No Lights, No Traffic. Freedom Works!

[sharpsteve2003]

ROCKETBOOM
What happens to a congested town when traffic lights are removed? Humanwire Correspondent Martin Cassini reports on this experiment performed in Somerset County, England.

YouTube - No Lights, No Traffic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_wjo378h4)

[AGRP]

Traffic circles ftw:

http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/a-libertarians-traffic-device/

[Inkblots]

Nothing irritates statists like spontaneous order and self-organizing systems. Very few politicians and bureaucrats at any level have even a rudimentary grasp of dynamical systems and control theory, and those who do tend to want to ignore it. Rather, they play to people's prejudices, the idea that things will fall apart without control from above - be it the economy, or your drive home!

[SamuraisWisdom]

OK, now let's try that in New York City...

[TonySutton]

I stopped 3 times on my way to work today to let ghost traffic go through a light... :(

[ARealConservative]

OK, now let's try that in New York City...

don't bother talking common sense.

the use of government money for traffic flow solutions that doesn't involve lights is a brilliant experiment in freedom.

:rolleyes:

[aGameOfThrones]

No chaos? Now that's just disappointing. I wonder when will all those great intention people who love traffic lights etc., in the "Eliminated Drunk Driving Laws" thread show up here.

[ARealConservative]

No chaos? Now that's just disappointing. I wonder when will all those great intention people who love traffic lights etc., in the "Eliminated Drunk Driving Laws" thread show up here.

it has nothing to do with love.

some people can recognize the benefits well times lights have on traffic flow.

[Travlyr]

it has nothing to do with love.

some people can recognize the benefits well times lights have on traffic flow.
Well designed lights can work, but most traffic control systems and roads are poorly designed and create traffic jams.

[TonySutton]

it has nothing to do with love.

some people can recognize the benefits well times lights have on traffic flow, increased accidents, wasted fuel and increased emissions.

Fixed it for you

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

don't bother talking common sense.

the use of government money for traffic flow solutions that doesn't involve lights is a brilliant experiment in freedom.

:rolleyes:

Even when people see it in action they are still in denial. Good grief. (Further solidifies my negative opinion of conservatives who are fundamentally no different than liberals)

[oyarde]

I stopped 3 times on my way to work today to let ghost traffic go through a light... :(

I have to do that about a dozen times .

[Carson]

In San Diego they had some lights timed to be green when you got there.

In Sunnyvale it seemed to me they were timed to stop you at every light.



I remember now, that where I grew up, they didn't put in a light in until someone was killed the intersection.

[ARealConservative]

Even when people see it in action they are still in denial. Good grief. (Further solidifies my negative opinion of conservatives who are fundamentally no different than liberals)

A few things that a reasonable person would consider facts:

1) you can move more cars through a busy intersection with well timed lights then you can through a rotary.

2) a rotary requires more land. So the irony is your views applied to today's reality would have the government taking even more of our land from us to build roads.

3) my lack of support for federal dollars being spent on roads with our without traffic lights is a major difference I have with liberals.

[QueenB4Liberty]

That's sweet.

[Brett85]

No lights, no speed limits, no drunk driving laws, and no traffic because everybody's already dead.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No lights, no speed limits, no drunk driving laws, and no traffic because everybody's already dead.

If you don't believe in spontaneous order, and in a persons ability to act on self-interest (E.g. all things being equal people value being alive rather than being dead -- hence the amount of people going to drive 125 in the middle of NYC is so minimal as to be negligent), then you are no different than a liberal who believes that society must be run by a few because the people are too stupid to keep themselves alive and make good decisions. This is why I dislike conservatives as much as liberals because they believe in the same thing -- hence why Hayek said he wasn't a conservative either.

It is funny how conservatives always love to proclaim their love of libertarian intellectuals, but reject what they proclaim to advocate. Seriously, you guys give a new meaning to the term mindfuck.

