60 mph speed limit for M1

[Horse]

I spent almost 3 months last summer (albeit their winter!) driving in New Zealand, where the highest speed limit is 100kph, even on motorways. It's not the end of the world. Nor is NZ

We're in NZ often and that limit is little problem because of the so easy uncongested roads outside of the few major connurbations.
Fun is keeping up to the limit on many of the roads, then, there's always the remaining metalled ones.
Their problem is, as usual, local drivers not using AD techniques and piling into unsighted bends and not considering the possibility of a fully laden logging truck towards that might need to use extra space.

Most of my time was in the northern side of Auckland, North Shore/Takapuna/Albany, but I had a couple of weeks touring around, down as fas Taupo and up to the Bay of Islands. We travelled to the bay via Tane Mahuta and on that road probably saw in one hour no more than a dozen vehicles (but with some first-gear corners!).

Also did the Coromandel Loop on a motorcycle, there are some fairly hairy bends there - with, as you say, the ever present threat of becoming a hood ornament on a logging truck should you get it wrong

[dombooth]

About time!

Currently 50, soon to be 60.

Oh, that's not what it meant, okay.

But seriously now, I live a few miles off J30 of the M1.

"It is expected that the managed motorway schemes between junctions 28 and 31 and between junctions 32 and 35a will:

1 - Increase motorway capacity and reduce congestion;
2 - Smooth traffic flows;
3 - Provide more reliable journey times;
4 - Increase and improve the quality of information for the driver."

So the managed motorway scheme is to increase the capacity and reduce congestion, yet this proposal is to:

"These assessments indicate that, for operation at the national speed limit, the much needed extra capacity and the increased traffic flows that these schemes will provide will also have adverse impacts on local air quality at AQMAs and sensitive receptors."

So what we're doing is creating something to solve a problem that creating something else causes, where does it end?

Putting 60 limits on the M1 in my view is dangerous because:
1) It's going to push people off the motorway onto the country lanes (at speed)
2) Overtaking HGVs as a (potentially) 4mph difference
3) Lowering the speed differential on overtaking will lead to more drivers blindly tailgating in a very long line (already happens in the current 50mph roadworks)
4) It won't improve the information for the driver as they'll be more relaxed focusing on the back bumper of the car 10 yards in front of them.

Dom

[true blue]

Dom,

In terms of your proposed problems:

1) Most people will follow their SatNav like a good sheep, or wouldn't even think of taking minor roads (based on a straw poll of my colleagues).
2) With no oncoming traffic, is a 4mph difference a worry? Surely no worse than the already minimal differences between cars on motorways.
3) Perhaps more motorists will be happy to drive at 56mph rather than 60mph (a loss of 4mph rather than 14mph from notional progress), and this may even lead to a more even distribution of traffic between lanes of the motorway. I don't know how it will pan out in practice, but surely worth the experiment.
4) Better 10 yards at 60mph than 10 yards at 70mph. Only just though.

I don't like the 60mph proposal one bit, but I'm struggling to find a rational argument against it...

[Gareth]

I don't like the 60mph proposal one bit, but I'm struggling to find a rational argument against it...

If it's an air pollution issue, the stretch that's been picked doesn't look like it's the most heavily used part, nor does it look like being the most heavily populated area. I'm thinking it might have made more sense if the trial stretch was further north.

[dombooth]

Dom,

In terms of your proposed problems:

1) Most people will follow their SatNav like a good sheep, or wouldn't even think of taking minor roads (based on a straw poll of my colleagues).
2) With no oncoming traffic, is a 4mph difference a worry? Surely no worse than the already minimal differences between cars on motorways.
3) Perhaps more motorists will be happy to drive at 56mph rather than 60mph (a loss of 4mph rather than 14mph from notional progress), and this may even lead to a more even distribution of traffic between lanes of the motorway. I don't know how it will pan out in practice, but surely worth the experiment.
4) Better 10 yards at 60mph than 10 yards at 70mph. Only just though.

I don't like the 60mph proposal one bit, but I'm struggling to find a rational argument against it...

1) The locals to it like me would more than likely go the minor roads.
2) Yes, it's more time in the other vehicles blind spot.
3) The same again though if everyone drives at 56mph, why do we need 4 lanes? or 3? or even 2?
4) Marginal differences, if everyone does the same speed (as I saw on this stretch the other day) they follow each other like sheep far too close with very little concentration.

Dom

[GJD]

2) With no oncoming traffic, is a 4mph difference a worry? Surely no worse than the already minimal differences between cars on motorways.

Do you habitually overtake large vehicles (or anything for that matter) with that small a speed differential? I think it's below my comfort threshold, certainly for anything big.

[sussex2]

2) With no oncoming traffic, is a 4mph difference a worry? Surely no worse than the already minimal differences between cars on motorways.

Do you habitually overtake large vehicles (or anything for that matter) with that small a speed differential? I think it's below my comfort threshold, certainly for anything big.

Exactly! Wider field of vision clearer field of fire.

[true blue]

When overtaking on dual carriageways/motorways in moderately dense traffic I prefer to hang back and overtake with a reasonable speed differential (10+mph for HGVs, less for cars when I can see what's going on and that they're not likely to try and move across into my path). In heavy traffic though when motorways crawl along at 40mph or less I stay in lane and follow traffic, basically irrespective of speed differential (with a reasonable gap ahead if something decides to move into my path). I think people are less likely to chop and change lanes, or to move without looking, in such conditions. Perhaps I'm too optimistic though...

If we're thinking about lowest common denominator driving though, I don't see that people worry about small overtaking speed differentials on major roads. Hence my point that small differentials in a 60mph zone aren't likely to have a negative effect on overall safety margins/accident rates. I'd like to be proven wrong!

As for number of lanes, more lanes = more capacity. Simple. Each car needs a few metres of it's own space plus a lot of metres for stopping distance. Suddenly when these modules are stacked end to end, a single lane has very little capacity per mile. Three lanes doesn't triple the capacity because the first lane tends to be underused, but it is a significant improvement. The queue holding capcity is tripled when traffic is very heavy. With HGVs driving nearly at the speed limit, I imagine more people would be inclined to stay in lane 1, hence improving distribution of traffic between lanes.

[Slink_Pink]

It seems strange to propose this now when, a few months back, everyone was getting excited at the prospect of raising the m-way speed limits to 80!

[sussex2]

I'm sometimes bemused by speed limits in the UK and the blanket nature of them.
Near me there is a main dual carriageway road which has a 70mph limit through quite a complex set of traffic lights and a bit further on a tunnel.

There have been numerous collisions at both but in particular the tunnel which has an unusual approach westbound. The traffic lights in a less complex form were originally put there because of the collisions and one in particular which caused multiple fatalities.
According to the police most of the collisions at the tunnel involve drivers who are local or use the road frequently and yet the 70mph limit is still in force and traffic speeds on the road regularly exceed this.

Driving on the mainland I can't think of many tunnels of such a length which would have a speed limit this high and the traffic light junction would certainly not have such a limit; at least from my experience. Indeed most tunnels I use regularly have a speed limit of 90kph and many dual carriageways one of 100kph.

[GJD]

According to the police most of the collisions at the tunnel involve drivers who are local or use the road frequently

Really? That does surprise me.

Does it? I would imagine that most of the drivers on the road are either local or use the road frequently. Isn't that generally true of most pieces of road?

[michael769]

Statistically 72% of accidents occur within a mile of the driver's home. Whilst some of that is due to the fact that we will naturally visit such roads more frequently the 72% does still over-represent the relative mileage by a considerable margin (IIRC the average proportion of time spent driving within 1 mile of home is around 30%)

I have always believed that the main cause is complacency and over familiarity.

People do naturally tend to become less attentive as they near the end of their journey (psychologically we associate home with safety and feelings of safety make us less vigilant), and many are more distracted at the start of a journey as they transition into driving mode. I suspect many of the observers/tutors will be familiar with the latter, I certainly find that many associates are more off their game and make more mistakes at the start of a drive than they do as the drive progresses.

Over familiarity creates false assumptions drivers who do not plan adequately can end up acting upon such false assumptions, I interviewed many drivers and often hear them say "I'd never seen anyone there before". On major roads near folks homes what seems to happen is that they become accustomed to how the locals do things, only to come a cropper when they encounter a non-local who does things differently.

The big gotcha is, of course, that those of us who are observant about how we drive avoid the above and so are unaware of it as a problem, whilst those who so observant simply bumble on until they eventually hit something.

[GJD]

Does it? I would imagine that most of the drivers on the road are either local or use the road frequently. Isn't that generally true of most pieces of road?

Yes it does. Most of the drivers on the road manage to negotiate it without any problem too.

Just because most of the drivers on a road at any given time are likely to be either local or regular users it does not necessarily follow that most the people involved in any accidents will be.

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).

[ExadiNigel]

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.

[sussex2]

I'm sometimes bemused by speed limits in the UK and the blanket nature of them.
Near me there is a main dual carriageway road which has a 70mph limit through quite a complex set of traffic lights and a bit further on a tunnel.

There have been numerous collisions at both but in particular the tunnel which has an unusual approach westbound.

In what way would you categorise the approach as "unusual"?

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=southwick+tunnel&hl=en&ll=50.85728,-0.234114&spn=0.024192,0.042143&sll=50.837418,-0.10619&sspn=0.192749,0.337143&hq=tunnel&hnear=Southwick,+West+Sussex,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=50.85728,-0.234114&panoid=qF2kPtsKjs9UC65gSqLPQA&cbp=12,246.54,,0,-2.75

According to the police most of the collisions at the tunnel involve drivers who are local or use the road frequently

Really? That does surprise me. I am always baffled when there is another accident in the tunnel as to how people manage to get things so wrong on a piece of road that is so straightforward to drive along.

The westbound tunnel approach has a bend on it and the first tunnel a driver sees is the one on the opposite carriageway.
During construction it was necessary to widen the tunnel as the original plan would not allow two modern HGVs to travel side by side. It may be these modifications that have changed the approach?
I regularly drive in tunnels in Spain and yes some approached by quite sharp bends even on new roads; but none where the speed limit is as high as 70mph.
An aside is that though there are warning signs there is little or nothing the driver has to do to prepare themselves for what in the UK is an unusual piece of road as we have few tunnels. If there was an obligation to put headlights on I wonder if drivers would be more mentally prepared?