41

In Britopia there were the Leftists who believed motorists should drive on the left and the Rightists who believed they should drive on the Right. The vote split exactly down the middle and it was finally decided that there would be no rule at all.

In the end it was further decided that there would be no traffic rules of any kind: no right of way at junctions, no speed limits, no parking restrictions and so on.

Question

In this 21st century country what is the best road vehicle to have. "Best" means the most likely to get you from A to B in the shortest time whilst remaining alive and healthy.

Bear in mind that other laws exist so you can't deliberately murder other motorists, by shooting them for example.

The laws that pertain to collisions etc. are very similar to those applying in pedestrian areas. There are no rules-of-the road in pedestrian-only areas but you are still not allowed to run around waving a chainsaw and threatening other people.

To those who are voting to close because the question is 'too broad', I'd like to point out that I'm simply asking for the most suitable mode of transport as defined by getting from A to B as quickly and safely as possible. I don't think that could be any clearer or better defined. In fact I'd claim that it is more clearly defined than the majority of the questions on this site. If I left out 'safely' or left out 'quickly' it would be a completely different question.

To those who are voting to close because "answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise", you obviously haven't read the answers because there are facts, expertise (personal knowledge) and references in several of them. Most questions on WB get some answers that are of lower quality but that isn't the fault of the questioner.

chasly - supports Monica
  • 49,370
  • 15
  • 152
  • 305
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – L.Dutch Jan 17 '19 at 05:52
  • 9
    Can you specify: Does everybody have to drive the same kind/class of vehicle or is this a kind of personal "arms race" you are asking about? Are there limitations, such as only existing and/or only road legal vehicles? – Daniel Jan 17 '19 at 12:04
  • 1
    "the most likely to get you from A to B in the shortest time whilst remaining alive and healthy." A tank? – Mast Jan 17 '19 at 14:15
  • 1
    Maybe just one-way road everywhere? – tweray Jan 17 '19 at 15:08
  • 1
    Are vehicles allowed to push other vehicles out of their way or perform driving maneuvers that result in damage to other vehicles? – Anketam Jan 17 '19 at 16:24
  • 4
    This honestly sounds a lot like how people drive in Cairo - there are road signs, traffic lights, lanes etc. And no one pays attention to any of them. – SpoonMeiser Jan 17 '19 at 16:25
  • 1
    There was a short story... wait... https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/144557/short-story-about-road-rage-arms-race. No rule was only in freeways, tough. – Rmano Jan 17 '19 at 18:33
  • 22
    Go to India, take notes, and do the same thing :P – user91988 Jan 17 '19 at 19:33
  • Does "no traffic rules" imply that if you kill someone in traffic accident, you are automatically quilty of manslaughter or even murder? Or does it imply that you can freely murder people in the traffic, as long as you disguise the murder as an accident? – hyde Jan 17 '19 at 19:48
  • @hyde - I think that is no different from what we have now. If you deliberately run down a pedestrian you can claim it was an accident and hope to get away with it. Witnesses may be for or against you. You can assume most people are decent and don't want to kill anyone so only psychopaths (or drunks) would do this. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 17 '19 at 20:00
  • 5
    @chaslyfromUK Indeed, that's just the point. If someone drives too fast to stop their car before hitting someone and killing them, is it murder? With traffic rules everybody is supposed to follow, you can have justification for driving at a certain speed for example. Without rules, you don't have the rules to determine what is ok and what is not. Like killing someone with a knife, it takes extraordinary circumstances to not make that a manslaughter at the very least. With car, if you drive according to the rules, you are reasonably safe from being convicted as a killer. – hyde Jan 17 '19 at 20:01
  • 2
    Would privately operated roads be a possibility? I would thing that after enough Chaos the Leftists, and/or Rightists would just spend the money and build their own privately administered transport systems with strict rules and fees. – Zoredache Jan 18 '19 at 00:23
  • Just to clarify if you will, by 'no rules', you mean 'no traffic laws' correct? And not that drivers aren't allowed to come up with accepted conventions on their own. – GrandmasterB Jan 18 '19 at 09:22
  • @GrandmasterB - Correct. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 18 '19 at 09:35
  • It's still unclear, what are the laws about death in traffic? Two cars collide unintentionally head on in an overtaking situation. Both drivers did brake before the impact but speed was just too fast. Either of the the drivers could have driven off the road (potentially killing everybody in their car). Passenger on one of the cars dies. Was this passenger getting killed by a car a crime? What crime? Who are going to be persecuted for it? This is quite crucial detail which determines which answers make sense and which don't. – hyde Jan 18 '19 at 10:35
  • 1
    @hyde - imagine a pedestrian area where two people are running. They collide and their heads smack together. Both are seriously injured. Who is to blame? It's the same situation because there are no traffic laws for pedestrians. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 18 '19 at 10:39
  • @chaslyfromUK I was just about to ask about how this compared to pedestrian laws (UK). I think that analogy is easier to understand (you can walk where you want at whatever speed you like, but if you hurt somebody you're still breaking the law) and if you put it in the question it'll help avoid so many of these "weaponise your car into a tank" answers. – Bilkokuya Jan 18 '19 at 10:43
  • @chaslyfromUK But it is not the same situation. Car is heavy machinery. If you want pedestrians, then consider two workers running with chain saws. Both are likely to face a fine and maybe jail time if there was an injury or death. So this would also apply to drivers of both cars in the fatal car accident scenario, or no? – hyde Jan 18 '19 at 10:47
  • Anyway, from your comment I take it, that in your question, if you drive a car, and get into accident, there is no law that protects you from liability of the damage you did with that heavy piece of metal? It'd be rather nasty for truck drivers, they'd have to make sure the road is empty before driving there (obviously impossible), because if there is an accident, chance of the other side dying is very high, and then they will most likely be convicted as a killer. – hyde Jan 18 '19 at 10:51
  • While the question is definitely interesting, one problem I see is that, through unofficial conventions and jurisprudence in either criminal or civil cases using non-traffic laws / offenses (e.g. reckless endangerment) - especially when jurisprudence ratifies a convention, a set of de facto traffic laws would probably (IMHO) come into effect. – Jasper Jan 18 '19 at 14:31
  • Transportation Planner here. Do you mean no Enforcement and no Engineering rules? (and further, no environmental, education or post-crash investigation rules?) – Mikey Jan 18 '19 at 15:53
  • @Mikey - imagine any busy pedestrian area in a modern city, e.g. http://www.iranreview.org/file/cms/files/Untitled42.png - Architects must build bridges and road surfaces safely. However pedestrians can run as fast as they like in any direction they like or they can stop anywhere. All other non-transport-related laws apply - for example you can't assault people or be disorderly. My road system is like that - go anywhere at any speed as long as you stay on the road and don't deliberately harm anyone. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 18 '19 at 16:28
  • Have you read George Mikes' "How to be a Brit"? Because this sounds like my copy had a page missing ... ;-) – Karl Jan 19 '19 at 18:10
  • It seems like this question has made seven people get golden medals (lifeboat). Wow! – The Square-Cube Law Jun 18 '19 at 18:57

