No more white lines on main roads! Really?
Discussion
There are plenty of roads round I am that do not have road markings due to being deemed too thin. People seem to drive down them and pass oncoming cars without crashing. Lots of people slow down to pass as they are not confident with figuring out how wide their car or the oncoming car is, but the reality is everyone can pass without any trouble.
Thinking about it theres a section of duel carriageway with no lines either and it works ok (even with heavy traffic).
This is really not as problematic as people make out
Thinking about it theres a section of duel carriageway with no lines either and it works ok (even with heavy traffic).
This is really not as problematic as people make out
graham22 said:
speedking31 said:
Personally I hope it is a rip roaring success and is extended to double yellow and double white lines.
My first though was great to no double white lines, even better when nipping past on the bike and not twitching over them in the wet. But surely double whites are there for a reason (often extended too far in places).Batfink said:
There are plenty of roads round I am that do not have road markings due to being deemed too thin. People seem to drive down them and pass oncoming cars without crashing. Lots of people slow down to pass as they are not confident with figuring out how wide their car or the oncoming car is, but the reality is everyone can pass without any trouble.
Norfolk say that they will also be reducing the limit from 60 to 40 mph, so even if there is no oncoming traffic your speed will be artificially reduced. That in itself will reduce accidents.BrownBottle said:
jayemm89 said:
This will be the same logic which means they actively encourage the blocking of visibility when approaching roundabouts. Genius.
That really gets on my nerves, some of the barriers are ridiculous they'd be as well putting a stop sign up. It's particularly annoying as they always seem to be erected at what was previously a well sighted and well designed fast flowing roundabout.All they seem to do is seriously disrupt the flow of traffic and cause congestion.
At one time, traffic lights were apparently being re-phased to increase delays, in order to make using public transport look less horrible.
One must remember that a lot of the QUANGOs responsible use some very questionable logic.
Batfink said:
There are plenty of roads round I am that do not have road markings due to being deemed too thin. People seem to drive down them and pass oncoming cars without crashing. Lots of people slow down to pass as they are not confident with figuring out how wide their car or the oncoming car is, but the reality is everyone can pass without any trouble.
Thinking about it theres a section of duel carriageway with no lines either and it works ok (even with heavy traffic).
This is really not as problematic as people make out
In some towns, there are so many lines & signs and furniture & scameras, it's difficult to parse the road ahead.Thinking about it theres a section of duel carriageway with no lines either and it works ok (even with heavy traffic).
This is really not as problematic as people make out
Either the Dutch are more pragmatic & sensible than us (probably - they all seem to drive like they're stoned) or the studies might be accurate.
Cannot see it's a good idea on some unlit sections of, say, the A1 with its weird bends on hills.
I have driven quite extensively in the countries that have adopted this idea, but the most important thing that seems to be missing here is that the road might be two way, but there is little chance of straying across into the on-coming lane as there is a big f**k off center divider there with monstrous kerb-stones, combined with chicanes and speed bumps that don't wreck your car this works well... HERE'S THE PROBLEM... Can you see the idiot councils actually looking and adopting this idea correcty?!? I can't. Not in a million years. It would cost more in the long run for a start.
Here is a perfect example of just how moronic councils can be... By me there is a two lane road, with a single lane bridge on a blind corner, and after it a two lane bridge where cars can safely pass. They decided to install some traffic lights... where do you think they put the traffic lights in?!? You guessed it the two lane bridge where traffic can pass safely. No I'm not joking.
If the great and the good are serious about improving road safety, why do they shy away from the simple fact that what is really needed is a bi or tri-annual driving test, that would weed out some of the loons and incompetent fools quite quicky.. Nope we all get treated like sheep.
Baa.
Lets move away from the reactive method for sorting safety out and become pro-active.
Here is a perfect example of just how moronic councils can be... By me there is a two lane road, with a single lane bridge on a blind corner, and after it a two lane bridge where cars can safely pass. They decided to install some traffic lights... where do you think they put the traffic lights in?!? You guessed it the two lane bridge where traffic can pass safely. No I'm not joking.
If the great and the good are serious about improving road safety, why do they shy away from the simple fact that what is really needed is a bi or tri-annual driving test, that would weed out some of the loons and incompetent fools quite quicky.. Nope we all get treated like sheep.
Baa.
Lets move away from the reactive method for sorting safety out and become pro-active.
Edited by Huskyman on Friday 5th February 18:19
Kawasicki said:
Or do both. Generally just slow everything down. It's safer.
Absolutely commendable, but not quite right.In most circumstances, the lower the speed, the less unsafe driving becomes.
However, it must be remembered that the primary function of driving is to allow the occupants (human or otherwise) of the vehicle to travel from a-to-b.
The only truly safe speed is zero. Unless you're doing zero, you're at some risk on the roads. I haven't the stats to hand, but I'd say that our record, all things considered, is extremely good.
We already have a vast swathe of safety orientated measures in place, implemented on all sides of the piece (drivers, Government and manufacturers).
Here we find ourselves in 2016. Our society depends upon our being able to travel freely. To my mind (and this is nothing but personal opinion) we have reached a tipping point now where the returns on extra safety measures are so diminishingly small that it would be prudent for us to improve journey times. In the absence of reducing distance, in order to reduce time, we must increase speed. This could be achieved in some way by reducing congestion and other things to increase average rather than maximum speeds.
The increase in risk attendant with this would, I should say, be very low and would in any case be offset by the reduction in risk which comes with congestion and the other things which would be eradicated.
We've run scared for long enough, it's time to grow a pair and reap the rewards. Lord knows we've earned it.
two issues i can see:
1) Yes, at first, people will slow down. Then after a while, the regression to normality will kick in, and people will go back to the speed they were previously doing when there were lines. This is because it is "change" to which humans react, and not any absolute state.
2) As evidenced by the proliferation of people now speeding in 30mph zones, if you make the whole road a "Go slow
zone" you loose the importance that a change in speed limit used to signal (yup, that change thing again). Back in the day, when you could do 60mph, entering a 30mph was an obvious delineation an subconsciously re-enforces in drivers mind that something is different. Now increasingly our rural roads are 40mph, everyone just switches off, and no one even notices they are entering somewhere where they need to adjust their speed (and as a result we now have to introduce even lower limits (20mph) to attempt to re-enforce things again.
When you treat people like idiots, they behave like idiots........
1) Yes, at first, people will slow down. Then after a while, the regression to normality will kick in, and people will go back to the speed they were previously doing when there were lines. This is because it is "change" to which humans react, and not any absolute state.
2) As evidenced by the proliferation of people now speeding in 30mph zones, if you make the whole road a "Go slow
zone" you loose the importance that a change in speed limit used to signal (yup, that change thing again). Back in the day, when you could do 60mph, entering a 30mph was an obvious delineation an subconsciously re-enforces in drivers mind that something is different. Now increasingly our rural roads are 40mph, everyone just switches off, and no one even notices they are entering somewhere where they need to adjust their speed (and as a result we now have to introduce even lower limits (20mph) to attempt to re-enforce things again.
When you treat people like idiots, they behave like idiots........
I'm inclined to believe that the engineers, sociologists and other specialists know more than we do about this painted line stuff. So I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
However... The next generation of autonomous vehicles use cameras to "read" -- among other things -- the lines on the road whilst simultaneously cross-checking the path of travel with GPS data of the road.
With lines removed... Won't this place a greater burden on the latter?
Must be a slow news day. The trials in Norfolk were in 2003. I was vaguely involved in a similar scheme in Charlwood in Surrey in the late 1990s where the road markings were removed and a faux cobbled road surface used instead. Drove the locals nuts with the noise.
Lots of research been going on for years, here's just one example;
http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Review/10048
Lots of research been going on for years, here's just one example;
http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Review/10048
I frequently drive on a tight winding B road near me which has had the white lines removed. Whilst it's most certainly has slowed me down I'd say I was much more likely to have a head-on one of the tighter bends with a speeding moron (usually in a 4x4) who doesn't know the width of their car and has no idea / doesn't care that they're on the wrong side of the road.
ferrariF50lover said:
Kawasicki said:
Or do both. Generally just slow everything down. It's safer.
Absolutely commendable, but not quite right.In most circumstances, the lower the speed, the less unsafe driving becomes.
However, it must be remembered that the primary function of driving is to allow the occupants (human or otherwise) of the vehicle to travel from a-to-b.
The only truly safe speed is zero. Unless you're doing zero, you're at some risk on the roads. I haven't the stats to hand, but I'd say that our record, all things considered, is extremely good.
We already have a vast swathe of safety orientated measures in place, implemented on all sides of the piece (drivers, Government and manufacturers).
Here we find ourselves in 2016. Our society depends upon our being able to travel freely. To my mind (and this is nothing but personal opinion) we have reached a tipping point now where the returns on extra safety measures are so diminishingly small that it would be prudent for us to improve journey times. In the absence of reducing distance, in order to reduce time, we must increase speed. This could be achieved in some way by reducing congestion and other things to increase average rather than maximum speeds.
