I post this with a recent experience in Auburn in which many “security officers” have been hired to direct traffic at every intersection: go, don’t go, go, etc. It strikes me as crazy and even worse than goofy lights that take no account existing traffic patterns, whether automotive or pedestrian. It turns out that letting drivers and walkers manage themselves is better all around.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13561/fix-traffic-problems-get-rid-of-lights-and-signs/
Fix Traffic Problems: Get Rid of Lights and Signs
Previous post: WSJ Contemplating a Stock Market Crash
Next post: A.R.J. Turgot on the Power of Writing
{ 35 comments }
Wait! They’re driving on the wrong side of the road! From the wrong side of the car!!
But seriously, one wonders who decided to give this a trial. I wouldn’t want this to be construed as a triumph for urban planning, if only because they’ve relied on lights for so long. More importantly, it should be construed as an indictment of government-designed and controlled roads, since they didn’t have the necessary economic feedback to try going lightless ages ago.
So when are they getting rid of the rest of the lights?
Holy Cr@p, people can actually self organize without the aid of government! Who would have thought that this was possible? What a great video! I am sending it to my cop buddies.
Jeffery, the fact that traffic you experienced some mismanaged traffic is seen. But whether getting rid of lights and signs will fix (or make it worse) remains to be seen.
Sweden removed lights and signs from a 30,000 car-per-day intersection (a huge intersection) and managed to dramatically reduce accidents without causing any additional traffic congestion.
I know, but what makes you think drivers everywhere have the same driving habits? Even inside the US drivers are very different. Compare Californian drivers to New Yorkers for instance.
Yes, then there’s the women drivers and the oriental drivers and the black drivers and … but isn’t that just uh, you know? Yes, it is.
How about we let Federalism function and let those states that recognize reality do the sensible thing, and those states that are more interested in coercing, needlessly endangering and robbing their citizens continue to do that.
“what makes you think drivers everywhere have the same driving habits”
It’s called self-preservation; a universal willingness not to get hurt or be liable for hurting others, nor getting damaged or causing damage. It’s the “civil” part of civil society often mouthed but ignored by politicians and planners who have no faith in their constituents but, rather, feel the need to take on the persona of the overprotective nanny.
But you are assuming that the instinct for self-preservation would result in the same behavior regardless of person, time and space.
No, they’re assuming self-interest would result in myriad emergent, self-directing behaviors.
If anything, you’re the one saying people would take up a single behavior
Nobody should assume anything. Privatize the roads (Real Privatization) and let entrepreneurs decide on the traffic signals and rules.
What this video proves (once again) is not that you necessarily must remove all traffic signals and signs, but that road socialism fails in every possible respect. Even in the task of traffic regulations.
DD5, can you give me details about “real privatization” in our road systems. I read that alot, and my imagination just can’t follow that particular concept.
Andy
http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf
The first line is “Most people who read this book will dismiss it as the ravings of a lunatic.”
DD5; you can’t privatize all roads or even most roads….. the private owners of residential or city streets would have no right to infringe freedom of movement and as such no right to access fees or penalties…. owners of long haul routes might have some legitimate claim to ownership, but they’d still have no right to prohibit perpendicular movement (no fenced roads)….. but in either case, both the commons and private property are nothing more than social constructs and both are as such quite flexible, neither is an end-all-be-all……
ike;
If private owners have no right to stop travel across their property, then why does the government have the right to stop people from using public roads?
If the private owners have no right to get fees to build and maintain roads then why does the government have the right to imprison you and seize your property if you do not pay feeds to build and maintain public roads?
It seems to me that you have a bit of a problem here. A serious flaw to your logic that is being revealed as very significant double standard. You seem to be under the impression because the private owners have no right to perform any of these actions then the only people that can do it is if they work for the government.
I don’t see why that sort of logic makes any sense at all. It seems like setting up a arbitrary moral code which the only person that has any right to operate any road anywhere is a state government. It seems very screwed set of ‘rights’ that actually infringes on a huge amount of freedom on the vast majority of individuals.