20 Answers20

77

Horses

They are smart enough to not crash themselves on others, even if their riders are completely drunk.

Caio Nogueira
  • 1,540
  • 1
  • 11
  • 14
53

While the scenario painted may seem quite bizarre and downright deadly, the fact of the matter is, minimal traffic regulation does not necessarily mean you need to drive an Challenger 2 Tank just to make it home from your downtown office park every day!

As a matter of fact, we in the Traffic Tabulation Bureau have conducted a comprehensively exhaustive study of various traffic patterns around the world and have come to the conclusion that, contrary to all expected laws of physics, a small motorcar is every bit as effective as a tank when it comes to negotiating the ebb and flow of every day Britopian traffic. We therefore recommend that Britopian Royal Commission for Travel encourage the use of diminutive, and above all, cute motorcars and furthermore, recommend an advertising scheme encouraging all Britopians to obtain at least one motorcar per adult per household and the use said motorcar for every conceivable use, from commuting to work, to long distance travel to going down to the shops or even everyday leisure drives. The more cars Britanopians place on the nation's motorways, the more crowded, and thus slower and safer, every Britanope shall be! (Cue patriotic music!)

Mini Cooper

And the reason is quite simple. Our Bureau have determined that a simple law of physics applies: the denser the traffic, the slower the flow. What this means is that, even when an entirely chaotic, semi-brownian, system is implemented, a much more organic flow is created. As you can see, it is quite possible for large lorries, busses, jeepneys, pedicabs, scooters, hand carts, random animals, pedestrians, rickshaws, trams and motorcars to interact quite safely at lower speeds. Sure, it may take you two hours to travel five miles, but the ride will be very manageable and very unlikely to cause major mishap.

Kindly review our Minimal Traffic Regulation test videos:

Cairo
Delhi
Manila
Addis Ababa

As you can see, every major jurisdiction that implements our system demonstrates how terribly effective it truly is!

elemtilas
  • 39,990
  • 7
  • 74
  • 155
  • 13
    "every major jurisdiction that implements our system demonstrates how terribly effective it truly is!" But how many of those use vehicles where the driver sits on the wrong side? – user Jan 16 '19 at 20:14
  • 3
    Haha! Brilliant. I've extracted a couple of clips from your videos. This https://youtu.be/VPbUpdmAfck?t=13 is exactly the sort of chaos I was imagining and this https://youtu.be/l6wb7Sb2lNQ?t=196 shows what happens when things get busy. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 16 '19 at 20:16
  • Btw I'm not sure which vehicle you are recommending - is it the mini? Remember the question requires you to get from A to B quickly and safely. (In other words I haven't specified delivery vehicles) – chasly - supports Monica Jan 16 '19 at 20:41
  • 6
    @chasly I think what this answer is saying is that "anarchy" and "get places quickly" are mutually exclusive, safety or no. – Cadence Jan 16 '19 at 21:23
  • @chaslyfromUK -- You didn't ask for a specific make and model! Just "what type" of vehicle! The Transport Tabulation Bureau are quite fond of Morris Motors, if for no other reason than that they are classically cute; but were not prepared to make a specific recommendation. – elemtilas Jan 16 '19 at 22:07
  • The videos remind me of driving around LAX - nearly chaotic except there are traffic lights and lines to help maintain some semblance of order. – Tracy Cramer Jan 16 '19 at 22:44
  • @elemtilas - Fair enough but in that case are you definitely recommending motor cars as opposed to, say, bicycles or space-hoppers? – chasly - supports Monica Jan 16 '19 at 22:49
  • 1
    @aCVn "But how many of those use vehicles where the driver sits on the wrong side?" - the farther you go East in Russia, the more cars have right-side driver position, having been imported second-hand from Japan. Things have changed a bit now, but ten years ago you could hardly find a car with correct driver placement around Vladivostok, except probably for city buses, police vehicles and such. – IMil Jan 16 '19 at 23:34
  • @chaslyfromUK -- Hopefully the Bureau have clarified their position sufficiently? – elemtilas Jan 17 '19 at 01:18
  • 1
    Abrams is very unplusbritopian. That should have been Challenger 2. – M i ech Jan 17 '19 at 07:29
  • 2
    @Miech There's a typo in your first sentence. It should be "Abrams is doubleplusunbritopian." – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jan 17 '19 at 14:47
  • @Miech -- how doublepluswrongthinking of us! Of course, that was merely a typographical error that has now been rectified. And the original typist has now been sacked. – elemtilas Jan 17 '19 at 16:32
  • In all those test videos, people seemed to agree on which side of the road to drive in which direction. Sure, junctions work without rules, but only when there is free flow on the roads between them and everyone is driving forward only. The traffic will come to a standstill pretty quickly when you can get a head-to-head deadlock in the middle of a crowded street. – Bergi Jan 19 '19 at 17:29
45

It has to be a motorbike...

Having just been to the Philippines (and I imagine many southeast Asian and over populated areas are also like this), Motor bikes are everywhere and small enough to slip between cars, yet large enough that a car won't hit you because your going to damage it.

In particular, I would recommend a Dirt Bike because it has the capabilities for you to perform more stunts which would be great in making everyone in traffic hate you as you drive over their cars.

Firstly, there is no way a Car, Tank, truck or large vehicle would be able to win. While they can force their way through traffic, in dense enough traffic conditions they have to compete with other large vehicles of equal caliber. They will also face problems when turning and have slower acceleration times and speed limits since it takes them so long to accelerate up to speed and slow down (they can't go too fast or they won't be able to stop if they get cut off or make a turn).

For cars in particular you can image that they aren't really going to come out on top. Just go stare at some peak hour traffic and you will understand why.

Animals also aren't going to work well. Animals are smart enough to know how to get out of the way and vehicles could easily force an animale (horses mostly) into a very dangerous situation by slowly pushing up towards them or into the side of them to force their way out. Your horse will also be freaked out by the constant noise and honking. Thats also combined with the fact that a horse isn't going to work over larger distances or be nearly as fast as a normal vehicle and still simply stop walking when it needs to take a piss in the middle of the road.

So it comes down to our 2 wheeled friends, Bikes, scooters and Motor bikes. What about 3 wheeled vehicles? well they are larger than 2 wheeled vehicles which means in dense traffic conditions they will need to be more carefule and can't slip between the gaps a 2 wheeled vehicle will. In addition, most 3 wheeled vehicles end up being modified versions of 2 wheeled vehicles (I swear the only ones I've seen are basically bikes with an additional cart added or the back wheeled switched for two, or the unstable one that falls over from Mr Bean).

Scooters and Motor bikes push out Bicycles simply because they are motorized. They will be able to go faster for longer and while they might not be able to squeeze through the smallest of gaps, your going to be able to comfortably move 10KM, 50KM or 100KM easily on a motorbike when compared to a manual bike (There are no road rules, so bike lanes are basically lanes for any vehicle now).

So out of a Scooter and Motorbike, I would say scooter wins simply because its cheaper. It can make riskier moves because you don't need to worry as much about replacing/repairing it.

I still recommend a Dirt Bike, simply because people use it to perform stunts. You could for example, get yourself ontop of another vehicle and ride over it, or just sit there for the ride while it takes you to the location you want.

Shadowzee
  • 15,338
  • 2
  • 29
  • 59
  • 7
    This. Look at India or any Asian countries, afaik. When the light turns green who gets to go? Everyone on a 'bike' that can pull in front of all the cars. – Mazura Jan 17 '19 at 00:35
  • 3
    Britopia sounds a lot like India. Scooters/motorcycles are the best for single riders, and also for families of 6 and their two chickens. It's a bit annoying when it rains, but you can always get a rain shield. – MineR Jan 17 '19 at 04:05
  • 2
    As much as I love my motorbike, it really only has an advantage in very ordered traffic, as soon as people are out of their lanes, or don't leave space, I'm as stuck as anyone else. – Separatrix Jan 17 '19 at 14:43
  • Great answer, except that tanks aren't always slow to accelerate with poor manuverability. Many older light tanks would be more than sufficient for dealing with this, and had both good acceleration, and reasonable manuverability. The primary issues with a tank are instead fuel efficiency and operational range. – Austin Hemmelgarn Jan 17 '19 at 18:50
  • 1
    @Separatrix But your not as stuck as a car is... I've seen 5 cars squished into 3 lanes... and the motorbikes just slowly weave themselves through the gaps or can tail the car in front just a bit closer than a person in a car can and squeeze in that way. – Shadowzee Jan 17 '19 at 22:03
  • 1
    I challenge the safety of this answer though. Balinese hospitals - and occasionally morgues - are often packed with people who thought that driving a motorbike through Denpasar was a good way to get through the traffic. Maybe that's just a numbers thing though: https://www.google.com/maps/@-8.6695221,115.2154455,3a,75y,96.38h,75.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdMjOHWt9HUN5pq4pNCxG3Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 – Corey Jan 17 '19 at 22:55
  • 3
    @Corey Well motorbikes are always going to end up riskier than cars. You don't have a massive metal frame protecting you from other vehicles. The safety is going to be dependent on too many small factors... driving aptitude, road conditions, speed, consequences of injuring/killing, repair costs, traffic density, attitude, etc – Shadowzee Jan 17 '19 at 23:34
36

