How To Build Roads To Control How Fast You Drive 801
An anonymous reader writes "They're the holy grail of transportation engineering: streets and highways specifically designed to encourage automobilists to drive less quickly, reducing the rates of passenger fatalities and generally encouraging a safer urban environment. And now new research shows that, if built right, they just might work. A new study out of the University of Connecticut suggests that minor reductions in vehicle speed are possible through changes in the street environment. Through the use of roadside parking, tighter building setbacks, and more commercial land uses, road designers can make drivers subconsciously drive more slowly." All of that is gonna work a lot better than my strategy of placing car-sized holes covered with twigs and branches randomly every half mile or so down the interstates.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:1, Interesting)
Drivers slow down in built-up areas? I guess some do, but there's always lots who don't.
We'd probably do a better job in reducing "dangerousness" by making the penalty for repeated speeding and reckless driving something more serious than it is. Maybe death?
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was taught the same.
But also going on a skid training course made me realise how much of a difference there is when emergency braking from 30 and emergency breaking for 20, it's quite dramatic when you actually try it (though no doubt when we were doing that they had the weight on the tires reduced using the rig attached to the car so that it took way longer to stop than a modern car). Putting pedestrians closer to and making them less visible to drivers does not make things safer. Just because a car is going slower does not automatically mean it is "safer". Sure it means it will cause less damage if it hits something, but if the car is more likely to actually hit something because of an inattentive driver or insane road designs, then how the hell is that "safer"?
PS the lanes, walkways and roads here in the UK are generally thinner and more lined with cars than those in the US.. I don't know the different accident rates but it would be interesting to compare them. I suspect there would be more here.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:1, Interesting)
There is a road where I live that implemented curves to prevent 'road races' and fast driving. Most people DO slow down, me too...as it is more dangerous to take these curves at high speeds.
But...there is a bunch of motorbikers that do race along this road. As such, there are more motorbike deaths on this one patch of 600m than in the entire rest of the city. During the winter the road is a parking lot because of accidents as well.
It is now the deadliest street in the city, BUT, the average speed is a lot lower than anywhere else. I rarely see people go above 40km/hr on this road, but when they do, everyone dies.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:2, Interesting)
only a few people need to go at a sane speed and it forces those behind them to slow down too.
(of course then they try to overtake in stupid situations but until we get them fitted with shock collars idiots will always do idiotic things.)
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:3, Interesting)
Other strategies... (Score:5, Interesting)
In Portugal I saw a cute system - if you pass a sensor driving faster than the speed limit, then a traffic signal 200yards/metres down the road turns red for 10 seconds, making you (and again anyone behind you) stop.
The psychology behind these systems is interesting - both rely on shaming you in front of other drivers. The Portugese system goes further and makes other drivers angry with you for speeding.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but passenger fatalities will be reduced.... they said nothing about pedestrian fatalities.
As much as their conclusion makes sense for their premise.... they're not looking at the entire picture.
Risk balancing (Score:2, Interesting)
Sane drivers know this, reduce their speed, and then -- making wild hand-waving guesses, here -- wind up with about the same overall level of "dangerousness" as when driving on uncluttered roadways.
I remember reading about a study done for motorcyclists, they were observed riding both with and without a helmet. Those that normally didn't wear a helmet were asked to wear one, and in response to the 'added safety' increased their speed to compensate.
People take a set amount of perceived risk, what they need to do is find ways to make a situation seem more dangerous than it is, as people would overcompensate and thus safer.
Looking at this from an evolutionary POV, it makes sense that a population would evolve to have a certain amount of risk-taking on the part of its individuals. Often when a risk is taken, and the result is poor, the individual takes the punishment (often death), but when the result is positive the population benefits, thus populations with a certain amount of riskiness flourish (enough to advance, not enough to be wiped out). Consider the new food problem, most populations have a set of known good food, known bad food and unknown food; they eat the good food and mostly avoid the bad and unknown foods. Some individuals will eat the unknown foods, if it is bad they die, and the population is largely unaffected, if it is good, the new food is then eaten by the population and everyone benefits.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
NO, you can make them more annoying to drive at higher speeds.
Cut groove in the road. The slow you want someone to go, the closer the groove are.
Also, a Police car driving the speed limit tends to keep people at the desired speed.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:5, Interesting)
You shouldn't assume the entire population can drive. Try that again, but use licensed drivers/registered vehicles in place of the total population of the country. Also, I believe that the US has closer to 350m people (not that it matters since you won't be using that number).
p.s: I would do it myself but I'm just too damn lazy.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:4, Interesting)
Regarding UK roads - generally, the accident rate in the UK is about 1/3rd of the accident rate in the US - UK roads are vastly safer.
However, this probably has a lot to do with driver training which is generally much more thorough in the UK - as well as other things, such as drink-driving laws where a driving ban really means a driving ban - in many parts of the US, they still allow you to drive to work and back if you're "banned" for drunken driving. On the motorway system, it may have things to do with the general better design of junctions which lack things like decreasing radius turns (which seem depressingly common, at least in Texas where I used to live) and insane junction designs like what can be found on the I-610/I-45 junction in Houston, or the hwy-59 / I-610 junction near Westheimer in Houston (both which have almost permanent traffic jams alongside traffic doing 70 mph one lane to the left, with people trying to get out of the stopped lane from a standing start).
