Just something on my mind given the battering the eastern seaboard is taking. I know Chicago (above) does, and so too does Boston, Pittsburgh too. But this is an alien concept in New York City, at least in my neck of the woods (though I’ve seen friends of drivers standing in spaces to reserve them temporarily). Put chairs out to reserve a spot and you’ll probably see them listed on Craigslist within the hour.

Why does the ‘parking dibs’ culture work in some places, but not in others? Does it actually work in the aforementioned towns, or has increased demand (or whatever) put strains on the custom? Any ‘dibs’ tales to tell?

Peter sends along this troubling video of a woman struck by a bus — I’m sure any number of you out there could dissect the many things wrong with that street (not sure where it is).

Almost as disturbing as the video is the fact that its categorized on Digg as “comedy,” which in the world of Internet culture, I’m sure it is.

Consider: According to various reports, 19 deaths have been associated with Toyota’s gas pedal problem over the past decade. But over the same decade, a total of 21,110 people have been killed in Toyota vehicles, with an additional 1,261 killed in Lexus cars (based on analyzing 1999-2008 fatality data from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). Almost none of these deaths had anything to do with technology, faulty or otherwise. Almost all of them were the result of driver behavior.

So if the prospect of a sticky gas pedal alarms you, just slow down a little. The result will be that you are safer with the defect than you were without it.

Obviously, deaths linked to faulty cars are a serious problem, and it’s also clear that if attention is not paid, the safety problems could grow much worse. And still, however, I am struck by the sheer volume of the coverage about Toyota — almost verging on a panic — given the comparative risk posed in the numbers above. The study of risk perception is instructive here: Risks seem to loom larger in our imagination when they are novel, and when they are seemingly out of our control, among a host of other factors. Toyota is certainly novel, and the idea that an accelerator might suddenly activate on its own fills us with much more dread than the calculated decision to drive very fast down a street — itself a risk for the drivers and others but seemingly under one’s own control.

There’s a larger story here too, of course, which I was talking about last week with a writer for the Globe and Mail; i.e., the kind of shattering (or cracking) of a mantle of sheer confidence in not just the Toyota brand but the idea of the modern automobile as more or less infallible. When I think of my MacBook Pro or iPhone, I think of wonderful devices that are also prone to bugs (the later device had to be swapped out three times). But thinking about my Subaru, another incredibly complex device, I basically expect that as long as I take it in for its regular maintenance plateaus, I do not expect to encounter any difficulty on the road (needless to say, the experiences at the Genius Bar and Subaru dealership are distinct; one is tense anticipation as I wait to hear the diagnosis, the other is simply showing up to check off the list). Like many other drivers (or at least I suspect), I barely cracked the owner’s manual (this was studied Talmudically in my father’s era) when I bought the car, and certainly didn’t spend much time under the hood because, quite simply, I wouldn’t have understood much of what I was looking at (nor, for the record, do I take apart the MacBook). One still sees articles in the AAA magazines and the like with “driving checklists,” a tally of things you should do before setting out, but I would guess that very few of us do this, for a very simple reason: It has become an article of faith that the car will perform. This contrasts with the situation when I drove used American cars of 1970s vintage as a teenager, during which I experienced all kind of random breakdowns, faulty gas gauges, blinking ‘check engine’ lights that seemed to come on, as if by a law, late at night far from an open service station.

It’s hard to quantify, but I imagine this sense of the machine’s infallibility has changed the way we operate it. It is known that average speeds and following distances changed over time on certain highways, causing engineers to rework their models, and one of the reasons given is, inevitability: Superior handling and performance of the modern car. In this respect, all the coverage given to Toyota is a good thing — if it serves as a reminder of the risks of the road. If it merely shifts further focus away from driver behavior and onto a large, litigable car-maker, this won’t mean much in the overall picture of traffic safety.

I can’t help but view the image above and think of 2001, with some impenetrable black slab tilted horizontally and laid upon the city. The sign, which comes from Toronto, has been the source of some puzzlement over its origin or purpose — maybe someone in actual authority can provide the final answer as to what this signage means and why it needs to be in place (although, I will admit, the sign gains in strange, mythic stature the less one knows about it). It seems to have something to do with plowing — and monolithic refers to its construction — but are sidewalks plowed by trucks? (and if it’s plowed in the way the above image suggests, wouldn’t that dump a bunch of snow on that very sidewalk?) Why only a monolithic sidewalk there, and not anywhere else? What’s a non-monolithic sidewalk called?

And as reader Bruce notes, the sign has even prompted a searching inquiry into self-effacing signage and Canadian national identity.

“Sometimes I will zone out and forget I’m driving,” said Tyler, 23. “If I’m on the phone talking about something that takes up all my focus, I’m looking straight ahead - but not even seeing what’s there.”

(as an aside you can read in depth about this phenomenon, and others, this spring). But to continue:

Her dad, Buckley Strandberg, worries that she will never curb her dangerous habit.

“And if I run off the road, there are rumble strips that divert me back onto the road. That has happened occasionally. They seem to work, those rumble strips.”

Apart from the irony of an insurance executive engaging in risky behavior (I suppose the A.I.G. fiasco showed that insurers are hardly immune from not properly anticipating risk), I was particularly intrigued by the last sentence in the excerpt.

I had long taken shoulder rumble strips (the so-called “Sonic Nap Alert Patterns” debuted on the Pennsylvania turnpike) as a passive, essentially invisible safety device that one would only become aware of in moments of emergency and wouldn’t actually influence one’s self-selected level of what they considered safe driving activity. In other words, people’s driving wouldn’t change simply because of the presence of rumble strips (unlike other forms of risk compensation, say, driving a vehicle in which one is seated higher), and that SNAPs made people safer without making them feel safer — an important distinction, to my mind, in traffic safety.

But I may have to reconsider this.

It is, they suggest, “perhaps one of the most progressive in the world.”

Judge for yourself here.

The town of Ashford in the U.K. was one of the highest profile experiments in ’shared space’ when it launched over a year ago. The changes, meant to reconnect the center (severed by a hostile ring road) and make the town feel more ‘town-like,’ were quite radical — removing signals, blurring formal notation of right of way — as well as drawn from more traditional traffic-calming approaches (special pavement treatments). The reaction ranged from skeptical to hostile (Jeremy Clarkson, whose opinion on anything but the braking ability of an E-Class Mercedes should be heeded with a yellow flag, predicted ‘millions’ would die).

Ben Hamilton-Baillie, one of the leads on the project (he appears in Traffic), has sent along a Q&A he did with a local paper on the status of the project after one year. Though such things need continual monitoring, the early prognosis is positive and a sign that fresh thinking in terms of the built environment and accommodating traffic can bring good results.

You can read what Ben had to say after the jump.

The first year of the Ashford shared space scheme has passed, you must be pleased that no accidents have been reported in the first twelve months?

Yes, the first year of the new scheme has been very encouraging. Much more time is needed, of course, before we can draw any firm conclusions, but so far the new arrangements seem to give Ashford some space which is significantly safer than the old one-way, three-lane racetrack of the former ring-road.

What did you think of all the media attention that it attracted at the time of the opening, particularly the criticism from Jeremy Clarkson?

The concept of shared space is still new to this country, and Ashford presents a bold and very different approach to traffic engineering and urban design. The media naturally reflected the inevitable surprise and scepticism that always accompanies something new and very different. I am used to similar doubts and uncertainties greeting every new street design, especially those that break as many boundaries as the Ashford scheme. Jeremy Clarkson perfectly encapsulated the old assumptions that gave us the pedestrian segregation of overbridges underpasses, signals, signs and barriers – it can be helpful to have such reactions expressed and articulated!

The scheme has won many awards over the last year. Why do you think this is the case?

The awards and recognition reflect two factors; firstly, the design team led by the landscape architects Whitelaw Turkington produced an excellent scheme, working in new ways with the local community and in a very complicated set of circumstances. Secondly, Kent County Council and Ashford Borough fully deserved the accolades for sticking to their principles and seeing the scheme through. Other towns and cities are already benefiting from the inspiration and reassurance provided by Ashford, and the rewards arise from appreciation for such pioneering work.

There were issues with people parking and blocking the roads. How does the relationship between the shared space concept and parking work?