People don't drive 125MPH in downtown NYC not because of sign posted on the side of the road, but because it would be suicide to do so. I mean how many times are you going to dismiss facts? Germany has very little to no traffic lights and speed limits and their fatality rate is HALF ours. A decent sized English town experiments with this and it works beautifully, and you still reject. Are you that close-minded? You hate freedom that bad and spontaneous order that bad? I do not ever want to hear you proclaim to be in favor of the free-market because you aren't, because the free-market is spontaneous order!

(Obvious rebuttal to obvious retort -- there would not be an absence of rules, only of arbitrary and imposing rules. Why do you reject first-use principle as the best way for traffic to flow? It is something all ready easily observed in pretty much all human behavior)

http://mises.org/daily/4745

The Praxeology and Ethics of Traffic Lights


It's over. There can be no hope for the state now. Its time has finally come to an end. If you think this is irrationally optimistic, click here and watch the video. You will see the state's raison d'être smashed asunder.

How often do you hear the minarchist say, "Well, I don't like government, but we at least need things like traffic laws. We need a government to keep us safe"? For all those who call libertarians crazy for wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve, how much more dangerous and criminal would they accuse us of being if we actually began to publicly advocate the abolition of traffic regulations? Yet, here it is, on video, for the entire world to see, that Hobbes was wrong.

Martin Cassini, a photographer and advocate for road deregulation, has produced a marvelous series of videos documenting the results of the Cabstand Junction Trial that started in September of 2009 in North Somerset, in Great Britain. The videos, which can be viewed on his website FitRoads.com and on YouTube, show the remarkable before and after results of the experiment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Somerset

Population 206,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn#Germany_4

The overall Road traffic safety of German autobahns is generally better than that of other European highways. Fatalities for 2005 -- 662, OTHER ROADS - 4,699. There is no speed limit on the autobahn.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesLocation.aspx

Far less crashes at speeds higher than 60 compared to lower, and conversely the fatality rate on US highways is MUCH higher than on the Autobahn. You fail in every area T.Conservative.

[CCTelander]

Even when people see it in action they are still in denial. Good grief. (Further solidifies my negative opinion of conservatives who are fundamentally no different than liberals)


I've often thought exactly the same thing over the years.

But the truth is, at least as far as I've been able to dope it out, that it's not really a "conservative" and/or "liberal" thing at all. It's just a people thing.

It has to do with the way our brains process information, and it's the main reason why you can present otherwise reasonable people with hard, conclusive evidence and their position will usually remain unchanged.

Most importantly (IMO), it's one of the main reasons why, in spite of the fact that the "liberty movement" has been engaged in a massive educational effort for at least the last 50 years or so, the results have been only very marginally successful.

Our entire educational paradigm needs to be thoroughly overhauled from top to bottom, IMO. The current model is simply not working very well.

[Brett85]

If you don't believe in spontaneous order, and in a persons ability to act on self-interest (E.g. all things being equal people value being alive rather than being dead -- hence the amount of people going to drive 125 in the middle of NYC is so minimal as to be negligent), then you are no different than a liberal who believes that society must be run by a few because the people are too stupid to keep themselves alive and make good decisions. This is why I dislike conservatives as much as liberals because they believe in the same thing -- hence why Hayek said he wasn't a conservative either.

It is funny how conservatives always love to proclaim their love of libertarian intellectuals, but reject what they proclaim to advocate. Seriously, you guys give a new meaning to the term mindfuck.

People don't drive 125MPH in downtown NYC not because of sign posted on the side of the road, but because it would be suicide to do so. I mean how many times are you going to dismiss facts? Germany has very little to no traffic lights and speed limits and their fatality rate is HALF ours. A decent sized English town experiments with this and it works beautifully, and you still reject. Are you that close-minded? You hate freedom that bad and spontaneous order that bad? I do not ever want to hear you proclaim to be in favor of the free-market because you aren't, because the free-market is spontaneous order!