The increase in risk attendant with this would, I should say, be very low and would in any case be offset by the reduction in risk which comes with congestion and the other things which would be eradicated.
We've run scared for long enough, it's time to grow a pair and reap the rewards. Lord knows we've earned it.
It doesn't work around here.
Admittedly on country lanes but the Range Rover drivers don't want to risk getting their tyres muddy and force the smaller cars to take their chances with the rough edge / muddy verge.
I've swapped wing mirrors with a few in my van.
It's also awkward to overtake safely as most cars sit over the middle of the road and don't look in their mirrors.
Admittedly on country lanes but the Range Rover drivers don't want to risk getting their tyres muddy and force the smaller cars to take their chances with the rough edge / muddy verge.
I've swapped wing mirrors with a few in my van.
It's also awkward to overtake safely as most cars sit over the middle of the road and don't look in their mirrors.
Kawasicki said:
You have a lot of good points there. But I think you need to put your trust in the experts, and they have deduced that slower is better. Their risk/benefit analysis shows that lower speeds are better. Ok, so it seems they don't include any benefit gained from traveling above posted limits, as that would be an illegal act. So the analysis can only ever lead to lower speed limits. Besides that minor detail, you should stop thinking and just follow government advice. Slow down.
Sorry, I'd missed your (now very obviously)... I'm not sure of the word, irony, perhaps? Damn.
This only works for slowing down traffic in where there's a mix of users.
The lack of decent painted lines and patchy cat eyes in the UK is something that is very frustrating in poor conditions. In comparison on a mainland European road in poor conditions, in the pitch black, the road ahead is very clearly lit up thanks to their ability to paint roads along the sides ( this in some cases is far more important ) and the middle and maintain them.
One thing I rather like are those cat eyes that light up in the rear view.
Far safer, far more relaxing.
I appreciate that the materials used in the paint means when you're on a bike you need to take some care when crossing them.
Removing paintwork from the road is another one of those ideas floated by someone who travels 2K a year, during daylight and can't understand why white paint is needed at all. Or maybe they're from Brake, so use public transport...
The lack of decent painted lines and patchy cat eyes in the UK is something that is very frustrating in poor conditions. In comparison on a mainland European road in poor conditions, in the pitch black, the road ahead is very clearly lit up thanks to their ability to paint roads along the sides ( this in some cases is far more important ) and the middle and maintain them.
One thing I rather like are those cat eyes that light up in the rear view.
Far safer, far more relaxing.
I appreciate that the materials used in the paint means when you're on a bike you need to take some care when crossing them.
Removing paintwork from the road is another one of those ideas floated by someone who travels 2K a year, during daylight and can't understand why white paint is needed at all. Or maybe they're from Brake, so use public transport...
I actually thought this was an April fool and I was in a time warp to when retards have taken over the civil service... oh part of that may be true already.
I mean REALLY how can such an idea even enter an intelligent persons thought process ? Their goal of slowing the motorist seems to have absolutely no boundaries. They probably have a draft business case that has white paint listed as a positive cost avoidance.
The main issue is slowing traffic by 13% has the effect of making motorists spend 13% longer completing journeys, therefore increase traffic load per hour / per mile by 13% and also increase national fuel consumption proportionately, create longer delivery times for good and services, pushing up retail costs to the consumer - it goes on and on and on as a cascade of negative impacts all bourn by the voter going about their lawful business. It is LITERALLY the opposite of what should be being done which is make roads faster AND safer - in that order of importance. Millions of hours of the most precious national resource (people's time) is squandered getting from A to B, and they want to actively and calculatingly increase how long that will take !?!?! Sweet Mary, where do they find these people.
I mean REALLY how can such an idea even enter an intelligent persons thought process ? Their goal of slowing the motorist seems to have absolutely no boundaries. They probably have a draft business case that has white paint listed as a positive cost avoidance.
The main issue is slowing traffic by 13% has the effect of making motorists spend 13% longer completing journeys, therefore increase traffic load per hour / per mile by 13% and also increase national fuel consumption proportionately, create longer delivery times for good and services, pushing up retail costs to the consumer - it goes on and on and on as a cascade of negative impacts all bourn by the voter going about their lawful business. It is LITERALLY the opposite of what should be being done which is make roads faster AND safer - in that order of importance. Millions of hours of the most precious national resource (people's time) is squandered getting from A to B, and they want to actively and calculatingly increase how long that will take !?!?! Sweet Mary, where do they find these people.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff