Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the RAC
When the Highways Agency gave evidence to your
Committee last week, a number of questions from the Committee
about the role and interests of the motoring organisations has
prompted me to write to clarify a number of points.
HARD SHOULDER
RUNNING
RAC's opposition to hard shoulder running stems
not, as the questioner believed, from a motivation to protect
contracts to provide recovery services in roadworks—indeed
we do not hold any such contracts. It stems entirely from our
concern about the road safety implications.
It clearly makes absolute sense to focus on
making better use of the network that we already have, and this
should include both physical improvements, traffic and demand
management, and a focus on the driving behaviour of those using
the roads. While the authorities have the responsibility for providing
the infrastructure, we each as individuals can affect how that
infrastructure is used to best effect by the decisions we make
on when, where and also how we drive.
While hard shoulder running may be perceived
as a more rapid and less costly solution to increasing network
capacity, RAC continues to oppose it unless substantive research
evidence in the UK can demonstrate that it presents no increased
safety hazard for motorists or for those working on the hard shoulder.
RAC acknowledges that, if operated in conjunction with enforced
speed restrictions, its use on very limited sections of motorway
at busy junctions may be justified provided this does not threaten
the underlying integrity of the hard shoulder as a cornerstone
of motorway safety. Research conducted for RAC indicates that
83% of drivers think peak time use of the hard shoulder to reduce
congestion is a bad idea and a similar number think it would make
the roads less safe.
Support from the Dutch motoring organisation
for hard shoulder running in the Netherlands is based on the fact
that hard shoulder running has been introduced as a temporary
measure before road widening is implemented. There is concern
that it can take up to two minutes from an incident occurring
in the lane before the red cross above the lane is set to close
the lane to other traffic, leaving the broken down motorist vulnerable.
We are playing an active part in the Highways
Agency's trial of hard shoulder running as part of the M42 Active
Traffic Management scheme and have helped in the design of the
new Emergency Refuge Areas. RAC believes that such refuges should
be additional safety features and not a substitute for hard shoulders
and that their introduction on high-speed dual carriageways with
no hard shoulder would be welcomed, although we are unaware of
any such plans. Their size and frequency will clearly be important
factors, with graduated access and exit lanes to allow for safe
braking when leaving the motorway and sufficient acceleration
before rejoining the motorway. Adequate consideration must be
accorded to the dangers of vehicles rejoining the carriageway
from relatively short refuge areas, a manoeuvre regarded as particularly
hazardous by breakdown and recovery vehicle drivers.
RAC patrols attending breakdowns on motorways
find that, in the vast majority of cases, drivers are able to
reach the hard shoulder and are not stranded on the carriageway
itself. Whilst some are able to drive to the emergency phones,
the majority are stranded between emergency phone boxes. Indeed,
RAC statistics reveal that over 75% of motorway breakdowns attended
by us are catastrophic, ie, the vehicle has to come to an immediate
stop while only 7% can limp off without causing damage to the
vehicle. The remainder could limp off but are at an increased
risk of damage. This suggests that emergency refuge areas are
unlikely to provide a safe haven for a significant proportion
of those who breakdown.
Careful thought must also be given to the risk
resulting from mixed messages to road users about when it is legal
to use the hard shoulder. We already see motorists knowingly violating
bus lanes in congested traffic outside permitted hours, and the
risks of abuse of hard shoulder use carries much greater road
safety implications.
Hard shoulders were originally provided at considerable
cost to ensure the safety of motorists suffering a breakdown or
accident, for those whose occupations require them to work on
the road such as breakdown operators and maintenance crews and
for access to the scene of an incident by the emergency services.
Currently, some seventy-seven per cent of those stopping on motorways
do so because of breakdowns or other vehicle problems such as
overheating, broken windscreen, tyre failure or running out of
fuel.
RAC attends 128,000 motorway breakdowns annually.
This figure excludes HGVs and it is likely that the total number
of motorway breakdowns exceeds 500,000 per annum. Although vehicles
are more reliable today, the number of breakdowns we attend is
still increasing year on year, reflecting the higher mileages
and longer journeys that motorists undertake.
Regrettably, some 200 motorists are killed or
injured each year on the hard shoulder. Typically two of those
killed each year are breakdown or recovery vehicle operators,
though in 1998 this number was six. From this, it is evident that
the hard shoulder is clearly not a safe haven in its own right.
In response to this situation, RAC, AA, government
departments and the police published their findings and recommendations
on hard shoulder safety in the SURVIVE Report in April 2000. RAC
and AA funded the production of hard shoulder safety advice leaflets
advising motorists how to behave on the hard shoulder.
RAC, AA and Green Flag also funded the development
of a British Standard entitled "Safe working of vehicle breakdown
and recovery operators—a management system specification",
which is now adopted by the vast majority of the industry and
is a requirement for any sub-contractors to the main providers.
As average annual daily traffic rises, so does
the frequency of hard shoulder stops, and the duration of these
incidents can range from a few minutes to over an hour. Highways
Agency research suggested that vehicles involved in collisions
on the hard shoulder have been parked there for an average of
only 11 minutes. Speed is therefore of the essence in getting
vehicles and any trailers on the move again and removing the hazard
from the hard shoulder. A memorandum of understanding exists between
the Association of Chief Police Officers, RAC and AA. This defines
a target maximum attendance time for motorway breakdowns as 30
minutes. Both AA and RAC achieve this in the vast majority of
instances.
While congestion clearly costs British businesses
and road users millions of pounds each year, the cost to society
of accidents can also be quantified in economic terms and RAC
feels that an increased level of injuries and fatalities cannot
be justified in terms of the economic benefits of reduced congestion.
The UK's motorway infrastructure has an excellent safety record,
particularly when compared to many other countries, precisely
because safety has always been accorded the highest priority when
designing road infrastructure. RAC sees no reason to reverse this
position, nor any justification to undermine the current safety
record of our road network
Safety must be the overriding factor in any
decision to introduce hard shoulder running given that hard shoulders
make a significant contribution to the good safety record of motorways.
RAC therefore continues to oppose hard shoulder running unless
substantive research evidence in the UK can demonstrate that it
presents no increased safety hazard for motorists or for those
working on the hard shoulder. In other words, we oppose hard shoulder
running until it can be demonstrated that safety is not compromised
and that the benefits clearly outweigh the associated costs.
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN HIGHWAYS
AGENCY AND
RAC
It was suggested that the Highways Agency might
be "in hock" to special interests such as AA and RAC.
This has never been the case from our perspective and although
we are working hard at building effective working protocols and
relationships following the Highways Agency's new responsibilities,
in practice we have not always enjoyed the most amicable of relationships
over recent years. This has been down to RAC and AA publicly opposing
hard shoulder running and, earlier this year, taking our concerns
to the Secretary of State for Transport about the open ended provisions
in the Traffic Management Bill which carried specific implications
for the provision of rescue and recovery services across the country.
Clearly RAC is a commercial operator providing
breakdown services to individual and corporate customers. The
efficiency with which we provide these services, however, has
a major impact on every other road user in terms of both road
safety and congestion management. We contribute to road safety
by removing safety hazards as quickly as possible, and contribute
to free-flowing traffic by removing roadside obstructions, helping
to keep congestion to a minimum.
As such we believe strongly that the breakdown
sector should be a partner of the Highways Agency and other highways
authorities, helping them achieve their objectives for a safe
and efficient road transport network. It is for these reasons,
because we are part of the solution, that we have been granted
exemptions from the London and Durham congestion charging schemes,
and the proposed Edinburgh scheme, and that we enjoy exemption
from EU Drivers Hours Regulations.
The 1998 UK White Paper on the Future of Transport
stated it is desirable to improve response times where breakdowns
occur and that it is looking for ways to give properly accredited
recovery vehicles higher priority in congested traffic. The importance
of special consideration for the industry is reinforced by the
need to offset the impact of other traffic management measures,
such as ramp metering, HoV lanes, designated lanes, revised traffic
light phasing, congestion charging, increased congestion just
outside tolled zones, road closures and one-way systems. While
these are designed to meet legitimate traffic management objectives,
they will cumulatively impact negatively upon the time it takes
for rescue and recovery vehicles to attend roadside breakdowns,
particularly during peak hours. This is not in anyone's interests.
Our comprehensive modelling of rescue vehicle
movements has clearly demonstrated that:
1. Constraints of any kind would have a significant
impact on operational logistics resulting in an increase in travel
time of up to 10% per vehicle. This is particularly significant
during poor weather conditions when call outs can double to 14,000
per day from the average of 7,000.
2. This in turn would have an inevitable
negative impact on attendance times, in direct conflict with the
objective of speedier and efficient services in the interests
of road safety.
Special arrangements are often made for blue
light emergency vehicles on the basis that they have no discretion
over the time, destination or means by which they travel. Breakdown
and recovery vehicles equally do not make discretionary journeys
and their trips cannot be switched to alternative modes, routes,
destinations or times of day. We too operate an emergency service,
if not of the same order, and it is difficult to think of another
service activity which has the same potential to help in securing
road safety and free flowing traffic, while reassuring the motorist
in distress.
Of our two Response Centres, one deploys RAC
patrols, and the other is dedicated to deploying contractors who
provide back up at busy times, in rural areas and for more complicated
recoveries. In excess of 75% of all breakdowns are automatically
despatched to the appropriate resource via the RAC computer aided
despatch system. All our vehicle movements are tracked through
automatic vehicle location and all breakdown attendances are logged
centrally via our automatic despatch system. Maximum flexibility
in deployment of the closest patrol or resource is not only key
to ensuring the fastest attendance time possible but also to deploying
the most appropriate resource according to the nature of the breakdown
and thereby to avoid dual resourcing. Dual resourcing obviously
means longer waiting times at the roadside.
AA'S AND
RAC'S COMMERCIAL
INTERESTS
It was suggested that AA's and RAC's commercial
interests should not be allowed to interfere with good decisions
on congestion management. From the points set out above, I hope
you will appreciate that it is essential that the sector works
in partnership with the highway authorities to ensure not only
that we can continue to provide the best possible services at
the roadside for the benefit of all road users, but also to ensure
that highway authorities understand the complexities of breakdown
deployment such that they do not inadvertently inhibit its performance
so that we work in unison for the common good.
Ann Skey
Head of Public Affairs
14 December 2004
| 
