Ban Traffic Lights!

An interesting experiment: by taking out the traffic lights the road engineers have lowered the death rate and increased the traffic flow:

Most traffic lights should be torn up as they make roads less safe, one of Europe’s leading road engineers said yesterday.

Hans
Monderman, a traffic planner involved in a Brussels-backed project
known as Shared Space, said that taking lights away helped motorists,
cyclists and pedestrians to co-exist more happily and safely.

How does this work? Surely removing the signals will lead to chaos?

There have been a few small collisions, but these are almost to be
encouraged, Mr Monderman explained. "We want small accidents, in order
to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt," he said yesterday.

"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want.
But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to
the driver being responsible for his or her own risk.

Hhhm. Now that is an interesting result, isn’t it? This isn’t anarchy, there are still clear divisions between roads, cycle paths and pavements, you can’t just turn right across an open field. But within those borad limits, leaving people to their own devices to works things out as they wish leads to a spontaneous order which is more efficient (traffic moves faster, fewer serious accidents) than a more heavily planned one.

And that really is interesting, isn’t it? Scale it up to the economy: certainly, we need basic rules, property rights, means of contract enforcement and so on, but allowing people to create a spontaneous order within those very broad rules would lead, on the basis of this little experiment, to a more efficient economy. More of what people want as a result of fewer prescriptive rules.

You did notice that this is a Brussels backed program? Think they’ll heed the message? No, me neither.

5 responses

  1. Don’t have a link, but I read somewhere that in the Netherlands they’ve already started making road systems more dangerous in order to make them safer. Don’t know whether they were removing traffic lights — what I read was about using fewer warning signs and road markings, I think.

  2. ScotsToryB Avatar
    ScotsToryB

    A police friend of mine tells me that training for basic traffic duties e.g. substituting for when lights are down, includes the instruction that if the policeman loses control of the situation they are to walk away as the drivers will sort it out for themselves.
    My own experience of lights being down invariably means a quicker journey time.
    STB

  3. This isn’t that new. Monderman proposed initiatives along these lines – so-called shared space – some years ago and it seems gradually to be becoming more popular as planners and local authorities get over their initial scepticism and see that in many (though not all) cases it can work well.
    Nor is it necessarily the case that clear divisions between different kinds of traffic remain – there’s an example in the Netherlands (sorry I forget the details) where the streets and pavements have been merged so that the whole area is open for mixed vehicular/pedestrian traffic and the results seem to be very encouraging in terms of safety coupled with reasonable traffic movement. Overall it’s an interesting approach and it’s encouraging that moves are being made to get away from the unimaginative controlling of traffic by piling on more and more restrictions and controls. In fact your comment about reducing prescriptive controls there and elsewhere is fine, though obviously subject to caveats and balances.
    I was in Bratislava recently and saw something similar effectively in place around the centre and that seemed to work well (granted with not much through traffic).
    As to the kneejerk gibe about the EC at the very end, shouldn’t you get your affliction seen to? The Commission may well be funding this particular initiative but that and their subsequent response to the report is really neither here nor there – those who provide the resistance are particularly local authorities and, given the emphasis on subsidiarity in the EU (yes, really, though I expect you’ll froth about that as well), it’s they who have to be persuaded to consider whether such innovative approaches will work locally.
    Tim adds: Oddly, no, I don’t frtoh about subsidiarity. I agree absolutely that decisions about anything at all should be made at the lowest level possible. It’s just to me that means not at government level at all, rather, by individuals and familes as they wish, with very few and limited decisions that need to be taken by political units larger than that.
    I also have yet to find any decision which needs to be made at EC level so cannot see the need for its existence.

  4. I also have yet to find any decision which needs to be made at EC level so cannot see the need for its existence.
    Well, I’m sure we each have better things to do over the w/e than bat backwards and forwards ultimately sterile arguments pro- and con- the EU so agreeing disagreement’s probably best.
    Of course I’m going to add two or three things first, though!
    If you really mean EC rather than EU then the EC, the Commission, doesn’t actually make decisions in the way you imply but works with the Parliament and the Council to do this. And it exists as a kind of quasi-executive civil service as part of the balance of powers approach taken with the original European Community and which is subsequently evolving as that, now the EU, changes and adjusts.
    If, rather, you mean there’s no need for the EU, formerly the EC (Community), to exist I’d say there’s plenty of things which transcend national boundaries ranging from the stated initial aim of avoiding European conflict through to more current preoccuptions such as transnational pollution (air and other), management of fish stocks, transnational transport, free movement of goods and people and much more.
    There’s plenty of faults with both the structure and the operation of the EU and its various institutions (of which the continuing secrecy in Council deliberations and reports is just one, and the opportunity for benefits abuse by MEPs – particularly well undertaken by many sceptic MEPs, of course – is another) but acting as a centralised, Brussels mafia isn’t and participant countries have benefitted hugely both individually and collectively through its existence.
    Tim adds: ‘ management of fish stocks’
    Doing such a good job there, Eh? Vastly better than Norway, Iceland, The Faroes…..

  5. Thought I’d direct your eye to this:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/6116650.stm
    Seemed appropriate.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading