Uneasy Rhetoric

Roads Gone Wild, Wired Magazine, December 2004.

It is now generally accepted wisdom that adding a crosswalk to an intersection does nothing to make pedestrians safer, and may actually increase accidents. The reason? Psychology. A pedestrian crossing at an unmarked intersection will double check oncoming traffic and will maintain vigilance all the way through the intersection. At a marked intersection, it is too easy for the pedestrian to assume that cars will stop once the pedestrian has entered the street. Unfortunately, drivers often don’t pay attention to crosswalks.

In the Wired article, an engineer in Holland describes how that country is making traffic safer by taking away road features such as marked lanes, turn lanes, crosswalks, even signage. It’s an interesting concept that is even being used to some degree in the U.S.

For years, the goal of traffic engineering was to ensure the efficient flow of automobile traffic. Now, thanks to the “new urbanism,” renewed interest in alternative transportation, and to many cities’ efforts to revitalize their town centers, traffic engineering is thinking about ways to make the roads safer for everyone.

After years to trying to move as many cars through the pipelines as quickly as possible, we’re finally understanding the benefits of slowing cars down. If a large number of cars approach an uncontrolled intersection, they are forced to think about what they are doing, to pay attention to the road. Psychologically, it makes sense. Think of it like driving in the fog. Most people (except idiots) drive more slowly and carefully when it is very foggy.

And therein lies the problem. In the US, people like to get where they are going quickly. We get behind the wheel of a car and lose brain cells. In a busy intersection requiring substantial vigilance on the part of the drivers, all it takes is one idiot driver to create a major catastrophe.

In the article, the engineer proposes to test whether the intersection “works”:

We drive on to another project Monderman designed, this one in the nearby village of Oosterwolde. What was once a conventional road junction with traffic lights has been turned into something resembling a public square that mixes cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. About 5,000 cars pass through the square each day, with no serious accidents since the redesign in 1999. “To my mind, there is one crucial test of a design such as this,” Monderman says. “Here, I will show you.”

With that, Monderman tucks his hands behind his back and begins to walk into the square - backward - straight into traffic, without being able to see oncoming vehicles. A stream of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians ease around him, instinctively yielding to a man with the courage of his convictions.

This is Holland, of course. You can imagine the reaction in the US if someone were try try walking backwards through traffic.

I welcome any kind of design that seeks shift the focus in cities away from the automobile, and I could see this “minimalist” road design working well in some neighborhoods; for example, it could be part of the ongoing traffic calming efforts in Midtown Sacramento. But I doubt it could be used for any really high traffic roads in the city. Americans aren’t as polite as the Dutch. We don’t appreciate social engineering like the Dutch. The result would be chaos and catastrophe.