This is a special collaboration with UC Berkeley SafeTREC. This is also the first time I did not write most of the script! That’s why the tone of this video is a little different. But I thought you all would find this research as fascinating as I did!
This was a great one :) I did notice it was a bit different, but I really enjoyed seeing this topic alongside all of its historical context. 👍👍 Two thumbs up from me ;)
Thank you for collaborating with my school! Currently in a transportation class intending to major in city planning, and your videos have been very useful :)
In the Netherlands and France, stop signs are really uncommon. The idea is generally that if you need a stop sign, the road/infrastructure design is bad and should be redone. Paris famously had only one stop sign in the whole city, which got stolen so often they eventually stopped replacing it.
I live in south east Asia and early road rules sound a lot like some of the intersections around here even down to the traffic cop who come out to fix it when it gets jammed
Ted Bayly I’m from Canada, and something that might explain this is that most people are 4th generation car users. Cars have been widespread since the 1950, my dad’s dad dad was a driver. Traffic rules are just part of life. In South East Asian car ownership has been booming since the 1990, so it’ll grow on you.
As someone who is currently writing an essay about the development of railway signalling in 19th century Britain, I found this really quite interesting. Railways got alot more organised and disciplined regarding who 'got the road' (i.e. - got to go) but that was sadly due to a number of accidents in the early days. At one time, trains where separated by time, not signals, so if the train ahead ran into trouble there was nothing to warn the driver of the train behind that he was headed for a collision - the Armagh disaster was a sad consequence of that oversight.
Train signalling is also really interesting because it happens to be very similar to how microprocessors work and handle separate tasks. A friend of mine used it as an analogy in a paper she wrote for collage. It's also interesting how mechanical and logical it can be, again very similar to computers and it also makes the jams you can get in poorly built systems extra frustrating.
To me the big difference seems to be when "drivers" become encased and covered inside their cars. The drivers of early cars and horse drawn carriages were all still out in the open, clearly visible, and able to communicate with their bodies and voices. When the drivers are in roofed/covered cars, they lose the ability to communicate with each other.
Lol, at 0:21, that’s my hometown. It’s the intersection of 5 major roads and even the city has no idea what to do with it. The sign is usually hidden behind some trees too, so any newcomer only has a couple of seconds to decipher that mess before they drive into the intersection.
Confusion Corner makes sense if and only if you've been there enough times. Pembina Northbound (not shown) splits into two streets; a Donald and Southbound Osborne one, and into Cordyon which is Donald for right lane, and Osborne for left. Osborne is pretty straight forward, but to go south on Pembina, you have to go North on Donald and do a u-turn (which is the stupidest part of the intersection), which lets you go into Corydon and Southbound Pembina, respectively. Or Northbound Osborne again. Basically, Cities Skylines irl.
@@dan_youtube Historical buildings and a large amount of traffic forced to go through this junction (plus the fact that people don't know how to drive in a roundabout) prevent that from happening
Saw that immediately too. Like hey Ive been there.... Oh wait I drove through there yesterday :p theres also a quite a few other clips sprinkled in through out the video. Just made me laugh
What I find astonishing is it really wasn't that long ago, for such a massive shift in perception. I struggled at the start of the video to even understand the 19th century concept of road space; I love it when that happens.
Oddly enough in many ways the old ways are still the rule in the Netherlands, at least when it comes to bicyclist or shared roads. While most of the big conflicts have been removed thanks to design for the most part people don't follow the traffic rules and instead communicate with each other and who should go and how to behave. If a cyclist comes to a traffic light and there are no cars turning into it's path they will just ride through red, because it just doesn't make sense for a cyclist to come to a full stop and and have to start up from a full stop again, car drivers will pay attention to approaching cyclist and if it looks like they aren't going to stop, they will just let them go even the though car had the green light and bike didn't ,without much if any frustration, because those car drivers are also cyclist and they know how annoying it is to stop on a bicycle. On a shared road that doesn't permit cars to overtake cyclist, cyclist will often move over and signal for the car to pass, because nobody likes having a car on their tail. Even though you are only allowed to cycle two abreast, people will sometimes cycle with 3 or even 4 if the road is wide enough next to each other and they will simply move over if traffic approaches from the other side or if someone wants to overtake. The people make the rules when it comes to cycling in the Netherlands, not the laws. This might be why cycling in the Netherlands may look so crazy to foreigners. Yes in some ways it is chaos, but it's a very controlled chaos and everyone in that chaos knows the rules and so the chaos works .
There are quite a bit of pedestrian and cyclist norms in most cities that are not written into law. For example, jaywalking is pretty common in many cities when car traffic is not heavy. Cyclists tend to follow pedestrian or car norms based on whichever is wastes less energy and provide sufficient safety. Some US states actually tries to codify this into law, for example "Idaho stop," but there is not enough cyclists in US for this to become a law common to all states.
The important thing is compassion and empathy. People should understand that stopping for no benefit on a bicycle is much more annoying than stopping in a car where the safety benefits are much larger. In most of the places I have lived people get irrationally angry when cyclists don't follow the letter of the law, even though nobody is being harmed and it increases risk by a small amount. I find the road experience interesting in places like Mexico where there is a general understanding that people will make the pragmatic choices instead of slavishly following every stipulation. It feels like there is more compassion and even a sense of community as everyone understands that nobody wants to be stuck. Paradoxically it feels safer in Mexico because drivers are more alert.
I live in the Netherlands myself. There is nowhere in the law that state that cyclist are exempted from general traffic rules. Not adhering the law is a different factor. more over it is important to say that those customs should not be uses out side of the bigger urban centres. I live in Zeeland and if you would do that what you are talking about. You will find your self involved in a mayor accident . People do not expect you to ignore traffic rules.
This is how I behvae here in the UK. With common courtesy. But long gone are the days of equality on the road here and many people are plain jerks who think the nist expensive vehicle should dominate.
@@sirBrouwer I never stated that they are exempt from traffic rules. Notice how I said the cyclist run red lights, or how cars stop even though they have green and let cyclist pass? That's cyclist breaking the law. You talk about people running red and getting into a mayor accident as if I said that they do it without thinking like a chicken without a head. The FIRST SENTENCE I mention that if there are NO CARS that cyclist will run red lights. You seem to be focused on what the law says you must do instead of what happens in reality. Thousands of people break the laws, but just because they break the law and you think they should do it doesn't mean they don't do it. Don't act like I'm promoting people to break the law, but instead read and understand what I actually said. Also, I also live in the Netherlands. So I'm not just some outsider talking about something I have no idea about. I talk about things I see all the time.
This was really interesting. In ordinary Australian English usage a “right-of-way” usually refers to a legally protected pedestrian pathway between two buildings etc. and rarely gets applied to a road or street. But I just looked up some road rules from the 1920’s and we were using this this term just as your video uses it. There was a newspaper article with a picture of a new sign (a weird tiny round sign on top of a striped pole) that read “Right-of-Way Street STOP”. Fascinating that we take all this modern infrastructure around us so for granted and have so little idea how it evolved.
As a Brit, I feel you've concluded with a very American idea as to "the right of way", and in particular Yield/Give Way. You start by talking about medieval England, and represented it as a 4-way junction. By the end of the video, this is a 4-way stop. This isn't how roads work in the UK, and the original "confusing" representation of A/B roads is far more accurate. Roads have a relative priority, which determines who has the "right of way" - with minor roads that join more major ones required to Give Way (now represented by double-lines on the minor road's junction). You aren't required to stop if the road is clear, and the major road always has priority (and doesn't need to slow down). You only start getting controlled signals on main roads or congested junctions. Who has the right of way is fundamental in the Highway Code, and it's for you to know who has it. It's up to the driver to be aware of their surroundings, driving to conditions but the pedestrian is king - if you hit one, you weren't paying attention. Jaywalking isn't a thing here - crossing through traffic is the done thing, and it's expected by drivers. Whilst your commentary on the rules of the road is interesting, your conclusion is that the driver is an automaton and maps to US cities, grids and controlled junctions with their absolute authority. Contrast that with the ultimate example of "the right of way", a roundabout where rules still apply (to the confusion of 1850s traffic police) but it's ultimately the responsibility of the drivers (and pedestrians) all yielding if required that makes them work efficiently.
oh i didnt know that the triangles painted on minor roads werent universal, just like i didnt notice that intersections here have triangle right-of-way signs that go into effect if the traffic lights go out
I was thinking exactly this! By the way, I’ve had Americans try to argue that our right of way is stupid because “people will just jump in front of you for insurance fraud”…. I don’t know if that’s actually a real risk in America, but I’ve had multiple people argue it to me. I find it a very strange idea as I’ve never seen it and never seen it in the news. Yet they insist it would happen all the time if they adopted pedestrians always having right of way over there.
this is actually true, as an american. when i went to the UK, i could tell just by looking that spatial negotiation was still very much the way of getting around and people there just drive different. it is true that when presented with a stop sign or red light people will stop, but in general, drivers just drive by signalling to one another.
