Transport Focus - an unwise report

[Conekicker]

I'll let you lot pick the holes in this report, goodness knows there are plenty of them.

http://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp ... -Panel.pdf

Clearly written by someone with inadequate knowledge of sign design.

[Glen]

It's a survey of public opinion on sign design, so it shows alternative sign layouts to gauge opinion on them, that's the point of the exercise.

[Bomag]

It's a survey of public opinion on sign design, so it shows alternative sign layouts to gauge opinion on them, that's the point of the exercise.

The problem is that they have missed the point that if obscuration of ADS is a problem that the most effective solution is to put signs on gantries. If they had said that designers should not sacrifice the visibility of signs to save money then it would have been a bit better.

[RichardA35]

It's a survey of public opinion on sign design, so it shows alternative sign layouts to gauge opinion on them, that's the point of the exercise.

However the panel is a not a random selection but from people who have applied to join (and have time on their hands).
I originally thought it must be a spoof as it seems to be trying to validate a predetermined hypothesis. Given two thirds of the respondents (2076 total) are irregular motorway drivers (< once per week), I would question the validity of trying to draw any conclusions from such a small sample size given there are several hundreds of thousands (millions) of drivers negotiating motorway junctions each day.

[Conekicker]

It's a survey of public opinion on sign design, so it shows alternative sign layouts to gauge opinion on them, that's the point of the exercise.

However the panel is a not a random selection but from people who have applied to join (and have time on their hands).
I originally thought it must be a spoof as it seems to be trying to validate a predetermined hypothesis. Given two thirds of the respondents (2076 total) are irregular motorway drivers (< once per week), I would question the validity of trying to draw any conclusions from such a small sample size given there are several hundreds of thousands (millions) of drivers negotiating motorway junctions each day.

So not just me thinking that then.

In addition to Bomag's comment on gantries, the other obvious conclusion would be that if the signs are obscured by vegetation then cutting it back would be a sensible first step.

[Ruperts Trooper]

It's a survey of public opinion on sign design, so it shows alternative sign layouts to gauge opinion on them, that's the point of the exercise.

However the panel is a not a random selection but from people who have applied to join (and have time on their hands).
I originally thought it must be a spoof as it seems to be trying to validate a predetermined hypothesis. Given two thirds of the respondents (2076 total) are irregular motorway drivers (< once per week), I would question the validity of trying to draw any conclusions from such a small sample size given there are several hundreds of thousands (millions) of drivers negotiating motorway junctions each day.

Regular users get used to whatever standard is used - but signs are more useful for drivers out of area who are unfamiliar - same applies to abbreviations of places where outsiders have no clue what they mean and locals don't need to be told.

[RichardA35]

It's a survey of public opinion on sign design, so it shows alternative sign layouts to gauge opinion on them, that's the point of the exercise.

However the panel is a not a random selection but from people who have applied to join (and have time on their hands).
I originally thought it must be a spoof as it seems to be trying to validate a predetermined hypothesis. Given two thirds of the respondents (2076 total) are irregular motorway drivers (< once per week), I would question the validity of trying to draw any conclusions from such a small sample size given there are several hundreds of thousands (millions) of drivers negotiating motorway junctions each day.

Regular users get used to whatever standard is used - but signs are more useful for drivers out of area who are unfamiliar - same applies to abbreviations of places where outsiders have no clue what they mean and locals don't need to be told.

However those elements are not what the report is about. The crux of the hypothesis is that obscuring the junction number has a detrimental effect on driver behaviour.

[Fenlander]

As a rare user of motorways if I'm given directions along the lines of "Leave A1 for M62 then leave M62 at Junction 6" then the numbers are very useful to me, not only the particular number I'm looking for but also that I'm heading in the right direction and that I'm getting close to the one I want. Knowing I'm many miles from the junction I want means that I don't need to stick to the left lane approaching each junction in fear of being stuck in lane 2 and sailing by it.

