Are Smart Motorways Dangerous?
Discussion
Trax said:
Sgt Bilko said:
But will Big pile up at Sandbach again on the M6 again today, the road didn't cause it.
These people managed to avoid a stationary object
https://youtu.be/sOJTWiD2_bc
Plenty of people 'break down/stop' in live lanes even where there are/were hard shoulders.
Stella Tortoise said:
For context:
Now some may think that this is perfectly safe and we're all doing the right thing by keeping to the speed limits but that all comes crashing down (thankfully not literally so far) when you come across 3 trucks all doing around 55MPH in lanes 1, 2, and 3 and then suddenly everyone has to brake and so does everyone behind etc. etc. etc.
Suddenly? Look further ahead, FFS!Now some may think that this is perfectly safe and we're all doing the right thing by keeping to the speed limits but that all comes crashing down (thankfully not literally so far) when you come across 3 trucks all doing around 55MPH in lanes 1, 2, and 3 and then suddenly everyone has to brake and so does everyone behind etc. etc. etc.
speedyguy said:
Trax said:
Sgt Bilko said:
But will Big pile up at Sandbach again on the M6 again today, the road didn't cause it.
These people managed to avoid a stationary object
https://youtu.be/sOJTWiD2_bc
Plenty of people 'break down/stop' in live lanes even where there are/were hard shoulders.
The Government is trumpeting the success of smart motorways using the Leeds section of the M62 as an example of great time savings, presumably because those are the best time savings it can give for the North of England at least.
https://www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/news/m62-sma...
Apparently drivers are saving up to 30 minutes per week. The original Government press release which now seems to have been deleted specified commuters, so it was referring mainly to rush hour drivers. Someone driving each way five days a week would therefore be saving 3 minutes per journey.
The article goes on to say Westbound evening drivers are saving five minutes per day, so they're only achieving two more minutes of productive time in a morning. A traffic management consultant told me it has to be multiplied over the number of drivers using the road and over weeks and months but that's nonsense. We're told saving a few minutes by speeding is silly because the time can't be used productively. The time savings for smart motorways may look good when the figures are massaged but in reality none of these tiny chunks of time can be used to further the economy and no stretch of smart motorway can earn back the time regular users of that motorway lose over the years it takes to "upgrade" it.
https://www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/news/m62-sma...
Apparently drivers are saving up to 30 minutes per week. The original Government press release which now seems to have been deleted specified commuters, so it was referring mainly to rush hour drivers. Someone driving each way five days a week would therefore be saving 3 minutes per journey.
The article goes on to say Westbound evening drivers are saving five minutes per day, so they're only achieving two more minutes of productive time in a morning. A traffic management consultant told me it has to be multiplied over the number of drivers using the road and over weeks and months but that's nonsense. We're told saving a few minutes by speeding is silly because the time can't be used productively. The time savings for smart motorways may look good when the figures are massaged but in reality none of these tiny chunks of time can be used to further the economy and no stretch of smart motorway can earn back the time regular users of that motorway lose over the years it takes to "upgrade" it.
It's not all about time saving though is it?
Keeping traffic moving to avoid the creation of pollution causing phantom traffic jams is one of the systems main aims.
The theory of smart motorways makes sense, but they won't work as they were intended until driver behaviour changes. The only way to try and change driver behaviour appears to be by speeding penalties.
Keeping traffic moving to avoid the creation of pollution causing phantom traffic jams is one of the systems main aims.
The theory of smart motorways makes sense, but they won't work as they were intended until driver behaviour changes. The only way to try and change driver behaviour appears to be by speeding penalties.
sparkythecat said:
The theory of smart motorways makes sense, but they won't work as they were intended until driver behaviour changes. The only way to try and change driver behaviour appears to be by speeding penalties.
From what I've seen and is a real pi$$er it is the MLM's that have probably led to the implementation of 'smart motorways' if used as intended and keep left unless overtaking probably not required but how do you police that, there are no MLM cameras.Regardless of variable speed limits and speed cameras, obviously motorways that feature "all lane running" are going to be more dangerous than those that have a permanent hard shoulder. Also for all the whataboutists out there, yes dual carriageways that don't have a hard shoulder are also dangerous.
Someone, somewhere has decided that this extra risk is worth the payoff. I suppose time will tell.
Someone, somewhere has decided that this extra risk is worth the payoff. I suppose time will tell.
speedyguy said:
Trax said:
Sgt Bilko said:
But will Big pile up at Sandbach again on the M6 again today, the road didn't cause it.
These people managed to avoid a stationary object
https://youtu.be/sOJTWiD2_bc
Plenty of people 'break down/stop' in live lanes even where there are/were hard shoulders.
Some smart motorway accident stats published earlier in the year, albeit from a small stretch of the M25.
They suggest that despite increased traffic flow, the rate of collisions has decreased, which is a good thing.
The KSI stats in the report seem much less clear.
link to document
They suggest that despite increased traffic flow, the rate of collisions has decreased, which is a good thing.
The KSI stats in the report seem much less clear.
link to document
sparkythecat said:
, but they won't work as they were intended until driver behaviour changes. The only way to try and change driver behaviour appears to be by speeding penalties.
