CBS Finds Less Govt Regulation Means Fewer Traffic Accidents in Dutch Town

  • Bookmark and Share

On Saturday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Mark Phillips filed a report that lends credibility to the conservative or libertarian theory that too much regulation can be counterproductive and even lead to results opposite to those intended, as he highlighted a town in the Netherlands that took the seemingly radical step of removing all its traffic lights and road signs. Rather than resulting in more dangerous roads, the number of traffic accidents dropped substantially, presumably because road users – which even includes many bicyclists and pedestrians – were forced to think for themselves to navigate the intersections in the absence of rules set by the government.

Anchor Jeff Glor introduced the report: "Can you imagine having no traffic lights or signs or any other way of keeping cars and people apart? The results would be dangerous chaos, right? Well, Mark Phillips tells us what happened when one town in Holland tried."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Phillips began his report by recounting the story of the busiest intersection in Drachten, in the Netherlands, where – despite the presence of many bicyclists and pedestrians – the removal of traffic lights resulted in a reduction in accidents:

The normal civic response here and elsewhere has been to put in more traffic lights, divide the roadway into lanes, control things. But the response in Drachten has been the opposite. They took the controls away, and a funny thing happened. The accident rate around this intersection went down – way down – from more than eight a year to fewer than two.

After describing the "Shared Space" theory of urban planning, Phillips clarified that the approach relies on individual responsibility: "The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual."

Now, if only CBS would realize that a similar principle of encouraging individuals to think for themselves would also work better on issues like saving for retirement or choosing a school for one’s children.

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, September 5, CBS Evening News:

JEFF GLOR: Can you imagine having no traffic lights or signs or any other way of keeping cars and people apart? The results would be dangerous chaos, right? Well, Mark Phillips tells us what happened when one town in Holland tried.

MARK PHILLIPS: They've got a lot of faith in human nature in the small Dutch down of Drachten. Its main intersection is a busy place where cars and trucks compete with people on bicycles and others on foot. The normal civic response here and elsewhere has been to put in more traffic lights, divide the roadway into lanes, control things. But the response in Drachten has been the opposite. They took the controls away, and a funny thing happened. The accident rate around this intersection went down – way down – from more than eight a year to fewer than two.

NIESKE KETELAAR, CITY COUNSELOR OF DRACHTEN, THE NETHERLANDS: We wanted to appeal to social behavior, people's own behavior and responsibility.

PHILLIPS: The city council here decided to implement a new philosophy in urban planning called "Shared Space." Left to their own devices, the thinking goes, people use their own devices.

KETELAAR: A little bit of chaos helps people to think for themselves, be alert and react on the situation.

PHILLIPS: Not far away, in the village of Makkinga, the sign you see as you approach town is the last sign you'll see. All traffic signals and notices have been removed. Everyone – from school kids to truck drivers – is on their own.

MARLIES BOUMA, TEACHER: You see the children looking, where can I cross? What's a good place to cross?

PHILLIPS: The whole point of the "Shared Space" idea is that it changes behavior. Drivers no longer look for road signs or traffic lights. They look for people on foot or on bicycles. People on bikes have to watch out for themselves and for those in cars and on foot. And those walking have to watch out for everybody. The idea is that this takes responsibility away from the traffic engineers and puts it on the individual. The idea is catching on in bigger places. There are now "Shared Space" schemes in several countries in Western Europe and some being considered in America.

BEN HAMILTON-BAILLIE, SHARED SPACE DESIGNER: As soon as you remove the certainty provided by signals and lines and regulation, then the attitude of drivers changes completely. This is one of the paradoxes-

PHILLIPS: That’s a tough sell, though.

HAMILTON-BAILLIE: It's a tough sell. It's very difficult, and it's not surprising that people feel uncomfortable with this idea. It takes a while.

PHILLIPS: But where it's been tried, the people and the dropping accident statistics say it works. Mark Phillips, CBS News, Drachten, Holland.

