This is only somewhat related, but is interesting to consider on the whole traffic and user behavior issue.

As has recently been done in Toronto, signals that “countdown” how much time is left until a light changes have been installed at many intersections. This effectively shifts more real-time information down to the distributed decision makers approaching said intersections.

Interestingly, the freakonomics blog has a post about how such information leads to MORE accidents – people rushing to get through.

So it’s a case where more and better information distributed throughout the system leads to worse results.

I’m also a little concerned about taking the “shared spaces” too far. As a cyclist in a large city, I know all to well what happens when a “disagreement” emerges in regards to the space. The absence of signs, dividers, etc. is not particularly comforting in this regard. Though I suppose I’d be hit at a slower speed

Of course the ultimate example of the “shared space” concept (although perhaps not as well appreciated) is the organized chaos that dictates driving conditions in many developing countries such as India or Pakistan. From first-hand experience, I can say that the complete disregard for road markings and traffic signs results in surprisingly few major accidents. There are proportionally more fender-benders and nicks and scratches, but the system generally works.

For a great visualization of just how beautifully organized chaos can be, check out the follwing video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgB7Y5SFLow

Of course navigating this type of environment requires a completely different mindset, so I can see how transitioning a highly-regulated system to this model could be disastrous.

Maybe the good burghers of Drachten had returned from a visit to India. The traffic “chaos” at intersections results in very few accidents and the few I saw caused very little aggression. The Dutch culture (Hofstede) has a higher Uncertainty Avoidance Index when compared to India – ie Indians are more open to unstructured situations such as unregulated traffic.
Naumi says if very well.

[...] Wikinomics applied to traffic “What happens when you decide to remove traffic signs, signal lights, and parking meters and merely ask drivers to be responsible? Sounds like a recipe for chaos… yet in the Dutch town of Drachten that’s exactly what they’ve done.” (tags: culture traffic wikinomics) [...]

Great video Naumi.

Peter, I wonder how much of the lowered accidents are attributable to the extra caution taken because of the high “uncertainty avoidance index” you mention vs. any natural advantage of unstructured traffic. Be interesting to compare accident rates in India vs. Drachten.

Denis, regarding cyclists… I definitely sympathize with the problems faced by cyclists here (one reason I’ve switched from my bike to taking the streetcar). But I wonder if the legal rules of the road are part of the problem. While the law says that bikes should drive in lanes and behave just like cars, the reality is that cars going at high speeds will honk at you or try to squeeze by you in a lane (you slow them down after all) if you follow the letter of the law. On the other hand, it also make zero sense for a biker to sit behind someone’s bumper in gridlock when you can easily zip around stopped cars and make your way through the traffic. Common sense dictates one type of behavior and the laws require another – the result is that cyclists exist in this nebulous (and risky) grey area. While the article seems to suggest that it makes things smoother for cyclists, it also hints at a new problem, saying that it’s now “cyclists and pedestrians who seem to jostle for space”.

Some videos of designs which result in slower but continuously flowing traffic:

Hanoi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oetF3UTIwbc

Panjim/Goa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMXL2cxo-Cc

Groningen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQASVz4xun8

Great examples Bruce. Interesting to watch, especially all the activity in the first one.

[...] Wikinomics (a great blog that everyone should subscribe to, by the way) had a great article called Wikinomics Applied to Traffic that showed this concept working in the real world. While this is an odd article, and it might be a [...]

There is a research at ITESM, Mexico where cars negotiate among neighbors (using cell phone technologies and GPS) in order to form flocks like birds do; and then they can travel across a city without traffic-lights using some social rules that give them a speed bonus and a negotiation protocol at intersections.

Hi Lely, great example. Brings new meaning to “intelligent transportation system”. It immediately begs the question of how you get from a system where there’s no automated communication/negotiation to one which incorporates a hybrid of intelligent and non intelligent cars (we have a legacy installed base to contend with). I think the airline industry is facing a similar conundrum, where some planes have built-in intelligence and the ability to communicate with towers, while others do not.

Maybe we’ll need laws that kickstart electronic communication between automobiles by replacing a standard brake and signal lights with one that also happens to broadcast some machine readable RF signal at the same time it lights up.