
The removal of road markings is to be celebrated. We are safer without them - ranit
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers
======
gregatragenet3
IMO 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.

~~~
0xcde4c3db
I 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
When 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!

~~~
seasoup
Feeling less comfortable is exactly the point :)

------
dap
There 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
>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.

~~~
dap
That's certainly true. I thought the article focused more on car-car crashes,
but those are obviously important, too. It seems like the considerations in
suburban and rural areas are fairly different than urban areas.

~~~
CalRobert
Protecting everyone is important, but at this point we think
disproportionately about people in cars when considering safety. We should be
looking at the fact you are vastly more likely to be killed per mile walking
or riding than driving. This despite the fact that walking (or cycling) don't
even involve hurtling yourself through space at 60mph. (For motorcycles it's
not a huge surprise to see higher morbidity, of course, since you combine high
speeds AND lack of protection).

In short, we've made driving a car safe, possibly by making it really easy to
die doing anything but driving a car. Making drivers nervous, slow, and
cautious should help with this. (Correlation =\= causation, I realize). How
safe do you feel crossing a busy street with an uncontrolled crosswalk? I hate
it - drivers don't actually understand they're supposed to stop. How about
bicycling on public roads? Waiting in stop and go traffic on your motorcycle
hoping the person texting behind you doesn't pancake you between them and the
truck in front of you? (This is a good reason to lane split, btw, or at least
adopt a lane position such that if you are hit you get thrown into empty space
and not a vehicle).

On a motorcycle you're thirty times as likely to die per mile as you are in a
car.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety)

On a bicycle you're twice as likely to die _per trip_ - the rate per mile is
much higher since people tend to cycle shorter distances than they drive.
[http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6431a1.htm)

Pedestrian data is hard to gather well since people don't log walking miles
like driving miles, but they are also more likely to die per trip, and again,
since people walk shorter distances than they drive, almost certainly more
likely to die per mile;

"...Pedestrians are over-represented in the crash data, accounting for 14
percent of all traffic fatalities but only 10.9 percent of trips.... "

"In 2013, 4,735 pedestrians and 743 bicyclists were killed in crashes with
motor vehicles (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety
Facts). "
[http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm](http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm)

------
proactivesvcs
When 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.

~~~
rewqfdsa
Cyclists like you make people like me vote against pro-cyclist laws. You have
no moral right to slow down all traffic on a road to the speed of your calves
because you feel unsafe in your designated lane, and I hope you soon have no
legal right to do that.

~~~
Mithaldu
You forget that most often such a lane is as wide as a bicycle + 10 cm on each
side. Meaning that if a car passes fast enough it could even push the cyclist
around just with its air flow. Plus, at lower speeds bikes tend to go less
than straight, so there is a fairly real danger of bumping into, e.g. the
mirror on a car. Additionally a cyclist is obligated to handle things coming
at him from between parked cars and such, which is really tricky since a
cyclist is often much closer to those than a driving car. Those and more i
don't have in mind right now are plenty important reasons why taking a lane
can make traffic safer for everyone.

Having been in the situation often enough, i can also tell you: I wouldn't
mind if cars passed by me in narrow situations if they slowed down while doing
so, but more often than not, cars pass by at full speed instead.

Lastly, keep in mind that this situation only happens in narrow side streets,
not on big streets with better separated traffic flows.

Sport cyclists taking a whole lane while ignoring a dedicated bike path are
just assholes.

------
sehugg
There'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
Good article, and apparently not one that has been discussed on HN before.

------
chriskanan
Lane marker detection is one of the ways that computer vision is being
incorporated into vehicles in order to make them autonomous.

~~~
Nullabillity
Isn'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
GPS 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
Sorry, mixed up. Somehow thought he/she was talking about the signs and such.

~~~
mikeash
Gotcha. 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.

------
mabbo
Perhaps 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.

------
scott_s
The 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-m...](https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cost-of-repealing-
mandatory-motorcycle-helmet-laws/)

Short version: after repealing helmet laws in Michigan, they have seen higher
injury severity and mortality.

~~~
ricardobeat
The research you are thinking of concerns bycicles, not motorcycles - the
risks are an order of magnitude apart.

~~~
scott_s
I 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.

------
gmac
It'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.

~~~
iopq
People 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
Your friend sounds like he has a death wish! People, animals and large objects
don't have headlamps.

~~~
iopq
It 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
And now we know how 17-car pile-ups become 18-car pile-ups.

------
DanBC
There 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
There'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)

------
massysett
I 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
That'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
I 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.

------
anjc
This 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
And people who buy insurance are more likely to drive/act recklessly?

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
Everyone 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.

------
mjevans
I 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
Today, 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-
clai...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569375/Council-claims-
painted-white-lines-middle-road-wonky-ON-PURPOSE-slow-traffic-reduce-risk-
accidents.html)

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.

------
Pxtl
Urban 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.

------
valine
I wonder if unmarked roads would make the development of self-driving cars
more challenging or less challenging.

------
Havoc
>removing white lines induces uncertainty and thus cuts vehicle speeds by 13%

Surely that effect is temporary?

------
Dolores12
Its 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
Some 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.

------
pdonis
This 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.

~~~
salgernon

      people suffer the consequences of wrong decisions. If you are at fault in an accident, your insurance company should raise your rates
    

How do you establish at- fault behavior on unmarked roads? if there are no
markings, and I'm supposed to just "do the right thing", then by definition I
can not be at fault because my actions were entirely performed within the
framework of the unmarked road constraint.

Of course, there is a solution to this: universal, publicly funded ( via use
taxes ) auto insurance.

I suppose another alternative would be to re-establish private toll roads. (In
the US these are quite rare, although there are some public toll roads.).

Pay extra for roads that are marked and patrolled. (In that case, reduced
price insurance could be purchased at the time of paying the toll.)

~~~
pdonis
_> How do you establish at- fault behavior on unmarked roads?_

I was not advocating unmarked roads. The article does, but I don't. Being able
to establish fault is another aspect of the road markings being Schelling
points--everybody knows that if they jump the line they're at fault.

 _> If there are no markings, and I'm supposed to just "do the right thing",
then by definition I can not be at fault_

The above notwithstanding, I don't think this is correct. It's not impossible
to assign fault without road markings; it's just a lot more difficult, and the
assignment is a lot more likely to cause conflict between the parties.

 _> there is a solution to this: universal, publicly funded ( via use taxes )
auto insurance._

I don't understand how this solves the problem. If anything, it seems to me it
would reduce drivers' incentives to correctly judge risk.

 _> I suppose another alternative would be to re-establish private toll
roads._

This would help with the incentives of the traffic engineer, yes. I'm not sure
how it would help with the incentives of the driver.

Also, the problem with any privatized road system is that competition in roads
is difficult; roads are not commodities. Good road rights of way are
determined by geography, not the market. This is one of those cases where even
if an optimal solution exists, it's not one that can be reached in the absence
of an omnipotent divine being.

------
amelius
Will this also hold for driverless cars?

~~~
ljk
Not for Tesla [http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air-
upd...](http://www.wired.com/2015/10/tesla-self-driving-over-air-update-live/)

------
markbnj
I 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
The article discusses (positive) real world outcomes of reducing traffic
controls.

~~~
markbnj
No 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.

