This is a strangely fascinating film from a streetcar in San Francisco 1905, before the earthquake, that illustrates what it means for an order to emerge out of seeming chaos. There are a thousand accidents waiting to happen that do not happen, namely because of rational individual planning and self interest. In some ways, it is a beautiful image of freedom. Just imagine what the do gooders and central planners would do with such a scene today.
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11744/san-francisco-1905-before-the-regulators/
San Francisco 1905: Before the Regulators
Previous post: Audio from the Fed Conference going on now
Next post: MySql SQL pro needed.
{ 42 comments }
People are riding horses down the street. And then there are all the bratty kids running in front of traffic and trying to hitch rides. This is beautiful…..I can’t believe the U.S. used to be like this…
Also everyone is FANTASTICALLY dressed! It’s like everyone wore custom-tailored suits!
Also look at all the tall buildings…back in 1905!
This is a wonderful find.
A very valuable video, sent in by robert_newson from this site http://svolte-epocali.blogspot.com/2010/01/anarchy-in-action.html
There were a few instances I saw of pedestrians running to get out of the way of cars, and towards the end it looked like the streetcar just barely missed a crossing car. And, no doubt there were the occasional accidents. Still, there was definitely an air of freedom. Like lobsters slowly being boiled, most of us are unaware of just how regulated our society has become, and of just how much we are missing.
On a technical note, the “slipping” of the frames in the film was annoying, but I loved the musical score.
Are most of these Ford cars we’re seein in the video?
It’s remarkable to see this many cars on the West Coast in 1905.
Market St, San Fran, 2005
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqcz_tllnwM&feature=player_embedded
That is a fascinating video on several levels, including the ones you have mentioned. I loved watching this.
A most fascinating film on multiple levels. I was astounded with the quality and amazed by what was seen as well as what was not seen. There were at least 6 different modes of transportation visible, all working together in a rather beautiful manner to move from point A to point B. I did not see any traffic lights, stop signs, speed limit signs or marked lanes of traffic. This is a brilliant demonstration of the free market at work.
It’s like this in Vietnam now, and other asian countries – only more people, with scooters.
People are “forced” to driver slower, so less accidents, but more free flowing.
Crossing the street is the same mostly. But you put your head down, and walk in a steady pace, its in the self interest of the drivers to judge and miss you.
Notice the cop @ 35 seconds? Notice how neither the drivers nor pedestrians appear to be effected at all by his presence?
He can’t imagine stopping any of these people to see if the state has licensed them to operate their vehicle, or to see if they have insured it, or to see if they have been drinking. In 2010 San Fran, he would be jaywalking.
Conza88, something like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
Notice NO police presence anywhere? I have to wonder what insurance cost in 1905, even if it was needed. It might of taken a few people making lawsuits to transform personal freedom into our regulated order. Follow the $$$ trail to find the truth.
From what I gather from 1940s movies, there were no drivers licenses or registrations either.
Though admittedly this beautiful image was a bit easier to accomplish when nothing was going faster than 10mph.
I doubt even private roads would allow that with todays cars, even if they had the option to.
Missouri and Massachusetts were the first states to enact drivers license laws in 1903; however, they were merely identification cards. I’m not sure about California, but the last state to enact a driving examination law was South Dakota in 1959.
Impressive. In 1905 the camera man would have had to hand crank the camera while counting under his breath to get the timing right. That was a long shot and I didn’t see any breaks in it.
There are several problems with applying this. The most obvious one is that when traffic speeds up, driving becomes more difficult and dangerous (the energy, and thereby destructive power, rises with the speed squared) and it is therefore not unreasonable for people to put rules on who can operate that machinery.
Another is that while spontaneous order does arise, it isn’t necessarily the most efficient order and has a tendency to break down. Several years ago the Germans, being fed up with seemingly random traffic jams, conducted research into driving patterns on their motorways. It turned out that these were often caused when cars catching up with slower traffic ahead would have to slow down to below the speed of the cars ahead.
Given the right conditions, this would create a positive feedback loop, and quickly grind traffic to a halt. The solution was simple: The government installed speed restriction signs that can be remotely updated. Automatic systems monitor traffic and when the conditions conductive to jams are detected, the speed of incoming traffic is reduced.
