Hacker News Reader

Comment by greedo | Hacker News Reader

Your idea simply doesn't work, because people are terrible at evaluating risk and consequences. For example, say we abolished all the traffic laws and said that drivers would be responsible for any damage they cause. You'd end up with less experienced drivers doing 80mph through a residential area, since there's no speed limit. The penalty for their poor judgement is a dead kid who happened to chase a ball. But since this "seems" like a less likely event, the driver doesn't worry, until its too late.

We experimented with lax traffic laws, and accidents were far more common per mile driven than they are today.

View on HN

Actually, the current thinking and observation by some urban designers is that "naked roads" can result in safer driving habits[1][2]. The problem is one of environment, design, and policy.

"There is a clear link between people's surroundings and their behaviour. If people are in an unpleasant environment, they will behave badly." - Ben Hamilton-Baillie

Also, in Montana, for example, adding speed limits to interstates which previously had none resulted in more traffic fatalities[3]

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4213221.stm

2. http://www.salon.com/2004/05/20/traffic_design/

3. http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety...

There are also "traffic calming" designs (some of which incorporate naked roads concepts) which can reduce accidents.

David Snowden (I ran across his name searching for items related to another Snowden in the news) mentions in a YouTube video a roundabout in England which, despite its visually frightening appearance and apparently very high traffic densities, is one of the safest intersections in the UK.

Traffic calming can be an issue though, because it reduces traffic speeds, which can actually increase overall risk when it slows down emergency vehicles. Especially in residential areas, you can end up reducing the number of minor traffic accidents at the expense of increasing the number of non-traffic-related fatalities by increasing the emergency response time of fire trucks and ambulances.

This is a non-problem:

1) The other road users are operating at a slower speed so it is considerably easier to get out of the way.

2) emergency access is affected by the issue causing the emergency ( a crash for example )

3) normal congestion will put the effective speed lower anyhow.

4) traffic calming can actually increase the throughput of a street For example, converting a street with 2 lanes each direction to a single lane with a central left turn lane: eliminates the congestion caused by people stopping to make turns from the left lane.

>The other road users are operating at a slower speed so it is considerably easier to get out of the way.

You're assuming the other traffic is the problem. Speed humps etc. will considerably slow down e.g. a fire truck even if there are zero other cars on the road.

>emergency access is affected by the issue causing the emergency ( a crash for example )

Again, you're assuming traffic to be the primary problem. If my house is on fire or there is some intruder then there will be negligible effect on the local traffic but structural impediments to haste will still delay the emergency response.

>normal congestion will put the effective speed lower anyhow.

Traffic again.

>traffic calming can actually increase the throughput of a street For example, converting a street with 2 lanes each direction to a single lane with a central left turn lane: eliminates the congestion caused by people stopping to make turns from the left lane.

That's not really traffic calming, or to the extent that it is, should be distinguished from what I'm complaining about, e.g. speed humps or other measures solely designed to reduce traffic speed or annoy motorists into being diverted onto other roads.

Also, the better solution in such cases is to make the road have 2 lanes in each direction and a central left turn lane.

The number of people driving 80mph through a residential area each year would be about the same as it is today: approximately zero. There are far fewer psychopaths than you think, and psychopaths are largely undissuaded by laws.

You don't have to be a psychopath to be young and inexperienced, nor to want to flaunt your disregard for safety.

My larger point is that smaller laws help curb behavior that leads to larger consequences.

If you're young and inexperienced, or want to flaunt your disregard for safety, a "Speed Limit 25" sign won't dissuade you either. It might even persuade you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com