Talk:Curb extension

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Chokers and Fence Gates?

Not sure where this might go or if other pages might be better, but any narrowing of the traffic right may result in calming and may be called a choker. One particular example of a choker which may or may not fit here is a fence gate. A fence gate is constructed to come very close or even partway into the right of way to cause traffic to slow and go around. I'll try to provide some photos of these. -- M0llusk 04:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article touches on the advantages of curb extensions (sightlines for pedestrians etc) but there is no mention of the negatives. Many exist such as reduced on-street parking, narrow roads (especially at junctions) force cars closer together increasing the risk of an accident. No proof of this but it also makes driving seem more stressful. Many schemes near me have been made too narrow for 2 buses to pass through together, hence causing a traffic backlog. There is also a road in Fife, Scotland which is littered with these and when the parallel (fast) road was closed due to an accident all traffic had to use the "slow" road and large queues were caused by lorries/buses having to wait to pass the kerb extensions.161.12.7.4 (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was one drawback discussed. I've added more to address some of your concerns. Actually, the slower speeds fostered by curb extensions would tend to reduce the risk and severity of collisions more than the restricted width would cause them (assuming, of course, they aren't poorly designed).

At mid-block crossings, they can actually reduce the loss of parking spaces, since pedestrians are moved out to where they can be seen. Parking can be allowed up to the crosswalk, where usually the last few spaces would be eliminated. Triskele Jim (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, forcing cars closer together does NOT create more accidents. In fact, it has been proven to slow people down pyschologically, creating LESS (and less severe) accidents. Kerb extensions (whether for buses or for other reasons) have been used for safety advantages in this sense before. Ingolfson (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems to appear that traffic calming measures tend to increase accidents and some increase fatalities as well. The biggest criticism ha been that traffic calming techniques kill by increasing the response time of emergency vehicles. I'd also like you to prove that people are calmer in congested traffic, stuck behind slow moving cars when you are trying to make a right or left hand turn but can't because its blocked by some silly extensions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.51.171 (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source supporting your assertion of increased crashes and fatalities? Recent reports have found that, with the exception or cardiac arrest, ambulance response time had 'no measurable effect' on survival rates, and the cost of rushing to the hospital (patient stress, ambulance crashes) can exceed the cost of driving more cautiously. There is no crash test requirement for ambulances, and when they do occur, the patient and the EMT treating them are often injured in the crash.(http://roguemedic.blogspot.com/2009/11/emergency-medical-services-intervals.html)--Triskele Jim (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to traffic calming measures in general: Leslie W. Bunte, Jr. "Traffic Calming Programs and Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods" University of Texas, Austin, ma thesis... "A policy analysis was conducted specifically for the conflict that had arisen in Austin, Texas. Based on quantitative processes, this analysis showed that Austin would lose an additional 37 lives per year with patients of sudden cardiac arrest if the Fire and EMS Departments experienced a 30 second delay

in response times due to traffic calming. The analyses also concluded that at best, only one pedestrian life could be saved each year from traffic calming as pedestrian fatalities rarely occurred within residential neighborhoods. A risk/benefit analyses also demonstrated that traffic-calming devices have more of a negative impact than a positive impact to the community."

If I recall correctly, that study looked primarily at speed humps, which have a much different effect on emergency vehicles (and traffic in general) than curb extensions. I'd appreciate it if you could find it online. All I found were secondary sources and broken links.

Could you find support for your assertion that extensions cause crashes? And not a quote from O'Toole. I mean a rigorous study, preferably using the Empirical Bayes method, that shows a statistically significant increase in injuries after curb extensions were installed.

How many examples can you provide of turn lane that were eliminated to provide a curb extension? If the turn lane is needed, then the cost-benefit analysis would be against the curb extension.

If you want to be taken seriously, find a more neutral source than O'Toole. He's not exactly known for being NPOV.

If you think anything in this article needs a citation, please tag it with "citation needed."

--Triskele Jim (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of some good evidence here too. One problem which all road improvements have in generating defensible data is that the primary metric -injury/death rate- is so low its hard to measure at any specific location, except at those few roads/junctions that are really, really dangerous. More subtly, if some road improvement reduces the volume of at-risk road users (e.g. a pedestrian crossing so bad less people use it), the main measure "less people KSI this year" is flawed, as it has to be offset against a reduced volume. You really need to be able to say "pedestrian traffic the same/increased and KSI reduced" to show an improvement.

Returning to the texas paper, I can't find it online, indirect references [[1]] imply it is about speed humps not build-outs; therefore any reference to it must be in that article not this one. Also, the London police article says "A Masters Degree paper has been written by Asst Fire Chief Leslie Bunte, Austin Texas indicating the possible outcome of delays to the emergency services, based on a mathematical formula developed by Prof. Ray Bowman.". Therefore it's formulae and theory time, so we'd need to see the mathematics. Where this gets complex is that any feature that encourages exercise-centric transport options -walk/run/cycle do apparently reduce the risk of heart disease, so you really have to take that into account too, which gets very tricky fast. Better just to say "the cited article doesn't apply here, there is no evidence that build-outs slow down emergency vehicles so lead to a loss of life". If someone were to do the original research on that topic they'd have to look at the impact of reduced cornering velocity on response times as well as any consequences of downstream congestion (assuming build-outs cause it). Whoever looks at EV response times from speed humps, build-outs and anything else also has to consider whether the police and ambulances should be responding quite as fast as they like to, as they seem to kill people themselves [[2]] [[3]]. SteveLoughran (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from bus bulb

Support - as it is, this is basically a fork for the American name usage. Kerb/Curb extension is more generic. Ingolfson (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this article makes only one reference to bus, and isn't even clear if the bulb is for the bus stop, or mounted infront/behind of a bus bay. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - don't quite get your point. A bus bulb is a specific USE of a curb extension. You could argue that it is substantial enough to be kept on its own (I still note that in that case it sounds a bit too much like a US-only term) but certainly there is a logical case for it being partof the curb extension article too. Ingolfson (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bus bulb is linked from public transport templates, merging it here as a specific use would occlude that purpose. The two articles cover different scopes, if it is a specific usage it can be linked from the text here - my point is it wasn't, it's hardly clear that this is a specific usage as this article is currently worded. The naming issue is irrelevant, as long as alternate names are redirected and included in the lead. US/other names never have and never will be resolved, there's no point merging articles on a name basis only, especially when they don't cover the same scope. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Curb extensions and bus bulbs have some similarity, but are created for quite different purposes. The curb extension is used for traffic management purposes. The bus bulb is intended to ease access between buses and their passengers. This is not a American usage fork; the UK english equivalent of Bus bulb is Bus boarder, not Curb extension (See: "Accessible bus stop design guidance" (PDF). Transport for London. pp. 31–36.). New Zealand (or at least Aukland) seems to use bus border. I have added other names and cited references to the bus bulb article. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I withdraw my merge proposal. Ingolfson (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to provide extra parking

The Bristol Traffic project has evidence that one function of a build out is to provide extra parking for motor vehicles and motorbikes, as well as sometimes bicycles [[4]]. Not sure where this was an intended feature or not, but it seems to be the case.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curb extension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the US?

I would appreciate information on the use or non-use of curb extensions in countries other than the US.

In particular, since curb extensions pose a hazard to cyclists, I would like to see information on their use in countries where cycling is a preferred mode of transportation such as Britain and Scandinavia, and also many countries in Asia. ---Dagme (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]