CONTACTTRAFFICABOUT TOM VANDERBILTOTHER WRITING CONTACT ABOUT THE BOOK

Archive for December, 2008

Manchester Rejects Congestion Charging

Voters in Manchester, the city that invented commuter rail travel, has rejected congestion charging, in essence saying no to nearly three billion pounds in government investment for public transport that would have been theirs had they said yes.

The cost they deemed too high, by the way, for earning that three billion quid and turning the city into a capital of first-class public transport, was as follows:

“Drivers will pay £2 for crossing the outer ring in the morning, and a further £1 for crossing the inner ring.

Outward peak-time journeys will cost £1 for passing the inner ring and £1 for passing the outer ring.”

Penny-wise, pound foolish?

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Friday, December 12th, 2008 at 2:52 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
3 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

It’s the Economy

MSNBC reports: “Federal safety officials said auto fatalities dropped almost 10 percent in 2008 through October. If the trend holds for the last two months of the year, highway deaths could reach their lowest level in the 42 years that records have been kept in the United States.”

The (outgoing) secretary notes: “For the second year in a row we are seeing historic lows in deaths on our nation’s roads,” Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a statement. “Every American can be more confident than ever they will arrive at their destination safe and sound.”

While I’m sure the feds would like to take credit for this — though I’m not quite sure what bold new traffic safety initiatives they’ve recently rolled out — as much as I’d like to think it was the publication of Traffic, the more obvious candidate is the drop in VMT, fueled first by high gas prices and now by having no money to spend on lower-priced gas. For example, Better Roads, writing about the reduction in driving in the month of June, “the 12.2 billion drop in VMT is the largest decline since FHWA began keeping records in 1942.”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Friday, December 12th, 2008 at 8:53 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
1 Comment. Click here to leave a comment.

Safer Cycling (and Driving ) in Portland

Over at BikePortland, there were some interesting numbers from the PDOT:

“In 2008, there were 140 “traffic injuries” to individuals on bicycles. That’s down from 196 in 2007 and it’s the lowest number since the survey was taken in 1999. The same goes for pedestrian injuries; there were 123 in 2008, down from 191 in 2007. There was also a major drop in the amount of individuals injured while operating an automobile; the survey reports 4,428 injured, compared to 5,429 in 2007.”

This reduction in bicycle fatalities has happened as Portland’s cycling share has increased. This raises all sorts of questions about the dynamics (e.g., safety in numbers, improved facilities bringing more people out), but I was also curious that the number of automobile injuries has also gone down. This could of course be related to the economy (fewer miles being driven), or even a slight reduction in drivers who have shifted to cycles, but I wonder if in some ways the increased presence of bicycles — and perhaps things like roads being narrowed to accommodate lanes — could itself being acting a sort of widespread traffic calming device?

Curious for any thoughts from Portland…

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Thursday, December 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
2 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Go Round Twice If You’re Happy

Grab a moment or two of simple pleasure from this video (before it gets turned into a VW ad). It proves one of my maxims: People obey the signs they want to obey.

Back story is here.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Thursday, December 11th, 2008 at 3:02 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
No Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

On Drunk Driving Deaths

Clyde Haberman raises a good point in today’s New York Times: Why does Plaxico Burress potentially face years for illegally possessing a dangerous weapon (even if chances are slim he’d do that time), while Staten Island Congressman Vito Fossella got just a few days for illegally driving a dangerous weapon?

He writes: “But cars kill, too, especially when a drunk is at the wheel. About 13,000 Americans are killed every year by what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration calls “alcohol-impaired drivers.”

The second sentence raises a point that may seem semantic but is, I think, important. The majority of people who die in alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. do so in what are known as single-vehicle crashes. So it seems imprecise to say they are “killed by” an impaired driver, when they are in fact the driver. A number of these fatalities will, of course, be passengers; strictly speaking, they are victims (although often complicit) of a drunk driver. But even so we can hardly conclude that 13,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers, unless we imagine the impaired driver as a kind of separate self. But this phrase crops up all the time in the news.

My problem with this usage, apart from its strict factual and semantic inaccuracy, is that it subtly shifts the risks that impaired driving brings away from the individual, and onto some unknown “other” driver, which may in its own way contribute to the behavior. This is not to say that drunk drivers do not exact a huge and terrible toll on people in other vehicles (and outside of the vehicle). But, statistically speaking, the greatest risk drunk driving poses is to the actual driver himself (and any passengers). It may sound more dramatic to imply that there were 13,000 sober people in traffic who were killed by drunk drivers, but it doesn’t really help get us any closer to the root of the problem — the driver with the key in his hand, his own greatest risk.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008 at 8:59 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
3 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Crosswalk Psychology II

xwalk5.gif

The earlier poll I mentioned over at Cognitive Daily has concluded, and the results are in.

As Dave Munger writes, vis a vis the above chart: “Overall, the chances of stopping varied a lot from situation to situation. Was there a marked crosswalk? Did the pedestrian appear to be looking at the car? Was she on the left or the right?”

The results seem to conform to what I’ve seen in pedestrian/crosswalk studies — i.e., that drivers are more likely to stop for a marked crosswalk, when the pedestrian is on their side of the road, and when they’re actually in the street, as opposed to standing on the curb. Signalling intention, in short, is a good way to gain right of way; whether the pedestrian was looking at traffic or not looking, interestingly, didn’t seem to tilt strongly either way.

Munger also notes: “One more thing: I’m not sure if the responses to this study truly reflect real-world behavior. Nora and I took the photos for this study on a road where the speed limit was 35. There was quite a bit of traffic, and so we spent a long time standing on the roadside waiting for traffic to clear. Not one driver stopped for Nora.” In other words, the poll respondents’ willingness to stop did not conform to the actual willingness of drivers to stop, which reveals one of the inherent weaknesses of self-reported data in traffic psychology.

For an interesting take on how pedestrians and drivers behave in crosswalks, and their understanding of the actual law (generally less than you might think), see “What They Don’t Know Can Kill Them“, by Meghan Fehlig Mitman, UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center, and David R. Ragland, UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center.

The key takeaway: “Results confirm that a substantial level of confusion exists with respect to pedestrian right-of-way laws. This confusion was exacerbated by intersections which had unstriped, or unmarked, crosswalks.”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Saturday, December 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
5 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Risk Roundup

There were three tidbits that caught my eye in the IIHS’ latest Status Report.

In a piece about car-deer crashes:

“Most of the crash deaths occurred after a motor vehicle had struck an animal and then run off the road or a motorcyclist had fallen off a bike. Many of these deaths wouldn’t have occurred with appropriate protection. The study found that 60 percent of the people who were killed while riding in vehicles weren’t using safety belts, and 65 percent of those killed on motorcycles weren’t wearing helmets.”

In a piece about new school bus safety initiatives:

“During the past 8 years, an average of 148 people have died each year in crashes involving school buses. Only 6 of the people who died were passengers on the buses, and 5 were bus drivers. Of the remaining deaths, 106 were occupants of vehicles that collided with school buses, 26 were pedestrians, and 4 were bicyclists (1 death was unknown).”

And in a piece about motorcycle fatalities:

“Motorcyclist deaths have more than doubled since 1997, reaching a record 12 percent of the 41,059 motor vehicle crash deaths in 2007. More motorcyclists died in crashes during 2007 than in any year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began collecting data in 1975 in what’s now the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). In contrast, fewer passenger vehicle occupants (28,896) died in crashes in 2007 than in any year since FARS began. The motor vehicle death toll in 2007 was the lowest in 13 years.The rise in motorcyclist deaths continues to be pronounced among riders 40 and older (see Status Report, Nov. 21, 2006; on the web at iihs.org). During 2007, 49 percent of motorcyclists killed were 40 and older, up from 40 percent in 2000 and 14 percent in 1990.”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Friday, December 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
1 Comment. Click here to leave a comment.

Spare the Tree, Cut Down the Litigation

Jermain Avenue Black Oak

A reader recently alerted me to yet another “trees and traffic” saga, this time in Sag Harbor, NY. Briefly, a 100-year-old black oak, beloved by neighborhood residents, was cut down after being struck by drivers in two separate incidents (one involving a rollover).

Now, it turns out the tree’s core had rotted, but what’s important here is that before this was even known, the ax was coming — because the tree, which had lasted virtually the entire history of automobile-dom, was viewed as a traffic hazard. Being generally of the mind that traffic is the hazard, I always view these claims with suspicion. This was a street marked for 25 mph. Assuming you were driving the proper speed and paying attention, how do you a.) strike something as large and obvious as a tree and b.) roll over your vehicle? (Any crash reconstructionists reading? I beg for elucidation). Trying to eliminate every potential physical hazard from the landscape to cater to some vision of crash-free driving forgets that the greatest source of risk comes from the driver himself.

Which is not to say nothing should have or could have been done; town officials claimed that a “bulb-out” or some other measure meant to wrap the road around the tree would cause the road to be too “narrow.” Too narrow according to some blanket set of prescriptions that take no heed of things like local character — and for what it’s worth, I’ve yet to see a road in the U.S. that could be described as “too narrow.” Narrow roads, moreover, are good for neighborhoods. The sad truth is the town was, perhaps rightly, more worried about litigation. And so yet another distinctive bit of the landscape was meant to be sacrificed to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, with greater safety — unless, that is, another driver weaves across the road into your path. Do you then eliminate the other lane of traffic?

The Sag Harbor Express had this to say:

“What unnerves us about this situation specifically is there appears to be a willingness on the village’s behalf to remove this tree not because it is dying, but because it appears to be a hazard due to its location in the roadway. We understand it is the village’s responsibility to protect its residents from facing untold amounts of liability as well as hazardous conditions, we are not convinced every avenue has been explored in this scenario.

We encourage the village to look at ways to keep this oak, if it is in fact a viable tree, through planning or engineering as is often done in communities committed to historic street trees that often, in their quirky way, stick out into roadways that were designed around them in the first place.

In a time where we are seeking to protect the character of our community with every tool we have, we would like to see the same initiative used on behalf of village officials in this case.

We do live in a litigious society, as Sag Harbor officials well know, dealing with a number of lawsuits over the last decade brought by people who did not have the foresight to watch their own step. We bemoan the fact that people across the country do not seem able to take responsibility for their own actions any more, rather placing the blame on someone else’s shoulders for their own errors. However, we would hate to see the village allow itself to be victimized by these very people and begin what we see as allowing that fear of litigation, in part, dictate what we deem worthy of protection.”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Friday, December 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
5 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

‘Hands Free’ Is Not Brain Free

I’m slow to post on this, but I’ve finally gotten around to reading a new cell-phone driving study from the indefatigable David Strayer and colleagues from the University of Utah’s Applied Cognition Laboratory, via The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.

With all the usual caveats (a small sample of student-aged drivers in a simulated driving environment), this study is of particular interest for addressing a question one often hears: How is talking on a phone while driving any different than talking to a passenger?

Among other things, test drivers were asked to exit a highway at a rest stop area under different conditions — while on the phone, while a passenger was present, etc. The researchers found that “drivers in the cell phone condition were four times more likely to fail task completion than drivers in the passenger condition.” (these were the socially sanctioned, but arguably no less distracting, ‘hands free’ phones, by the way).

Why?

