10 ms·

Even if the kids wanted to, letting them play in the street would be unthinkable to contemporary parents. Trusting drivers to pay attention would be foolish.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
The context is streets without cars any cars at all though. Even in areas where there's a car occasionally, as kids we watched out for cars, not the other way around. We never assumed a car would brake for us. I'm sure it happens, but from my memories, not even the most reckless kids did that. And we did some shit, let me tell you :D
krylon 8y ago
In Germany, we have "Verkehrsberuhigte Zonen"[0] (Wikipedia says the english term is "living street"), where the speed limit is very low, and drivers are expected to look out for playing children. It works relatively well, at least in residential areas. Usually such streets are built in such a way you cannot go very fast any way. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsberuhigter_Bereich https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsberuhigter_Bereich / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street
- mcv 8y ago
  They're called "woonerf" in Netherland. Cars drive at walking pace, and pedestrians, particularly playing kids, always have right of way.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  The US doesn’t have anything similar, at least not normally. Roads are almost always wider than needed, I assume because it feels safer, but really just makes people drive faster. Any redesign that deprioritizes cars in any way (even if it just appears to do so) is ridiculed and fought against.
  - glangdale 8y ago
    Same with Australia. I live on a street that is also needed for emergency vehicles of most kinds as a primary route, so is just that bit wider, and you can see how ordinary motorists respond to this "incentive".
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    > Roads are almost always wider than needed Wait until you see Boston. I live in this street in Cambridge, its not quite wide enough for buses so occasionally they cross the lane of the opposite direction, especially if some asshole parked a little off. If this wasn't unsafe enough, there is also an elementary school near this street! In general. Boston streets are very narrow and it makes it hard to drive since (1) you can scratch other cars parking or (2) it's hard to see the direction you're turning to.
    - maccard 8y ago
      > Wait until you see Boston. I live in this street in Cambridge, its not quite wide enough for buses so occasionally they cross the lane of the opposite direction, especially if some asshole parked a little off Have you been to a European city? This is the norm in any city I've driven in. Meanwhile, driving in the US, even in a city normally involved roads which are wide enough for multiple Lanes of traffic each way. It's perfectly safe, it just required drivers to pay attention.
    - dasil003 8y ago
      This is actually beneficial for pedestrian safety because it decreases the perceived safe speed for all sensible drivers, versus putting a 25mph speed limit on a wide boulevard where everyone drives 40mph.
      - gnulinux 8y ago
        Haha you're underestimating Boston drivers. Out of all the places I lived in my life (SF, Berlin, Paris) drivers in Boston drive by far the fastest. Streets being narrow doesn't make people drive slower, instead it makes people drive more aggressive which puts stress on drivers, bikers and pedestrians alike.
- tudelo 8y ago
  6 mph... yeah. About that. People in the US don't really go the speed limit even in a 25mph zone so I don't know how well that will work. The only time I see people generally going the speed limit is in areas with speed tracking cameras.
  - zepearl 8y ago
    Same in Switzerland, but if the city/community is really serious about that and there are some long-term plans: don't build slick surfaces but ones made of "bricks" or similar (example: https://www.experiencedbricks.com/images/products/kushequa-bricks.jpg https://www.experiencedbricks.com/images/products/kushequa-b...) which definitely get rid of the "need for speed"-feeling (as the faster you go the more everything vibrates in your car, kind of an analog force-feedback feeling), and additionally build some bumps at strategic locations which force the drivers (like myself) to actively use the brain and pay attention. Works great (kind of a relaxing feeling while slowly driving on the "brick"-surfaces, like a massage), but I admit that it's expensive if not building with a long-term planning in mind. Edit: on the other hand I do absolutely hate such streets/areas that have a low speed limit (20/30 km/h) but have absolute smooth surfaces (I don't "feel" the need to drive slowly). I know, it's stupid, but that's how my brain works...: smooth surface therefore fast, not-smooth surface therefore slow and careful :)
    - ndnxhs 8y ago
      Bricks are also a pain for bikes which often don't have huge tires and suspension.
      - zepearl 8y ago
        Right, but we're talking about few millimeters (not centimeters) of difference between bricks, which are not comfy but not too extreme if driving on any bike at ~10km/h => advantages outweigh disatvantages. Bikes being the least problematic opponent group, I would be more worried by skateboard, inline-skate, etc... opposition groups. In Switzerland we solved it (as long as it was implemented by the local community or city) by having very smooth sidewalks (but bikes still have to drive on the street as they're too fast for the sidewalk and have more than enough suspension for the normal street at normal speeds).
- darkpuma 8y ago
  In America driving at 6 km/h (3.7mph) in a parking lot would induce road rage in other drivers. Trying to make roads with a 6 km/h speed limit would be political suicide for any politician that recommended it.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    That's literally a slow walking pace. Kids running would be breaking the speed limit. Bikes would always be breaking the limit. The speedo in my car isn't even accurate at speeds that low.
    - mcv 8y ago
      It's not about a hard speed limit, it's about driving at walking pace. It's not for thoroughfares, it's for cul-de-sacs where people live and children play. No car has any business going fast there. Bikes aren't a problem; they're small and nimble and don't kill people when they hit them.
      - jandrese 8y ago
        Bikes on the road are subject to all of the same laws cars are.
        mcv 8y ago
        You seem to be intentionally missing the point here. It's about safety for playing children. Cars are a bigger issue than bikes. Especially when the bikes are being used by playing children.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    that's an absurd speed. i literally cannot go that slow in my car without lugging the engine or slipping the clutch the whole way. no thanks.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  As an American living in Munich now: even regular neighborhood streets are far friendlier to walking and biking (and thus children) in Germany compared to America. They're much narrower, lower speed limits, more nearby cut-throughs and trails and protected bike lanes. Your average US street prioritizes cars to the exclusion of anything else. Walking is pointless, it feels terrible and nothing is within walking distance except maybe a neighborhood park or elementary school. Biking is uncomfortable and unsafe, especially for kids with dubious levels of focus/traffic awareness; the city will slap a strip of paint on the ground and brag about how bike-friendly it is. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
  - ajmurmann 8y ago
    And then ironically it's also worse to drive a car in the US. Where speed limits could be higher without risking anyone else they are still stupid low and many drivers don't know how to zip or even merge or even use their turn signals. It's really the worst for both drivers and pedestrians.
    - TulliusCicero 8y ago
      Haven't seen that very often. Occasionally a highway/freeway has an oddly low speed limit, but most of the times neighborhood streets and arterials are much too fast to be safe for people walking or biking. And whaddya know, there are hardly any people walking or biking around, almost as if...
Nasrudith 8y ago
The most sensible way to play in a street (a very odd sentence), barring officially closed roads is a cul de sac - which is far less objectionable because the traffic is restricted to only those heading to the houses after they slow down for a turn.
- sbov 8y ago
  We live in a cul de sac and it's been great. The kids all come out in the evening and there's 6-10 of them. The one concern with our location is that the connecting road is 35mph, branched off from a 45mph road, plus its downhill. So some people tend to go down that 35mph road at 50mph.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

The context is streets without cars any cars at all though. Even in areas where there's a car occasionally, as kids we watched out for cars, not the other way around. We never assumed a car would brake for us. I'm sure it happens, but from my memories, not even the most reckless kids did that. And we did some shit, let me tell you :D

krylon 8y ago

In Germany, we have "Verkehrsberuhigte Zonen"[0] (Wikipedia says the english term is "living street"), where the speed limit is very low, and drivers are expected to look out for playing children. It works relatively well, at least in residential areas. Usually such streets are built in such a way you cannot go very fast any way. [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsberuhigter_Bereich https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsberuhigter_Bereich / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street

mcv 8y ago
They're called "woonerf" in Netherland. Cars drive at walking pace, and pedestrians, particularly playing kids, always have right of way.
alistairSH 8y ago
The US doesn’t have anything similar, at least not normally. Roads are almost always wider than needed, I assume because it feels safer, but really just makes people drive faster. Any redesign that deprioritizes cars in any way (even if it just appears to do so) is ridiculed and fought against.
- glangdale 8y ago
  Same with Australia. I live on a street that is also needed for emergency vehicles of most kinds as a primary route, so is just that bit wider, and you can see how ordinary motorists respond to this "incentive".
- gnulinux 8y ago
  > Roads are almost always wider than needed Wait until you see Boston. I live in this street in Cambridge, its not quite wide enough for buses so occasionally they cross the lane of the opposite direction, especially if some asshole parked a little off. If this wasn't unsafe enough, there is also an elementary school near this street! In general. Boston streets are very narrow and it makes it hard to drive since (1) you can scratch other cars parking or (2) it's hard to see the direction you're turning to.
  - maccard 8y ago
    > Wait until you see Boston. I live in this street in Cambridge, its not quite wide enough for buses so occasionally they cross the lane of the opposite direction, especially if some asshole parked a little off Have you been to a European city? This is the norm in any city I've driven in. Meanwhile, driving in the US, even in a city normally involved roads which are wide enough for multiple Lanes of traffic each way. It's perfectly safe, it just required drivers to pay attention.
  - dasil003 8y ago
    This is actually beneficial for pedestrian safety because it decreases the perceived safe speed for all sensible drivers, versus putting a 25mph speed limit on a wide boulevard where everyone drives 40mph.
    - gnulinux 8y ago
      Haha you're underestimating Boston drivers. Out of all the places I lived in my life (SF, Berlin, Paris) drivers in Boston drive by far the fastest. Streets being narrow doesn't make people drive slower, instead it makes people drive more aggressive which puts stress on drivers, bikers and pedestrians alike.
tudelo 8y ago
6 mph... yeah. About that. People in the US don't really go the speed limit even in a 25mph zone so I don't know how well that will work. The only time I see people generally going the speed limit is in areas with speed tracking cameras.
- zepearl 8y ago
  Same in Switzerland, but if the city/community is really serious about that and there are some long-term plans: don't build slick surfaces but ones made of "bricks" or similar (example: https://www.experiencedbricks.com/images/products/kushequa-bricks.jpg https://www.experiencedbricks.com/images/products/kushequa-b...) which definitely get rid of the "need for speed"-feeling (as the faster you go the more everything vibrates in your car, kind of an analog force-feedback feeling), and additionally build some bumps at strategic locations which force the drivers (like myself) to actively use the brain and pay attention. Works great (kind of a relaxing feeling while slowly driving on the "brick"-surfaces, like a massage), but I admit that it's expensive if not building with a long-term planning in mind. Edit: on the other hand I do absolutely hate such streets/areas that have a low speed limit (20/30 km/h) but have absolute smooth surfaces (I don't "feel" the need to drive slowly). I know, it's stupid, but that's how my brain works...: smooth surface therefore fast, not-smooth surface therefore slow and careful :)
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    Bricks are also a pain for bikes which often don't have huge tires and suspension.
    - zepearl 8y ago
      Right, but we're talking about few millimeters (not centimeters) of difference between bricks, which are not comfy but not too extreme if driving on any bike at ~10km/h => advantages outweigh disatvantages. Bikes being the least problematic opponent group, I would be more worried by skateboard, inline-skate, etc... opposition groups. In Switzerland we solved it (as long as it was implemented by the local community or city) by having very smooth sidewalks (but bikes still have to drive on the street as they're too fast for the sidewalk and have more than enough suspension for the normal street at normal speeds).
darkpuma 8y ago
In America driving at 6 km/h (3.7mph) in a parking lot would induce road rage in other drivers. Trying to make roads with a 6 km/h speed limit would be political suicide for any politician that recommended it.
- jandrese 8y ago
  That's literally a slow walking pace. Kids running would be breaking the speed limit. Bikes would always be breaking the limit. The speedo in my car isn't even accurate at speeds that low.
  - mcv 8y ago
    It's not about a hard speed limit, it's about driving at walking pace. It's not for thoroughfares, it's for cul-de-sacs where people live and children play. No car has any business going fast there. Bikes aren't a problem; they're small and nimble and don't kill people when they hit them.
    - jandrese 8y ago
      Bikes on the road are subject to all of the same laws cars are.
      - mcv 8y ago
        You seem to be intentionally missing the point here. It's about safety for playing children. Cars are a bigger issue than bikes. Especially when the bikes are being used by playing children.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  that's an absurd speed. i literally cannot go that slow in my car without lugging the engine or slipping the clutch the whole way. no thanks.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
TulliusCicero 8y ago
As an American living in Munich now: even regular neighborhood streets are far friendlier to walking and biking (and thus children) in Germany compared to America. They're much narrower, lower speed limits, more nearby cut-throughs and trails and protected bike lanes. Your average US street prioritizes cars to the exclusion of anything else. Walking is pointless, it feels terrible and nothing is within walking distance except maybe a neighborhood park or elementary school. Biking is uncomfortable and unsafe, especially for kids with dubious levels of focus/traffic awareness; the city will slap a strip of paint on the ground and brag about how bike-friendly it is. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
- ajmurmann 8y ago
  And then ironically it's also worse to drive a car in the US. Where speed limits could be higher without risking anyone else they are still stupid low and many drivers don't know how to zip or even merge or even use their turn signals. It's really the worst for both drivers and pedestrians.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    Haven't seen that very often. Occasionally a highway/freeway has an oddly low speed limit, but most of the times neighborhood streets and arterials are much too fast to be safe for people walking or biking. And whaddya know, there are hardly any people walking or biking around, almost as if...

Nasrudith 8y ago

The most sensible way to play in a street (a very odd sentence), barring officially closed roads is a cul de sac - which is far less objectionable because the traffic is restricted to only those heading to the houses after they slow down for a turn.

sbov 8y ago
We live in a cul de sac and it's been great. The kids all come out in the evening and there's 6-10 of them. The one concern with our location is that the connecting road is 35mph, branched off from a 45mph road, plus its downhill. So some people tend to go down that 35mph road at 50mph.