(Obvious rebuttal to obvious retort -- there would not be an absence of rules, only of arbitrary and imposing rules. Why do you reject first-use principle as the best way for traffic to flow? It is something all ready easily observed in pretty much all human behavior)

http://mises.org/daily/4745

The Praxeology and Ethics of Traffic Lights



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Somerset

Population 206,000

Lol. I support libertarians like Ron Paul who believe in the rule of law. I just don't support anarchists who want to do away with the entire government. A small town can probably get away with not having any traffic lights, but try that in a city like Chicago or New York City. And you think that everybody who drives on the road is actually sane and wouldn't drive 120 MPH through a city? There's all kinds of crazy people out there who would create absolute havic in a situation like that, especially if they were drunk. So let's recap your position. It's perfectly fine for people to drive 120 MPH completely drunk with no traffic lights through Chicago. It's no wonder most people think libertarians are completely nuts.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Lol. I support libertarians like Ron Paul who believe in the rule of law. I just don't support anarchists who want to do away with the entire government. A small town can probably get away with not having any traffic lights, but try that in a city like Chicago or New York City. And you think that everybody who drives on the road is actually sane and wouldn't drive 120 MPH through a city? There's all kinds of crazy people out there who would create absolute havic in a situation like that, especially if they were drunk. So let's recap your position. It's perfectly fine for people to drive 120 MPH completely drunk with no traffic lights through Chicago. It's no wonder most people think libertarians are completely nuts.

Do you even attempt to try and refute any of my salient points or do you just rationalize in your head what you thought I said and then attack positions that make even the most ardent strawmans seem like childs play?

The rule of law is very much often arbitrary and almost always legalized plunder. Speed limits are couched in "safety", but the primary purpose is as a revenue generator for the municipality and state. It is a way to steal more of your money for victimless crimes. It doesn't stop anyone. People do not drive at those speeds in such heavy traffic because they value their life. People are perfectly capable of assessing a situation and coming to a conclusion which are perfectly in line with their subjective valuations (E.g. they value their life, than not value it). Similarly, I do not advocate no rules. I advocate rules that flow from basic principles and spontaneous order. Why have you still failed to address first-use principle? Any sane person will see one person arguing from facts, reason, and evidence, and the other arguing from meaningless platitudes, fiction, and irrational contrivances they have conjured up which are contrary to hard factual evidence.

You have this insane boogeyman which clouds your entire thought process. You refuse to acknowledge basic facts because I am a voluntaryist. How is that any different than a liberal who does the same to those he "dislikes"? I however, as most libertarians value the merits of a position not by who advocates it, but by its own merits on its ability to withstand objective skepticism and critique. It is obvious that State-arbitrary road regulation makes conditions less safe. How many statistics, how much evidence, how many more deaths are you willing to blindly dismiss because I am a voluntaryist?

Also, if someone wants to do that there is nothing stopping them from doing it now (Driving 125MPH drunk through Chicago). Laws do not prevent behavior, period. They may try and hide it from authorities, but it doesn't change what a person is going to do or not do. I fully support a system of dispute resolution which penalizes those who harm person or property. You continue to throw up ridiculous strawman.

Again, I must say --- PEOPLE DO NOT DRIVE 125MPH DRUNK THROUGH CHICAGO BECAUSE THEY VALUE THEIR LIFE, NOT BECAUSE THEY MIGHT GET A TICKET FOR 50$!!!

[Kregisen]

Stop posting the videos that show 1 lane roads working without traffic lights.....how the hell is that supposed to be practical in a city setting when you have 3-5 lanes?

I'm not saying roundabouts don't work, but insisting they work and posting a video of a 1 lane road just tells people you have no argument, whether or not you really do.


We don't have any roundabouts around here, so I have no idea how well they work for cities.

Obviously for small towns with little traffic, there is little need for traffic lights....but for the bigger population cities, there's so many cars I can't imagine a roundabout would work better than lights, and there's no way you'd get more traffic through them.....EVERY car has to slow down.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Stop posting the videos that show 1 lane roads working without traffic lights.....how the hell is that supposed to be practical in a city setting when you have 3-5 lanes?

I'm not saying roundabouts don't work, but insisting they work and posting a video of a 1 lane road just tells people you have no argument, whether or not you really do.


We don't have any roundabouts around here, so I have no idea how well they work for cities.

There is a three lane road (Turn, + 2 lanes continuing forward) 2 minutes outside my apartment. I will go out there and document traffic perfectly going about on its own (Through first use principle) without any hitches. There is no traffic lights there. There hasn't been an accident at that intersection (4 way intersection by the way) in the 3 years I've lived here, whereas at the intersection up the road with lights, and the same amount of lanes there are accidents there at least every month. I will document this for you first hand.

What that video documents is a basic principle (First-use) which is superior to traffic lights which is the cause of most accidents. Besides, if you go to Germany most towns have no lights and they have lower rates of accidents and fatalities as America, and their highway system has no speed limit and also has much lower rates of accidents and fatalities. What have you to say about that?

Besides, North Sumerset is not a small town. It is a town with the population of 206,000. How the hell is that small when Milwaukee has 500,000 population and is the 17th largest US city. North Sumerset would be equivalent to a top 50 biggest city in the US. Is that small to you? Good grief people.

[CCTelander]

Lol. I support libertarians like Ron Paul who believe in the rule of law. I just don't support anarchists who want to do away with the entire government. A small town can probably get away with not having any traffic lights, but try that in a city like Chicago or New York City. And you think that everybody who drives on the road is actually sane and wouldn't drive 120 MPH through a city? There's all kinds of crazy people out there who would create absolute havic in a situation like that, especially if they were drunk. So let's recap your position. It's perfectly fine for people to drive 120 MPH completely drunk with no traffic lights through Chicago. It's no wonder most people think libertarians are completely nuts.


A small town can probably get away with not having any gun laws, but try that in a city like Chicago or New York City. And you think that everybody who owns guns is actually sane and wouldn't run around shooting randomly through a city? There's all kinds of crazy people out there who would create absolute havic [sic] in a situation like that, especially if they were drunk.

[Kregisen]

There is a three lane road (Turn, + 2 lanes continuing forward) 2 minutes outside my apartment. I will go out there and document traffic perfectly going about on its own (Through first use principle) without any hitches. There is no traffic lights there. There hasn't been an accident at that intersection (4 way intersection by the way) in the 3 years I've lived here, whereas at the intersection up the road with lights, and the same amount of lanes there are accidents there at least every month. I will document this for first hand.

What that video documents is a basic principle (First-use) which is superior to traffic lights which is the cause of most accidents. Besides, if you go to Germany most towns have no lights and they have lower rates of accidents and fatalities as America, and their highway system has no speed limit and also has much lower rates of accidents and fatalities. What have you to say about that?

Besides, North Sumerset is not a small town. It is a town with the population of 206,000. How the hell is that small when Milwaukee has 500,000 population and is the 17th largest US city. North Sumerset would be equivalent to a top 50 biggest city in the US. Is that small to you? Good grief people.

I'm definitely against speed limits, they have virtually nothing to do with safety.

I would have to see a video of a typical german intersection in a bigger city.....it's my understanding every car has to slow way down in order to enter a roundabout/traffic circle, so I don't really see how that will get cars through faster.

As for safety.....you can only blame accidents on dumbass drivers. There's nothing wrong with traffic lights, if everyone follows the lights and pays attention there will be no accidents.

Basically Americans are dumbasses.

[Legend1104]

In my town we have 4 way stops that each have stop signs. It works just fine because first one to get to the sign goes first. Also, in Gatlinburg, TN they have areas where pedestrians actually come first and whenever you need to cross the street you just step out and begin to cross and the cars are expected to stop.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm definitely against speed limits, they have virtually nothing to do with safety.

I would have to see a video of a typical german intersection in a bigger city.....it's my understanding every car has to slow way down in order to enter a roundabout/traffic circle, so I don't really see how that will get cars through faster.

As for safety.....you can only blame accidents on dumbass drivers. There's nothing wrong with traffic lights, if everyone follows the lights and pays attention there will be no accidents.

Basically Americans are dumbasses.

