Top article in the Scotsman
Discussion
http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=942502004
The road to safer driving is not always clearly marked
BLAMING speed for road accidents is like blaming altitude for aeroplane accidents. If they didn’t fly they wouldn’t crash. If cars remained stationary nobody would be killed. Not long ago, one frustrated railwayman complained that so far as the health and safety police were concerned, the only safe train was a stopped train.
Real-world solutions to safety can be much more subtle. Years ago I had a friend who was a local councillor. Our village was safe, picturesque, with a main street, a pub, a post office and a fine primary school.
It was such a good school that it had more than its quota of drop-off traffic; children from outlying districts came by car because there was no bus service. The upside was that there had not been a road accident injury in living memory.
Then along came the highways department and resurfaced the road. Signs were renewed, white lines repainted, yellow ones added to discourage parking, all neat and tidy according to official regulation. There were still no accidents, although the rural character of the place was changed a bit. The downside was faster traffic, to the alarm of the children who walked to school, and of course of their parents.
Agitated meetings in the village hall condemned reckless motorists and there were demands for a lower speed limit. "Twenty’s Plenty" was the cry, but the response by the local authority was that the road was perfectly safe, and it was unwilling to do anything. The clamour increased, the council agreed to monitor traffic speed, and it turned out that hardly anybody was exceeding 30mph. Still, demands persisted for speed cameras, radar traps, sleeping policemen, chicanes and other traffic management.
All the proposals were rejected on grounds of cost. No accidents; no money. The campaigners were furious. Here, they claimed, was an accident waiting to happen. In due course, traffic management became a village issue, acrimony flourished and, as the anti-speeders campaigned for road humps and chicanes, opposition hardened.
An adjoining village had tried traffic calming and it proved so unpopular it had to be dismantled. Hissing brakes, smoky trucks, collisions with street furniture and cycling accidents on humps became intolerable.
What my friend the councillor had to judge was whether the campaigners had a case, and then balance possible measures with the rejection of humps and chicanes. There was plenty of disapproval of speeding, the traffic was certainly flowing more smoothly, but there was still nothing to indicate that the road was any less safe than it had been before. What could he do to calm nerves yet sustain the road’s exemplary record?
The answer was subtle, simple and elegant. At each end of the village he set up what looked like a gateway, white painted posts on both sides of the road, together with a five-barred gate. It was never shut, of course, but it provided drivers with a sort of punctuation mark. Subliminally they registered that they had entered a village. It was more effective than a speed limit sign, or a rumble strip, disfiguring stripes on the road or pious notices imploring drivers to take care.
Traffic speeds fell so the campaigners were happier. Drivers were not irritated by petty regulation, they seemed to pay more attention to their surroundings, and the village safety record remains unimpaired to this day.
The approach to safety is often not obvious, and it is not always susceptible to legislation. Take mobile phones. It is said that drivers using handheld mobile phones increase their chances of having an accident by a factor of four. The Highway Code advised against them, Rospa campaigned against them and, after a few well-publicised accidents in which mobile phones were involved, prohibition was introduced. Yet every day one sees drivers still using them because the chances of being apprehended are small.
Invoking the law has had a limited effect. Research shows something else. A statistically significant number of accidents are caused by drivers under stress, worried about being late for an appointment, late for a date or just late for dinner. We know roughly how many accidents drivers using handheld phones caused. What we do not know is how many accidents have been avoided because drivers could make a comforting phone call.
Persuasion is sometimes better than legislation. A radical new approach in Holland is to reduce road signs and remove traffic lights, in the belief that drivers should think for themselves and not rely on technology. Dutch safety consultant Hans Monderman says too many warning signs make roads less safe, because they encourage road users not to think. He counsels better behavioural psychology on the grounds that thinking drivers are safer.
The British Transport and Road Research Laboratory is working along similar lines, and can show that altering roads to make them appear more dangerous creates the same effect. This can mean narrowing roads and removing clear-cut edges, prompting drivers to navigate with care. Experiments with removing central white lines on selected suburban roads cut accidents by a third.