The system is so effective that jams are near unheard of on formerly notorious stretches such as the road from Munich to the Franz Josef Strauss airport, increasing road capacity and reducing travel times.
Another remarkable and counter-intuitive example of the use of imposed order is from a simple example of a crowd moving through a doorway. Japanese researchers discovered that appropriately placing an obstacle in front of the doorway will actually increase the rate of people exiting.
While spontaneously arising order is simple and often quite efficient, constructed order can be superior. The appropriate amount of constructed order will always depend on the society. Last time I knew, there was only one set of traffic lights in the small nation state of Malta — which everyone happily ignores. Similarly I’ve heard stories of the roads leading into Beirut that have clearly marked lanes that are completely ignored.
Unfortunately, that freedom comes at the price of thousands of preventable deaths each year (the population is similar to the SF metropolitan area). In that case the questions becomes whether the citizens want their liberty to come with right to impose rules?
Yes, of course, this video PROVES that RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST and THE MARKET would save us all if it wasn’t for DO-GOODERS and LIBERALS. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because the streetcar isn’t moving very fast. Idiot.
to martin swift:
there are examples where a light regulatory hand has actually improved safety.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html
disclaimer: i live in a country where signs all but outnumber inhabitants.
sdf… doesn’t have to worry about an airbag, at least.
It was fun to watch that video. And it does illustrate that individuals can manage themselves without a central regulator.
I think we all can understand that the conditions of 1905 are different than that of today. There are more people and the speed of vehicles has vastly increased. But, that doesn’t mean that humans would be incapable of adapting and adjusting to new problems as they arise.
A individual could easily institute rules on a private road; or improve the efficiency of that road (far better than a central authority). Even better, people — *gasp* — can adapt to new conditions.
The problem with do-gooders and central regulators. Is that they fancy themselves as demigods that exist to help low functioning individuals. ie., everyone else.
“Yes, of course, this video PROVES that RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST and THE MARKET would save us all if it wasn’t for DO-GOODERS and LIBERALS. Or maybe, just maybe, it’s because the streetcar isn’t moving very fast. Idiot.”
It does. Now go back under your bridge with your fellow trolls.
Regulation, tell me or what reason the toilets are strictly regulated on water flow? Maybe the turds won’t pile up? c’mon regulations are all about making a niche to fleece someones pocket.
Are lobsters boiled slowly? I thought the metaphor was frogs.
This wonderful and scary at the same time.
What if 100 years from now, there will be a similar nostalgic video of how the internet was all free from regulations.
While nice to watch, this is a bad metaphor for the free market vs. central planning.
If you want to see a modern day example of this, go to Vietnam where in the center of major cities there is also a lack of stop signs, traffic lights, etc… except with motorized traffic.
You can cross the street by “parting the sea” of motorcycles, but it is still intimidating and somewhat dangerous to do so. They have more traffic deaths overall than in western countries. One advantage though is that although accidents are more common, if you do get hit when the traffic is heavy, you will only get hurt; if you get hit by a car going 50km/h – 60km/h in a western city, you will get killed.
Do we in western countries place too many stop signs and restrictions? Perhaps, but remember that while those restrictions encumber movement to some extent, when traffic volumes are higher, these controls are actually more efficient. A roundabout is much more efficient than a completely uncontrolled intersection if you have a good deal of traffic, and a set of synchronized traffic lights can move a great deal of traffic down a one-way road.
The most efficient system is a balance of control while still allowing drivers autonomy (example, a yield sign instead of a stop in areas of lower traffic or good sightlines, or allowing right turns on red).
Ditto Mexico and Cuba.
I there are better examples, than that video, of what libertarianism has to offer.
The point should be that the street car was moving at walking speed and no vehicle went faster than the running people. Put an 8 MPH max governor on every vehicle and we could return to the bad old days when the vast majority lived in poverty.
I agree this is a bad metaphor for free market vs. central planning. It shouldn’t be used as one, although it does show that chaos is not the natural state of people when not subject to specified rules.
This is obviously not the “proof” you want to show when advocating for road privatization. The typical statist will miss the point and think you are advocating for a road system without traffic rules.
I agree that this is not the best video as an analogy for free markets. Instead of imagining what the do gooders and central planners would do with such a scene today, why not imagine what a free market would do with such a scene today? Safety rules don’t have to come from government but could be developed from the transportation market, precisely because of rational self-interest of the people involved.
Still, fun to watch for historical interest, and nice music.
Couple things…
Did Jeffrey change the text of this blog since it was posted? Several comments seem to be addressing points that I don’t see anywhere in this post.
Also, in response Martin’s comment, there have been several case studies (Newson posted a link) that show that in urban areas with mixed-use roads (cars, bicycles, pedestrians, etc.), the removal of signage, traffic lights and even markings not only has reduced accidents but it also makes traffic move more efficiently (which is not necessarily faster). So, traffic would move slower but they would still reach their destination faster.
Since I can’t post more than one link and still get my comment to display, here is one link to a few related articles:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASlWyab7Jh0DZGR6MnY0bWRfMThnOXJya2NjZg&hl=en
Martin,
You don’t understand quite well what is meant by spontaneous order. It does not mean that there are no rules and that somehow everything works out fine. It means that the rules themselves are formed by the voluntary process of the market.
The private owners of roads would experiment with different rules in order to maximize their profit. It is precisely the competitive process of the market that will tend to select only those rules that are efficient, from the point of view of the customers, of course.
A market defines the boundaries that necessitate private regulation. Which is dependent on locality, efficiency, prices, etc. The best kind of order is derives under a free market.
Central regulation is effectively arbitrary and harmful. It succumbs to the same problems as price calculation in a socialist commonwealth.
This reminds me of the mixed traffic in Bangladesh. There, I was similarly amazed that there were so few accidents despite the chaos. When I finally did see an accident, it was between a large bus and a tiny rickshaw. Fortunately, no one died. Why? Because, like in this video, mixed traffic moves frustratingly slow. Don’t let the nostalgia affect you — you don’t want this.
I think its rather naive of people to point out and dismiss the significance of the natural order occurring out of chaos that this film demonstrates simply becuase the trolley is moving at only 10mph. I think one has to look at the significance of what is going on with a 1905 point of reference. which is far different from today’s. In 1905, having cars, bikes, people on horseback, trolleys, pedestrians and horse drawn coaches and wagons operating all at the same time and in the same space was still a very new concept and one that required people to adopt complex skills for navigating among different types and size objects all moving at different speeds, directions and in the case of powered vehicles, with operators of different skill levels. This would be a very difficult feat to pull off for a planner even today.
Amazing. But the most amazing thing is that they have brainwashed us and we find it amazing.
If we go to India, we will see the same thing now. Same in certain parts of South America.
And they survive…
Maybe those are the only places when soon we will be able to eat a hot dog.
Title should be “before the cars.” If we banned all cars other than official vehicles and maybe taxis on Market Street today (and had those run at 10mph) it would look like this tomorrow.
Actually, it seems possible that such a ban might happen — thanks to planners that are starting to see reason.
The comments show no knowledge of American history, sad.
The other reason this (very cool) video fails as an argument against government traffic regulation is that it’s such a small sample. A video of how things went for a few minutes on one particular day on one streetcar in one city in 1905 hardly counts as evidence that 1905 traffic regulations were satisfactory (or even tolerable.)
A discussion about how regulations should be set may well be legitimate, but this is a truly weak argument in favor of less regulation (or market regulation.)
Very nice, and coincidentally the video for one of my favorite songs.
Marco,
Who is the artist?
Air: Moon Safari: La Femme D’Argent
http://www.flixxy.com/barcelona-spain-1908.htm
I saw this video before, with a commentator talking alongside it. The car that crosses the tracks and is barely missed by the streetcar is actually part of the filming team, asked to do that to keep things interesting. If you pay attention, you see him cutting accross many times, actually crisscrossing in front of the streetcar.
To interpret those near-accidents as typical, and romanticing those times because of it, is not quite the academic way.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }