It’s been discussed in some circles now that the way to make roads safer is to actually reduce the number of signs, passive safety measures and other street elements. Apparently, the idea is that we’re all so used to seeing various things on the road that we begin to ignore them and fall into a comfort zone. The Times has covered Camden’s ‘Naked Street’ here.
Interestingly, a lot of elements have been removed from the street including “bollards, bins, CCTV masts and street signs. Even the yellow lines and most white road markings” are to go. Perhaps though the most significant change will be the adaptation of the pavements, making them wider at the expense of the road, which will become single carriageway.
Apparently, the reason for the trial is down to 27 accidents occurring in the last 3 years involving pedestrians and cyclists. Is it just me, or is removing crash barriers and other passive safety measures designed to keep pedestrians safe going to result in more accidents? The fact is, if there are no designated crossing points for pedestrians, I can certainly see more serious accidents taking place. The suggestion of getting eye contact with the driver to establish right of way is not an especially helpful one as it seems to almost make the presumption that you can now cross safely.
A very valid argument is made within the article concerning the blind and others with disabilities – this could actually raise their level of risk rather than reduce it. Furthermore, it’s horrifying but I can envisage a car driver perhaps turning into the street too fast and losing control of their vehicle. No crash barriers could mean more pedestrian injuries.
If I were looking at making any given road safer, I would insist on looking at the report of each of the 27 accidents that had taken place and looking for commonalities. Accidents do happen but gaining insight into why and the cause is much more valuable than trialling a scheme that could potentially raise the number!
Leave a Reply