This is so true!
Traffic engineers need to be part of the solution to the transport problems we face, but most of the time I really think that they’re actually the biggest part of the problem. I know there are traffic engineers out there who read this blog – please please you need your profession to do better!
Processing...
This is eerily precise.
Recommended related reading:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-22-confessions-of-a-recovering-engineer
This is a repost of something either Matt L or Nick R, (or was it Jeremy?) posted a while back somewhere but is an entirely appropriate accompaniment.
I’d even guess that article inspired this video.
As the cartoon suggests, the issue lies with the standards that the engineers have to follow, their historical origins, and how they can be changed. It is not really the engineers’ fault. Engineers have to follow the standards or they can be sued. If we want engineers to do things differently, we have to change the standards through political action.
Once upon a time, cars were so unpopular that you had to walk in front of one waving a red flag. That was the standard in those days. Over time the standards became more and more car-friendly, and now it is the pedestrian that is expected, in effect, to wave a red flag before stepping out onto the road.
The standards are, as such, a kind of ‘frozen politics’, and they are in a constant state of flux as the balance of power between automobile interests and pedestrian/resident/public transport user interests evolves.
For more on the history of roading standards see Peter Norton, Fighting Traffic (MIT Press 2008). Today the struggle goes on in the context of traffic calming, “road diets” and “livable streets.”
It is possible to redress the balance, which is never final, but it always involves changing the standards, because engineers are afraid of legal liability. You wouldn’t expect engineers to ignore the boiler code and its the same with the road code, whatever it may be at any given time.
This simple fact also helps to explains the otherwise baffling weakness and impotence of ‘green’ councils in the face of engineering pressures for more and wider roads. All traffic standards are controlled at central state level (read, NZTA). When push comes to shove the engineers must, in effect, ignore the local council and do what the NZTA standards tell them to do. Indeed, NZTA generally won’t fund anything non-standard, and that’s an added incentive.
So to blame the council, or even the council engineers, is a bit like blaming an Auckland-based computer for a fault in a program downloaded from Wellington.
What this ultimately means is that the ball is in the court of NZTA and that is where the pressure also needs to be brought to bear, by those who seek to change things.
Wouldn’t the council be better placed to challenge the standards with the NZTA than lobby groups, especially if more than one council got together and said that this is what they want.
This is excellent. The robotic voice “we must meet the standard” is entirely appropriate. Reminds me of Steven Joyce – the CBT alternative to the Holiday Highway does not meet the standard – a four lane motorway.
Chris Harris,
Well put and I generally agree. However I would say in my experience as a (different kind of) engineer, standards are sometimes used as something to hide behind by defensive engineers. Also most standards that I have used give opt out clauses, where the engineer can use their judgement, and are generally require a fair bit of interpretation. Maybe this isn’t the case with traffic engineering standards and they are black and white, but I think in any case engineers are professionals and have to take responsibility for the wider social and economic effects of their designs.
It’s like talking to a speaking clock! Maybe we should replace Joyce with one!