Talk:Traffic calming

Shared space
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)


 * Somehow I think american drivers are far too crazy and neurotic for that to work here. How did they manage to do this? --radiojon 07:32, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I would guess that people stopped "jumping the lights" and started to actually look where they are going. Lights create a tendency to "speed up to catch the green" whereas junctions without lights necessitate slowing down to check the other roads.  Just a guess, would like to see the study. --/Mat 04:57, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bike lanes
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)


 * You're right, they only calm traffic when they make the car lane narrower, but that falls under street narrowing. --Erauch 03:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Bicycle lanes wouldn't generally fall into the category of Traffic Calming, being more a safety and mode-shift encouraging measure, but most area wide Traffic Calming schemes and Traffic Calming measures will consider the needs of cyclists so it's probably appropriate that they are mentioned. Street Narrowing, having a direct correlation to vehicular speeds is indeed a traffic calming measure that is widely used and can be, in particular, demonstrated by the effects that horizontal deflections such as traffic islands, build outs (curb extensions) and overrun areas have on speeds. I've written a thesis about Traffic Control, and Traffic Calming in particular, that I'll be trying to convert over to this article once my finals are done with! Fiachs 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the geographical spread of "traffic calming"?
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)


 * Traffic Calming Innovation seems to be primarily occuring in the UK, so it's probably suitable that majority referance is made to it. Part of my thesis was comparison of the Traffic Calming measures of Dublin, Ireland; Manchester, UK; San Diego, USA and Calgary in Canada so I'll have that up ASAP Fiachs 19:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to roadhumpcampaign.org website
I think the link to "Public debate site for road humps" should be deleted. Please discuss at Talk:Speed bump Softgrow 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Traffic Calming
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)


 * You don't only think it should be removed, you have removed it. I guess it conflicts with your POV so as usual...SNIP. softgrow, I am sure that you know that when two words are juxtaposed, the meanings of those words gets conflated. The conflation of those words does not accurately represent the idea being expressed. You clearly dislike the fact I put this fact on a page you seem to be pruning and seeding like a pristine front garden to represent your ideas as closely as possible. That is not what wikipedia is about. Please replace it or if you think it is POV, keep the same idea there but edit it to make it less POV. If I think it is too pov in a different direction, I'll edit it again. That is how the wikipedia works. --Nick R Hill 23:45, 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)
 * Goodness! Is this so difficult, that we need a link to calm?  Jim.henderson (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Traffic calming does not improve liveability. NantucketNoon (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you define liveability, some way of measuring it, then studies which back up your assertion? otherwise its a POV. SteveLoughran (talk) 21:09, 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.

Chokers Redirect?
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)

two wheels?????
It says:


 * The town of Hilden in Germany has achieved a rate of 24% of trips being on two wheels, mainly via traffic calming and the use of 30 km/h (20 mph) zones.

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)

The term "Verkehrsberuhigung"
I just corrected the German term "Verkehrsberuhigung", since it was written wrong. 88.67.174.190 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with article name
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)

Dubious tag
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 "

I don't see what's dubious. This sentence accurtely conveys the Institute of Transportation Engineers' definition:
 * Traffic Calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Traffic Calming - ITE

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)

NPOV dispute - Problems With Traffic Calming Are Not Addressed
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)


 * Wikipedia goes with what reliable sources say. The Cochrane Review is a reliable source - because it evaluates all of the published, professional, peer-reviewed literature (unlike the self-published opinion from the motorists advocacy group)


 * Motorists.org is not a reliable source. If there are peer reviewed critiques from a real expert, then you can add them.


 * -- Callinus (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Problems With Traffic Calming Are Not Addressed REDUX
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


 * -- Atrobinson (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2015 (EST)

Why do so many articles give o'Toole the time of day?
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)