Tuesday 7th December 2004

Warnings and limits save lives says minister

Motorway trials deemed successful by cutting accidents

---

Warning signs and variable speed limits on motorways save both lives and time, claims the government. Results from two Highways Agency's motorway trials published yesterday show significant safety benefits for drivers and improvements in journey reliability, said David Jamieson Transport Minister.

First, the queue warning system on motorways has been found to reduce accidents by 13 per cent a year. This equals almost £40 million of accident saving benefits each year for the 500 miles of motorway where it operates. Signs automatically warn drivers approaching queuing traffic. The system works through sensors in the road surface, which detect slowing traffic speeds.

Second, the variable speed limit system on the M25, known as controlled motorways, has resulted in steadier and less stressful journeys,  says the research, thus reducing the number and severity of accidents. Injury accidents reduced by 10 per cent and damage only accidents by 30 per cent. The controlled motorways system sets reduced speed limits depending on traffic flows.

Transport minister David Jamieson said: "The system provides drivers with smoother, more reliable journeys and with early warning of queues ahead. The report concludes there could be benefits from applying the controlled motorways system to other motorways."

The queue warning system achieved a reduction of 13 per cent - or 419 - fatal, serious, and slight injury accidents and over 3,000 damage only accidents a year, shows research. By March 2005 the system will be installed on 515 miles of English motorways.

We can only hope that the government now starts working on the mammoth task of adjusting drivers' concentration and behaviour...

[swilly]

The effects of trials such as these would be a lot more credible and believable if the politicians would stop using them to claim lives are being saved.

Lifes are saved by the actions of individuals.

The use of signs on the roads, particularly motorway signs indicating queues ahead and variable speed limits and those traffic lights that are sprouting up at motorway on-ramps to limit the flow of traffic onto congested motorways are good ideas.

More of this type of intelligent management of traffic flows is what will reduce congestion, accidents etc etc.

Just get the politicians to stop jumping on the flimsiest of data and claiming the second coming of christ is imminent as a result.

[milfordkong]

Those "Queue Ahead" signs drive me mad, but only because I really don't like what they're telling me!

Something that really does make me blind with fury however is when you've been stationary on the M1 for ten minutes and the stupid little signs way above you are blinking "40" "40" "40"! Makes me want to take a shotgun on every journey just so I can blow those things to smithereens.

rant over

[havoc]

I personally think matrix signs could be very effective, IF everyone trusted them to be up-to-date and accurate.

But the simple fact is that they are updated far too slowly, and "40" signs or "traffic ahead" on the more modern ones are far too frequently out of date - you see one, slow down a bit, watch everyone else go sailing past, see another one, think "OK, they were just giving lots of warning" and stay slower, watching more people whizz past...only to find the next one says "End", and you've just slowed down for the last 3 miles for nothing!!!

[cptsideways]

havoc said:

I personally think matrix signs could be very effective, IF everyone trusted them to be up-to-date and accurate. But the simple fact is that they are updated far too slowly, and "40" signs or "traffic ahead" on the more modern ones are far too frequently out of date - you see one, slow down a bit, watch everyone else go sailing past, see another one, think "OK, they were just giving lots of warning" and stay slower, watching more people whizz past...only to find the next one says "End", and you've just slowed down for the last 3 miles for nothing!!!

The fact you have slowed down means you might not hit the back of the queue ahead. If you'd gone faster you'd have caught them up. Simple yet frustarting at the same time I know but think about it.

Same on the M25 if they plan the speed limit in anticipation you should never meet a jam at all. (if everyone stopped the lemming thing anyway.

[havoc]

That's the plan...but if I'm one of the MINORITY slowing down, then if a queue exists we will still probably hit it as the rest of the numpties have got there first.

It's sort of like game theory - think "Prisoners' Dilemma" - if they co-operate, they both get off very lightly. If they grass on the other, they get off free, but their mate gets hit hard. If they both grass, they both get moderate sentences.

So...best result is clearly to co-operate. But you can't guarantee the other guy will do so, so the safest thing to do is grass...both people grass, both are worse off.

Sums driving up to a tee, really!

[LongQ]

Hmm.

Fewer accidents - good.

Fewer fatalities and serious injuries - excellent.

Less stressful journeys - er, OK, yep, sometimes, if everything keeps moving helped by the controls.

More journeys completed in a reasonable time? Hmm. Not mentioned.

More effective traffic volumes at all times?

Improved traffic flow overall and therefore productivity gains? Not mentioned it seems.

So where is the balance measured. Ban all traffic and the RTA accident stats would deliver perfect scores for safety. Might cause a few other problems though. The alleged 'cost' saving, traditionally calculated from some rather dubious assumptions on value no matter how you look at them, may be outweighed by efficiency losses. Where is the balanced score card?