The road to safer driving is not always clearly marked
BLAMING speed for road accidents is like blaming altitude for aeroplane accidents. If they didn’t fly they wouldn’t crash. If cars remained stationary nobody would be killed. Not long ago, one frustrated railwayman complained that so far as the health and safety police were concerned, the only safe train was a stopped train.
Real-world solutions to safety can be much more subtle. Years ago I had a friend who was a local councillor. Our village was safe, picturesque, with a main street, a pub, a post office and a fine primary school.
It was such a good school that it had more than its quota of drop-off traffic; children from outlying districts came by car because there was no bus service. The upside was that there had not been a road accident injury in living memory.
Then along came the highways department and resurfaced the road. Signs were renewed, white lines repainted, yellow ones added to discourage parking, all neat and tidy according to official regulation. There were still no accidents, although the rural character of the place was changed a bit. The downside was faster traffic, to the alarm of the children who walked to school, and of course of their parents.
Agitated meetings in the village hall condemned reckless motorists and there were demands for a lower speed limit. "Twenty’s Plenty" was the cry, but the response by the local authority was that the road was perfectly safe, and it was unwilling to do anything. The clamour increased, the council agreed to monitor traffic speed, and it turned out that hardly anybody was exceeding 30mph. Still, demands persisted for speed cameras, radar traps, sleeping policemen, chicanes and other traffic management.
All the proposals were rejected on grounds of cost. No accidents; no money. The campaigners were furious. Here, they claimed, was an accident waiting to happen. In due course, traffic management became a village issue, acrimony flourished and, as the anti-speeders campaigned for road humps and chicanes, opposition hardened.
An adjoining village had tried traffic calming and it proved so unpopular it had to be dismantled. Hissing brakes, smoky trucks, collisions with street furniture and cycling accidents on humps became intolerable.
What my friend the councillor had to judge was whether the campaigners had a case, and then balance possible measures with the rejection of humps and chicanes. There was plenty of disapproval of speeding, the traffic was certainly flowing more smoothly, but there was still nothing to indicate that the road was any less safe than it had been before. What could he do to calm nerves yet sustain the road’s exemplary record?
The answer was subtle, simple and elegant. At each end of the village he set up what looked like a gateway, white painted posts on both sides of the road, together with a five-barred gate. It was never shut, of course, but it provided drivers with a sort of punctuation mark. Subliminally they registered that they had entered a village. It was more effective than a speed limit sign, or a rumble strip, disfiguring stripes on the road or pious notices imploring drivers to take care.
Traffic speeds fell so the campaigners were happier. Drivers were not irritated by petty regulation, they seemed to pay more attention to their surroundings, and the village safety record remains unimpaired to this day.
The approach to safety is often not obvious, and it is not always susceptible to legislation. Take mobile phones. It is said that drivers using handheld mobile phones increase their chances of having an accident by a factor of four. The Highway Code advised against them, Rospa campaigned against them and, after a few well-publicised accidents in which mobile phones were involved, prohibition was introduced. Yet every day one sees drivers still using them because the chances of being apprehended are small.
Invoking the law has had a limited effect. Research shows something else. A statistically significant number of accidents are caused by drivers under stress, worried about being late for an appointment, late for a date or just late for dinner. We know roughly how many accidents drivers using handheld phones caused. What we do not know is how many accidents have been avoided because drivers could make a comforting phone call.
Persuasion is sometimes better than legislation. A radical new approach in Holland is to reduce road signs and remove traffic lights, in the belief that drivers should think for themselves and not rely on technology. Dutch safety consultant Hans Monderman says too many warning signs make roads less safe, because they encourage road users not to think. He counsels better behavioural psychology on the grounds that thinking drivers are safer.
The British Transport and Road Research Laboratory is working along similar lines, and can show that altering roads to make them appear more dangerous creates the same effect. This can mean narrowing roads and removing clear-cut edges, prompting drivers to navigate with care. Experiments with removing central white lines on selected suburban roads cut accidents by a third.
If that article is genuine and based on reality, rather than merely being a nice story, I believe it is well worth supporting and pursuing.
I believe we have far too many road signs, and to be honest I derive very little benefit from most of them. The distraction effect can, in many cases, be counter-productive in safety terms.
Apart from that I don't like our nice villages being disfigured with garish paint schemes and the clutter of so-called 'traffic calming' when what we really need is driver calming. Just IMHO as usual.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I believe we have far too many road signs, and to be honest I derive very little benefit from most of them. The distraction effect can, in many cases, be counter-productive in safety terms.
Apart from that I don't like our nice villages being disfigured with garish paint schemes and the clutter of so-called 'traffic calming' when what we really need is driver calming. Just IMHO as usual.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
MMC said:
Persuasion is sometimes better than legislation. A radical new approach in Holland is to reduce road signs and remove traffic lights, in the belief that drivers should think for themselves and not rely on technology. Dutch safety consultant Hans Monderman says too many warning signs make roads less safe, because they encourage road users not to think. He counsels better behavioural psychology on the grounds that thinking drivers are safer.
The British Transport and Road Research Laboratory is working along similar lines, and can show that altering roads to make them appear more dangerous creates the same effect. This can mean narrowing roads and removing clear-cut edges, prompting drivers to navigate with care. Experiments with removing central white lines on selected suburban roads cut accidents by a third.
I agree 110% with the above. Make drivers think for themselves and maintain their attention! Give me roundabouts or give ways any day in preference to brainless traffic lights.
Furthermore I moved onto a new housing estate 7 years ago and for a year or so the roads remained unmarked by white lines. It has a 30 limit and the gently winding road with no markings gave it the appearance of a leafy suburb. Then one day I came home and white lines had been daubed down the centre line and at T junctions. The total character of the road changed, drivers now didn't need to think so much about the oncoming car because the white line giving them confidence that they were going to be well separated. They now passed T junctions with greater confidence that joining cars were going to give way - AND SPEED VISIBLY INCREASED.
Crazy! When are the thickos who do these things going to understand?
I also agree with giving drivers the opportunity to think for themselves. This has been the fundamental principle for road safety in UK since the removal of the red flag. Unfortunately the last few years have seen the government dismantle this approach -- in line with their preference for centralised control of everything -- with the message that keeping under the speed limit is all that matters. Where that hasn't worked then the obvious answer has been to reduce the limits and to police them with speed cameras.
I will not hold my breath that any UK government will reverse the actions of the last few years and revert to giving drivers autonomy and responsibility. That way lies personal freedom and that's not a popular concept with any government that listens to anti-car "charities".
I will not hold my breath that any UK government will reverse the actions of the last few years and revert to giving drivers autonomy and responsibility. That way lies personal freedom and that's not a popular concept with any government that listens to anti-car "charities".
Providing drivers with a "sort of punctuation mark" is a very interesting point in the way of changing drivers behaviour - by doing this at say a section of road where the speed limit changes means that more drivers are likely to notice and react accordinly!
But unfortunately....
Drivers thinking for themselves???? No No No the Blairy bunch wouldn't like that...
Far better to have speed cameras, chicanes, speed humps and accidents! Not to mention the revenue it can generate!
But unfortunately....
Drivers thinking for themselves???? No No No the Blairy bunch wouldn't like that...
Far better to have speed cameras, chicanes, speed humps and accidents! Not to mention the revenue it can generate!
forever_driving said:
Does anyone have a link to the dutch story? I remember a while back reading about it, the removed all road markings from roads (including the central white line) and the accident rates fell I'm glad there's one country out there with some common sense.
Yes I hope someone can point us in the direction of further details on that policy. I still like the road centre-line to be marked, but a good deal of other stuff could be dispensed with IMHO.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
forever_driving said:
Does anyone have a link to the dutch story? I remember a while back reading about it, the removed all road markings from roads (including the central white line) and the accident rates fell
i recall something similar in a Suffolk village. the central road markings were removed for re-surfacing. being efficient they were'nt replaced for a while. the villagers were very happy as the through traffic slowed down.
however the council deemed it dangerous and put them back leading to higher traffic speeds.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff