« Women We Love | Main | Becker and Posner on Milton Friedman »
I'd like to try this idea in Elizabeth, New Jersey
How about cities without any traffic signs or lights?:
European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs...Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.
The logic?
It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.
Some towns are even looking to abolish the distinction between roads and sidewalks. Here is the full story, can any of you report on these experiments? And if you are looking for your "Germany fact of the day," the country has 648 different and valid traffic signs.
Thanks to John Durant for the pointer. And here is Dan Klein on skating rinks.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 19, 2006 at 09:53 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
As an american living in London I am quite experienced with the 'european' style of minimalist traffic control measures. Its amazing how few traffic lights are really needed when roundabouts (rotaries) are employed liberally. Stop signs are also rare, with the usual traffic control measures on side streets limited to so-called 'traffic calming' measures which include interesting street narrowing effects, speed bumps / plateaus, and islands. Generally the positive side is that the frustration of starting and stopping when it doesn't seem necessary is done away with completely. The other benefit is that you will often feel you are going faster than you really are by virtue of traffic calming measures. The general lack of traffic lights on roundabouts means you always have to pay attention to traffic (cannot drive along and passively wait for lights to instruct you). While London hasn't really implemented the 'free space' concept being discussed in this link I think my comments are broadly applicable to this as well since the amount of traffic control measures is so very low already (considering density).
Posted by: american in london at Nov 19, 2006 10:02:34 PM
Um. I would think ... that this sort of measure would work better in a more homogenous, culturally friendly and cooperative society (such as, say, small-town England or Denmark). And would work about as well as could be expected when implemented in an impersonal, Darwinian, diverse society. Which is to say, disastrously.
Posted by: Mycroft at Nov 19, 2006 10:04:23 PM
I think it's an excellent trial for the more general idea that the more we restrict people with rules and regulations, the less likely they will be to think for themselves and instead rely on the authorities for direction (to AIL's point about having to pay attention to driving). Of course not having to think is easier and that's probably the Achilles Heal in this wonderful idea.
Posted by: David Andersen at Nov 19, 2006 10:26:35 PM
Another counter-argument is that if you have to carefully (as opposed to casually) watch the traffic at every intersection you approach, you'll have to drive significantly slower than you otherwise would (if the expectation is that those drivers must stop first). What does this do to efficiency? I'm going to be miffed if my local box is not adequately stocked with the latest consumer goods when I want them. ;)
Posted by: David Andersen at Nov 19, 2006 10:32:29 PM
I can add that Monderman freely admits that his concept does not apply to large cities. He is talking about the sort of nearly-self-contained small towns which are still common in western Europe but now almost unknown in the U.S.
Posted by: David Wright at Nov 19, 2006 11:08:41 PM
I would encourage anyone who thinks this is a good idea to go drive on the roads on the northern side of the Dominican Republic. You will probably change your mind after (like I have) you have seen half a dozen people on mopeds bounced off the windshields of various types of vehicles.
Posted by: soaringeagle at Nov 19, 2006 11:16:13 PM
Roundabouts work fine up to a certain traffic volume, but when they hit a choke point, they stop working altogether. I used to live in Edmonton, which employed a lot of roundabouts that had to be taken out and replaced by lights when volume got above a certain point, and now I live in Abu Dhabi, which had roundabouts at every intersection when the road grid was built in the 1970s, but now only has a handful left at less busy intersections.
Posted by: bartman at Nov 19, 2006 11:17:43 PM
I've been in two places where the distiction between road and sidewalk has been, in one way or another, removed- the suburbs around Albany NY and pretty much anywhere in Russia. The result has been the same- walking is dangerous and you must always expect to be run over at any minute.
Posted by: Matt at Nov 19, 2006 11:18:56 PM
I think the transaction costs of interacting by "nods of the head and eye contact" would be high, except in high density, low speed traffic. And difficult in the dark.
Posted by: Grant at Nov 19, 2006 11:39:59 PM
So 'heavy' traffic regulation, not just insurance, can result in moral hazard?
Posted by: Jake at Nov 20, 2006 12:14:52 AM
I've been to Chennai, Dehli and Dakka enough times to know that system could never work.
Posted by: Andrew at Nov 20, 2006 12:21:08 AM
Along the same lines, the New York Times obituary of Milton Friedman said:
"As a libertarian, Mr. Friedman advocated legalizing drugs and generally opposed public education and the state’s power to license doctors, automobile drivers and others."
It was only said in passing, but the "automobile drivers" part really caught my eye. I never knew Milton to have such crazy anarcho-capitalist views. Please comment if you know anything about this, because it really surprised me.
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 20, 2006 12:58:07 AM
Yeah it works :)
Here is how - http://youtube.com/watch?v=UmR9YpHOYEE
- now famous on Youtube, a street from an Indian City.
[ Havent really commented here before, hoping links in comments section are not disallowed ]
Posted by: Sharath at Nov 20, 2006 1:29:55 AM
Well, the French were the first to install round-abouts wherever they could (which they actually try to reverse, because it is silly in high-traffic areas with lots of trucks).
