Cities without traffic signs

[Lazarus]

This is a spin off from another thread. It's pretty interesting. Dutch civil engineer and traffic planner Hans Monderman had this idea of removing traffic signs and let people be responsible for themselves. It is currently being used in Australia, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and to a city new you in the US. Currently West Palm Beach and New Hampshire.

Everywhere this is in place it seems to be a success in reducing congestion and traffic accidents. Any one living in the towns that can speak of it effectiveness?

We have seen more traffic circles here which I love.

"Shared Space" it called. I'm all for it!

[luvit]

i;ve stolen some signs, like "stop", "RR Crossing", St Rt signs. but they were already laid down.

edit: when i was a young teen.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by luvit

i;ve stolen some signs, like "stop", "RR Crossing", St Rt signs. but they were already laid down.

edit: when i was a young teen.

Let me guess, Luvit street sign

[luvit]

i still has them.

[SentraSE-R]

Doesn't sound any different than driving in Mexico

[MadisonMPG]

Originally Posted by luvit

i still has them.

I have quite a few too.

[user removed]

When the power was out for close to a week here after a cat 1 hurricane hit, it was actually a pleasure to drive in most cases. People seemed to be more cautious than their usual insanity when the lights were working. Fairly large metropolitan area of over 1.5 million people.

regards
Mech

[Thymeclock]

Since this thread is a spin-off, I hope I am allowed the liberty to quote my response from the previous thread:

Originally Posted by Lazarus
Better yet do away with all traffic lights and signs. Germany has great success in smaller towns.
I noticed your other thread. Having no traffic controls at all is no more beneficial than having too many.

Another compulsive feature of human nature (and especially of American culture) is to swing from one extreme to the other. Your suggestion epitomizes that extreme.

The (erroneous) logic is that if too many stop signs are bad, having NONE at all would somehow be 'better'. After that strategy is shown to be a disaster, the 'cure' would be hyper-regulation, more widespread than ever.

I'd be the first to say we already have far too many laws. That doesn't mean that having absolutely NO LAWS would be better, or the cure for the situation.

How about having FEWER laws or stop signs? (But that might be anathema to politicians who garner votes with every mommy who wants a stop sign on every street corner to supposedly "protect her children", or their imagined "right" to play in the street. Local politicians know that all politics is local - so the mommy usually gets what she demands: a stop sign that requires traffic having to stop, and diverts the traffic to the next block - until they too demand a stop sign on their corner.

I suspect that most residential areas would prefer to have NO traffic at all on their streets - which is why stop signs have sprouted like weeds.

[Lazarus]

Hmm. Seems to work in many cities where it's been implemented with fewer accidents.

There also studies that that with stop signs people drive faster to make up time from the previous stop or if it's an open area they will completely ignore the stops. Traffic circles are becoming more and more popular.

So please show me where this data is that has proved removing stop signs has been disastrous?

[Christ]

I like the idea of leaving signs in place as a reminder or suggestion, but not actually enforcing their use.. The money that's saved on stamping new signs might fix some of the ****ty roads we have out here.