9 ms·
The removal of road markings is to be celebrated. We are safer without them
- anjc 11y agoThis is one of those non-intuitive findings - like that study which showed bicycle helmets increase bicycle accidents due to increased risk taking - that I refuse to believe.
- johndevor 11y agoAnd people who buy insurance are more likely to drive/act recklessly?
- ZanyProgrammer 11y agoEveryone who drives has to buy insurance (except for those few who are too poor/just don't care/etc), so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison.
- ricardobeat 11y agoThe most serious accidents are ones where the helmet is not enough to protect the cyclist. So every e wearing a helmet doesn't really reduce the number of serious injuries, while it does encourage more wreckless riding because of the feeling/assumption of safety.
- analog31 11y agoThis could be reflected in insurance rates. Mandatory insurance in most states is liability insurance. If safety features increase risk-taking, then safer cars should be more expensive to insure. The insurance companies employ legions of statisticians.
- gregatragenet3 11y agoIMO these findings that roads are safer without markings, or by being narrower are because drivers have a heightened level of attention and focus when they encounter something unexpected. When they are widespread and commonplace the accident rate will go past that of wide/marked roads. For a fair comparison, if you compared a country with wide/marked streets to a country where narrow/unmarked streets are commonplace (Mexico for example) you'd find marked/wide is much safer.
- sixhobbits 11y agoEveryone who believes that correlation = causation eventually ends up dead.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y agoI suspect that there would also be some negative effect of consistently increasing the cognitive load associated with driving, as opposed to looking at performance on specific roads on which a given driver probably only spends a small portion of their total drive time. At some point, I would expect the detriment of mental fatigue to outstrip the benefit of "forcing" people to pay attention.
- jakub_g 11y agoWhen I drive and see a huge truck driving at high speed from the opposite direction, I tell myself "just keep your lane, he will keep his lane too, and it will be fine" (and I probably unconsciously slow down a bit). Without the lanes I'd probably feel a bit less comfortable. On the other hand: having visited a number of EU countries, IMO the UK seems to have 2-3x more clutter on the roads (lanes, texts for drivers and pedestrians and what not) than any other of them. They have texts everywhere!
- sehugg 11y agoThere's a less-proselytizing piece about Monderman in a 2004 Wired: http://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/ http://www.wired.com/2004/12/traffic/
- dang 11y agoGood article, and apparently not one that has been discussed on HN before.
- DanBC 11y agoThere are a few examples of councils poorly implementing shared spaces. Any crossings are removed (pedestrians are supposed to be able to just cross anywhere at any time without waiting); but car drivers don't change their behaviour. It's a bit of a problem, especially for people with visual impairment.
- maxerickson 11y agoThere's a passing reference to accessibility in the article. It's probably like a lot of things, the takeaway doesn't need to be the extreme that safety features on roads are bad, it can be that each safety feature on a given road should be evaluated as to whether it is truly beneficial. (Which I think is sort of banal thought, oh well)
- valine 11y agoI wonder if unmarked roads would make the development of self-driving cars more challenging or less challenging.
- scott_s 11y agoThe author hints at, but does not point to, data that correlates motorcycle helmets laws with higher accidents. That is counter to recent research which supports the standard view that helmet laws save lives: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cost-of-repealing-mandatory-motorcycle-helmet-laws/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cost-of-repealing-m... Short version: after repealing helmet laws in Michigan, they have seen higher injury severity and mortality.
- ricardobeat 11y agoThe research you are thinking of concerns bycicles, not motorcycles - the risks are an order of magnitude apart.
- scott_s 11y agoI think you are mistaken. This is the quote from the article I am responding to: "Adams has figures to prove that countries – indeed US states – that do not require motorbike helmets have fewer biking accidents than those that do." The research I linked to is also about motorcycles.
- spockz 11y agoThere is a difference between reducing the amount of incidents that happen and reducing the severity of the injuries suffered by an incident.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pdonis 11y agoThis article pulls me both ways, because on the one hand I sympathize strongly with the libertarian idea that people should be left to judge their own risk, but on the other hand I don't buy the argument that the only reason for having white lines on roads, traffic signals, etc., is nanny-state control of people's behavior rather than letting them judge their own risk. To me, the lines on the road and the traffic signals are not there to make me feel safe; they're there to provide Schelling points. If I have two-way traffic on a road with no line down the middle, how do I know where the division between lanes is? And more importantly, how do I know all the other drivers will think it's in the same place I think it is? The line is a simple solution to that problem. Similarly, if I come to an intersection and there is a 4-way stop sign, how do I know when it's my turn? And more importantly, how do I know all the other drivers will think it's my turn when I think it is? Traffic lights are a simple solution to that problem. The article just assumes that the root cause of accidents is drivers behaving recklessly, rather than drivers making different judgments about where boundaries are. But it presents no data to support that. Also, at the end of the article, we get this: "Traffic engineers, who maim and kill us with their regulations, lights and paint pots, merely go on dreaming up ever more of them. They pretend they are making our lives safer when they are doing the exact opposite. And we let them." This suggests a completely different root cause of the problem: the people who put the boundaries and regulations in place bear no responsibility if they turn out to be badly placed. If that really is the root cause, the solution is obvious: make the people who place the boundaries--the traffic engineers--legally liable for making the boundaries function properly. If painted lines down the middle of the road, or traffic lights, increase accidents, make the traffic engineers pay. That would give them an incentive to only make regulations that are net benefits. But of course the article does not talk about such a solution at all; it only talks about fighting one one-size-fits-all regulation with another. Btw, I am not advocating the above solution; I am merely saying that it is a logical consequence of the observation I quoted from the article. To me, the correct solution to what the article claims is the problem--lack of incentive for personal responsibility--is to increase the incentive for personal responsibility. You don't do that by removing obvious Schelling points for coordinating behavior, like lines on roads and traffic signals. You do that by making people suffer the consequences of wrong decisions. If you are at fault in an accident, your insurance company should raise your rates. If you are at fault in a serious enough accident, you might not be able to afford to drive at all. If we have a problem with personal responsibility in our society, it's because we refuse to acknowledge that responsibility has to work that way if it is to work at all.
- mjevans 11y agoI support that removing markings is fine for areas that are lower traffic or lower speed: country back-roads, neighborhoods, etc. I'm highly dubious that it's a good idea for high capacity or high speed areas. I cannot even begin to imagine how effective the over capacity freeways in the Seattle metro area would be without their stripes. Nor can I imagine what other major metro areas would experience.
- salgernon 11y agoToday, people get upset when the car ahead of them is driving 25 in a 25mph zone. I mean, how dare this idiot ahead of them slow them up on their way to the Walmart? In the unmarked road case, people will eventually learn to act in their own self interest, which probably means zooming around the slowpoke. This will result in (a) very little, (b) a head on collision (c) the sudden termination of the 8 year old that was riding their bike in the road - which is why the original idiot was driving at 25 in the first place. There's a solution that takes the best of both worlds: clearly marked and enforceable road markings made to deliberately slow traffic by requiring more attentiveness: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569375/Council-claims-painted-white-lines-middle-road-wonky-ON-PURPOSE-slow-traffic-reduce-risk-accidents.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569375/Council-clai... I seem to recall hearing about this approach in the mid 90s; I wonder if it came about as part of the same research mentioned in the article.
- massysett 11y agoI drive full speed on a highway with a traffic light, so when it's green I go through at about 55 mph. I get a little nervous because a wreck at that speed would not be fun. If that traffic light were removed I would go a lot slower through that intersection, as would most people. Perhaps there would be fewer wrecks, and at low speeds any wrecks certainly would be less harmful. But that would come at the expense of backing up that highway. Some road design decisions are made to facilitate speed and throughput, not safety.
- kuschku 11y agoThat's why in some countries streets with limits faster than 40mph have to be fully grade separated from the rest. Especially for streets with no limit it's useful to separate them, or people literally fly through the streets.
- steve-howard 11y agoI doubt that's practical in the US. The country has many miles of state highways (and the older US Routes; US 41 north of Chicago is a popular bypass for a toll road) for which a limited-access road with no at-grade intersections is far too expensive to be worth it, but traffic is light enough that a 55 or 65 mile per hour speed limit is reasonable.
