6 ms·

If you drive in Sweden you will occasionally come up to a form of speed reduction strategy that may seem counterintuitive. They all add to make driving harder a

by belorn 9mo ago

If you drive in Sweden you will occasionally come up to a form of speed reduction strategy that may seem counterintuitive. They all add to make driving harder and feel more dangerous in order to force attention and lower speed. One is to merge opposite directional roads into a single lane, forcing drivers to cooperate and take turn to pass it, one car at a time. For a combined car and pedestrian road (max speed of 7km/h) near where I live, they intentionally added large obfuscating objects on the road that limited visibility and harder to navigate. This forces drivers to drive very slow, even when alone on the road, as they can't see if a car or person may be behind the next object. In an other road they added several tight S curves in a row, where if you drive anything faster than 20km/h you will fail the turns and drive onto the artificial constructed curbs. In other roads they put a sign in the middle of two way roads while at the same time drastically limiting the width to the curb, forcing drivers to slow down in order to center the car in the lane and squeeze through. In each of those is that a human driver with human fear of crashing will cause drivers to pay extra attention and slow down.

dkarbayev 9mo ago
It's fairly common at least in the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland too. In Switzerland they also place street parking spots on alternating sides on narrow streets, which also makes you more attentive and lower your speed.
tombert 9mo ago
I've heard that that is why roundabouts are safer than their alternatives: counterintuitively, they're safer because they're less safe, forcing the user to pay more attention as a result.
- reddalo 9mo ago
  >they're safer because they're less safe Roundabouts are safer. They're safer because they prevent everybody from speeding through the intersection. And, even in case of an accident, no head-on collisions happen in a roundabout.
  - mikepurvis 9mo ago
    They're safer specifically for vehicles, as they convert many conflicts that would be t-bones (worst for passengers) into getting rear-ended (maximum crumple zone on both vehicles). Roundabouts are worse for land use though, which impacts walkability, and the safety story for pedestrians and bike users with them is decidedly not great as well.
    - Twirrim 9mo ago
      >Roundabouts are worse for land use though, which impacts walkability, and the safety story for pedestrians and bike users with them is decidedly not great as well. They're much safer for pedestrians than intersections. You're only crossing and dealing with traffic coming from one direction, stopping at a median, and then crossing further over. Unlike trying to navigate a crosswalk where you have to play guessing games as to which direction some vehicle is going to come at you from while ignoring the lights (people do the stupidest things, and roundabouts are a physical barrier that prevents a bunch of that)
      - kortilla 9mo ago
        >from one direction, stopping at a median, and then crossing further over. This assumes a median, which is not present at most smaller roundabouts in the US.
      - mikepurvis 9mo ago
        In Waterloo Region I used to cycle through multiple intersections that were "upgraded" some years ago from conventional stoplights to roundabouts and imo it was a huge downgrade to my sense of safety. I went from having a clear right of way (hand signal, cross in the crosswalk) to feeling completely invisible to cars, essentially dashing across the road in the gaps in traffic as if I was jaywalking. I could handle it as an adult just walking my bike but it would be a nightmare for someone pushing a stroller or dependent on a mobility device.
        tgsovlerkhgsel 9mo ago
- darepublic 9mo ago
  Same with driving in the winter. Anecdotally I always observe more accidents when the roads are clear.
- ndr42 9mo ago
  One-lane-roundabouts are very safe. I lived in Hannover (Germany) in the 80s and 90s, they had 2 or 3 lanes in the roundabouts. There were large signs that counted the accidents (200+/year) to raise awareness and during the trade fairs (anybody remembers Cebit?) the number of accidents peaked. Today they are all a lot safer because of a lot of traffic lights.
- supernova87a 9mo ago
  I thought that the idea of roundabouts was that they lead to slightly more accidents than before, but they are of much lower severity than before (the 90 degree intersections they replace).
Noumenon72 9mo ago
It's a runaway process of prioritizing safety over convenience -- and it's wrecking their road base just before self-driving cars would allow them to have both.
- causalscience 9mo ago
  If they're actually self-driving they should be able to drive around the obstacles just as well or better than human.
- stouset 9mo ago
  Gosh, no, the self-driving cars will be forced to drive at safe speeds in pedestrian corridors as opposed to voluntarily driving at safe speeds in pedestrian corridors. How awful.
- pastel8739 9mo ago
  > prioritizing safety over convenience this sounds like exactly the right tradeoff, especially since these decisions actually increase convenience for those not in cars
  - Dylan16807 9mo ago
    Of course it sound right, because you cut off the word "runaway". It is possible to go too far in either direction.
    - Mawr 9mo ago
      It is, but it's laughable to suggest it's happening anywhere. Our world is dominated by cars. You likely can't see it precisely because it's so normalized.
    - pastel8739 9mo ago
      When the “safety” bit is “avoiding killing people”, I’m not actually totally convinced that it is possible to go too far.
Habgdnv 9mo ago
In Bulgaria we have a similar speed reduction strategy but we are a bit ahead of Sweden: We use medium-radius but very deep potholes. If you lose attention for even a split second, you are forced to a full stop to change a tire. Near schools it gets more "advanced": they put parked cars on both sides of the road, and the holes positioned so you can't bypass them. For example, two tire-sized holes on both sides of the road right next to the parked cars. You have to come to a complete stop, then slowly descend into the hole with the front wheels, climb back out, and repeat the process for the rear wheels. Occasionally, even though we (technically) have sidewalks, they are covered in mud or grass or bushes, so pedestrians are forced to walk in the middle of the road. This further reduces driving speed to walking pace and increases safety in our cities. Road markings are missing almost everywhere and they put contradicting road signs so drivers are not only forced to cooperate but also to read each other minds.
- throwaway7783 9mo ago
  Same in India! We go one better, we let people drive in the opposite lane as well!
- hnlmorg 9mo ago
  That’s genius but one has to ask: how much does it cost to maintain these speed restricting features? In the UK, the cost of owning a car is high yet our potholes, while frequent, are small enough to survive. Thus being more of an annoyance rather than a speed restriction.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lozenge 9mo ago
    That's the best part, the holes maintain themselves. Heck, they even appear without a site survey or paperwork.
mattlondon 9mo ago
Does it actually work though? Many roads in London have parked cars on either side so only one can get through - instead of people cooperating you have people fighting, speeding as fast as they can to get through before someone else appears, or race on-coming cars to a gap in the parked cars etc. So when they should be doing 30mph, they are more likely doing 40-45. Especially with EVs you have near-instant power to quickly accelerate to get to a gap first etc. And putting obstacles in the road so you cant see if someone is there? That sounds really dangerous and exactly the sort of thing that caused the accident in the story here. Madness.
- lmm 9mo ago
  > Does it actually work though? Yes. They have made steady progress over the previous decades to the point where they can now have years with zero road fatalities. > And putting obstacles in the road so you cant see if someone is there? That sounds really dangerous and exactly the sort of thing that caused the accident in the story here. Counterintuitive perhaps, but it's what works. Humans adjust their behaviour to the level of perceived risk, the single most important thing is to make driving feel as dangerous as it is.
  - mattlondon 9mo ago
    I think the humans in London at least do not adjust their behaviour for the perceived risk! From experience they will adjust their behaviour to reduce their total travel time as much as possible (i.e. speed to "make up" for lost time waiting etc) and/or "win" against other drivers. I guess it is a cultural thing. But I cannot agree that making it harder to see people in the road is going to make anything safer. Even a robot fucking taxi with lidar and instant reaction times hit a kid because they were obscured by something.
    - lmm 9mo ago
      > I think the humans in London at least do not adjust their behaviour for the perceived risk! The evidence is that they do though. E.g. the Exhibition Road remodelling (removing curbs/signs/etc.) has been a great success and effectively reduced vehicle speeds, e.g. https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Pedestrian%20Behaviour%20Study%20April%202018.pdf https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/...
jasonfarnon 9mo ago
why not just put in speedbumps if all you're trying to do is slow people down? Are you sure this was the purpose of these designs? sounds a little too freakonomics to me.
- pfg_ 9mo ago
  Speed bumps suck for both the driver and passangers of the car and generate road noise.
  - jononor 9mo ago
    They also are rather expensive to maintain, because the leading ledge gets many repeated stresses. And in nordic climates like Sweden there is a snow plow in the winter to remove snow - those occasionally snag on the speed bump - which tends to chip of big chunk, triggering rapid wear.
expressadmin 9mo ago
I recently visited a friend that lives in Sweden (couple hours south of Stockholm). Something he said while I visited stuck with me: "Sweden hates cars." There must be a happy medium somewhere in between.
- TulliusCicero 9mo ago
  It's true, Sweden isn't quite bike and pedestrian friendly enough yet, but they'll get that balance someday!
- belorn 9mo ago
  I would say it depend on where you are. City driving is generally not a great experience and its not that uncommon to see a speed bump before almost every crossing, to the point where you get surprised if there isn't one. That said, as long you don't leave the designated main roads that goes through the city areas it is not that bad. They do demand a lot of attention. Street parking has mostly been turned into exclusive residential parking, so parking houses are often the only choice. As a result they are quite expensive, and you got to walk to the destination. Parking and access is much better in the country side, and the highways are fairly good and similar to those found in the west Europe. It not as straight or wide as authobahn, but not as much traffic either.
  - TulliusCicero 9mo ago
    Major cities in the world where driving there is fun: *
- Mawr 9mo ago
  > There must be a happy medium somewhere in between. """ - Gavin, you know our shameful history of worker suicides. Since the renovation? Not a single one. - Not even one? Ok. But there's gotta be like, a middle ground here... """ (https://youtu.be/EyyIrpf68SM?t=57 https://youtu.be/EyyIrpf68SM?t=57)
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

by belorn 9mo ago

dkarbayev 9mo ago

It's fairly common at least in the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland too. In Switzerland they also place street parking spots on alternating sides on narrow streets, which also makes you more attentive and lower your speed.

tombert 9mo ago

I've heard that that is why roundabouts are safer than their alternatives: counterintuitively, they're safer because they're less safe, forcing the user to pay more attention as a result.

reddalo 9mo ago
>they're safer because they're less safe Roundabouts are safer. They're safer because they prevent everybody from speeding through the intersection. And, even in case of an accident, no head-on collisions happen in a roundabout.
- mikepurvis 9mo ago
  They're safer specifically for vehicles, as they convert many conflicts that would be t-bones (worst for passengers) into getting rear-ended (maximum crumple zone on both vehicles). Roundabouts are worse for land use though, which impacts walkability, and the safety story for pedestrians and bike users with them is decidedly not great as well.
  - Twirrim 9mo ago
    >Roundabouts are worse for land use though, which impacts walkability, and the safety story for pedestrians and bike users with them is decidedly not great as well. They're much safer for pedestrians than intersections. You're only crossing and dealing with traffic coming from one direction, stopping at a median, and then crossing further over. Unlike trying to navigate a crosswalk where you have to play guessing games as to which direction some vehicle is going to come at you from while ignoring the lights (people do the stupidest things, and roundabouts are a physical barrier that prevents a bunch of that)
    - kortilla 9mo ago
      >from one direction, stopping at a median, and then crossing further over. This assumes a median, which is not present at most smaller roundabouts in the US.
    - mikepurvis 9mo ago
      In Waterloo Region I used to cycle through multiple intersections that were "upgraded" some years ago from conventional stoplights to roundabouts and imo it was a huge downgrade to my sense of safety. I went from having a clear right of way (hand signal, cross in the crosswalk) to feeling completely invisible to cars, essentially dashing across the road in the gaps in traffic as if I was jaywalking. I could handle it as an adult just walking my bike but it would be a nightmare for someone pushing a stroller or dependent on a mobility device.
      - tgsovlerkhgsel 9mo ago
darepublic 9mo ago
Same with driving in the winter. Anecdotally I always observe more accidents when the roads are clear.
ndr42 9mo ago
One-lane-roundabouts are very safe. I lived in Hannover (Germany) in the 80s and 90s, they had 2 or 3 lanes in the roundabouts. There were large signs that counted the accidents (200+/year) to raise awareness and during the trade fairs (anybody remembers Cebit?) the number of accidents peaked. Today they are all a lot safer because of a lot of traffic lights.
supernova87a 9mo ago
I thought that the idea of roundabouts was that they lead to slightly more accidents than before, but they are of much lower severity than before (the 90 degree intersections they replace).

Noumenon72 9mo ago

It's a runaway process of prioritizing safety over convenience -- and it's wrecking their road base just before self-driving cars would allow them to have both.

causalscience 9mo ago
If they're actually self-driving they should be able to drive around the obstacles just as well or better than human.
stouset 9mo ago
Gosh, no, the self-driving cars will be forced to drive at safe speeds in pedestrian corridors as opposed to voluntarily driving at safe speeds in pedestrian corridors. How awful.
pastel8739 9mo ago
> prioritizing safety over convenience this sounds like exactly the right tradeoff, especially since these decisions actually increase convenience for those not in cars
- Dylan16807 9mo ago
  Of course it sound right, because you cut off the word "runaway". It is possible to go too far in either direction.
  - Mawr 9mo ago
    It is, but it's laughable to suggest it's happening anywhere. Our world is dominated by cars. You likely can't see it precisely because it's so normalized.
  - pastel8739 9mo ago
    When the “safety” bit is “avoiding killing people”, I’m not actually totally convinced that it is possible to go too far.

Habgdnv 9mo ago

In Bulgaria we have a similar speed reduction strategy but we are a bit ahead of Sweden: We use medium-radius but very deep potholes. If you lose attention for even a split second, you are forced to a full stop to change a tire. Near schools it gets more "advanced": they put parked cars on both sides of the road, and the holes positioned so you can't bypass them. For example, two tire-sized holes on both sides of the road right next to the parked cars. You have to come to a complete stop, then slowly descend into the hole with the front wheels, climb back out, and repeat the process for the rear wheels. Occasionally, even though we (technically) have sidewalks, they are covered in mud or grass or bushes, so pedestrians are forced to walk in the middle of the road. This further reduces driving speed to walking pace and increases safety in our cities. Road markings are missing almost everywhere and they put contradicting road signs so drivers are not only forced to cooperate but also to read each other minds.

throwaway7783 9mo ago
Same in India! We go one better, we let people drive in the opposite lane as well!
hnlmorg 9mo ago
That’s genius but one has to ask: how much does it cost to maintain these speed restricting features? In the UK, the cost of owning a car is high yet our potholes, while frequent, are small enough to survive. Thus being more of an annoyance rather than a speed restriction.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- lozenge 9mo ago
  That's the best part, the holes maintain themselves. Heck, they even appear without a site survey or paperwork.

mattlondon 9mo ago

Does it actually work though? Many roads in London have parked cars on either side so only one can get through - instead of people cooperating you have people fighting, speeding as fast as they can to get through before someone else appears, or race on-coming cars to a gap in the parked cars etc. So when they should be doing 30mph, they are more likely doing 40-45. Especially with EVs you have near-instant power to quickly accelerate to get to a gap first etc. And putting obstacles in the road so you cant see if someone is there? That sounds really dangerous and exactly the sort of thing that caused the accident in the story here. Madness.

lmm 9mo ago
> Does it actually work though? Yes. They have made steady progress over the previous decades to the point where they can now have years with zero road fatalities. > And putting obstacles in the road so you cant see if someone is there? That sounds really dangerous and exactly the sort of thing that caused the accident in the story here. Counterintuitive perhaps, but it's what works. Humans adjust their behaviour to the level of perceived risk, the single most important thing is to make driving feel as dangerous as it is.
- mattlondon 9mo ago
  I think the humans in London at least do not adjust their behaviour for the perceived risk! From experience they will adjust their behaviour to reduce their total travel time as much as possible (i.e. speed to "make up" for lost time waiting etc) and/or "win" against other drivers. I guess it is a cultural thing. But I cannot agree that making it harder to see people in the road is going to make anything safer. Even a robot fucking taxi with lidar and instant reaction times hit a kid because they were obscured by something.
  - lmm 9mo ago
    > I think the humans in London at least do not adjust their behaviour for the perceived risk! The evidence is that they do though. E.g. the Exhibition Road remodelling (removing curbs/signs/etc.) has been a great success and effectively reduced vehicle speeds, e.g. https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/Pedestrian%20Behaviour%20Study%20April%202018.pdf https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/...

jasonfarnon 9mo ago

why not just put in speedbumps if all you're trying to do is slow people down? Are you sure this was the purpose of these designs? sounds a little too freakonomics to me.

pfg_ 9mo ago
Speed bumps suck for both the driver and passangers of the car and generate road noise.
- jononor 9mo ago
  They also are rather expensive to maintain, because the leading ledge gets many repeated stresses. And in nordic climates like Sweden there is a snow plow in the winter to remove snow - those occasionally snag on the speed bump - which tends to chip of big chunk, triggering rapid wear.

expressadmin 9mo ago

I recently visited a friend that lives in Sweden (couple hours south of Stockholm). Something he said while I visited stuck with me: "Sweden hates cars." There must be a happy medium somewhere in between.

TulliusCicero 9mo ago
It's true, Sweden isn't quite bike and pedestrian friendly enough yet, but they'll get that balance someday!
belorn 9mo ago
I would say it depend on where you are. City driving is generally not a great experience and its not that uncommon to see a speed bump before almost every crossing, to the point where you get surprised if there isn't one. That said, as long you don't leave the designated main roads that goes through the city areas it is not that bad. They do demand a lot of attention. Street parking has mostly been turned into exclusive residential parking, so parking houses are often the only choice. As a result they are quite expensive, and you got to walk to the destination. Parking and access is much better in the country side, and the highways are fairly good and similar to those found in the west Europe. It not as straight or wide as authobahn, but not as much traffic either.
- TulliusCicero 9mo ago
  Major cities in the world where driving there is fun: *
Mawr 9mo ago
> There must be a happy medium somewhere in between. """ - Gavin, you know our shameful history of worker suicides. Since the renovation? Not a single one. - Not even one? Ok. But there's gotta be like, a middle ground here... """ (https://youtu.be/EyyIrpf68SM?t=57 https://youtu.be/EyyIrpf68SM?t=57)

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]