• This topic has 50 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by D0NK.
Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 51 total)
  • Is confusing drivers into slowing down a valid safety improvement?
  • cubist
    Free Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-38063742

    Strikes me that trying to confuse drivers into slowing down is not the best method of making the roads safer.

    What about when the confused pedestrian or cyclist thinks its an extension of the path and their right of way whilst the oncoming car thinking its their right of way fails to anticipate the pedestrian stepping out.

    rocketman
    Free Member

    It definitely works on the M6 smart section

    What’s the speed limit? 60? No 50! No 40! 60 again! 70 yesssssssssss! Oh it’s 50 again etc

    Brake light frenzy

    Yak
    Full Member

    Yes, in principle, creating an environment that is more pedestrian focused focuses drivers to expect pedestrians and adjust speed accordingly. But a larger stretch of this is far better than a small feature.

    See woonerf for effective applications.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    Yes. I think it was a dutch study that took out all traffic lights and right of way stuff in a town and made drivers work it out for themselves; as a result they slowed down thought about their driving and others and the roads were safer and flowed better as a result, given you neither had to sit at a red light waiting for it to change when the other way was empty, and weren’t charging at the lights in an attempt to make it through on the last R of ‘Amber’ and actually then crossing on the first R of ‘Red’

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    ..charging at the lights in an attempt to make it through on the last R of ‘Amber’..

    Which is already illegal anyway despite how many people do it.

    midlifecrashes
    Full Member

    Never mind that:

    The road, near the railway station in Cambridge, closed in March for the traffic calming works and reopened on Friday.

    9 months FFS! Can someone at Cambridge highways department have a look at the Japan sinkhole video and have a serious think about resignations or sackings.

    edlong
    Free Member

    I’m not an expert, but from everything I’ve ever read about this kind of thing, I’ve got the impression that there is quite a bit of science behind it and the evidence strongly supports an answer of “yes”

    DezB
    Free Member

    Surely confusion would only work with new drivers (or women. lolZ). Once local people know it, they’ll just fly across without slowing down.

    br
    Free Member

    I guess in the same mode as taking away street ‘furniture’ etc.

    oldnpastit
    Full Member

    So that’s what they’ve been doing there!

    I think the problem is more that people use that road to cut through between the railway station and Mill Road.

    Doing something about the latter would make a lot more sense – it’s almost got to the point of being a de-facto bikes-only zone sometimes, but not all the car/van drivers who use it seem to fully appreciate this….

    Once local people know it, they’ll just fly across without slowing down.

    +1

    fin25
    Free Member

    The one problem I foresee is that ballbag drivers will get wise to them, then start charging at genuine roundabouts.

    I’m not sure that throwing confusion into the mix with aggression, selfishness and 2 tons of metal will necessarily end well.

    DezB
    Free Member

    I think the problem is more that people use that road to cut through between the railway station and Mill Road.

    Shut the road for 9 months to lay some bricks would sort that issue for a while.

    thenorthwind
    Full Member

    Yes. I think it was a dutch study that took out all traffic lights and right of way stuff in a town and made drivers work it out for themselves; as a result they slowed down thought about their driving and others and the roads were safer and flowed better as a result, given you neither had to sit at a red light waiting for it to change when the other way was empty, and weren’t charging at the lights in an attempt to make it through on the last R of ‘Amber’ and actually then crossing on the first R of ‘Red’

    They’ve tried something like this on my commute route. No traffic lights before, just a crossroads on residential streets, both effectively one lane due to parked cars either side, with give way signs at the two side roads. Now the whole crossroads is raised and there are no signs or road markings whatsoever. I can see the theory, but the taxi driver who went straight across in front of me at 35mph last night obviously doesn’t

    irc
    Full Member

    ..charging at the lights in an attempt to make it through on the last R of ‘Amber’..

    Which is already illegal anyway despite how many people do it.

    Though going through on amber is not illegal if you are too close to stop safely. If I had a following vehicle close behind me I would go though on amber rather than brake hard to stop.

    Regulation 36(1)(e) states that the amber-alone signal shall convey the same prohibition as the red signal, namely that vehicular traffic (other than tramcars) shall not proceed beyond the stop line, except that, as respects any vehicle (other than a tramcar) which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line.

    And in practice show me an example of anyone prosecuted for going through on amber?

    oldnpastit
    Full Member

    I’m pretty sure you’ve misquoted there.

