Virginia Line Painters Not So Straight-Edge

[Keef]

"There go those stubborn Americans, swiping out ideas again." - Brits and Aussies

That's right, the Virginia Department Of Transportation (VDOT) has just had an old idea. In their efforts to come up with ways to keep drivers alert to pedestrian walkers and riders, they've chosen a couple locations in the state and are painting crooked lines in the middle of the road. Right. They say the idea is to "confuse" drivers into slowing down and taking note of their current situation, and in the process realizing that they're approaching a bike or walking path intersection. They also say it has worked in England and Australia. This is a test, and if the results prove positive over the next year they're planning on implementing it statewide where people meet cars.

I'm not so sure. I can understand that with time people would be conditioned to take notice of a crosswalk whenever they see these lines. But I tell you what, the very first time I see one, I'm gonna be like "WTF is with this crooked line," my brain working so hard to figure it out that I don't notice the car in front of me stopped for an old la...oops. I think the locals will understand it but nobody who only seems them occasionally will ever figure it out. Every single time they'll just keep cruising the same speed wondering "hmm, what was with that crooked li....oops."

I think it'll get worse at first, but then the idea will catch on after a month or so. What do you guys think?

 

[Jim Prower]

MAKE SURE THIS GETS ON THE EVENING NEWS. Maybe for a couple days. That way, people will know that this new symbol means.

On the other hand, I have a close online contact going to VT. Maybe he's seen these.

 

[MinoltaMan89]

If I see those lines on the road, I'm going to floor it. I don't care if I run over a biker. He's the one in my way.

 

[Northstar]

If I see those lines on the road, I'm going to floor it. I don't care if I run over a biker. He's the one in my way.

Have fun in jail.

 

[Eric.]

How about big flashy lights on the bike trail or sidewalk for the pedestrian to know that they are coming to a highway and that they should wait until there aren't any cars coming rather than hoping that the cars coming slow down.

 

[homeforsummer]

How about removing all road markings and signage altogether, which has often been proven to reduce accidents because people are naturally more wary of "the unknown". They often leave blind crossroads unmarked in residential areas over here because people then slow right down for them to make sure nothing is coming. If you had a definite right-of-way on a crossroads then traffic on one of the crossing roads wouldn't bother slowing down at all so if there is any accident it involves higher speeds.

The same applies to country roads - no white lines and no signs scares people into slowing down as they're never quite sure if the next bend is going to be a tight one or not.

Oh, and if you don't have any signs then there are no hard, metal poles to hit should someone overcook it.

I'm not advocating removing road markings for things like pedestrian crossings - the more flashy lights and road paint the better, but surely at those sorts of places it's better just to have some traffic signals that can be operated by the pedestrians/cyclists/whatever so that cars stop before they cross.

 

[YSSMAN]

Do they not have bike trails in Virgina? Hmmm. Still, as someone who rides on the road frequently, I'm interested to hear what happens. If it is going to make riding bicycles on the road a safer possibility, I'm all for it.

 

[stumpydino]

i thought the zigzags go down the side of the road how about people cross when there are no cars coming!

How about removing all road markings and signage altogether

it could work...but then its nice to actually know what to expect, signage is to warn people of dangers after all! especially if theyv never been on it before. the idea is not to take it all away to catch them out 'haah well you didnt read the si...oh' wouldnt really cut it. besides wouldnt there be legal action taken by drivers that do crash on an unmarked unfamiliar road for lack of warning signs? already hear about idiots suing for not getting trained to climb a ladder, or not being told a wet floor is wet...

i saw this great idea on a black road, 'experimental street light turn off' on a national limit country road with frequent roundabouts...for some reason it didnt catch on

 

[Philly]

Have fun in jail.

This is one law that I personally cannot stand. Yes, I perfectly understand that the car is bigger and more dangerous than a person, but giving the person the right of way every time is just stupid. Pedestrians do need to be held accountable for their actions so they aren't impeding the flow of traffic and whatnot.

Some kind of rule like "You're on your own unless you're at a crosswalk, and if you're at a crosswalk, stepping out in front of a moving car still makes it your fault" would make everything so much easier.

I'm not advocating removing road markings for things like pedestrian crossings - the more flashy lights and road paint the better, but surely at those sorts of places it's better just to have some traffic signals that can be operated by the pedestrians/cyclists/whatever so that cars stop before they cross.

In a town near my home they have these new crosswalks with a bajillion bright green signs and big flashing lights that activate when pedestrians push the button. And that alerts the driver quite well than they have to stop and wait for the pedestrian to cross before they can go again.