Do junction numbers make life easier for me? yes
Do junction numbers make life safer for me (and others around me)? yes
Would I miss them if they weren't there? Probably not, they're not commonly found on all the other roads I use.

[David349]

Has anyone else noted the Range Rover on the cover picture is doing 85MPH! Very unusual in Stock Photography...

[Conekicker]

Has anyone else noted the Range Rover on the cover picture is doing 85MPH! Very unusual in Stock Photography...

The driver was confused because she COULD see the junction number, when she was expecting NOT to see it.

Obviously...

[Bryn666]

"Here's an answer, now write the question"

What a load of nonsense.

If junction numbers aren't obvious then the first thing to do is adopt the European exit symbol.

[RichardA35]

Reading this again, things start to go awry at the first bullet:
"In most countries 40 to 60 per cent of the total number of accidents occur at junctions.(1) This survey was carried out to test the hypothesis that some unsafe driving on motorways is related to the position of the junction number on the signage."
The first part of the statement (as borne out by the reference link) refers to all junctions including single carriageway roads not specifically motorways or dual carriageways. The study suggests that the position of a junction number is a factor. The junctions with numbers are a very small subset of all the junctions where the accidents occur. The user sample is not independent but self chosen and are infrequent users of numbered junctions but comment that they have seen bad driving near numbered junctions. After this a preference is given for where a number should be placed despite no link having been established between accidents and the existence of a number or its placement on a sign at a junction and a recommendation that HE change national signing standards.
It reads like something from a year 9 school project that would probably have been marked as poor by the teacher given the lack of reasoned arguments.

[FosseWay]

Some jurisdictions use solid lines at junctions in a way that the UK doesn't. This generally takes the form of prohibiting access to L1 from L2 in the immediate approach to an offslip, and preventing people moving from L2 into L1 and/or vice versa immediately after an on-slip.

If policed, or if drilled into people,* I can see how this might reduce collisions associated with people trying to change lanes too suddenly or cross too many lane markings at once, and my gut feeling would be that it would be more effective than messing with junction numbers. From my observation of behaviour on Swedish and UK motorways, near misses caused by people cutting in at the last moment from L2 to the slip road are more often due to arrogant behaviour than to dithering about which exit they need. In other words, drivers generally know precisely which exit they need but will try to overtake every single vehicle ahead of them before the turn-off rather than slotting in behind one of them.

*In Sweden, obedience to solid white lines is much more of a "thing" than it is in the UK. In the UK, solid lines are mostly used on S2s and tell motorists not to overtake, and in the vast majority of such instances, most motorists wouldn't dream of overtaking anyway out of a basic instinct for self-preservation. Solid lines are used much less elsewhere, but where they are used, it's often in situations where drivers feel entitled to use their judgement to override the rules (as they do all the time wrt to speed limits). This is demonstrated by the popular misinterpretation of crossing solid lines as "do not overtake" - in fact, it's "do not cross a solid line", regardless of your reason for doing so. In Sweden, crossing solid lines is regarded socially as similar to running red lights - it happens, but is generally done only by a small subset of drivers and is frowned on. Speeding, on the other hand, is done by more or less everyone and is regarded as more or less standard practice.

[WHBM]

Some jurisdictions use solid lines at junctions in a way that the UK doesn't. This generally takes the form of prohibiting access to L1 from L2 in the immediate approach to an offslip.

There are a few

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4815741 ... 312!8i6656

[RichardA35]

Some jurisdictions use solid lines at junctions in a way that the UK doesn't. This generally takes the form of prohibiting access to L1 from L2 in the immediate approach to an offslip.

There are a few

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4815741 ... 312!8i6656

Remind us again of the reference in TSRGD for this usage, please.

[Chris Bertram]

Single solid white lines - meaning "stay in lane" - tend to be found in tunnels and on their approaches, where the highway is divided so there is no opposing traffic. Where the highway is undivided, I'd expect to see a double white line.

[Bryn666]

Some jurisdictions use solid lines at junctions in a way that the UK doesn't. This generally takes the form of prohibiting access to L1 from L2 in the immediate approach to an offslip.

There are a few

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4815741 ... 312!8i6656

Remind us again of the reference in TSRGD for this usage, please.

This might be authorised, but I doubt it.

Tunnels and their approaches seem to throw the double white line requirements out of the window and do their own thing.

[FosseWay]

Chris's and Bryn's responses tend to reinforce what I suspect is the case, that British motorists connect solid lines (double or otherwise) with a ban on overtaking (i.e. a lane change executed specifically to pass a slower vehicle travelling in the same direction) and not simply changing lane for other reasons.

It would, I have thought, be relatively straightforward to paint relevant road markings that make it illegal to cross from L2 to a slip road within X metres of the slip road and to enforce this with cameras. This, coupled with greater use of solid lines to deter people from changing lanes in problem places and better teaching so that we get away from the exclusively "overtaking" meaning would fairly quickly change a fair number of people's approaches to this.

Of course, I'm open to the possibility that this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My personal experience, in both the UK and Sweden, is that people choosing to leave motorways at the very last moment from lanes other than L1, thus cutting people up and causing accidents or near misses, is quite a widespread issue. I also feel that it is more dangerous than some other offences that the police have periodically had high-profile crackdowns on, such as middle lane hogging. But I have no statistics either way, so feel free to tell me I'm speaking out of my fundament ,

[WHBM]

Of course, I'm open to the possibility that this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My personal experience, in both the UK and Sweden, is that people choosing to leave motorways at the very last moment from lanes other than L1, thus cutting people up and causing accidents or near misses, is quite a widespread issue.

I don't have that opinion. It seems rare, when it does happen things are generally light traffic and free-flowing, and I've never seen an accident result. More common seems to be indecisiveness at the last second about which way to go.

On "smash mile", the M4 eastbound from J5 to J4B approachig the M25, where in some years I reckon I pass the residue of more collisions than all the rest of my driving put together, almost all the accidents seem to happen not down at the divergence, but half a mile to a mile before, the lane drop lane fills up all the way back, people on the mainline in what is now lane 2 slow or even stop trying to join it, one behind moves into lane 3 from a standing start ...

Meanwhile, back at the report, it really is useless. Of course "Transport Focus" used to be "Passenger Focus", which in turn was originally "Rail Passengers Council", and is stacked with unrepresentative vehicle haters. The five options that they asked were used for motorway navigation were : Experience; Junction Numbers; Satnavs; Maps; Advice. No mention of destination/road numbers, which is my second after experience, and what I use on signage. I never think of junction numbers, despite actually having met the MoT official from long ago who actually thought them up (there are posts from me here about how they happened).

[FosseWay]

Of course, I'm open to the possibility that this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. My personal experience, in both the UK and Sweden, is that people choosing to leave motorways at the very last moment from lanes other than L1, thus cutting people up and causing accidents or near misses, is quite a widespread issue.

I don't have that opinion. It seems rare, when it does happen things are generally light traffic and free-flowing, and I've never seen an accident result. More common seems to be indecisiveness at the last second about which way to go.

As I say, I'm happy to accept that it's less of a problem than it at first appears to me, but I don't think those examples that do occur - i.e. of people dashing from L2 to the slip road - are the result of indecisiveness. If you're not sure whether you need to leave the motorway, you'll surely be in L1. If you are too busy having to be in front to notice your junction is 50m in front of you and closing fast, that's not indecisiveness - it's arrogance and lack of observation, as I said.

Evidently other countries do (think they) have a problem with this, otherwise they wouldn't have the solid lines between L1 and L2. That said, many other countries have markedly inferior road engineering to that of the UK, with shorter slip roads, too much weaving in too short a distance, and very tight curves that make joining the mainline at anything like the prevailing speed impossible unless you're in a Ferrari.