—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

People have a false sense of security

Regulations give people a false sense of security. They assume if they are following the rules everyone else is too. The real damage is done when people break the rules assuming everyone else will follow them. Lack of regulation means you have to be more observant. Pay more attention. I would be curious to see if the reduced deaths continue or will people get used to the situation and operate under some adhock rules as a result. This leads to complacency which is the biggest danger to us all.

Gosh, what was it Paul Havery always said

For years I heard Paul Harvey say that self-government won't work without self-discipline.

He was right. But with a media with no discipline to discover the truth, how are they going to survive?

I am beginning to really enjoy the alternative media!

I'm reminded of Montana's "Reasonable and Prudent" highway laws.

Montana, in the US, tried a novel highway speed regulation that designated the limit to personal judgment of a "Reasonable and Prudent" speed. Chaos ensued as a highway patrolman was challenged for pulling over a man speeding in a sports car. The expectation of "reasonable and prudent" speeds was tossed out as unconstitutional, basically because the meaning of "Reasonable and Prudent" had as many variations as there are people.

The relation to this story should be obvious: what happens when someone is driving too fast and endangers others, without necessarily hurting someone, when there is no clearcut law in place to handle the situation? How is an enforcement officer supposed to handle a situation in which all parties believe they are behaving reasonably, within the law, yet some are endangered?

Traffic laws are not only intended to ensure safety at intersections, but to provide straightforward accountability and liability in the case of an accident, or even an attack. By creating arbitrary restrictions and boundaries, laws can be enforced justly.

Abusive behavior can only be prevented by clearcut boundaries, legal or otherwise. It's only human nature to push things as far as you can, and as everyone knows, good judgment is a very rare thing.

Autoban

I have only one comment, the German Autoban. It has lower accident rates than US highways and no speedlimits. It requires drivers to pay attention. US drivers are seduced by the apparent safety of the highway and thier automobile and almost all accidents are caused by a lack of attention, not someone deliberately breaking highway laws. Safety is a personal responsibility and somehow we as Americans believe that our safety is someone elses responsibility as your comment has suggested.

I agree about personal responsibility...

I believe, though, in order to have just laws, the lines of accountability and liability must be clearly drawn.

I think this is why it's so hard to find that fine line between personal responsibility and just accountability. I encourage you to back up your statement about the Autobahn with reliable, verifiable links/research, so that we can be better informed, but I'm convinced that regular self-guidance is better than government handholding, given the appropriate framework of laws to support it. Thanks for your input!

boundaries

I have to disagree. There are only boundaries when there's a policeman observing. Haven't you ever seen the brakelights on a highway when a police car is seen on the shoulder?

People go the speed they want to and with few police patrolling highways, or any streets actually, it's ever man for himself.

As for less regulation, take traffic circles. They keep traffic flowing without stop signs or lights and I've yet to see an accident. Every residential intersection should have them instead of the signs that many just run.

Traffic Laws

Personally I think speed laws should be suggestions...and we get rid of seat belt laws etc..

Obama syndrome on the highways

is what causes more accidents that anything else:

-I need to get through that yellow light so that I am ahead of everyone else.

-I drive better thatn anyone else

-I can afford an accident because I have insurance

I own the orad aroind me and will not share its use with others

Where as my thinking has been adjusted to:

-My family needs me home safe every night.

-My daughter needs me to tuck her in, I never want to have her tuck me in a hospital bed. 

-As a human being, even my boss has been late for work once in a while

-If the other guy is such a bad driver, what can I do to reduce my risk of engaging him?

-All of these people have a place and family to get to, I;m going to do my part to help them get there today

-They paid thier fuel (use tax/toll) and can share in this space

-I am but a cog on the highway machine, the network depends on me to operate effectively.

What kind of loon thinks this way after being licensed fo 30 years?

 Never in a accident, Never a speeding ticket, Never an insurance claim, Pretty sure that I have never caused a accident behind me, I manage my speed before intersections, letting brake pads last for 75K mi because , Original clutch on a 94 Ranger w/ 180K. Never called AAA for tow/lockout/battery. All scheduled maintenence, and a small business mechanic I entrust my familys' life to.

 

 

 

 

 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, You're welcome - Deskpilot, AM(H)1 (AW), USN (Ret)

before discussing the pros and cons of their idea

it would be prudent to first google the street layout of this town with a population of 44,537 and one 'major highway' running through it.more like a large hamlet,quite typical in europe.

"...to fewer than two."

 Um, wouldn't that mean one or zero?"

Average

They are talking about an average, like your intelligence.

(Sorry, didn't really mean that. Like Roger Rabbit says "I did it because it was funny right then." As a NB reader/commentor I'm sure your intelligence is, as Garrison Keillor says, above average.)

He shudda gone to Napoli . . .

Anchor Jeff Glor introduced the report: "Can you imagine having no traffic lights or signs or any other way of keeping cars and people apart?

Actually, I can.  Mr. Glor should've visited Naples, Italy where I lived for 3 years.  In Bella Napoli, there are traffic lights and stop signs, but they are merely ignored.   If you do stop for a red light, you are very likely to get rear-ended by an Neapolitan who assumes that you were going to drive through it.

And generally, traffic seems to flow along.  In fact, when there is traffic congestion at intersections, it's usually because two cops (always pairs) have decided to direct the traffic, neither one paying attention to the signals the other one is giving.

I have actually ridden in a Neapolitan cab driving on a sidewalk for two blocks on the wrong side of the road.  Perturbed pedestrians gave us a stare, but stepped out of the way, and no persons or vehicles were damaged in the process.

Free Talk Live

Time to plug a radio show called Free Talk Live.

A couple of the hosts hold to the philosophy of voluntaryism. (As much as y'all hate it, see the Wikipedia article on the subject to get an idea of the philosophy.)

Makes for some pretty interesting discussions.

You'll struggle with their point of view but see that there is some truth to it. But as with most philosophies it eventually breaks down because humans at root are selfish. (Yes, I really mean evil and sinners, but I'm trying to be a little more PC.)

I'm Not the Only One

I saw this too! I watched the 2 part video on Youtube.

 I wouldn't be against this in some areas of the cities. They said in the video that the "community" and "village" feel returned after they got rid of all the traffic signs. Obviously this does not have to be practiced everywhere but it should be given a try in an American city or smaller town. 

Not for long

This never works for long, because the first time there is an accident at an intersection some liberal handwringer will shreik "something has to be done". Then a weakling politician will conclude "we'll put up a traffic light; yeah, that's the ticket."

Next time there's an accident, no one will suggest that the light be taken down because perhaps it's not working.

The default position in our society always seems to be toward more laws and more regulation. We very rarely see too much regulation as the problem.

Too many laws and

Too many laws and regulations actually WEAKEN the rule of law. People begin to feel like it is impossible to obey all of the thousands of laws and the result is a net INCREASE in lawlessness.  Even law enforcement can not enforce all of the laws because there are just way too many of them.  Law enforcement has to pick and choose which laws they feel are the most important or easiest to prosecute.

look and live

In the not so old days the rule for walking through traffic was look and listen. Now, pedestrians think they have a right to step out without paying attention, not unlike Kathmandu and other third world cities where the villagers who come to town put their heads down and ran across the road. Given American habits I'm not sure it would work here.

The Days of Old.

I'm reminded of the tales (true tales at that!) I heard of The Days of Old when cars first started appearing on rural and city roads in America.  I am especially reminded of one regulation that required all motorists to stop, get out of their cars, look both ways at the intersection, and, get this, RING A BELL before driving across the intersection. 

The reasoning behind all of this?  To reduce the number of accidents, especially preventing terrified horses from bolting at the sight of a car!  The reality?   The Horses were more terrified of that danged bell than they were of the cars.    The number accidents at these intersections actually increased, especially when the number of cars began to increase and which lead to massive congestion problems at the intersections, all due to foolish regulations.  The greater the congestion, the greater the risk of accidents.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

The only reason we have so

The only reason we have so many laws out there is because of some portion of the population being idiots that think they should do whatever the hell they want to do.

There's a lot of idiot drivers where I live (I think they think they're on the NASCAR circuit or something), but you rarely hear a horn honk, and if you do it's short and just to tell the person ahead of you that the light's changed...after waiting several seconds.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.