On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:10:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote this:-

As suggested, many people rely on the road signs etc and forget
about people emrging from the side turning whose view is blocked by vehicles
parked close to the junction.

Although I can't comment on this location removal of excessive road
markings has been shown to slow the average speed of motor traffic.
I expect to see more of it, though it will be a low process.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:10:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote this:-

As suggested, many people rely on the road signs etc and forget
about people emrging from the side turning whose view is blocked by vehicles
parked close to the junction.

Although I can't comment on this location removal of excessive road
markings has been shown to slow the average speed of motor traffic.
I expect to see more of it, though it will be a low process.

It will be a slow and costly process because removing road markings
completely can only be done by re-surfacing the road.

Markings can be partially removed by burning them off, or planing them
off, but both these methods make a mess of the road surface - and you
can still see where the markings were. Another unsatisfactory method
is to cover them with black road-marking material - but as it wears
away the white markings underneath soon start to show through again.

Kensington and Chelsea have a 'de-cluttering' policy which aims to
reduce road signs and markings and other street furniture such as
guardrails and bollards to the absolute minimum in order to improve
the look of the area. So long as this is coupled with good road
design it shouldn't compromise safety.

But there may be risks if things are just ripped out without
considering why they were put there in the first place.

I have little doubt it is safe to omit markings in low speed roads
with relatively light traffic. Over recent years many residential
developments have been built without road markings at junctions and
work perfectly well. If you are not sure whether you have priority
just give-way - simple (if others do this at the same time it may be
confusing for a moment but not dangerous)! Just like a
mini-roundabout really, except for the lack of 'rules'.

I wouldn't recommend this as a 'blanket' policy however - each
location needs to be looked at. Where visibility of a junction is not
so good, providing give-way lines on the minor roads; and road
centre-lines (or leaving a gap in a continuous centre-line) across a
junction on the priority road can be an effective way to show drivers
that there is something there they need to look out for. And much
cheaper than mini-roundabouts, which can also be very effective if
required but need illuminated signs in addition to the road markings.

umpston wrote:

I wouldn't recommend this as a 'blanket' policy however - each
location needs to be looked at. Where visibility of a junction is not
so good, providing give-way lines on the minor roads; and road
centre-lines (or leaving a gap in a continuous centre-line) across a
junction on the priority road can be an effective way to show drivers
that there is something there they need to look out for. And much
cheaper than mini-roundabouts, which can also be very effective if
required but need illuminated signs in addition to the road markings.

How about a simple "crossroads" sign, or whever the junction is?

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:10:00 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote this:-

As suggested, many people rely on the road signs etc and forget
about people emrging from the side turning whose view is blocked by
vehicles parked close to the junction.

Although I can't comment on this location removal of excessive road
markings has been shown to slow the average speed of motor traffic.
I expect to see more of it, though it will be a low process.

Interesting opinion. Road markings were put there in the first place to
restrict drivers. Most road markings are there to enforce particular laws.

Now, I would have thought *I* would be much keener to get rid of them than
*you* are.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime
and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of civilisation in any
country." (Winston Churchill)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:07:35 +0100 someone who may be "PeterE"
wrote this:-

Interesting opinion. Road markings were put there in the first place to
restrict drivers. Most road markings are there to enforce particular laws.

Incorrect. Most road markings are the white lines along the side of
roads and in the middle. (Most of) these do not indicate a
particular law (the major exception are solid lines in the middle of
the road), rather they are provided to allow motorists to drive
faster. The converse of removing these lines has the effect one
would expect.

Only some markings along the road indicate laws. Parking
restrictions and junctions being examples.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:07:35 +0100 someone who may be "PeterE"
wrote this:-

Interesting opinion. Road markings were put there in the first place
to restrict drivers. Most road markings are there to enforce
particular laws.

Incorrect. Most road markings are the white lines along the side of
roads and in the middle. (Most of) these do not indicate a
particular law (the major exception are solid lines in the middle of
the road), rather they are provided to allow motorists to drive
faster. The converse of removing these lines has the effect one
would expect.

Only some markings along the road indicate laws. Parking
restrictions and junctions being examples.

Relatively few roads have white lines along the side of the carriageway.
These are normally rural primary routes, where the intention is to narrow
the apparent width of the road, something I might assume you support.

Apart from dotted white centre lines, all other road lining is to encourage
adherence to road traffic law.

Personally I'd love roads without any signs or markings. I don't think you
would.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime
and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of civilisation in any
country." (Winston Churchill)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:30:33 +0100 someone who may be "PeterE"
wrote this:-

Relatively few roads have white lines along the side of the carriageway.
These are normally rural primary routes,

They are certainly seen more often on rural roads. Urban roads often
have pavements and the kerb stones act as a marking of the edge of
the road.

where the intention is to narrow
the apparent width of the road,

Incorrect. The intention is to mark the edge of the road. The main
aim of this is to encourage motorists to keep away from the edge of
the road and reduce damaging to the bank. Where there is a
substantial amount of tarmac the intention is much the same, only
the aim is to reduce the edge of the tarmac being crumbled. Both are
part of the speeding up the motorist agenda of decades of transport
policy.

Cycle lane markings are primarily intended to narrow the apparent
width of the road. However, again this is not to do with particular
laws.

Apart from dotted white centre lines, all other road lining is to encourage
adherence to road traffic law.

Incorrect. See above.

Personally I'd love roads without any signs or markings. I don't think you
would.

Don't try and get a job mind reading, you are not very good at it.
The idea of no signs or markings is a straw man, but I would remove
many road markings for the reasons discussed earlier in the thread.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:

"PeterE" wrote...

Relatively few roads have white lines along the side of the
carriageway. These are normally rural primary routes,
where the intention is to narrow the apparent width of the road,

Incorrect. The intention is to mark the edge of the road. The main
aim of this is to encourage motorists to keep away from the edge of
the road and reduce damaging to the bank

....by narrowing the apparent width of the road, which is what he said.

Strewth...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/04

JNugent wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

"PeterE" wrote...

Relatively few roads have white lines along the side of the
carriageway. These are normally rural primary routes,
where the intention is to narrow the apparent width of the road,

Incorrect. The intention is to mark the edge of the road. The main
aim of this is to encourage motorists to keep away from the edge of
the road and reduce damaging to the bank

...by narrowing the apparent width of the road, which is what he said.


How does marking the edge of the carriageway to keep people on it equate to
"narrowing the apparent width of the road"?

PeterE wrote to uk.transport.london on Sun, 22 Aug 2004:

Relatively few roads have white lines along the side of the carriageway.
These are normally rural primary routes, where the intention is to narrow
the apparent width of the road, something I might assume you support.

Er - I think you'll find the intention is to show the edge of the road
to motorists at night, bearing in mind that such roads are normally
unlit.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)