- CalRobert 11y ago>But that would come at the expense of backing up that highway. Roundabouts are a great solution to this. Everyone slows down a bit, instead of either doing 55 or 0. Also, when there IS a collision, you're more likely to get a glancing blow instead of t-boned. Also, when I'm riding (motorcycle or bicycle) this kind of intersection is terrifying because it only takes one person running a light at 55mph to kill you.
- mabbo 11y agoPerhaps one can take the notion of "fewer markings = fewer accidents" in a different way- perhaps it's simply the number of things to look it is more than humans can handle. The town I grew up in is about a 10 minute drive from the main highway, along a country road. Between the highway and the town there are something like 50+ signs, in a 15km stretch. Local attractions promoted by the local government; speed limits; directions to various villages and towns; that this road was recently improved by the Provincial Government (sign coincidentally in the most recent political party's favourite colour); warning that there's a traffic light up ahead; oh don't forget you're on provincial road #whatever. The result is one of two things: you either spend too many brain cycles focusing on them (and not the road), or you completely ignore all of them (possibly to your detriment). I anxiously await the coming of the autonomous vehicle so that these problems go away.
- gmac 11y agoIt's kind of hard to believe the same remains true in heavy rain, in the dark. I find that even the absence (or poor maintenance of) cat's eyes can be problematic then.
- rascul 11y agoEspecially on country roads in those cases, sometimes the lines are the only way I know where the road is. Removing them could be very dangerous.
- iopq 11y agoPeople would then be driving very very slowly which would have the same effect. You wouldn't believe it, but my friend drove 90 mph in fog so thick you couldn't see 10 feet out. This is because he had road markers and assumed the other drivers had their lights on so he would see them. If there were no road markers he'd be driving 30 mph.
- roddux 11y agoYour friend sounds like he has a death wish! People, animals and large objects don't have headlamps.
- iopq 11y agoIt was on a freeway, but it's true, we were in danger. The point is, if it wasn't a divided freeway he wouldn't dare.
- Treblemaker 11y agoAnd now we know how 17-car pile-ups become 18-car pile-ups.
- im2w1l 11y ago"Those who prefer speed over safety deserve neither speed nor safety"
- markbnj 11y agoI think what we'd all actually be safer without is super smart academic types who think they can do a better job of system design than 100 years of shared experience. Traffic rules are among the most organic constraints we have developed. Literally every rule was written in blood. When I was teaching my daughters to drive I told them that if they ignored a stop sign, or ran a traffic light, they were not only putting their own lives and the lives of others at risk, they were also disrespecting the memories of the people who were maimed or killed so that we could realize we needed a traffic signal or sign in that spot. Automated vehicles will solve this entire problem, and in the meantime I'll go with what we've learned by, you know, actually driving over academic theorizing.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe article discusses (positive) real world outcomes of reducing traffic controls.
- markbnj 11y agoNo the article discusses observed phenomena and attributes their cause to what the author wishes the cause to be, without, as far as I could see, any real evidence.
- CalRobert 11y agoThat implies reasoned thought will never win out over the wisdom of crowds - was Pasteur a "super smart academic type"? By this logic commonly-held superstitions trump data resulting from experiment. It also fails to recognize the experience of people who aren't in the majority. Many of my acquaintances would say the best way to improve safety for bicyclists is to outlaw cycling (I'm sure the less pleasant among them would support this), but we have the right to travel for a reason.
- chriskanan 11y agoLane marker detection is one of the ways that computer vision is being incorporated into vehicles in order to make them autonomous.
- shifter 11y agoCorrect: that's the primary "source" in Tesla's Auto Steering feature.
- Nullabillity 11y agoIsn't this already mapped out? For all of its other faults, I know HERE Maps has a feature to warn you if you're above the speed limit.
- mikeash 11y agoGPS isn't accurate enough to keep a car in the right lane. You need maybe 0.5m resolution for that, and GPS only gives you 3m or so.
- Nullabillity 11y agoSorry, mixed up. Somehow thought he/she was talking about the signs and such.
- mikeash 11y agoGotcha. Cameras are good for those too. You can get speed limits and such from databases, but they may be out of date. A camera is guaranteed to see the latest every time. For an extreme example, the interstate closest to me has dynamic speed limits at peak times. My car can pick up the current limit with the camera, but a database lookup obviously couldn't.
