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?
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).
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.
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...
Most German rural highways (read: not the Autobahn, but still arteries between cities) are already like this.
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...
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.
No idea why this got modded down (perhaps it was the SJW remark?). The comment is right on the mark though: in this region there has been a lot of research into influencing motorists with visual "tricks". We're not talking about removing the center divider on the highways, but about modifying the smaller roads where speed limits of 60 or 80 km/h are in effect. Some of our roads never had a central line to begin with. Other roads have been made to appear narrower by coloring a strip on each side of the road in red (the colour used for bike paths), leaving a black space that is too narrow for two cars to pass. This has had a measurable effect on the speed at which motorists drive there. Other tricks include using lines, fences or even planting trees to make a road appear to narrow on the approach to small towns (where a lower speed limit is in effect). This also results in motorists slowing down unconsciously.
Most accidents happen on these crappy little roads, and speed is a large factor in most of these accidents. In the past two decades or so there has been a lot of attention to safety on those roads, and numbers show they have succeeded in making them safer. Social / environmental engineering of roads is a relatively new phenomenon, and measures do not always work out the way they planned it, but it generally works well. Also keep in mind that over here at least these changes are not designed by idiot council members with an agenda; there are engineers involved who know about this stuff. And in some cases, instead of removing the white line, they add a center divider.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
...when they finally go big time, given that the white lines currently are used to guide them on multi lane roads.
No need to wait for autonomous vehicle.
Current safety devices use it already:
- Lane Departure Warning:
vehicle uses the contrast of white lines on dark asphalt to guess where the lane is, and can either alert the driver (e.g.: Volvo cars) or correct course (e.g.: BMW) to stay in the lane. The driver needs to explicitly switch on the turn signal to tell the car that he indeed intend to turn the car.
No lines, not easy for the car to tell what exactly the trajectory should be. Whereas humans can more or less guess based on the surrounding and know where the "virtual lane" should go (and TFA's idea is that this guess-work will force drivers to be more prudent and slow down. My own feeling is that the first 2 weeks, the drivers will be watchful, then they'll get used it, and then everything will be back to normal)
- Forward Collision Avoidance:
vehicle have a forward facing radar that can detect other vehicle in front. So the car can see if the other in front breaks (when they are both in the same lane, i.e.: a traffic jam) and automatically slow down the cruise control (and in some car, resume driving once the traffic jam clears and the car in front starts again).
Also, the cars can detect incoming vehicle or vehicle that are on a crash course and prevent by applying breaks.
For that to work, again the car's computer need to have some basic idea of where lanes are. Other wise, there's a risk that the car will hit the break, even if the stoped/slower vehicle was in another lane, or the incoming car is in the other half of the road (like in TFA's case).
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.
...well at least, pedestrian and cyclist collision avoidance (more usually called "City Safety" by constructor, and currently slowly becoming a strandard option on most vehicle in europe), is entirely Lidar-based or shape-recognition based.
(i.e.: the car doesn't stop on its own because you're dangerously close to a pedestrian area or a bicycle lane, but because it recognised the object in front of you).
So at least *that* idea isn't disrupting existing safety device. But still...
I'm more proponent of some European city which have buried some of their highway network underground.
I don't think that forcing people to think about the security themselves by removing safety marking will actually work on the long term.
I strongly suspect that people will slowly adapt and get used to the missing markings, and start driving as carelessly as before.
If you think about it, large swaths of road miss markings, specially in developing countries. And those countries aren't exactly known for lower incident rates (though other reason, like vehicles to broken to be road-safe, missing driving education, etc. are other factors in play).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Another favourite trick in the Netherlands (which is what I'm guessing you're posting about) is to have two bicycle lanes marked on both sides, leaving a normal road that would normally be too small for two cars to pass. This causes cars to drive in the center of the road, forcing them to drive more slowly:
http://www.brommerenscooterrij...
Another idea is that of a "shared space", having motorist mingle with pedestrians and bicyles, again forcing them to slow down:
https://www.allianz.com/v_1428...
What GP is ignoring is (1) that speed enforcement doesn't really work most of the time on smaller roads, as the proportion of cops to small roads will always be low, and (2) that speed enforcement itself causes people to drive in certain ways (braking when they see cop/radar,
None of these "environmental engineering" solutions will be a panacea: some will work in some conditions, but not in all. For example, the jury is still out on the new "shared space" between Amsterdam central railway station and ferry terminal. Ultimately, the question of what solution to use should not be political, but empirical: given a set of road conditions, what is the design that optimizes safety (or throughput, or speed, or whatever you want to optimize --- which is a political question).
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.
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.
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.
That's exactly what an SJW would say.
You are welcome on my lawn.
When I was growing up, some of our smaller -- but paved -- farm roads (sometimes called farm-to-market roads) here in rural Texas were single-lane roads with no center stripe. That seemed to work pretty well, granted that the traffic was very light. People who lived out in the country were used to driving on single-lane dirt roads -- county roads -- anyhow, so the wider and paved road was a comfortable step up.
Then an order came down from above that all paved state roads must be at least TWO LANE. And since there was no money available to actually widen any of them. . . Yep, they just painted a stripe down the middle of the one-lane roads and called it two lanes! Two very narrow lanes. Thus, where before we had crowded to the edge of the road when passing somehow, now we are crowded to the edge of the road all the time. And there's no shoulder. This is NOT an improvement.
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>
My problem with shared space is when there is an accident, who is at fault?
Based on my neighborhood (no yellow lines), when there's an accident the police won't assign blame, the insurance companies will say its too hard to tell and split the cost 50/50, and then the other guy will claim he was injuried, so he has over 50% of the cost. It doesn't matter he was going 40+ on a 25, that he was on my side of the road (I'm inches from the curb on a raid that is more than four car widths wide). Since the roads are so wide, typically I can avoid the idiot drivers; with shared space, you are assuming the other people will slow down or get out of the way. That may be true in general, but what happens when they don't? If they brag about hitting 40 on a residential street that dead ends after 20 houses (10 each side), why would I expect them to slow down due to shared space?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Those 'otherwise clear stretches' that come with hidden intersections and entrances/driveways, you mean?
Actually the cycle is a bit more interesting than that.
You institute a charge.
People don't want to pay to sit in traffic so they don't.
Traffic gets cut down a lot.
Now people see a different sum altogether: for a nominal charge, I get to drive when the roads are mostly empty because nobody else wants to pay. Suddenly it's worth paying.
A lot of people do the same math.
Soon the road is congested again, but now everybody is paying and because they are already doing so - they now rationalize the cost away.
So the authorities raise the charge yet again...
Traffic jams are a prime example of market failure, in this case due to externalities, the vast bulk of the cost of your choice to drive (as opposed to say - taking the train) is not paid by you but by other people (and that's without considering climate change costs). A lot gets amortized over everybody else who drives (they all take longer to get there - time has value), some gets paid in medical bills from smoggier cities etc. etc. etc.
If you had to personally bare the full cost of driving, far fewer people would choose to drive and the market would function correctly. Traffic jams would be virtually non-existent and those who have to drive would be rewarded for their expense with very fast trips indeed.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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
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
One would assume that after 10 years there would be some study on the effectiveness of the approach or other data available. A quick Google search turned up a government report done in London that measured speed differences both before and after. It doesn't report to the same level as a scientific study, but they did include a control for measurement, so presumably there is a more detailed version of the publication that details the methodology.
This particular study is limited in that it's concerned with roads where the speed limit is 30 mp/h (48 km/h) so it may not be reasonable to conclude it works on roads with higher speed limits, but for lower-speed city roads it does, in fact, appear to result in a natural reduction in traffic speed. They also point out it has the added benefit of reducing city work on roads (the roads don't need to be completely shut off for repainting) which I think some people would agree is worth it for that reason alone.
The report I linked above refers to a few other studies or reports, but does not provide a citation, so I can't look them up directly, but it would seem that there is a fair bit of support for removing the lines, at least in specific circumstances. Whether that holds true for other cases remains to be seen, but there is reasonable empirical support for doing it in urban areas and it would be something to study in more remote roads with higher speed limits.
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.
Except I didnt say the full cost is shared. A great deal of it is paid by everyone else in society even those who never drove or even owned a car. Even if you only ride tge train your taxes still help pay for roads - so they cost more. In smoggy cities lots of people get respiratory illnesses with expensive treatments and if anything those are worse on poorer communities who are less likely to own cars. The vast majority of road deaths are pedestrians: death is a huge expense.
If you only affected other drivers by driving the market would be functioning but your actual cost is a lot more than that. Imagine if every driver had to pay a tax sufficient to supply a fund that pays full treatment costs for all respiratory illness sufferers and pays out the EPA estimate for economic value of a human life (7.5 billion dollars) to the family of every pedestrian who died on the road and covered the full dissability cost for every one that gets mangled and and and.... the only sane choice would be for everyone to hardly ever drive so that those costs are kept tiny. Which they would because currently that tax would be tens of thousands of dollars per driver per month.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Taking away any objections to removing the lines... the idea that this would cause people to slow down any longer than it would take them to get used to no lines is silly. There are plenty of large stretches of minor highway through out the midwest that do not have lines and there are still people still doing 90 - 100 mph on them when the speed limit is 60 - 65 mph.
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.
Or an informal 100 MPH limit on I-5 down the central valley of California. As long as you have CA plates of course. Texans should not attempt.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
Or (at one time) "reasonable and prudent".
Perhaps my favorite factoid about the state I grew up in is that prior to 1974 there was no set speed limit. When the Federal 55MPH limit was set, Montana's law defined speeding not as a moving violation, but as an "environmental waste of resources", and the fine was a flat $5 which didn't go on your record. The joke was to "keep a stack of fives on the dash" while driving through Montana.
In 1995 they re-instated the "reasonable and prudent" speed limit until it was struck down in 1998. During all of this there was no evidence that the lack of speed limits impacted fatalities.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Here's a well-traveled street straddling Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. It has no longitudinal traffic markings, and particularly from 3:00PM to 7:00PM has heavy traffic. The accident rate is modest, particularly given its narrow width and placement parallel to and between two major arterials.
Here's a well-traveled street in Fairbanks, AK. From October until April there is regularly snow that can quite effectively cover lane markings for days or months at a time. For example: I noticed this morning, only because the packed snow and ice had finally worn away enough to make the markings faintly visible, that I was driving through a painted median. A week ago I noticed three cars side-by-side to make left turns into two receiving lanes because snow had obscured the lane markings; they worked it out when the light changed and nobody died.
Three years ago, as the traffic & safety engineer, I was designing the signs and markings for a rural two-lane road that hadn't been previously paved. One discussion was the necessity of the inclusion of longitudinal markings. In the end, we painted the center lines and excluded the edge lines.
In the US, the MUTCD establishes a base requirement for center line markings on roads "that have a traveled way of 20 feet or more in width and an ADT of 6,000 vehicles per day or greater" or on two-way roads "that have three or more lanes for moving motor vehicle traffic." On many roads, center lane lines are already optional and their exclusion isn't an inherent problem. I might argue differently about reactionary idiots, however.
Presumably if the same number of people are trying to make the commute but at half the speed, then there are likely to be more cars on the road at the same time, that can't be good for accident rates, not to mention road rage incidents.
Nullius in verba