Comments on: Are Roadside Memorials a Hazard?

By: Laurens de Jong

Laurens de Jong — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 12:28:53 +0000

Did you read the article in the July 2009 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention? “Drivers’ perceptions and reactions to roadside memorials”

Abstract:

Despite their growing popularity in North America, little research has been conducted on understanding the effects of roadside memorials on drivers’ behaviour. In this study, an online survey of 810 drivers found that public opinions on the policy options as well as drivers’ self-reported reactions to the presence of roadside memorials were fairly divided. In addition, an on-road experiment was conducted to examine the short term effects of roadside memorials at two intersections. Our results showed that the number of red light violations was reduced by 16.7% in the 6 weeks after the installation of the mock memorials compared to the 6 weeks before whereas the number of violations at two comparison sites experienced an increase of 16.8%.

By: mikey2gorgeous

mikey2gorgeous — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:40:46 +0000

We have an interesting dilemma in the UK - “Ghost Bikes” have started appearing at sites where a cyclists was killed (they are painted white & chained up at the accident site). While bringing the deaths to the attention of drivers is undoubtedly a good thing, it re-inforces the ‘culture of fear’ that we are suffering from here.

The single most effective thing we can do to increase cyclist safety in the UK at the moment is to get more people cycling to increase the ’safety in numbers’ effect (until proper funding & action comes from government). These ghost memorials surely work against this?

By: Mark Young

Mark Young — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:04:13 +0000

I’m not sure about memorials specifically, but there are wider concerns on external-to-vehicle driver distractions - the most obvious one being billboard advertising. We published a paper recently in Transportation Research Part F indicating a detrimental effect on driver attention and lane-keeping performance. But the argument is always, “well, what about things like memorials, monuments, or even just attractive scenery?”

I don’t really have an answer to that, except that billboards are specifically designed to distract, and are a ‘voluntary’ distraction we can cut down on. Coming back to memorials, I can well believe the emotion-induced blindness theory - being made to think about a fatality risk can ironically lead to an internal distraction as the driver muses on the tragedy. And distractors inside our own head are just as bad as those in the real world.

By: Fritz

Fritz — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:44:47 +0000

Some good observations and questions, but I take issue with the idea that “people walking their dogs” don’t encourage safer driving. If there are more people on the side of the road on a regular basis, people drive more slowly and more carefully.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:43:55 +0000

The math behind this question is incredibly simple. Select any of the many stretches of road around the world that are sites of frequent accidents. If descansos are not a hazard, then the time distribution of accidents will look like a Poisson process. If they are a hazard, they will be bunched around the presence of a descanso.

It’s of course an issue too fraught to be examined objectively. In New Mexico, the birthplace of this custom, the memorials literally are part of the indigenous religion.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:26:18 +0000

70 kph is actually more like 43.4 mph, which is still high for a residential area. I don’t see the need for speed limits above 35 mph in residential areas, and prefer 30 or 25. [What I really wish is that drivers would treat the speed limit as the UPPER limit, not the lower limit.]