I don’t see what is so magical and special about public works departments that their jobs cannot be done better and performed at vastly reduced cost by a private business. Private businesses level ground and lay concrete every day. They put up lights, adhere to engineering standards, and do all sorts of things much better then any ‘public servant’ does.
If we do not need public works departments to build and run roads then why the hell do we need politicians to make and fund public works projects?
The problem then becomes one of merely figuring out how to fund road building projects. We already have groups of people that can make roads that are much better designed and built. We just need to figure out how to fund them.
Why is the only way we can fund road builders is through taxation? Why is the only logical way is to fund road building through force, by threats and intimidation?
I don’t see how it ‘infringes on the rights of the people to travel’ if they have to pay small fees to maintain roads.
In fact, living here in Georgia…. (which has the worst sort of fucking morons that design and maintain the roads… I mean this state is just disgraceful. Who the fuck thinks it’s a good idea to put stop lights on fucking ONRAMPS? The inefficiency and rampant poor design and poorly thought out systems just makes me want to scream.) I know that if somebody was to lay a new private road down and then charge people for it… then people wouldn’t give a shit how much it costs. They would love pay huge fees to have special side routes to public roads just because the public works people are so incredibly asinine.
New Yorkers spend how much of their work day driving in excess of 70 MPH? California freeways are safe because the bad drivers rapidly (pun intended) kill themselves off. The worst states I’ve driven in are Florida (old people) and Oregon, where posted speed limits are VERY low and most everyone drives 20 over.
And Netherlands…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmKAe0pcIy0
Yes, it remains to be seen–we need more trials like this one…a LOT more.
I have nothing against trials per say. As long as prices guide the decision making rather than political correctness. Who knows? The best best solution would be to get rid of all the traffic lights and signs. Or maybe a fewer number of them. Or maybe the number is not the problem, it is their positioning. I can think several alternatives depending on the street, how it is being used, who uses it, their driving habits and so on. But to say get rid of all traffic lights seems a bit of a stretch.
As long as the government owns and controls the roads, economic incentives are unlikely to guide the decision. That’s why I said we should be careful about this being construed as a win for urban planning.
I would be happy if even small steps were taken, such as changing the hundreds of 4-way stop signs in my town to 2-way stops. That way, the “ownership” of the intersection is in less doubt – the major street has the right-of-way and the drivers on the minor street must stop. The justification for the 4-way stops is “traffic calming” but this is a total failure because drivers simply accelerate and brake harder in between stop signs, increasing pollution, noise, collisions, etc.
Another major cause of congestion, pollution and collisions in urban/suburban areas is public buses. They run at all hours, they’re mostly empty except at rush hour, and their constant starting and stopping plays havoc with traffic flow. This is a precious welfare “baby” which should definitely be thrown out with the bath water.
I always think it’s funny how people drive in parking lots with speed bumps: they accelerate a lot, then put on the brakes just before each one. Aliens visiting would think that those were there to help keep a car’s brakes in good working order, or it was some kind of ritual people liked to perform.
keynesians have found building bumps has a greater multiplier-effect than digging holes.
Bravo!! That is until that they realise that the excavated dirt must create another bump!
I forgot to add that when I’ve been driving, I’ve tried lowering my average speed so that I don’t need to accelerate or brake when reaching them, but then I worry people behind me will get angry at me for going so slow, as I have to go quite slowly to cross them comfortably. I guess they make the humps even bigger to make people slow down more, assuming they will speed up between them. That to me would be feedback that the humps aren’t working, and that another approach is needed.
I used to work near a very busy intersection in the middle of Atlanta. Sometimes the traffic lights would die due to power outages. This was always the best time to drive home!
A myriad of behaviors I am ok with. In fact it is myriad of behaviors that make me think that no traffic lights is not always a good idea. Myriad of behaviors would require a myriad of solutions. And traffic lights and crossing guards too at times form part of the solution. So can streets with no signs or traffic lights.
I got a kick out of the voice-over.
He describes the phenomenon of self-organization as a principle of ‘equality’ over ‘priority.’ It sounds like he believes the drivers have learned ‘empathy’ and that the light-less intersections are some beautiful example of social evolution at work.
He is attempting to see responsible, considerate self-organization through a socialist lens. He’s funny. And probably a moron.
When free markets finally win the day, socialists will have maneuvered themselves — like the worst people you know in your workplace — into a position for taking credit where they will start saying “See, we told you socialism would win the day.”
jeff,
check out richard scarry, one of the great childrens’ book authors. i used to love “it’s a busy, busy world”, with it’s bruegel-like complexity. “busyness” is his leitmotiv. if children are stimulated by the complexity and respond favourably to it, why shouldn’t adults, even on four wheels?
http://bit.ly/anCPJl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-Y8lqOg&feature=related
i thought part 1 was even better.
I am not sure if this video proves that. Whom do you think removed those traffic lights?
…Auburn Alabama thus seems a perfect place to showcase libertarian solutions to very ordinary social issues — like traffic flow on local streets.
Mises Institute staff & local supporters should actively participate in the Auburn government to properly guide its practical actions. Of course, the Mises Institute itself is not a political-action-committee… and should stay out of it, but individual Auburn citizens have a right to act. Might even be a good term/thesis project.
These ‘… many “security officers” … hired to direct traffic at every intersection..’ appeared because some Auburn politician or government bureaucrat erroneously thought it a good idea — and had the power to impose such whims on the community. At least contact them and prompt them to publicly defend their actions. It’s much easier to do with “local” government officials.
Auburn has a council-manager government led by an eight-member city council, a mayor, and an appointed city manager… and also appoints citizens to the city’s various boards. It’s a small city and shouldn’t be difficult to get a foothold/voice in local government.
Does human-action speak louder than {blog} words ?
“Instantly changed” an “absolute pleasure.” Why wouldn’t it be?
Reminds me of when I got to experience the opposite: A few years ago in the northern block of Minnesota “they” came up with the idea of changing their already socially-engineered “Sane Lane,” (reserved carpool lane) that was restricted during rush hour, into a 24/ pay or carpool lane. The resulting traffic backup (by taking a lane out of use during the highest hours) was so bad MNDOT was forced to add another mile of lane on the right side of the road to make up for it.
The point that people watch the road instead of the lights is also quite telling.
practical experience from a country where traffic signals seldom work and policeman dont give a damn -india: the situation turns into a free for fall -with the drivers getting into a ‘my car is bigger than yours’ contest.the biggest vehicles and the most impolite,offensive drivers dominate the road/crossings.
not saying that the police can help : the roads are just too few in number and traffic too high(all caused by state ‘planning’).no wonder there is a fight at the signals.
I’ve driven in Korea and in Vietnam, and it was quite interesting, since many of the intersections are uncontrolled. It’s amazing to see literally thousands of motorbikes share the small roads of Vietnam’s cities. On the other hand, it’s very uncomfortable and dangerous to cross these streets as a pedestrian.
Someone above got it right: When all the rules are removed, the rule of the road that remains is that might (size) trumps all else. However, that said, I think that North America relies far too heavily on signals.
Many intersections can be reduced in complexity and scope and result in higher efficiency. The worst culprits have to be those large suburban intersections that have a left turn phase, a straight ahead only phase, a straight ahead and turn right phase, a turn right only phase, and then a red phase where the opposing direction still has the green light, so you are stopped for nothing. It’s such a waste, cause these roads are huge with 3-4 lanes per direction and hard to cross as a pedestrian, but they can barely move more traffic than a road with 2 lanes per direction with simple green, yellow, red lights. Many 3 way intersections can get away with yield signs, and perhaps a speed hump at the exit of the minor road.
This doesn’t happen because in North America, most of the rules of the road are politically driven. People want traffic in front of their street to slow down, so they lobby for extra stop signs, etc…. Someone else mentioned that it doesn’t really slow down traffic, but if you have to stop every few hundred feet, yes, it does slow down traffic. The inconvenience is born mostly by the driver, so that’s why the stop signs stay…
Comments on this entry are closed.