logo
More safety changes promised for Cumbria M6 junction 37

More safety changes promised for Cumbria M6 junction 37

BBC News2 days ago
National Highways has promised more changes to a motorway junction over growing safety concerns.The agency said it was "committed" to further measures for junction 37 on the M6 in Cumbria before the end of March. The road carries the A684 over the motorway near Kendal and there have been a number of serious crashes and near misses.A number of improvements have already been made but National Highways said it was looking at options to "further improve safety".
Bruce Parker from National Highways said: "We recognise this is a location where there have been a number of very tragic incidents in the past, so this is very much a priority location for us."He said the "vast majority" of drivers were looking to check if the road was clear, but there continued to be instances when motorists did not notice the junction ahead."We are working closely with the police who are similarly perplexed why the issue appears to be happening," he added."If people are ignoring the stop signs, why would they not ignore a traffic light."What we don't want to do is spend lots of money making changes to the junction for it to have no impact."
'Improve awareness'
In a statement National Highways confirmed it was looking at options to further improve safety.It said: "We expect to deliver those improvements, once identified, in the current financial year. "We need to be confident that any additional measures will improve driver awareness without the risk of causing confusion."
Follow BBC Cumbria on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms

Daily Mail​

time28 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms

The life sciences industry is among the brightest jewels in the British economy, generating £100billion a year and employing more than 300,000 people. At its heart is the development and manufacture of pharmaceuticals, notably by AstraZeneca, which spends vast sums on research and is worth £167billion. So, if this hugely successful company were to relocate to the US, it would be a disaster both for the London Stock Exchange and the wider economy. Worryingly, this is not out of the question. AstraZeneca already sells 40 per cent of its drugs to America and, following President Donald Trump 's tariff threat, is ramping up research and production there. While there are no immediate plans to desert the UK, chief executive Pascal Soriot is said to be 'flirting' with the idea. Mr Trump's latest demand that foreign drug companies cut prices to US customers or face penalties may be an added incentive. The Left has always been highly critical of 'Big Pharma', accusing it of profiteering on the backs of NHS patients. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour planned to create a state-owned drug manufacturer with the power to override the patents which enable firms to make profits from their research. Only last year, Sir Keir Starmer refused to help fund a new vaccine plant in Liverpool – while pouring public money into our ailing steel industry. This Government must understand that failing to nurture AstraZeneca, GSK and others would be a catastrophic mistake. And Sir Keir should realise that while they say they want to remain in the UK, they may yet change their mind. Car lenders off hook Banks and credit providers will have heaved a huge sigh of relief yesterday after the Supreme Court ruled they will not have to pay compensation to millions of motorists who bought cars on finance without being told the dealers were receiving commission on the loan. The Treasury was also delighted with the result. Had it gone the other way, damages could have been comparable to the PPI scandal, which destabilised the financial industry for more than a decade. The court decided that dealers did not have a duty to act solely for buyers and that commissions were not a form of bribery in the legal sense, as had been alleged. However, it was not a total exoneration. Court President Lord Reed also ruled that excessive commission payments were unfair and ordered one buyer who had been charged 25 per cent of the value of the car to be repaid with interest. This opens the way to further claims. Many brokers and dealers were paid behind-the-scenes commission by lenders to sign buyers up to car finance deals, a practice deemed 'unlawful' by the Court of Appeal in October last year - a decision that was successfully appealed by lenders at the Supreme Court The dealers and lenders have escaped their worst fears, but they do not come out well. They have certainly been guilty of sharp practices even if not illegal ones. The Competition and Markets Authority must now force them to clean up their act. OAPs feel the cold In September, Rachel Reeves promised she would 'put more money in pensioners' pockets'. What she didn't say is that she would take even more out. Research shows pensioner households are an average of £800 worse off after a year of Labour thanks to higher bills – mainly owing to the Chancellor's £40billion Budget tax raid. With more taxes coming down the track to fill Labour's ever-widening financial black hole, the cost of living is set to soar further. For all Ms Reeves' promises, the elderly are in for a bitter winter.

Car finance judgement 'a hard pill to swallow'
Car finance judgement 'a hard pill to swallow'

BBC News

time2 hours ago

  • BBC News

Car finance judgement 'a hard pill to swallow'

A ruling by the UK's most senior judges later has closed down an opportunity for millions of motorists to claim compensation for motor finance Supreme Court decided not to uphold an earlier ruling which found that hidden commission payments to car dealers were the ruling left open the possibility of claims for compensation for large commissions that were BBC talked to two of the people who brought the case to the Supreme Court, plus a person who is planning to make a claim. 'A really big bag of salt' Marcus Johnson from Cwmbran, Torfaen, was one of the claimants in the landmark described the the outcome as "a bitter pill to swallow", although was awarded just over £1,650 on the grounds that his relationship with the lender was said he was "pleased for myself, but not for the hundreds of others" who will now miss out."It's weird," he said. "It's a win, but it's a really big bag of salt to go with it".He was 27 when he bought a blue Suzuki Swift in 2017, and did not know that the commission had been paid, although the lender said he had signed a after passing his driving test in June of that year he walked into a car dealership, and within an hour was driving away in a car he liked, "very excited".It wasn't until threes years later, when he had paid off the finance on the car, that he realised he still had almost the cash price of the car left to was then he decided to contact the three claimants won their test cases, it could have opened up lenders to compensation claims totalling about £ it stands, that bill could shrink to between £5bn and £13bn, according to accountancy and advice firm BDO. 'There's still meat on the bone' Andrew Wrench has been described as "a postman with a penchant for fast cars".He says that description "made me chuckle". The 61-year-old is ex-forces, and also held other positions before becoming a postman, but he is proud to have been described as "the Erin Brockovich of Stoke-on-Trent".He says he is pleased that Marcus was awarded compensation, and that there will be further claims arising from that judgement."There's still meat on the bone," he says, adding that he is glad he helped throw light on the subject, even though his own case was not successful."I just want people to be accountable, and I don't want them getting away with being deceitful and dishonest," he adds. "It all comes down to: honesty is the best policy."Andrew's lawyer, Kavon Hussain of Consumer Rights Solicitors, says that the judgement was "a mixed bag", but showed that the Supreme Court expected car dealers to "always be acting in their own interests" and people should not expect a good deal. 'I'm going to chase my claim' Although it has been a mixed result for the claimants in the case, some people are determined to pursue dealers were paid a bigger commission if they sold a higher interest rate on the were known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) and were banned by regulators in Caffrey, from Blackburn, bought a car in 2009 after maternity leave. Her son was born with certain medical needs, and she wanted a car to get to work and multiple doctor appointments."I'm going to pursue my claim, but I do feel for the people it's put a stop to," she says. "They won't be compensated and I find that quite sad."Jemma feels she was "taken advantage of as a vulnerable new mum". She trusted the car dealership to give her the best deal it could, and paid a high interest rate for her blue Corsa, which she named "Colin". It was not until years later, having read about car finance in the local press, that she went to a law firm to bring a now intends to pursue it.

Tesla must pay $329 million for a deadly crash involving Autopilot, jury says
Tesla must pay $329 million for a deadly crash involving Autopilot, jury says

The Independent

time2 hours ago

  • The Independent

Tesla must pay $329 million for a deadly crash involving Autopilot, jury says

A Miami jury has ordered Elon Musk's car manufacturer, Tesla, to pay $329 million to victims of a fatal crash involving its Autopilot driver-assist technology. The ruling, delivered on Friday, could open the door to further costly lawsuits and deals a significant blow to the company's reputation for safety. The federal jury found Tesla bore substantial responsibility, citing a failure in its technology. This determination means that not all blame could be attributed to the reckless driver, who admitted being distracted by his mobile phone before hitting a young couple who were stargazing. The conclusion of this four-year case is remarkable, not just for its outcome, but because it even reached trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have previously been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid public scrutiny. This decision comes as Mr Musk seeks to convince the public of his vehicles' safety, particularly as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. Mr Musk's Tesla company doesn't have the permits required to run any autonomous service, even with a safety driver, and they're unable to charge for it. Tesla has been in discussions with Golden State regulators about expanding the service to California but it would be with significant restrictions to Elon Musk's promises for his Robotaxi service, Politico reported. at least five times since the start of last year, documents reviewed by the outlet show.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store