Conference terri::cars_uk

    I see that the new Transport Minister has announced his intention
    of spending 1 billion pounds on the M25.
    
    The motorway will be increased to 4 lanes all-round, with some
    sections increased to 5 lanes.
    
    Extra direction signs will be put up (to avoid 10-hour marathons?).
    
    Video Cameras will be installed to help the Police
    (supposedly to catch out people who drive in the
     right-hand lane when there is no need).
    
    I wonder if it will actually happen and what it will really cost.
    
    Also, I remember the delays involved when adding an extra lane around
    the Heathrow section, only recently completed.
    I would like to know if the benefit of one extra lane now was
    really worth all the hassle involved during the work.
    
    Hopefully, they would also add lanes on the motorways which join
    the M25, as those junctions are always bad news.
    
    J.R.

    
    John,
    
    I think the section between the M3 and the M4 is about as bad now as
    it was before the extra lane was added (ie it's at standstill in the
    rush hours). 
    
    Imagine what it would be like with only 3 lanes in each direction! :^(
    
    Mark

    I feel that other solutions should be investigated,
    besides (as well as) throwing money at the problem...
    
    Perhaps some consideration should be made to 'car-pooling',
    as used in the States ?
    
    In peak traffic hours, one lane (or more?) is reserved for vehicles
    which have more than one person in them.
    
    Of course, this may make the situation worse in the 'other' lanes,
    but wouldn't that then provide an incentive.  I don't believe that
    all traffic on the M25 comprises lorries and rep's (who would not
    be expected to carry passengers), but the figures may be high enough
    to negate any advantages from 'car-pool' lanes.
    
    J.R. (if DoT can purchase the extra land to extend motorways, why not
          let BR buy some and built an 'orbital railway' along a similar
          route - perhaps it would then be useful for freight traffic ?)
    

Rather than throw in more money to make extra lanes on our Motorways, might it
not be more cost effective to educate the Great British Motorist to make
better use of the lanes that are available?

There appears to be a lemming-like desire to get to the outside lanes at all
costs, and then stay there, leaving the inner lanes 50% deserted but bringing
everything to a crawl in the process. Under these circumstances, adding extra 
lanes will not get rid of the dash-to-the-fast-lane mentality, but will simply
increase the amount of wasted space.

Unless, of course, we made undertaking legal.............

Well, that's my controversal bit for this week.

Dick

>> Unless, of course, we made undertaking legal.............
    
    Never has a manouevre had such an apt name! :^)
    
    Mark

    I read a projection at the weekend issued by a management consultancy
    on a number of possible developments in life, the universe and
    everything over the next ten years. 
    
    For the M25 they were suggesting a second deck. This would look a bit
    naff, but would cost nowt in land acquisition costs, and would involve
    known bridge technology, tried and tested on the M4.
    
    Steve

    Ideas:
    
    1. Make it illegal to be passed on the inside.
    2. Close all slip roads ON except those from major roads (M'ways and
       major 'A' roads).
    
    Laurie.

There was a transport expert on LBC last night who was saying that on some 
sections the Government won't be able to buy the land at the side of the M25 and
will make it into 4 lanes each way just by shrinking the lane width and hard
shoulder.  This will be accompanied by speed limits on these sections of 50mph.

This would be a major pain outside rush hour when you can normally bomb round 
the M25 fairly fast and particularly at night when it is deserted and you can
use highly illegal speeds.  A reduction of 20mph in the speed limit would change
these into even more highly illegal speeds and interest the boys in blue.

Jon

    
    Reducing lane widths sounds dangerous to me - enough people seem to
    have trouble with the widths currently available! 
    
    Has anyone noticed how a lorry in the middle lane seems to prevent some
    drivers from overtaking? Just think how many more would not move past
    if the lane was narrower.                

    
    what about them - they ought to be banned (at least during peak traffic
    hours)
    
    /. Ian .\
    
    PS peak traffic on the M25 is 0500-2200 Monday to Saturday inclusive.

    I also read about 'limiters' - sensors, which once traffic reaches a
    certain volume, close off entrances to the Mway, so no more can get on. 
    I believe a test scheme of this sort has been in operation on the M6
    near Brum.  Anyone know any more?
    
