With that said, it’s known that 24 vehicles (on average) per week are involved in some sort of collision on a traditional hard shoulder, so that may not be the answer either.

Smart motorways

We recently reported that many drivers are too scared to use the hard shoulder on a smart motorway, and having read through your comments, it seems as though there’s a common theme: smart motorway, dumb driver.

It could be argued that it isn’t the technology at fault, but that of the organic lump behind the wheel of the vehicle; if drivers were better educated, more courteous or respectful, understood the simple physics of car accidents and how to avoid them, then perhaps a smart motorway may work?

That’s all very well, but what happens in the event of a breakdown? Or any unforeseen circumstance? Making your way to a safety refuge isn’t always possible, and if you happen to find yourself stuck in the middle of a lane, it can take anything up to 20 minutes for the live lane to be closed, and even then, there’s rarely a physical barrier closing the lane, just a big red X on an overhead gantry, which is easily ignored.

While Highways England claim that a smart motorway is just as safe as a conventional motorway, Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA, said: “The fact fatal incidents on British motorways rose by almost a fifth last year is depressingly tragic. We need to design and build the safest roads in the world, not ones ‘just as safe’ as their predecessors.

“Drivers feel uneasy on all lane running schemes, so much so that two thirds (66%) are only prepared to drive up to half a mile in search of an Emergency Refuge Area, before stopping in a live lane should they have a puncture.

“It seems that as more collisions occur where vulnerable vehicles are hit in live lanes, the more the public seems to distrust the concept of smart motorways.”

More than revenue generation

Of course, the simplest argument for smart motorways is financial, both in terms of cost to build and revenue that can be generated automatically for any infringement of the law, but there is a valid argument, albeit quite minor:

A smart motorway can be an excellent way to improve traffic flow and volume on stretches of motorways that would have previously been impossible to improve, either through geographic restrictions, or prohibitive costs. But as for the rest of the arguments? Even Highways England have admitted that the safety records are a worry – “the numbers (of fatalities) are very concerning, more needs to be done to improve the safety”.

Having smart motorways is all well and good when we have smart drivers using them, but that’s not the world we live in, and as such, we should look to tackle the problems that conventional motorways bring about, and really only resort to using the all-lane running motorways where absolutely necessary, rather than as a cheap alternative to traditional road construction.

We’ve seen this before; when councils introduced 20mph blanket speed limits in residential areas in the name of safety, only to be proven that they in fact increased the danger, they wouldn’t (couldn’t?) spend the money to revert them back to 30mph zones. Financial gain before safety, regardless of political alignment.

Public service announcements

Going back a few decades, we’d often see Public Service Announcements in the form of short adverts on the television, perhaps the most memorable being “Only a fool breaks the two second rule”. Maybe we need a return of those PSAs, advising motorists both old and new on the correct procedures of how to drive on modern motorways?

Or should we all just sit back and wait for full-autonomy to arrive, with connected cars ‘talking’ to each other, and avoiding all possible risks and accidents?

What do you think of smart motorways? Do they have any benefit? Or is it simply a way of generating revenue, while saving infrastructure costs? Let us know in the comments.

Winds of change

With 37 cities repeatedly recording illegal levels of NO₂, the United Kingdom’s air quality record is bad and, in London, over two million people live in areas where air pollution levels are above the legal limit.

There is no healthy level of NO₂.

As recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO), European law limits NO₂ in the air to an hourly average of 40 micrograms per cubic metre (μg per m³)—or any regular spikes in extreme levels of NO₂—and any measurement above 40μg per m³ gets a ‘significant pollution’ rating.

The Central Office of Public Interest (COPI) is a non-profit campaign organisation that has created www.addresspollution.org—an air quality rating website using KCL-sourced data. For each address, the website gives an air pollution rating of one to five, with ‘five’ showing the air pollution is at least 50% above the legal limit.

Affluent Chelsea and Westminster are areas with air pollution above 80μg per m³. This level of toxicity leads to a 33% increased risk of disease-related mortality. Southwark was the worst postcode area with a nitrogen dioxide measurement of over 102μg per m³. It’s in these boroughs where the COPI is targeting homebuyers with billboards that read: ‘These houses cost an arm, leg, and lung’ and ‘Location, Location, Lung Disease’.

COPI are advising homebuyers and renters demand discounts of up to 20% to live in the areas with the worst air quality—which could cut property prices across the capital may drop by up to £256,000 in Chelsea, £146,000 in Islington, and £66,000 in Tower Hamlets.

A study showed 76% of the London’s residents say that discounts should apply to properties available to buy or rent in neighbourhoods where the air quality violates the legal limit and where they’re at greater risk of experiencing related health issues.

‘”Air pollution is killing people across the country, and London is worst hit—but people don’t believe it will affect them personally”

“Air pollution is killing people across the country, and London is worst hit—but people don’t believe it will affect them personally.”

