Road Safety News
 

M25 ALR schemes are ‘achieving safety objectives’

Tuesday 21st March 2017

Second year evaluation of two sections of all-lane running (ALR) on the M25 have found that both are, at the minimum, achieving their objectives of 'maintaining safety performance’, with one section exceeding expectations.

The DfT evaluation reports, published today (21 Mar), focus on the time period May 2015 to April 2016.

The collision rate on the scheme between J23-27 fell by 11%. However, when adjusted to take into account the ‘national trend between periods’, the figures represents a 1% increase which the DfT describes as ‘not statistically significant’ and representing ‘no significant change’.

With regard to the second scheme (J5-7), collision rates between J5-6 fell by 27%, which equates to 18% taking into account national trends. The report says the results for the whole stretch (J5-7) were ‘similar’. The report says this reduction is ‘statistically significant’, and that the scheme is ‘exceeding its objective of maintaining safety performance’.

Both reports do however concede that further monitoring is required due to the small sample size.

In terms of traffic flow, between J23-26, average daily flows have increased in excess of 10% on all links, and at a higher rate than national trends.

On the widened ALR section between J5 and J6, flows have increased 17% clockwise and 7% anticlockwise. These increases in flow are above the national trends. J6 to J7, which has not had an increase in number of lanes, saw a 5% increase in flow which is in line with national trends.

Compliance with Red X signs for the two schemes were 96% and 94%.

The reports conclude that for both schemes ‘significant capacity improvements have been achieved, supporting efficient movement of goods and services on this key section of the SRN’. The report also says there is still spare capacity to support future growth.


Related stories

Effective communication vital to addressing ALR safety concerns
13 December 2016

More all-lane running motorways on the way
21 March 2016


 

 

 

Comments

Comment on this story
Report a reader comment

What's your view - comment on this story:

I confirm that I have read and accept the moderation policy and house rules relating to comments posted on this website.
Your comment:
Your name and location:
Your email:

Guzzi. I take it you also ride a motorcycle of that marque. The latest IAM Roadsmart mag, winter 20116/17 issue, page 66, has an interesting article on motorway middle lane hogging in which it supports drivers to do just that.

It makes specific mention of an overtake ending up in the middle and then recommends that one does not return to the nearside lane unless there is the safe following on or stopping distance (96 meters) given by other vehicles in order to pull in. What it doesn't recommend is that when vehicles are travelling too close together the driver should not have overtaken if he could not see safe space in front in which to return into. That should have deterred him from overtaking in the first place but the IAM make no mention of that safety fact.

However, having overtaken, the driver is recommended by the IAM to stay in that lane until such a safe gap of 96 meters exists.

Even then he will still imposed himself in the safe braking distance between two vehicles and so he and the vehicle he overtook, now tailgating him, should slow as described in the H.C. until that safe distance is obtained again.

I feel its a little ambivalent the way the IAM recommends the safe following on or stopping distance under these circumstances of returning into but on the other hand have encourage drivers and riders to dismiss this safe distance before an overtake by encouraging them to close up distance on the vehicle to be overtaken.

However They are copying the police Roadcraft manual so it must be right.

Or are they? That begs the question.
Bob Craven Lancs

Agree (1) | Disagree (0)
+1

Hugh, the driver profile you described would qualify as a plonker as much as any one remaining in the "wrong" lane for an inappropriately long time.
Guzzi, newport

Agree (5) | Disagree (0)
+5

Typical of the type of driver I was referring to Guzzi, is the one whose ego requires them to join the M'way at speed and then cross straight to the outside lane where he/she stays until their exit, as if any other lane is somehow for wimps or 'plonkers' (to use your word) and that the outside or 'fast lane' as they would no doubt call it, is their rightful place. It's not good driving practice and shows a lack of discipline and awareness and leads to collisions. Their ego can also lead them to intimidate and tailgate as well - after all, the purpose of their journey must surely be more important than everybody else's, as they have an executive car (possibly black, possibly German) to prove it.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

Hugh, I have often travelled in the "fast lane" with a long string of cars ahead of me (at a suitable gap) all travelling at less than 70mph because of the one plonker at the front who won't move over. In the real world I think a driver who rigidly maintains the speed limit but has bad lane discipline to be more of a risk to others than those who travel a bit faster but have better lane discipline. It is all relative but I do agree with the mantra that at any speed "space is safe" (with or without sandwich in hand).
Guzzi, Newport

Agree (4) | Disagree (1)
+3

The scenario in the snap shot photo above, doesn't seem to reflect that though Guzzi.
Ideally, on M'ways we should see the most traffic in lane one, slightly less in lane two and even less in lane 3 (or 4) i.e. for overtaking only - not the other way round with most traffic in lane 4!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

In my experience a large number of high mileage, "high speed" drivers (car and van) also exercise good lane discipline by moving to left hand lanes when they are lightly trafficked - with or without sandwich in hand.
Guzzi, Newport

Agree (6) | Disagree (0)
+6

If you also look at the direction of the traffic you will see that up ahead there is starting to be some congestion. It is slowing otherwise fast traffic down. This is as usual caused by any number of HGV's vying for overtakes and positioning.

This action by a few or just one individual reduces the speed of traffic in two of the three lanes and traffic, being unable to obtain the outside lane has to slow. The outside lane also slows due to the volume of traffic seeking that lane. That congestion can cause the backing up of the outside and middle lanes and traffic. Vehicles now travelling slower will never the less start to bunch up ie. drive closer together.

So much so that if a collision happened up front the rest would have no chance to avoid becoming involved. Either colliding with the vehicle in front or swerving into the left hand lanes and eventually involving all vehicles in all lanes even involving some but not all of those that were keeping good space.
Bob Craven Lancs

Agree (3) | Disagree (0)
+3

Bob is quite right. If you look from left to right i.e. across from lanes 1 to 4 and notice how the number of vehicles per lane increases (almost doubling each time). The likelihood of being involved in a collision increases in proportion each time, due to drivers not applying 'space management' - even if they knew what it was. For some, lanes 3 or 4 on Motorways (as applicable) are the deafult lane for their whole M'way journey wrongly believing it to be the 'fast lane', reserved for use only by drivers of black German cars and sandwich-eating drivers of white vans.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire

Agree (8) | Disagree (0)
+8

If one looks at the library picture above only those drivers in the inside lane going away from us are keeping safe distance between vehicles. In the event of a collision that is the lane that I would want to be in. Those in the outside lane are not only committing an offence which isn't really the problem. The greater problem and more important is that they are ignoring or are ignorant of the simple basics of safe space as is described in the Highway Code and all other road safety instructional manuals. It's no wonder we have such carnage from time to time due to driver ignorance.
Bob Craven Lancs

Agree (5) | Disagree (0)
+5