@@kaitlyn__L it happens but not very often. it's never happened to me, but, maybe that's because i'm living in canada now and have been for about 8 or so years. that said, it's never happened to me in the united states as far as i can tell either. but i'm not that old anyways.
@@kaitlyn__L People genuinely do that in America and there’s tons of footage of it online but I don’t think it’s as serious as people think. With a dashcam if anyone rammed you you could make them pay I’m sure.
"That very first traffic jam (many years before the motor car came into use) will always remain in my memory. There were only about a dozen horses and carriages involved, and all that was needed was a little order to keep the traffic moving. Yet nobody knew exactly what to do; neither the drivers nor the police knew anything about the control of traffic." William Phelps Eno "responsible for many of the earliest innovations in road safety and traffic control. He is sometimes known as the "Father of traffic safety", despite never having learned to drive a car himself." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Phelps_Eno
@@TroyJamesMonger My parents just went and got their license when they were of age, there was no test. My dad said he used to walk to the store and to buy his dad smokes as a kid.
Some of the points raised by Ye old time policemen do actually hold up today surprisingly enough. For example, theres studies to suggest removing road markings designating the center of the road actually increases road safety. Similarly 20mph speed limits were found to be more dangerous than 30mph speed limits due to decreased awareness by various users (which is something predicted).
I’d noticed a lot of city streets had no paint, but you can still generally see a centre seam in the tarmac. It is interesting though, especially when the width grows and shrinks but not the number of lanes.
This was way more fascinating than it has the right to be. I keep imagining what someone from the 19th century would think driving on a modern road. It would be incredibly fascinating to see what they noticed and thought.
Thanks for the explanations! In large parts of the world the old rules (= "no rules") still apply. In a revival of this old thinking about traffic some cities even began to abandon all modern traffic rules and are going back to individual negotiation of right of way.
Pretty much still how it is on a push bike, take as many liberty's as you like so long as you go at a sensible speed for where your riding, don't piss anyone off by causing a disruption to flow or traffic or footfall and don't get yourself mangled by putting yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would be nice to have a more dynamic range of speed limits for motor vehicles though.
The 19th century: Road rules make it too complicated for humans to understand and make roads unsafe. The 21st century: The roads are too unsafe when humans drive which is why we need self-driving cars. 😂
Which comes full circle back to the negotiation stage. In this case it's between individual vehicles, as well as the roadway itself, with the help of computers and sensors. Now it's the humans who are too slow instead of the competing vehicles.
dojokonojo you see this kind of doomsday thinking and fast turnaround in many areas of technological innovation. One of the simplest is that musicians felt the gramophone would kill off live music, that radio would kill off sale recorded music, that the internet would kill off music sales. Same with theatre thinking that television would end live performance. What tends to actually happen is a process of adaption, things do change but one doesn’t end the other forever, after all we still go to see live music, radio stations still exist but in a largely different form on the whole, the sale of recorded music has changed to the ‘norm’ being some kind of subscription service but the majority of people do still pay for access to the music they want, one way or another.
@@hogfather22 This. Cars can communicate near instantaneously from a distance. No more need for traffic signals. Actually, you won't even need information signs (like what highway it is or how far to the next city) because the cars will know it all already.
@@Dayvit78 I wonder if self-driving cars become the majority, it would be practical for non-autonomous cars to at least have some little gizmo to broadcast their location and movement to the self-driving cars. So although the non-autonomous car can't react to the behavior of autonomous cars around it, at least the autonomous cars can react to it. Maybe that's another way autonomous cars will change; instead of having all this complicated technology for interpreting visual information, why not have everything give off remote signals to be received by the cars? Or like some kind of constant Google Maps connection where the program itself says "stop here," "do not enter there," etc. Having AIs painstakingly interpret through cameras seems like an unnecessary middleman, like the aforementioned traffic cop and traffic signals.
That's not true. There is no such thing as a 4-way yield in Russia as it exists in the US. There are uncontrolled intersections where the priority-to-the-right rule applies which comes from Article 18.4.a of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.
@@SergeMatveenko I'm looking again, my mistake, those are triangles but with pedestrians on them. In other words no signs for the motorists at all. I know for one thing, it causes lot of crashes.
@@dragonskunkstudio7582 actually 4 way yield intersections don't exist anywhere in Europe. We have either give way sign for 1 road or uncontrolled intersection where you give way to the car on the right of you.
I find it interesting that early on the fear was that if people had rules and signs they would stop worrying about the fact that they are responsible for ultimately avoiding an accident and rather worry about who was right and wrong legally. They were pretty smart back then as we see so much of that these days.
7:11 makes a good point in that people definitely pay a lot more attention to others in places where traffic culture is still developing. When it's normal to see someone driving down the wrong side of the highway or have someone turn left from not-the-left lane, you pay a lot more attention. If you look at the statistics, countires with a more established driving culture and respect of driving laws do have fewer accidents and deaths, but it also leads to more of a "cruise-control" driving mind-set. Anyone who's been on the road in countries like Indonesia vs countries like the US would know.
Absolutely right. although you can drive quite faster if you're well aware in developed countries, just like what they teach in advanced driving in UK (namely the Roadcraft system of car control).
I would also look at safety related industry's such as theme parks, aviation and railways. the amount of training and oversight used has a large impact in how safe things are. flying should be one of the most dangerous ways to travel. yet its one of the most safe do to all the efforts put in to it. when you train your staff and promote great culture and following the rules every time by the book, you get great results even when errors are made. on the other hand, if a operator choses to undertrain their staff, you get much worse results. for comparison, drivers in the us have a easy time getting certified with only a handful of operational hours, no nighttime operational hours, no winter weather or bad weather testing. honestly they only really cover the basic rules and some advice on how to solve common problems. the next results is that people can and will take chances, they do not feel responsible to other people, they do not get taught how to take care of other people. they dont even think about the other people in the other cars. all of this is a side effect of car dependency, cause if the state took away all bad drivers right to drive, alot of the work force would get stuck. you never get safe results with undertrained people who do not want to be where they are when they are after dealing with a hard day of work and having underslept for the last week. especally when they have a 2 ton suv going 60 plus, why should we make them drive.
This is an amazing video, not only is it interesting and captivating, but it’s incredibly informative and gives great insight into how this shift in societal thinking happened; I love it!
Fun fact - "right of way", in the UK, nowadays is more of a pedestrian term and refers to things such as public footpaths and national parks. A public footpath may cut in between farmer's two fields, and perhaps even annoy them to no end, but they have absolutely no right to restrict pedestrian traffic through it.
And in Scotland there’s right to roam, which extends far beyond just those footpaths so long as you’re not damaging anyone’s property or invading their privacy!
Even after road rules became a thing, we English were still guarding the principle that no one type of traffic has general right of way over another. You may have right of way by virtue of your relative positions but not because you are a pedestrian or a horse or a bicycle or a car. In the 1960s the Minister Transport painted a red line around Marylebone road junction & said he was going to fine any pedestrian who crossed it (i.e. an attempt to ban jaywalking). It caused outcry as it was in violation of this principle.
Great content. What is missing a bit is the lobbying for the car. Without the rules automobiles couldn’t go as fast. The rules are there to speed up automobile traffic at the cost of all others. This was a deliberate shift. You touch this topic somehow but it should go deeper. In the early eighties and afterwards the price for the automobile focus in urban design was showing its toll. Many countries tried to snatch living space back from the cars. In several European places there is now something called shared space going back to the concept of negotiation between the persons involved. It is a more human oriented concept. I’d suggest you have a look into this and amend that great and insightful video...
Yeah it definitely exists where I live and it's amazing how much life it gives to a city. The city I live in isn't even extremely big but the center is always incredibly lively and busy and it gives a lot of space for art and politics etc. I wonder how much urban design contributes to stuff like voter engagement levels because I can imagine that people are more likely to vote if they are met with politics in the daily space.
"The rules are there to speed up automobile traffic at the cost of all others." I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Pedestrians and cyclists are making comparatively slower, shorter journeys where a 30 second wait for a cross signal is a non issue. Cars are for going faster for longer trips where that 30 second wait translates to a lot more potential travel distance lost. It's just more efficient to prioritize car traffic because car traffic is the most efficient form of transport.
@@ausaskar Totally disagree. In densely populated urban areas cars are the least efficient and slowest way of moving people. Bicycles, segways, fast, frequent and reliable public transportation are the most efficient and usually just as fast.
I knew Nestlé is an old company, but when you SEE the times it was founded in, it makes you rethink what you know about the biggest brands and how much they've been through to stay afloat
It's not that hard to imagine, here in Brazil a lot of cities on the interior don't have signs or demarcation, people just communicate with each other by eyes or hand gesture and it works. We in the big cities also use more communication than actually follow the laws in traffic because is the most simple and obvious way to go. Order that appears naturally from the complex interactions of the individuals is more capable of solving problems that people think.
It also isn't that hard to me, especially for lower speed interactions. I live in the netherlands and a lot of people ride bikes here and in bike-on-bike traffic contacts there are way less traffic signs or lights and there are only a few official rules: Right goes first, straight ahead goes first, and that's it. But people don't always follow this rule, for example larges bike paths with lots of traffic tend to not stop for a person in a small side street who is expected to simply merge in, and people might choose to stop to let a cargo bike or a bike with a kids buggy behind it through rather than take their right to move. There is a lot of 'this is practical right now' involved in it and the slower speeds give the needed time for it.
@@Crozz22 most of the accidents in the country side happens on the highways: 1.people fell free to be a speed demon because the road is pretty clear and straight 2.the problem is that those roads are maintained by the government most of the time, which means they are abandoned, full of holes, cracked, poorly signed about curves. In the small cities there are accidents and mostly because of people driving drunk. In the big cities is a hell. Constantly and anywhere there accidents happening because of all the above, people speeding, driving drunk, streets poorly maintained, but also in the cities I've been to, there are always signs everywhere, stop lights, pedestrians crossings and such.
"it works" Yeah if you consider it working when you can go from point A to point B without getting killed or involved in an accident, you might think that it works. But if you take a look at industrial data for designing roads and cars, There is obvious evidence that travel speed is much higher in countries with such laws and signage, because you don't have to stop and interact with every monkey at every junction; when you have right of way, you just continue on.
In the UK, there's no all-way stop - not even when traffic lights are out. Most junctions we figure it out for ourselves but one day during a power outage, a 5-way junction was utter chaos. I stopped my motorbike in the middle, signalled the traffic to stop and then fed it through in pretty much the same pattern as the non-functioning lights. No-one had to do what I said but everyone did. Half an hour later, a cop arrived and took over but there was nothing but gratitude from all concerned.
I learned when driving a company vehicle that it doesn't effect my personal driving rate. If I have the right of way I will not budge, crash into me if you like.
Most of people's fantasies about flying cars is that they themselves have it just so they're literally above the mere mortals subjugated by gravity--they're not thinking about how to use flying cars when everyone else also does.
This subject is fascinating! I cannot generalize for all traffic disputes, but I do agree with intro to absent minded driving with the introduction to traffic signals in place of individual negotiation. People make a lot of mistakes and many lives are lost. You could say that this could be due in part to the speed and human error etc, but there are so many studies I’ve looked into about what happens when signs signals and markings are removed from the road and multimodal traffic is given free reign. Drivers become more cautious, and way more cautious because now they have to watch and mind everyone worse they’re sharing the road with. Today the roads are over designed. Roads designs are more concerned about moving as many cars through as fast as possible at the cost of safety...
My grandfather was born in 1906 and had no electricity for a while at home(mountain village). He nearly died as a child because a candle fell on his bed.
This was surprisingly interesting and engaging. Very well put together and explained. It’s quite shocking how young traffic control and road rules are and fascinating on how quickly we as humans can adapt and change to meet new problems. Thank you so much for teaching me something new!
I hate the phrase "Right of way" in modern traffic. It causes so many accidents needlessly. I much prefer the more cautious approach of "you have no rights, only responsibilities". This really helps people sort out potentially dangerous situations. Even if you have a green light it doesn't automatically mean you can go with impunity. Should someone run the intersection you damn well better be prepared for it or you've failed regardless of "who's at fault". This is especially true at pedestrian crossings. ALWAYS MAKE SURE that traffic (all of it) is aware that pedestrians are going to be crossing now. NEVER just walk out onto the crosswalk because you have a "green man".
Yeah, when I learnt to drive I was taught to never think in terms of if you have right of way, and instead think of if you have to give way. Similarly to how a green light doesn't mean go, it legally means "Go if it is safe to do so".
A perfect conclusion to this would have been to mention the invention of the roundabout in early 20th-century Britain. It has kept the idea of individual negotiation going to the present day, as these came to be used on most road intersections in the UK (instead of traffic lights, as in the US); roundabouts still require a certain degree of individual decision-making about when it is safe to yield or go forward.
i laughed when he was describing the situation when cars were becoming a thing, how people were suppose to drive and interact on roads just through intuition......lol we still do the same in India, in bigger cities situation is slightly better but most of the driving is just interaction on the roads with human intuition. In our defense cars started to become a thing in late 80's and still as bad as traffic is very few people owns them and amost 99% of them are first time buyers so i'm hopeful of the improvements in the future. Also the main pain in the ass is parking, you just can't find it.....!!!!😡 Gosh we need lots of infra....
Maybe y'all are actually ahead of other places that have built so heavily for the auto and now are seeing the I'll effects of that 🤔 It's really hard for those places to "undo" what's been done.
But even by 1906 (@ 6:43), San Francisco traffic was going in specific directions on Market Street: The hand lane gong toward the Ferry Building (in the distance) and the Left hand lane going away from the Ferry building.
I can definitely understand the perceived naturalness and efficiency of navigating and negotiating the traffic flow spontaneously, even I believe sensor/AI-controlled systems are likely best. My city once had some bad flooding that knocked out power for some blocks downtown. Everyone behaved as a good senor-light system would. If a stream of cross traffic was moving, you wait. If it broke and you get through, you did, and may led your own stream of traffic through. Any issues with turns, or that stream was very long, etc., you inch closer, make hand signals, etc. The dangerous potential existed of course, but it was quite cool and fun experiencing how well it worked. Of course, the slow, dense traffic made it work out safely enough.
6:36 Those people were on to something. In recent years, there's been a movement in many places to reduce road signs and markings and instead rely only on the basic "right before left" rule, to make drivers pay more attention to the traffic instead of blindly assuming everything will be okay because the signs say they have right of way.
This mindset of the right of way of these old times seems wonderful! Nowadays it wouldn't make sense at all, but I adore it's naturalness just watching these clips.
The British are such admirable people when it comes to law. As a constant battle between the classes, British law is a mixture of a class system and the most equal law in the world.
@@choncord Murder being illegal in every country does not mean they have the same legal system. The UK does not have a legal system. Wherever you are you are subject to Scots Law, English Law or Irish Law. The Highway code is only interpreted in the context of whichever legal system it is being used in (which can and does mean different rulings in different jurisdictions).
I think those police who were against traffic signs were right. People go by the signs and don't actually THINK about the situation and the vehicles involved. The attitude becomes "It's my right of way and I'm going"; they don't look or consider that the vehicle they've just pulled out in front of can't stop because it's bigger and heavier. They were also spot on about without people realizing that there is a direct consequence to their actions, they don't think about safe driving. You see it with the modern cars who have auto brake assist, self driving etc; people do not think "I'm in charge of upwards of 1.5 ton of machinery, I should pay attention because it's my fault if I kill someone". The lack of awareness on roads today is shocking.
Diego Vera - in places like India there are so many people and so many road users (of all levels) that it may be difficult to have today’s standard road rules upheld... as it is most intersections seem to be ignored, their ability to create 8 lanes from 2, and go when there is only half a gap keeps things moving. Rather than stop/start with clear intersections likely leading to backing traffic up even further.
Hi sir. I have seen how bad traffic has got here in mumbai. And often thought about how and why the more developed world was such a breeze through in comparison....such an informative and interesting video !!.thank you Sir
seeing images of streets where people walk carefree down the middle of the road and knowing that I will never be able to do that without looking over my shoulder is kinda heartbreaking
This was a fun video. It would also be interesting to see a deep dive into some of the early traffic signaling mechanisms themselves, how they worked, their tradeoffs, and the path to uniform adoption.
Nice video. It would be interesting to see your take on those cities where they have removed traffic lights and other priorities. It means drivers have to be as careful as cyclists and pedestrians when negotiating junctions. They have to slow down to give them time to do this. None of the usual racing through lights as they about to change to red. This makes the roads a lot safer!
For a driver it has to be clear, unless you are on a main road (yellow-white sign), when nothing is signaled, the car on the right has priority. That's a basic driving rule. Where I live there are special pedestrian zones (20km/h for cars). It means bikes and pedestrians always have priority. Drivers have to stop for pedestrians anyway at crosswalks (150$ fine)
Lots of interesting points, and some interesting comments below. I would add a couple of historical points. For much of history the right-of-way [as defined today, i.e., who goes first] had a distinct class element. A feudal lord's carriage or those under his employ had r-o-w over the untitled. When two nobles strutted over who went first, it could become the subject of a duel (pre-auto road rage). While silly to our sensibilities, class created order on the roads. In a similar vein, the colloquial quip "tonnage rules" imposed its own form of order. It was only when speed outstripped human scale (rails and motor cars) did external tech come into play. Maritime traffic, particularly in harbors and narrow passages, has long had established rules and to some extant served as a forerunner to land transport issues.
What I think is interesting in the Netherlands (where I live) is that they now are moving away from many traffic rules, and gradually moving back to this more free and anarchistic way of traffic management. For example, they started removing lines, barriers and curbs at intersections and replacing the asphalt with bricks, resulting in it becoming a shared space where cars, bikes and pedestrians move freely between one another. Dutch road design is more focused on forcing the people themselves becoming more aware of their surroundings, rather than expecting people to follow rules and being responsible. I believe it's the next step in traffic evolution.
I am interested to find out where in Michigan the shot at 10:54 was taken. The current Road system has no point where M-10 and US-23 are together or near each other, let alone in a downtown setting. Best I can determine form my searching is that it is somewhere in/near Saginaw.
This is interesting when one thinks of the recent trend (also in England, I believe) to remove street signs at intersectuons. It was discovered that by removing signs, drivers would be more aware of their surroundings and drive more carefully, which reduced accidents - especially with pedestrians. Mind you, I think that's only for smaller towns or intersections, not the middle of London, for example.
In places like London, and parts of Netherlands, they are introducing a shared space between cars and pedestrians. In London, if you go to the Natural History Museum, or the Science Museum, or the V&A Museum, the surrounding area looks pedestrianised... But it's not, it's for cars as well. Cars have to dodge people, and people have to dodge cars - apparently these shared spaces are more safer, even though there are no lane or pedestrian markings. Hardly.
The part between 6:00 and 7:55 is quite interesting because the real life result has trended toward being that the London traffic police weren't necessarily wrong. Traffic light intersections are generally the most dangerous option and we've even seen a swing to the opposite direction with stuff like so-called "shared space" that do away with signage and return traffic operations to be more on a playing field of equality among road users with the expectation that they negotiate.
This video's title looks general, but actually is very Britain focused. Also there were more traffic laws, like driving on the left, banns on larger carts, tariffs, and priority military and parades was already enforced in Rome. Portugal had priority signs 1686.
At 7:10. This is actually true. There are these new crossroads being tried out in England that got rid of traffic lights, got rid of painted pedestrian crossings, got rid of all signals and rules, and cars and pedestrians can walk and drive whichever way they want. Urban planners discovered that what this English cop said was right--drivers and pedestrians would depend more on the signals than on their own observation. As a result, more accidents happened because motorists wouldn't slow down or wouldn't pay that much attention to where they were driving. By getting rid of all signs, motorists were made to slow down and be far more careful with where they were going. The same with pedestrians. The result--far, far fewer accidents at these new crossroads after the major changes.
One of the most interesting places I've ever driven was Palermo in Sicily. There are about a million people there, and not a traffic light in sight as far as I could see. The traffic was crazy. People drove with one hand continuously on the horn. It was a place where you just 'went with the flow'. Here's the funny thing: if you looked at the cars, you didn't see a lot of minor damage from fender-benders. Somehow, the whole thing just worked.
Could have done with some mentioning of that Dutch town that completely removed all road signs and in the process got way less accidents. Less distractions and more "use your common sense". Other European cities and towns are doing similar experiments.
It's funny watching old film reels from the early days of automobiles: Cars swerving all over the place and people just kinda wandering around leisurely in the middle of the road.
I live in rural Thailand and it amazes me how many intersections have no yield or stop signs, how they would decide who has right of way in the event of an collision I have no idea. I apply upmost caution on a scooter
Asian Street Scenes I live in Phoenix where all the infrastructure is geared almost completely for cars. I’m often on an electric scooter, so like you I just go when I can and exercise extreme caution
PongoXBongo in theory, but you say that like people here on bicycles follow rules. Most major streets like Thomas Road and 44th Street have cars driving 45mph+ and no bike lanes, parking lanes or shoulders, so even though bicycles and scooters are supposed to be on the street most people ride on the sidewalk so as not to get hit by a speeding SUV and cut across wherever there’s a break in traffic.
It's interesting that boats have come up with a consistent body of rules of right of way without widespread use of signals and surface markings. The difference is that in most cases water ways are broad, allowing faster, more maneuverable boats to go around slower moving one.
![The Wrong Way to Set Speed Limits [ST06]](/img/1.gif)
This is a special collaboration with UC Berkeley SafeTREC. This is also the first time I did not write most of the script! That’s why the tone of this video is a little different. But I thought you all would find this research as fascinating as I did!
Great video (:
This was a great one :) I did notice it was a bit different, but I really enjoyed seeing this topic alongside all of its historical context. 👍👍 Two thumbs up from me ;)
Great, but like many of your videos you repeat the same points, ad nauseum. Be concise!
Thank you for collaborating with my school! Currently in a transportation class intending to major in city planning, and your videos have been very useful :)
@@ParaxisOfficial It's my school too! I'm a PhD candidate in Berkeley's City and Regional Planning Program. :)
The only thing that keeps you safe on the road at 60 mph is a strip of white paint and the social agreement not to play bumper cars.
And a little thing called the will to live. Otherwise we would be jumping off of bridges. We've all had those toughts
DONTST0P also the will to let other people live. Otherwise everybody would be running over each other when they got road-raged.
We can combine this to push people off bridges by hitting them with our cars.
@@rishimanda2191 hahaha
that's why it's that much stupider when people do 90.
In the Netherlands and France, stop signs are really uncommon. The idea is generally that if you need a stop sign, the road/infrastructure design is bad and should be redone. Paris famously had only one stop sign in the whole city, which got stolen so often they eventually stopped replacing it.
India: Hey guys! What did I miss?
😂
Progress 🤷♂️
😫 Aboslute anarchy of 1.38 billion. Average IQ is below 60
@@bharathu5354 bet
@@bharathu5354 fursat se nilal ..
I live in south east Asia and early road rules sound a lot like some of the intersections around here even down to the traffic cop who come out to fix it when it gets jammed
"In some countries they drive on the right. In some countries they drive on the left. In this country we drive in the shade."
Sound like Liberia to me
thats how it is in Africa as well
Even in India, it feels like a free-for-all.
Ted Bayly I’m from Canada, and something that might explain this is that most people are 4th generation car users. Cars have been widespread since the 1950, my dad’s dad dad was a driver. Traffic rules are just part of life. In South East Asian car ownership has been booming since the 1990, so it’ll grow on you.
As someone who is currently writing an essay about the development of railway signalling in 19th century Britain, I found this really quite interesting.
Railways got alot more organised and disciplined regarding who 'got the road' (i.e. - got to go) but that was sadly due to a number of accidents in the early days. At one time, trains where separated by time, not signals, so if the train ahead ran into trouble there was nothing to warn the driver of the train behind that he was headed for a collision - the Armagh disaster was a sad consequence of that oversight.
Train signalling is also really interesting because it happens to be very similar to how microprocessors work and handle separate tasks. A friend of mine used it as an analogy in a paper she wrote for collage. It's also interesting how mechanical and logical it can be, again very similar to computers and it also makes the jams you can get in poorly built systems extra frustrating.
@@hedgehog3180 That sounds really interesting
Went looking for this :)
To me the big difference seems to be when "drivers" become encased and covered inside their cars.
The drivers of early cars and horse drawn carriages were all still out in the open, clearly visible, and able to communicate with their bodies and voices.
When the drivers are in roofed/covered cars, they lose the ability to communicate with each other.
A car isn’t a mega phone. Why would you need to be communicating by voice with another car?
@@xr6lad Same reason you'd need to communicate by voice with a pedestrian; to resolve intersection disputes in the age before traffic signals.
Windows still exist. Plus, on open-top cars and convertables still exist
Lol, at 0:21, that’s my hometown. It’s the intersection of 5 major roads and even the city has no idea what to do with it. The sign is usually hidden behind some trees too, so any newcomer only has a couple of seconds to decipher that mess before they drive into the intersection.
Confusion Corner makes sense if and only if you've been there enough times. Pembina Northbound (not shown) splits into two streets; a Donald and Southbound Osborne one, and into Cordyon which is Donald for right lane, and Osborne for left. Osborne is pretty straight forward, but to go south on Pembina, you have to go North on Donald and do a u-turn (which is the stupidest part of the intersection), which lets you go into Corydon and Southbound Pembina, respectively. Or Northbound Osborne again.
Basically, Cities Skylines irl.
You guys in Civil Engineering at all? Would love to network with some other City Beautiful subscribers in Winnipeg
A big trafic circle would do
@@dan_youtube Historical buildings and a large amount of traffic forced to go through this junction (plus the fact that people don't know how to drive in a roundabout) prevent that from happening
Roundabout should be fine right?
0:18 this sign is about 20 blocks away from where I live. Its called "Confusion Corner" in Winnipeg, Canada.
Saw that immediately too. Like hey Ive been there.... Oh wait I drove through there yesterday :p theres also a quite a few other clips sprinkled in through out the video. Just made me laugh
Me, driving up to that intersection: *looks at sign* “Osborne St, here I come”
There are people living in Manitoba?
What I find astonishing is it really wasn't that long ago, for such a massive shift in perception. I struggled at the start of the video to even understand the 19th century concept of road space; I love it when that happens.
Oddly enough in many ways the old ways are still the rule in the Netherlands, at least when it comes to bicyclist or shared roads. While most of the big conflicts have been removed thanks to design for the most part people don't follow the traffic rules and instead communicate with each other and who should go and how to behave.
If a cyclist comes to a traffic light and there are no cars turning into it's path they will just ride through red, because it just doesn't make sense for a cyclist to come to a full stop and and have to start up from a full stop again, car drivers will pay attention to approaching cyclist and if it looks like they aren't going to stop, they will just let them go even the though car had the green light and bike didn't ,without much if any frustration, because those car drivers are also cyclist and they know how annoying it is to stop on a bicycle.
On a shared road that doesn't permit cars to overtake cyclist, cyclist will often move over and signal for the car to pass, because nobody likes having a car on their tail. Even though you are only allowed to cycle two abreast, people will sometimes cycle with 3 or even 4 if the road is wide enough next to each other and they will simply move over if traffic approaches from the other side or if someone wants to overtake.
The people make the rules when it comes to cycling in the Netherlands, not the laws. This might be why cycling in the Netherlands may look so crazy to foreigners. Yes in some ways it is chaos, but it's a very controlled chaos and everyone in that chaos knows the rules and so the chaos works .
There are quite a bit of pedestrian and cyclist norms in most cities that are not written into law. For example, jaywalking is pretty common in many cities when car traffic is not heavy.
Cyclists tend to follow pedestrian or car norms based on whichever is wastes less energy and provide sufficient safety. Some US states actually tries to codify this into law, for example "Idaho stop," but there is not enough cyclists in US for this to become a law common to all states.
The important thing is compassion and empathy. People should understand that stopping for no benefit on a bicycle is much more annoying than stopping in a car where the safety benefits are much larger.
In most of the places I have lived people get irrationally angry when cyclists don't follow the letter of the law, even though nobody is being harmed and it increases risk by a small amount.
I find the road experience interesting in places like Mexico where there is a general understanding that people will make the pragmatic choices instead of slavishly following every stipulation. It feels like there is more compassion and even a sense of community as everyone understands that nobody wants to be stuck. Paradoxically it feels safer in Mexico because drivers are more alert.
I live in the Netherlands myself.
There is nowhere in the law that state that cyclist are exempted from general traffic rules.
Not adhering the law is a different factor. more over it is important to say that those customs should not be uses out side of the bigger urban centres. I live in Zeeland and if you would do that what you are talking about. You will find your self involved in a mayor accident . People do not expect you to ignore traffic rules.
This is how I behvae here in the UK. With common courtesy. But long gone are the days of equality on the road here and many people are plain jerks who think the nist expensive vehicle should dominate.
@@sirBrouwer I never stated that they are exempt from traffic rules. Notice how I said the cyclist run red lights, or how cars stop even though they have green and let cyclist pass? That's cyclist breaking the law.
You talk about people running red and getting into a mayor accident as if I said that they do it without thinking like a chicken without a head. The FIRST SENTENCE I mention that if there are NO CARS that cyclist will run red lights.
You seem to be focused on what the law says you must do instead of what happens in reality. Thousands of people break the laws, but just because they break the law and you think they should do it doesn't mean they don't do it. Don't act like I'm promoting people to break the law, but instead read and understand what I actually said.
Also, I also live in the Netherlands. So I'm not just some outsider talking about something I have no idea about. I talk about things I see all the time.
This was really interesting. In ordinary Australian English usage a “right-of-way” usually refers to a legally protected pedestrian pathway between two buildings etc. and rarely gets applied to a road or street. But I just looked up some road rules from the 1920’s and we were using this this term just as your video uses it. There was a newspaper article with a picture of a new sign (a weird tiny round sign on top of a striped pole) that read “Right-of-Way Street STOP”. Fascinating that we take all this modern infrastructure around us so for granted and have so little idea how it evolved.
As a Brit, I feel you've concluded with a very American idea as to "the right of way", and in particular Yield/Give Way.
You start by talking about medieval England, and represented it as a 4-way junction. By the end of the video, this is a 4-way stop. This isn't how roads work in the UK, and the original "confusing" representation of A/B roads is far more accurate. Roads have a relative priority, which determines who has the "right of way" - with minor roads that join more major ones required to Give Way (now represented by double-lines on the minor road's junction). You aren't required to stop if the road is clear, and the major road always has priority (and doesn't need to slow down). You only start getting controlled signals on main roads or congested junctions.
Who has the right of way is fundamental in the Highway Code, and it's for you to know who has it. It's up to the driver to be aware of their surroundings, driving to conditions but the pedestrian is king - if you hit one, you weren't paying attention. Jaywalking isn't a thing here - crossing through traffic is the done thing, and it's expected by drivers.
Whilst your commentary on the rules of the road is interesting, your conclusion is that the driver is an automaton and maps to US cities, grids and controlled junctions with their absolute authority. Contrast that with the ultimate example of "the right of way", a roundabout where rules still apply (to the confusion of 1850s traffic police) but it's ultimately the responsibility of the drivers (and pedestrians) all yielding if required that makes them work efficiently.
oh i didnt know that the triangles painted on minor roads werent universal, just like i didnt notice that intersections here have triangle right-of-way signs that go into effect if the traffic lights go out
I was thinking exactly this! By the way, I’ve had Americans try to argue that our right of way is stupid because “people will just jump in front of you for insurance fraud”…. I don’t know if that’s actually a real risk in America, but I’ve had multiple people argue it to me. I find it a very strange idea as I’ve never seen it and never seen it in the news. Yet they insist it would happen all the time if they adopted pedestrians always having right of way over there.
this is actually true, as an american. when i went to the UK, i could tell just by looking that spatial negotiation was still very much the way of getting around and people there just drive different. it is true that when presented with a stop sign or red light people will stop, but in general, drivers just drive by signalling to one another.
@@kaitlyn__L it happens but not very often. it's never happened to me, but, maybe that's because i'm living in canada now and have been for about 8 or so years. that said, it's never happened to me in the united states as far as i can tell either. but i'm not that old anyways.
@@kaitlyn__L People genuinely do that in America and there’s tons of footage of it online but I don’t think it’s as serious as people think. With a dashcam if anyone rammed you you could make them pay I’m sure.
"That very first traffic jam
(many years before the motor car came into use)
will always remain in my memory.
There were only about a dozen horses and carriages involved,
and all that was needed was a little order to keep the traffic moving.
Yet nobody knew exactly what to do; neither the drivers
nor the police
knew anything about the control of traffic."
William Phelps Eno
"responsible for many of the earliest innovations in road safety and traffic control. He is sometimes known as the "Father of traffic safety", despite never having learned to drive a car himself."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Phelps_Eno
I love that he got an honorary drivers license haha
@@TroyJamesMonger My parents just went and got their license when they were of age, there was no test. My dad said he used to walk to the store and to buy his dad smokes as a kid.
Some of the points raised by Ye old time policemen do actually hold up today surprisingly enough.
For example, theres studies to suggest removing road markings designating the center of the road actually increases road safety. Similarly 20mph speed limits were found to be more dangerous than 30mph speed limits due to decreased awareness by various users (which is something predicted).
It does apply to city centres mostly, not highways, though. But it's true, and many places desperately need this.
The same applies to signs. They removed all the signs in a town and not much changed as people drove more cautiously.
I’d noticed a lot of city streets had no paint, but you can still generally see a centre seam in the tarmac. It is interesting though, especially when the width grows and shrinks but not the number of lanes.