    Let me try:

    the amber-alone signal shall convey the same prohibition as the red signalmean go as fast as possible

    howsyourdad1
    Free Member

    I’m not an expert

    Well said .As with most things in life , it is best to leave it to the experts

    ScottChegg
    Free Member

    It looks a lot like the ‘improvements’ made to the front at Blackpool. Where there’s no real definition between road and pavement nor where go and who’s in the right.

    Doesn’t improve traffic flow, but it looks nice.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Though going through on amber is not illegal if you are too close to stop safely. If I had a following vehicle close behind me I would go though on amber rather than brake hard to stop.

    Indeed, but if someone is “charging at the lights in an attempt to make it through on the last R of ‘Amber’ and actually then crossing on the first R of ‘Red'” then that isn’t what is happening is it?

    Going through because it changed from green to amber when you were already too close to stop safely is legal.

    Observing an amber light ahead and speeding up to make it through before it goes red is illegal.

    But yes, it does seem to be one of those motoring offences that many people consider to be purely theoretical.

    reluctantwrinkly
    Free Member

    Another ploy to bring Cambridge to a grinding halt-as if it needs it!

    fin25
    Free Member

    Yep, there they are in their planning department laughing their socks off at all the congestion they’ve caused.

    The bastards.

    🙄

    reluctantwrinkly
    Free Member

    I am assuming it’s part of the 20mph limit anyway, most of Cambridge seems to be already.

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    Indeed, but if someone is “charging at the lights in an attempt to make it through on the last R of ‘Amber’ and actually then crossing on the first R of ‘Red'” then that isn’t what is happening is it?

    Going through because it changed from green to amber when you were already too close to stop safely is legal.

    Observing an amber light ahead and speeding up to make it through before it goes red is illegal.

    But yes, it does seem to be one of those motoring offences that many people consider to be purely theoretical.

    There’s the law and then there’s what everyone* does. The point is that if the lights aren’t there and you don’t think you have priority then you’re less likely to hurtle through thinking you’ll be OK.

    * using the agreed definition of everyone as relates to road traffic offences; eg: I saw a cyclist riding on the pavement once therefore all cyclists do it, the bastards. And they don’t pay road tax or have insurance and they take up the whole road riding 2 across, etc.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    So maybe actually enforcing that law (e.g. with traffic light cameras) might be way to get people to approach the lights at a more reasonable speed?

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    My brother has been involved in some housing estate design in NZ, that runs on this principle. The estates are quite large, with deliberate areas and streets that have a ‘pedestrian’ feel to them, cars relegated to behind houses, inside garages etc.
    Apparently it has worked wonders – drivers are really, really slow if they do need to access the area. This encourages children to play out, and the streets become less about car access and more about a community….

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    So maybe actually enforcing that law (e.g. with traffic light cameras) might be way to get people to approach the lights at a more reasonable speed?

    Possibly but

    1/ it doesn’t address traffic flow, sitting at red lights when there’s no-one else at the other direction

    2/ I was was being hyperbolic to make the point; if the red lights were fully enforced by cameras then people would still be speeding towards them on green to try to make it before amber and the same situation ensues – because you have a’right of way’ you just assume there’s nothing coming rather than take responsibility for making sure

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    it doesn’t address traffic flow

    It does a bit, because if everyone stuck to the law then the amber and red phases could be shorter, as they wouldn’t need an extra buffer for people diving through on “just turned red”.

    ocrider
    Full Member

    We have a crossroads that used to be a mini roundabout at the entrance to our village which isn’t that different. They took down all the give way signs and got rid of the markings, all apart from the white disk in the middle. Because nobody knows what to do, everybody uses the junction courteously and very carefully.

    P-Jay
    Free Member

    I suspect it won’t make anyone safer.

    People who know it, will simply ignore it.

    Most people who first find it will likely give it 100% attention, not great for anyone else and then ‘ignore’ it as it’s meant to be.

    Some people who first find it will treat it as a mini roundabout and pull out from the side road into the main road when turning right as they belive they have the right of way.

    We have a tough enough time here navigating our new non-standard roundabouts. They’ve been optimised for traffic flow which is great, but it relies on people choosing the correct lane based on the signs and road markins (often hidden under cars) so you end up with 3 main groups of users. The majority who know them and/or read the signs and use the correct lane. A large minority who ignore the signs and default to the standard Highway Code rules (last read by them a few decades back) and finally a small, but very obvious group who simply pick whichever lane has the shortest queue and throw themselves at the entry/exit they want by putting their hand up to their ‘mistake’. Let me assure you, confused road users, are not safe road users. There is a crash most days on one or more of them.

    sbob
    Free Member

    fin25 – Member

    Yep, there they are in their planning department laughing their socks off at all the congestion they’ve caused.

