Tuesday 1st February 2005

Roads get naked

Planners say markings make drivers less responsible

---

Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk/

Roads are going naked in the cause of road safety. The latest wheeze by urban planners is to strip off the road markings and other paraphernalia that clutter the streets in a bid to persuade motorists to be more considerate towards pedestrians. It's an approach that has reportedly been successful in Holland, Germany and Sweden, and it's about to tried in London.

Following a trial in the Wiltshire village of Seend, the idea is that drivers are not funnelled into watching signs and markings but instead are forced to use their common sense, such as making eye contact with pedestrians and being more aware of their surroundings generally.

It's the brainchild of urban planner Ben Hamilton-Baillie, who told the BBC that the removal of a psychological safety net encourages drivers to exercise caution and restraint.

It sounds very much like asking drivers to take responsibility for their actions, as urged by Safe Speed founder Paul Smith. And it's got to be better than speed humps and other alternatives.

More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4213221.stm

Safe Speed: www.safespeed.org.uk/

[DavidPorche]

This is silly. We need the signs to umm..see better at nights and general bad light?

This is too much. Do they have any brains at all?

How did they even come to this conclusion? Make eye contact with pedestrians?? When you're doing 60mph?? Rubbish.

Perhaps a stint of driving in Calcutta or Bangalore, India traffic should be made mandatory before getting your license.

[rude-boy]

Part of this I fully agree with, so long as it is limited to 30mph limits in towns, other parts are a little stupid in my view.

It depends on how much they take away in the way of signs and lines.

I think it is vital to have a line of some sort deliniating the centre of the road. There are far too many people out there who are so unaware of the width of their car that not having one would be a major problem. It also aides padestrian safety by giving them a better perspective of the width of the road they have to cross. People's spatial awareness is so poor IMO they need these to assist them.

The only other signs that should stay are those that CLEARLY state the speed limit and possibly the location of junctions. the rest are a waste of time usually. A particular hate of mine is the elderly people crossing the road sign - FFS so what, I don't see any such signs for the bloke at No.42 who broke his leg last week...

[ninjadave]

I find the signs on country and major roads very helpful, if not very consistant.

When pootling along the back roads, I find it really helps to have an idea of what's ahead - steep incline or decline, sharp bends, etc.

On motorways and A roads, knowing when I'm coming to my turning a mile or so in advance is fine too. However, I think there's too much going on in contraflows and roadworks.

In towns and urban areas, there's too many rubbish signs. They never tell you what you actually want to know if you've never been there before, and if it's a regular rat run, then you don't want stuff blocking the visibility of what's ahead, just stuff to help you get there safely. To this end I agree that the lines deliniating the roads only help you know where you are, and help pedestrians cross. Although I don't think the bike routes and bus lanes are needed.

All in all, so long as they keep this idea to urban areas and apply them sensibly, then I'm for it.