Is intermittent marking necessary?

A broken line divides the road and allows overtaking on both sides. Is she not needed?

One of the first people who came up with the idea of ​​separating oncoming traffic with a lane was Edward Hynes in 1911. The Michigan Department of Transportation (Edward worked there) called such a lane a center line. Later, a solid line in almost all countries will not only separate traffic lanes, but also prohibit overtaking on both sides. But if you think about it, then different cars have different visibility conditions. This means that even in a place where overtaking is prohibited, a car with better visibility can better assess the situation on the road and be able to make a decision. Unlike a car with a low seating position, when the markings may allow it to overtake, but there is no visibility condition.

I suggest, remove intermittent markings, and allow overtaking on a continuous lane. In fact, I shift the responsibility for this move to the driver, I give him subjectivity.

What else is subjectivity?

There is a trend of decreasing subjectivity in the world. For example, the Netherlands has eliminated overtaking on 95% of its main single carriageway road network. Statistics up to 1990 showed that many fatal accidents in the Netherlands were due to unsafe overtaking when the speed of oncoming traffic was underestimated. In the 1990s, a new road design called “Duurzaam Veilig” was introduced. This vision shifts the responsibility for road safety from road users to road designers. Supporters of the Duurzaam Veilig project note that it has been able to improve safety as the number of fatal accidents has dropped dramatically since the Duurzaam Veilig project was rolled out in the Netherlands.

In fact, seeing that the cause of most accidents was an incorrect assessment of the situation on the road by drivers, they began to create conditions when the driver makes less decisions, i.e. take subjectivity away from him. Interestingly, the question of the subjectivity of the driver has not yet been studied. After all, it is obvious that it is not scary that the driver will make an independent decision, but the bad thing is that it is not coordinated with the decision of another participant. And it is the ambiguity of understanding what is happening that leads to errors. Then it would be logical to direct efforts to reduce ambiguity! For example, it is obvious to everyone that the turn signal displays intentions. This is part of the peculiar language of drivers. The more developed this language, the more subjectivity. For you can do exactly as much as other participants in the movement allow you to do. And they can give their consent only in the language, and today it is very poor. After all, many people do not even know that the turn signal to the right means “do not overtake!”. What can we say about complex gestures. Instead, we see how the driver is prohibited from overtaking where he has all the conditions for it. Thought I asked, I think in the future there will be a continuation.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply