RE: Smart motorways are dumb: Tell Me I'm Wrong
Discussion
Fastdruid said:
Because after you have driven the same section every day for years and every day it is at 60mph you become accustomed to it. The exact same reason people don't look at every single speed limit sign on their route to work because they don't change. Then when the limit changes and the police enforce it they get fines.
In the case of the managed motorway after you've passed maybe 100's of 60's your brain filters them out (especially as you should be concentrating on the road) and a little bit of brain just looks for *changes*.
The 50 limit sign is too similar to 60 so that you *QUESTION* if you didn't notice the change, it's not that you didn't or you can't read it or indeed that you have missed a sign. You are just not sure and *that* is where the worry comes in.
I've just counted them on google maps. 33 gantries I passed every day each way. So say it's been a good week, 60mph all the time and then there is one 50mph limit comes on Friday, that's 300 gantries *all* saying 60mph I'll have passed. Are you suggesting you are so godly and observant that you will check each and every one of those 300 every single time and be 100% confident you have never made a mistake? Especially when the traffic is light and you are not expecting the limit to be changed downwards.
Personally I would have them flash if they were different (downwards) to the previous limit.
Thanks, I understand your point a bit better now and I guess the difference with me is that my motorway driving is relatively modest and tends to be big trips all at once. I do check gantries (and even find myself scanning other bridges etc for fixed or mobile cameras at times (out of interest of course) and I would hope that I had never made a mistake, I've certainly never had a NIP in 23 years of driving so probably not (although I know lots of these cameras don't work or aren't actually there).In the case of the managed motorway after you've passed maybe 100's of 60's your brain filters them out (especially as you should be concentrating on the road) and a little bit of brain just looks for *changes*.
The 50 limit sign is too similar to 60 so that you *QUESTION* if you didn't notice the change, it's not that you didn't or you can't read it or indeed that you have missed a sign. You are just not sure and *that* is where the worry comes in.
I've just counted them on google maps. 33 gantries I passed every day each way. So say it's been a good week, 60mph all the time and then there is one 50mph limit comes on Friday, that's 300 gantries *all* saying 60mph I'll have passed. Are you suggesting you are so godly and observant that you will check each and every one of those 300 every single time and be 100% confident you have never made a mistake? Especially when the traffic is light and you are not expecting the limit to be changed downwards.
Personally I would have them flash if they were different (downwards) to the previous limit.
Edited by Fastdruid on Wednesday 22 April 15:43
If I was doing the same stretch day in day out like you then I can see that it would be easier to be 'lulled' into thinking things will be the same and I happen to think that flashing down arrows and indeed up arrows or something next to the speed for 5 mins or so (or even have the speed flash whilst the cameras are priming themselves for a change (I think someone said 15 minutes) would be a good idea, as you say.
I won't move away from the fact that when we are in cars we should be concentrating hard on everything though and although speed limits that might change are an additional thing to take in, we should be capable of doing it, I don't think I am all that 'special' in that regard (although I did realise I had once become complacent at driving so I took the IAM test and drive to their 'IPSGA' system, so I am probably more observant than most motorists.
NelsonP said:
What I was arguing was that the presence of speed cameras and variable speed limits inevitably increase driver stress, and possibly too much so.
Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone slam their brakes on in a smart motorway zone though, certainly not solely due to the speed limit signs. Are they really making that much money? If they are then whilst I will accept that some of it will be down to really bad timing or unfortunate circumstances but the vast majority of any substantial sum if indeed that is what is happening is surely through ignorance? Even in the average speed zones, which anyone who has a basic knowledge of maths should understand, you can be passed by people doing 70-80 in 50 zones. They saw the signs, they just don't care or accept that the fine is the risk (and probably in many cases the only risk) of what they are doing.Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
zebedee said:
NelsonP said:
What I was arguing was that the presence of speed cameras and variable speed limits inevitably increase driver stress, and possibly too much so.
Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone slam their brakes on in a smart motorway zone though, certainly not solely due to the speed limit signs. Are they really making that much money? If they are then whilst I will accept that some of it will be down to really bad timing or unfortunate circumstances but the vast majority of any substantial sum if indeed that is what is happening is surely through ignorance? Even in the average speed zones, which anyone who has a basic knowledge of maths should understand, you can be passed by people doing 70-80 in 50 zones. They saw the signs, they just don't care or accept that the fine is the risk (and probably in many cases the only risk) of what they are doing.Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
The limit will suddenly drop to 50mph (for no reason) and a few cars will get flashed then everyone behind them jumps on the brakes.
