Road clutter campaign kicks off
Drivers' lives at risk from over-signage
Too much clutter?
Edmund King announced at the conference that the RAC Foundation has joined with countryside campaigners CPRE to form a new alliance against the cluttering of the English countryside.
King told delegates that signs that are clear, concise, relevant, reliable and timely can improve safety and reduce the number of drivers who get lost each day. Conversely a clutter of contradictory signs, as well as detracting from the beauty of the countryside, lead to confusion that can result in collisions.
Highlighting a case study of a seven-mile section of the B3006 in Hampshire, most of which passes through the designated South Downs National Park, which a CPRE survey found to have 45 signs per mile, King will call on local authorities to:
- carry out “clutter audits” on roads in their counties, as in Hampshire
- restore countryside character through the use of fingerposts and other locally distinctive signage where possible, as in the Surrey Hills
- keep a record of the number of signs they have managed to remove.
King also attacked some of the “appalling and dangerous” build-out or chicane traffic calming schemes in villages which are both a visual eyesore and highly questionable in terms of road safety. He proposed to the transport planners a radical solution of using traditional cattle grids as an effective way of slowing down traffic without ruining the visual environment of small villages.
Research reveals that since the modern system of signage was introduced in 1968 the number of signs in the Highway Code has soared by 44 per cent. Examples of confusing signs have included a bilingual traffic sign in Wales, which gave cyclists the message to “dismount” in English but that “Your bladder disease has returned” in Welsh.
Shaun Spiers, CPRE’s Chief Executive, said: ‘People simply aren’t prepared to put up with our countryside being blighted for no good reason. We want local authorities to think again about putting up unnecessary road signs, and keep our countryside from becoming a nightmare of garish signs and billboards.’
King said: “We are ruining many of our pretty rural areas by putting in hideous traffic calming schemes and far too many signs and lines. We need clutter reviews to remove unnecessary signs and lines. Perhaps we should use more traditional methods such as cattle grids to slow cars down rather than race track chicanes.”
The RAC Foundation and the CPRE are also urging the Government to follow the lead of the Scottish Executive in producing clear guidance on how to manage road furniture in rural areas. Calling on the Government to conduct a formal review of rural signage along the lines of the 1987 Guildford Review of Urban Signage, and highlighting the CPRE’s own “Guidelines on Signage in Rural Areas,” as a starting point, King suggested:
- Clutter audits should be conducted to improve safety and visual/environmental impact.
- Signage at locations with a history of collisions should be examined to ensure that it is legible and simple to follow. While the onus is on drivers to learn signs and re-visit the Highway Code, confusing and poorly maintained signage can contribute to road collisions.
- In rural areas groups of signs should be combined into a single placard if the messages are necessary.
- Some signs should be smaller and shorter. The reverse of signs in rural areas should be painted to blend in with the landscape.
- Obtrusive traffic calming in small rural villages should be replaced with traditional features such as cattle grids.
King also reminded local authorities that all road signs should be regularly maintained, cleaned, kept free of foliage and be accurate.
Visual clutter makes it harder for drivers to perceive traffic lights and other safety signs. If there is too much information for the driver to take in this leads to too much arousal and the driver becomes stressed. High density of visual clutter slows down the search times for important visual information. Much distraction is unconscious but reaction times are slower even if the driver does not know he/she is being distracted.
American studies suggest that in 10 to 30 per cent of all accidents, driver distraction is a factor and one third of these are caused by distractions outside the car. Younger drivers (17-21) are more prone to distractions. However, the figures are probably an underestimate as drivers rarely admit to being distracted, as they are concerned about insurance liability.
The Foundation’s motoring psychologist has argued that “five plus or minus two” is the number of messages or points of information that we can think of and take in at any one time. If we are focusing on too many messages then we can miss some crucial information.
In terms of road safety, King will highlight studies that show that even in built up areas 40 per cent of fatalities are a result of run-off crashes. Of these, 20 per cent hit signs, signposts, telegraph and lamp posts. Fewer signs will therefore create a safer roadside environment.
King suggests that, even in urban areas, fewer and clearer signs can help to reduce confusion and accidents.
Surveys by the Foundation show that more than half of UK motorists admit to not understanding even basic signs in the Highway Code and over half admit to getting lost during holiday journeys. In urban areas at any particular time up to 15 per cent of drivers are estimated to be lost.
Yet across the UK, thousands of road signs which give route directions, street names, limits or hazards are confusing or have disappeared, been knocked down, obscured with grime or foliage or have been damaged.
Picture courtesy of SABRE
Totally agree. Such congestion-creating idiocy and the clutter of signs so numerous they're probably ignored. Fools who do this must also be the same fools who dream up new (lower) unrealistic speed limits.
It's taxpayer's money wasted by these bumbling cretins; how do they get the job?
Calling on the Government to conduct a formal review of rural signage along the lines of the 1987 Guildford Review of Urban Signage, and highlighting the CPRE’s own “Guidelines on Signage in Rural Areas,” as a starting point...
Therein lies the rub. They've already come to this conclusion 19 years ago and done nothing about it...
How much do you want to bet that the same will happen this time?
I'm completely fed up with speed bumps and traffick calming near me. When I drive to my parents I pass near Bicester. There is a strech of road near there where there are so many signs it dazzles in the dark. Worse is that it is a supposed danger spot yet they have a sign with small print on saying something like this is a dangerous road x injuries etc. I estimate it would take 3 or 4 seconds to speed read it as you enter this section of road requiring heightened concentration !!!!
The conservatives seem to be struggling for a policy. Perhaps for a start they can outsource all road traffic legislation etc to an independent group of experts eg. like labour did for interest rates to the bank of england. Perhaps we might get some sense and consistency.
Also need to look at the number of traffic lights which are not needed.
I live close to Northampton and at one cross roads, there are more than 30 traffic lights set up around the junction.
Where Milton Keynes is the city of roundabouts, Northampton must be the city of Traffic lights, I know where there is less congestion.
For example, the "National Speed Limit" sign (diagonal black line on white disc) means NOTHING to Tourists visiting the UK (as well as plenty of UK drivers as well I'm sure). I would personally like to see EXPLICIT speed signs instead of these archaic, abstract symbols that leave some people guessing, possibly putting them and others in danger, and exposing them to cameras/laser-toting cops as well.
I appreciate the idea may have been that if the NSL changed, these abstract signs wouldn't need to be replaced - but still, some people are still unsure what the NSL is!
Aeioux.
It means 40mph, no overtaking. Isn't that obvious?
Actually, there's a good point there. If the NSL signs were replaced with explicit 60/70 signage (according to situation), would that have an impact on the "fourty four everywhere" crowd?
I'm also not keen on very low speed limit signage when the reason for it isn't that obvious. "30, School" or "30, Hidden Junctions" might improve compliance a little more than just sticking an unexplained "30" sign in the middle of what seems to be a road affording much higher speeds.
Totally agree. Such congestion-creating idiocy and the clutter of signs so numerous they're probably ignored.
Coventry council have recently spent a fair amount of money re-doing bus-stops. They now JUT OUT from the pavement about 2-3ft into the carriageway and have a high kerb. Many have been placed just before pedestrian islands. The shelters are about 3ft away from the new kerb, so it's not for more space on the pavement.
As a result:-
1) it is almost impossible to see around a bus when it stops. This makes passing a stationary bus more difficult
2) as they now jut-out as opposed to being inset, there is nowhere near enough room for 2 cars abreast with a parked bus. Also making passing a stationary bus more difficult.
3) Even if you can pass, you then need to slow right down to squeeze between the bus and the pedestrian island in the middle of the road. I saw a chap forced to drive the WRONG SIDE of a pedestrian island earlier this week as he was passing a bus when it decided to pull out!!!
4) The buses are there for longer as the old Dorises have further to walk from the shelter.
You would ALMOST think the council wanted to make car-drivers' lives more difficult, wouldn't you?!?
Maybe difficult to explain this one as well, but another 20 zone when lights flash area at another school, has incorrect signage coming in from the other end, its just an illuminated sign of a parent and child crossing the road, which as far as I know does not mean a 20 zone, does it?
Incidently they put this sign up about 3 metres in front of the cycle lane sign?
Totally agree. Such congestion-creating idiocy and the clutter of signs so numerous they're probably ignored.
Coventry council have recently spent a fair amount of money re-doing bus-stops. They now JUT OUT from the pavement about 2-3ft into the carriageway and have a high kerb. Many have been placed just before pedestrian islands. The shelters are about 3ft away from the new kerb, so it's not for more space on the pavement.
As a result:-
1) it is almost impossible to see around a bus when it stops. This makes passing a stationary bus more difficult
2) as they now jut-out as opposed to being inset, there is nowhere near enough room for 2 cars abreast with a parked bus. Also making passing a stationary bus more difficult.
3) Even if you can pass, you then need to slow right down to squeeze between the bus and the pedestrian island in the middle of the road. I saw a chap forced to drive the WRONG SIDE of a pedestrian island earlier this week as he was passing a bus when it decided to pull out!!!
4) The buses are there for longer as the old Dorises have further to walk from the shelter.
You would ALMOST think the council wanted to make car-drivers' lives more difficult, wouldn't you?!?
Sounds like they've designed it so the bus drivers dont have to wait to pull out, but at great expense to the rush hour motorist! I swear most of the road planners dont have cars. Or eyes. Or an ounce of common sense.
2) as they now jut-out as opposed to being inset, there is nowhere near enough room for 2 cars abreast with a parked bus. Also making passing a stationary bus more difficult.
3) Even if you can pass, you then need to slow right down to squeeze between the bus and the pedestrian island in the middle of the road. I saw a chap forced to drive the WRONG SIDE of a pedestrian island earlier this week as he was passing a bus when it decided to pull out!!!
4) The buses are there for longer as the old Dorises have further to walk from the shelter.
You would ALMOST think the council wanted to make car-drivers' lives more difficult, wouldn't you?!?
Almost the same in Portlethen, the end of the bus when it has stoped at a bus stop, is just about a car lengths infront of an island, the only safe way to pass it, is to ignore the keep left sign on the island, and pull out before it to get a good view of the road, AND LEFT HAND JUNCTION immediately ahead, shere stupidity really. Cant recall if the island was put up first or the bus stop.
Fortunately its not a busy road, but a good clear view of the junction is imperative of course before trying to pass the bus.
I had the displeasure of driving today past said bus stop from the other direction, almost there, and some driver pulled straight out from behind the bus having decided to keep left onthe island, and obviously hadnt seen me coming from the other direction, despite broad daylight, no sun to obscure vision, and my Volvo of course had its headlights on, come on councils, wake up FFS
P.S. We also suffer from these crazy bendy bus drivers in Aberdeen, one regulrily pulls up behind his mate, thus completely blocking the entry to a side road, until the bus in front moves, all he has to is wait behind the junction, not rocket science is it? alternately Mr Council, now that you have allowed the bus co to introduce bendy busses, which if you havnt noticed are twice as long as normal ones, why not move the bloody bus stops to accomodate this problem????? in stead of spending nearly a million quid on satelite navigation on the buses which lets folk at the bus stop know how long the next bus will be, as if thats really important?
Totally agree. Such congestion-creating idiocy and the clutter of signs so numerous they're probably ignored.
Coventry council have recently spent a fair amount of money re-doing bus-stops. They now JUT OUT from the pavement about 2-3ft into the carriageway and have a high kerb. Many have been placed just before pedestrian islands. The shelters are about 3ft away from the new kerb, so it's not for more space on the pavement.
As a result:-
1) it is almost impossible to see around a bus when it stops. This makes passing a stationary bus more difficult
2) as they now jut-out as opposed to being inset, there is nowhere near enough room for 2 cars abreast with a parked bus. Also making passing a stationary bus more difficult.
3) Even if you can pass, you then need to slow right down to squeeze between the bus and the pedestrian island in the middle of the road. I saw a chap forced to drive the WRONG SIDE of a pedestrian island earlier this week as he was passing a bus when it decided to pull out!!!
4) The buses are there for longer as the old Dorises have further to walk from the shelter.
Could that be to stop people parking in the bus stops? That's a favourite trick around here.
I always stop to let buses pull out because I have spent a lot of time driving in a country which requires you to by law. I think it's a good rule.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff