ChatterBank6 mins ago
motorway lighting...
i have noticed recently some that sections of motorways are in darkness, meaning everyone turns on their highbeams - and subsequently blinds every one in front of them, through the reflections in their mirrors...this makes it harder to see outside...
so why do they do this on roads where people are driving at speed?
is there any reason other than to save money?
id be interested to know if there are any statistics available that state whether more accidents occur in those sections at night...
so why do they do this on roads where people are driving at speed?
is there any reason other than to save money?
id be interested to know if there are any statistics available that state whether more accidents occur in those sections at night...
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The majority of the UK's motorway network doesn't have lighting anyway. The midnight switch-off, on some of those sections which do have lights, is to reduce carbon emissions and light pollution.
Quote:
"Lighting of motorways has traditionally been justified as a measure to improve road safety. Recent research by the Agency found that the safety benefits of motorway lighting were 1/3 less than previously thought. In addition, we identified that the traffic volumes and accident rates between midnight and 5am were often so low that there is no general long-term safety benefit to operating the lights during this period. Almost all the safety benefits from motorway lighting occur outside the midnight to 5am period".
Source:
http://www.highways.g.../knowledge/30236.aspx
Chris
Quote:
"Lighting of motorways has traditionally been justified as a measure to improve road safety. Recent research by the Agency found that the safety benefits of motorway lighting were 1/3 less than previously thought. In addition, we identified that the traffic volumes and accident rates between midnight and 5am were often so low that there is no general long-term safety benefit to operating the lights during this period. Almost all the safety benefits from motorway lighting occur outside the midnight to 5am period".
Source:
http://www.highways.g.../knowledge/30236.aspx
Chris
and heres a nice comment from new judge on motorway safety...
1.1% of Britain’s roads are motorways (2,705 of an approximate total of 247,000).
In 2008 there were 2,538 deaths on the roads of which 158 (6.2%) occurred on motorways. That is one deaths for every 17 miles of motorway and one death for every 102 miles of other roads.
So, mile for mile motorways are six times as dangerous as other roads. Put another way, assuming all the deaths result from excess speed (very rash assumption) a camera covering 100 miles of motorway will prevent six deaths whilst one covering 100 miles of other roads will prevent only one.
1.1% of Britain’s roads are motorways (2,705 of an approximate total of 247,000).
In 2008 there were 2,538 deaths on the roads of which 158 (6.2%) occurred on motorways. That is one deaths for every 17 miles of motorway and one death for every 102 miles of other roads.
So, mile for mile motorways are six times as dangerous as other roads. Put another way, assuming all the deaths result from excess speed (very rash assumption) a camera covering 100 miles of motorway will prevent six deaths whilst one covering 100 miles of other roads will prevent only one.
Motorways without lighting are never really sufficient dark enough to warrant the use of main-beams to find ones way.
The single direction of the triple-lane carriageway removes the need to watch out for oncoming unlit cows, pedestrians, etc.
Other drivers are (hopefully) visible by their own lamps.
The single direction of the triple-lane carriageway removes the need to watch out for oncoming unlit cows, pedestrians, etc.
Other drivers are (hopefully) visible by their own lamps.
Ah joko, the wonders of statistics.
While it may be true that only 1.1% of roads are motorways, 23% of all traffic is on motorways. In 2003 motorways accounted for 2 deaths per billion Vehicle-Kilometres as opposed to 9 deaths per billion Vehicle-Kilometres on non-motorways. So in fact in real terms motorways are 4.5 times as safe non-motorways.
http://en.wikipedia.o...i/Road_traffic_safety
While it may be true that only 1.1% of roads are motorways, 23% of all traffic is on motorways. In 2003 motorways accounted for 2 deaths per billion Vehicle-Kilometres as opposed to 9 deaths per billion Vehicle-Kilometres on non-motorways. So in fact in real terms motorways are 4.5 times as safe non-motorways.
http://en.wikipedia.o...i/Road_traffic_safety
-- answer removed --
Yes I’m glad you pointed out the shortcomings of my analysis, rojash. (As I said in the original question, it was very rough and ready).
But for the purposes of this question, six times as many deaths occur per mile of motorway than they do per mile of other roads. The density of the traffic on motorways is an even stronger reason to maintain lighting (where it is provided) during all the hours of darkness. After all, that’s what they were provided for.
The government has no proper game plan when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. I heard the preposterous Mr Huhne (Her Majesty’s Secretary for Energy and “Climate Change”) on Radio Four this morning. He was asked about the likelihood of further steep increases in energy prices. All he could do, instead of answering the question, was to prattle on about householders getting their lofts insulated (which most people have done anyway) and to emphasise how important his useless and ridiculously expensive windmills are to the government’s energy policy.
If the government is really intent on reducing carbon emissions a far more effective way to do so would be to prevent shops from throwing open their doors in the middle of January and then heating the street up nicely for ten or twelve hours a day with their 25Kw “curtain” heaters. The savings made by turning a few lights off for a few hours each night would pale into insignificance alongside this simple but far more effective (and potentially less damaging) measure.
Turning street lights off at night (particularly on motorways) is a ridiculous notion – almost as ridiculous as Mr Huhne’s useless windmills.
But for the purposes of this question, six times as many deaths occur per mile of motorway than they do per mile of other roads. The density of the traffic on motorways is an even stronger reason to maintain lighting (where it is provided) during all the hours of darkness. After all, that’s what they were provided for.
The government has no proper game plan when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. I heard the preposterous Mr Huhne (Her Majesty’s Secretary for Energy and “Climate Change”) on Radio Four this morning. He was asked about the likelihood of further steep increases in energy prices. All he could do, instead of answering the question, was to prattle on about householders getting their lofts insulated (which most people have done anyway) and to emphasise how important his useless and ridiculously expensive windmills are to the government’s energy policy.
If the government is really intent on reducing carbon emissions a far more effective way to do so would be to prevent shops from throwing open their doors in the middle of January and then heating the street up nicely for ten or twelve hours a day with their 25Kw “curtain” heaters. The savings made by turning a few lights off for a few hours each night would pale into insignificance alongside this simple but far more effective (and potentially less damaging) measure.
Turning street lights off at night (particularly on motorways) is a ridiculous notion – almost as ridiculous as Mr Huhne’s useless windmills.
1 to 14 of 14