“‘The Air Quality Rating is a tool to change these perceptions and shows just how real, and dangerous, air pollution is across the capital, including in some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods.”

Those fashionable addresses include Notting Hill, Regent’s Park, and The Mall where, if you don’t find yourself among their high-rolling residents such as Daniel Craig, David Beckham, and the royal family, you can guarantee you’ll be amid very polluted air.

Milles added:

“I urge every Londoner to check the Air Quality Rating for their address, get informed and take action.”

Frank Kelly, Professor of Environmental Health at KCL, said:

‘Many people don’t learn about air pollution levels and the health consequences until after they have suffered its effects.’

Studies have shown nitrogen dioxide levels above 40μg per m³ to lead to an 11% increased risk of disease-related mortality.

Evidence also shows links between NO₂ exposure and decreased life expectancy, anxiety, asthma; Autism, cancer, dementia; Depression, erectile dysfunction, infertility; Miscarriage, obesity, psychosis, and slow childhood development.

There are 36,000 deaths each year because of air pollution, costing us £20billion each year in healthcare. A further 29,000 people die with air pollution-related illnesses such as cancer, chronic lung disease, and diabetes.

The WHO says humans shouldn’t expose themselves to levels exceeding 200μg per m³ for anything over 18 hours a year but the air quality sensor on the Strand passed this limit 20 times by July of this year.

‘With an Air Quality rating for every house in the country using the latest data provided by King’s, this will enable the public to better understand the air quality at their own front door, and equip them with an understanding of how best to improve their local air quality,’ added Professor Kelly.

Cloudy with a chance of…a discount?

In August we learned that the Autumn Budget may bring fuel duty cuts of 2ppl, which, while great for the motorist, isn’t consistent with improving environmental pollution caused by car emissions.

Only a week before we told you about ‘Emission Impossible?’—a report by a conservative think tank calling on the government to reduce air pollution by not only stopping the freeze on the value of fuel duty but to apply a surcharge on fuel duty for diesel fuel.

By law, estate agents must declare material issues to you, that could affect the price of a property you’re looking to buy. Yet, with air pollution, the matter—pardon the pun—becomes cloudy.

Because the argument exists that air isn’t a material issue, estate agents need not make you aware that it might be a problem and may damage the health of you and your family, etc.

Although estate agents exist who say it’s inevitable that declaring air quality ratings will become an industry standard, in the meantime, if you’re looking to buy a property in London (or anywhere, because the website is rolling out the service to the rest of the UK), remember, the air quality information is now public and can help you negotiate on the price.

Tip of the iceberg

With that said, some of the conditions seem impractical to self-declare – low blood sugar, sleepiness and even déjà vu, and some seem … like they were written in the 70s; you need to self-declare a hysterectomy, or caesarean section (and they’re listed separately to ‘Surgery’, the assumption being that they’re not talking recent).

“You can be fined up to £1,000 if you don’t tell the DVLA about a medical condition that affects your driving, but is that really a strong enough deterrent?”

“With so many of us reliant on our cars for work and pleasure, there will be drivers on the road who think it’s worth the risk to keep quiet because handing in their driving licence could mean losing their mobility, their job and not seeing their family and friends.”

New drivers

On the face of it, a graduated licence could make sense – any 17-year-old with enough money could (in theory) learn to drive, pass their test and jump straight in to a 700+hp supercar without any further training or education, but that’s not what Brake are calling for.

If you ride a motorcycle, you’ll be aware that there are graduated licences (that restrict horsepower and engine capacity), and even before you get anywhere near a road, you have to undertake a Compulsory Basic Training (CBT) course, but no such thing exists for cars.

It could be argued that learning to drive has never been easier – certain elements have been removed from the test, to be replaced with tasks such as checking the screenwash fluid, and of course, new technology means that testing dexterity (like a hill-start) is also a thing of the past.

Don’t fall foul of self-declaration

To be on the safe side, you should check whether your illness should or could be declared by you – you could face a £1,000 fine, be prosecuted if you’re involved in an accident as a result of the problem, and in some cases, your insurance could be invalid if caught driving with a known medical problem.

If you do find yourself in the position of having your licence removed, all is not lost; you can reapply for a driving licence once your doctor agrees that you meet the medical standards. Voluntarily surrendering your licence is slightly different: you can still drive while you renew the licence if you have the support of your doctor, a valid licence, that you only drive under the conditions of the previous licence, that you haven’t been disqualified or your licence revoked and the application is less than 12-months old.

Rock on!

Researchers found that those listening to light or no music changed lanes up to 70 times in an hour, whereas those who listened to rock music changed lanes up to 140 times an hour. The latter also went about 5mph faster and in some cases 10mph.

Those who listened to light music drove comparably to those who had no music on.

“Rock music is often characterised as having a fast tempo and high sound volume . . . The findings are useful for the development of effective driver education strategies — in particular, a publicity programme that could enhance public awareness of the negative impact of music listening on driving performance.” – Qiang Zen (co-author of the study)

Volume up or volume down?

Top five most dangerous songs

1. “American Idiot” – Green Day
2. “Party in the USA” – Miley Cyrus
3. “Mr Brightside” – The Killers
4. “Don’t Let Me Down” – The Chainsmokers
5. “Born to Run” – Bruce Springsteen

Top five safest songs

1. “Stairway to Heaven” – Led Zeppelin
2. “Under the Bridge” – Red Hot Chili Peppers
3. “God’s Plan” – Drake
4. “Africa” – Toto
5. “Location” – Khalid

Safe drive, stay alive

Making the right choices in what you listen to is important. If you use Spotify, Apple Music or any other music streaming service, why not create a driving playlist? Choose songs that have a similar BPM to a heartbeat, which sits between approximately 60-100BPM, as this is what experts say is best.

Chartered psychologist Dr Simon Moore says, “Fast music can cause excitement and arousal that can lead people to concentrate more on the music than the road. In addition, a fast tempo can cause people to subconsciously speed up to match the beat of the song”.

According to Dr Moore, the optimum tempo of a song for safe driving should mimic the human heartbeat. The safest songs for the road are within 60-100 bpm and not too extreme in energy in either direction (not too much and not too little).

If you’re a radio fan, then Smooth Radio or Classic FM is the best as the general BPM and energy was soothing. Beware Radio X, Heart or Absolute Radio as these had the highest proportion of ‘dangerous’ songs according to Moneybarn. They took a random sample of 15 songs from the most popular UK radio stations to see which had the highest number of dangerous songs.

Electronic handbrakes

In an age of connectivity, smart cars and electrification, manufacturers are looking toward improving systems and processes even further. Certainly, there isn’t much wrong with the traditional handbrake, but as a system, it’s crude and offers little innovation – essentially, the handbrake has remained unchanged since its introduction.

There are a number of reasons why the manufacturers are pushing toward electronic systems, not only does it free up space in the cabin, and remove the unsightly lever, but they also offer built-in safety features – no more slipping (or even forgetting), automatic hill-start assist, automatically disengaging when pulling away, and of course, it can’t be applied while on the move. Sorry kids.

Cost cutting

The first electronic parking brake was fitted to a 7 Series BMW in 2001, but of course as with any technology, as it becomes more widely adopted, the prices plummet, and it becomes more affordable. Given that it uses servo motors and intelligent control (so must have some form of ECU), the price of the electronic brake would outweigh the cost of a traditional brake, but they’re easier to fit, and in theory, shouldn’t need any maintenance above the regular servicing, so the overall price differential isn’t that great.

There may also be an element of allowing the manufacturer to lower the specification of other components – think of the clutch for example; if automatic hill-assist takes care of the dreaded hill start, there should be a drop in the number of drivers that ride the clutch while they wait to move off.

But we shouldn’t forget that the same as prices coming down, new technology usually has some inherent faults that have been unforeseen.

Volkswagen recall

Back in 2017, Volkswagen had to recall 134,000 UK models from the Golf, Touran, Tiguan and Passat range for problems with their handbrakes, Tesla recalled 53,000 cars worldwide to fix problems with their system, and Toyota, Renault and Audi have all had to recall models at some point for handbrake problems.

While electronic handbrakes do have their positives, you’d have to say that if there’s a problem with incorrect tensioning, there’s very little you can do – it’s not like you can just pull on the lever a little harder. Equally, if it fails to engage, or even disengage, no amount of scrabbling around underneath the vehicle will help you – it’s a trip to a main dealer, or a well-appointed independent garage with a diagnostic machine.

The future of driving

It would seem that this is just another small step to the future of autonomous driving – one less thing that new drivers will have to learn, another process that’s moving toward the car taking complete control of the driving process, albeit in small steps.

We’ve already reported on the fact that intelligent cars will monitor, and if necessary, adjust your speed if you’re driving too fast, and that newer cars have the ability to spy on you and report back, and while a great deal of these features have come about for safety or convenience, you can’t help feeling that the art of driving, is slowly dying, and I believe we’re already seeing the repercussions.

All too often, we see drivers that use a car purely as a means of transportation, that give no thought to situational awareness, driving conditions, or other drivers; automatic emergency braking systems mean that drivers don’t need to be as aware, lane-assist stops them wandering between lanes, blind spot systems stop them from pulling out into traffic approaching them from behind, and in-car entertainment systems with full connectivity and Wi-Fi means distractions are plenty.

I’m not advocating a roll-back to steam power and a man with a red flag, but just as many F1 drivers say that it’s now too safe for enjoyment, you may just start to think about hanging on to your current, pre-safety conscious car just that little bit longer.

Do you think driving standards are slipping? Do these safety systems lessen the skill needed to drive properly? Let us know in the comments.