Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Advertisement

Top bloggers

Advertisement

Thu
Apr 03 2008

Motorway madness gets scary

Mike Duff

Speed limits cause endless debate – but it’s rare you see spectacular evidence as to why, sometimes, they can be a really bad idea.

That’s what happened to me late on Tuesday, travelling west on the M42 in one of the numerous roadworks zone that the imminent end of the financial year has brought about. Like an increasing number of zones in motorway work areas, it was guarded by average speed cameras. And, as always, traffic slowed to a constant 52 mph crawl.

Ahead of me a lorry rumbled along in the slow lane – or Lane 1 as we’re meant to refer to it. Adjacent to it, in the middle lane, sat a Fiat Punto that – for reasons best known to itself – was exactly matching the lorry’s speed and sitting in its blind spot.

As we approached a junction the inevitable happened. Another car appeared at the end of the truncated slip road, intent on merging with the flow. The result was no less alarming for its predictability. The HGV driver failed to realise he had a Fiat in his blindspot, the Fiat driver failed to notice the lorry’s indicators, the wagon pulled out and – after losing his door mirror, which almost took a chunk out of my Mondeo – the Punto pilot swerved right into the (mercifully vacant) fast lane.

Lessons? Better observation all-round. But no question in my mind – this was a potentially nasty smash caused in large part by the ridiculous notion that it is somehow safer to have three lanes of traffic travelling at exactly the same speed.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Mike Duff

The incoming editor of autocar.co.uk started life in radio news, but found doorstepping bereaved mothers too much like hard work and opted to scribble about cars instead. He joined Autocar in 2007 and reckons that big-engined diesels are the future.

Comments

NiallOswald April 3, 2008 1:37 PM

What solution do you propose then? If it has been decided that the speed limit needs to be reduced for roadworks safety (let's not get into whether any roadworks were actually taking place at the time, eh? ;) ), you can't really hope to enforce a different limit for each lane. Everyone would just try and cram into the fast lane, there'd be no way of policing it, it would never work.

In normal conditions, trucks are limited to a much lower speed than cars, so the 'window of danger' is much shorter. Under a 40 or 50 limit with average speed checks, everyone is going to be doing the same speed, more or less. There's not really any way around that.

Not just better observation needed, but better anticipation. The punto could have moved over to the outside lane having recognised that a junction was coming up and the lorry might need to pull over.

I tend to give lorries a wide berth where possible, having heard the horror stories of LHD lorry side-swipes and knowing that if there's one thing truckers love almost as much as blue LEDs and fried breakfasts, it's conserving momentum. Very often they indicate and pull out almost simultaneously, so anticpating when they're about to do this is very useful in avoiding dangerous situations.

JJBoxster April 3, 2008 3:49 PM

Mike Duff - good article.

NialOswald - There's 3 solutions. Solution 1 the Govt. stops waisting it's time and our money with the statistically ignorant/inaccurate 'speed kills' propoganda and gets on its moral high-horse about dangerous  driving (use mirrors before thinking about moving lane rather than moving and checking mirror at the same time like some devine right the outside lane is clear for you).

Solution 2. Enforce lane discipline, that outside lanes are for overtaking not for sitting your fat butt in - namely fastest drivers have right of way. Don't block lanes unneccesarily.

Solution 3. Remove speed limits, even at roadworks - they do not enforce safety, they do not make anything  safer, they do not represent more than a random throw of a dart at what is a safe speed.

Intellectual officianado and journalist LJK Setright noted alll nature responds to constriction of movement by 'speeding up, not slowing down'. That setting speed limits at road works that constrict lanes was contrary to natural flow.