They write: “On the strategic level of performance, cell phone drivers performed poorly at the navigation task. Two nonmutually exclusive explanations can be provided for this deficit: First, drivers conversing on a cell phone may experience problems with keeping the intention of exiting at the rest area in working memory, or second, drivers may not sufficiently process information from the driving environment (exit signs). Some support for the latter hypothesis comes from studies demonstrating inattention blindness in cell phone drivers (Strayer et al., 2003).”

What’s particularly interesting here is the way the conversation also changed with the cell-phone. Drivers made fewer references to traffic on the cell phone (because the person on the other end isn’t sharing the experience, or presumably interested in sharing it), and what’s more, actually started to speed up their conversation, even as it grew less multi-syllabic: “Also, quite surprisingly drivers conversing on the cell phone increased their production rate when talking on the cell phone, which is contrary to the predictions of the modulation hypothesis. More interesting, this happened even as those drivers in the passenger condition tended to reduce their production rate.”

The speech was getting simpler, in other words, even as it grew faster.

Drivers on cell phones, the author speculated, “may have attempted to dominate the conversation to avoid having to engage in speech comprehension, whereas with in-vehicle partners, it may be easier to relinquish control, given that the partner can be relied on to accommodate with his or her contributions.” (I’ve overheard quite a few cell-phone conversations where it seemed the caller was trying to dominate the conversation).

As study co-author Frank Drews told the Salt Lake City Tribune:

“It’s crazy. They talk faster. It’s quite counterproductive for driving safely,” Drews said. “There is an obviously malevolent influence.”

And, of course, it depends on who the passenger is: “For example a passenger who is too ‘supportive’ by constantly commenting and directing attention in an overcontrolling fashion has a potentially negative impact on performance.” (what I call the ‘Hyacinth Bucket syndrome’).

See the video here.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
5 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Crosswalk Psychology

Cognitive Daily is running (until today) an interesting poll that shows a variety of situations with pedestrians in or near the crosswalks, and asks the user in which conditions they would be likely to stop. This picks up on a theme of a number of previous applied psychology experiments, which I described in the book, that reveal how we tend to comply with traffic laws rather situationally — rather than obeying them whole-cloth, in any condition (researchers have, for example, tested people who appeared to be blind, with a white cane, versus others, and found higher yielding rates; similar studies have been done with eye-contact, gender, among other variables).

Give it a try.

[p.s.: If that street is really marked for 45 mph, that's really high for a residential area with pedestrians].

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 8:44 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
1 Comment. Click here to leave a comment.

How Soon Before It Goes Up Again?

Georgia town drops “fuel surcharge” for speeding tickets. Story here.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
1 Comment. Click here to leave a comment.

Stunning

I really do feel for the police some days:

“Police in Santa Ana, Calif., say they were forced to use a stun gun on a naked male driver after he allegedly refused to put his hands up after a crash…

…Aguirre was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving. Coleman offered no reason why the man was naked, but told the Register Aguirre’s movements were likely an attempt to locate his clothes.”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
No Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Shared Space 101: Ashford Video

Following up on the earlier post, here’s a short film produced by Kent County Council about the project in Ashford, the largest U.K. shared space scheme to date.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
2 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

ESPN on MPG

“And although being in a heavy SUV might make the driver feel safer, the reality is the opposite. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety continues to find that you are more likely to die in an SUV than in a regular car. In its most recent study, “very large” SUVs had a higher occupant death rate than midsized cars — that is, trading in your large SUV for a regular-size car makes you less likely to die. The IIHS also finds that econobox-sized cars are death traps in crashes, so don’t switch to a tiny car to save fuel, switch to a midsized vehicle with a middling-horsepower engine. Here are the most recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration figures on fatality rates by vehicle class. They show that people in “light trucks,” the class that enfolds SUVs and most pickup trucks, are roughly one-third more likely to die per mile traveled than people in regular-size cars. It was quite cynical for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to tell consumers that SUVs will make them feel safe when statistics show that buying an SUV makes the driver more likely to die.”

That’s from Gregg Easterbrook, via ESPN of all places. We do have to consider who’s driving those vehicles, of course; younger drivers tend to drive “econo-boxes,” so that tilts the fatality numbers upwards, etc. But the entire post, which is on fuel economy. is worth reading.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 8:50 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
3 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

“Not-Holes”

Fake Potholes 3

John over at Nudge was asking about these fake potholes, which bring up comparisons to the “Philadelphia Experiment,” i.e., the ersatz speed bumps in the City of Non-Brotherly Driving.

These are indeed fake, and evidently come from Mumbai, according to this website.

“However, the stickers are not used as speed limiting devices as claimed in the message. The text painted on the roadway a few meters ahead of each pothole sticker show their real purpose. In reality, they were used as part of an advertisement for Pioneer Suspension, a vehicle suspension supplier. The ad was intended to suggest to drivers that, with Pioneer Suspension fitted to their vehicles, they would enjoy a smooth ride even on rough roads. Information about the ad published on the Ads of The World website…

…According to Ads of the World, the ad was created by Advertising Agency, Y&R Everest, Mumbai, India in 2007. It is unclear under what conditions or circumstances the advertising tactic was carried out. As many commentators have noted, unless the tactic was used in very controlled conditions, such fake potholes could actually be quite dangerous. Approaching drivers could swerve suddenly to avoid the “pothole” and serious accidents could result.

….A similar tactic was used in an ad for Ford Ranger in 2006. Ads of the World notes:

The project’s purpose was to allow drivers to experience the Ford pickup’s attribute of softness on hostile surfaces. In order to achieve this, several floor graphics were imprinted with cracks, snow and/or mud in various city streets. Next to them, a road signal that read “This is how it feels, Ford Ranger” was placed. Drivers drove through a difficult road without feeling it; situation that led them to experience the unique softness of riding in a Ford pickup. The floor graphics were placed in lateral streets and parking areas with speed limits that didn’t exceed 10 kilometers per hour, with the objective of looking out for the driver’s safety.

…Such tactics might be quite effective as advertising mechanisms. However, given their potential to cause accidents, it seems doubtful that any jurisdiction would use such potholes stickers as speed limiting devices on busy roadways.”

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
5 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Quieting the Ring Road: Shared Space Hits it Big in Ashford

That's a two-way street, mind you

One of the most ambitious “shared space” projects to date, and one that bears careful study, has been unveiled in the English city of Ashford. In a striking departure from what we normally associate with the concept of “road improvements,” the county council has spent some 13 million pounds to “break up” the old one-way, high-speed ring road circling (and strangling, some say) the city and convert it into a series of two-way, narrower, slower (20 mph) “quality streets” — largely free of aesthetically displeasing and typically ignored traffic signage.

As the after (above) and before (below) photos show, the changes are meant to improve pedestrian access to the town center, which had been curtailed by the old “concrete collar,” as one politician dubbed the ring road. New road treatments have been put in, the sidewalks (or pavements, as the English say) have been widened (they are now wider than the actual roads), and typical traffic infrastructure, from the humblest sign to the brightest traffic signals have been removed. As the county’s website puts it, the “shared space” project (whose consultants include Ben Hamilton-Baillie, who appears in Traffic), “seeks to change the ‘mental maps’ that drivers create and alert them to a different environment in which pedestrians and cyclists have equal priority. The keys to this are low speeds, a narrow carriageway and the removal of the typical visual clues for drivers, such as information signs and pedestrian guard railing.”

The press, rather than talk about, say, how the project might make the town a more livable place, has focused on one aspect: The provocative stance towards traffic interactions on the new road. The Times wrote: “Drivers no longer have the right of way on the ring road in Ashford, Kent, and have to negotiate their way across junctions, with no signs or lines to guide them. All road users, whether travelling on foot, by bicycle, car or bus, have equal priority and must use eye contact to decide who goes first.” This is the same sort of thing that has been successfully deployed everywhere from London to Sweden, and happens in more informal environments like parking lots, but still elicits an inherent suspicion, as we seem to treat drivers as a group as a class beyond behavioral change, beyond the capability of reacting to shifting hazards, beyond the ability to act civilized. The paper quotes Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA: “Those streets will be reverting to the law of the jungle. There will be road rage, collisions and chaos because no one knows who has priority.”

To which I might only say that road rage, collisions, and chaos, in my experience, occur as much, if not more, on the roads in which the priority — and everything else, including the majority of space — quite clearly belong to cars (my nearby Brooklyn example is Atlantic Avenue, a perennially promising street calling out for a renaissance but which reminds chronically hampered by a vast gulf of routinely speeding traffic down its six lanes; crashes, involving both vehicles and pedestrians, are frequent). The high incidence of pedestrians struck (with the right of way) by cars turning on “their” green light is proof enough that signals themselves only go so far and may in fact heighten danger. Of course, the issue goes far beyond design: Beginning with more thorough education for drivers and ending with much stiffer penalties for violating fundamental traffic laws.

I hope to make it to Ashford to see some of this first-hand, but in the meantime, there’s loads of information at the Kent County Council’s site. Also work a look is the “Lost O” website, after the vanished ring road, which details a set of public artworks (including Montreal’s excellent Roadsworth) that were unveiled on the build-up to the project — to the typical alarm, scorn, and consternation of shrill outlets like the Daily Mail.

Urban street or race course?
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Monday, December 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
1 Comment. Click here to leave a comment.

Sir Alex Gives Thumb Up to Congestion Charging

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson

It’s the rare day when two major interests in my life, traffic and English football (“soccer”), coincide.

That’s why I was delighted to note that Manchester United’s coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, has come out in favor of the congestion charge scheme that Mancunians are about to start voting on by mail (the result will be announced December 12). According to the Guardian, Ferguson, in a letter to the Manchester Evening News, wrote that congestion charging offers a “once in a lifetime opportunity to put Greater Manchester in the premier league for public transport — so don’t score an own goal.” If the scheme is approved, nearly $3 billion in funds (or, roughly, the cost of Man U’s current player contracts) will be put into public transport in Manchester.

The Guardian comes down in favor of the scheme here.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Monday, December 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm by: Tom Vanderbilt
2 Comments. Click here to leave a comment.

Yet Another Post on the Anthropomorphizing of Cars

This makes me wonder why more car ads (wait, do any?) don’t use animated figures:

“In the study’s first experiment, participants were asked to evaluate a car’s newly redesigned look. The cars were presented to them in one of two ways: as a spokesperson speaking in the first person or as an object described in the third person. The participants were then shown a picture of a car that had been manipulated so that its front grill either pointed up in the shape of a smile, or pointed down to resemble a frown…

…Participants who were presented the car as a spokesperson were more likely to rate the car as human and to evaluate it more favorably if the car had a smile rather than a frown. “Interestingly, smiles were seen as more human than frowns, which is consistent with prior research,” McGill says. By contrast, those that were presented the car as an object were indifferent between the smiling and the frowning cars. Aggarwal and McGill found that participants were more likely to give the car a good review if it seemed more human to them, which emphasizes the importance of effectively anthropomorphizing a product.”

That’s from “Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products.” Pankaj Aggarwal and Ann L. McGill. Journal of Consumer Research, 2007.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Posted on Monday, December 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am by: Tom Vanderbilt
No Comments. Click here to leave a comment.
Traffic Tom Vanderbilt

How We Drive is the companion blog to Tom Vanderbilt’s New York Times bestselling book, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), published by Alfred A. Knopf in the U.S. and Canada, Penguin in the U.K, and in languages other than English by a number of other fine publishers worldwide.

Please send tips, news, research papers, links, photos (bad road signs, outrageous bumper stickers, spectacularly awful acts of driving or parking or anything traffic-related), or ideas for my Slate.com Transport column to me at: info@howwedrive.com.

For publicity inquiries, please contact Kate Runde at Vintage: krunde@randomhouse.com.

For editorial inquiries, please contact Zoe Pagnamenta at The Zoe Pagnamenta Agency: zoe@zpagency.com.

For speaking engagement inquiries, please contact
Kim Thornton at the Random House Speakers Bureau: rhspeakers@randomhouse.com.

Order Traffic from:

Amazon | B&N | Borders
Random House | Powell’s

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
U.S. Paperback UK Paperback
Traffic UK
Drive-on-the-left types can order the book from Amazon.co.uk.

For UK publicity enquiries please contact Rosie Glaisher at Penguin.

Upcoming Talks

April 9, 2008.
California Office of Traffic Safety Summit
San Francisco, CA.

May 19, 2009
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies
Bloomington, MN

June 23, 2009
Driving Assessment 2009
Big Sky, Montana

June 26, 2009
PRI World Congress
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

June 27, 2009
Day of Architecture
Utrecht, The Netherlands

July 13, 2009
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP)
Phoenix, AZ.

August 12-14
Texas Department of Transportation “Save a Life Summit”
San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2009
Governors Highway Safety Association Annual Meeting
Savannah, Georgia

September 11, 2009
Oregon Transportation Summit
Portland, Oregon

October 8
Honda R&D Americas
Raymond, Ohio

October 10-11
INFORMS Roundtable
San Diego, CA

October 21, 2009
California State University-San Bernardino, Leonard Transportation Center
San Bernardino, CA

November 5
Southern New England Planning Association Planning Conference
Uncasville, Connecticut

January 6
Texas Transportation Forum
Austin, TX

January 19
Yale University
(with Donald Shoup; details to come)

Monday, February 22
Yale University School of Architecture
Eero Saarinen Lecture

Friday, March 19
University of Delaware
Delaware Center for Transportation

April 5-7
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
McMurrin Lectureship

April 19
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (Organization Management Workshop)
Austin, Texas

Monday, April 26
Edmonton Traffic Safety Conference
Edmonton, Canada

Monday, June 7
Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals
Niagara Falls, Ontario

Wednesday, July 6
Fondo de Prevención Vial
Bogotá, Colombia

Tuesday, August 31
Royal Automobile Club
Perth, Australia

Wednesday, September 1
Australasian Road Safety Conference
Canberra, Australia

Wednesday, September 22

Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s
Traffic Incident Management Enhancement Program
Statewide Conference
Wisconsin Dells, WI

Wednesday, October 20
Rutgers University
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
Piscataway, NJ

Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ontario Injury Prevention Resource Centre
Injury Prevention Forum
Toronto

Monday, May 2
Idaho Public Driver Education Conference
Boise, Idaho

Tuesday, June 2, 2011
California Association of Cities
Costa Mesa, California

Sunday, August 21, 2011
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Attitudes: Iniciativa Social de Audi
Madrid, Spain

April 16, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Gardens Theatre, QUT
Brisbane, Australia

April 17, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Centennial Plaza, Sydney
Sydney, Australia

April 19, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Melbourne Town Hall
Melbourne, Australia

January 30, 2013
University of Minnesota City Engineers Association Meeting
Minneapolis, MN

January 31, 2013
Metropolis and Mobile Life
School of Architecture, University of Toronto

February 22, 2013
ISL Engineering
Edmonton, Canada

March 1, 2013
Australian Road Summit
Melbourne, Australia

May 8, 2013
New York State Association of
Transportation Engineers
Rochester, NY

August 18, 2013
BoingBoing.com “Ingenuity” Conference
San Francisco, CA

September 26, 2013
TransComm 2013
(Meeting of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ Subcommittee on Transportation
Communications.
Grand Rapids MI

 

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Twitter
December 2008
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031