• Illecors@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Fair enough on the part in bold.

    As someone who lives in London, I can say it does come with a caveat - traffic system here are set up by chimpanzees. It makes no sense, none of the three groups - pedestrians, cyclists or drivers - get prioritised. None of the lights are interconnected, so all they bring is annoyance for everyone. I’m an occasional pedestrian, cycling commuter and a (mostly) weekend driver.

    TLDR - no wonder the study found that.

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      The article/slideshow I linked is not a specific scientific study that was done in London, it’s a summary/aggregate of other studies that are referenced at the end of the slideshow. It was a study summary made for London, but the science behind it is a lot more general.

      I’m from Belgium and from my own personal experience, I find that well done low speed zones really do improve the flow of traffic. Cities in the Netherlands have been at it for probably over 2 decades, Antwerp has followed their example since about a decade and now other cities in Flanders are copying Antwerp’s homework. When done well, it works really well and almost noone wants to go back to how it used to be. You’re right in that coordinated traffic lights are a big part of why the traffic flows much better, but in congested streets, a lower speed is needed to keep that flow going.

      In Belgium we also have a big example of how to not do street renewal/traffic improvement programs: Brussels.