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/

[chris_crossley]

Nobody wants to run a pedestrian over or have a crash and the less destractions
on the road the better. so we can focus on the job in hand. Speed is the same thing.
We are distracted by having to watch out speedo's even when where in the speed limit.
Just to make sure we don't exceed it by 5 mph. When we should be driving to
the conditions and keeping an eye out for other road/path users.

There's also a significant saving in all the pointless signs they put up. Not to mention
all the wasted resources to produce the signs.

[tvrman]

Did they not do a survey a while back that said that drivers drive slower if objects are nearer them, thus creating the illusion of more speed (look into my eyes, not around the eyes...3...2...1). The idea being the more objects closer to the car, the greater feeling of speed and people slow down.

Thus now we have two ideas, in conflict with each other, one about reducing driver spped, the other to do with peoples safety.

Regards

Webby

[350matt]

what makes me think the scameras will remain?

[chris_crossley]

350matt said:

what makes me think the scameras will remain?

Maybe the signs where blocking the scameras sights

[sixspeed]

I give up!


-andy-

[sixspeed]

I give up!


-andy-

[cdp]

This proposal encourages common sense and responsblity. This might even lead to people thinking about road safety.

This government hates people thinking as they might realise that nanny doesn't always know best.

[mikeatBB]

This proposal follows (or plagiarises) ideas and experiments in Holland which have proved it works.
The PPP in North wales have always supported Paul Smith and his thorough and rational analysis of such issues..........at last a sign of sense and reason in road safety........Mike

[Ev_]

It's almost like they've been listening.

[Phill Reygate]

Hardly a "brainchild"... More like a bit of common sense and about time too.

Where I live we now have to swerve through chicanes and concentrate on all manner of other distractions. One local railway bridge has now been declared too dangerous for cars to pass through in opposing directions.(not seen an accident there in 15 years)Its now been NARROWED and had traffic lights installed.

Thank heavens a bit of common sense is at last appearing!
(Rant over, bad day at work)

>> Edited by Phill Reygate on Tuesday 1st February 22:27

[flooritforever]

Phill Reygate said:

Hardly a "brainchild"... More like a bit of common sense and about time too. Where I live we now have to swerve through chicanes and concentrate on all manor of other distractions. One local railway bridge has now been declared too dangerous for cars to pass through in opposing directions.(not seen an accident there in 15 years)Its now been NARROWED and had traffic lights installed. Thank heavens a bit of common sense is at last appearing! (Rant over, bad day at work)

Sounds a lot like my estate. The roads are alreads too narrow and then they clutter them with 'traffic calming' measures that are, quite frankly, bloody dangerous. Not to mention the lazy bds that can't be bothered to park on their own sodding drive and just stop in front of the house.

If they were to take away all the silly speed bumps and restrictions and, though it pains me to say this, paint double yellow lines to force all the lazy-asses to use their drives, the roads on the estate would actually be much, much safer. Children need to cross the road? Sure. Put in a Zebra crossing and teach them to fg use it!

rant over.

Also bad day.

[gary_tholl]

Well, sounds good, but it will only work if pedestrians are given responsibility for their actions as well. If a drunken pedo falls in front of a car, and the driver is demonised... well... it just won't work. Here's hoping it doesn't go down that path.

Gary

[anonymous-user]

What does it take to have some bl@@dy common sense??? Seems like they go from one extreme to another. Picture this - your outside city limits, no lights, no moon (i.e. it's dark), it's pouring with rain and the road is not exactly straight. IMHO, having some "distracting" white lines on the road is about the only thing keeping you on the road...so please feel free to go ahead and remove them!

[320td]

People will die...

This assumes entirely that the average standard of driving is high enough that drivers will be able to correctly anticipate any eventuality - which just ain't true.

So poorly thought out is almost funny...

[Phill Reygate]

I don't think they intend to remove all the road markings.
They will keep the white centre lines and catseyes etc.

I can drive perfectly safely without the multitude of other road markings and signs that are constantly in my line of vision.
I dont need a sign to tell me there is a junction ahead or a turning on the left, I am not eating, drinking or on the phone. I am awake. I am paying attention and I can see them. I can also make my own judgements about whether or not its safe to overtake.(Gosh! I'm good)
I guess the best policy is to get rid of all but the necessary signage and roadmarkings and then get some traffic cops back out on the roads to punish all those that struggle with the basics of driving safely.
(Scary. Sound like my dad)

[planetdave]

The idea is to remove ALL markings from sidestreets (including curbs) so as to make no distinction between road and pedestrian areas. Roadways engender a 'this is a roadway and therefore a car patch' mentality which absolves drivers from thinking about pedestrians (as much as they should).

It's a bit like replacing traffic lights with roundabouts - make the driver engage brain rather that pre-conception.

Stuff Richard Porter...this is a great idea.

[mustdriveslower]

Wow! Is this common sense prevailing? Next they may come up with the idea that more BIB help reduce KSI, and yeah I know you are all laughing with this one, but heck let's go for it - maybe scameras don't work - lol!
Sorry maybe I should change my name to the septic sceptic!
Please let this be a turning point!

[busta]

planetdave said:

The idea is to remove ALL markings from sidestreets (including curbs) so as to make no distinction between road and pedestrian areas. Roadways engender a 'this is a roadway and therefore a car patch' mentality which absolves drivers from thinking about pedestrians (as much as they should). It's a bit like replacing traffic lights with roundabouts - make the driver engage brain rather that pre-conception. Stuff Richard Porter...this is a great idea.

Surely roads with no curbs will be a night mare? What do they proppose as an alternative way of dividing the carriageway from the pavement in areas where there are both young and elderly pedestrians who currently rely on the limited safety that 4" of concrete gives them?

[guest]

hmm, i doubt the white line painters' union will be happy hearing about this... they'll be out of a job.

still, it'd theoretically lower council tax/road tax/fuel tax... hmm, somehow i dont see that really happening though....

C.

[jamiet]

Phill Reygate said:

I dont need a sign to tell me there is a junction ahead or a turning on the left, I am not eating, drinking or on the phone. I am awake. I am paying attention and I can see them.

Perhaps, if you know the roads.

However, while I agree that our roads are littered with many useless signs and markings and that the careful removal of some is a good idea, I have to disagree with you about junction signs. In the countryside many junctions are totally invisble until you're right on top of them, especially at night. While travelling behind someone on unfamiliar country roads I will often come across what looks like a sensible place for overtaking, then thankfully be warned of an impending junction. I have even driven straight through a cross roads before (on a narrow lane at night, doing about 40mph) because the hedge had claimed the Give Way sign. If you think you dont need such warning signs then with respect I think you are perhaps a little too confident in your own abilities.

>> Edited by jamiet on Wednesday 2nd February 09:49