Ripple effect a few miles back M11 junc - everything grinds to a halt. Happens all the time. Still yet to see any incident that has led to a drop in a speed limit. I'm convinced that most of the time it's for revenue generation
Gafferjim said:
huggies said:
A few weeks ago we were stranded on M42 at Junction 1 in a near lethal spot with a totally dead car
We waited 4/1/2 hours for rescue due to delays in recovery vehicles
Did we see one traffic cop/man who likes to dress as one or spotted by camera?..............Of course not
As it was going dark and we had no lights the recovery driver arrived and swore a lot saying the inside lane is required to be closed if anyone breaks down where we did.Oh well thanks for that.
Still here to tell the tale but will it make a difference.Mmmmm.
Managed motorways my a**e
So what did you do when you broke down? did you look for an SOS phone? did you call 101? or even 999 if you thought that you were in a dangerous location? or did you just sit there waiting?We waited 4/1/2 hours for rescue due to delays in recovery vehicles
Did we see one traffic cop/man who likes to dress as one or spotted by camera?..............Of course not
As it was going dark and we had no lights the recovery driver arrived and swore a lot saying the inside lane is required to be closed if anyone breaks down where we did.Oh well thanks for that.
Still here to tell the tale but will it make a difference.Mmmmm.
Managed motorways my a**e
So you were broken down on a hard shoulder *near a lethal spot* That depends on interpretation. The recovery driver obviously got in front of you OK to carry out the recovery, and was able to get off the H/S with no request for assistance.
Providing that your vehicle is not in a running lane, there is no need to attend you until it's been there over 2hrs, and even then there could be much more important jobs that take priority.
For future reference for all, try to call in from a motorway SOS box (have your details with you) we will call your recovery service, there will also be no chance of a location mix-up, as the SOS box numbers (& indeed the marker-posts) are as good as the number on your front door. We have a priority line into most of the recovery services, and once they know that we are aware of your vehicle being there, it most certainly would never have gone as long as 4½ hrs, as after 2 hrs it's open to be removed by us,they don't want that!
The smaller marker-posts are approx every 100 yds along the H/S, on the side of the post there is an image of a telephone handset pointing to the nearest SOS phone. At a junction, there is ALWAYS an SOS phone between the sliproads so that you do not need to cross over a live slipway.
Edited by Gafferjim on Wednesday 22 April 16:35
woof said:
zebedee said:
NelsonP said:
What I was arguing was that the presence of speed cameras and variable speed limits inevitably increase driver stress, and possibly too much so.
Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone slam their brakes on in a smart motorway zone though, certainly not solely due to the speed limit signs. Are they really making that much money? If they are then whilst I will accept that some of it will be down to really bad timing or unfortunate circumstances but the vast majority of any substantial sum if indeed that is what is happening is surely through ignorance? Even in the average speed zones, which anyone who has a basic knowledge of maths should understand, you can be passed by people doing 70-80 in 50 zones. They saw the signs, they just don't care or accept that the fine is the risk (and probably in many cases the only risk) of what they are doing.Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
The limit will suddenly drop to 50mph (for no reason) and a few cars will get flashed then everyone behind them jumps on the brakes.
Ripple effect a few miles back M11 junc - everything grinds to a halt. Happens all the time. Still yet to see any incident that has led to a drop in a speed limit. I'm convinced that most of the time it's for revenue generation
Edited by NelsonP on Wednesday 22 April 16:36
NelsonP said:
woof said:
zebedee said:
NelsonP said:
What I was arguing was that the presence of speed cameras and variable speed limits inevitably increase driver stress, and possibly too much so.
Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone slam their brakes on in a smart motorway zone though, certainly not solely due to the speed limit signs. Are they really making that much money? If they are then whilst I will accept that some of it will be down to really bad timing or unfortunate circumstances but the vast majority of any substantial sum if indeed that is what is happening is surely through ignorance? Even in the average speed zones, which anyone who has a basic knowledge of maths should understand, you can be passed by people doing 70-80 in 50 zones. They saw the signs, they just don't care or accept that the fine is the risk (and probably in many cases the only risk) of what they are doing.Whilst some stress is a good thing and keeps us alert, too much is a bad thing as it ruins our ability to concentrate and it puts us into fight or flight mode, responding intuitively (and not necessarily rationally) to the nearest threat. It is that intuitive response (whether to brake lights, speed signs or cameras) that 'forces' us to slam on the anchors.
Of course, this is all theory. I'm sure that the smart systems were tested before implementation to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on driver behaviour <sniggers>.
Well, they were probably going to do that until someone showed them how much money could be made from it.
The limit will suddenly drop to 50mph (for no reason) and a few cars will get flashed then everyone behind them jumps on the brakes.
Ripple effect a few miles back M11 junc - everything grinds to a halt. Happens all the time. Still yet to see any incident that has led to a drop in a speed limit. I'm convinced that most of the time it's for revenue generation
Edited by NelsonP on Wednesday 22 April 16:36
Everyone seems to be driving more slowly 60-65mph on these stretches. Trucks are doing 60mph in the first 2 (or 3rd) lanes and cars and vans are doing less than 70mph. Watching their speedo and not the road and traffic. Traffic bounces up - people are afraid of clearing a truck and going over 70mph. And accidents happen.
In my local stretch of the M25 - Junc 24-26. It's dreadful. During the roadworks with the enforced 50mph speed limit this section had so many fatal accidents. I'm convinced it was because traffic was all travelling at the same speed and people were watching their speedos and not the road.
Once you clear the M25 and get on the M1 or M11 - driving standards improve dramatically. Reason ? They're not watching their speedos !
(my theory)
woof said:
I think it's a general fear across most drivers on the road that there only a few miles off getting their next speeding ticket.
Everyone seems to be driving more slowly 60-65mph on these stretches. Trucks are doing 60mph in the first 2 (or 3rd) lanes and cars and vans are doing less than 70mph. Watching their speedo and not the road and traffic. Traffic bounces up - people are afraid of clearing a truck and going over 70mph. And accidents happen.
In my local stretch of the M25 - Junc 24-26. It's dreadful. During the roadworks with the enforced 50mph speed limit this section had so many fatal accidents. I'm convinced it was because traffic was all travelling at the same speed and people were watching their speedos and not the road.
Once you clear the M25 and get on the M1 or M11 - driving standards improve dramatically. Reason ? They're not watching their speedos !
(my theory)
I can believe that too. Bad driving in every example, the density of traffic sometimes in these 50mph average sections becomes pretty scary at times, people seem to forger about braking and reaction distances. But then I think they also forget about them at 70 when the traffic is dense and consequences potentially worse.Everyone seems to be driving more slowly 60-65mph on these stretches. Trucks are doing 60mph in the first 2 (or 3rd) lanes and cars and vans are doing less than 70mph. Watching their speedo and not the road and traffic. Traffic bounces up - people are afraid of clearing a truck and going over 70mph. And accidents happen.
In my local stretch of the M25 - Junc 24-26. It's dreadful. During the roadworks with the enforced 50mph speed limit this section had so many fatal accidents. I'm convinced it was because traffic was all travelling at the same speed and people were watching their speedos and not the road.
Once you clear the M25 and get on the M1 or M11 - driving standards improve dramatically. Reason ? They're not watching their speedos !
(my theory)
How about a further test based on hazard perception and reaction times and ability to return to left hand lane to allow motorway use? Instant and probably sustained congestion easer! I guess there would be even more halfwits killing each other on a roads as a result though?
I'll admit to using the "slow lanes" to move faster through traffic.
The other day I travelled down an empty lane 1 for maybe 2 miles substantially quicker than lane 4. Moved out to overtake a lorry than back to lane 1 for another few miles. Technically illegal maybe but in defence your honour, the traffic in the right hand lanes was moving slower than me
Seems that the general public have no idea what their left and right is - that would explain the lack of success of the stay left campaign
My vision of a smart motorway would be where the speed limit was a more realistic 90mph. Lorries where kept to lane 1 & 2 and could only overtake (using lane 2) on the flat or downhill and not up hills. Vans limited to 70mph - then I think we would find traffic would move far more easily and we'd have less accidents.
The other day I travelled down an empty lane 1 for maybe 2 miles substantially quicker than lane 4. Moved out to overtake a lorry than back to lane 1 for another few miles. Technically illegal maybe but in defence your honour, the traffic in the right hand lanes was moving slower than me
Seems that the general public have no idea what their left and right is - that would explain the lack of success of the stay left campaign
My vision of a smart motorway would be where the speed limit was a more realistic 90mph. Lorries where kept to lane 1 & 2 and could only overtake (using lane 2) on the flat or downhill and not up hills. Vans limited to 70mph - then I think we would find traffic would move far more easily and we'd have less accidents.
