U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2013, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,875,789 times
Reputation: 7732

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Nah, I drive, and I'm not sure how it would be safer to allow cars unobstructed acceleration through my narrow streets.

Please show where popular traffic cAlming measures increases risk of accident or injury.
An increase in accidents has occurred after some installations. Experimental speed humps placed on a street at a school in Portland, Maine registered an increase in accidents of 35%. Accidents increased 100% after the installation of an experimental traffic circle in Boulder, Colorado. However, the circle in Boulder and the humps in Portland remain on the street today.

Problems Associated With Traffic Calming

A 35% and 100% increase in accidents, yet they stay in place anyway. The people who advocate this stuff, already have their minds made up, that is good, and they are going force it on everyone whether it actually works or not. This is why I don't even trust their studies. Simple news searches will find plenty of accidents cause by any type of traffic calming device. I'm sure in some cases traffic calming does what it is intended to do. But in most cases its just a wast of money, and in many cases its even counterproductive. It's just a feel good program, to make people think that something is being done to make the roads safer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2013, 08:24 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,098,346 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
. I'm sure in some cases traffic calming does what it is intended to do. But in most cases its just a wast of money, and in many cases its even counterproductive. It's just a feel good program, to make people think that something is being done to make the roads safer.
So you trust the studies that cite the increase in accident prevalence, but don't trust the studies that say otherwise. Got it.

I guess the ones I've experienced have been exceptional. Somehow I don't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,875,789 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
So you trust the studies that cite the increase in accident prevalence, but don't trust the studies that say otherwise. Got it.

I guess the ones I've experienced have been exceptional. Somehow I don't think so.
The point I was trying to make is that the traffic calming advocates already have their minds made up. They want to feel good, not look at it objectively to see if they are actually doing any good. Since they are not looking at it objectively or scientifically their studies aren't worth much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,729,443 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Uh, so what exactly is the free market solution to keeping people from speeding through my neighborhood? I'm not necessarily trying to reduce the number of cars, but to keep the a-holes from driving 45 and mowing down kids.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct that people drive too fast through your neighborhood, I would suggest:

1. Enforcement. If several neighbors complain to the local police department, they would probably run radar there off and on, especially as it's good revenue enhancement for the city.

2. Teaching and training children not to chase balls into the street, to look both ways carefully before crossing, etc.

Out of curiosity, have there actually been any children injured in your neighborhood? Whether any given speed is too fast for any given location depends on a number of factors, such as width of the street and sight-distance. It has been my general experience, at least here in California, that speed limits are generally set about 10 mph slower that what would be a safe, fairly conservative speed. This is good for revenue enhancement, for one thing. Just as an experiment, I have tried going a whole day never going more than 10 mph over all speed limits, and it is pretty much impossible to drive that slow all the time. The people actually going the speed limits are only impeding traffic and creating impatience and frustration, because the speed limits in almost all cases are so unreasonable. I am 69 and the foregoing represents a life-long pattern of observations. Of course in your own local area my observations may not be valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 09:19 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
The people actually going the speed limits are only impeding traffic and creating impatience and frustration, because the speed limits in almost all cases are so unreasonable. I am 69 and the foregoing represents a life-long pattern of observations. Of course in your own local area my observations may not be valid.
On most residential streets, I'd rather as little traffic as possible pass through. Designs to make it impracticable for traffic to move quickly (narrowed, street parked cars help).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 09:28 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,101 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaaBoom View Post
I never defended drunk driving. You are putting words in my mouth. I simply said that if the roundabout wasn't there, there would not have been a crash and two people would be alive. Thats a fact. You are using a hypotheticals. There were no other drivers on the road. It was the middle of the night. The only thing for him to hit was the roundabout.

Even if it was fortunate for other drivers who weren't on the road at the time, what about the innocent kid who was killed? I find it kind of vile and disgusting that you seem to think that traffic calming is more important then that innocent life.

What happens next time when a drunk driver speeds through that intersection, and there will be an other one, (no one has yet figured out a way to stop drunk driving). The car hits the roundabout and goes air-born. Bit instead of hitting a tree, the car crashes through someones bedroom wall while they are sleeping?

I guess for you thats just the price we have pay, so you can feel good and think you are accomplishing with your stupid traffic calming. Even though you are not calming anything. You are just endangering people.

Wow there are no words. The twisted circular logic on display here is something to behold. Only something a bottom-feeding drunk driver defense attorney could come up with. So its okay to speed through an intersection at 60 mph because if you hit something you can always blame it on the intersection!?? What kind of crazy logic is that?? That red light should have been green! That stop sign was in my way and caused me to crash! It shouldn't have been there! There's no personal responsibility for one's actions anymore.

Tell that to the judge in a court of law and see where it gets you. You will be laughed out of the courtroom and into the nearest state prison under heavy guard. By the way the drunk driver who slammed into the roundabout at 60 mph received a 28 year sentence for double gross negligent manslaughter while intoxicated so I guess your twisted line of reasoning didn't work out so well for him. Sorry charlie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2013, 01:54 AM
 
Location: Between Heaven And Hell.
11,230 posts, read 7,505,508 times
Reputation: 14486
I'm going to point something out to you now.

It's not only speeding normal traffic that is slowed down, and aggravated, by this "Traffic Calming", the emergency services are slowed down too. I've known some to be placed, that fire engines couldn't fit between.

Now you've forced them off your street, they are then forced to take a longer route, that longer route now has all the traffic on that would have been spread across the many roads, so is now congested.

How long do you want to wait for a fire engine, an ambulance, or the police?

Maybe my knowledge doesn't count, I am in the UK, but this crazy placement of traffic calming is widespread here, and really doesn't help.

I will also say that in my experience, the people that are a real risk to others, when traffic calming is installed, are the elderly, and the inexperienced. They often can't understand what these things are all about, or don't have the judgement to get through safely, so head straight through the narrowed bits, and expect everyone else to take evasive action, as who's right of way it is.

Speed lumps do damage to all cars that have to go over them, and I may add, you wouldn't want to travel in an ambulance over them.

Fixed speed cameras do work to an extent, but can also encourage speeding between their placements.

I don't know if this would be allowed in the US, but over here, members of the general public are being allowed to operate hand held speed cameras in their own neighbourhoods, this seems to work where the police can't spare officers to do the job.


One last point; Traffic calming adds to pollution, forces your mpg figures down, and shortens the life expectancy of your cars.

Last edited by BECLAZONE; 04-13-2013 at 02:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2013, 04:31 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,714,031 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by BECLAZONE View Post
I'm going to point something out to you now.

It's not only speeding normal traffic that is slowed down, and aggravated, by this "Traffic Calming", the emergency services are slowed down too. I've known some to be placed, that fire engines couldn't fit between.

Now you've forced them off your street, they are then forced to take a longer route, that longer route now has all the traffic on that would have been spread across the many roads, so is now congested.

How long do you want to wait for a fire engine, an ambulance, or the police?

Maybe my knowledge doesn't count, I am in the UK, but this crazy placement of traffic calming is widespread here, and really doesn't help.

I will also say that in my experience, the people that are a real risk to others, when traffic calming is installed, are the elderly, and the inexperienced. They often can't understand what these things are all about, or don't have the judgement to get through safely, so head straight through the narrowed bits, and expect everyone else to take evasive action, as who's right of way it is.

Speed lumps do damage to all cars that have to go over them, and I may add, you wouldn't want to travel in an ambulance over them.

Fixed speed cameras do work to an extent, but can also encourage speeding between their placements.

I don't know if this would be allowed in the US, but over here, members of the general public are being allowed to operate hand held speed cameras in their own neighbourhoods, this seems to work where the police can't spare officers to do the job.


One last point; Traffic calming adds to pollution, forces your mpg figures down, and shortens the life expectancy of your cars.
A lot of hyperbole and assumptions. A few words of reason:

A lot of what is now called "traffic calming" use to just be the way all streets were built. Narrow lanes, parked cars, bulb outs, trees, friendly street facing facades...these all do in fact slow down traffic -dramatically. these are all visual and psychologic cues that tell drivers "slow down, be careful, people about." To the point that accidents are quite rare and when they do occur, they tend to be low speed and quite minor. These streets you find hazardous still exist in most center city neighborhoods all over the US and in fact are not dangerous roads for pedestrians at all, quite the opposite. Which is why pedestrians feel comfortable. As a matter of fact on a sufficiently narrow street you don't even need sidewalks as traffic moves slow enough that there really is no hazard.

As you widen lanes, and obstacles removed, the speeds increase organically. You can sign them all you want to but unless you put visible cops (a very very expensive way to enforce traffic calming) 24/7, traffic naturally speeds up, and when accidents occur (much more frequently) the speeds practically guaranty that the result will be quite harmful to property and life. The wider the road, the faster the traffic...that is universally true. Speed is the number one determining factor in whether an accident is likely to be severe or not.

Traffic engineers first ruined roads by widening them for efficiency of traffic, which resulted in faster traffic, which resulted in increase casualties. Not learning from the mistakes, they doubed downed, removed obstacles that could impede visibility, made two way roads one way roads, straightened lanes so drivers could always see far ahead etc. removed "fixed hazardous objects" (trees in traffic engineer parlance) from ROW, removed on street parking, and mandated vast setbacks far from the street frontage...and traffic got even faster, and accidents became even more severe...except now they never involved pedestrians because the only pedestrians left on these damned quasi freeways were the homeless. Everyone else became sane enough to realize it is both extremely unpleasant and quite hazardous to be on these quasi freeways.

The return to narrow lanes, trees, on street parking, bulb outs, short or no setbacks with facades facing street...this is a return to the way cities were built before and worked quite well, and still work quite well, before traffic engineers ruined them. And there happen to be a ton of ancillary benefits the make a city come alive with such streets.

And you'll come back and point out some drunk driver who crashes on a narrow street (how cruel and callous I am to not take that into consideration). I can assure you sir that drunk drivers in fact do travel and do massive amounts of damage on wide streets removed of all "hazards". My cousin lost us life not too long ago when a drunk driver travelling at an alarmingly high rate of speed crossed the center line and divided medan on one of the teaffic engineered efficient streets mesnt to be safe and had a head on collision with him killing him instantly. even drunk drivers take visual clues from narrow streets and when they do cause accidents on such roads, the tend to be less severe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:24 AM
 
Location: Between Heaven And Hell.
11,230 posts, read 7,505,508 times
Reputation: 14486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
A lot of hyperbole and assumptions. A few words of reason:

A lot of what is now called "traffic calming" use to just be the way all streets were built. Narrow lanes, parked cars, bulb outs, trees, friendly street facing facades...these all do in fact slow down traffic -dramatically. these are all visual and psychologic cues that tell drivers "slow down, be careful, people about." To the point that accidents are quite rare and when they do occur, they tend to be low speed and quite minor. These streets you find hazardous still exist in most center city neighborhoods all over the US and in fact are not dangerous roads for pedestrians at all, quite the opposite. Which is why pedestrians feel comfortable. As a matter of fact on a sufficiently narrow street you don't even need sidewalks as traffic moves slow enough that there really is no hazard.

As you widen lanes, and obstacles removed, the speeds increase organically. You can sign them all you want to but unless you put visible cops (a very very expensive way to enforce traffic calming) 24/7, traffic naturally speeds up, and when accidents occur (much more frequently) the speeds practically guaranty that the result will be quite harmful to property and life. The wider the road, the faster the traffic...that is universally true. Speed is the number one determining factor in whether an accident is likely to be severe or not.

Traffic engineers first ruined roads by widening them for efficiency of traffic, which resulted in faster traffic, which resulted in increase casualties. Not learning from the mistakes, they doubed downed, removed obstacles that could impede visibility, made two way roads one way roads, straightened lanes so drivers could always see far ahead etc. removed "fixed hazardous objects" (trees in traffic engineer parlance) from ROW, removed on street parking, and mandated vast setbacks far from the street frontage...and traffic got even faster, and accidents became even more severe...except now they never involved pedestrians because the only pedestrians left on these damned quasi freeways were the homeless. Everyone else became sane enough to realize it is both extremely unpleasant and quite hazardous to be on these quasi freeways.

The return to narrow lanes, trees, on street parking, bulb outs, short or no setbacks with facades facing street...this is a return to the way cities were built before and worked quite well, and still work quite well, before traffic engineers ruined them. And there happen to be a ton of ancillary benefits the make a city come alive with such streets.

And you'll come back and point out some drunk driver who crashes on a narrow street (how cruel and callous I am to not take that into consideration). I can assure you sir that drunk drivers in fact do travel and do massive amounts of damage on wide streets removed of all "hazards". My cousin lost us life not too long ago when a drunk driver travelling at an alarmingly high rate of speed crossed the center line and divided medan on one of the teaffic engineered efficient streets mesnt to be safe and had a head on collision with him killing him instantly. even drunk drivers take visual clues from narrow streets and when they do cause accidents on such roads, the tend to be less severe.
I can accept all of that, other than, where is the hyperbole, and where are the assumptions?

I'm not bringing drunks into this, (not in this discussion), they can do enough damage without a car.

Last edited by BECLAZONE; 04-13-2013 at 05:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2013, 05:37 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,098,346 times
Reputation: 3117
I'm wondering how enforcement is a free market solution. Lets pay some government employee to tell us "bad, stop!"?

Anyway, there is no enforcement of traffic law in this city. One could run 26 red lights while shooting out the window and as long as nobody was hit, the lazy cops wouldn't even put down their coffee to get on the radio.

I'm also curious about how mini roundabout would slow traffic. I'd think it would speed it up, as a complete stop is no longer necessary.

As for speed bumps, I'm no fan. I've looked at some speed tables - longer rise, less harsh - seem to have the same effect without the jarring effects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top