    Mikef

    An earlier note about extra lanes was right about it not helping the
    situation.
    
    It takes one lorry doing 40 for all vehicles that do 41 and above to
    move over.  Take this to its logical conclusion and 30 lanes would not
    be enough.
    
    I believe the idea of restricting access to only the 8 motorways and
    the A1 (I think that's the right number) is a good solution.  This
    means that only users who are on a long trip and want to get AROUND
    London would use it, and the short trip drivers would be forced back to
    their own local routes.
    
    Graham
    
    PS  A serious idea put forward some time back was to make the entire 6
    lanes one way, ie. all anti clockwise or vicecersa.
    
    Not bad for some.......... 

    
    I agree with a number of previous notes that said or implied that
    the M25 has too many entrances and exits. The section from the A3
    probably as far round as the Dartford Tunnel is full of cars
    crossing lanes... you know what I mean:
    
    On entering a motorway.... 
    
    One should get to the fast lane as quickly as possible. 
    
    On preparing to exit a motorway....
    
    Do nothing until its too late.
     
     
    As drivers enter motorways and force their way into the outer lanes, 
    it invariably causes those already in the outer lanes to take evasive 
    action.
    
    Most motorists also seem to believe it is their god-given right to
    stay in the outer lanes until they are only a couple of hundred yards from 
    their exit junction and then force their way across however many lanes 
    of traffic they need to to get off. This sort of driving also causes
    other motorists to take avoiding action.

    Of the two evils though, I think that entrances cause much greater
    problems than exits. By their very nature, entrances pour more traffic
    into an already congested area.
        
    I would like to see the M25 widened to five (or even six) lanes
    and in essence, create  two parallel roads running side by side.
    The outermost lanes (2 but preferrably 3) would be used by all the
    current entrances and exits. Access would be unrestricted.
    
    The inner lanes (3) would only be connected by junctions to the outer 
    lanes at six or seven points along its entire length. These would
    be new junctions - not revamps of existing ones - and not where
    major roads intersected. The inner lanes would become a "super-route"
    and the new junctions would only connect the outer road with the
    "super-route". 

    Each exit junction from the "super-route" would cover the next (3/4/5)
    existing junctions, while entry onto the "super-route" would only
    be available for those not requiring the next (3/4/5) existing 
    junctions. Local traffic would therefor never get onto the "super-route". 
            
    This would probably not improve the outer road much which would
    probably be as bad as the existing road is today or even worse. But I 
    think it would help those who were using the "super-route" and become
    probably what the M25 was supposed to be - a motorway that connected
    the major trunk routes into and out of London.
    
    Richard.
    
    
    
     
    

	I was... the idea is to reduce the number of cars on it, and to
	do nothing to the road itself - cheaper and environmentally more
	sound than doubling it's number of lanes. They could also try
	making all motorways, especially the M25, toll-paying like those
	in France. Keep as many people off them as possible and make them
	self-maintaining (financially).

	Jonathan.

    In the case of the M25... All your solution would do is cause the
    majority of road users to use `A' class roads... surely this would
    be more environmentally UNFRIENDLY...
    
    Bob
    

    .23
    
    Your suggestion is one of the best that I have heard... BUT...
    
    With investment in BR being what it is... and the outlook for
    privitisation of BR, I think it unlikely with our present government,
    or economic climate!
    
    Pity
    
    Bob

	Actually, if you could swing it, it would make sense...

	a. Ban all lorries from roads at weekends, license lorries for particular
	routes and then only if rail transport is not available.

	b. Privatise the railways.

	a gives a hell of a boost to demand and causes b to become a profitable
	investment.

	Of course, the same could be said of passenger transport, but that 
	would be political suicide.

	Dave

    > With investment in BR being what it is... 
    > I think it unlikely with our present government,
    
    In effect, we have a new government.  This administration looks a lot
    more predisposed towards the railways, and I expect more investment in
    that area (cf. channel tunnel high speed link now looking likely).
    
    Jeff.

