Slashdot Mirror


Are Roads Safer With No Central White Lines?

Press2ToContinue writes: White lines along the center of roads have been removed in parts of the UK, with some experts saying it encourages motorists to slow down. So is it the beginning of the end for the central road marking? You are driving along the road when the dotted white line that has been your companion — separating your car from oncoming traffic — suddenly disappears. One theory is that you will slow down, making the road safer. What could possibly go wrong?

29 of 602 comments (clear)

  1. More nation-wrecking idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is just another example of the sort of nonsense that we have to put up with all over the world, where idiots get into positions of power, and then decide, without asking anybody, to change everything. In this case, the idea is beyond stupid - if people are speeding, then they should be prosecuted by the police. This is very dangerous and stupid, and there will be more accidents (and possibly even deaths) because of it. Will the asshole who came up with it be held responsible? Of course not, they'll get away with it.

    1. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Environmental engineering of roads to reduce crashes is the most effective and intelligent action to take.

      That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.

    2. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No idea why this got modded down (perhaps it was the SJW remark?).

      The way "SJW" often gets used in online discussions these days is approaching to qualify for Godwin's Law, yes.

    3. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a handy tag to let you know that the person posting it is a drooling cretin.

      That said, drooling cretins sometimes say things that are right.

    4. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also do not understand the panic here at /. about this.

      This is not a political decision. It is also not a "remove al the lines" policy. Different roads will be a affected differently. Some might even get more lines.

      It does not mean that lines are unsafe or dangerous. It means that in some cases not having lines will slow down traffic. There might be lights and what not already there.

      For those that say "but they will not see in the dark or with rain" there is a simple solution: adapt to the speed you can travel, so slow down. That is the whole purpose.

      It wall also not be possible to now say for each and every country: all lines must be removed.

      Similar studies on safety are done all over the place. In Belgium they reckon that removing the majority of the traffic lights would increase safety.

      This does not mean they will remove all of them. IF they decide to go that road, they will look at it case by case.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by Maritz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uuuuh, it's being tested. If it doesn't lower crash rates, then it won't be rolled out elsewhere. That's kinda the opposite of "not asking anybody".

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    6. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't completely ignoring that lines have other safety functions than simply keeping cars on their side. You would have a hard time convincing me that no passing/passing allowed lines are not helpful.

    7. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.

      I'd expect drivers are slowing down because the road is less safe without the lines, and are adjusting their speed to reclaim that lost safety factor. So they are making a somewhat arbitrary adjustment to reduce road safety, so that people respond by making an equally arbitrary counter-adjustment. How they figure +x-y ends up being a lower value when x and y are completely unknown, is astonishing.

      At the very least, they are creating a more hazardous condition in the hopes that random drivers react by over-compensating to create a net improvement in safety. I sure don't want to be on that road when someone in oncoming traffic says "screw it I'm not slowing down" and significantly increases the odds of me colliding with them. Given that people have a reason to go faster or at least maintain their speed (to stay on time) and have essentially no reason to slow down unless you give them one, this is a setup for failure.

      I feel bad about not being able to say much more than "this is fundamentally flawed". I want to say more, but it's just too simple to expand on. How they don't understand this is beyond me.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post is a great example of people that have no experience in driving on a road with no central marking.

      Places wher there is no central line it encourages and increases driver intimidation. Just ask anyone that lives in a city where the moron in the big pickup truck drives down the center of the road refusing to get over to his side for other drivers. You assume that everyone on the road is the same, just like these "engineers" and that is a horribly flawed view. People in general are very selfish and if they can intimidate others in order to get ahead in something they absolutely will do it.

      So you have the percentage of the population that sees a lack of center line as a invitation to drive down the middle of the roadway. This happens constantly in every city. It's a problem because a lot of drivers NEED that visual cue to stay on their side. Yes it's only paint, but for some reason it has a psycological effect to keep the Bruh truck and SUV drivers on their side of that line.. in EVERY instance where the line is not there they drive down the center of the roadway believing they have the full right to do so.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      in some cases not having lines will slow down traffic

      Duh. Ya think? Because you have CREATED A HAZARD. This is unforgiveably stupid. You know what else will slow down traffic? Rolling hulking boulders out into the road. Digging great fucking potholes, or ignoring potholes that form. Having cardboard images of pedestrians shoot out into the road at random. Shining great piercing searchlights into drivers' eyes. Installing speakers which blast out random "you, HALT!" commands at deafening volume and random intervals. If you slow it down enough, everybody might as well get out and walk. Then we could go back to the dark ages.

      I guess this would do away with the "driving outside marked lanes" moving violation, huh? If there are no lane markings, you can't be found guilty of violating them.

      Are you gonna do away with marked parking spaces too? So nobody is to say which parked cars are dangerously obstructing traffic?

    10. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are correct of course but suspect familiarity is what causes people to become less cautious and imprudent. "Hey I have driven this road a 1000 times and its always been just fine" they stop paying attention they drive faster. You go and make it different and suddenly they start paying attention again and yes slow down until its again familiar.

      I hope some serious LONG term studies about center lines with good comparable areas with similar traffic and conditions are identified for test and control groups is done before a broad policy change like this is effected.

      We have a lot of unlined roads, center and edge here in rural Virgina and people including me drive plenty fast around areas we know well. While it might not be worth the invest for the county or the state, all things being equal I certainly wish more roads were lined.

      In places were there isn't much artificial light besides your head lights it can be hard to see a dark road surface at night. When someone elses headlights are in your face it can be especially hard to figure out how to safely share the road with the coming traffic in the dark. You can't see the edges well, due to the light pointed at you, you don't have the center line to judge by and the road is just wide enough for two vehicles to pass by each other while having no shoulders. You don't want to suddenly put one drive wheel in the soft dirt even at 35MPH that can result in a loss of control. TL:DR - people started painting reflective center lines on roads for a reason.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know what else will slow down traffic? Rolling hulking boulders out into the road. Digging great fucking potholes, or ignoring potholes that form.

      You have more or less angrily described traffic calming methods with massve hyperbole. Those in fact involve adding hazards by way of things such as chicanes and bumps to the road.

      And they pretty much work by getting idiotic drivers who think the world is their speedway to slow the fuck down and pay attention.

      If you slow it down enough, everybody might as well get out and walk. Then we could go back to the dark ages.

      Yes those are the only two options: let drivers go as fast as possible and walking pace. No other options.

      Are you gonna do away with marked parking spaces too?

      That's what a single yellow line or a lack of yellow lines along a road indicated in the UK: you can park and there are no bays. There's still a law that says you can't park like a raging idiot.

      I'll bet you drive a lot. You sound like you think the road system revolves around you.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by Sun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Something else that worries me with this is that the reason drivers slow down is probably that they need to concentrate more. This means that driving has now become more tiring, reducing over all safety.

      Shachar

    13. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been trying to institute that law for a while now. Anytime someone mentions SJW they either sound like a blathering lunatic or the replies come from blathering lunatics. The real gamers are too busy playing games to argue Social Justice.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    14. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by PostPhil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They point to reduced speeds due to drivers being unsure of lanes. Repeat: UNSURE of the road. They treat this like speed reduction is an end in itself rather than the primary goal of safety. Driver confusion rarely is a good thing.

      Here's an example. I know they said "white lines" not "yellow lines", but there is an issue that still remains. Let's say you're unfamiliar with the area, and come upon one of these roads from an intersecting road. Which way can you turn? If there's no immediate traffic to imitate, then you may find yourself turning down the road thinking you're safe only to meet up with traffic later that is moving in the opposite direction. Unless you feel like playing the game of chicken or just like head-on collisions, you need to get off the road ASAP.

    15. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know what else would cause drivers to slow down? Dumping a herd of goats on the road. Still doesn't make it a good idea.

    16. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it does, in fact, appear to result in a natural reduction in traffic speed.

      That is not what matters. Does it result in fewer accidents? If drivers are slowing down because they sense that the conditions are less safe, then the absence of lines is just delaying people for no benefit.

  2. In Alaska... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Snow covers them in the winter, and the paint is rarely visible in the summer unless it's a new road. What I've found is roads with single lanes in each direction do just fine without lines. Multiple lanes, turning lanes, or lanes that are about to end often fuck things up, however. This isn't the kind of wholesale change I'd recommend doing on purpose, but I can definitely see the value in certain streets as long as they aren't windy (where drivers will tend to drift towards the center and may not have much time to correct for oncoming traffic after a bend).

  3. That'll work well with automated vehicles.. by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...when they finally go big time, given that the white lines currently are used to guide them on multi lane roads.

    It seems similar to what i believe they did in the netherlands where they removed any distinction between the road and the pedestrian areas which apparently slowed down traffic. However what ALL these schemes forget is that 99% of people are not driving for the fun of it - they're doing it for a reason and the more you slow them down the slower society will run at the end of the day. So what you say? Well you won't be saying that if your doctor is 30 mins late because of traffic calming or the police/amulance/fire took longer to reach a call despite the blue lights because of the backed up traffic they had to squeeze through.

  4. Insanity by kentmartin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On dark nights with heavy rain, the white lines are invaluable for knowing where exactly the road is, and making an unexpected departure from the regular route.

    1. Re:Insanity by simplypeachy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you're relying on reflective paint, what about fallen trees, deer, pot holes, other debris and road users not coated in reflective paint? If someone is using the road and relying on the lines to keep them on the route, then they are using the road unsafely.

    2. Re:Insanity by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're relying on reflective paint, what about fallen trees, deer, pot holes, other debris and road users not coated in reflective paint? If someone is using the road and relying on the lines to keep them on the route, then they are using the road unsafely.

      We can't fix all problems, therefore, we shouldn't fix any problems!

    3. Re:Insanity by argStyopa · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know about you, but here multi-lane roads are common, where you have 2-5 lanes of traffic all going the same direction.

      Removing the 'interior' lines would be suicidal.

      --
      -Styopa
  5. Correlation != Causation by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are they slowing down? The "theory" in the article posits that the removal of the line is the cause. However, like most things in "real-life", it's probably more complicated than such a simple and easy answer (CAPTCHA: headline)!

    Another theory could be given that, hey, people who are plopped in an unfamiliar environment act cautiously. Here, they aren't familiar with a road without a visible divider, and hey, better be more cautious! This results in slowing down, for now.

    But then in the future, when people are familiar to roads without lines, they resume their original speed. However now, this time, they can't guide their trajectory on the line and accidents increase.

    Boom! All of a sudden, in our internet-crazy, fast-inciting lifestyle of simple theories we are poised on making a decision that seems good but will actually cause more accidents over time!

    Damn, maybe things aren't really so simple in the real world after all. Maybe someone who actually puts some effort into the cause and effect of the situation will come along and produce a real set of theories to explain the drivers' behavior...

  6. Driving on the wrong side.... by Foske · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Switching sides is rather trivial except for two things: Roads without centerlines and roundabouts. With the UK being quite close to countries where they drive on the other side of the road (i.e. the rest of Europe), indeed, what could possibly go wrong...

  7. Re:Germany by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But not as willi-nilly hoping to slow drivers down whenthere is no reason to slow down.

    There is a system to that:

    1. Center line: This is your lane. The road is wide enough for at least one lane for each direction. Everyone stays in his lane and nothing happens. No overtaking
    2. Broken center line: same as above, but may use adjacent lane for overtaking
    3. No line: Road may or may not be wide enough to pass oncoming traffic safely. Pay attention, keep to the right and use common sense
    4. Double line: multiple lanes for at least one direction available. The lane on the other site is NOT your direction. Imagine this as a guiding rail and never ever cross.

    If you now simply remove lines, this information is lost.

    And this is even completly ignoring the fact that different speed limits (read: suggested maximum speed) require special lane markings.

    --
    bickerdyke
  8. Re:No speed limits as well... by jafiwam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Speed limits (and some other types of rules) are to enforce safety on what some of the outliers do.

    "Regular people" who are just trying to get somewhere do generally act safely, and for the most part adjust. (Though there are exceptions.)

    The problem is the rules are for the people that don't adjust, they don't think anything will happen, or they aren't wise enough to realize what the consequences are.

    Removing the rules, subjects the "ordinary people" to the mistakes of the outliers to a much greater degree.

    If you haven't ever done this, go over to Youtube and search for "car crash" videos and enjoy a couple hours of soviets and other former eastern bloc countries slaughtering each other on the roads. Then about half way through, notice the body parts ones, kid gets dragged ones, etc. aren't posted because that sort of stuff is illegal there (the videos of it) and against Youtube TOS. The really bad shit, they won't show you. In almost all the videos, you'll see normal people and then some dumbass outlier who thinks there are no rules causing problems.

    You are signing us all up for that bullshit with your hairbrained plan.

    Rules are not for rules followers, rules are for people who will try to break the rules. Misplaced faith in those people to "be better" punishes us all.

  9. Laughing myself out of the room by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is just another example of the sort of nonsense that we have to put up with all over the world, where idiots get into positions of power, and then decide, without asking anybody, to change everything.

    You are so right, my anonymous friend. I call it the Kindergarten Effect. It begins early on, as the teacher has all the children sitting in a circle facing each other and walks around asking each something like, "How would you make the world a better place?" All answers and speakers are praised and each receives a pat on the head, it is a ritual to nurture spontaneity and social development. Raise-your-hand discussion is encouraged but the teacher is ever steering into the realm of the positive, the kids watch the teacher for emotional cues, and none dare risk a raised eyebrow or stern word.

    By middle school this ritual should have evolved into a real round table discussion where everyone feels free to interject negative responses and opposing views as well as the positive. I suspect this has not been permitted to happen.

    By high school it should be a real roller coaster ride for the intellect and emotions, your peers able to dish out applause or catcalls or even throw non-lethal objects. You can win or lose big. But you better not even open your mouth until you're prepared to explain yourself well, defend your idea, debate worthy responses or and reward trite comments with your own brand of scathing wit even it is a loud shaddap. I suspect this has not been permitted to happen.

    In fact, I think that many educators in the last 30 years have become secretly convinced that children grow sharp quills as they approach maturity and are inherently dangerous to society unless those quills are plucked out or ground down. Disagreement is the new aggression, the teacher's raised eyebrow becomes detention and demerits, and those who think an idea is just plain lousy must just remain silent.

    This leads directly into adults who not only fail to consider the consequences of their ideas, they don't even think it's 'their job' to do so. And if others point out that an idea is lousy they are seen as simple naked aggressors, people-obstacles to overcome or shout down. So others around them whose quills have also been plucked out, defer to hierarchy of dominance.

    We as a society are falling prey to The Kindergarten Effect. Things that should have been laughed out of the room, like the idea voting should be electronic without any forensic paper trail, were not laughed out of the room. We now reap this foul harvest.

    The confidence that encourages speeding and reckless passing is fed by the width of the road how much oncoming traffic is present, not the presence or absence of a dividing line. Good drivers (even reckless ones) make subconscious use of dividing lines to place themselves within lanes when the roadside has too much visual clutter. Bad or distracted drivers do an 'oopsie' only when they see the dividing line veer into them. Removing lines from wide roads places everyone in harm's way.

    Many people who speed are in fact skillful drivers, and some who keep within the limits are actually driving with their whole minds set on it, who'd endanger everyone if any useful features were removed. The position that keeping people from exceeding the speed limit is the prime focus of the 'focus group' and trumps all other concerns, should have been laughed out of the room.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  10. Ugh, shut up about the "SJW" by bug_hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your post referring to "SJW" lynch mob is an example of seeing an opinion you don't agree with, then assigning it to the group you don't agree with with no proof or relevance. Typical Republican/Democrat/etc thing to do.

    --
    It's turtles all the way down.