Should traffic laws apply to the sidewalks?

Hello Dear Columbus Circle Hostel Guests as well as all of you Globetrotters and City Dwellers out there!

Today, we’d like to share a fascinating (to us at least) article we stumbled upon while browsing Psychology Today. The article stirred some turmoil among us behind the frint desk and so we thought you might also find it interesting and worth discussing. It makes sense particularly if you live in a busy and vibrant city such as New York. And yeah, we couldn’t resist adding some comments of our own which you’ll find in brackets. Sorry, Mr Jaffe!) Let us know what you think!

Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com)

Walking the Line
By Eric Jaffe
Created Apr 21 2010 – 7:33am

Over at “Frontal Cortex,” Jonah Lehrer recently wrote about why commuting makes us so unhappy. Well those of us who commute by foot have plenty to complain about too. And, according to new research, it appears we’re quite justified.

A group of “crowd physicists“—the best job I’ve heard of since assistant to the traveling secretary (we couldn’t agree more! LOL) —has found that up to 70 percent of walkers travel in groups. As the researchers report in PLoS One (full study), this sidewalk socializing slows down foot traffic by roughly 17 percent. (Do you also find it that these “slow walkers” are more than super frustrating, especially if you’re already running late for work or class and still have to catch the subway??? ughhh…)

These insights demonstrate that crowd dynamics is not only determined by physical constraints induced by other pedestrians and the environment, but also significantly by communicative, social interactions among individuals.

The researchers found that when people walking in groups run into space problems, they shift into convex V-shapes to facilitate socialization. These V’s, according to the researchers, “do not have optimal ‘aerodynamic’ features.”

(…) A previous study by several of the same authors (pdf here) found that problems arise even when we walk alone:

In case of head-on encounters, a binary decision takes place: pedestrians need choose whether to evade the other person on the right-hand or on the left-hand side. This decision process goes along with a significant decrease of walking speed. … It is therefore advantageous for an individual to develop the same preference as the majority of people.

The Headcase, for one, believes we could remove “preference” from the equation by holding walkers to the rules of the road. Let’s face it: In the current sidewalk regime, walking is a free-for-all. I’m constantly weaving in and out of stop-and-chatters. I’m lifting my arm to pass shorter people and small children. Oh I’ll use the bus lane. Seriously, what other aspect of society allows such unfettered chaos? Hell, even banks might get regulated (oh yeah!).

The aforementioned papers are mathematically based, but I see sidewalk congestion as a largely psychological problem (so do we!). As a result, I suspect much of it could be solved with a simple behavioral Nudge: painting lane lines on sidewalks.

Think about it. Most people would instantly fall into predictable traffic flows. The system could mature from there: A high-speed, singles passing lane on the left. A slower, two-person lane on the right (the bizarro H.O.V. lane). The beauty of this plan is its simplicity.

Threes remain a problem, but three is a problem in driving too, with one person stuck in the back. The fastest walker would naturally take the driver position. (Do you hop into the Accord when there’s a Boxster in the garage?) Standing talkers would be ticketed, just like drivers on cell phones. Move it to the storefronts, people. I’ll stop short of proposing a Walker’s License, although, if nothing else, a Dept. of Bodily Vehicles would create jobs.

The biggest foreseeable puzzle is how to minimize the pile-ups that occur when people wait at curbs to cross. I propose keeping a one-body distance from the person in front of you, so opposing traffic can pass, though admittedly this could get complicated. But hey, that’s why we have crowd physicists.

(Jeez, if the has article caused so many opposing arguments here at CCH, maybe it means we’re all too stressed out and should cut down on the “overanalyzing” and just chill out a little? Hmm, makes sense… But what can we do? Life today demands that we either hurry up or else will be left behind, sadly dragging our miseries at the end of the line, far behind the winners…Right?