Hans Molderman's approach was anything but laissez-faire. He advocated streetscapes (a woonerf, or plural woonerven) that are very deliberately designed so that there is no clear place for a motor vehicle to go fast. In other words, there are no travel lanes exclusive to motor vehicles (or even MVs and cars) where the expectation is that every other road user must yield to the motor vehicles (or not be there at all). Which is not to say he advocated banning cars. As this picture shows, this particular street is filled with (parked) cars (that presumably have to move down the street to get to and from where they are parked): http://www.le.ac.uk/emoha/leicester/woonerven/WorthingtonSt12%20015.jpg but it still feels very safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. And there are almost no signs visible anywhere. The lateral deflection created by alternating parallel and angle car parking and which side of the street either is on makes it much safer for peds and bikes, in part because it doesn't look like a drag strip, and in part because it's difficult to predict when you will encounter another road user (of any mode) when you can't see for blocks ahead. >From the website: http://www.le.ac.uk/emoha/leicester/woonerven.html There are many different kinds of these, and some work better than others. I chose this picture mostly because it's obvious cars use it all the time, as opposed to those woonerven that look and feel more like pedestrian plazas (though those have their place, too). You cannot produce places like these with a laissez faire attitude towards what gets built and where.
And the premise that a LACK of predictability makes everyone safer is exactly the opposite of the premise of all traffic engineering here (and most other places), which presumes that making everything predictable increases safety of road users. When in reality it probably only increases the safety of the road users in cars at the expense of pedestrians and bicyclists, unless every user truly has their own separated facility that feels safe and comfortable to them. This approach is shared by others, such as David Engwicht, who helped pioneer "traffic calming" (engineering changes to the road to try to slow down traffic, like chicanes, curb bulb outs and raised crosswalks, etc) and then decided that making the residential roads LESS predictable, at least to drivers (by essentially moving social interactions into the street) was a better approach. http://www.pps.org/reference/david-engwicht/ I'm not necessarily saying these approaches are appropriate replacements for every kind of road in the hierarchy. But some of the most walkable (and bikable) places in Madison have some of these features, and that's part of why they are the most walkable and bikable. The streets in my neighborhood are not wide enough for two cars to pass each other if there are cars parked on both sides of the street. And there are very often (but not always) cars parked on both sides. My father used to grumble that he kept having to slow down or even stop for oncoming traffic because the streets in our neighborhood weren't wide enough, until I pointed out that we liked them that way because it often made drivers slow down. Unfortunately, the streets in my neighborhood are considered too narrow to build now because you can't drive a snow plow past a waste and recycling truck with cars parked on both sides (or, apparently, effectively provide fire protection, although I still seem to be paying for it in my property taxes). That's a shame, but I digress. Chuck Strawser Pedestrian & Bicycle Transportation Planner Commuter Solutions Transportation Services UW-Madison Room 124 WARF 610 Walnut St Madison WI 53726 608-263-2969 www.wisc.edu/trans From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Patrick Lenon Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:45 PM To: Andy Bach; Bikies Subject: Re: [Bikies] Less signage is safer? For some reason, describing him as "The late Hans Monderman" does not fill me with confidence in his laissez-faire approach to safety... ;) ------------- Patrick Lenon ________________________________ Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:36:19 -0600 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Bikies] Less signage is safer? Driven To Distraction Sometimes, while driving, one comes to an intersection with lots of signs, many lanes, and a maybe a few traffic lights as well. Trying to discern whether you have the right of way is a difficult feat in the handful of seconds in which one has to make that decision. Perhaps, like above, everyone has to simultaneously try and figure out which road goes where. Other times, the below happens. In these cases, you make your best guess and just go for it. Unfortunately, all too often another driver guesses differently and you end up there inches into his or her rear bumper -- or worse. And the solution of urban planners and traffic experts: add even more signs. The late Hans Monderman thought this was at times backward, so he undid it. His theory: get rid of all the signs. Let drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists figure it out themselves. Rest of story: http://nowiknow.com/driven-to-distraction/ -- a Andy Bach, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 608 658-1890 cell 608 261-5738 wk _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