Shared space works best without the yellow lines and signs that disfigure so many streets and town centres. Ashford relies on the use of a “Restricted Parking Zone”, a rather clumsy name for a simple principle for defining where you can park, rather then marking where you should not. Approval for such zones is still, for the moment, needed from the Department for Transport. Unfortunately it took months to finalise this approval, and this caused some initial problems for the scheme.
Vehicle speeds have dropped in the area. How can you still reinforce the idea in driver’s heads that they do need to slow down, particularly to drivers new to the town?

As a driver entering the new streets, you are immediately aware that this is somewhere different, somewhere special. It feels quite unlike a normal urban road. You start to pay extra attention, and to become more alert to other people and to your surroundings. The narrower apparent width of the carriageways, the absence of road markings and signals, the lighting, low kerbs and distinctive paving all help to encourage low speeds, whether you are familiar with the space or a newcomer. Every aspect of the scheme contributes to establishing a naturally low-speed, free-flowing environment.

Partially sighted groups still have issues about the distinction between the kerb and road and crossing safely. What would you say to reassure them?

It takes a great deal of time to adapt and get used to new layouts and arrangements, especially if you cannot rely on visual clues. But as the scheme settles in it is becoming clearer that the reductions in traffic speed and changes in driver behaviour far outweigh any perceived benefits from formal controls and crossings. Gaining confidence in the new arrangements is a slow, steady process for every scheme we are involved with. But gradually the awareness that drivers can observe, anticipate and appreciate the specific needs of every pedestrian, whatever their circumstances, begins to improve comfort and confidence

What are the next stages to be planned for Ashford? Would you say that you are learning things from the Ashford design yourself and how you approach schemes in the future?

Ashford is far from complete, and I am looking forward to seeing the new developments frame and enclose the south side of Elwick Street. One day the rest of the former ring road will be similarly transformed, but this may have to wait some years. There are lots of lessons learnt from Ashford, about materials, design, and so on. But the processes behind decision-making, the political structures and working arrangements provide the really vital lessons from Ashford, and are beginning to transform the way local authorities go about economic regeneration and urban renewal.

More and more towns do seem to be interested in the shared space idea but squeezed Government budgets must have an impact on the quality of schemes that can be delivered. How do you think this will affect its development in the UK?

Streets and public spaces require many years of patient work and public discussion before any changes happen on the ground. There will be fewer large schemes in the coming months, but perhaps this will offer a chance for reflection on progress achieved so far and some consolidation of the techniques and principals underpinning shared space. But the approach is equally relevant for small highway schemes in villages and small towns – anywhere where traffic and people interact. Ashford has helped the UK appreciate the potential for creating more civilised streets and spaces, and this will be a lasting legacy for the long term.

The survey was done from June 30 through July 2, 2009, and involved 800 adults, with a +3.46% margin of error. And a whopping 60% of the respondents — Republican and Democrat alike — believe the federal gas tax is raised annually. Geographic location didn’t make much of a difference — 61% believed this incorrect statement in the Northeast, 58% in the South, 54% in the Midwest, and 67% in the West.

It was, of course, last raised in 1993.

Last year road accidents claimed more than 130,000 lives, overtaking China, where fatalities have dropped to less than 90,000, and prompted a government review into traffic safety, which until now has been best summed up by local drivers as “good horns, good brakes, good luck”.

As Smeed pointed out long ago, this divergence is unfortunately predictable via economics; China’s GDP (per a quick Wolfram Alpha search) per capita is more than three times that of India — and presumably it has risen faster in the last few years, and has now surpassed the “break even” point where traffic fatalities now begin to decline, for a variety of reasons. The upward surge in India, as per Smeed, is accompanying a move towards increasing motorization and may signal the high-water mark of traffic fatalities (or so we can hope). And from limited personal experience, there is certainly something to be said for road design and infrastructure, which uniformly appeared to be superior in China. In the latter country, I saw men in uniforms sweeping roadsides of debris; in the former, I saw children sleeping there.

The text-messaging motorist who struck and killed his former high school teacher told the court: “This was not intentional. It was an accident. I’m so sorry.”

He then sentenced Antonio Cellestine, 18, to five years in prison after he pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide and felony hit and run.

(Thanks Brian)