Germany was only short behind and I must say they sometimes clear up trafficu and sometimes just clog the traffic bottlenecks. I experienced the testing areas of no-sign-traffic in Belgium and it was at least astounding. You needed some time to accustom to this very new experience and to the variety of things you suddenly had to take into account, but then it went about naturally. It really slows down traffic, while producing a continuous stream of traffic (not only cars, but also bikes and pedestrians). However, I'd recommend that for city areas only and still stand with speed limits on national roads and highway. I also think that speed limits outside of settlements should be raised or at least made more diffuse to allow the drivers to adapt to the environment (night, day, foggy, rainy, high traffic, low traffic etc.). It is never a bad idea to introduce thinking into the mechanic automatism of driving an automobile.
Posted by: Max at Nov 20, 2006 2:12:09 AM
My hometown (approx. 100,000 individuals in Scandinavia - not so small for a Scandinavian city) has removed most of the pedestrian crossings in the city
centre based on the ideas mentioned in the article. The short-term effects were not so positive, with an increased number of accidents, however, I think that the really severe accidents decreased also in the short-term. Long-term effects, well, a bit too early to say, but it looks better. There is also plenty use of roundabouts, and in a city of this size, it is definitely, in my mind, to prefer over traffic lights.
Posted by: Mikael at Nov 20, 2006 3:02:14 AM
They've tried this - it's called India. Sure there are cross walks and traffic lights and lanes and sidewalks and what not but no one follows them. It's also very slow to get around the country by car (but faster than by train). There may be a distinction between no regulations and regulations that no one follows, but they seem pretty similar to me.
Posted by: Jody at Nov 20, 2006 6:24:25 AM
I second Jody's comment but with a simple caveat from Peru. In places where traffic regulations are ignored and insurance is minimal, people act to protect their own (taxi, car, truck, moto). This means that I see (what seems like) relatively fewer fender-benders as compared to the number of pedestrian fatalities.
Just yesterday in my taxi we passed a man face down in a few gallons of his own blood on a busy city street where "lanes" are something of an abstract concept.
Posted by: Dan K at Nov 20, 2006 9:15:53 AM
Having driven many times in Elizabeth, NJ, I can only appluad Tyler's choice of proving ground. Be sure to include all the roads around Newark airport and to the IKEA store to have a valid data set.
Posted by: Derek Lowe at Nov 20, 2006 9:31:32 AM
In Law's Order, I think it was, David Friedman illustrates a problem by positing a society in which people drive tanks and cars. I suggested that a real world experiment could be conducted in a society in which the vehicles consisted of buses and scooters: Italy. Since then, I would add Spain and now, apparently, India.
I remember reading an article a few years ago, WSJ I think, that described how lots of US cities had experimented with roundabouts, but the accident rate went *up* and they removed them.
Posted by: Eric H at Nov 20, 2006 9:57:23 AM
I would third the experience in India. I just got back from a business trip to India. I prefer to stick to traffic signals, thank you.
A few years ago I had a conversation with a professor at Bangkok University who did his PhD in the US. He was desperate to get back to the US for the main reason that he was fed up with the chaotic traffic and the fact that traffic signals were often seen as nothing more than a suggestion.
Posted by: asiequana at Nov 20, 2006 10:13:15 AM
I would add Cairo to the list of places without enforced traffic laws which suggest that such a strategy may not always be a good idea. Oh, why? The rate of traffic deaths in Egypt is something like ten times that in America. I don't know if that includes donkeys and camels or not.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at Nov 20, 2006 10:48:35 AM
Also add to the list Istanbul, Turkey. Something I discovered living here: in America, there is so much government intervention in the traffic pattern that blame shifts to the authorities, "Damn VDOT!". In places like Turkey, blame stays with the drivers or even passenger level since the state only makes cosmetic changes to the roads around election time. In my mind, for the sake of good driving habits, fewer accidents, and less road rage, it's good that the blame channels up to the authorities.
Posted by: James Barnett at Nov 20, 2006 11:18:19 AM
The YouTube video posted by "Sharat" had my jaw on the floor. It is better than any written or orated argument against this sort of deregulation. Please watch it.
Posted by: Giant Step at Nov 20, 2006 11:39:15 AM
Can't everyone agree that the anything that causes someone to involuntarily slow down is a cost, not a benefit? Sure, if everyone drove more safely and got to their destination in the same amount of time, that'd be good. So often it seems like it's a goal of traffic engineers to SLOW traffic, just for it's own sake. WTF???
I know, we'll only let people drive with Flintstone-style brakes, that way, everyone will drive really, really carefully.
Posted by: Steve at Nov 20, 2006 12:33:13 PM
When I visited Ho Chi Minh City a few years ago I saw this in practice. I can't remember if there were street lights, but if there were, no one paid attention. Amazing amount of car, truck, bike and foot traffic in what seemed like chaos. But in reality it worked because everyone treated traffic like a "perpetually yellow light". Traffic moved cautiously and you have to pay attention at all times, but if you need to walk across the street you charge ahead and weave a bit. Go with confidence and drivers let you by...hesitate or wait and you screw them up.
Posted by: Bob G at Nov 20, 2006 1:20:32 PM