Bikes. Although humans are not as smart as horses when it comes to not crashing against each other, bikes are cheaper to acquire and maintain, and will generally keep the streets clearer. Drivers can also benefit from the exercise.

Also, this being about Britain, I had a certain song from Queen on my mind while typing this.

Bicycle races are coming your way
So forget all your duties oh yeah!
Fat bottomed girls they'll be riding today
So look out for those beauties oh yeah

Edit to address this comment from Julian Egner:

This would a great answer if all drivers would have to use the same transportation type - but it is no so good if all the others use big cars and you are on your bike. even with all the traffic laws it is sometimes not easy to avoid crashes, which would not end well for the biker.

Bikes can navigate parks, squares, people's backyards, sidewalks, shopping malls, food courts, piers, subway platforms etc. with more ease than carscitation needed. Just stick to where it's safe.

The Square-Cube Law
  • 141,440
  • 29
  • 264
  • 586
  • 4
    Bikes are a good example since many bike paths have very loose or even contradictory rules about which side bikes should be on so you can encounter an oncoming cyclist on either side. – Johnny Jan 16 '19 at 23:08
  • 2
    Should work even in relatively heavy traffic – Xen2050 Jan 17 '19 at 02:47
  • 1
    This would a great answer if all drivers would have to use the same transpotation type - but it is no so good if all the others use big cars and you are on your bike. even with all the traffic laws it is sometimes not easy to avoid crashes, which would not end well for the biker. – Julian Egner Jan 17 '19 at 12:53
  • 1
    On your marks ... get set ... go! – Reinstate Monica Jan 18 '19 at 16:21
  • 1
    Bikes do surprisingly well if enough drivers use big cars ... commuting in central London in the 80s, the bikes were often the only things moving ... even motorbikes had trouble getting through the gaps. I remember passing an expensive green limo with the Financial Times open across the steering wheel. I can't swear exactly what happened, but I can only guess the driver saw motion in his peripheral vision, only to find out a second later that while the traffic was moving, the cars weren't. There was a peculiarly satisfying crunch somewhere behind me. – user_1818839 Jan 19 '19 at 12:02
35

It seems all the individualists have missed a trick here. You have to get from A to B as fast as possible when there are no traffic laws.

Which means if you want to get anywhere, the only valid answer is not to use the roads at all.

Admittedly it's only a rail"road" in US English, and we're in the UK

enter image description here

The real answer in the average city is of course to walk. Average traffic speed is only 8mph, and it doesn't take much before walking is faster. Removing traffic laws would easily bring the whole system to a standstill and make walking by far the quickest way to get around.

Separatrix
  • 117,733
  • 38
  • 261
  • 445
25

A self driving car, of course!

No need for rules, let the cars work it out between themselves automatically. Or they can automatically work out trajectories of human driven cars and route around them far faster and more efficiently than a human driver.

We don't need rules!

GrandmasterB
  • 5,870
  • 1
  • 19
  • 27
  • 4
    I think this would yield the best results, assuming we had the technology, but I'm not so sure that it fits 'no rules' on a technicality; the self driving code is rather likely to use a rules engine as a part of its decision making. – user5151179 Jan 17 '19 at 06:45
  • 3
    I think in this case 'no rules' means 'no enforced traffic laws'. But the cars would be free to communicate between themselves where they can. – GrandmasterB Jan 17 '19 at 07:51
  • 1
    @GrandmasterB communication is not enough. Self-driving cars need a set of rules to work efficiently. Those rules determine what is safe to do (speed limit in circumstance, safety distance, default position in multi-lane, etc.) and who has priority over who. All those rules and protocols will need to be specified somewhere, enforced on all car manufacturer and implemented in all cars. Those will be the de-facto traffic rules. – zakinster Jan 17 '19 at 09:56
  • @zakinster The OP is clearly after having no enforced traffic laws. " no right of way at junctions, no speed limits, no parking restrictions and so on.". Nothing can prevent two people (or vehicles) from communicating with each other if they think its best. – GrandmasterB Jan 18 '19 at 09:20
  • @GrandmasterB Yes human can but current computers need an established set of rules and protocols to communicate and make decisions. If you want self-driving cars to work without any established rules, you'll need a real AI which is far from existing with current technology so it may not fit well in a 21st-century context. It may, however, works well if OP can integrate a bit of sci-fi in his world so I did upvote. – zakinster Jan 18 '19 at 10:16
  • @zakinster Just clarified with the OP, they are talking specifically about laws. I don't think you need much more technology than we have now, and there'd be a huge rush with every mfg trying to cash in on it. It doesn't have to be perfect... just better than utter chaos :-) – GrandmasterB Jan 18 '19 at 18:15
24

Since this is more or less Britain, I'd vote for the Challenger 2 MBT

enter image description here

It will simply roll over any "normal" automobile, leaving behind a trail of flattened Jags, Bentleys, Land Rovers, Beamers and Morris Minors.

EDIT - And the very occasional Reliant Robin.

EDIT2 - And if "quickly" takes precedence over "safely", the Mythbusters episode suggests that the rocket-powered Reliant Robin should be considered.

WhatRoughBeast
  • 26,638
  • 3
  • 45
  • 94
  • 17
    I think flattening people's cars while they are still in them would violate the 'no murder' rule. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 16 '19 at 19:51
  • 12
    @chaslyfromUK - But it's a collision. If they use the main gun, on the other hand.... – WhatRoughBeast Jan 16 '19 at 19:53
  • @WhatRoughBeast it would not be the first time a British person has thought of using a tank.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PD6qdzQvHhE – Sarriesfan Jan 16 '19 at 21:04
  • 5
    What happens when two people have the same idea and a two tanks end up playing chicken? – Rob Jan 16 '19 at 21:43
  • The primary problem with this idea is when everybody uses it. – Joshua Jan 16 '19 at 21:50
  • @Rob - The question asked for "most likely", not "guaranteed". – WhatRoughBeast Jan 16 '19 at 21:55
  • 3
    I'm not sure how well your Challenger is going to stand up to my Bagger 293...... – user3067860 Jan 16 '19 at 21:56
  • Its not deliberate if they just fail to get out of your way. Real life motorists who disobeyed traffic laws have been killed by being run over by tanks. the driver of the tank didn't even notice they had run over a car. – John Jan 17 '19 at 02:35
  • 1
    @John - Frankly, I'm dubious about "didn't even notice". Everybody notices speed bumps when they go over them. – WhatRoughBeast Jan 17 '19 at 04:11
  • If it does not have to be a specific model, you can get a decommissioned (without gun) tank fairly cheaply. Many European countries got rid of old soviet tanks in recent decades and sold them even as cheap as used cars. – wondra Jan 17 '19 at 09:21
  • 1
    You don't want to be driving over vehicles in a Challenger, or any tank really. It puts a lot of stress on the tracks. Good for publicity stunts, but otherwise not worth it. I therefore recommend the Scorpion - also a british AFV, but cheaper, more fuel efficient, and can break the current speed limit on motorways (it's the world's fastest production "tank") – Baldrickk Jan 17 '19 at 11:21
  • @user3067860 - "I'm not sure how well your Challenger is going to stand up to my Bagger 293" - I did cover this (by implication) a few comments previously. " If they use the main gun, on the other hand.... " – WhatRoughBeast Jan 17 '19 at 15:52
  • When Jerry Seinfeld and President Obama went for a drive in a '63 Corvette, eventually Obama got behind the wheel... and the camera cut to this picture of the bumper sticker. So, presumably it's an option! :-) – Ti Strga Jan 17 '19 at 17:25
  • @John "Its not deliberate if they just fail to get out of your way", replace vehicle with kitchen knife, and it is murder no matter how much the victim doesn't get out of the way of the blade. Why wouldn't it be murder with a motorized vehicle then? – hyde Jan 17 '19 at 19:56
  • actually no its manslaughter, if you stand in front of a moving vehicle, remember no right of way laws in this scenario. – John Jan 17 '19 at 20:55
  • @John If you continue moving the knife or the vehicle towards the soon-to-die person after noticing there is likely to be contact, it is probably murder, not just manslaughter (the meanings of the words depend on jurisdiction though, I don't know what degrees of killing other person there are in Britopia). Even if the other person is moving towards you, you still have to stop and try to avoid the contact with the deadly object you are controlling. – hyde Jan 18 '19 at 10:57
  • @user3067860, I wouldn't worry too much about the Bagger, even in that mess I'll have reached my destination before you get to the end of your driveway. 2metres a minute isn't going to get you very far. – Separatrix Jan 18 '19 at 12:41
  • "Robin Reliant" should read "Reliant Robin". – Boodysaspie Jan 19 '19 at 15:44
  • 1
    @Boodysaspie - Oh, snap. – WhatRoughBeast Jan 19 '19 at 15:56
20

Contrary to popular belief, more traffic laws makes roads less safe (1, 2). Many places are now reducing the amount of signs to make it safer, and to make sure that attention is on the road and other drivers rather than each other.

No rules is taking that to the extreme, but its not completely unimaginable. Ever been to India? I have and it's true: they do not pay attention to any markings on the road or any signs. The only rule they semi-follow is what side of the road they drive on, but whenever the traffic allows that rule is out of the window too. Strangely enough, driving there felt like one of the safest experiences I've had as people constantly communicate with horns and their movement, but I hadn't experienced a situation where there wasn't adequate time to react and safely get through.

