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?

14 of 602 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!

  2. 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...

  3. 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.

  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. 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>
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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?

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.