Our Thinking: Nanny State or our own responsibility?

By Michèl Verheem, Partner ID-LAB Global

As a motorcyclist, one of the things that stuck in my memory from my trip to Vietnam a few years ago, was how many motorbikes there were. More amazing was how the drivers negotiated traffic. What seemed like total chaos at the beginning, turned out to be a well-oiled system.

Anybody with a ‘western’ driver education would get in trouble here, expecting road users to stick to their side of the road or give way to the right or left.

So why does it work then? I think the answer is simple: Vietnamese drivers understand and appreciate other users on the road. There is very little ‘I am right – you are wrong’ or ‘I am stronger / bigger /more aggressive / faster / flashier / younger / older / etcetera than you, and therefore I have the right of way’ going on there. Everyone slows down to a speed that lets other road users get on their way.

How different is this from our western environments! There are so many traffic signs for behaviour that really could be resolved by applying common sense or already existing rules.

What about this one:

Give Way in Miller Street, Fitzroy North, Melbourne

This photo was taken in a secondary, build-up, suburban street. In Melbourne, the maximum speed here is 50km/h. 

These ‘slow-down’ points allow for one car passing, emphasising the fact that one is meant to slow down here.  The urban street design also says ‘SLOW’; one of the drivers drives straight, and the other one has to move slightly into the oncoming lane.

Would I speed up to ‘beat’ the car coming from the other side? No, I would not. Would you?

Or would you judge the situation, and then sort out between you and the other driver who goes first?

Maybe you’d think: “I went first the last time, now let them go first”.  And if the other one seems to apply to the ‘I am stronger / bigger /more aggressive / faster / flashier / younger / older / etcetera than you, and therefore I have the right of way’ category, perhaps they should go first then….

This is another one: Taken on the Capital City Trail, one of the main cycling routes through Melbourne.

Clearly a cycle path, with no cars. So, ‘authorised’ (?) maintenance vehicles use this path.

What does this sign mean then?

Are they wanting the cyclist now to take responsibility about being safe? Would the cyclist without that sign demand to cycle through / across / over the maintenance vehicle, because it is on their path?

Or should the maintenance crew make sure they create a safe environment when they enter the cyclists’ space? And perhaps both groups can work that out between themselves. I promise I will not shout at the maintenance crew when they are on the cycle path, and I trust they will look out for me when they are working there.

And finally, this one: A train track crossing on the shared foot/cycle path that leads to the park from where I live.

First, I got a bit confused because of the ‘No Entry’ sign on the gate on the left, which seems to be only applicable for the little caged area on the left.

The environment clearly said ‘this is a path’ (being a continuation of that foot/bike path and all…). So I had to look out for trains? Thanks for reminding me, I am well known for intentionally getting into life-threatening situations! And I cannot cycle across? Why not, would that not get me to safety faster than walking? In fact, how many people would actually get off their bikes and walk?  I think I know the answer to that. Zero. Non. Nill. 

This type of signage is not to create a safe environment. It is not to change behaviour for the better. It is to cover the backside of the authority putting those signs up. “Look”, they can say, “we told you!” 

I would love to hear from our blog readers what you think about this sort of signage, and perhaps you have some interesting examples of nanny signage to show? And is there anything we can do about this #StupidSigns proliferation?