    I agree with the new PM there *may* be some improvement in investment
    in BR... but from experience (I was a signals & telecommunications
    engineer with BR for 7 years), I have my doubts.  There is very
    little likelyhood of private money being invested in this sort of
    venture unlike the Chunnel.  
    
    Just my opinion
    
    Bob

>    Rather than spend billions on making the M25 wider, I believe the gov-
>    ernment ought to provide incentives for lorries to be carried on spec-
>    ial railway `trailers' from key terminals around the country - in the
>    same way as we use "Motorail". The Swiss use this concept.  They also
>    ban the movement of lorries over the weekends.

Private money is being invested in this sort of thing, the biggest problem
is that the BR loading guage doesn't allow a full-size box trailer to be
put on a rail wagon.

jb

    Did anyone see this last night ?

    It was basically about the sort of incidents that occur on the m25 that
    the police have to deal with.

    I thought that the officers were particularly sarcastic and self
    righteous in their attitude to the mororists they talked to.

    Favourite incidents were -

    o The guy doing 70 down the hard shoulder (he had to get to heathrow
      airport). Also the one that was driving on the hard shoulder because
      he thought he was low on petrol.

    o The guy that got stopped for not wearing a seat belt, reading a paper
      on the steering wheel and talking on a car phone.

    o What about the guy that was taking a nap on the hard shoulder.

    Any comments on the apparent stupidity on motorway users and the
    attitude of the police ?

    After seeing the fatal accident with the lorry driver and hearing about
    the one on the M27 the other day, I was more than usually alert this
    morning going up the M3.

    - Roy

    I didn't find the police sarcastic, so much as unusually and
    unrealistically "nice" to the dirvers, obviously because they were on
    camera...
    
    Wouldn't surprise me if they were sarcastic.  They must get really
    pi***d off seeing all the stupidity on that road, and the horrors it
    can lead to, and the complete failure of most motorists to realise
    this...
    
    Scott, who doesn't use the M25 if there's an alternative route, 'cos he
    wants to live to read this conference another day...
    
    

I didn't see the programme Roy is talking about in .29 but one thing that occurs
to me is that the 'guy that was taking a nap on the hard shoulder' may have been
doing the right thing.  If he felt so tired that he was liable to fall asleep at
the wheel before the next junction, that risk would be greater than the risk of 
someone shunting into him on the hard shoulder.

I've never been so tired I couldn't keep myself awake until the next services
with a blast of full speed cold air and a loud tape on the stereo...

Jon
 

It can be a long way to the next services on the M25




Ian

    Always pull over if you feel like a rest ... My Dad didn't and managed
    to write off his Jowett (sp) Jupiter in the back of a lorry ... He was
    very lucky ... and I almost wasn't.
    
    It was a soft top Jupiter so you'd think it would be difficult to nod
    off - but apparently not. (Even at 80+)

    If you feel like a rest, leave at the next junction and stop somewhere
    off the motorway.  The majority of motorway accidents are hard-shoulder
    shunts.  Don't stop there unless you have to!
    
    Scott

	Yup, I saw the program, I thought the motorists that were stopped were
	terrible - how many more like that?

	Did the guy going along the hard shoulder with 2 gallons of petrol 
	still in his tank really think he was out of petrol - what good driving
	on the hard shoulder - get off at the next exit, or stop at the yellow 
	phone.

	They all sounded as if they thought they had had proper excuses for 
	doing the things they were, and didn't expect to be told off, let 
	alone being booked.

	Heather

    
    I didn't see the program, but it sounds like it ought to have been a
    good 'educational' excercise for motorists - or perhaps the only people
    who watch programs like that are people who already have an interest in
    motoring and motoring safety. 
    
    The more people who are forced to realise that driving with a phone in
    their hand (etc) is an offence, the better! 

I thought that they were a bit mean not to give the woman who claimed to
have been left on the M25 "not intentionally" a lift to the next exit - they
would have to go there anyway. Instead, they insisted she climbed the bank
and walked through the fields....friendly??

...but 70 on the hard shoulder deserved the ticket, plane or no plane.

Jc

Hmm,

I wonder how "balanced" the program was, as the fatal accident they showed
in great detail didn't happen on the M25, but on the M1....

I wonder if they had to show a "fatal", and this was the only one 
they could find!

However, it did re-inforce just how many stupid people there are driving
on the roads today.

It's funny they didn't mention the two senior police officers who were 
stopped last summer on that stretch, for driving at speed on the hard 
shoulder, 'cos they had a plane to catch at Heathrow as well....

Peter	(who is very pleased his 110 mile commute along M1/M25/M3/M27 is
	 now down to 3 miles, and I'm sure my blood pressure is down as well!)

    
    
    I thought it was an interesting and informative program. I particularly
    liked the lack of a "voice-over commentary".

    Richard.

Something else I liked....

Lots of shots of cars going past on the other carriageway with drivers looking
directly at the "action". One guy was actually watching back over his shoulder
while driving past.  I hope each of these were watching the program last night
and reallise that it is THEM that cause the holdups on the motorway!!!

Jc,  who would prefer the commute to Newbury anyday, but the job moved
without asking my permission :-(

    While I was watching the program, someone with me commented on the guy
    looking over his shoulder, to which my reply was, and still is:
    
    It was a slow motion shot.  He was looking over his shoulder for about
    12 frames (ie half a second) as he was about to pull out from the slip
    road onto the main carriageway.  This is perfectly correct and is
    exactly what he should have been doing, particularly as he was in a van
    with limited visibility.
    
    It just *looked* like he was doing the wrong thing because of the
    slow-motion film.
    
    Likewise, the drivers who looked sideways at the roadside camera as they
    drove past only glanced for a fraction of a second.  About the same
    time as it takes you to look in your mirror.  Maybe the camera
    crew should have been booked for distracting the drivers' attention...?
    
    Scott

    Did anyone video this program? Can I borrow the tape please :-}
    
    Thanks,
    
    Lisa.
    

I thought the small bit I saw was VERY funny.

The guy who was running out of petrol ;^)

He had every excuse under the book and when the policeman told him he
could either get an "on-the-spot" or got to court he replied "Which
would be more leniant"!! 

Also his classic "I don't normally do this, officer"

How about the guy who was late for his plane, I think the policeman was
very nice and made sure he didn't miss the plane - do you think it
would have been the same story if the camera's weren't there?

Greg

re .41,

Well, I stand by what I said. Watch the jaw drop as they gaped...


Jc

    Lisa
    
    I've got it on VHS if you like. I am in the Basingstoke CSC..
    
    Regards
    
    Bruce

    The police must have been nice 'cause the camera's were there, or the
    police in Edinburgh are just plain b****.
    
    On the New Years Eve (my birthday of all days) I got done for speeding;
    44mph in a 30mph zone (although some stretches are 40mph). This 30mph zone
    happens to be the Queensferry Road, which is in real life a dual carriage 
    way into Edinburgh where, if you do 30mph, drivers flash lights, hoot and
    overtake you pointing at their head. I saw the police car, checked my speed
    (40mph) and as I *thought* I was in the "40mph bit" didnot slow down and 
    subsequently got done. Nothing of the 'let's be nice to the driver who
    is sober'. They were probably annoyed that I was not drunk.....(they
    didnot even breathalize me)  But then again, at 20.30 they must have been 
    bored or getting warmed up for later.............
    
    
    On the BBC news there were items showing the police stopping people for
    dangerous driving, no lights on etc all in an effort to breathalize
    people, and ofcoarse NOBODY get charged for there offences. 
    
    Can I book a BBC crew somewhere?????????????????/
    
    
    Well, this is enough moanin' for today...............
    
    Flying Dutchman
                                

Why do people get so annoyed when caught speeding? The police
are just doing their job and the more law-breakers they catch the
better!



Ian

    
    Re .41
    
    I thought the slo-mo was of other drivers passing the accident?
        
            
    Re .47
    
    And a Happy New Year to you too. I hope you forgot the :-)

    Re .48
    
    Why do people get annoyed when caught speeding?
    
    OK, the one time I was stopped I got let off with a 'be careful sir, 
    there are a lot people who have been drinking out tonight', but the 
    law IS the law. Maybe it's ok for someone to rape your wife or steal
    your TV?
    
    Speed limits are legally enforcable and it falls to the Police to 
    enforce them. As someone said earlier they are the ones who have to
    scrape corpses off the roads.
    
    Virtually everyone speeds at sometime, but to imagine that drivers 
    have some god-given right to ignore the law is foolish. If you exceed
    a speed limit you are breaking the law and you take a chance. If you
    get away with it you were lucky, if you don't it's your own fault.
    
    The comment in .46 seems to suggest that the driver pays to much
    attention to fellow road users. If the limit was 30 mph and the road
    is a dual-carriageway, why bother if some drunken imbecile wants to
    make faces at you instead of concentrating on his driving. If you 
    did he'd be the one who was nicked and not you. You were speeding,
    you got caught (only mitigation being that you thought you were in 
    a 40 mph zone, but then again the law would say you should be more
    observant I suspect), you'll pay the penalty (which in fact is pretty
    miniscule).
    
    Mark

    
    Re .52
    
    I have no arguement with that, but I doubt anyone here would turn down
    a chance to escape punishment.
    
    Mark

    
    re a few back, and the definition of an emergeny. I have often wondered
    what the 'small print' says. I would have thought an inability to see
    where you were driving (as in the 'migrane' note) is an emergeny. It
    could be argued that te journey should never have been started, but
    illness can come on suddenly, and in some places it can be a long way
    between junctions. If ever I felt I _had_ to stop due to tiredness, I
    think I would open the bonnet and check the loose plug lead. Not only
    would this get you out of the car and into fresh air it would hopefully wake
    you up enough to get to the next junction. 

    Re. .49

    I also suffer from migraine which (as any one who get them will agree)
    come on very quickly (5 minutes or less).

    So consider the scenario.

    On a M-way 10 miles from the next exit I feel a migraine
    comming on what do I do ?
    
    a) Drive on regardless at considerable risk to all concerned - illegal
    
    b) Speed to next exit at 120 MPH - illegal
    
    c) Pull over and stop - illegal
    
    d) There is no plan D.
    
    Ideas ?
    
    	Rik

    re -1
    
    e) Pull over - ring up on one of the phones and ask to be towed away as
    you are mechanically broken down :-)
    
    Rob

	I'd have to stop after 5 minutes, because I wouldn't be able to see.

	Lights trigger my migraines, and the thing that does it most(apart from
	flourescent lights) is driving next to those cones for roadworks - 
	they're really awful.

	(crash barriers with cars , headlights on, coming the other way
	trigger them, so do those yellow lines designed to slow you down at
	junctions).

	There are rose-tinted glasses being manufactured towards the end of this
	year, which cut down these effects (there was even a report on this in
	Connect a few months ago).

	I'd say it was an emergency - did the judge understand that migraines
	can badly affect sight?   there are many people who don't.

	Heather

    If you are subject to a medical condition which renders you unfit to
    drive at short notice, you are arguably not medically fit to drive at
    all. It is certainly arguable that since it is reasonably foreseeable
    that such unfitness may come upon you in such circumstances that you
    are unable to reach a safe or lawful place to stop, you should not
    drive on roads such as motorways.
    
    Certainly epileptics are not permitted to drive unless their condition
    is controlled to certain standards. Migraine is certainly milder, but
    can incapacitate.
    
    Steve

    Not bad eh, First day back and a class 1 rathole developed!

    
>>            -< Pull off to the grass bank, throw up, then faint ! >-
    
    When I get into this state I make sure I'm not driving! :^)
    
    Mark

In an attempt to start a *different* rathole from note .49, 

> Stopping on the motorway in anything other than an emergency is the
> only non-moving violation that can cost you an endorsement. 

I have heard of someone getting penalty points for parking on the zig-zag lines
before a pedestrian crossing.  I remembered this as I have zig-zag lines outside
my house so it made me very careful to park before the start of them. 

Apart from these two cases, I don't know of any other non-moving penalty point
offences.  Unless you know different...

Jon

    RE  me getting done:
    
    I'm not denying fault and will pay the fine; only it appears that not
    all pigs are equal....
    
    Cheers,
    Flying Dutchman
     

	Yup, parking on hatches which are edged by white lines.

	\#"$%& holiday makers.


	And migraines, why ask for painkillers, it's the lack of vision that
	causes the problem, and they have no effect on the vision. 
	Also, any painkiller that is going to touch the headache that comes
	with a migraine, has the "drowsyness" warning - ie, don't drive when you
	take these!
	From the first instant I notice my sight going, I have approx 5 minutes
 	before I am unable to see properly to drive. This means I can get to 
	saftey - even if it is the hard shoulder. This is considered a 
	reasonable amount of time, and not licence-threatening.
	
	I have no pain whatsoever at this stage, in fact the lights are quite 
	pretty, like a kiddies keliedascope.  After about 20 minutes of lights,
 	they go. I upchuck, and then I have the headache - it's like a person 
	inside your head with a huge hammer - banging on alternate sides.
	It's much worse than any hangovers I've had, and I've had a few,
	being partial to scrumpy and large bloody marys.
	I can drive like this, but it is not nice, so at the next service 
	station et al, take my megralief, and wait for about 3-4 hours.

	I've only had to do stop at a service station once, as on other 
	occaisions I have been close enough to my home or destinaition to get 
	there in 10 minutes, or within about 20 minutes of my sight returning 
	to normal.

	What really gets me is that the department of transport commisioned a
	study into the effect of the yellow stopping lines, and cones, and
	have produced a report which states that they bring on migraines in
	migraine sufferers who are triggerd by lights (rather than chocolate/
	cheese/red wine etc.)
	BUT they have not done a thing about it!

	Heather

	Who is REALLY grateful that food/drink is not a trigger for her!

    Perhaps a bit late, but I saw the documentary and although I thought
    it was very interesting I did wonder what it had to do with the
    M25?  It could have been any one of a number of motorways.  I had
    thought when I read about the program beforehand that it would relate
    to the particular traffic problems of the M25, but...
    
    
    Ian.

    Re; .-1

    I thought that too Ian, especially as a caller from an emergency 'phone
    said he was on the M1.

    I guess the police car that the camera crew were with had a wide area
    and covered the bottom part on the M1.

    With the very high volume of traffic on the M25 you would see a lot
    more and varied incidents than perhaps on other m'ways.

    - Roy

    My Wife told me last night that she heard there are to be roadworks
    on the M25 which will mean that the section from Heathrow to Gatwick
    will be closed for about 6 weeks !!!
    
    Anyone know any details on this ?
    
    J.R.

       Well, the only things that I know about is that there's currently
    plans by the DoT to expand the area between J15 (M4) and J12? to have
    two new dual-carrigeways parallel to the existing roads. That's at
    present in 'consultations' but is the only major work that I know
    that's anticipated for that stretch.
    
    Gwyn (commuting J13 <-> J16 each day)

My mole at the DoT has said something similar to -1.

Mind you he also talked about 7 lanes around Heathrow.  Anyone heard about that
one?  

I will try for more details.  

PaulC

    
    RE -1
    
   >>" Seven lanes aound Heathrow"
    
    	Sounds like a bid from The London Olympic Committee to me.
    
    mac
    
    I see your team won at last yesterday...:)

    These "double roads" with one 3 lane carriageway for "local" traffic
    outside another 3 lanes for "express" traffic are quite common in the
    U.S. and Canada (Northern end of the New Jersey Turnpike, Highway 401
    round Toronto.)
    
    It seems to work (well, the NJ Pike does - claims to be the "safest road
    in the world" - presumably in releation to the traffic volume. 401 gets
    jammed, but I think that's just too much traffic in total).
    
    They're certainly preferable to the "tarmac plains" - 7 or 8 lanes each
    way, all together - favo(u)red in California.
    
    The junctions get VERY complicated though, and take up an emormous
    amount of space (with ramps leaving the centre lanes and going over the
    outer lanes etc). I can see the environmental folk getting very upset
    when they see the detailed plans.
    
    D.