Wow, it’s incredible to think about how drastic the change to lifestyle was
This was way more fascinating than it has the right to be. I keep imagining what someone from the 19th century would think driving on a modern road. It would be incredibly fascinating to see what they noticed and thought.
you can just look at footage from intersections in countries like India, Iran, Egypt, etc.
Thanks for the explanations! In large parts of the world the old rules (= "no rules") still apply. In a revival of this old thinking about traffic some cities even began to abandon all modern traffic rules and are going back to individual negotiation of right of way.
That was super interesting my dude, and part of me misses the absolute right of way that I never actually had :D
Pretty much still how it is on a push bike, take as many liberty's as you like so long as you go at a sensible speed for where your riding, don't piss anyone off by causing a disruption to flow or traffic or footfall and don't get yourself mangled by putting yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It would be nice to have a more dynamic range of speed limits for motor vehicles though.
Just go to Indonesia and have fun
🛑
trust me it only creates insane traffic jams
YOU: "No law can make a horse go faster than it's able to"
SOVIET PLANNERS: **eyes twinkling**
a horse can pull two fucking cars out of the mud
@@ohhi5237
Not the same as speed.
@@sion8 google hp vs torque noob
@@ohhi5237
I know what torque is.🙄
@@sion8 now google horsepower
The 19th century: Road rules make it too complicated for humans to understand and make roads unsafe.
The 21st century: The roads are too unsafe when humans drive which is why we need self-driving cars.
😂
Which comes full circle back to the negotiation stage. In this case it's between individual vehicles, as well as the roadway itself, with the help of computers and sensors. Now it's the humans who are too slow instead of the competing vehicles.
dojokonojo you see this kind of doomsday thinking and fast turnaround in many areas of technological innovation. One of the simplest is that musicians felt the gramophone would kill off live music, that radio would kill off sale recorded music, that the internet would kill off music sales. Same with theatre thinking that television would end live performance. What tends to actually happen is a process of adaption, things do change but one doesn’t end the other forever, after all we still go to see live music, radio stations still exist but in a largely different form on the whole, the sale of recorded music has changed to the ‘norm’ being some kind of subscription service but the majority of people do still pay for access to the music they want, one way or another.
@@hogfather22 This. Cars can communicate near instantaneously from a distance. No more need for traffic signals. Actually, you won't even need information signs (like what highway it is or how far to the next city) because the cars will know it all already.
Funny how the road rules have made drivers into the stupid drivers we have today.
@@Dayvit78 I wonder if self-driving cars become the majority, it would be practical for non-autonomous cars to at least have some little gizmo to broadcast their location and movement to the self-driving cars. So although the non-autonomous car can't react to the behavior of autonomous cars around it, at least the autonomous cars can react to it.
Maybe that's another way autonomous cars will change; instead of having all this complicated technology for interpreting visual information, why not have everything give off remote signals to be received by the cars? Or like some kind of constant Google Maps connection where the program itself says "stop here," "do not enter there," etc. Having AIs painstakingly interpret through cameras seems like an unnecessary middleman, like the aforementioned traffic cop and traffic signals.
0:18 love seeing Winnipeg's Legendary confusion corner sign - Big part of the experience of living in Winnipeg that makes me want to become a Planner
I see 4 way yield intersections all the time...
On Russian car crash videos.
That's not true. There is no such thing as a 4-way yield in Russia as it exists in the US. There are uncontrolled intersections where the priority-to-the-right rule applies which comes from Article 18.4.a of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic.
@@SergeMatveenko I'm looking again, my mistake, those are triangles but with pedestrians on them. In other words no signs for the motorists at all. I know for one thing, it causes lot of crashes.
@@dragonskunkstudio7582 Well, passing on red light does it well as well...
@@dragonskunkstudio7582 actually 4 way yield intersections don't exist anywhere in Europe. We have either give way sign for 1 road or uncontrolled intersection where you give way to the car on the right of you.
@@arturturkevych3816 never seen one in the US either, only 4-way stops, which are extremely safe. Cars go in the order in which they stopped
I find it interesting that early on the fear was that if people had rules and signs they would stop worrying about the fact that they are responsible for ultimately avoiding an accident and rather worry about who was right and wrong legally. They were pretty smart back then as we see so much of that these days.
7:11 makes a good point in that people definitely pay a lot more attention to others in places where traffic culture is still developing. When it's normal to see someone driving down the wrong side of the highway or have someone turn left from not-the-left lane, you pay a lot more attention.
If you look at the statistics, countires with a more established driving culture and respect of driving laws do have fewer accidents and deaths, but it also leads to more of a "cruise-control" driving mind-set. Anyone who's been on the road in countries like Indonesia vs countries like the US would know.
Absolutely right. although you can drive quite faster if you're well aware in developed countries, just like what they teach in advanced driving in UK (namely the Roadcraft system of car control).
I would also look at safety related industry's such as theme parks, aviation and railways.
the amount of training and oversight used has a large impact in how safe things are. flying should be one of the most dangerous ways to travel. yet its one of the most safe do to all the efforts put in to it. when you train your staff and promote great culture and following the rules every time by the book, you get great results even when errors are made. on the other hand, if a operator choses to undertrain their staff, you get much worse results.
for comparison, drivers in the us have a easy time getting certified with only a handful of operational hours, no nighttime operational hours, no winter weather or bad weather testing. honestly they only really cover the basic rules and some advice on how to solve common problems. the next results is that people can and will take chances, they do not feel responsible to other people, they do not get taught how to take care of other people. they dont even think about the other people in the other cars. all of this is a side effect of car dependency, cause if the state took away all bad drivers right to drive, alot of the work force would get stuck. you never get safe results with undertrained people who do not want to be where they are when they are after dealing with a hard day of work and having underslept for the last week. especally when they have a 2 ton suv going 60 plus, why should we make them drive.
0:21 Winnipeg's Confusion Corner Represent!!
(Osborne St meeting Pembina, Donald, and Corydon)
I got so excited seeing that road sign from my home town. Winnipeg represent!!
Woohoo! Winnipeg represent!
To be fair, this is a very accurate representation of Winnipeg.
This is an amazing video, not only is it interesting and captivating, but it’s incredibly informative and gives great insight into how this shift in societal thinking happened; I love it!
When you showed both Winnipeg and Boston from 0:19-0:30, it made me so happy.
Fun fact - "right of way", in the UK, nowadays is more of a pedestrian term and refers to things such as public footpaths and national parks. A public footpath may cut in between farmer's two fields, and perhaps even annoy them to no end, but they have absolutely no right to restrict pedestrian traffic through it.
And in Scotland there’s right to roam, which extends far beyond just those footpaths so long as you’re not damaging anyone’s property or invading their privacy!
Utterly fascinating. Nice to see this level of academic analysis paired with visual polish. A rare combination on RUclips.
Even after road rules became a thing, we English were still guarding the principle that no one type of traffic has general right of way over another. You may have right of way by virtue of your relative positions but not because you are a pedestrian or a horse or a bicycle or a car. In the 1960s the Minister Transport painted a red line around Marylebone road junction & said he was going to fine any pedestrian who crossed it (i.e. an attempt to ban jaywalking). It caused outcry as it was in violation of this principle.
Great content.
What is missing a bit is the lobbying for the car. Without the rules automobiles couldn’t go as fast. The rules are there to speed up automobile traffic at the cost of all others. This was a deliberate shift. You touch this topic somehow but it should go deeper.
In the early eighties and afterwards the price for the automobile focus in urban design was showing its toll. Many countries tried to snatch living space back from the cars. In several European places there is now something called shared space going back to the concept of negotiation between the persons involved. It is a more human oriented concept. I’d suggest you have a look into this and amend that great and insightful video...
Yeah it definitely exists where I live and it's amazing how much life it gives to a city. The city I live in isn't even extremely big but the center is always incredibly lively and busy and it gives a lot of space for art and politics etc. I wonder how much urban design contributes to stuff like voter engagement levels because I can imagine that people are more likely to vote if they are met with politics in the daily space.
"The rules are there to speed up automobile traffic at the cost of all others."
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Pedestrians and cyclists are making comparatively slower, shorter journeys where a 30 second wait for a cross signal is a non issue. Cars are for going faster for longer trips where that 30 second wait translates to a lot more potential travel distance lost. It's just more efficient to prioritize car traffic because car traffic is the most efficient form of transport.
@@ausaskar Totally disagree. In densely populated urban areas cars are the least efficient and slowest way of moving people. Bicycles, segways, fast, frequent and reliable public transportation are the most efficient and usually just as fast.
Your channel has such great info I can't simply find elsewhere.