Edited by woof on Wednesday 22 April 18:57
Safe roads, who can argue with that. It's just that controlling traffic speed is a pathetic attempt to obtain 'safety'.
The real crimes are 'dangerous driving','careless driving' and the really bad things 'causing injury or death'.
Speed can contribute to accidents but are only one factor.
As a German policeman once told me " every crash has blame to apportion, rarely 100% to one driver, sometimes the road designer shoulders some blame."
Also " The only real accident is when a car is struck by lightning, all the rest carry blame".
The real crimes are 'dangerous driving','careless driving' and the really bad things 'causing injury or death'.
Speed can contribute to accidents but are only one factor.
As a German policeman once told me " every crash has blame to apportion, rarely 100% to one driver, sometimes the road designer shoulders some blame."
Also " The only real accident is when a car is struck by lightning, all the rest carry blame".
rogerhudson said:
Safe roads, who can argue with that. It's just that controlling traffic speed is a pathetic attempt to obtain 'safety'.
The real crimes are 'dangerous driving','careless driving' and the really bad things 'causing injury or death'.
Speed can contribute to accidents but are only one factor.
As a German policeman once told me " every crash has blame to apportion, rarely 100% to one driver, sometimes the road designer shoulders some blame."
Also " The only real accident is when a car is struck by lightning, all the rest carry blame".
The problem is there are a lot of people in politics who want to wind the clock back on human endeavour - you suspect some might even be happier if we were all relegated to travelling on horseback or foot - for various political/envy reasons, as well as environmental concerns.The real crimes are 'dangerous driving','careless driving' and the really bad things 'causing injury or death'.
Speed can contribute to accidents but are only one factor.
As a German policeman once told me " every crash has blame to apportion, rarely 100% to one driver, sometimes the road designer shoulders some blame."
Also " The only real accident is when a car is struck by lightning, all the rest carry blame".
However, WRT transport, there is one certainty; drop the speed to zero and there will be no crashes, at any speed higher than this, the rate and severity of accidents will increase with speed. People, collectively, need to grow some balls and stop wanting to have their cake and eat it.
Digga said:
However, WRT transport, there is one certainty; drop the speed to zero and there will be no crashes, at any speed higher than this, the rate and severity of accidents will increase with speed. People, collectively, need to grow some balls and stop wanting to have their cake and eat it.
If what you say is true, how do explain that the German autobahnshave been both faster *and* safer every year for the last 30+ years ?
Some data in
http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm
German drivers aren't supermen and Germany has nine neighbouring
countries, so it's not the German driving test either.
Maybe speed doesn't kill, but bad driving does ?
dcb said:
Digga said:
However, WRT transport, there is one certainty; drop the speed to zero and there will be no crashes, at any speed higher than this, the rate and severity of accidents will increase with speed. People, collectively, need to grow some balls and stop wanting to have their cake and eat it.
If what you say is true, how do explain that the German autobahnshave been both faster *and* safer every year for the last 30+ years ?
Some data in
http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm
German drivers aren't supermen and Germany has nine neighbouring
countries, so it's not the German driving test either.
Maybe speed doesn't kill, but bad driving does ?
The Autobahns getting safer is most likely down to improvements in the design and construction of cars and getting people to wear seatbelts and not drive pissed.
Driving standards are only a really small part of it as famously we haven't let learner drivers on the motorway anyway!
As I've said on many other threads I do see the motorway speed limit rising when we let computers do the driving and the cars are electric as that removes the arguments for it entirely. In fact for a fraction of the costs of HS2 you could build a dual carriageway between London and Birmingham with three rules:
1: You must go at 155mph
2: You must be autonomously driven by a system which passes a high speed driving test and can communicate with a motorway control system.
3: You must emit no tail pipe emissions
That would accomplish everything and more than what HS2 would, cost a fraction of the amount and arrive far sooner.
Flipatron said:
Shame the UK cant just man up and build more motorways.
Implementing this 'managed' motorway scheme is just fiddling at the edges.
There seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to the purpose of smart motorways, and why they were chosen as the method to deal with the increased traffic on the roads. Some seem to believe there's a blank chequebook that allows us to build new roads, add additional lanes etc at will. As you know, a lot of the HE network is run under a series of ASC contracts, not a MAC or EMAC. There is a big difference, and it doesn't allow for schemes of the same scope as 20 years ago. There isn't the money to be widening motorways, and there wont be for a long long time. We're tasked with managing the assets we have and keeping them going. That’s just how it is at the moment, and the smart motorway system is designed to provide more efficient use of the available roadspace we have.Implementing this 'managed' motorway scheme is just fiddling at the edges.
Regarding speed limits etc perhaps those who think we'd all be safer at 80 or 90mph, have assessed all the vehicle restraint systems installed on motorways and trunk roads, and know something we don't. Perhaps they're working on a new standard that exceeds H2W1, so the CSB installed everywhere would need throwing out and replacing. If they can let those who work in the highways sector know when it’ll be finished, that’d be spiffing (and also, who’s paying for all this, since it isn’t the government). My point is, they’d be the first to complain they’ve had an accident and been injured by a road network that in their view is not fit for purpose with a revised speed limit.
There’s more though - bridge parapets, specifically underbridge edge beam parapets - the majority of the existing motorway network was built in the 1970's. Current standard parapets have been retrofitted in most cases, and utilise the existing edge beam and cantilevers. If we're now having to upgrade them again, to satisfy the "we'd be safer at 90mph" brigade, perhaps someone from the brigade can explain how you keep your all important traffic flow going, with zero user delays, during the scheme – since you’ll be removing a few lanes from action for several months, to allow recasting of portions of deck and edge beams, but having to keep the bridge open. 1970’s bridges often weren’t designed for impact loading you’d normally associate with high containment VRS used over railways.
I don’t know what it is road users are expecting, or how they think it’s achievable at this moment in time. This thread has been a very interesting read, and there’s good points made by both sides, but like most things, it comes down to money. I'm aware that billions of pounds being spent on transport each year sounds like a lot, but it really doesn't amount to anywhere near enough to build entirely new road systems, it's barely enough to keep the existing network going.
Just my 2p worth.
True there is not enough being spent on the network globally. One point that continually needs to be subject of a rolling reminder is the amount of tax revenue raised from road users versus the spend. Not just talking VED but fuel, company car tax, Vat etc on purchase and so on. There is a massive excess.
Now that's not hypothecated for spending on roads, we all know that. But on that tax if you also take off all the rail and bus subsidies and anything else you can think of that comes out of the Treasury transport related there is still a fair old chunk that just gets chucked intothe ggeneral piggy bank.
People think, rightly imo, they aren't getting a fair crack of the whip.
Now that's not hypothecated for spending on roads, we all know that. But on that tax if you also take off all the rail and bus subsidies and anything else you can think of that comes out of the Treasury transport related there is still a fair old chunk that just gets chucked intothe ggeneral piggy bank.
People think, rightly imo, they aren't getting a fair crack of the whip.
Talksteer said:
Not really pertinent to the UK debate as our motorways are actually a lot safer than the German ones. No politician is going to listen to an argument that we should be more like Germany (which incidentally has speed limits on most Autobahns).
False. About 70 % of the autobahn is unlimited.Germany has about twice the land area of the UK and about *four* times as much motorway, which is useful.
Let's not forget that Germany has a continental climate and so has much
more snow and ice than the UK in the winter. Indeed, Germany's accident rate on
the autobahn is close the the European average, so being allowed to pick
their own speeds doesn't seem to be much of a problem for them.
Talksteer said:
3: You must emit no tail pipe emissions
I don't really get the obsession with this. It seems to be regularly used as an excuse to justify electric vehicles. But the energy has to come from somewhere. Surely it is more efficient to convert it straight from fossil fuel to kinetic energy (i.e. motion), than it is to convert it from fossil fuel to motion via electricity, with accompanying energy losses (e.g. batteries get warm when charging). I'm sure some folks on here can help with that.
Of course there is nuclear energy (no fossil fuels, yay!), but then Chernobyl or Fukushima won't be back to normal for around another 20,000 years.
A while back we were all told (and incenctivised) to switch to diesel as it is much better for emissions. No-one ever challenged that and said, "For CO2 emissions, yes, but not so good for particulate emissions". The government now seem to be using the latter as an excuse to start hammering those that have diesel cars.
How long before they decide to do the same with electric?
In the meantime I'll stick with my good old (petrol) internal combustion engine thanks. Didn't they just discover a whole load of oil under Sussex?
Edited by NelsonP on Friday 24th April 12:10
Talksteer said:
Driving standards are only a really small part of it as famously we haven't let learner drivers on the motorway anyway!
But isn't that the point? We don't teach any kind of driving standard on the motorway. Learners aren't allowed on it (rightly) then they get a licence and are allowed to use it, even though all they have looked at (maybe) is some theory and rules. An additional motorway test would be a good idea, probably hard to police though.fuelracer496 said:
There seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to the purpose of smart motorways, and why they were chosen as the method to deal with the increased traffic on the roads. Some seem to believe there's a blank chequebook that allows us to build new roads, add additional lanes etc at will. As you know, a lot of the HE network is run under a series of ASC contracts, not a MAC or EMAC. There is a big difference, and it doesn't allow for schemes of the same scope as 20 years ago. There isn't the money to be widening motorways, and there wont be for a long long time. We're tasked with managing the assets we have and keeping them going. That’s just how it is at the moment, and the smart motorway system is designed to provide more efficient use of the available roadspace we have.
Regarding speed limits etc perhaps those who think we'd all be safer at 80 or 90mph, have assessed all the vehicle restraint systems installed on motorways and trunk roads, and know something we don't. Perhaps they're working on a new standard that exceeds H2W1, so the CSB installed everywhere would need throwing out and replacing. If they can let those who work in the highways sector know when it’ll be finished, that’d be spiffing (and also, who’s paying for all this, since it isn’t the government). My point is, they’d be the first to complain they’ve had an accident and been injured by a road network that in their view is not fit for purpose with a revised speed limit.
There’s more though - bridge parapets, specifically underbridge edge beam parapets - the majority of the existing motorway network was built in the 1970's. Current standard parapets have been retrofitted in most cases, and utilise the existing edge beam and cantilevers. If we're now having to upgrade them again, to satisfy the "we'd be safer at 90mph" brigade, perhaps someone from the brigade can explain how you keep your all important traffic flow going, with zero user delays, during the scheme – since you’ll be removing a few lanes from action for several months, to allow recasting of portions of deck and edge beams, but having to keep the bridge open. 1970’s bridges often weren’t designed for impact loading you’d normally associate with high containment VRS used over railways.
I don’t know what it is road users are expecting, or how they think it’s achievable at this moment in time. This thread has been a very interesting read, and there’s good points made by both sides, but like most things, it comes down to money. I'm aware that billions of pounds being spent on transport each year sounds like a lot, but it really doesn't amount to anywhere near enough to build entirely new road systems, it's barely enough to keep the existing network going.
Just my 2p worth.
What is the difference in design between parapets for different speeds? Not that I don't believe you, never thought about it before, but I'm just interested in what actually changes.Regarding speed limits etc perhaps those who think we'd all be safer at 80 or 90mph, have assessed all the vehicle restraint systems installed on motorways and trunk roads, and know something we don't. Perhaps they're working on a new standard that exceeds H2W1, so the CSB installed everywhere would need throwing out and replacing. If they can let those who work in the highways sector know when it’ll be finished, that’d be spiffing (and also, who’s paying for all this, since it isn’t the government). My point is, they’d be the first to complain they’ve had an accident and been injured by a road network that in their view is not fit for purpose with a revised speed limit.
There’s more though - bridge parapets, specifically underbridge edge beam parapets - the majority of the existing motorway network was built in the 1970's. Current standard parapets have been retrofitted in most cases, and utilise the existing edge beam and cantilevers. If we're now having to upgrade them again, to satisfy the "we'd be safer at 90mph" brigade, perhaps someone from the brigade can explain how you keep your all important traffic flow going, with zero user delays, during the scheme – since you’ll be removing a few lanes from action for several months, to allow recasting of portions of deck and edge beams, but having to keep the bridge open. 1970’s bridges often weren’t designed for impact loading you’d normally associate with high containment VRS used over railways.
I don’t know what it is road users are expecting, or how they think it’s achievable at this moment in time. This thread has been a very interesting read, and there’s good points made by both sides, but like most things, it comes down to money. I'm aware that billions of pounds being spent on transport each year sounds like a lot, but it really doesn't amount to anywhere near enough to build entirely new road systems, it's barely enough to keep the existing network going.
Just my 2p worth.
zebedee said:
Talksteer said:
Driving standards are only a really small part of it as famously we haven't let learner drivers on the motorway anyway!
But isn't that the point? We don't teach any kind of driving standard on the motorway. Learners aren't allowed on it (rightly) then they get a licence and are allowed to use it, even though all they have looked at (maybe) is some theory and rules. An additional motorway test would be a good idea, probably hard to police though.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff