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?

10 of 602 comments (clear)

  1. 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...

  2. Re:Insanity by __aardcx5948 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about keeping the lines on the edges of the road but removing the middle one?

  3. 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!

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?

  8. Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.