RE: 50 limits by the back door: PH Blog

[saaby93]

This thread about a brand new road with a 40mph limit
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Traffic use is pretty much static since the recession, but somehow congestion is going up
That's a new road to link the A5 with the M1 so as to move traffic off the current A5 and onto the M1
Any idea how this might affect the M1? more or less congestion?
Theyve also decided to detrunk the present A5 to labour the point
Why not build a new road, leave everything else as it was and spread the traffic about?

[SBDJ]

Mandown46 said:

The stuff that trips off at night is almost always down to a few slow moving HGV's triggering the speed sensors. It seems like the computer struggles to tell the difference at times between what can be ignored for the most part (though people do drive into the back of slow moving HGV's) and what needs to be set for.
Nothing can be done with that in the control rooms for two reasons. 1. the system for that cannot be overidden as its a safety thing, and 2. there's rarely enough operators to watch everything all of the time.

I've often seen miles of the M25 limited to 40 or 50mph in the early hours and wondered what the reason could possibly be when one isn't given. I didn't know they were automatic only, I always assumed the operator had fallen asleep on his keyboard or something. IMHO there is nothing safe about doing 40mph (I recall even having to slow to 30mph in the past I think) and having traffic bearing down on you at much faster speeds.

Between mile after mile of specs-enforced 50mph roadworks on the M3 and pointless restrictions on the M25 coupled with the mass of cameras, I decided to start taking the motorbike to work and using the back roads. Not much slower, but far more fun

[chris996]

With the signs warning about queue ahead I did mention that these are often seen late at night with minimal traffic so where a queue comes from I don't know!!!

On another note what is the point of those traffic lights on access slip roads that stop cars going onto the motorway for a time and then release them?

[Jazzy Jag]

RobGT81 said:

NSL-50-40-NSL-40-60-50-NSL-30-60-40-NSL

and if you fail to spot that the seventh consecutive 60 actually changed to a 50, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, that'll be a £109 bill for a speed awareness course.

[BlueMR2]

So if you just drive at 40mph through "smart" sections of motorway "just to be safe" even if it says 50 or 60+ then it will automatically slow down the traffic behind you to 40?

Sounds real smart.

Maybe when they labelled it "smart motorway" they overheard someone saying "I bet driving that slow smarts".

[anonymous-user]

NomduJour said:

So were they all upgraded when lorry weight limits went from 32 to 38 to 44 tonnes? 'Cos I'm pretty certain a 44 tonne artic is carrying more kinetic energy at 56 mph than a 1.5 tonne car is at 80.

It relates to the test criteria used for vehicles prior to a new barrier system being commissioned. At this point the barrier systems in use have been upgraded above and beyond their original design i.e. what was used during the 1970's construction has been superseded, and the natural lifespan of the system (C.25 years) coincided with an upgrade being available - for that reason there's not a compliance issue.

The test criteria is as follows - this is what barrier systems have to conform to during their impact tests. I understand that some will say "what about cars going faster than that", but it's like saying NCAP safety tests don't account of vehicles operating outside the test criteria.

Test TB32, impact angle 20 degrees, total mass 1500kg (Car).
Test TB 71, impact angle 20 degrees, total mass 30,000kg (Rigid HGV).
Test TB 81, impact angle 20 degrees, total mass 38,000kg (articulated HGV).

Mathematically, a barrier could restrain a car at a higher test speed, but the systems in use, the standards in use and the roads in use, were designed for 70mph and so approvals for use would be null and void (these things come with a warranty, just like the computer people angrily type away on, on t'interweb). At a time where the industry is under constant scrutiny and criticism from the general public in terms of spending, we aren't afforded the luxury of being able to upgrade the network to future proof it for a higher speed limit.

In the case of HGV's, it's one of the core reasons that concrete step barriers were brought in to cover central reserves. A crossover incident by a HGV is one of the highest risks to the travelling public due to the likelihood of multiple vehicles being caught up in it. The only thing that's judged more risky is a vehicle entering a live railway - for that reason you see beefed up secondary barriers over most railway bridges that carry a mainline motorway.

See you all in 12 months for the next great discussion on how myself and others are doing a s**t job maintaining an old girl of a highway network, designed and built in and for a different era, with no consideration taken for future maintenance, upgrades or changes.

[Cold]

To summarise, you're either lying, are blind or are extremely unlucky if you report a negative real world experience of these systems. This is based on the findings of those whose mortgage repayments depend on being employed by the operators of the systems so their impartiality cannot be questioned.

[Kenny Powers]

Mandown46 said:

They are in place to drip feed traffic onto a busy motorway. They are time so that you are never really stopped, but at the same time the amount of traffic joining the junction isn't enough to cause everyone to come to a grinding halt.

They genuinely work, might seem weird, but its one of the best bits of technology installed on some junctions.

Give it up mate. You're wasting your time. Some people aren't interested in the truth. They just want something to moan about.

[Cobnapint]

Agree with all of that Dan. Smart motorways are a very expensive way of making sure the traffic doesn't come to stand further up the road - at the expense of increased stress for everybody else behind having to pedal dance in response to constantly changing speed signs and the brake lights of those that aren't willing to risk the fact that you are allowed 60 seconds to confirm to a lower limit before the camera becomes active (or don't know about it).

I fear for my NCD every time I travel on the M42.

[chris996]

Well judging by the amount of replies to this blog compared to replies to every other one we can definately see that the general public are extremely satisfied with the operation of the smart motorway scheme.
It is a wonderful, efficient, cost effective measure which smooths the flow of traffic effortlessly and makes motorway driving an absolute pleasure.😀👍🏻

[fatboy18]

So what are we going to do about it? How about a blockade, The French like a bit of this

[anonymous-user]

chris996 said:

Well judging by the amount of replies to this blog compared to replies to every other one we can definately see that the general public are extremely satisfied with the operation of the smart motorway scheme.
It is a wonderful, efficient, cost effective measure which smooths the flow of traffic effortlessly and makes motorway driving an absolute pleasure.??????

Hopefully an expert will be along shortly with the answer to all the problems, that allows a motoring utopia for the road user. I can only assume a solution exists in the mind of someone who doesn't work in highway maintenance, because those of us that do, have already explained the obstacles, issues, regulations, standards etc several times, but it falls on deaf ears and we're deemed to be doing a crap job.

If someone can explain how you create a motoring utopia when you take account the following points, I'm sure Highways England would greet it with open arms, and perhaps give them a job in their technical policy team, normally reserved for those with technical knowledge about the subject and standards that have to be adhered to (because unfortunately, it's not as simple as re-paving someone's driveway):

• We are not widening motorways.
• We are not increasing the motorway speed limit.
• We are not building new motorways.
• The spending budget caters for maintaining existing assets, not building new ones. Assets are maintained based on condition, service life and risk to the customer from defects and failures.
• Smart motorways are a way of increasing throughput within the existing available carriageway width because of the points I've raised above.
• Road users are increasingly critical of road works - the customer wants a first class road network but complains that road works are required to provide it.

In summary, we do the maximum we can the work the asset to allow today's traffic to travel on yesterday's roads. We aren't, and seem unlikely to be in a position to build fancy new roads that rid us of congestion, any time soon.

[Attilauk]

big_rob_sydney said:

Attilauk said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Mandown, one thing I just cant get my head around, is why the 50 limits apply for road workers, especially on Sundays, when most of the time, these guys arent even working?

What can be done about this???

The speed limits aren't there to protect those of us who work in the closures, if you are hit by 2+ tonnes of metal at 50mph you will be just as dead as if it was going 70...

They are there for the safety of the general public using the roads. In narrow lanes where vehicles are that much closer to each other the reduced speed limit is there to compensate for this. The regulations are in place as a blanket to cover all road users, generally the type of people who post on a forum like this are better drivers by the pure fact that they are interested in driving. The regulations have to cover the type of person who has no interest in driving, it's just something that has to be done to get to work / go shopping / visit family etc.

To put it another way, when you have 10's of thousands of vehicles passing through your site every day you can't judge every single one on ability, you have to impose limits to cover everyone including the cockwombles...

Just to pick your last point first, we do actually have limits already, and that limit is set at 70. Hopefully that covers the "cockwombles" as you so eloquently put it.

However, what you've done is answer a question I didn't ask. Its all well and good to tell me about what happens when a road is narrowed. But that's not what I actually asked. Would you like to have another go, or perhaps answer another question that hasn't been asked? (I'll give you a hint; no road narrowing was mentioned)...

But we only impose reduced limits where there is a risk to the general public and the vast majority of the time that risk is narrow lanes to give us the working room we require. You may not realise it but that IS the question you asked, whether you mentioned the narrowing or not, it is the reason for reduced speed limits in the majority of roadworks! The guidance for reduction in speed limits in roadworks, i.e. where reduced speed limits are and are not recommended, is covered by the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8, it's freely available on the internet.