I knew Nestlé is an old company, but when you SEE the times it was founded in, it makes you rethink what you know about the biggest brands and how much they've been through to stay afloat
It's not that hard to imagine, here in Brazil a lot of cities on the interior don't have signs or demarcation, people just communicate with each other by eyes or hand gesture and it works. We in the big cities also use more communication than actually follow the laws in traffic because is the most simple and obvious way to go. Order that appears naturally from the complex interactions of the individuals is more capable of solving problems that people think.
It also isn't that hard to me, especially for lower speed interactions. I live in the netherlands and a lot of people ride bikes here and in bike-on-bike traffic contacts there are way less traffic signs or lights and there are only a few official rules: Right goes first, straight ahead goes first, and that's it. But people don't always follow this rule, for example larges bike paths with lots of traffic tend to not stop for a person in a small side street who is expected to simply merge in, and people might choose to stop to let a cargo bike or a bike with a kids buggy behind it through rather than take their right to move. There is a lot of 'this is practical right now' involved in it and the slower speeds give the needed time for it.
How are the car accidents statistics though
@@Crozz22 most of the accidents in the country side happens on the highways:
1.people fell free to be a speed demon because the road is pretty clear and straight
2.the problem is that those roads are maintained by the government most of the time, which means they are abandoned, full of holes, cracked, poorly signed about curves.
In the small cities there are accidents and mostly because of people driving drunk.
In the big cities is a hell. Constantly and anywhere there accidents happening because of all the above, people speeding, driving drunk, streets poorly maintained, but also in the cities I've been to, there are always signs everywhere, stop lights, pedestrians crossings and such.
"it works"
Yeah if you consider it working when you can go from point A to point B without getting killed or involved in an accident, you might think that it works.
But if you take a look at industrial data for designing roads and cars, There is obvious evidence that travel speed is much higher in countries with such laws and signage, because you don't have to stop and interact with every monkey at every junction; when you have right of way, you just continue on.
In the UK, there's no all-way stop - not even when traffic lights are out. Most junctions we figure it out for ourselves but one day during a power outage, a 5-way junction was utter chaos. I stopped my motorbike in the middle, signalled the traffic to stop and then fed it through in pretty much the same pattern as the non-functioning lights. No-one had to do what I said but everyone did. Half an hour later, a cop arrived and took over but there was nothing but gratitude from all concerned.
7:47 Nestle's Milk ad on one bus, Nestle's Food ad on the other
Defensive driving course taught me no one “has” the right of way, but one must yield right of way when necessary.
I learned when driving a company vehicle that it doesn't effect my personal driving rate. If I have the right of way I will not budge, crash into me if you like.
Wow! I’m a Traffic Engineer and it never crosse my mind how we got to where we are. Great video!
@Hernando Malinche It sounds nice, but how would you get anywhere quickly? I wouldn't want to spend hours walking to and from work every day.
@@zerokelvinkeyboard1012 Trains
If we ever get flying cars, its gonna be interesting how those laws will work
Most of people's fantasies about flying cars is that they themselves have it just so they're literally above the mere mortals subjugated by gravity--they're not thinking about how to use flying cars when everyone else also does.
like plane traffic laws?
Futurama methods
But if you look at more developed countries they use more public transport and bicycles which is also better for the environment
oh yeah and flying cars exist
This subject is fascinating! I cannot generalize for all traffic disputes, but I do agree with intro to absent minded driving with the introduction to traffic signals in place of individual negotiation. People make a lot of mistakes and many lives are lost. You could say that this could be due in part to the speed and human error etc, but there are so many studies I’ve looked into about what happens when signs signals and markings are removed from the road and multimodal traffic is given free reign. Drivers become more cautious, and way more cautious because now they have to watch and mind everyone worse they’re sharing the road with. Today the roads are over designed. Roads designs are more concerned about moving as many cars through as fast as possible at the cost of safety...
Fascinating video! It feels like scenes like 6:50 were a million years ago but that was literally the world my great-grandparents grew up in.
My grandfather was born in 1906 and had no electricity for a while at home(mountain village). He nearly died as a child because a candle fell on his bed.
*shaking and squealing* You used a picture of a Confusion Corner sign from Winnipeg! I drive through that intersection every day!
This was surprisingly interesting and engaging. Very well put together and explained. It’s quite shocking how young traffic control and road rules are and fascinating on how quickly we as humans can adapt and change to meet new problems. Thank you so much for teaching me something new!
I hate the phrase "Right of way" in modern traffic. It causes so many accidents needlessly.
I much prefer the more cautious approach of "you have no rights, only responsibilities".
This really helps people sort out potentially dangerous situations. Even if you have a green light it doesn't automatically mean you can go with impunity. Should someone run the intersection you damn well better be prepared for it or you've failed regardless of "who's at fault".
This is especially true at pedestrian crossings. ALWAYS MAKE SURE that traffic (all of it) is aware that pedestrians are going to be crossing now.
NEVER just walk out onto the crosswalk because you have a "green man".
Yeah, when I learnt to drive I was taught to never think in terms of if you have right of way, and instead think of if you have to give way. Similarly to how a green light doesn't mean go, it legally means "Go if it is safe to do so".
7:56 Reminds me of my transit police here in Lima, Peru.
Was really cool seeing Confusion Corner make its way into the start of the video! Winnipeg is a car-dependent nightmare sometimes.
A perfect conclusion to this would have been to mention the invention of the roundabout in early 20th-century Britain. It has kept the idea of individual negotiation going to the present day, as these came to be used on most road intersections in the UK (instead of traffic lights, as in the US); roundabouts still require a certain degree of individual decision-making about when it is safe to yield or go forward.
~3 videos in a month...
Good job Dave :D
Thx if u taking 2 me bow donate 2 my patreon
i laughed when he was describing the situation when cars were becoming a thing, how people were suppose to drive and interact on roads just through intuition......lol we still do the same in India, in bigger cities situation is slightly better but most of the driving is just interaction on the roads with human intuition. In our defense cars started to become a thing in late 80's and still as bad as traffic is very few people owns them and amost 99% of them are first time buyers so i'm hopeful of the improvements in the future. Also the main pain in the ass is parking, you just can't find it.....!!!!😡 Gosh we need lots of infra....
Anmol At least you still have a few alternatives, like walking or the metro, or just take an auto.
Maybe y'all are actually ahead of other places that have built so heavily for the auto and now are seeing the I'll effects of that 🤔 It's really hard for those places to "undo" what's been done.
1:13 Cambie & Water, Vancouver, BC - there's a bike lane on the East side of Cambie now.
But even by 1906 (@ 6:43), San Francisco traffic was going in specific directions on Market Street: The hand lane gong toward the Ferry Building (in the distance) and the Left hand lane going away from the Ferry building.
I can definitely understand the perceived naturalness and efficiency of navigating and negotiating the traffic flow spontaneously, even I believe sensor/AI-controlled systems are likely best. My city once had some bad flooding that knocked out power for some blocks downtown. Everyone behaved as a good senor-light system would. If a stream of cross traffic was moving, you wait. If it broke and you get through, you did, and may led your own stream of traffic through. Any issues with turns, or that stream was very long, etc., you inch closer, make hand signals, etc. The dangerous potential existed of course, but it was quite cool and fun experiencing how well it worked. Of course, the slow, dense traffic made it work out safely enough.
6:36 Those people were on to something. In recent years, there's been a movement in many places to reduce road signs and markings and instead rely only on the basic "right before left" rule, to make drivers pay more attention to the traffic instead of blindly assuming everything will be okay because the signs say they have right of way.
So, we're supposed to adapt to idiots running red lights? Please, they have it coming.
Very educational. Now I know how traffic lights and signs came to be.
This mindset of the right of way of these old times seems wonderful!
Nowadays it wouldn't make sense at all, but I adore it's naturalness just watching these clips.
Lol why wouldn't it make sense now?
The British are such admirable people when it comes to law. As a constant battle between the classes, British law is a mixture of a class system and the most equal law in the world.
There is no such concept as "British Law". The UK does not have a national legal system.
@@dairallan yes it does. Take the highway code for instance.
@@choncord Murder being illegal in every country does not mean they have the same legal system. The UK does not have a legal system. Wherever you are you are subject to Scots Law, English Law or Irish Law. The Highway code is only interpreted in the context of whichever legal system it is being used in (which can and does mean different rulings in different jurisdictions).
No they smell
Thought provoking piece. Thanks for doing this.
I think those police who were against traffic signs were right. People go by the signs and don't actually THINK about the situation and the vehicles involved. The attitude becomes "It's my right of way and I'm going"; they don't look or consider that the vehicle they've just pulled out in front of can't stop because it's bigger and heavier. They were also spot on about without people realizing that there is a direct consequence to their actions, they don't think about safe driving. You see it with the modern cars who have auto brake assist, self driving etc; people do not think "I'm in charge of upwards of 1.5 ton of machinery, I should pay attention because it's my fault if I kill someone".
The lack of awareness on roads today is shocking.
It's become nearly ridiculous thanks to AI, when a Tesla crashes the driver blames the company because it was on autopilot...
Diego Vera - in places like India there are so many people and so many road users (of all levels) that it may be difficult to have today’s standard road rules upheld... as it is most intersections seem to be ignored, their ability to create 8 lanes from 2, and go when there is only half a gap keeps things moving. Rather than stop/start with clear intersections likely leading to backing traffic up even further.
0:19 it's my hometown, winnipeg! Dubbed confusion corner for a reason ;)
Glad I'm not alone here in the peg!
Hi sir. I have seen how bad traffic has got here in mumbai. And often thought about how and why the more developed world was such a breeze through in comparison....such an informative and interesting video !!.thank you Sir
seeing images of streets where people walk carefree down the middle of the road and knowing that I will never be able to do that without looking over my shoulder is kinda heartbreaking
Seeing this video helps me realize that automated driving has been on the way a lot longer than I had thought.
This was a fun video. It would also be interesting to see a deep dive into some of the early traffic signaling mechanisms themselves, how they worked, their tradeoffs, and the path to uniform adoption.
I freaking LOVE THIS CHANNEL!
Nice video. It would be interesting to see your take on those cities where they have removed traffic lights and other priorities. It means drivers have to be as careful as cyclists and pedestrians when negotiating junctions. They have to slow down to give them time to do this. None of the usual racing through lights as they about to change to red.
This makes the roads a lot safer!
For a driver it has to be clear, unless you are on a main road (yellow-white sign), when nothing is signaled, the car on the right has priority. That's a basic driving rule. Where I live there are special pedestrian zones (20km/h for cars). It means bikes and pedestrians always have priority. Drivers have to stop for pedestrians anyway at crosswalks (150$ fine)
0:20 that's my home city! I can't believe Crazy Corner in Winnipeg got into one of your videos!
Lots of interesting points, and some interesting comments below. I would add a couple of historical points. For much of history the right-of-way [as defined today, i.e., who goes first] had a distinct class element. A feudal lord's carriage or those under his employ had r-o-w over the untitled. When two nobles strutted over who went first, it could become the subject of a duel (pre-auto road rage). While silly to our sensibilities, class created order on the roads.
In a similar vein, the colloquial quip "tonnage rules" imposed its own form of order. It was only when speed outstripped human scale (rails and motor cars) did external tech come into play.
Maritime traffic, particularly in harbors and narrow passages, has long had established rules and to some extant served as a forerunner to land transport issues.
What I think is interesting in the Netherlands (where I live) is that they now are moving away from many traffic rules, and gradually moving back to this more free and anarchistic way of traffic management. For example, they started removing lines, barriers and curbs at intersections and replacing the asphalt with bricks, resulting in it becoming a shared space where cars, bikes and pedestrians move freely between one another. Dutch road design is more focused on forcing the people themselves becoming more aware of their surroundings, rather than expecting people to follow rules and being responsible. I believe it's the next step in traffic evolution.
This is an excellent episode! Thanks for taking the time to explain these concepts it’s very interesting!
I am interested to find out where in Michigan the shot at 10:54 was taken. The current Road system has no point where M-10 and US-23 are together or near each other, let alone in a downtown setting. Best I can determine form my searching is that it is somewhere in/near Saginaw.
Talks about having to stop at certain sign, video shows Civic driver blowing a stop sign, LOL.
Great video though!
This is interesting when one thinks of the recent trend (also in England, I believe) to remove street signs at intersectuons. It was discovered that by removing signs, drivers would be more aware of their surroundings and drive more carefully, which reduced accidents - especially with pedestrians. Mind you, I think that's only for smaller towns or intersections, not the middle of London, for example.
In places like London, and parts of Netherlands, they are introducing a shared space between cars and pedestrians. In London, if you go to the Natural History Museum, or the Science Museum, or the V&A Museum, the surrounding area looks pedestrianised... But it's not, it's for cars as well. Cars have to dodge people, and people have to dodge cars - apparently these shared spaces are more safer, even though there are no lane or pedestrian markings. Hardly.
Great video--fascinating history! Also lol at the confusion corner shoutout
You should definitely do the follow-up video to this one, about how the roads are regulated in many towns of the EU, particularly in the Netherlands
2:07 In the UK, theres still a lot of places with that same system in the 21st century
Brilliant! Everyone should watch this!
Lols at confusion corner in Winnipeg.
thanks for the recap. good help for non-native speakers.
Drivers licenses became a thing in the 30's (Europe was in 1932, U.S.A, 1935)
The part between 6:00 and 7:55 is quite interesting because the real life result has trended toward being that the London traffic police weren't necessarily wrong. Traffic light intersections are generally the most dangerous option and we've even seen a swing to the opposite direction with stuff like so-called "shared space" that do away with signage and return traffic operations to be more on a playing field of equality among road users with the expectation that they negotiate.
This video's title looks general, but actually is very Britain focused. Also there were more traffic laws, like driving on the left, banns on larger carts, tariffs, and priority military and parades was already enforced in Rome. Portugal had priority signs 1686.
Oh my goodness this was LEGIT MIND-BLOWING 🤯😎
The Confusion Corner sign!
1:26 Huh... so *this* is what inspired those weird traffic lights on _SpongeBob_ (as seen in "Wormy" and "Snowball Effect").
Yeah
Thank you for this wonderful video. I love watching your videos. 😃
At 7:10. This is actually true. There are these new crossroads being tried out in England that got rid of traffic lights, got rid of painted pedestrian crossings, got rid of all signals and rules, and cars and pedestrians can walk and drive whichever way they want. Urban planners discovered that what this English cop said was right--drivers and pedestrians would depend more on the signals than on their own observation. As a result, more accidents happened because motorists wouldn't slow down or wouldn't pay that much attention to where they were driving. By getting rid of all signs, motorists were made to slow down and be far more careful with where they were going. The same with pedestrians. The result--far, far fewer accidents at these new crossroads after the major changes.
One of the most interesting places I've ever driven was Palermo in Sicily. There are about a million people there, and not a traffic light in sight as far as I could see. The traffic was crazy. People drove with one hand continuously on the horn. It was a place where you just 'went with the flow'. Here's the funny thing: if you looked at the cars, you didn't see a lot of minor damage from fender-benders. Somehow, the whole thing just worked.
Could have done with some mentioning of that Dutch town that completely removed all road signs and in the process got way less accidents. Less distractions and more "use your common sense". Other European cities and towns are doing similar experiments.
It's funny watching old film reels from the early days of automobiles: Cars swerving all over the place and people just kinda wandering around leisurely in the middle of the road.
This is one of your best videos yet. Thanks for the great content. I wonder if/how autopilot will change affect this over the next century.
I live in rural Thailand and it amazes me how many intersections have no yield or stop signs, how they would decide who has right of way in the event of an collision I have no idea. I apply upmost caution on a scooter
Asian Street Scenes I live in Phoenix where all the infrastructure is geared almost completely for cars. I’m often on an electric scooter, so like you I just go when I can and exercise extreme caution
@@danieldaniels7571/videos Don't scooters follow bicycle rules?
PongoXBongo in theory, but you say that like people here on bicycles follow rules. Most major streets like Thomas Road and 44th Street have cars driving 45mph+ and no bike lanes, parking lanes or shoulders, so even though bicycles and scooters are supposed to be on the street most people ride on the sidewalk so as not to get hit by a speeding SUV and cut across wherever there’s a break in traffic.
That driver totally rolled through that stop sign at 1:16!
0:18 Shoutout to Winnipeg, and confusion corner.
It's interesting that boats have come up with a consistent body of rules of right of way without widespread use of signals and surface markings. The difference is that in most cases water ways are broad, allowing faster, more maneuverable boats to go around slower moving one.
Gotta love the old British tradition of Freedom
Dead tradition.
This is great. Thank you.
Where is the path at 2:50?
In Germany we have a deviation between 'Vorfahrt und Vorrang' but almost nobody knows it.
Freie Bürger, freie Fahrt :) 's gibt kein Geschwindigkeitslimit auf deutschen Autobahnen :))
Aber Richtgeschwindigkeit
@@paxundpeace9970 , ich hab Deutsch ganz vergessen :) Ich studierte es 12 Jahre vor und hab es nie seitdem gesprochen :))
6:44 "How on earth motorists would read and drive at the same time?"
Lol. Texting while driving's roots.