h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Motorway Traffic and the Hierarchy of Overtaking - A20720873
Author: The Apprentice - U35204

Having started writing this little piece, I have run into a speed bump with a sign that says - this might well have been touched on before and probably sounds like a bit of a rant. In truth, while I think it worthy of consideration and it certainly rings true from my experience - I'm open to comment on the content and subject matter and whether I should consider (a) completing it with the intention of (b) posting it up for Peer Review.

Any thoughts?

The Apprentice

The only thought I have is this cant be much improved. The best thing is that it would teach a lot of us something that cant be bad.


Well done good entry,

This does read like a rant to me - it's not in the third person for a start, but that doesn't mean that you can't make it into an Edited Guide entry if you want to.

There are some mistakes in it though.

"Then, like a dual carriageway (where a 60 mph standard speed limit applies, just in case you'd forgotten that)"

Dual carriageways don't have a 60 mph limit. If they are national speed limit, that's 70, but a lot of them these days are limited to 40, 50 or 60. But the standard is generally 70. Depending on what you're driving, and if you're towing, etc etc...

"For reasons probably rooted in fear of mortal injury and massive vehicular damage, standard driving instruction and instructors do not require that you take to the motorways until after you pass your test, in the UK"

This sounds as if learners could practice on a motorway, but don't. It's law that they aren't allowed on a motorway (and for good reason), which isn't clear from your entry. Many instructors will do a motorway lesson for new drivers, which IMO should be compulsory but isn't (which you do mention is your opinion too!).

If you really want to make this into the EG, I'd suggest you make it into a 'motorway driving' entry, rather than just for overtaking, but you might need to check what the other driving entries say about motorways first, in case that's already been covered.

Tweaked, updated and driven into 3rd person, I think.

The Apprentice

Hi Apprentice.

Firstly, can I say I am more or less in complete agreement with your sentiments, but I do feel it is a bit of a rant.

Your point about people not learning on motorways doesn't acknowledge that people in Norfolk, Cornwall and north of Perth don't actually have access to motorways to practice on. If motorway driving were compulsory in learning, they might face a driving lesson hundreds of miles long.

When traffic is free-flowing on motorways yes, everybody should gravitate towards the inside lane. Sadly, free-flowing motorways are not so common nowadays and all too frequently it is more efficient for all 3 (or 4) lanes to be used.

Perhaps if you did not name the subjects of your ire (corporate hire drivers etc) it would seem less like a rant.

You attribute the falling accident rate to improved safety features but fail to mention that car ownership has exploded in the last twenty years. When I was young, there was one car between my parents and two sisters. Twenty years later, there are 7 cars in use by my family and our spouses. Such a rise in car ownership accompanied by a fall in accidents cannot be entirely attributed to seatbelts & ABS.

As a professional driver doing around 45-50,000 miles a year, I would say that the standard of driving on motorways during the week is exceptionally good overall. They are actually the safest roads to drive on because, in general, people do know the rules. The problems start on a weekend when the casual drivers hit the motorways. They have only a passing knowledge of motorway etiquette and are not used to judging high speeds accurately. Professional or experienced drivers on the motorway are predictable. Inexperienced drivers are far less so - and that's what causes accidents.

Driving is like any other skill - practice makes perfect and professional drivers get more practice.

Based on statistics from the Department of Transport - the number of vehicles per head of population has increase seven or eightfold over the last 50 years. The amount of traffic has risen almost elevenfold in the same period. At the same time, however, injuries and deaths have steadily decreased, with a notable drop in the death rate since the mid-80s.

I hate to engage in dubious logic from this point onwards, but in the most recent figures I could access (2004/2005) a third of the drivers involved in accidents admitted 'failure to look properly' being a contributory factor to the incident, while 15% reported 'exceeding the speed limit' or 'going too fast for the conditions' as contributing.

So - yes the numbers of cars on the road and the amount of traffic have increased, but - thankfully - deaths and injuries have no sky-rocketed with them. Where accidents do occur, a common thread of failing to respond appropriately to conditions ranks quite highly - with, I'm sure, a heavy dose of those failing to look properly doing so because they have better things to concentrate on in the car (e.g. mobile phones, CD/DVD players, books/newspapers, frizzy/fly-away hair). Seems like better cars with less focussed drivers making for a steady decline in fatalities.

Yeah - OK... I did say I was going to get all dubious.



The Apprentice