This isn't true. I can give two simple instances where traffic lights produce accidents because it violates basic principles and basic reason!

1) Lights that stay red when there is no traffic anywhere to be found. Most people know these lights (And they are a vast vast majority), and if they see a yellow light or just turned red, they will speed up to get through because people realize how fucking stupid it is to wait at a light for three minutes while there is no traffic coming from other directions. This creates lots of T-bone accidents (I saw two happen a few months ago at the intersection I described above)

2) Those who see a yellow/red light and slam on their brakes to not get a ticket because of the red light ticket cameras they have installed on a lot of traffic lights. This creates a lot of fender benders because of their sudden stop.

Both of these "problems" would be done away with if there were no lights and people simply had to stop at intersections and wait their turn to get through. This has many benefits -- notably reducing traffic accidents and fatalities considerably, and allowing for a more efficient traffic flow. (It would also get rid of many of the money-grubbing schemes of municipalities and states)

Traffic Lights like any regulations that create artificial environments contrary to basic reason and spontaneous order create many many unintended consequences. Why is it so hard to see this when it comes to this scenario, but not when you look at the market? It is the same process!!!!!!!!

[RM918]

Man, I hate traffic circles. You have to go through one to get down to the shore, that thing is hectic.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't really like traffic circles either. I prefer basic intersections with a yield/stop understanding and use based on first-principle. This is actually how the majority of intersections work and they have very little to no accidents. Is it any wonder you see most accidents at intersections with traffic lights happen at a much higher frequency (We are talking proportionally to the traffic that flows through)?

[Kregisen]

1) Lights that stay red when there is no traffic anywhere to be found. Most people know these lights (And they are a vast vast majority), and if they see a yellow light or just turned red, they will speed up to get through because people realize how fucking stupid it is to wait at a light for three minutes while there is no traffic coming from other directions. This creates lots of T-bone accidents (I saw two happen a few months ago at the intersection I described above)

That's still the driver's fault. If you can't get through a yellow light in time, then don't go through it.


2) Those who see a yellow/red light and slam on their brakes to not get a ticket because of the red light ticket cameras they have installed on a lot of traffic lights. This creates a lot of fender benders because of their sudden stop.

Right, which is why having red light cameras is stupid, unless you have it timed so they only go off a second or so after a red.

[legion]

Perhaps the libertarians would win a few elections if they'd just wear their damn seat belts.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's still the driver's fault. If you can't get through a yellow light in time, then don't go through it.



Right, which is why having red light cameras is stupid, unless you have it timed so they only go off a second or so after a red.

It is not the drivers fault. It is the fault of the traffic lights because it creates an environment which provides an incentive for that type of behavior, which wouldn't normally happen in an environment absent traffic lights. It is the same thing in the market where market regulations create environments where people act in certain capacities they would never act in if those regulations weren't in place. It is artificial environments which produce ghastly unintended consequences.

As for number #2 even if you got rid of the red light cameras the problem would still be there. You either have to speed up to get through or slam on the brakes when you come upon a quick yellow/red. That creates a lot of accidents! In a situation where you always have to yield/stop those situations do not arise. That is just a fact. Besides, it is more safe to have a drivers eyes on the road looking around at what other drivers are doing, than having to rely on stupid traffic lights which create unneccesary conditions where accidents are more likely. This is basic reasoning skills to evaluate these situations and what causes arise from certain interventions into the environment.

To some this isn't intuitive, to others it is. It is why I always recommend the one article where it shows that libertarians are more likely to see connections where others wouldn't and why we usually advocate things that seem at first absurd, but once one thinks it through sees the glaringly obvious stare them in the face.

[TruckinMike]

Mexico's system is the solution.

Instead of traffic cops and lights they have many vibradores and Topes' in the road. Topes' are big speed bumps - used when they really want you to slow down, vibradores are small bumps - like the reflective dots on our highways.


They also have lots of round a 'bouts (circles, rotories). They are great for traffic flow if you aren't to scared to get in there and go.

Also, their light sequence is a bit different than ours.

They go like this - Green, flashing green, yellow, then red. The flashing green lets you know its about to go to yellow. -- From a truckers perspective-that would be very helpful. It takes a long ways to stop a big truck.

I think their system works great. Not to mention that there is much less harassment from cops --- unless of course they happen to be shaking you down for cash. But that has only happened to me twice. :) Note: the second time I went to the federalis 15 miles down the road and explained to them what transpired. Then waited an hour or so, until a rural cop/deputy(not federali) brought my money to me. $40.00. The first time it was for $100.00, I never got it back.

Happy Driving...

TMike:)

[Kregisen]

It is not the drivers fault. It is the fault of the traffic lights because it creates an environment which provides an incentive for that type of behavior, which wouldn't normally happen in an environment absent traffic lights. It is the same thing in the market where market regulations create environments where people act in certain capacities they would never act in if those regulations weren't in place. It is artificial environments which produce ghastly unintended consequences.

As for number #2 even if you got rid of the red light cameras the problem would still be there. You either have to speed up to get through or slam on the brakes when you come upon a quick yellow/red. That creates a lot of accidents! In a situation where you always have to yield/stop those situations do not arise. That is just a fact. Besides, it is more safe to have a drivers eyes on the road looking around at what other drivers are doing, than having to rely on stupid traffic lights which create unneccesary conditions where accidents are more likely. This is basic reasoning skills to evaluate these situations and what causes arise from certain interventions into the environment.

To some this isn't intuitive, to others it is. It is why I always recommend the one article where it shows that libertarians are more likely to see connections where others wouldn't and why we usually advocate things that seem at first absurd, but once one thinks it through sees the glaringly obvious stare them in the face.

I've always thought about changes to traffic lights i.e. keep yellow on much longer, or maybe have lights start blinking when they're close to changing.

I think there's definitely room for improvement, the more time people have to prepare to changing lights the better and more efficient.

[Kregisen]

They go like this - Green, flashing green, yellow, then red. The flashing green lets you know its about to go to yellow. -- From a truckers perspective-that would be very helpful. It takes a long ways to stop a big truck.

Ahh someone uses the flashing light idea already? I just thought that one up on the spot. Sounds like it would be an improvement in the U.S.....wonder why no one seems to use it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I've always thought about changes to traffic lights i.e. keep yellow on much longer, or maybe have lights start blinking when they're close to changing.

I think there's definitely room for improvement, the more time people have to prepare to changing lights the better and more efficient.

Why the need to continuously develop more complex and complicated mechanisms to try and replace an easy to understand fundamental principle to human interaction -- first-use principle? I don't understand this rational. Besides, there are still many many problems with flashing green, to yellow, etc. I always thought it better to keep a drivers eyes on the road than staring at a light..., but maybe I am just whacko to think that.. (Come to think of it I think we should replace the look left, look right before you go across the street with pedestrian cross now, don't cross lights everywhere. That will certainly reduce traffic accidents involving pedestrians!! HUZZAH!) :p The more decisions a person has to make using their own cognitive abilities reduces the amount of accidents incurred. Why people continuously advocate for the reduction of critical thinking in society is beyond me.

[low preference guy]

it'd be nice if someone bought property and made a road without rules and see what happens. he could gradually increase the number of people he allows in and see if one can make conclusions about the rules drivers develop.

[MozoVote]

I remember years ago, Greensboro NC had a traffic engineer that insisted on removing traffic signals from intersections that did not need them. He explained that signals often get placed due to citizens complaining to their councilman... "motorists drive too fast here" ... "do something".

So, up go the traffic lights to prove how helpful your local elected official is, regardless of what a factual traffic count would indicate.

[Flash]

Traffic lights will be irrelevant technology once the market produces cars that drive themselves.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=264263

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Lol. I support libertarians like Ron Paul who believe in the rule of law. I just don't support anarchists who want to do away with the entire government. A small town can probably get away with not having any traffic lights, but try that in a city like Chicago or New York City. And you think that everybody who drives on the road is actually sane and wouldn't drive 120 MPH through a city? There's all kinds of crazy people out there who would create absolute havic in a situation like that, especially if they were drunk. So let's recap your position. It's perfectly fine for people to drive 120 MPH completely drunk with no traffic lights through Chicago. It's no wonder most people think libertarians are completely nuts.

