The M6 Toll

Until the authorities decide to put 'safety' cameras in.

Tony

Steven,
I used this road just a couple of weeks ago,and was supprised how little traffic it had useing it, mind you the crafty buggers have you on it by default as on both north and south juntions you would have to phyisicaly turn off onto the "old"M6 if you didn't want to pay the £2. Good value though if you don't want to spend half a day admiring some of the less inspiring feature of Brum [not like it was when I lived up in the Midlands]
on a slightly different tack I though that this was a private road constructed with private funding and as such speed limits ??
oldie.

I always thought with toll roads they should have no speed limit and you pay a toll that is inversly proportional to the time it took to drive along it.

anyway 2 quid sounds like a bargain to avoid the traffic around birmingham.

After all these years the French have decided that our government is right and that speed cameras actually do reduce casualties on open roads and motorways.

They've put a few on toll motorways.

quote:

---

Until the authorities decide to put 'safety' cameras in.

---

I can see Midland Expressway allowing them to do that. It would be a conflict of revenues. Even if ME were allowed to keep some or all of the revenue from the cameras it would surely have an adverse effect on their toll revenue and they'd lose money overall.

Regards,

Steve.

There are many websites that dispute the government interpretation of road traffic accidents and their relationship with excessive use of speed.
The number of raod deaths has remained pretty constant since the 1930s at 3500 per year.
Although excessive use of speed will obviously result in bad crashes, our motorways have been some of the safest roads in the world for a long time.
Even honest coppers admit that the causes of most crashes are things such as: old people that shouldn't really be driving anymore, bad driving at junctions, lack of observation...
Mild speeding is very very rarely a cause.
Let's hope they keep it 'virgin'..

Tony

quote:

---

The number of raod deaths has remained pretty constant since the 1930s at 3500 per year.

---

From the mid-sixties onwards improvements in design of cars and roads has brought about a steady decline in the number of road deaths in the UK. This trend bottomed out in the mid-nineties when speed cameras were first introduced.



Regards,

Steve.

Anyway, apart from the M25, M11 and road works sections there aren't any cameras on the motorways, afaik.

It makes sense though as thy are our fastest and yet safest roads. Collisions cause crashes, and as everyone is generally travelling in the same direction on a motorway you get fewer collisions.

The M6 Toll could be used as an experiment to see if we could benefit from raising the speed limit on some other motorways.



Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 06:42.]

Completely agree.

Tony

The only real sticking point with raising the limit on motorways would be the environmental impact.

Tony

Surely a speed camera can only be installed "at an accident blackspot" ?

or do they craftily slip in the word "potential" now........

FWIW - I just looked at my car's trip computer yesterday - averaged 19mph over the last 4500 miles. Joys of city life !

Slightly off topic but based on being involved in tailbacks as a result of accidents - I suspect that the police are not clearing the roads after a shunt with any degree of motivation - ie just as if they want to cause as much delay to the drivers as possible - an incentive to not travel perhaps.

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

The only real sticking point with raising the limit on motorways would be the environmental impact

---

Or more like the perceived environmental impact. Congestion causes higher levels of exhaust emissions than cars travelling freely at 80mph (think lots of vehicles in a queue making no progrss and still belching out fumes) and yet in recent years local autorities have been given incentives to exacerbate congestion (and therefore pollution) in order to encourage "phase shift."

In general the police do their utmost to get traffic moving, to be fair. Don't blame the police, blame the (local) politicians, and bureaucrats.



Regards,

Steve.

PS: Remember that had so much money not already been at stake, the government would have stopped the construction of the M6 toll. The only reason why they didn't was because the taxpayers' bill for compensation payouts to all the backers of the scheme would have been greater than the £900 million it cost to build the motorway.

IIRC there are moves afoot to introduce special teams on motorways to get accidents cleared asap.
On the hopefully congestion-free toll road a car travelling at 80mph will, as far as environmentalists are concerned, produce an unacceptable amount of pollution when compared to the same vehicle at 70mph.
It is quite well known that cars produce a tiny amount of pollution, especially when compared with third world heavy industry. But the enviros have a very loud voice in Britain.

Tony

Indeed Tony, but the same car travelling at 30mph or less would be creating much more pollution than if it were travelling at 80.

Those very same "environmentalists" tried to stop the construction of the M6 toll (and other much-needed relief roads) so that all vehicles travelling from Manchester towards London would be forced to travel through the Birmingham conurbation at average speeds of 17 mph or less, creating considerablty more pollution in a densely populated area than they would otherwise in a much more thinly populated area.



Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on MONDAY 19 January 2004 at 02:39.]