I don't see it that way at all. It would be pretty irresponsible to design a road system that requires a change of driver behaviour to operate safely and then implement it before changing the behaviour. Clearly it's not all about speeding. Drivers don't crash into each other just because they are going faster than the posted limit. It happens because their driving skills are not good enough and their attitudes to driving (aggression, competitiveness etc) are poor.Bert
BugLebowski said:
Regardless of variable speed limits and speed cameras, obviously motorways that feature "all lane running" are going to be more dangerous than those that have a permanent hard shoulder. Also for all the whataboutists out there, yes dual carriageways that don't have a hard shoulder are also dangerous.
Someone, somewhere has decided that this extra risk is worth the payoff. I suppose time will tell.
In 20 years (give or take) when few, if any, cars are driven by people inside them, it'll no longer be an issue.Someone, somewhere has decided that this extra risk is worth the payoff. I suppose time will tell.
BugLebowski said:
Regardless of variable speed limits and speed cameras, obviously motorways that feature "all lane running" are going to be more dangerous than those that have a permanent hard shoulder. Also for all the whataboutists out there, yes dual carriageways that don't have a hard shoulder are also dangerous.
Someone, somewhere has decided that this extra risk is worth the payoff. I suppose time will tell.
That just depends. There would seem to be obvious extra risk of not having a hard shoulder, but seemingly less risk due to the smart management of the motorway. If the net of those two is an overall increase in safety or at worst safety that is no worse than before all is good. Smart motorways are not dangerous (or any more dangerous than what they replaced).Someone, somewhere has decided that this extra risk is worth the payoff. I suppose time will tell.
Clearly the safest option would have been to implement smart motorways without removing the hard shoulder.
It's a version of 'fat man on a bridge'. Would you kill x people who have 'broken down' collisions to save x people in 'regular' collisions and increase traffic flow?
Bert
BertBert said:
sparkythecat said:
, but they won't work as they were intended until driver behaviour changes. The only way to try and change driver behaviour appears to be by speeding penalties.
I don't see it that way at all. It would be pretty irresponsible to design a road system that requires a change of driver behaviour to operate safely and then implement it before changing the behaviour. Clearly it's not all about speeding. Drivers don't crash into each other just because they are going faster than the posted limit. It happens because their driving skills are not good enough and their attitudes to driving (aggression, competitiveness etc) are poor.Bert
Whether they are more or less safe than existing motorways remains to be proven.
speedyguy said:
BertBert said:
TooMany2cvs said:
You pull over to the shoulder, the control centre spot you, and set that lane to CLOSED (X) on the gantries.
Just as likely or not to be hit as on any normal shoulder.
You don't seriously believe in that argument do you? Utter nonsense.Just as likely or not to be hit as on any normal shoulder.
Breaking down in the 'new lane 1' is no different to breaking down in L2, 3, or 4 once a control room is aware they will set signals.
As usual the biggest issue is drivers (usually truckers in the news reports) not looking at what is in front of them there are dozens of examples even on clear dry roads.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-wales-north-east-wa...
The key words there are "once the control room is aware" that's the variable bit, previously with a hard shoulder you were in a safe place as soon as you stopped, now you're not , you're in lane one waiting for somebody who looks at TV screens where not much ever happens their whole shift ,so it could be 30 seconds or minutes before they notice you by which time dozens of trucks and cars are having to avoid you, having a stationary single vehicle in a live lane just doesn't happen so drivers aren't expecting it
Remember that multi vehicle pile up on the M42 in fog 21 years ago , how would the emergency services reach it with no hard shoulder , pick their way through thousands of cars
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
wack said:
I've driven well over 2 million miles in the last 28 years, I've never seen a single stationary vehicle in lane 2-3-4, even with a puncture vehicles usually have enough momentum to get to the hard shoulder
Remember that multi vehicle pile up on the M42 in fog 21 years ago , how would the emergency services reach it with no hard shoulder , pick their way through thousands of cars
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
I've seen 2 vehicles stopped in L3 of the M6 in the last 3 years alone. My own mother stopped in L2 of the A14 near Kettering about 10 years ago because she had a driver's side puncture and didn't have the strength and/or wherewithal (mostly the latter, I'd wager because power steering despite two previous wrist fractures) to pull over to the left.Remember that multi vehicle pile up on the M42 in fog 21 years ago , how would the emergency services reach it with no hard shoulder , pick their way through thousands of cars
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-new...
I do remember that pile up. No emergency vehicles would have needed to get through on the hard shoulder had people slowed the f
k down in utterly dreadful conditions, surely?wack said:
I've driven well over 2 million miles in the last 28 years, I've never seen a single stationary vehicle in lane 2-3-4, even with a puncture vehicles usually have enough momentum to get to the hard shoulder...
While that is a lot of miles it doesn’t make it a statistical certainty that vehicles will not break down and stop in lanes 2, 3 or 4. It simply means they do and you haven’t seen one.sparkythecat said:
Smart motorways are intended to improve traffic flow, reduce journey times and reduce pollution. In order for those aims to be achieved drivers need to adhere to the posted variable speed limits.
Whether they are more or less safe than existing motorways remains to be proven.
I encountered a stranded vehicle on the M60 just this afternoon with traffic struggling round and no warning. Whether they are more or less safe than existing motorways remains to be proven.
There was a public consultation regarding lowering limits for environmental reasons and pretty much every respondent rejected it. Other places have found lowering speed limits for environmental reasons doesn't reduce emissions anywhere near as much as computer projections suggest it will.
http://people.smu.edu/acambre/eslEPA102402.htm
Texas was the first state to try it and scrapped the idea as it was found to be having little to no impact on the emission reductions necessary to comply with clean air legislation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff