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."

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

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."

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

"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

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

"Simon Hobson" tuk wrote in message
et

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.

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

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)

"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....