Steven,
the last time I was forced to travel through Birmingham on the M6 I would have loved to be able to claim a speed of 17mph,more likly less than half that speed was all we achieved and from what I understand this was not out of the ordinary either. The amount of pollution created by standing vehicles in this area would make it the least likly place that I for one would wish to live near and if it could have been catagorized as a place of employment the whole area would be condemed under the Health and Saftey at Work Act 1974. This is one of those areas that cannot be called anti environmental and given time Iam sure it will be proved without doupt that this by pass has actually improved the environment around the greater Birmingham area.
oldie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tony Lockhart:

It is quite well known that cars produce a tiny amount of pollution, especially when compared with third world heavy industry. But the enviros have a very loud voice in Britain.

Tony

---

I've seen numerous articles supporting the argument that the pollution generated in manufacturing a car is some orders of magnitude higher than the emmissions it will produce over its operating life (if correctly serviced). This puts a crimp in the argument that buying something new and efficient reduces pollution (don't tell the marketing departments). Even the low emmissions hybrids now emerging will have caused quite a bit of smog as they rolled down the production line. No one seems to discuss this when car bashing.

Cheers

Harry

So the difference in pollution levels between two cars; one travelling at 70, the other at 80 is but a drop in the ocean compared to the noxious gases released into the atmosphere during the production of either or both vehicles.

I suppose the same applies to buses, trains, boats and planes.

We should perhaps all walk (or swim.)



Regards,

Steve.

...and then we have a volcanic eruption which eclipses the lot...

TC '..'
"Sun went down in honey. Moon came up in wine. Stars were spinnin' dizzy, Lord, the band kept us so busy we forgot about the time."

We might all know the above, but trends etc seem to rule over logic.

Tony

The M6 Toll is sufficiently well drained not to require the need for this (we hope in the face of the prospect of global warming and the possible rise in sea levels that hopefully will not have any impact on the Midlands.)

I was refering to the environmental cost of building ships and planes to get us that little bit further.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
Wouldn't it be a good idea to raise the limit on this toll road to, say, 100mph - perhaps with a minimum of 60mph? It would still have to be policed for inappropiate driving of course, but surely everyone would be happy? The do-gooders could go the slow way, and everyone else would accept the added 'risk' when they paid the toll. I guess you'd have to make sure that your insurance would cover it though ...

---

Two problems here (both related):

There are quite number of junctions, which are a hazard in terms of using high speed on the main carriage way.

Couple those 100MPH speeds with the usual dip-sticks trying to join the main carriageway at 45-55mph and you've a recipe for disaster.

As for the Cops turning a blind eye to speeders, great, as long as it is not "inapporpriate" use of speed - which in turn can be seen as dangerous driving.

100mph is all well and good, as long as a safe distance is maintained from the car in front and as long as the road conditions are good enough to do it (traffic not too heavy, good visibility etc).

Also, in France, whilst Cameras might not actually be used on Toll roads yet, you'll still get a ticket if you've travelled between Toll booths too fast. You're timed between Toll booths so they know your average speed. Too fast and you get a ticket!

Computers are supposed to work on 1's and 0's - in other words "Yes" or "No" - why does mine frequently say "Maybe"?......

quote:

---

Also, in France, whilst Cameras might not actually be used on Toll roads yet, you'll still get a ticket if you've travelled between Toll booths too fast. You're timed between Toll booths so they know your average speed. Too fast and you get a ticket!

---

Only if the police do a spot check. That's why I have my lunch at the station service.

quote:

---

Couple those 100MPH speeds with the usual dip-sticks trying to join the main carriageway at 45-55mph and you've a recipe for disaster.

---

It works ok in Germany. When travelling at 100+ mph you move to the outside lane at junctions or reduce speed when the traffic is building up, keeping a safe distance at all times.

quote:

---

As for the Cops turning a blind eye to speeders, great, as long as it is not "inapporpriate" use of speed - which in turn can be seen as dangerous driving.

---

I totally agree. 69 mph is inappropriate in fog; 100 mph on a clear stretch on a dry summer's day is not.



Regards,

Steve.

Thus those on the inside lane slow down and move out to let traffic join in general, in Germany.

Those full cloverleaf intersections in Germany are a pain in traffic but once you're on the autobahn things tend to run smoothly even at speed. Lane discipline and use of all rear-view mirrors is the key to survival.

The bloody frogs* just sit there in the inside lane when you try to join the motorway.

* J'adore les froggies ayant veçu avec eux pendant un an ou deux.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

It works ok in Germany. When travelling at 100+ mph you move to the outside lane at junctions or reduce speed when the traffic is building up, keeping a safe distance at all times.

---

From my driving experience in Germany I found there was a speed limit (130 kmh at most) around all junctions on the autobahns, the autobahns are only unrestricted away from junctions. I was also informed by a German that if you were involved in an accident and it is proved you were travelling above 130kmh you will get partial blame for the accident if it was your fault or not.

From where I have driven in Europe I would consider probably Germany to be the safest followed by the UK. France and Belgium are a bit worse and well Italy is awful.

At least this is unlikely in the UK....

http://www.uk-mkivs.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22894

Tony