hows your capacity for socially responsible behavior?

[gaijindabe]

Could we pull this off?:

Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results.

Drachten in the Netherlands has gotten rid of 16 of its traffic light crossings and converted the other two to roundabouts.
"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and "father of anarchism" Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

The utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads "Verkeersbordvrij" -- "free of traffic signs." Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

"The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior," says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

[Joeaksa]

Jeez, cannot wait until slopat sees this. Only good part to it is that he might finally find a place he likes more than the states and moves overseas.

[stevepaa]

Might work after a dozen or so fist fights to pursuade the socially irresponsible.

[VaSteve]

We as Americans need more legislation and rules, We are incapable of living our lives without someone telling us what to do.

[Superman]

This is precisely the kind of issue and discussion I find the most hilarious. Let me explain.

Pat and many others are going to think this sounds very good. It represents freedom. But it is highly socialistic. In the system described above, motorists must get along. They must respect the safety and needs of others. They must mesh their behavior in such a way that you don't tread on others' well-being.

It's like this: Socialism as applied to traffic (silly I know, but bear with me for illustrative purposes) would have everyone going the same or very similar speeds. Quite frankly, traffic would move very smoothly.

Capitalism is like what we have now. Guys merging, cutting across the core point to pass the the cars in front of him BEFORE they get onto the freeway (I used the core point yesterday myself, to cut off an ******* doing just this. I could tell he was going to do it, because he thought 1/2 car length was a good following distance at 50 mph). The core point is that triangle that separates traffic from merging traffic.

Guys passing on the right. Guys cruising in the fast lane. Guys pretending they didn't know they should have been in the queue WAY BACK THERE, and merging at the last minute.....thereby plugging up traffic for the rest of us.

You see, fans of capitalism think that greed is good, and that one greedy person who squirts around traffic and gets two hundred yards ahead of everyone else.....raises all boats so to speak.

It's sad so many people still buy into that. Now let's see whether they think greed is also good in traffic planning.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Sure it is - it weeds out the genetically inferior - or at least forces them to ride the bus.

[Icemaster]

Originally posted by Superman
You see, fans of capitalism think that greed is good, and that one greedy person who squirts around traffic and gets two hundred yards ahead of everyone else.....raises all boats so to speak.

Not particularly, it just means that he's ahead of all the other boats.

And all that that implies etc etc etc.

[M.D. Holloway]

or you get hit by an uninsured mexican and then your *****'d...

[ChrisBennet]

Those Danes are innovators when it comes to traffic control.
Where else would you find topless girls holding the speed limit signs to slow down traffic?
Speed bandits (Caution: Nudity)
-Chris

[gaijindabe]

Supe - there is nothing "socialistic" about it. It about giving responsibility back to free thinking and acting people.

"Psychologists have long revealed the senselessness of such exaggerated regulation. About 70 percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers. What's more, the glut of prohibitions is tantamount to treating the driver like a child and it also foments resentment.....

"Unsafe is safe"

The result is that drivers find themselves enclosed by a corset of prescriptions, so that they develop a kind of tunnel vision: They're constantly in search of their own advantage, and their good manners go out the window.

The new traffic model's advocates believe the only way out of this vicious circle is to give drivers more liberty and encourage them to take responsibility for themselves."

[Superman]

It is illegal to pass on the right. It is illegal to cut across the core point. Pretending you didn't know you were supposed to get in the queue......gets you to the head of the line and STOPS everyone else.

These are antisocial behaviors. And they are against the law. And in America, these are precisely the kinds of things we admire. Because they get somebody AHEAD of everyone else. It's as if smooth traffic is not our goal here. Champion-making is our goal.

The reason this experiment works in those localities is beause those people have respect for the needs of others. Their goal is to have a SYSTEM that allows ALL traffic to flow smoothly.

We don't admire or value that at all here.

Again, its very similar to socialism versus capitalism. One system works well for everyone, and the other system works well for a select, super-aggressive few.

And then the bigger question is whether that unbridled greed helps everyone. On public roads, it certainly does NOT.

[tabs]

Well I don't p!ss in public anymore...so I guess thats an improvment..huh?

[lendaddy]

Wrong Sup, in a capitalist traffic system more lanes would be added available at a charge for those wanting a faster commute. This allows those in a hurry to arrive quicker on their own dime and frees up space in the standard lanes making them safer and more efficient for the masses.

In Capitialist Traffic World everyone wins

[lendaddy]

In Socialist Traffic World the Pie(lanes) are stipulated by the state and cannot be expanded to accomodate the wants of the public. The fact that some need to move quickly and some do not is a problem not accounted for, everyone moves at the same speed regardless of ability or need.

In Socialist Traffic World the lowest common denominator prevails.

[Superman]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Wrong Sup, in a capitalist traffic system more lanes would be added available at a charge for those wanting a faster commute. This allows those in a hurry to arrive quicker on their own dime and frees up space in the standard lanes making them safer and more efficient for the masses.

In Capitialist Traffic World everyone wins

Shut up, Len.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman
Shut up, Len.

[hardflex]

I'm convinced that we already have enough roads, we just have to make them move traffic more efficiently to relieve pressure on the Interstates. In my world, hwys should operate at a minimum of 75% of their designed speed.

Here in Texas, if you don't get on the Freeway, you'll be lucky to avg 30mph on wide 4 and 6 lane roads, because of traffic signals. So all the traffic heads for the nearest Freeway, and the access roads on either side get jammed up, and don't move. Then everybody gets on the freeway and it doesn't move.

I've been sitting at signals lately scornful of their inefficiency, as I think a better system would direct traffic like a traffic cop, not by stopping and going on cue. And stop signs are the worst, more than a few cars hit them together and you've seriously cut down on the ability of roads to move cars down the highway.

It's a great experiment, I hope it works. I applaud their thinking outside the BOX, as it were.

[Aerkuld]

I don't hold out much hope Ipswich, all the courteous drivers in England have moved over here.
At least it gives the legislaters in the European Union something to do when they finish arguing over the minimum curvature of a banana, or whether brie can be made anywhere but France, or the standard length of carrotts or whatever bollocks they come up with next.
NO, I'm not joking.
...and you think you have problems!!

[Tervuren]

The stop sign is one of those I could do without, also the full stop for a right turn on red. In my hot looking Yellow Porsche - people EXPECT me to run right through them, and I've nearly been hit on several occaisions when other drivers expected me to just blow through a light or stopsign - the schreaching tires behind me is not a very fun experience. Left foot out, right foot down....

There are lots of times I could comfortable move in with traffic, but coming to a full stop makes it nearly impossible. Especialy with a left and right turn lane next to eachother - I drive a low 944, an explorer in the left turn lane - and I can't see, if as I moved to the right turn lane, and I saw it was clear, I could buzz in - I'd be safe. As is, I have to wait for the explorer to leave, thenI can go. Worst situation like this - guy behind me honked, he was drving a tall car, so I assumed he meant it was clear - it was impatience that I had not gone for when it had been clear... I pulled out, the went diving off the road as there was a car right there...

Speed limits should only be in areas with housing, or heavy stoplights frequency.

[Jeff Higgins]

Supe, you grew up in rural Idaho. I would be willing to bet, based upon my experiences in rural parts of our country, that the behavior you describe is almost entirely non-existant in your home town. It is the norm, however, in urban King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.

So the advocates for more and more socialism take the "not in my house" attitude. In their world, one in which their face dissapears into the crowd of "We", they have nothing compelling them to behave as individuals. Their sense of right and wrong is purely situational; if the authorities didn't catch them, then they got away with it. Totally unencumbered by a consceince in such matters.

On the other hand, the advocates of personal responsibility (for being accountable for one's actions) are the vastly more accomodating of their fellow man. Their faces are unique and they make no attempt to hide them in the crowd. They deal one-on-one with their problems and don't rely on the authority of some faceless "big brother" to define right and wrong. They are not inclined to try to get away with what they can because they can. Personal pride in their sense of right and wrong precludes that.

So, I think I can argue that this cooporative effort does not represent socialism in the least. Socialism relieves the individual of any need to define their own behavior. Socialism has historically caused the individual to fight for any and every advantage; to cheat when the socialist authorities are not looking. No, this is not socialism. Socialism is anonymous. That's what we have now. This approach represents individualism; individual freedom and the accountability that goes with it. Most people, when given free will, do choose the right thing. Socialism takes that responsibility away from them.