[Sigia-l] Counterintuitive

[Yogesh Tadwalkar]

 From: "Matthew deStwolinski" <
The lack of expectations and habits is exactly one of the things that
makes this new design safer.  When you don't know what to expect and are
forced to act to a new situation each time, you pay attention.

Yogesh: Yes, you are right about that logically. But my question is whether 
the basic assumption 'drivers do not pay attention to pedestrians because 
they are looking at road signs' is correct? I do not have any statistics on 
this, but let's say it's true. But then, why not place signs at more 
intuitive locations or such that it gives enough time to drivers to 
form/change a strategy (take a turn, reduce speed, etc.). Removing signs is 
a very crude, lop-sided solution. Think about  a driver who is not sure 
where to turn and depends on street signage - he is duped now - no signs. 
(Get a map and read it in the car? Now THAT'S distracting and dangerous) 
Also, removing traffic lights is an equally crude solution. Definitely they 
do not 'distract' anybody ! In fact, they actually help. Think of a old man 
or a school child trying to cross on the new road. Will a parent ever feel 
safe about  her child crossing this road. Frankly, I do not think so. 
Lastly, stopping or slowing 34 cars for an odd pedestrian may prevent 
accidents, but remember it's a busy intersection and regardless of what you 
may say that 'car throughput' is not the goal here...it's always a goal on 
any road.

< 2. No rules situation loads working memory beyond what's necessary.
Now
< speaking on cell phones while driving (something people will not stop
< doing despite all stats) will be even more dangerous.
That's definitely the intuitive argument, but the counterintuitive
argument is that people do these distracting things because they have a
false sense of security.  The more dangerous the situation appears, the
less comfortable people feel and the more they pay attention.

Yogesh: Your argument is right again. But why stress people (both drivers 
and pedestrians) when it's not necessary? Cell phone conversation and 
chatting with a friend while crossing were just examples of doing a 
secondary activity while driving or crossing. There can be others. Why make 
simple situations 'more dangerous' forcefully?

Despite all arguments, I am sure I am missing something here. It can't be 
that a Europe-wide feasibility study has been commissioned for Mr. 
Monderman's solution for no reason. Frankly, I want to be proven wrong about 
whatever I said here. That will be great - honest.

Actually, in the simple world, there are simpler solutions to ensure flow of 
traffic and pedestrians like pedestrian bridges or underpasses. But then, 
Mr. Moderman may not find these solutions as radical as 'removing even the 
street lights'. So I will not suggest them.

regards,
yogesh