Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Are trees the answer?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by twistngo, Mar 23, 2011.

  1. Seems speed cameras are not the only answer. No government revenue though, so there's no chance of this here in Vic.

    Something for MUARC to study? :rofl:


    Trees instead of speed cameras? Study finds they are just as effective in slowing down traffic

    Trees could soon be used instead of speed cameras after a Government study found they were just as effective in slowing down traffic.

    Creating an avenue of trees and hedges had a dramatic impact on motorists’ behaviour, a trial in Norfolk has found.

    Ministers welcomed the 'imaginative alternative' to speed cameras.

    The experiment at four villages showed that drivers lowered their speed because of the reduction in their peripheral vision.

    Overall there was a 20 per cent drop in the number of motorists driving at between 40mph and 60mph and average speeds fell by 1.5 per cent across the villages of Overstrand, Martham, Coltishall and Mundesley.
  2. Thats so retarded it hurts a little.

    Motorists slow down because of the danger caused by lack of vision and road-side obstacles - meaning a crash is more likely, and damage if a crash occured is more likely.

    So they suggest using trees (making road less safe), to slow down traffic?

    Brilliant stuff MUARC, whats next - not repairing potholes because it makes people drive slower? Or perhaps replace runoff barriers with massive spikes, surely that'll work.

  3. horses are the answer; they can find their way home through tree-lined streets, even if their owners are drunk; instant saving in RBT costs as a side benefit
  4. 95% of vehicles that have their breaks engaged are travelling slower than those not applying breaks. Therefore it should be mandatory for all vehicles to have their breaks permanently engaged.
  5. This technique is widely used in Byron Shire. A secondary benefit is that mobile phone users often drop them when they crash into the potholes.
    The council then tars over the top of the car, neatly levelling the pothole. Much cheaper than impounding hoon cars.
  6. I actually liked the idea that there is an alternative to speed cameras and draconian enforcement measures to control traffic speed. If people think cameras are the only way we are probably stuck with them.
  7. Trees save lives, reduce polution create shade and soothe the soul. Cameras do bugger all but raise money. No contest really.

    I see more cameras.
  8. Somewhere I have a copy of a paper from Sweden that says the same thing about motorcycles and wire rope barriers - (seriously). Motorcycles median speeds decrease when WRBs are placed on a stretch of road.
  9. Another alternative ...

    Naked Streets Are Safer
    Traffic lights and signs could vanish Accidents will fall, study claims
    From The Times
    January 22, 2007

    Traffic lights, road signs and white lines would be removed from many high streets across the country under Conservative proposals to improve safety and reduce congestion by giving drivers and pedestrians equal status.

    Road humps, chicanes and other physical measures designed to reduce the speed of vehicles would be removed and the question of who had priority would be left open deliberately, making drivers more cautious.

    The Conservatives are planning to publish a “green paper” on roads this year which will borrow heavily from so-called shared-space schemes in the Netherlands, where pedestrians, cyclists and cars are encouraged to mingle. Kerbs in several Dutch towns have been removed and the boundaries between the pavement and road blurred deliberately to prevent people from assuming they have right of way.

    Traffic lights have been uprooted and drivers must negotiate their way across junctions, forcing them to slow down and establish eye contact with pedestrians.

    In the town of Drachten, the removal of traffic lights at one major junction has resulted in accidents falling from thirty-six in the four years before the scheme was introduced to two in the next two years. The average time for each vehicle to cross the junction fell from 50 seconds to 30 seconds, despite a rise in the volume of traffic.

  10. Part of this system is already in action in Fitzroy, where pedestrians and rastafarian fixie cyclists wander aimlessly across the roadway at all times of the day and night. I don't actually see drivers becoming more cautious though.

    Seriously though, I have seen a couple of towns in northern Italy which have this system for the town centre only, and it does work. In a situation where the road speed is low anyway, and the pedestrian volume is low, it is quite workable.
    Add large numbers of pedestrians though, and it falls apart pretty quickly (been to Naples?). Add the requirement to cover larger distances and it becomes lethal.

    As for the trees, maybe there are fewer speeding motorists because... some of them are dead?
  11. That one is interesting. I could see that it would force drivers to actually concentrate and take note of what is going on around them. It may even get pedestrians to think before stepping out across the road, which wold be amazing. Of course it could only be used in heavily built up areas, such as suburban streets and shopping centres.

    I'm not sure I actually like the idea though. I would have to see proof that traffic flow actually improved, or was not adversely impacted.

    In America, specifically Santa Barbara, California, they have four way stop signs, even on major roads. I had to drive through one every day for a couple of weeks I was over there. The idea is that everyone stops, and the first person who get to the intersection gets to go first, then everyone takes turns. This meant everyone was watching traffic properly, and concentrating. But it didn't entirely work, because if someone paused just a moment too long, another car would shoot across the intersection out of turn, which could create problems particularly if more than one car tried to go at the same time. Also some people just stopped and sat there, too scared to move. It was an interesting driving experience though.

    I could see the same thing happening on Naked Streets: A pedestrian looks like they are going to step out, so a car slows, the ped pauses too long, car proceeds to pass ped, who then steps out in front of or into car.

    Still, worth thinking about.
  12. I actually don't have a problem with this - sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I once read a study done on a particular 'black spot' intersection where people kept have accidents. It turned out the people were looking for traffic on the road they were turning into too early. They had so much view to check for traffic early so there was no oncoming cars when they checked, but it was so long before they actually got to the intersection to make the turn that by that time, there were cars there. They put up a screen to stop the view to the other road until they were actually at the intersection. The drivers had to look for cars at the actual time when they were at it. The crashes at the intersection dropped to practically 0.

    I've been guilty of the same thing myself. I was making a left hand turn a few weeks ago and saw a bike coming at a pretty big distance. I judged the distance/speed such that I would easily be able to get onto the road and up to speed before the bike got to me. Turned out the bike was going a deceiving fast speed so closed that gap a lot faster than I anticipated. Good thing I did do a final check just before I turned out and avoided him, but I bet most car drivers wouldn't.

    Making the visibility less can sometimes make the roads safer. Of course if everyone just looked at everything all the time we wouldn't have to worry but we all know that's not going to happen.
  13. I stumbled on papers like that when drafting the NRSS submission. I have them saved somewhere for future reference... but it's not on this computer.
  14. Many, many years since I was in America and I did my best to understand this system, but I'd love if you can explain to me how you know who goes next? Two, three or four cars is fine, but when they are getting queued up it descended into a free-for-all.

    The solution here will be (and you know this is coming...) peds will have absolute right of way at all times. And Harold Scruby will ascend to godhood.
  15. Regarding shared space between cars and pedestrians;
    Curious that you mention large numbers of pedestrians to be a detriment to the scheme (do you mean from a motorist's "I need to get somewhere fast" perspective?).

    My understanding from coworkers researching overall safety in 'shared spaces' is that it's important for pedestrian movements to outnumber cars significantly so that cars can't simply muscle their way through unchecked. Speed limits in that sort of situation are, of course, extremely low (20kph? 10kph? It's been a while)
  16. You understand it pretty well.

    Once there were more than two cars at any three of the four stop signs, it pretty much degraded to "who is the bravest" driver, or the least concerned about minor dings to their, or the other party's car. The locals did seem to manage it pretty well. Drivers from out of town had more trouble, as they seemed to be in more of a hurry.