60 mph speed limit for M1

[sussex2]

Here is the reply from the local police to enquiries about the number and type of collisions on the A27:
I have borrowed it from the local forum on www.shorehambysea.com (Speed on the bypass thread).

I have spoken with the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership today about the number of collisions on the westbound approach to the tunnel. You asked exactly where the collisions were occurring, so I have attached a map showing the location of all injury collisions near the tunnel over the past 3 years. Looking closer at the data, the majority of the collisions are on the westbound approach, and they are: single vehicle; loss of control whilst negotiating the left hand bend; on a wet road; whilst travelling too fast for the conditions.

The road is the responsibility of the Highways Agency, and I have read a report dated June 2010 where they have previously looked at the causes of collisions on the westbound approach. The Highways Agency stated that there was no problem with the road surface, no issue with drainage, and that the predominant cause of collisions was travelling too fast for the conditions at the time (Not exceeding the speed limit). There is also a changing gradient and lack of forward visibility due to the curvature of the road, which may be a contributing factor.

I have highlighted this location again to the appropriate authorities, and informed them that the community (you) are quite rightly concerned about the number of injury collisions happening there. They have reassured me that this location is currently being looked at, and a number of improvements are being considered to help reduce injury collisions. They have previously looked at realignment of the road, however this would involve major work, large cost, and a long period of disruption and delays. One feasible possibility is for the installation of a weather dependent, vehicle activated, warning sign on the westbound approach. There is currently no proposal to lower the speed limit. There are not going to be any quick fixes to this, but I am hopeful that something can be done in the long-term.

If you have any further questions, I will do my best to answer them for you.

[sussex2]

Thanks for that. Most interesting.

So, nothing to do with the tunnel then. And nothing really to do with the road either. The LH bend on the approach is not sharp, the gradient is not steep and the road surface is good. Lack of forward visibility? Really? OK, so the google street view is slightly misleading due to the height of the camera but... Really?

Anyone who knows this road will also know that there is nothing remotely difficult about driving along it, even at night, in the rain. Countless others seem to manage it without incident every day. In fact, I would argue that driving westbound across the Adur flyover (a few miles after the tunnel) on a windy day requires far more attention and ability from the driver. I have seen more that one people carrier moved sideways into the next lane by gusts of wind there.

The fact that people crash whilst driving too fast for the conditions is nothing unusual and I am, at least, glad that there are no knee-jerk or "we must do *something*" plans in the pipeline.

Given the local MP is now involved your last sentiments are dubious to say the least

[TripleS]

The last time I drove on the M1 there wasn't much chance of even reaching 60 it was so congested.

Whenever I travel back up to Swindon to visit family (A38, M5 & M4) I just set the cruise control to 60. This has made a huge difference to my fuel consumption - 68.8mpg on my last trip. I was pleased with that for an 8yo 1.9 diesel Jetta.

Well now, that is a splendid performace, but you've now made me slightly envious.

My most pleasing result was a 67.3 mpg average last April, on a trip back from Grasmere to Scarborough through the Yorkshire dales. That was with a 13 year old Pug. 406 HDi. Pah, an 8 year old car is nobbut a youngster.

Incidentally, the fuel level was very low at the start of that trip, so I refuelled at Ambleside (BP normal diesel) and it appeared to give better than normal economy. I've recently been trying to stick with BP, Esso and Shell, and although I haven't attempted to carry out any precise tests, they do seem to have been best for economy.

Now, where's that fellow with the 616 bhp Merc. - or whatever it was? Hehe, it's a different world, innit?

Come to think of it though (he said wistfully), it would be nice to be able to accelerate once in a while.

Edit: Apologies, that really has little to do with the topic. It's all Nigel's fault, though.

[waremark]

Now, where's that fellow with the 616 bhp Merc. - or whatever it was? Hehe, it's a different world, innit?

That would be a McLaren (not mine) - and while not in the 60 plus mpg club, really quite economical for a supercar.

[ExadiNigel]

Typical. I return to the forum and immediately get given the blame for someone else's meanderings! :-/

I remember one of the RoSPA trainers (John Cave) commenting on a high mpg figure in his Porsche.

[michael769]

I just got the following email from the Highways Agency

The Highways Agency previously consulted on proposals to limit speeds to 60mph between 7am and 7pm seven days a week because of the potential effect of the new schemes on local air quality. However, the Transport Secretary has rejected this approach as the Government’s preferred option and has asked the Highways Agency to rigorously investigate alternatives as work progresses on the schemes in the next 12-18 months. If any proposals continue to include varying speed limits, they must only apply when absolutely necessary. In particular, the Agency must look for alternatives that maintain the 70mph limit wherever possible, particularly when traffic tends to be lighter, such as at weekends and outside of peak commuting hours.

A summary of the consultation response: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ponses.pdf

[Kimosabe]

I know it doesn't necessarily follow, but I think it's very likely to follow. I'd be much more surprised if most collisions did not involve locals/regular users. My point is just that that statement attributed to the police seems rather glib and unhelpful from a stating the bleedin' obvious point of view (not to mention the what does it matter where they come from point of view).

On that, I think we can agree.

The latest tunnel accident (Wednesday) brought out yet more "ooh it's so dangerous" comments.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10939534.A27_Brighton_bypass_is_a__safety_risk__says_MP_after_latest_Southwick_Tunnel_crash/?ref=mr

No doubt there will be a very expensive investigation that takes thousands of man hours that will eventually come up with a recommendation that the only answer is to reduce the speed limit. Then, if they do it there, it will only be a matter of time before it is extended to cover the junction from the A270 at the Holmbush Roundabout, the Adur Flyover and the Sussex Pad crossroads (that sussex2 mentioned) to join up with the 40 limit at the Lancing Manor Roundabout.

It's 30mph before, during and immediately after the Cuilfail Tunnel, Lewes. Heading towards the A27 after leaving the tunnel, the road becomes a 60mph NSL upto the A27, though that is rarely achievable due to traffic, a junction and people not knowing what an NSL sign is. It's also single lane each way, with a river along one side and cliffs along the other.

As the Brighton Bypass tunnel West is A27 NSL 70mph before, during and after, why not reduce the managed speed to 50mph or 60mph heading downhill (West) just to slow things down a little and to engage drivers with some supportive activity at that point?

Heading West just before the A27 tunnel, the road kinks just enough to cause some additional steering (left) and this means that there isn't a straight entry into the tunnel, as opposed to the sweeping, long right hand bend going East. It also means that vehicles become unbalanced at the very point they need to be balanced. I've seen more near misses just before the West tunnel than after it but the Police always sit in the layby after the tunnel heading East. Due to the Eastward incline, the traffic generally separates into slower/faster lanes fairly soon after the tunnel and the road offers good views ahead for some way.

Just one more thing. For me, the slip road onto the A27 West before the tunnel is a possible reason for how the A27(E) traffic becomes shuffled, to allow for joining traffic and perhaps it takes it until the tunnel to permit slower vehicles who gave way to joining traffic, to rejoin L1 after the slip? This could be why some drivers are still trying to overtake before and during the West tunnel and a viable reason for slowing everything down before the joining slip road? I'm not entirely convinced that controlling some areas is necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's not continually Greenwashed and extended.

Another option would be to remove the tunnel completely and to make the area a massive Falmer (near Lewes) style gash but I don't think the orchids and rabbits...sorry, Green party hippies, would agree.

PS. Surely the optimal place to measure pollution would be inside the tunnel and not from the top of a nearby hill outside it? Or am I being fick?

[Horse]

I know it doesn't necessarily follow, but I think it's very likely to follow. I'd be much more surprised if most collisions did not involve locals/regular users.

The latest tunnel accident (Wednesday) brought out yet more "ooh it's so dangerous" comments.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/10939534.A27_Brighton_bypass_is_a__safety_risk__says_MP_after_latest_Southwick_Tunnel_crash/?ref=mr

No doubt there will be a very expensive investigation that takes thousands of man hours that will eventually come up with a recommendation that the only answer is to reduce the speed limit.

It's 30mph before, during and immediately after the Cuilfail Tunnel, Lewes. Heading towards the A27 after leaving the tunnel, the road becomes a 60mph NSL upto the A27, though that is rarely achievable due to traffic, a junction and people not knowing what an NSL sign is. It's also single lane each way, with a river along one side and cliffs along the other.

As the Brighton Bypass tunnel West is A27 NSL 70mph before, during and after, why not reduce the managed speed to 50mph or 60mph heading downhill (West) just to slow things down a little and to engage drivers with some supportive activity at that point?

Heading West just before the A27 tunnel, the road kinks just enough to cause some additional steering (left) and this means that there isn't a straight entry into the tunnel, as opposed to the sweeping, long right hand bend going East. It also means that vehicles become unbalanced at the very point they need to be balanced. I've seen more near misses just before the West tunnel than after it but the Police always sit in the layby after the tunnel heading East. Due to the Eastward incline, the traffic generally separates into slower/faster lanes fairly soon after the tunnel and the road offers good views ahead for some way.

Saw this today:
http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/media-centre/ ... astingsrap

And it reminded me of your long-running discussion and whether or not the 'tunnel' is the 'cause' or not? The following thought was: even if, as a for instance, many of the drivers involved are impaired in some way, then unless there's a reason why impaired drivers are more likely to be there, that must mean that something on the road is tipping the balance from 'drunk, but driving' to 'drunk, but failed to drive'?

[richie349]

I'd be interested to know what the bottom line reason is for the obvious objection to speed limits is.

is it that we don't want to have to slow down, or is it that we object to rules in general which we don't feel are necessary?

[jont]

I'd be interested to know what the bottom line reason is for the obvious objection to speed limits is.

is it that we don't want to have to slow down, or is it that we object to rules in general which we don't feel are necessary?

s/necessary/misguided/ if not actually counter productive.

I think the best summing up for me is the old government advert that tells you it's okay to run a child over so long as you're doing under the speed limit when you do so (my spin on the advert, YMMV).

Like so many target obsessed areas of life these days, it started as a useful proxy for safe driving as it was easy to measure (and reasonably objective). Now it's become the only thing measured of note, missing the whole point about why it was chosen.

Measure what's valuable (ie safe driving). Don't value what's easily measurable (ie speed).

[sussex2]

You make some fair points and yes there is indeed a temptation to do things by numbers rather than what is actually the safest.
Sadly the only type of policing seen by most drivers is the doing it by numbers automaton type.

[TheInsanity1234]

I don't object to speed limits altogether, I object to inappropriately low limits, that's all.

So I don't mind the M1 being given a 60 mph limit, but only if it's part of a managed-motorways scheme, as in, if it's 11 o'clock at night, I don't want to be doing 60, I want to be doing 80 (I assume there's no plod bumbling about on here, but if there are, then I mean 77, thank you very much! ), but if it's slap-bang in the middle of rush-hour, then 60 will be a miracle.

To be frank, I for one, would like to see variable speed limits everywhere on the M25, only if there was a 100% guarantee that they will be used responsibly, and that everyone will be able to go as fast as possible, rather than tootling along at 40 mph for no apparent reason.