So if a leftist leaves the house and he finds himself encountering rightists he'll join them for the time being, or vice versa. Any intersection that cannot be overseen will be slowly approached in case someone from another direction comes at you. comparable to small roads or similar people will decide on the spot who will pass first and who will move aside, or in this case chose who will temporarily change being a leftist or rightist.

In the end the best car isn't going to be the smallest or the biggest, it's going to be the most visible one with the clearest communication of direction and intent, possibly with a set of horns declaring "watchout", "you go ahead" and "I go ahead". So keep those lights on your car in good working order, strap in and drive safe.

Edit: for anyone struggling with the "less rules means more safety", I mention this is up to a point, culture on the road means more and the conclusion remains true: the best car will be the most visible one with the clearest signals of direction and intent.

(1) https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers
(2) https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/signage-clutter-what-is-it-and-how-is-it-reduced/

Demigan
  • 45,321
  • 2
  • 62
  • 186
11

Planes/Helicopters/Gyrocopters.

You are not engaging with motorists then, creating your best chances for survival. An example in a similar vein is the 'Gyrocopter Captain' from Mad Max who avoids the drama on the ground in exactly this fashion.

Edit - added my comment into the answer.

Yes, you have multiple other road users on the ground meeleeing with each other, a character with some level of higher reasoning could take to the sky, however along with your dystopian road rules there's no reason you couldn't also stipulate that privately operated aircraft had to remain within a certain distance from standard road systems, thus creating manageable flight patterns. Clearly not everyone would be taking to the sky, and you can still land/taxi on roads.

Aaron Lavers
  • 668
  • 3
  • 8
  • 1
    This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review – Cyn Jan 17 '19 at 01:38
  • @Cyn the question asks "...what is the best vehicle to have. "Best" means the most likely to get you from A to B in the shortest time whilst remaining alive and healthy"

    An aircraft answers this. You are not engaging with motorists then, creating your best chances for survival. It's not a critique of the OP and no clarification is necessary, this fits the requirements correctly I believe. An example in a similar vein is the 'Gyrocopter Captain' from Mad Max who avoids the drama on the ground in exactly this fashion.

     – Aaron Lavers Jan 17 '19 at 01:45
  • 1
    How is this safe, especially in bury corridors and around airports? – Vincent Jan 17 '19 at 02:00
  • @Aaron Lavers - I did specify "road system" so, unless your planes are rolling along the road, they don't actually qualify. An airborne mode of travel would be a different question. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 17 '19 at 02:23
  • Fair enough, however everyone here's added a variation of the same answer, so maybe some out of the box thinking might improve your prose. Also added my comment into the answer. – Aaron Lavers Jan 17 '19 at 03:57
  • Your edited answer is fine. The original one was very short without much substance, hence my comment. – Cyn Jan 17 '19 at 04:29
9

In addition to other good answers like bikes, I'd say the Knight Bus would make a good choice. I read somewhere that J.K. Rowling has spotted it in Britain already ;-).

Knight Bus

The Knight Bus is a triple-decker, purple AEC Regent III RT that assists stranded individuals of the wizarding community through public transportation. It operates at a very fast speed and obstacles will jump out of its way. To hail the bus, a witch or wizard must stick their wand hand in the air in the same manner that a Muggle might do while hailing a Muggle Bus in the UK, though it is possible to book tickets for travel on the bus in advance.

Also, many country roads in modern Britain are pretty much one-lane, two-way roads that people drive down the middle of, and only slow down/go off to the side when traffic is approaching in the opposite direction. If there was uncertainty about which side somebody would go toward, a convention of using turn signals to indicate this could alleviate the problem.

WBT
  • 1,165
  • 1
  • 9
  • 16
7

The mythbusters have your answer, two of them actually.

The biggest problem you have is there's only so much space on the road and you are creating a perfect storm for traffic jams. The only way to guarantee getting from A to B is to be able to clear the road as you go.

the cow catcher serves the same purpose it did on trains, to push anything in front of them out of the way with the minimum energy.

You can't get from A to B in a timely fashion without moving other cars out of the way. If someone gets hurt. Oh well, that's what they get fro driving something as unsafe as a car on the road. This society clearly doesn't care much about personal safety.

enter image description here

enter image description here

John
  • 80,982
  • 15
  • 123
  • 276
6

The question is describing a common situation in town fairs: bumper cars, or dodgems. A chaotic traffic situation, without traffic rules, sudden changes in general flow, etc...

It works, and to memory, it is less lethal than standard regulated traffic.

Apparently, in England, someone has already started thinking about taking the dodgem on the road. Also, for the skeptics, just remember that most of the UK can be considered flat compared to other European countries, hence no real terrain issues for these lovely little contraptions.

NofP
  • 3,486
  • 1
  • 10
  • 26
  • 1
    I’ve forgotten precisely where, but there’s a place (really!) where someone persuaded the town to remove ALL stop signs and semaphores. Accident rate decreased – WGroleau Jan 17 '19 at 03:48
  • 1
    @WGroleau I can believe that. However, many areas of the UK are filled with roundabouts, for that matters. That means that you will find on average significantly less stop signs and semaphores compared to some other countries in mainland Europe. Still, traffic laws, precedence rules, right of way, and parking fines apply. – NofP Jan 17 '19 at 10:22
5

While someone has already mentioned a tank, its price tag puts it out of reach for the vast majority of the motoring public. The legions of unwashed plebs are Sempletons(pun fully intended) who require a far more economical option, so I present to you the Bob Semple "tank"

enter image description here

An "armoured" superstructure to protect from the chaos a total lack of traffic regulation would produce. Its cheap and shoddyhomemade nature allows for easy DIY fixing on the fly, rather than having to be sent to some workshop or depot. No murder? Remove all the guns or install dummies in their place then, to hang your laundry fromput the fear of God into all those other wankers. Last but not least, low speed and reliability for maximum obnoxiousness towards everyone behind you on the road.

nullpointer
  • 8,689
  • 4
  • 23
  • 45
5

Okay so this is based on real experience with a real place that was, in a way, very much like Mad Max - had no rules and plenty of danger...its still basically like that - and the vehicles we used. I choose these vehicles as: Though I was a USMC, I know all of these vehicles are available to UK groups (except possibly the MRAP); All drive like regular vehicles so not much special training involved in their operation; They are vehicles primarily not weapons (like a tank) so if some of the liability standards we currently use continue over (even though no "road rules") these could still be classified in the same manner as driving a truck (or car with HMMV):

Option 1: HMMV (up-armored if possible)

HMMV with snow treads

"Speed is life, stopping is death" <- first words about driving in a combat zone I ever heard and they are true. As the rules state "you can't just shot or kill people" and cities (like London) would have very heavy foot, vehicle, and other traffic it seems to me that this would be a great option. One, it allows for "bumping" cars and other objects out of the way. Two, you don't have to kill people when hit with it (like a tank would likely do) Three, you can actually buy at least the un-armored version of this (and armor yourself if needed).

Note - that thread is from 2006, the video is real, and there are some opinionated anti-military answers within.

Option 2: Country roads? Use a 7-ton

7-ton in the muck

The 7-ton is my favorite option (when I was deployed) - fast, was nearly impossible to get stuck, could drive over ridiculous terrain, ford full rivers, and it goes on. Beside that this would allow you to safely drive a much larger crew (10-15 people vs. HMMV's 4-6) or a lot of equipment around. In this case it has an added bonus, though armored versions are restricted the actual military vehicles can be purchased and many parts if repairs are needed. Only downsides to HMMV - not as small and "bumping" something with these will cause more damage.

Option 3: MRAP

MRAP goes boom

Okay, this is the last vehicle I have personal experience driving and it has one massive advantage - and that is, well...the picture explains it better than words can. This thing will not stop (without resorting to full on tank killer weapons). It is also now being offered to government (i.e. law enforcement) groups in the US so it is technically possible to get it but not really for civilians. However, it has two huge disadvantages - its heavy and doesn't do well off-road. Why is heavy in bold? Cause these things had so much weight they would (and did a few times on me) collapse the road you were driving on. The V-shape made them get stuck on dunes and bad terrain a lot more than the earlier vehicles too. Still if the goal is an urban road and point A to B quickly and safely - they'd be an awesome option.

Option 4: Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

JLTV

This one is "if I could pick any vehicle, money is not an option but it should still be car-ish". This thing was just a dream when I was in and only came out last year - so it is certainly not possible to get as a civilian (most military units are chomping at the bit to get a few). However, a few of the guys I know who still work in Green have gotten a chance to at least look at it and say it is like they took all the best parts of the 3 other options and built the car of the future. So if its dream money and wish scenario...

LinkBerest
  • 2,988
  • 12
  • 24
  • You're still driving on roads, and "Bear in mind that other laws exist so you can't deliberately murder other motorists, by shooting them for example." It seems like these big wide vehicles would be even harder to maneuver through traffic that can't decide what side of the road to drive on. – Xen2050 Jan 17 '19 at 19:02
  • @Xen2050 yes, those were similar laws that we had when in country (no road rules but we had many, many restrictions on when force was authorized) and these can be driven in that regard (particularly 1 & 4) but also give added protection when other people start driving tanks (as is suggested in many other answers) and/or shooting at you. Also, IMHO, one point is if there are no road rules, I would want something that gave me fording/off-road heavy capabilities - beyond the just bad country roads one occasionally finds - to avoid any such problems in the first place (or at least bypass it). – LinkBerest Jan 17 '19 at 20:40
  • Besides if I just wanted to crush stuff - I'd you the only vehicle I know in the USMC which is called Ultra-heavy ;) – LinkBerest Jan 17 '19 at 20:50
4

A big "Spot" robot or something alike, big enough for you to be able to climb on its back. It's a boston dynamic robot that can walk through roads, clim sloped terrain, and that will lead you through forests. Avoid the roads when you can, if you must travel through a city, you can dodge other motorized vehicles by passing through pedestrian places.

enter image description here

https://youtu.be/M8YjvHYbZ9w

On top of that, it's super cool.

holeo hlw
  • 144
  • 4
2

Either a police car or a tank

The "no killing" rule leaves room for interpretation, which needs to be exploited for the best answer. Also the question only asks to get from A to B not what happens afterwards.