I''ve read the Ministers speech to Road workers and it's all about speed limits, improving road safety for workers. Firstly there's no stats' to support workers dying in high numbers, secondly if there are accidents it's probably because road surface is poor and/or zig-zags are badly designed and thirdly if it is a problem design better safety barriers to protect road workers. That's if there is a problem which I don't believe there is.

phenergn April 3, 2008 4:07 PM

Why is a speed limit across all three lanes a ridiculous notion? The speed limit is the same in all three lanes under normal circumstances, it's only the speed limiters on trucks that stops this happening more in normal traffic. A different speed limit in each lane would be difficult to enforce and may lead to trucks just sitting in the middle lane. A seperate speed limit for trucks would be impossible to electronically enforce as radar can't differentiate a truck, and would make the drivers complain that they were being treated unfairly.

You can do what you like with speed limits, lane control and electronic limiters, but in the end there is no accounting for crap driving. This accident was caused by someone not paying attention.

loather April 3, 2008 4:50 PM

Tend to agree with the above commentors Mr Duff - was more an issue of observation rather than speed limit. Would also question do lorries have 'blind spots'? Surely over the years mirrors on all vehicles seem to have become bigger and bigger. Most modern HGVs(LGVs) seem to have multiple, large-surface, and probably peripheral(convex?) mirror combinations. Also, as all good drivers will realise there are sometimes when you've lost 'memory track' of the flow and only a deliberate turn of the head or even look back over the shoulder will do before safely manoeuvring.

What perhaps should be discussed more profitably, as JJ(Box) has mentioned above, is the sorry standard of driving on motorways generally and particularly the high incidence of accidents caused by foreign trucks/truckers. The police figures do I believe bear this out. Due to the price differential, still, of diesel in the UK and the continent and lower wages from eastern Europe and more flexible adherence to tacho-type laws shall we say, the UK is experiencing a massive growth of foreign trucking on its roads, mainly the motorway network.

NiallOswald April 3, 2008 8:13 PM

JJ - as nice an idea as it is, removing speed limits in this country, with the standard of driving I have seen displayed on our roads recently, would be asking for trouble. The last thing these people need is more 1/2mv^2 when they screw up.

I'm not sure you can really apply bernoulli's principle to traffic flow either. Are you really suggesting that when the motorway goes down to 1 lane, the speed limit should be 210mph? (I jest - no-one could be so foolish ;) ).

Re: your solution 2. With so many lorries, dropping back into the inside lane between lorries can be troublesome if the gap between them is relatively short and it's busy. It's very easy to end up trapped in the inside lane at lorry-speed as faster traffic (doing 80-90) fills the middle lane. If the motorway limit for cars was increased to 80 or 100, for example, things would be even more difficult.

Perhaps restrict lorries to the inside lane, raise the limit for cars in the outside two and expect most cars to stay in those lanes? Enforcement would be the problem though.

I tend to stick close to the limit (70-75) on the m'way, since as a young driver I'd be royally screwed by 3 points on my license, but I'm buggered if I'm getting stuck behind a lorry at 56 just because Mr German Executive-Car wants to do 85 in the middle lane...so I will sit in the middle lane if the gap between lorries is short enough. I'm also not going to drive faster than I feel is sensible just to avoid annoying other drivers...so shoot me.

Rant over, everyone who's pointed out that driving standards are the real problem has a very good point.

P.S. - I have nothing against those who drive german executive cars per se, it's just that on a recent trip along the M4/M3 in the Friday rush-hour, they were responsible for much of the bad driving I saw...could just be that *everyone* in/near London has one ;)

JJBoxster April 4, 2008 12:30 AM

Phenergn - a speed limit for 2 or all 3 lanes is 'rediculous' for the same reason that a speed limit for all vehicles and drivers is rediculous;

Firstly all vehicles and drivers have different speed/safety limits.

Secondly a speed limit does not represent a safety limit.

Thirdly speed is safe - there are no links between speed and safety except that slower drivers tend to be the worst (and have considerably more accidents than faster drivers).

Finally safety is not an issue. The accident rate is minute (3 per Million Kilometers) as people are safe - as Mike Duff points out an accident (minor property damage) occured but despite the stupidity of the car pulling out in front of the lorry, the lorry not seeing the Fiat Punto in his blind spot and the astute avoiding actions of the Fiat driver, an actual accident (human damage) did not occur because humans avoid accidents and damaging  each other.  

JJBoxster April 4, 2008 12:42 AM

Loather - I agree bad driving is an issue to be addressed to reduce further the 99% of accidents that occur that are not speed related on motorways.

However Germany has considerably more foreign HGV's on its roads than the UK by a large margin because it is a crossing point for all the major European countries and Easter Europe. While foreign lorries probably do have a slightly/marginal higher accident rate per Million Kilometers than local HGV's p.m.k somehow I doubt it makes much difference (at least not as much as the UK police purport).

The Labour government has a plan to put black boxes in all our cars to control, monitor movement and speed and restrict and deny our freedom of movement. The thin end of the wedge (step 1 in their deceptive Big Brother plan) is to target foreign lorries for the black boxes who would 'hire' the boxes on entry at UK ports.

Step 2 will probably be UK lorries or vans and step 3 will be 'us'.

JJBoxster April 4, 2008 1:07 AM

NiallOswald - Many many posters say the standard of driving in this country is abismal but the UK has actually the best accident rate for both Europe and America. It is marginal because ever countries accident rates are almost identical at around 3 per 1 Million kilometers. I can only assume either the British once again are putting themselves down (as we did our car industry or anyone that achieves anything remotely worthwhile) or there's something other at work in our heads!

I'm not sure what it is!! Are we so safety conscious or paranoid that we notice every little danger and turn a molehill into a mountainous event? F** knows!!

Removing speed limits is not "asking for trouble". It's asking for reason, logic, intelligence and facts to control motoring decisions rather than ignorance, control, fear of freedom and scare stories. Speed has no link with safety. Removing speed limits does not effect safety because 99% of motorway accidents are not speed related.

So regarding your "1 lane, the speed limit should be 210mph?" comment if a guy in a Bugatti feels it's safe to do 70mph, 120mph or 210mph in a single lane then that's ok with me. Nobody is a better judge of a safe speed limit than the person driving the car as apposed to some Govt geek watching a lane with spy camera and setting a random limit for lorries and BMW's and Bugattis. Bugatti driver gets my nod every time.

2. I agree, lorry hopping is hard when there's so many lorries. I've thought long and hard about this over the years. My only solution is speeding up the lorries or making all motorways 4 laners - 2 for all commercial vehicles (inc. motorhomes/caravans) and all lanes available for cars.

No problem with your other comments. You should stick to a speed you feel safe with and not speed up under a tail-gater... but do move over soon as you can - it's only 2" on the wheel to shimmy over and allow everybody to move along happily at their own speed. He'll probably do the same for you after the lottery win and you've got the Lambo!

jerry99 April 4, 2008 12:38 PM

The 50 mph speed limit has been introduced because of the high accident rate to those who work on motorway road works. Although the near miss described related to two vehicles the frequency of similar inattention leading to contact between moving vehicles and workmen is too high and therefore the only solution has been to enforce a lower speed limit for all vehicles at roadworks.

The lack of formal driver training for motorwyas means that many appear blisfully unaware of the risks of driving in the manner desribed.

NiallOswald April 4, 2008 1:30 PM

JJ - do you not think a lot people's egos would get the better of them? Your ideas basically rely on drivers being an accurate judge of their own ability, which, I think it is fair to say, most drivers aren't (though many think they are). Especially drivers in my demographic group!

You say speed doesn't kill. In itself, this is true. The problem is, when something goes wrong, speed has a massive impact. Probability of occupant death increases with the fourth power of speed (i.e. double the speed = 16x the probability of death). Assuming people did not change their driving habits, and had the same number and type of crashes, you'd expect fatality rates to increase with an increase in average speed.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting we go down the route of total risk aversion in the slightest. However, if you're even going to think about increasing speed limits, something would have to be done to reduce the number of avoidable accidents - i.e. improving driver training. How many people really know how to overtake safely for example - it's not taught in the driving test, many people are reluctant to overtake and a lot of those who do, do so dangerously in my experience.

The motorway death rate in the UK is actually 2 per billion (10^9) km. Where is your figure from? This is the death rate, not the number of accidents. I'd be very interested to know how many accidents of all severity actually occur as this might give a far clearer view of driving standards. Perhaps the insurance industry have such data available.

roccotastic April 7, 2008 12:56 PM

I agree with Niall here. Bad driving aside, it stands to reason that when things go wrong your reaction rate is less effective and the more damage can be made the faster you are going. One+ metric tonnes of metal, plastic and glass doing e.g. 56mph is going to slow down quicker or avoid stuff more easily than the same doing 80mph.

A lot of paranoid people posting here seem to think speed limitation is some kind of big brother/nanny state thing. I'm not very happy about speed cameras or black boxes myself, but surely speed limits are just common sense? Why on earth do you need to go faster? Because you can? If you boy racers want to show off how expensive your car is and how much gas it guzzles, get down to your day-race track and do it.

I'd be happy to 'crawl' along at 56-60mph and burn 20% less petrol than if I was maxing out the speed limit everywhere I went, and feel a lot safer doing it.

Er... having said that I did test out my old Sciroccos top-end and hit 110mph on an empty stretch of the M1 last year ;)

edeath April 7, 2008 2:31 PM

We have to remember guys that the 70mph speed limit was set as that was the fastest speed a car could go at the time (or is that just urban legend?) and was supposed to temporary, but hasnt been revised since (cost?)

Also JJ the foriegn lorry point is due to the fact they are left hand drive in england rather than a foriegn national. Therefore the fact they have more in Germany is not the point really as they are driving on the side of the road their vehicule was designed for and the driver is used to.

JJBoxster April 18, 2008 12:58 AM

Niall - I've posted in the "Autobahn.." topic the findings from Montana where due to legal cases there was no speed limits for 4 years. The death rate dropped. There was no "egos" with unrestricted speed limits.

Time after time studies show clearly death rates improve, marginally, when speed limits are raised or removed. Time after time studies show lowering speed limits increase death rates.

It's hard to fathom and sound illogical (speed up = more deaths). But logic and fact is not the same as your fears or supposition.

My 'suggestion' is that increasing speed increases concentration and awareness levels, even amongst the slower drivers, through a perceived increased risk factor. Everybody becomes more alert because speeds are slightly faster.

One of the major factors in accidents is boredom brought on by trundling along like watching paint dry. Like it or not until you understand driver behaviour you will never understand how to improve safety.

And while the Government concentrates on speed (cameras and setting limits) as a panacea they will never understand and therefore never be able to see the real problems (which are 99% not speed related).  

JJBoxster April 18, 2008 1:06 AM

Roccotastic - when you do 110mph you are wide awake. When you do 50mph you are close to a coma. Which state would you prefer to be in? Which state of mind makes you a safer driver?

It's very easy to say speed shortens reaction time and increases impact levels (damage). But the accident stats' do not bear this out.

The accident rates demonstrate time after time increasing speed reduces accidents/deaths. I suggest (its onle a theory) that's because concentrations levels and awareness is improved.

JJBoxster April 18, 2008 1:13 AM

Edeath - the speed limit wasn't set at the fastest speed a car could do. It was set in 1965 after an MP raised the issue of an AC Cobra doing 120mph 'testing' along the M1.

Regards foreign lorries being LHD in a RHD country in my experience it makes little difference. I've alot of experience at swapping between LHD and RHD and even in my early learning years the only safety issue was turning at junctions and making sure I entered the correct lane rather than go up the lane coming my way!

This is a mute point on a motorway. Motorways are the easiest of all roads to drive on. We're all going thatta way >>>>>>>>>>

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - Autocar Cover 8 Oct 2008

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>