![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My useful changes have been removed twice by a scammer - the account is called Waddie, ridiculously claiming that the "changes were not constructive"! Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D180:6700:159D:46C2:49E6:14E7 ( talk) 13:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
we should mention the recent experiments in the netherlands: they tried removing the traffic lights from dangerous junctions. it apparently works; very wiki-way! -- Tarquin 09:38 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Are bike lanes really a traffic calming measure? It seems to me that their primary purpose is the opposite, allowing drivers to pass bicyclists that would otherwise be in the traffic lane. -- SPUI 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is unclear which countries or cities this article is talking about. It seems to be mainly England, but also Portland, OR, USA is listed in the references. But the state with the most reckless driving is Rhode Island U.S.A Maybe a Instances of traffic calming section would be useful... JesseW 06:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the link to "Public debate site for road humps" should be deleted. Please discuss at Talk:Speed bump#Link to roadhumpcampaign.org website Softgrow 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
A recently added section (which I reverted and has been re-reverted) states:
The term "Traffic Calming" states that traffic can be calmed. Traffic is an abstract concept, does not have emotions so cannot be calmed. The effects on Emergency Vehicles, residents, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers need to be considered, and to these groups, calming is not necessarily the effect.
I think this should be removed as the author is trying to get the meaning of Traffic Calming by looking at the words individually rather than what the abstract concept represents. Traffic calming is nothing about the emotions of traffic it is about the effect of traffic. Softgrow 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The Paragraph which seems to be trying to define the meaning of the metaphorical phrase "Traffic Calming" strikes me as un necessary; when I first read the phrase, comprehension of it's intent was immediate. I was not confused into thinking "Gee, I didn't realize that the highway could get all mad." I just see the issue of attempting to define the metaphor as being needless 'over-parsing' of the phrase. A generous effort on the part of Mr. Hill, but adding perhaps too much verbage. Like the phrases " Over-pass " or " speed-bump " - "traffic Calming's" meaning is apparent. MBD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.81.62 ( talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Traffic calming does not improve liveability. NantucketNoon ( talk) 06:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The quoted text at top of this section has a valid point. I do not think that "traffic calming" is a neutral term, and I'm dismayed to see it used in multiple articles here. It is a political term, with not a little dose of sarcasm, used to sell intentional defects in road design that drivers don't actually want, and oppose. A neutral term would be "traffic slowing" or "traffic resisting" or "traffic congesting" because that is the intent and effect, when placing obstacles or other alterations in an otherwise freely usable lane. Any driver in such a circumstance is not likely calm, and may experience road rage if you identify these features as "calming" at the time. If the title cannot be changed because this reflects technical jargon that is actually in current use, so be it, but an explanatory note is certainly required. Regarding the studies, we should also note the impact on violence at home, and lost productivity. The effect of these things likely goes well beyond the roadway. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The above post is highly POV. There are countless European towns where traffic calming is used heavily without a bit of road rage. You're coming at this from an American perspective. Once it becomes commonplace, US drivers, bikers, and pedestrians alike will realize the benefits.
The link for 'chokers' redirects to the New York Mets. I don't know if that's somebody's stupid joke, or an actual nickname for the Mets, but since it's not what's needed here and there's no page for the actual thing the link redirects to I'm truing it into normal text. 71.235.22.11 ( talk) 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It says:
My first thought is that the drivers go a bit fast around the corners, causing one side of the vehicle to lift off the ground. My second thought, given that this is "via traffic calming", is that speed bumps are being used as jumps. The front wheels lift off the pavement. After they settle down again, the back wheels lift off the pavement.
Perhaps this is really supposed to mean that people switch to motorcycles so that they can go around the side of the speed bumps? Weaving motorcycles would be horribly dangerous. Worse yet, maybe it means using motorcycles on sidewalks to avoid the speed bumps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.209 ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just corrected the German term "Verkehrsberuhigung", since it was written wrong. 88.67.174.190 ( talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be re-named 'traffic creation'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.137.165 ( talk) 23:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this tag in the lede: "Traffic calming consists of engineering and other measures put in place on roads for the intention of slowing down or reducing motor-vehicle traffic and thereby improving the living conditions for residents living along the road dubious – discuss "
I don't see what's dubious. This sentence accurtely conveys the Institute of Transportation Engineers' definition:
Is the tag is meant to imply dubious effectiveness, or that the true intent is something else? Either way, the tag should be replaced with properly sourced text. -- Triskele Jim 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The article presents the positive outcome of traffic calming as a fait accomplis, but there are also many alleged drawbacks. These include impeding emergency vehicles, further shunting traffic away from primary to secondary and tertiary routes, increased accident rate (particularly involving motorcycles and bicycles), increased traffic delays and congestion, increased pollution, and pain and injury to persons with disabilities.
http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calming/problems is a secondary source, which references multiple government and industry primary sources and other secondary sources.
Atrobinson ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Demanding "peer reviewed" evidence is code for "I don't understand the process of scientific analysis and publishing." An NPOV article must make an effort to include all reasonable points of view related to an issue, not simply those that are "peer reviewed." With respect, the fact you consider a source "unreliable" is irrelevant: as I indicated in my original comment, the article links or references multiple primary sources that ARE "reliable," and many if not most that are "peer reviewed." It is incumbent upon the author of a reference article to pursue those sources.
http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/investigating_effectiveness_of_traffic_calming_strategies_corkle.pdf
I do not think what a random American far right figure says is of particular relevance to this topic. He's not a scientist, he's got no data to base his assertions on and he's a fringe figure we within the U.S., let alone globally. So I suggest we remove his ramblings and instead find more evidence based comments on which methods of traffic calming work and which do not... Hobbitschuster ( talk) 11:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Anyone considered just who might be funding many of the right wing nuts and their attacks on safety zones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.182 ( talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My useful changes have been removed twice by a scammer - the account is called Waddie, ridiculously claiming that the "changes were not constructive"! Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:D180:6700:159D:46C2:49E6:14E7 ( talk) 13:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
we should mention the recent experiments in the netherlands: they tried removing the traffic lights from dangerous junctions. it apparently works; very wiki-way! -- Tarquin 09:38 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)
Are bike lanes really a traffic calming measure? It seems to me that their primary purpose is the opposite, allowing drivers to pass bicyclists that would otherwise be in the traffic lane. -- SPUI 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is unclear which countries or cities this article is talking about. It seems to be mainly England, but also Portland, OR, USA is listed in the references. But the state with the most reckless driving is Rhode Island U.S.A Maybe a Instances of traffic calming section would be useful... JesseW 06:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the link to "Public debate site for road humps" should be deleted. Please discuss at Talk:Speed bump#Link to roadhumpcampaign.org website Softgrow 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
A recently added section (which I reverted and has been re-reverted) states:
The term "Traffic Calming" states that traffic can be calmed. Traffic is an abstract concept, does not have emotions so cannot be calmed. The effects on Emergency Vehicles, residents, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers need to be considered, and to these groups, calming is not necessarily the effect.
I think this should be removed as the author is trying to get the meaning of Traffic Calming by looking at the words individually rather than what the abstract concept represents. Traffic calming is nothing about the emotions of traffic it is about the effect of traffic. Softgrow 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The Paragraph which seems to be trying to define the meaning of the metaphorical phrase "Traffic Calming" strikes me as un necessary; when I first read the phrase, comprehension of it's intent was immediate. I was not confused into thinking "Gee, I didn't realize that the highway could get all mad." I just see the issue of attempting to define the metaphor as being needless 'over-parsing' of the phrase. A generous effort on the part of Mr. Hill, but adding perhaps too much verbage. Like the phrases " Over-pass " or " speed-bump " - "traffic Calming's" meaning is apparent. MBD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.81.62 ( talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Traffic calming does not improve liveability. NantucketNoon ( talk) 06:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The quoted text at top of this section has a valid point. I do not think that "traffic calming" is a neutral term, and I'm dismayed to see it used in multiple articles here. It is a political term, with not a little dose of sarcasm, used to sell intentional defects in road design that drivers don't actually want, and oppose. A neutral term would be "traffic slowing" or "traffic resisting" or "traffic congesting" because that is the intent and effect, when placing obstacles or other alterations in an otherwise freely usable lane. Any driver in such a circumstance is not likely calm, and may experience road rage if you identify these features as "calming" at the time. If the title cannot be changed because this reflects technical jargon that is actually in current use, so be it, but an explanatory note is certainly required. Regarding the studies, we should also note the impact on violence at home, and lost productivity. The effect of these things likely goes well beyond the roadway. 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 06:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The above post is highly POV. There are countless European towns where traffic calming is used heavily without a bit of road rage. You're coming at this from an American perspective. Once it becomes commonplace, US drivers, bikers, and pedestrians alike will realize the benefits.
The link for 'chokers' redirects to the New York Mets. I don't know if that's somebody's stupid joke, or an actual nickname for the Mets, but since it's not what's needed here and there's no page for the actual thing the link redirects to I'm truing it into normal text. 71.235.22.11 ( talk) 04:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It says:
My first thought is that the drivers go a bit fast around the corners, causing one side of the vehicle to lift off the ground. My second thought, given that this is "via traffic calming", is that speed bumps are being used as jumps. The front wheels lift off the pavement. After they settle down again, the back wheels lift off the pavement.
Perhaps this is really supposed to mean that people switch to motorcycles so that they can go around the side of the speed bumps? Weaving motorcycles would be horribly dangerous. Worse yet, maybe it means using motorcycles on sidewalks to avoid the speed bumps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.152.209 ( talk) 06:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I just corrected the German term "Verkehrsberuhigung", since it was written wrong. 88.67.174.190 ( talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be re-named 'traffic creation'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.137.165 ( talk) 23:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding this tag in the lede: "Traffic calming consists of engineering and other measures put in place on roads for the intention of slowing down or reducing motor-vehicle traffic and thereby improving the living conditions for residents living along the road dubious – discuss "
I don't see what's dubious. This sentence accurtely conveys the Institute of Transportation Engineers' definition:
Is the tag is meant to imply dubious effectiveness, or that the true intent is something else? Either way, the tag should be replaced with properly sourced text. -- Triskele Jim 17:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The article presents the positive outcome of traffic calming as a fait accomplis, but there are also many alleged drawbacks. These include impeding emergency vehicles, further shunting traffic away from primary to secondary and tertiary routes, increased accident rate (particularly involving motorcycles and bicycles), increased traffic delays and congestion, increased pollution, and pain and injury to persons with disabilities.
http://www.motorists.org/traffic-calming/problems is a secondary source, which references multiple government and industry primary sources and other secondary sources.
Atrobinson ( talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Demanding "peer reviewed" evidence is code for "I don't understand the process of scientific analysis and publishing." An NPOV article must make an effort to include all reasonable points of view related to an issue, not simply those that are "peer reviewed." With respect, the fact you consider a source "unreliable" is irrelevant: as I indicated in my original comment, the article links or references multiple primary sources that ARE "reliable," and many if not most that are "peer reviewed." It is incumbent upon the author of a reference article to pursue those sources.
http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/investigating_effectiveness_of_traffic_calming_strategies_corkle.pdf
I do not think what a random American far right figure says is of particular relevance to this topic. He's not a scientist, he's got no data to base his assertions on and he's a fringe figure we within the U.S., let alone globally. So I suggest we remove his ramblings and instead find more evidence based comments on which methods of traffic calming work and which do not... Hobbitschuster ( talk) 11:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Anyone considered just who might be funding many of the right wing nuts and their attacks on safety zones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.182 ( talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)