Would you like another go to be condescending? or perhaps read responses properly before jumping to your own wrong conclusions? (I'll give you a hint; the key to understanding answers from people who know what they are talking about is to understand the question you have actually asked in the first place)...

[Terminator X]

chris996 said:

50 50 50. Animals in road 40 40 40 Animals in road. Ten miles later, Road clear- not an animal seen.
50 50 50, Queue ahead. 40 40 40 Queue ahead. Ten miles later, Road clear- not a queue in sight
50 50 50 Debris in road 40 40 40 Debris in road. Ten miles later, you've guessed it- no debris in road!
It's about time that the authorities could have fines levied against THEM for showing false information time after time.
Have seen such signs very late at night when traffic is light and any supposed queue disappeared hours ago.
Very frustrating to be forced into driving at a ridiculously slow speed for miles when it is blatantly obvious that signage is wrong.

The one that gets me is slow down as rogue vehicle coming towards you! Not seen one ever surprise, surprise!

TX.

[Terminator X]

Mandown46 said:

chris996 said:

50 50 50. Animals in road 40 40 40 Animals in road. Ten miles later, Road clear- not an animal seen.
50 50 50, Queue ahead. 40 40 40 Queue ahead. Ten miles later, Road clear- not a queue in sight
50 50 50 Debris in road 40 40 40 Debris in road. Ten miles later, you've guessed it- no debris in road!
It's about time that the authorities could have fines levied against THEM for showing false information time after time.
Have seen such signs very late at night when traffic is light and any supposed queue disappeared hours ago.
Very frustrating to be forced into driving at a ridiculously slow speed for miles when it is blatantly obvious that signage is wrong.

If you are seeing Animals in road shown, its because someone has called in (usually to the Police) that they have seen animals on or near the road, be it sheep, deer or dogs usually. We HAVE to put the signs on in case the animal does run into the road, and they often do. sometimes, they will clear off into the undergrowth never to be seen.
They can't be cleared until Police or HATO do a run through and check its actually gone. If you don't see anything, great! hopefully the animal has gone and they can be cleared shortly.

With debris signs, these are set only when debris has been confirmed, either a operator on CCTV his seen something, or another solid source has, ie a police officer, hato, roadworker has seen the debris. You will only see them in the immediate run up to the debris, usually the 2-3 signals prior to the debris. They will be removed only when the debris has been cleared.

If you are saying you are continually seeing debris signs, and no debris, you're either lying, missing the debris in the road, or are the worlds unluckiest driver.

The queue warning is much of whats been discussed in this thread, the idea is to smooth the throughput of traffic so, in essence you never really 'see' a queue, you just have to slow down a bit so the traffic can clear itself.
Doesn't always work, as highlighted, it can be triggered by a number of things, but in my experience, its a fairly solid system.

Fun fact, we are measured quite heavily against the accuracy and speed signals are cleared and set. So far I think (without checking) each region is hitting their targets.

Hope that helps.

In future, I'm hoping that we can alter the range of signals that can be set, to 'reports of'. that sort of change however, takes significant time.

The point is though historically no big deal generally as you just ignore and carry on, now though we have hadecs watching us 24/7 so are forced to slow down even though we know it is gobbledegook.

Re your point in bold, rarely if ever do I see the supposed "danger"; we can't all be lying or indeed unlucky!

TX.

[greghm]

From the look of it, Germany has the best drivers in the world and all of the others, French, Brits, Americans are not able to drive more than 70 mph...

The motorway business is the most scandalous ever. They are financed by taxpayers, and then sold to private companies.

In the end it is a question of how we elect people to represent us and how we hold them accountable.
Most people would be fine to have unlimited speed limits no some parts just like in Germany. I don't think they have more deaths on motorways.

[NomduJour]

greghm said:

Most people would be fine to have unlimited speed limits no some parts just like in Germany. I don't think they have more deaths on motorways.

Seem to remember the death rate is slightly higher on the unrestricted roads, but in any case a lot of German autobahns don't come up to the standards of UK motorways.

[big_rob_sydney]

Attilauk said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Attilauk said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Mandown, one thing I just cant get my head around, is why the 50 limits apply for road workers, especially on Sundays, when most of the time, these guys arent even working?

What can be done about this???

The speed limits aren't there to protect those of us who work in the closures, if you are hit by 2+ tonnes of metal at 50mph you will be just as dead as if it was going 70...

They are there for the safety of the general public using the roads. In narrow lanes where vehicles are that much closer to each other the reduced speed limit is there to compensate for this. The regulations are in place as a blanket to cover all road users, generally the type of people who post on a forum like this are better drivers by the pure fact that they are interested in driving. The regulations have to cover the type of person who has no interest in driving, it's just something that has to be done to get to work / go shopping / visit family etc.

To put it another way, when you have 10's of thousands of vehicles passing through your site every day you can't judge every single one on ability, you have to impose limits to cover everyone including the cockwombles...

Just to pick your last point first, we do actually have limits already, and that limit is set at 70. Hopefully that covers the "cockwombles" as you so eloquently put it.

However, what you've done is answer a question I didn't ask. Its all well and good to tell me about what happens when a road is narrowed. But that's not what I actually asked. Would you like to have another go, or perhaps answer another question that hasn't been asked? (I'll give you a hint; no road narrowing was mentioned)...

But we only impose reduced limits where there is a risk to the general public and the vast majority of the time that risk is narrow lanes to give us the working room we require. You may not realise it but that IS the question you asked, whether you mentioned the narrowing or not, it is the reason for reduced speed limits in the majority of roadworks! The guidance for reduction in speed limits in roadworks, i.e. where reduced speed limits are and are not recommended, is covered by the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8, it's freely available on the internet.

Would you like another go to be condescending? or perhaps read responses properly before jumping to your own wrong conclusions? (I'll give you a hint; the key to understanding answers from people who know what they are talking about is to understand the question you have actually asked in the first place)...

You do realise that "vast majority" does not mean 100%, right?

In the cases where it is not, which was my point that you are deliberately avoiding, what is the answer? This is the third time I've asked the question, and frankly getting exasperated by a deliberately twisted answer.

Is it right to tell people essentially "watch out for our boys working", when they're not actually working?

[anonymous-user]

big_rob_sydney said:

You do realise that "vast majority" does not mean 100%, right?

In the cases where it is not, which was my point that you are deliberately avoiding, what is the answer? This is the third time I've asked the question, and frankly getting exasperated by a deliberately twisted answer.

Is it right to tell people essentially "watch out for our boys working", when they're not actually working?

Rob, reduced speed limits are in place for the duration of works regardless of whether the work force are present at the time - this was covered in a previous thread relating to the same sort of article, and also by myself in a previous post in this thread when asked about why speed limits remain in place in areas of cluster scheme TM. This is a requirement of chapter 8 but also sits under TD/27 05 which governs speed limits relating to running lane widths.

As mentioned already, traffic management is not installed and removed on a daily basis - it's too time consuming and poses a safety risk for both the workforce and road users. For that reason, the reduced speed limit is enforced for the period the TM is on. I appreciate you believe the speed limit is there for the protection of the work force, and yes, that's part of it, but it's not the sole reason for it - as important is the safety of the travelling public and legally we cannot implement traffic management (be it lane closures or lane width reductions) without reducing the speed limit.

A significant amount of time is spent repairing TM (cones, temporary barriers etc) where drivers have had an RTC in the works, despite the reduced speed limit. I imagine this does little to satisfy your query but it may go some way to explaining some of the background.

[Attilauk]

big_rob_sydney said:

You do realise that "vast majority" does not mean 100%, right?

In the cases where it is not, which was my point that you are deliberately avoiding, what is the answer? This is the third time I've asked the question, and frankly getting exasperated by a deliberately twisted answer.

Is it right to tell people essentially "watch out for our boys working", when they're not actually working?

I'm not deliberately avoiding anything, you are not reading my responses properly! WE DO NOT PUT 50MPH SPEED LIMITS OUT IN ROADWORKS ON MOTORWAYS WHERE THERE IS NO RISK TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC

Is that clear enough? I stated that you can find the guidelines in Chapter 8, did you look for them? There is no deliberate twisting, I said vast majority as there are other reasons why we may use restricted speed limits (again all in Chapter 8) i.e. contraflow or long term lane closure, however in THE VAST MAJORITY of times in long term works we use narrow lanes as it does not reduce traffic capacity on the road. I run roadworks for a living, I have NEVER seen a restricted speed limit in roadworks on the motorway without a valid reason, just because you can't see or understand that reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Installation and removal of Traffic Management is a time consuming and expensive process, it also puts the men who install it at risk. To remove TM for the weekends just so you can go a little bit quicker would be a massive waste of time, money and resources. Also it would mean that any works that were being carried out would have to be protected at the end of the week so as to not pose a risk to travelling public, again this would waste time, money and resources and in a number of cases this is simply not possible.

As I stated earlier (on a number of occasions now) if its 50 it is because it is deemed a risk to the general public, to relax the speed limits knowing that it would put people at extra risk is not a decision that any project manager would make...