<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Deliberately reducing visibility at road junctions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/</link>
	<description>Design and human behaviour</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:34:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Brown</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-478354</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 03:16:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-478354</guid>
		<description>This discussion has a long history. This is cut and pasted from a Smithsonian Magazine article:

Soon after the first gasoline-powered horseless carriages appeared on English roadways, the secretary of the national Motor Union of Great Britain and Ireland suggested that all those who owned property along the kingdom&#039;s roadways trim their hedges to make it easier for drivers to see. In response, a retired army colonel named Willoughby Verner fired off a letter to the editor of the Times of London, which printed it on July 13, 1908. &quot;Before any of your readers may be induced to cut their hedges as suggested by the secretary of the Motor Union they may like to know my experience of having done so,&quot; Verner wrote. &quot;Four years ago I cut down the hedges and shrubs to a height of 4ft for 30 yards back from the dangerous crossing in this hamlet. The results were twofold: the following summer my garden was smothered with dust caused by fast-driven cars, and the average pace of the passing cars was considerably increased. This was bad enough, but when the culprits secured by the police pleaded that ‘it was perfectly safe to go fast&#039; because ‘they could see well at the corner,&#039; I realised that I had made a mistake.&quot; He added that he had since let his hedges and shrubs grow back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This discussion has a long history. This is cut and pasted from a Smithsonian Magazine article:</p>
<p>Soon after the first gasoline-powered horseless carriages appeared on English roadways, the secretary of the national Motor Union of Great Britain and Ireland suggested that all those who owned property along the kingdom&#8217;s roadways trim their hedges to make it easier for drivers to see. In response, a retired army colonel named Willoughby Verner fired off a letter to the editor of the Times of London, which printed it on July 13, 1908. &#8220;Before any of your readers may be induced to cut their hedges as suggested by the secretary of the Motor Union they may like to know my experience of having done so,&#8221; Verner wrote. &#8220;Four years ago I cut down the hedges and shrubs to a height of 4ft for 30 yards back from the dangerous crossing in this hamlet. The results were twofold: the following summer my garden was smothered with dust caused by fast-driven cars, and the average pace of the passing cars was considerably increased. This was bad enough, but when the culprits secured by the police pleaded that ‘it was perfectly safe to go fast&#8217; because ‘they could see well at the corner,&#8217; I realised that I had made a mistake.&#8221; He added that he had since let his hedges and shrubs grow back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Brown</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-478352</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 03:04:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-478352</guid>
		<description>The reduction of visibility might be very valuable at some dangerous junctions, but needs to be assessed on a case by case basis, where a need exists. It is nonsense to put it in everywhere.

I know of one case, which was New Zealand&#039;s worst accident hotspot until the introduction of shade cloth eliminated all fatal accidents. Follow-up research found that most drivers didn&#039;t even notice that it was there (even those who had previously used the junction). Those that did notice did not find it to be unacceptable.

One might indeed design a road to have less visibility (including blind turns as mentioned) or narrower carriageway, etc. depending on one&#039;s objectives. Again, this could be done well or badly and is location specific.

The thing to remember is that some roads should be designed for rapid motor vehicle transit and others for less rapid multi-mode use (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.). And the road environment itself should communicate its purpose and form of use (not signs). I would say that reduced visibility is often accepted whereas speed bumps, speed cameras, unnaturally low speed limits (where the road seems to afford safe travel at a faster speed) and so on can cause significant stress and resentment. One feels pretty unhappy driving at 30mph on the motorway, but it can feel enjoyable to do 20mph in a narrow rural lane with hedgerows.

Follow-up search: self-explaining roads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reduction of visibility might be very valuable at some dangerous junctions, but needs to be assessed on a case by case basis, where a need exists. It is nonsense to put it in everywhere.</p>
<p>I know of one case, which was New Zealand&#8217;s worst accident hotspot until the introduction of shade cloth eliminated all fatal accidents. Follow-up research found that most drivers didn&#8217;t even notice that it was there (even those who had previously used the junction). Those that did notice did not find it to be unacceptable.</p>
<p>One might indeed design a road to have less visibility (including blind turns as mentioned) or narrower carriageway, etc. depending on one&#8217;s objectives. Again, this could be done well or badly and is location specific.</p>
<p>The thing to remember is that some roads should be designed for rapid motor vehicle transit and others for less rapid multi-mode use (pedestrians, cyclists, etc.). And the road environment itself should communicate its purpose and form of use (not signs). I would say that reduced visibility is often accepted whereas speed bumps, speed cameras, unnaturally low speed limits (where the road seems to afford safe travel at a faster speed) and so on can cause significant stress and resentment. One feels pretty unhappy driving at 30mph on the motorway, but it can feel enjoyable to do 20mph in a narrow rural lane with hedgerows.</p>
<p>Follow-up search: self-explaining roads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david andersen</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-414891</link>
		<dc:creator>david andersen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:39:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-414891</guid>
		<description>Can anyone help.?

