:52 -0700,

David Martin said:

IMO the majority of non-through route residential areas could be
managed like this if we didn't insist on making them defacto car parks.
Maybe removing the pavements and insisting that cars park right on the
very edge, with pedestrians in the main part of the road would be
better for all concerned in such roads.

No it wouldn't. I would find it very difficult to get out of my front door
(especially with my bike) if there was a car parked immediately in front
of it. It is hard enough as it is with cars parked partly on the pavement
in front of it.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Andy Leighton said:

On 25 Apr 2006 14:41:52 -0700,

David Martin said:

IMO the majority of non-through route residential areas could be
managed like this if we didn't insist on making them defacto car parks.
Maybe removing the pavements and insisting that cars park right on the
very edge, with pedestrians in the main part of the road would be
better for all concerned in such roads.

No it wouldn't. I would find it very difficult to get out of my front door
(especially with my bike) if there was a car parked immediately in front
of it.

So we would have to have rules that limit obstruction..

Quoted message said:

It is hard enough as it is with cars parked partly on the pavement
in front of it.

But if a) your front door was not blocked and b) the cars were at the
edge so you went in to the middle of the road (no kerb) then you have
plenty of space to fit wheelchairs, double buggies, bikes, and so on
through.

The whole road would be the pavement.
This obviously wouldn't work in high traffic through routes, there has
to be a selection of solutions rather more complex than the motorway or
home zone solution binary option.

...d

On 26 Apr 2006 03:37:05 -0700,

David Martin said:

Andy Leighton said:

On 25 Apr 2006 14:41:52 -0700,

David Martin said:

IMO the majority of non-through route residential areas could be
managed like this if we didn't insist on making them defacto car parks.
Maybe removing the pavements and insisting that cars park right on the
very edge, with pedestrians in the main part of the road would be
better for all concerned in such roads.

No it wouldn't. I would find it very difficult to get out of my front door
(especially with my bike) if there was a car parked immediately in front
of it.

So we would have to have rules that limit obstruction..

Hmm. Then there wouldn't be very many cars down the street at all as
there is a door every few yards apart from a few places where two houses
have been knocked into one. Suits me fine.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

David Martin said:

Andy Leighton said:

On 25 Apr 2006 14:41:52 -0700,

David Martin said:

IMO the majority of non-through route residential areas could be
managed like this if we didn't insist on making them defacto car parks.
Maybe removing the pavements and insisting that cars park right on the
very edge, with pedestrians in the main part of the road would be
better for all concerned in such roads.

No it wouldn't. I would find it very difficult to get out of my front door
(especially with my bike) if there was a car parked immediately in front
of it.

So we would have to have rules that limit obstruction..

No rules. Do you need a rule to tell you not to block a neighbour's
door/gate with one of your other possessions?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is hard enough as it is with cars parked partly on the pavement
in front of it.

But if a) your front door was not blocked and b) the cars were at the
edge so you went in to the middle of the road (no kerb) then you have
plenty of space to fit wheelchairs, double buggies, bikes, and so on
through.

The whole road would be the pavement.

No, the pavement and the road would merge into a shared space :-)

Quoted message said:

This obviously wouldn't work in high traffic through routes,

It does in Drachten.

Quoted message said:

there has
to be a selection of solutions rather more complex than the motorway or
home zone solution binary option.

Yes. "Motorway" for inter-town motor traffic and "shared space"
everywhere else.

--
Matt B

The latest issue of Children, Youth and Environments [1] includes a
discussion of HomeZones by (my hero) Tim Gill and some other good
papers including the following excellent paper:

"Fun, Fast and Fit: Influences and Motivators for Teenagers Who Cycle
to School"

by Arthur F. Orsini of Auckland Regional Transport Authority and
Catherine O'Brien of the Centre for Sustainable Transportation,
Eganville, Canada.

Abstract: Data collected from questionnaires, individual interviews and
a group interview shed light on influences and motivators for six
Vancouver teenagers who were old enough to drive but regularly cycled
to secondary school. The participants began cycling by themselves
around the age of ten because it afforded independence, fun, speed and
time efficiency. Their parents resisted habitual chauffeuring and
modeled bicycle use for recreation and transportation. The participants
continued cycling throughout their mid-teen years because those early
motivators-along with fitness and health-were stronger than
negative comments from peers. They rode neither new nor expensive
bikes, and considered bicycle "advocacy" to be too aggressive to be
directed at their peers. However, rigorous tactics to encourage friends
to cycle indicated that friends of current cyclists are an important
target in bicycle promotion at secondary schools.

Just bringing the thread back to cycling :-)

[1] http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/
Direct link: http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/16_1/index.htm

NB The papers are available free as PDF files, but they are asking for
donations on an honour system for access if you can afford it.