Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Unfamiliarity and the fact that greater concentration is necessary. Nor is that a new thing - JS Dean commented on in in 1946! The signs and markings were expunged pretty much completely, as I recall; certainly centrelines and give way markings, and in some cases they've tried removing traffic lights as well. So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Banning things others enjoy is the only pleasure some people get." |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:31:22 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote in message : So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:31:22 +0100, "PeterE" wrote in message : So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged. Hmm, bit of a weasel answer, that one. I suspect when put on the spot you'd find reasons for keeping most of the signs - those round white ones with a red border and black numbers on them in particular ;-) -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Banning things others enjoy is the only pleasure some people get." |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
PeterE wrote:
So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged. Hmm, bit of a weasel answer, that one. I suspect when put on the spot you'd find reasons for keeping most of the signs - those round white ones with a red border and black numbers on them in particular ;-) No, a straight answer. Speed limit signs are, of course, not present in the first place in the places this has been tried, being either restricted roads or NSL. -- Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged. DfT research would appear to suggest otherwise. A number of test villages covering 30, 40, 50 and 60 limits. A variety of signage and paint changes. Every one resulted in lower mean and 85th percentile speeds. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...504760-02.hcsp |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 9:43:15 +0100, Grant Mason wrote
(in message ): Probably depends on the location. Some roads have been made safer by doing just that. Certianly the experience where roads have been treated with lots of paint and signage has often been that drivers simply speed up and the crash rate remains unchanged. DfT research would appear to suggest otherwise. A number of test villages covering 30, 40, 50 and 60 limits. A variety of signage and paint changes. Every one resulted in lower mean and 85th percentile speeds. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...dft_roads_5047 60-02.hcsp There is a difference here. The study you quote is specifically about traffic calming - a mix of reducing speed limits, reducing road widths, signage, road markings etc. I would expect, in general, that if you lower the speed limit AND give the appearance that it may be enforced then speeds are likely to drop. The argument though is about signage in general. For example, if you approach a cross roads and road markings/signage clearly show that you have right of way, then I say that the majority of drivers will pass through it faster than if it has no road markings at all in which case the majority of drivers will slow down as they preapre to 'negotiate' with the other road users who will give way to whom. Similarly, I believe that there are too mane, far too many, bend warnings (for example). The majority of the bends being warned about are clearly visible, yet drivers are conditioned to requiring the signs, and appear to lose the capability of seeing bends for themselves when they aren't signed - leading to yet more signs. At the same time, because there are so many warning signs, drivers get used to just not taking any notice - and so bad bends now require extra high visibility signs (big yellow backgrounds). Take away all bend warnings EXCEPT where the bend or it's severity is not visible and drivers would have to get used to looking through that piece of glass put in front of them and observe if that grey/black strip they are on is going off to one side ! Simon |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 19:38:58 +0100, Grant Mason wrote
(in message ): There is a difference here. The study you quote is specifically about traffic calming - a mix of reducing speed limits, reducing road widths, signage, road markings etc. I would expect, in general, that if you lower the speed limit AND give the appearance that it may be enforced then speeds are likely to drop. Indeed. But a number of the villages (including the one I live in) in the study had no reduction in speed limit - only changes to signage. And average speeds did drop, contrary to the original assertion. I don't think anyone asserted that traffic calming won't reduce speeds - the discussion was over something totally different. Basically, if there were no bend hazzard warning signs at all, would drivers tend to drive slower in general on the basis that they have to concentrate on the road and be prepared for bends, rather than stick their foot down, rely on signs to announce bends, and complain if they get caught out on an unsigned bend ? It's notable that only 3 (ie one third) of the test sites did NOT have a speed limit reduction. All had some form of speed camera, and the signage to go with it. I would suggest that lowering a speed limit and putting a speed camera somewhere is likely to reduce speeds - but not neccessarily increase safety overall. One of the key things here is that many of the markings are not there as 'signs' in the 'here is a piece of information for you to read' sense. It seems that the main message from the report is that the most effective measures were those that either physically or visually made the road smaller (dragons teeth, painted out areas, hatched areas, chicanes, and refuges), together with surface features that break the smooth black strip (especially the rumble strips). IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate - eg (in simplistic terms) if a road is wide and straight then it's fast, but if it's narrow and windy it is much slower. Removing ALL road markings is a variation on this - remove road markings and it's not clear how much road is 'yours', whether there are any tight bends, etc. What concerns me though, is this ... If EVERY place has all the features used in this study, do you not think that drivers will simply become immune to them and speeds go up again ? And what does it do to nearby places that DON'T have these measures - relatively speaking, they are now 'visually safer' roads and speeds might actually increase there. Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? As an analogy, if you hear a siren from an emergency vehicle, it grabs your attention. If you heard it very frequently (like every few minutes) then you'd more or less ignore it. Modern signage is like that, it's no longer informative to see a sign because they are too commonplace ! Simon |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Simon Hobson wrote:
IMHO, this confirms the theory that the best way to reduce speed is to make the driver feel that a lower speed is appropriate snip Sticking ONLY to speed limit signs, do you not think that with the ever increasing number of them, drivers are simply taking less notice of each of them individually ? That's because many of the limits are arbitrary, and in particular are generally not lowered at specific hazards. In France, however, if a bend on a 90kph road requires 50kph, that's the limit that is imposed, often with an intermediate limit to give a smooth reduction in speed. With intelligent limits like that, I find I am much more inclined to obey them than the blanket UK ones. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"PeterE" wrote in message
... So do you think the roads would be, overall, safer, if all signs (say except direction signs) and lining schemes were removed? and height restrictions, width restrictions, weight restrictions, parking restrictions, level crossing warnings and lights.... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
have the time to do everything you want | London Transport | |||
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? | London Transport | |||
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong | London Transport | |||
Traffic Calming in Islington | London Transport | |||
top up wrong Oyster (almost) | London Transport |