    The bastards.

    You can roll your eyes as much as you like, but increasing congestion to convince people to use public transport to reduce congestion was a favoured tactic of Cambridge CC.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Shut the road for 9 months to lay some bricks would sort that issue for a while.

    I’d rather they just kept Tenison Road shut permanently. Mill Road has been much quieter for it.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    but increasing congestion to convince people to use public transport to reduce congestion was a favoured tactic of Cambridge CC.

    yep. Infrastructure is not just about getting maximum flow of motor traffic, there’s other user groups some crazy hippy councils give a shit about, you know, pedestrians and cyclists

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    See woonerf for effective applications.

    housing estate design in NZ, that runs on this principle. ….deliberate areas and streets that have a ‘pedestrian’ feel to them, …..drivers are really, really slow if they do need to access the area.

    These hit the nail on the head. It *can* work to change the attitude on a street but the street has to be to be fundamentally low traffic to start with. It’s a form of ‘shared space’. It only works if you make the streets access only – you have to remove the through traffic. If you’re still allowing rat running traffic no amount of fancy paving is going to make it more pleasant.

    Exhibition Road in London demonstrates clearly that no amount of fancy paving alone will make any difference –
    https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/lessons-from-exhibition-road/

    A fake roundabout on a fast road will confuse a few drivers the first time they see it then they’ll ignore it.

    reluctantwrinkly
    Free Member

    Ah, the joy of standing at my local bus stop in Cambridge watching the arrival display count down only for the relevant bus to suddenly disappear from the matrix and be replaced by one which will arrive in 15 minutes—-maybe–got to be better than that to convince most locals to use the bus

    sbob
    Free Member

    D0NK – Member

    yep. Infrastructure is not just about getting maximum flow of motor traffic, there’s other user groups some crazy hippy councils give a shit about, you know, pedestrians and cyclists

    I’m not sure you fully comprehend what I wrote!
    Besides, the specific example I was thinking of was a junction with the A14, not a popular cyclist or pedestrian route. 😉

    D0NK
    Full Member

    I’m not sure you fully comprehend what I wrote!

    possibly, not sure. I was agreeing that sometimes max traffic flow is quite intentionally not the objective (dunno whether we agree on the validity of it’s use) and having a mild dig at those who think max traffic flow should be the only objective of infra

    D0NK
    Full Member

    It only works if you make the streets access only – you have to remove the through traffic

    Our street sees a lot of through traffic, only way they could stop it is to stick bollards half way along it (plenty of access either end), pretty sure the other locals would lose their shit if someone suggested it, and I reckon the attitude would be prevalent in most places.
    There are some “quiet streets” just off my commute, signs up saying “no through road, access only”, they get ignored.
    Genuine questions, how would you do it? How would you get it passed car centric residents?

    cbike
    Free Member

    Blocks on sand in a road. I predict a coupla bin lorries and its cracked, 2 years max and its wrecked, ripped out and back the way it was.

    STATO
    Free Member

    P-Jay – Member

    We have a tough enough time here navigating our new non-standard roundabouts. They’ve been optimised for traffic flow which is great, but it relies on people choosing the correct lane based on the signs and road markings… …There is a crash most days on one or more of them.

    I dont know your roundabout but based on the one near me its group following the markings (that they do day in/out) but not paying any other attention that are the reason for all the accidents. Making people pay attention is the solution, that we have to try and trick drivers to do that is a sad state.

    whitestone
    Free Member

    @DONK – retractable bollards? Residents have a transponder that they fit to their cars so they can get in and out (Emergency services do as well). Only problem then is for visitors to the residents.

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    Our street sees a lot of through traffic, only way they could stop it is to stick bollards half way along it (plenty of access either end), pretty sure the other locals would lose their shit if someone suggested it, and I reckon the attitude would be prevalent in most places…..
    Genuine questions, how would you do it? How would you get it passed car centric residents?

    That is how you do it but yes, it’s a hell of a battle. Close to 60% of household in my borough don’t even have access to a car, let alone drive on a regular basis, so you’d think it would be easy here. Anything but.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 51 total)

The topic ‘Is confusing drivers into slowing down a valid safety improvement?’ is closed to new replies.