- amelius 11y agoWill this also hold for driverless cars?
- ljk 11y agoNot for Tesla http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air-update-live/ http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air-upd...
- proactivesvcs 11y agoWhen cycling in a painted cycle lane I am consistently treated far worse than when cycling on a road without one. Well, used to be. I no longer cycle in them at all - I am forced to use the entire lane because it is unsafe to use a painted cycle lane. I'd rather get beeped at by one motorist than be endangered by five close passes. Edit: I am in the UK, and usually cycle in towns.
- logingone 11y agoI found that cars passing me would drive closer to me when I wore a high vis jacket than when I didn't.
- Mithaldu 11y agoI do the same in germany. I try to accomodate cars, but in a narrow single-lane road with parked cars and a high curb to me right, sorry to the cars behind me, but until i can safely get out of the way, you have to deal with going a bit slower.
- Swizec 11y agoAnecdata (from the US). I drive an electric longboard. The biggest impact on my safety came from one small change: start wearing a full-face helmet. It looks like a motorcycle helmet, but is lighter. As soon as I started doing that, cars cyclists and just about everyone started taking me seriously. Cars no longer pass super closely. They no longer honk when I take the entire lane. Many even use indicators when passing me with a wide berth. I think they basically treat me as a motorbike because the helmet makes them realize that I am a proper participant in traffic. This is the helmet: http://triple8.com/product/the-t8-racer/ http://triple8.com/product/the-t8-racer/
- dap 11y agoThere are so many fallacies here that it's hard to know where to start. Others already pointed out the possibility that these effects are a short-lived result of the change in policy. > Research has shown that removing white lines induces uncertainty and thus cuts vehicle speeds by 13%. Not paving roads would decrease vehicle speeds, too. Adding obstructions to windshields would also likely increase uncertainty and cut vehicle speeds. But neither decreasing vehicle speeds nor maximizing safety is the singular goal of the road system, and the article seems to completely miss that. > Rules, controls, signs, traffic lights all reduce our awareness of our surroundings and thus our sense of danger. Even if true, I would expect that rules and signals afford us much more predictive power about nearby moving objects, which could be far more valuable than an increased a sense of danger. > A crossing is where everyone should be watching everyone else, but everyone is watching the lights. They are awaiting orders. When given them, they assume all is safe and crash on. If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen? Of course, they happen because of the people not obeying the lights. What reason is there to believe that the same driver who would run a red light (by accident or otherwise) would generally make better ad-hoc judgments without the light? You could argue that drivers already obeying traffic lights could also avoid accidents by also watching other drivers, but they can already do that. You can argue that removing the lights will force them to do that, but it's not clear that's a _net_ positive (i.e., would ad-hoc human decisions really be better on average?). That argument would also undermine the article's claim that the existing system of lights represents our attachment to the nanny state.
- CalRobert 11y ago>If everyone's watching and obeying the lights, then how do the crashes happen? You can obey lights and stop signs and still run over a walker who is obeying the law. Turning right on a red is terrible for this reason (many drivers never even look right before the turn, assuming only cars from their left merit consideration). Cyclists get right hooked when drivers blindly turn when the light tells them it's ok.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Dolores12 11y agoIts a very high load on brain, because you have to make decision on every road. Also, its unclear how you handle insurance cases. In some countries road hog's insurance company pays money for recovery. Without clear rules its gonna be a mess.
- tomohawk 11y agoSome how I really doubt that Mondarman ever drove in DC traffic. To say that without other indicators, drivers will seek to look other drivers in the eye definitely wouldn't work around here.
- Havoc 11y ago>removing white lines induces uncertainty and thus cuts vehicle speeds by 13% Surely that effect is temporary?
- Pxtl 11y agoUrban real-estate is expensive and valuable terrain, so wasting it on wide lanes that encourage fast traffic in places where fast traffic is the opposite of what you want (eg. where people live and walk and bike) should be an obviously bad idea. I'm iffy about the removal of lane marking in all but quiet residential roads, but I'm definitely onboard with narrower lanes.