Talk:Traffic calming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Engineering Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance.

Contents

[edit] Shared space

we should mention the recent experiments in the netherlands: they tried removing the traffic lights from dangerous junctions. it apparently works; very wiki-way! -- Tarquin 09:38 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Somehow I think american drivers are far too crazy and neurotic for that to work here. How did they manage to do this? --radiojon 07:32, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I would guess that people stopped "jumping the lights" and started to actually look where they are going. Lights create a tendency to "speed up to catch the green" whereas junctions without lights necessitate slowing down to check the other roads. Just a guess, would like to see the study. --/Mat 04:57, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bike lanes

Are bike lanes really a traffic calming measure? It seems to me that their primary purpose is the opposite, allowing drivers to pass bicyclists that would otherwise be in the traffic lane. --SPUI 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right, they only calm traffic when they make the car lane narrower, but that falls under street narrowing. --Erauch 03:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Bicycle lanes wouldn't generally fall into the category of Traffic Calming, being more a safety and mode-shift encouraging measure, but most area wide Traffic Calming schemes and Traffic Calming measures will consider the needs of cyclists so it's probably appropriate that they are mentioned. Street Narrowing, having a direct correlation to vehicular speeds is indeed a traffic calming measure that is widely used and can be, in particular, demonstrated by the effects that horizontal deflections such as traffic islands, build outs (curb extensions) and overrun areas have on speeds. I've written a thesis about Traffic Control, and Traffic Calming in particular, that I'll be trying to convert over to this article once my finals are done with! Fiachs 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the geographical spread of "traffic calming"?

It is unclear which countries or cities this article is talking about. It seems to be mainly England, but also Portland, OR, USA is listed in the references. But the state with the most reckless driving is Rhode Island U.S.A Maybe a Instances of traffic calming section would be useful... JesseW 06:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Traffic Calming Innovation seems to be primarily occuring in the UK, so it's probably suitable that majority referance is made to it. Part of my thesis was comparison of the Traffic Calming measures of Dublin, Ireland; Manchester, UK; San Diego, USA and Calgary in Canada so I'll have that up ASAP Fiachs 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to roadhumpcampaign.org website

I think the link to "Public debate site for road humps" should be deleted. Please discuss at Talk:Speed bump#Link to roadhumpcampaign.org website Softgrow 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Traffic Calming

A recently added section (which I reverted and has been re-reverted) states:

The term "Traffic Calming" states that traffic can be calmed. Traffic is an abstract concept,
does not have emotions so cannot be calmed. The effects on Emergency Vehicles, residents,
pedestrians, cyclists and drivers need to be considered, and to these groups, calming is not
necessarily the effect.

I think this should be removed as the author is trying to get the meaning of Traffic Calming by looking at the words individually rather than what the abstract concept represents. Traffic calming is nothing about the emotions of traffic it is about the effect of traffic. Softgrow 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't only think it should be removed, you have removed it. I guess it conflicts with your POV so as usual...SNIP. softgrow, I am sure that you know that when two words are juxtaposed, the meanings of those words gets conflated. The conflation of those words does not accurately represent the idea being expressed. You clearly dislike the fact I put this fact on a page you seem to be pruning and seeding like a pristine front garden to represent your ideas as closely as possible. That is not what wikipedia is about. Please replace it or if you think it is POV, keep the same idea there but edit it to make it less POV. If I think it is too pov in a different direction, I'll edit it again. That is how the wikipedia works. --Nick R Hill 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)