And I really hate those crosswalk signals. They are timed way too long for regular people. There have been way too many times where I'm stuck at a light for a person, but the light is still red even though the person finished crossing the road forever ago.

 

[Northstar]

This is one law that I personally cannot stand. Yes, I perfectly understand that the car is bigger and more dangerous than a person, but giving the person the right of way every time is just stupid. Pedestrians do need to be held accountable for their actions so they aren't impeding the flow of traffic and whatnot.

Some kind of rule like "You're on your own unless you're at a crosswalk, and if you're at a crosswalk, stepping out in front of a moving car still makes it your fault" would make everything so much easier.

I agree, I always wait for a car to go since they have a weight advantage. However, I was more talking about how he was going to floor it just to hit them.

 

[Jay]

They say the idea is to "confuse" drivers into slowing down and taking note of their current situation, and in the process realizing that they're approaching a bike or walking path intersection. They also say it has worked in England and Australia.

Oh yeah they worked so good they don't have them anymore, I was younger at the time and they were cool, I used to follow them with my car zig zagging down the road.

 

[homeforsummer]

it could work...but then its nice to actually know what to expect, signage is to warn people of dangers after all!

It is, but only for drivers that treat the signs responsibly. For many it just leads to overconfidence, and can even be distracting. Here are just a few examples that I found which could be considered much more distracting than they are useful:

(I'm not advocating removing direction signs, but those above are particularly confusing so perhaps more could be done in that respect to locate them more effectively)

What you're effectively doing is drawing people's attention away from the two single most important things - the road, and other road users - and giving them signs, road markings, directions, corner direction markers etc to concentrate on too. I'm sure whilst most reading this forum are capable enough of processing all that information, I'm doubtful that a large proportion of other drivers are. Some will be distracted, and some will be lulled into a false sense of security by all the signs telling them what to expect and make a mistake at a higher speed.

the idea is not to take it all away to catch them out 'haah well you didnt read the si...oh' wouldnt really cut it. besides wouldnt there be legal action taken by drivers that do crash on an unmarked unfamiliar road for lack of warning signs? already hear about idiots suing for not getting trained to climb a ladder, or not being told a wet floor is wet...

I'm not so sure. One of the first things you get taught when learning to drive and one of the first things in the Highway Code is that you should always use appropriate speed for the conditions. It could pretty easily be argued that if someone went off the road on a corner that it was through driver error as they had not been using appropriate speed for a potentially hazardous road. Councils could mitigate any likely action by surfacing any particularly tight corners or corners with unexpected cambers/changing radii in a high grip surface like "shell grip". That would act as both a device to make the road itself safer and a subtle warning that the corner is different to a safer one such as an open sweeping bend with good visibility.

By removing signs, you're forcing road users to consider each other much more. This is especially relevant in towns and cities too. If there are fewer road markings you sure as hell look a little more carefully to make sure you aren't going to get taken out by somebody else. The crossroads example being one of the best. Would you approach a blind, unpainted crossroads at the same speed you'd been doing before?

 

[Omnis]

It is, but only for drivers that treat the signs responsibly. For many it just leads to overconfidence, and can even be distracting. Here are just a few examples that I found which could be considered much more distracting than they are useful:

(I'm not advocating removing direction signs, but those above are particularly confusing so perhaps more could be done in that respect to locate them more effectively)

What you're effectively doing is drawing people's attention away from the two single most important things - the road, and other road users - and giving them signs, road markings, directions, corner direction markers etc to concentrate on too. I'm sure whilst most reading this forum are capable enough of processing all that information, I'm doubtful that a large proportion of other drivers are. Some will be distracted, and some will be lulled into a false sense of security by all the signs telling them what to expect and make a mistake at a higher speed.

Those signs would make Hans Monderman's head explode.

 

[Keef]

Concerning removing signage...

EDIT: Ah, Omnis just posted it. I remember watching and reading about that guy's philosophy, and I think it could work here in the states. But I think once it was implemented the crash and fatality rate would absolutely skyrocket for a short period of time until people realized that driving actually is serious business. It's human nature to take advantage of freedoms when nobody is looking, but I think we Americans take that a step further. We calm down eventually.

Something else interesting would be to use all road markings instead of actual signs. Things like speed limits, road closings, crosswalks, etc could all be denoted by a certain type or color marking on the road. It think some simple circles and squares would catch on eventually and be more easily recognizable.

 

[homeforsummer]

Monderman appeared to be a man after my own heart. It's interesting watching those vids in the link provided and seeing how smoothly traffic flows around - and concepts such as slowing cars down to the pace of bicycles so that each can flow without disrupting the other.

I'm very much not a fan of traffic lights. They undoubtably have their uses but so many councils clearly haven't a clue how they should be timed to minimise disruption in traffic flow. There are several main roads around where I currently live with perhaps six sets of traffic lights within the space of a mile or two. If I follow the speed limit on these roads and happen to get caught by one set... then as I reach the next set, they turn red. I get going again, and as I approach the next set, they go red too. They're all on a timer - they aren't triggered by pedestrian crossings or side roads, though they are obviously to let traffic out of side roads. Some are necessary, but the majority should be removed as the roads are often not busy enough to warrant traffic lights for the single car that usually pulls out of the junction.

More ridiculous is that if you willfully speed to beat one set of lights, then you're able to go through all the rest on green. I'm not quite sure why they've been set up to effectively reward people who speed on those roads but that's the net outcome.

Where I live back home, there's a particularly busy road running through one side of town, and again it's plagued by traffic lights. One time, the lights failed, and in contrast to the expected chaos, the traffic ran smoother than it ever did for around a week - people were letting others out of side roads, not racing to get through before lights changed, being more cautious just in case something pulled out - it worked brilliantly, until they fixed the lights again, and the traffic returned and people adopted their bad habits again.

@ Keef - I do like the idea of having more markings on the road. What I'd particularly like to see are inner-city speed limits denoted by certain colours on the road - perhaps a red surface 1/4 of a mile either side of a school entrance, denoting a 20mph or even lower speed limit (and also high restrictions on parking outside to minimise disruption from school-run mums in massive 4x4s...). Gives people plenty of chance to slow down before the school, and anyone who breaks the limit in the red zone should be punished harshly (there are few drivers I despise more than those who speed where kids may be at highest risk).

I could see out-of-town speed limits denoted by a series of diagonal lines on the road or something, spreading further and further out, and as you approach a slower limit again, the lines could reappear 1/4 of a mile back and get closer together the nearer to the lower limit you get.

 

[Jondot]

Brilliant. So while drivers are busy staring at the road thinking 'what the hell', they won't notice the adult/child/deer/former president that walks out in front of their car. That'll slow 'em down alright.

 

[homeforsummer]

Is that referring to my ideas or the zig-zags in the original post?

 

[EA11R]

Almost certainly he's referring to the original post. After all, is there anything to stare at in your scenario?

Also, a bit of a caution: Don't for an instant think roundabouts will ever work in the US. At least where I live, literally none of the approximately forty people I asked had any idea of what to do at a roundabout. There are two roundabouts in my town. One, people treat as a normal crossing(driving over the middle. don't worry, it's flat.), and the other is in the middle of nowhere. I think if we employ Europeans to drive around it during low-traffic hours, approaching Yanks might be able to figure out what to do.

 

[homeforsummer]

Almost certainly he's referring to the original post. After all, is there anything to stare at in your scenario?

Also, a bit of a caution: Don't for an instant think roundabouts will ever work in the US. At least where I live, literally none of the approximately forty people I asked had any idea of what to do at a roundabout. There are two roundabouts in my town. One, people treat as a normal crossing(driving over the middle. don't worry, it's flat.), and the other is in the middle of nowhere. I think if we employ Europeans to drive around it during low-traffic hours, approaching Yanks might be able to figure out what to do.

Roundabouts would be best introduced in low-traffic areas if they were to be introduced in any numbers. I only came across a couple when I was in the States - a very big one in St. Louis which seemed to work okay, and a small one in Santa Barbara at which people didn't seem to have a clue.

I don't always think roundabouts are the answer anyway. We've had them for years here in the UK and half the time people still don't seem to have a clue how to drive around them, hesitating unnecessarily when it's completely clear holding up people behind, cutting across the right-turn lane to go straight on (the amount of times someone's almost hit my car by cutting across my lane is ridiculous), and God forbid they enter a series of mini roundabouts because if there's one thing guaranteed to confuse the idiotic more than having just one roundabout it's having several.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Anyone who crashes because they're too focused on a white line in the road has to reconsider whether they have the sight and mental ability to drive safely.

This will probably be effective against unfamiliar drivers but the locals will catch on pretty quick and just ignore it.

 

[Sniffs]

what I think will happen?

1. some smart ass will think it's a "floor it" sign
2. a visiting briton will slow down...and get rear ended
3. some old geezer will attempt to follow the line

and we allready HAVE roundabouts...they're called interstate exits