Near where I live there is dangerous country T -junction (already caused a serious accident)

One of the problems is that the landowner has put up a greene fence which causes im paired visibilty.
The county council have tried to take it down but say the landowner is insisting it stays.
Surely safety must rule in these situations.
THis fence has to be in violation of some kind of  planning ?
THis is an urgent appeal for any advice.
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can anyone help.?</p>
<p>Near where I live there is dangerous country T -junction (already caused a serious accident)</p>
<p>One of the problems is that the landowner has put up a greene fence which causes im paired visibilty.<br />
The county council have tried to take it down but say the landowner is insisting it stays.<br />
Surely safety must rule in these situations.<br />
THis fence has to be in violation of some kind of  planning ?<br />
THis is an urgent appeal for any advice.<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Unintended effects: blue lights vs heroin &#171; Shakeout&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-366911</link>
		<dc:creator>Unintended effects: blue lights vs heroin &#171; Shakeout&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:04:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-366911</guid>
		<description>[...] be done wrongly - maybe multiple times? This is perhaps a similar argument to that surrounding delibrately reducing visibility at junctions: the architecture of control makes it more dangerous for the few users (and those [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] be done wrongly &#8211; maybe multiple times? This is perhaps a similar argument to that surrounding delibrately reducing visibility at junctions: the architecture of control makes it more dangerous for the few users (and those [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Some more architectures of control for traffic management at fulminate // Architectures of Control</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-64057</link>
		<dc:creator>Some more architectures of control for traffic management at fulminate // Architectures of Control</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2007 18:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-64057</guid>
		<description>[...] Many of the &#8216;built environment&#8217; examples discussed here over the last year-and-a-bit have been intended to control (or &#8220;manage&#8221;) traffic in some way, e.g to slow drivers down, force them to take an alternative route, or force them to stop. I thought it would be worth mentioning a couple of other methods, the rationales behind them, and some of the problems: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Many of the &#8216;built environment&#8217; examples discussed here over the last year-and-a-bit have been intended to control (or &#8220;manage&#8221;) traffic in some way, e.g to slow drivers down, force them to take an alternative route, or force them to stop. I thought it would be worth mentioning a couple of other methods, the rationales behind them, and some of the problems: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Architectures of Control in Design &#187; A vein attempt?</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-12508</link>
		<dc:creator>Architectures of Control in Design &#187; A vein attempt?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:13:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-12508</guid>
		<description>[...] So the blue lighting &#8216;works&#8217;, but is it really a good idea to increase the risk that an injection will be done wrongly - maybe multiple times? This is perhaps a similar argument to that surrounding delibrately reducing visibility at junctions: the architecture of control makes it more dangerous for the few users (and those their actions affect) who ignore or bypass the control. This seems to be an architecture of control with the potential to endanger life, although the actual stated intention behind it probably includes &#8217;saving lives&#8217;. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] So the blue lighting &#8216;works&#8217;, but is it really a good idea to increase the risk that an injection will be done wrongly &#8211; maybe multiple times? This is perhaps a similar argument to that surrounding delibrately reducing visibility at junctions: the architecture of control makes it more dangerous for the few users (and those their actions affect) who ignore or bypass the control. This seems to be an architecture of control with the potential to endanger life, although the actual stated intention behind it probably includes &#8217;saving lives&#8217;. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Architectures of Control in Design &#187; Using trees to encourage safer driving</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-10641</link>
		<dc:creator>Architectures of Control in Design &#187; Using trees to encourage safer driving</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:47:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-10641</guid>
		<description>[...] Why are these techniques so much better than this kind of thing? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why are these techniques so much better than this kind of thing? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Architectures of Control in Design &#187; Speed control designed to help the user</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-9783</link>
		<dc:creator>Architectures of Control in Design &#187; Speed control designed to help the user</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-9783</guid>
		<description>[...] Note how this is a somewhat different practice to deliberately reducing visibility at junctions: using a bend to slow down a rider before an obstacle does not impede riders who are already travelling at a lower speed, while it makes the higher-speed riders slow down and hence keeps them safe, whereas wilfully removing sightlines at roundabouts would seem in many cases to work to the detriment of drivers who like to assess the road ahead well before the junction, and force all to stop instead.  Please share this!These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Note how this is a somewhat different practice to deliberately reducing visibility at junctions: using a bend to slow down a rider before an obstacle does not impede riders who are already travelling at a lower speed, while it makes the higher-speed riders slow down and hence keeps them safe, whereas wilfully removing sightlines at roundabouts would seem in many cases to work to the detriment of drivers who like to assess the road ahead well before the junction, and force all to stop instead.  Please share this!These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marble</title>
		<link>http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2006/09/14/deliberately-reducing-visibility-at-road-junctions/comment-page-1/#comment-8890</link>
		<dc:creator>marble</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Sep 2006 06:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/?p=116#comment-8890</guid>
		<description>I notice this at roundabouts here in Austin, Texas, that were added to my neighborhood in recent years. They are planted with various lovely bushed that impede viewing of oncoming traffic, and rather annoyed me. Your post makes me understand the rationale.

I did notice that at least one of these has had its plants razed to a height of about one foot. Whether the city did this (perhaps under the influence of the local neighborhood association?) or an annoyed vigilante with a lawnmower is anyone&#039;s guess. I&#039;m just glad they did it, and I hope to see more of the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I notice this at roundabouts here in Austin, Texas, that were added to my neighborhood in recent years. They are planted with various lovely bushed that impede viewing of oncoming traffic, and rather annoyed me. Your post makes me understand the rationale.</p>
<p>I did notice that at least one of these has had its plants razed to a height of about one foot. Whether the city did this (perhaps under the influence of the local neighborhood association?) or an annoyed vigilante with a lawnmower is anyone&#8217;s guess. I&#8217;m just glad they did it, and I hope to see more of the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

