M5 carnage renews attacks on speed limit rise
Ending the war on motorists is a good soundbite, but saving lives is more important
THE DEADLY crash on the M5 in Somerset has brought renewed questioning of the Transport Secretary's proposed increase of motorway speed limits from 70mph to 80mph.
Not the time to raise the limit
Imagine if a train or plane had caused a massive fireball, seven deaths and more than 50 injuries, says Peter Wilby in The Guardian. Inquiries would be launched and new regulations demanded. Yet after the carnage of the M5 crash on the weekend, we will offer our condolences, shrug our shoulders, and "attribute it to bad luck and bad weather".
The government is even considering raising the speed limit from 70mph to 80mph, says Wilby, despite the fact that research indicates the increase would result in greater road fatalities. Clearly they think it's a price worth paying "to enter what they call, with unconscious grisly irony, 'the economic fast lane'". But ministers are nudging drivers in the wrong direction, and on a dark autumnal night, that could just make the difference.
We have said from the beginning that we would not support an increase in the speed limit, says Jo Bullock, spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, quoted in the Daily Mail. "Higher speed means less time for drivers to react to what's going on around them. Our concern is that there will be more serious accidents."
Who says speed was to blame?
The anti-car lobby is circling like vultures, said Brian Gregory, chairman of the Association of British Drivers, in a press release quoted in the Mail. Accidents aren't caused by a "number on a pole", and the M5 disaster will be shown to be no exception.
In this case, it is clear that the accident involved a number of HGVs limited to 56mph, added Gregory. Plus "there are question marks over the wisdom of holding a firework display adjacent to the motorway".
Either way, it's bad politics
Whatever the cause, the plan to raise speed limits doesn't look like clever politics in the wake of the M5 disaster, says Christian Wolmar in The Times. Though there is no evidence that speed was the main cause, witness reports of cars ploughing into the wreckage at 70mph "suggest a higher limit might have made it worse".
The incident exposes "the shaky foundations" of former Transport Secretary Philip Hammond's 80mph plan, adds Wolmar. His replacement, Justine Greening, is left with a dilemma: "either ignore the evidence and plough on with a populist policy or perform a U-turn".
While "ending the war on the motorist is a good soundbite, saving their lives is more important," says Wolmar. ·
