[Sigia-l] Counterintuitive

[Matthew deStwolinski]

Yogesh,

Thanks for your response.  This is a great conversation.

< 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) 

People have a finite amount of attention; we all know that.  I'm sure
there have been studies on how many things around them people can pay
attention to.  If you're coming down a road and there are 500 signs
around, the marginal return of each sign is going to be pretty low.  If
there's one sign, it's probably going to be a bit higher.  I don't think
anyone would argue, especially an IA, that signs are bad.  (If Monderman
did, then I forgot that and I would disagree with him.) But they can
certainly be misused or overused to the point that they're not effective
(or at least not as effective as they could be).  Add to that, sometimes
people just choose not to pay attention to what's going on around
them...they don't care or they're preoccupied with something else.

For example, there's a parking garage I use that had signs EVERYWHERE to
take your ticket with you because you have to pay before you return to
your car.  Yet I'd still see people who wouldn't do it and then say "oh,
I didn't know", even though they kept putting up more and more signs.
Now the machine you get your ticket from tells you with a recorded voice
to take it with you and doesn't raise the gate to let you in until it's
done telling you.  I passed someone just the other day who was talking
into the exit box, saying they didn't know they had to pay.

I would think that the better solutions (in general...not just traffic
management) would involve streamlining what "signs" a person needs to
pay attention to and giving them incentives to do so.  First, you can
remove some just plain unnecessary signs (we often have a tendency to go
overboard).  Also, you could change the nature of the sign such that it
requires less attention to get its point across.  Signs don't always
have to be flat surfaces with words and images on them; I liked his idea
of having a fountain in the middle of the traffic circle that rose
higher when there was more traffic.  You can also redesign the situation
and the signs such that some signs are no longer necessary and those
that are left work in harmony rather than fighting against each other
for attention.  

I think one of the key part of Monderman's idea is that it works to
focus people's attention in particular ways at particular times.  It
discourages other activities at intersections by making them appear more
dangerous.  It uses the architecture of the area to direct people rather
than always depending on small signs and lines which can be more easily
missed or ignored.  It's easier to ignore a stop sign or red light, for
instance, than a giant stone fountain in the middle of the street.

< 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?

Very good point.  Stress is a negative to consider, and we're all
certainly pretty stressed already while driving.  It could be that by
increasing the "appearance" of danger (and causing some stress in the
process) we can actually end up reducing other stresses that are out
there.  Anything that improves traffic flow, for instance, should reduce
stress to some degree.  So there are probably some positives and
negatives on stress levels.  I don't know what the net result is.
Hopefully Monderman and others are taking it into consideration.

< 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.

Yep.  Whatever the merits, his ideas are definitely "out there" compared
to a lot of other proven and promising ideas.  I'm going on so much
about this so much mostly because I think it's fascinating to look so
far outside the box.  But more than anything, I'm just glad there are
people out there that are really trying to improve these kinds of
things.  Sounds like we're on the same page there.

Matthew deStwolinski