3 ms·

The rest of your comment, I agree with but: > That tells anyone reading exactly what they need to know and the message highlighting an improvement contains a s

The rest of your comment, I agree with but: > That tells anyone reading exactly what they need to know and the message highlighting an improvement contains a simple reward message Do they need to know it though? Is someone going to see that, and adjust what they're doing because numbers are trending up? It seems unlikely. If you have to show something, how about a standard caution sign that says "elevated accident zone"? It conveys everything that /might/ be helpful, is highly relevant to the specific area the driver is in, and does not require critical thinking (numbers up? numbers down? how does this affect me? Is it for this spot, or all of Texas?). Caution signs are also taught as part of driver's ed as warning of road hazards - deer crossing, falling rocks, etc.

doodlebugging 3y ago
>Is someone going to see that, and adjust what they're doing because numbers are trending up? It seems unlikely. The data cited shows that the negative message they currently employ has an effect on the accident rate: multi-vehicle accidents increase in proximity to the signs. This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly. It may be that some drivers see the sign and slow down or change lanes to a slower traffic lane while the driver behind them is too close and this speed or lane change leads to a collision. Using the signs to highlight sections of highway with higher than average accident rates sounds like a good idea. It would be especially useful on interstates affected by sudden heavy rainfall where ponding leads to hydroplaning at ordinary safe speeds for a dry highway. There is a long stretch of interstate west of FtWorth where this is a problem due to the number of curves and the crown of the road not allowing rain to flow to the shoulders fast enough to prevent ponding. While it is true that caution signs and things like this are part of driver's ed, that doesn't mean that they make it into the actual practice part of every driver's skillsets. In my view, everyone should be required to take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons about focusing on driving and minimizing accident potential are set in stone. Ordinary drivers ed covers this ground but most drivers never have to revisit the safe driving habits after getting licensed unless their employer requires defensive driving or they get a ticket and opt for ticket dismissal thru defensive driving course.
- GrinningFool 3y ago
  > This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly. This is all potentially true, but an equally valid interpretation of the limited data is that the larger sign requires more cognitive overhead, resulting in less attention given to the road. > take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons Yes, especially here in the US where it's really easy to get a license to drive. A cultural shift would help too, because right now it's all about "Well, it's not my fault" - as if the accident and potential fallout is less important than who bears financial responsibility. In /most/ cases, there are defensive steps a driver could have taken to avoid an accident even if they were not directly at fault, but we don't emphasize that enough. (Or at all?)

doodlebugging 3y ago

>Is someone going to see that, and adjust what they're doing because numbers are trending up? It seems unlikely. The data cited shows that the negative message they currently employ has an effect on the accident rate: multi-vehicle accidents increase in proximity to the signs. This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly. It may be that some drivers see the sign and slow down or change lanes to a slower traffic lane while the driver behind them is too close and this speed or lane change leads to a collision. Using the signs to highlight sections of highway with higher than average accident rates sounds like a good idea. It would be especially useful on interstates affected by sudden heavy rainfall where ponding leads to hydroplaning at ordinary safe speeds for a dry highway. There is a long stretch of interstate west of FtWorth where this is a problem due to the number of curves and the crown of the road not allowing rain to flow to the shoulders fast enough to prevent ponding. While it is true that caution signs and things like this are part of driver's ed, that doesn't mean that they make it into the actual practice part of every driver's skillsets. In my view, everyone should be required to take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons about focusing on driving and minimizing accident potential are set in stone. Ordinary drivers ed covers this ground but most drivers never have to revisit the safe driving habits after getting licensed unless their employer requires defensive driving or they get a ticket and opt for ticket dismissal thru defensive driving course.

GrinningFool 3y ago
> This suggest that some drivers see the message and react by adjusting their driving and that other drivers near them either do not see the sign, do not make adjustments, or are not paying enough attention to the road to notice that a driver in their hazard zone has made an adjustment that will cause an accident if they don't react similarly. This is all potentially true, but an equally valid interpretation of the limited data is that the larger sign requires more cognitive overhead, resulting in less attention given to the road. > take a defensive driving test at least every 5 years so that the lessons Yes, especially here in the US where it's really easy to get a license to drive. A cultural shift would help too, because right now it's all about "Well, it's not my fault" - as if the accident and potential fallout is less important than who bears financial responsibility. In /most/ cases, there are defensive steps a driver could have taken to avoid an accident even if they were not directly at fault, but we don't emphasize that enough. (Or at all?)