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It doesn't work. (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. I have an Engineering degree from UConn, and I was rather embarrassed to read the article. I still live in Connecticut, and I actually seek out unfamiliar, curvy, "slow" roads to drive my roadster on. I realize most people aren't driving enthusiasts, but if you build a twisty road, some people will want to drive on it because of that.
I've come to the determination that the adage amongst driving enthusiasts is true: It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than to drive a fast car fast. It's all about how fast it feels. The same goes for road safety... it's the perception, not actuality, that changes your behavior. You don't really need a study to prove that.
Look at Autocross events... people love'em, and they're a lot of fun. But rarely do you go over 40 MPH.
We found a subtle way... (proof of the premise) (Score:3, Interesting)
That wouldn't be too bad if not for two factors: 1) the street lies between a residential neighborhood and the local elementary school, and 2) there's a convenience store along the route with very high vehicle and foot traffic. Since we moved onto that stretch, we've witnessed about six accidents each year in front of the convenience store. The convenience store happens to be at the most-common crossing point for kids going to the school, too. Since we are living along the stretch and have young children, we've added our voice to local efforts to reduce the speed to 30 mph. The city would like the speed reduced, but it is technically a county road, and the county won't change it. For the past few years, we've told our kids not to play in the front yard (facing the street) or in the driveway. This year, we reversed ourselves. Just last weekend, we erected a basketball hoop in our driveway. As soon as we were out there playing, traffic started to slow down. Sometimes, unfortunately, to speeds well below 30 mph!
We figure it's only a matter of time before there is either an accident or before we get a letter from the city and/or county asking us to take down the basketball hoop. Some of the other residents along the route appreciate the change, but only time will show whether or not they start using their front yards and driveways again. For now, I'll enjoy the sound of engine breaking as the big trucks (the ones that want to run through the stretch at 55 mph!) slow down each time they see the kids in the driveway or the yard.
"reducing the rates of passenger fatalities" (Score:2, Interesting)
Germany: No speed limit; fatality & accident rates amongst the lowest world-wide.
You were saying?
Re:Other strategies... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the UK we have lots of 'speed warning' signs. When you approach them, if you are exceeding the speed limit, they light up and tell you (and anyone behind you) how fast you are going. And that's all. No penalties. They seem to make a significant difference in residuntial areas. I think they are often paid for by the local community rather than the state.
In Portugal I saw a cute system - if you pass a sensor driving faster than the speed limit, then a traffic signal 200yards/metres down the road turns red for 10 seconds, making you (and again anyone behind you) stop.
The psychology behind these systems is interesting - both rely on shaming you in front of other drivers. The Portugese system goes further and makes other drivers angry with you for speeding.
We have those in the US as well. We use them to see if our speedometers are calibrated as we fly past them.
Roadside technology that *might* work here would be randomly located (and frequently moved) strobes that flash regardless whether there's a camera attached. Every time I see *that* flash (so far I've not been the driver posing for the closeup) I do pay more attention to my speed.
scotgl (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Other strategies... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:3, Interesting)
like staying in the right lane, and watching your mirrors if you're in the fast lane.
One of the problems is that in most states, there's no codified law saying to stay out of the far left lane. I got my license in MN and we were actually taught to pick our lane based on maneuvering room. So if everyone is going the speed limit and in the right lane, some should move left so there's more stopping distance and visibility. The only statement about staying in the right lane was when you were traveling below the speed limit.
Other states actually require the left lane is only used for passing. When it's law, it gets taught in drivers-ed.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just don't do what so many round here seem to do which is to up it to 60 in the overtakey bits then drop back down to 50 in the windy bits or let your speed waver up and down between 45 and 50 cause you're not paying attention.
Oh, and a PSA for some Tennessee road users: If you are traveling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and there are 3 or more vehicles behind you, the law requires you to pull off or pull over. This applies to bicycles too.
Ugh (Score:3, Interesting)
This damn topic comes up all the time... Faster driving equals {more deaths, higher fuel consumption, etc}. And it's crap. Let's see... Even if given our current conditions deaths were reduced by slower average speeds the proposition of the article would not necessarily save lives.
Fine, build tighter setbacks... That means bringing the buildings closer to the road. This would lead to people living, playing and existing closer to the road. This means people stepping off their front porch and WHAM! Basically, were is the study that shows that bringing the buildings closer doesn't increase deaths more than is decreased by the reduction of velocity?
Do you REALLY want to decrease traffic fatalities? Fine.. Kill drunk drivers. No you don't get a second chance. Next, require driver road tests for licensing... EVERY year. Not just a "sign here on the dotted line"... but a god-damn TEST! Do it in a simulator. Simulate stalling an engine. Simulate a blown tire. Simulate a skid on ice. Simulate a 5 yr old jumping in front of you. Measure reaction times. Basically do for drivers what airline pilots have to go through. You don't have to handle everything 100% but you do need to achieve some sort of success to pass. No this is not insane. Pilots have to do it and the probability of them harming someone is far less than the operator of a motor vehicle. Thus we should actually require more of a motor vehicle operator. This would either weed out EVERYONE who is a poor driver or force them to educate and train themselves well enough to be acceptable drivers.
Re:From the No Duh Dept. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sections of the autobahn were constructed to double as airstrips too.