First let's look at the tank/bulldozer/anything armored option. Yes it kills people, but since there are no traffic rules, no sidewalk or park is safe for pedestrians and whether you are in a tank or a motorcycle or even horse, if you hit a pedestrian, good chance he will die (horses are dangerous, I have been riding). But in the tank at least you reach B. Who is gonna arrest you anyway? The police is stuck in traffic like the rest. Or are they?

Situation two, the police can move fast through the traffic to stop any offenders. Well in this case the police car is the best means of transportation for you to get from A to B.

Bear in mind the question is about a single person getting from A to B. Most of the other people are going nowhere.

And I agreed that the question is too broad. What means no killing, is it OK to be arrested afterwards, can the police catch you some other way?

findusl
  • 121
  • 5
  • Correct reaction to an emergency vehicle is covered by the traffic laws of a country. Hence it would bring no advantage in this situation. – Separatrix Jan 18 '19 at 09:16
  • Most people get out of the way of emergency vehicles based on consideration for the people they're rushing to help, or because they expect the emergency vehicle to run into them rather than stop, not because of the Highway Code - so I think findusl's answer is valid. – Guy F-W Jan 18 '19 at 11:49
  • @separatix please read the full answer. It also describes and reasons the correct answer if a police car is not the solution. – findusl Jan 18 '19 at 11:54
  • @GuyF-W, but how you respond is regional. In some countries you do anything to get out of the way, in some the correct response is to stop where you are and let them go round you. The UK has strict regulations on when you do what, you're not allowed to break any other regulation to make way for example, you will still be fined for bus lane or traffic light offences. – Separatrix Jan 18 '19 at 12:03
  • Given the number of people I've seen break traffic laws to let police cars through, that seems to be honoured more in the breach than the observance. – Guy F-W Jan 18 '19 at 12:17
  • @Separatix Here is also the problem with the question too broad. Obstruction of police is an offense not limited to traffic. Would it be enabled here or not? – findusl Jan 18 '19 at 19:47
  • @findusl - I've said it before and I'll say it again. It is analogous to an unregulated pedestrian area. People can go in any direction or stop or run and no-one will arrest them. However if they rob a bank or deliberately injure someone, the police will chase them and charge them with a crime. – chasly - supports Monica Jan 19 '19 at 21:19
  • @chasly from UK so if I am with my tank on my way from a to b and happen to injure someone on the way not because I deliberately injure them but because they are in the way, does it get me arrested? And what about obstruction of the police, that is not a law limited to traffic (at least not where I'm from) – findusl Jan 19 '19 at 22:14
2

Solution 1 : Though all answers are considering the gravity factor and since its Britopia, there is no need to consider gravity. The best option I think is to just fly. Lets consider it as a space and in Space there is no concept of direction. Something like human carrying drones will be good to go anywhere. and Just like how the current air traffic is managed. Solution 2 : I recently come across the concept of elevated car here.
So basically we have always either two states, elevated or none.

None Elevated :

enter image description here

And Elevated :

enter image description here

We need to make sure that the when two vehicles are approaching one become elevated and one is non elevated. Also need to manage angel of approach to make sure one can pass another without damaging legs of elevated one.

Talk is Cheap Show me Code
  • 121
  • 5
  • Air traffic is definitely not managed like "fly wherever you like, nobody care". That apart, OP is clearly asking about road traffic. – L.Dutch Jan 18 '19 at 08:16
  • 1
    "Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads..." – Spudley Jan 18 '19 at 11:57
  • @L.dutch : I know Air traffic is not managed like "Fly wherever you like, nobody care" But I referenced it here as policy to avoid collision and likely to get you from A to B in the shortest time whilst remaining alive and healthy. – Talk is Cheap Show me Code Jan 18 '19 at 12:07
1

It doesn't answer all the questions but if there's no left / right then having the steering wheel in the middle would be needed. McLaren F1 drivers would all be very happy.

enter image description here

icc97
  • 183
  • 5
0

Interestingly the regime of Colonel Gaddafi considered exactly this problem (it is reported that their motivation was that a large number of road users believed in predestination via god's will, so there was no point looking at junctions: if god had determined you would die, you were going to die). They ended up designing a car with a large foam "nose cone". Normally this would be an issue for visibility at junctions, but if one's not going to look anyway, I guess it's fine.

https://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/02/libyan-rocket-colonel-muammar-gaddafi-designs-a-safe-car/#slide-333692

james
  • 101
  • 1
0

Based on what the other people have said, I think a motorbike or a horse would work best in a highly populated urban city. You could also use three-wheelers. Because this is a 21st century society, self-driving cars would still not be affordable by everyone. But if the technology were more advanced, it would be a more feasible solution. In less populated areas, I would say agile sports cars like BMW street drifting cars might be best.

However, more than likely a voter would change his or her vote such that there isn't a tie. Because, having traffic laws are better than having none, right? ;)

BMWs are always good for agility and street drifting

Three-wheeler

H98
  • 309
  • 1
  • 6