Where do these B.S. kind of arguments come from. Google Hans Monderman. Your comments have been so thoroughly debunked in real world application in Europe it's not funny. The current safety record statistics of shared space versus the decade prior speak for themselves. In addition shared space is only advocated optimal in 30km/h areas because the present wisdom is drivers only behave as guests for short periods of time.

Where statists come up brain dead is the completely irrelevant arguments like crazy people, drunk drivers, and excessive speeding. Give me a break I get tired of hearing that kind of irrelevant argument because those drivers are going to exist whether it's conventional traffic markings or shared space. People wonder why statists are completely nuts, because they can't even bring a valid argument to the table. If you actually brought a relevant argument to the table... like... many blind people are on record opposing shared space... we could actually have a dialogue.

Let's recap your position. I don't know jack about what the statistics indicate really works but I have lots of criticism anyway. According to you it's perfectly fine for people to drive 120 MPH completely drunk AS LONG AS THERE ARE GREEN traffic lights through Chicago. :rolleyes:

In this instance... this one:
https://www.smallingerland.nl/Images/Internet/Content/Engels/laweipleinoud.jpg.jpg

Is not statistically as safe as this one (same intersection):
https://www.smallingerland.nl/Images/Internet/Content/Engels/naamloos.jpg

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Perhaps the libertarians would win a few elections if they'd just wear their damn seat belts.

It's not our time yet, but our time is coming.

[Liberty_Mike]

Nothing irritates statists like spontaneous order and self-organizing systems. Very few politicians and bureaucrats at any level have even a rudimentary grasp of dynamical systems and control theory, and those who do tend to want to ignore it. Rather, they play to people's prejudices, the idea that things will fall apart without control from above - be it the economy, or your drive home!

Great comment!

[ARealConservative]

it's my understanding every car has to slow way down in order to enter a roundabout/traffic circle, so I don't really see how that will get cars through faster.

you won't get cars through faster, unless you compare against lights that are not timed very well.

which is why this thread is retarded

[TruckinMike]

...Why people continuously advocate for the reduction of critical thinking in society is beyond me.

Here is what a good friend of mine would say "its the 90% rule". In broad terms, 90% of people are to stupid to think critically. To sum up the light issue, traffic lights are designed around the LCD of the population.

As stated earlier, I think improvements could be made in efficiency and safety. Like flashing greens, yellows, and large roundabouts.

TMike

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Here is what a good friend of mine would say "its the 90% rule". In broad terms, 90% of people are to stupid to think critically. To sum up the light issue, traffic lights are designed around the LCD of the population.

As stated earlier, I think improvements could be made in efficiency and safety. Like flashing greens, yellows, and large roundabouts.

TMike

I would say he is wrong. Seriously every person I have ever met always says 'the people are too stupid'. Every single one. It appears to me as if every person seems to think everyone else is stupid. In reality, very few people are stupid, but given the environment that is laid at their feet, most people don't have to use their brain for the most part. They are surely capable, but it takes effort. Effort that has been washed out of society by the Nanny Staters, who push the "everyone is stupid" mentality that necessarily leads to a few oligarchs ruling the masses because "we are too stupid". The fact is we are not stupid, and we do not need anyone to arbitrarily rule over us.

That same mentality pervaded ever corner when the question of abolition of slavery was brought up. They are too stupid. They will die if they are freed. Etc. etc. It is a non-sense poppycock argument which has been thoroughly debunked.

First-use principle is a far better rule to guide traffic flow than lights which create more accidents. Statistics bare it out. Logic bears it out. Reason bears it out. Empirical evidence bears it out. Just driving around and looking at interactions you will see it also. Everyone should pay close attention to how people act when they come upon a lighted intersection and one without (you may be surprised).