Car broke down in the M1 so-called smart motorway
Discussion
MellowshipSlinky said:
TooMany2cvs said:
saaby93 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
If you've run out of fuel, you're an idiot.
You may well be, but currently it's not an offence you can be charged with 
poo at Paul's said:
No, I don't think it is. Could be repainted, but there is not many yellow cars about and that looks most unfamiliar!!
Why are motorway CCTV cameras so s
t quality!!
This was at Silverstone Classic;Why are motorway CCTV cameras so s
t quality!! https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPmqo8l_-WN71...
..so southbound on the M1 would be right..
I'll be back in a minute to credit the correct thread / post owner.
ETA : https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... courtesy autofocus
JonChalk said:
poo at Paul's said:
No, I don't think it is. Could be repainted, but there is not many yellow cars about and that looks most unfamiliar!!
Why are motorway CCTV cameras so st quality!!
This was at Silverstone Classic;Why are motorway CCTV cameras so s
t quality!! https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPmqo8l_-WN71...
..so southbound on the M1 would be right..
I'll be back in a minute to credit the correct thread / post owner.
ETA : https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... courtesy autofocus
saaby93 said:
JonChalk said:
poo at Paul's said:
No, I don't think it is. Could be repainted, but there is not many yellow cars about and that looks most unfamiliar!!
Why are motorway CCTV cameras so st quality!!
This was at Silverstone Classic;Why are motorway CCTV cameras so s
t quality!! https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipPmqo8l_-WN71...
..so southbound on the M1 would be right..
I'll be back in a minute to credit the correct thread / post owner.
ETA : https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... courtesy autofocus
CARS being discussed in NP&E!
A new beginning.
I expect that one day there will be a nasty incident where a truck or something hammers into the back of someone who can't get off the motorway, or swerves to miss a vehicle half on/half off and causes some kind of huge accident, it's only a matter of time.
I'm all for expanding motorways and can see why they've done it this way (lack of funds to do it properly), but it's just another Grenfell tower type situation in waiting.
There should be less barriers, or they should have been moved further away to allow a 'soft shoulder' for emergency break downs.
They could also make the early warning messages actually work properly, I have never, ever, ever driven through a set of warning signs to find 'Debris on the carriageway', 'People on the carriageway' or rarely any good reason to be doing 50 when it was supposed to be 70. They just seem to put them on and leave them on for 6hrs after the event creating a 'Boy who cried wolf' situation. To me it just means don't slow down at all, just be extra vigilant.
If we were fed accurate information it would be a good start.
I'm all for expanding motorways and can see why they've done it this way (lack of funds to do it properly), but it's just another Grenfell tower type situation in waiting.
There should be less barriers, or they should have been moved further away to allow a 'soft shoulder' for emergency break downs.
They could also make the early warning messages actually work properly, I have never, ever, ever driven through a set of warning signs to find 'Debris on the carriageway', 'People on the carriageway' or rarely any good reason to be doing 50 when it was supposed to be 70. They just seem to put them on and leave them on for 6hrs after the event creating a 'Boy who cried wolf' situation. To me it just means don't slow down at all, just be extra vigilant.
If we were fed accurate information it would be a good start.
227bhp said:
I expect that one day there will be a nasty incident where a truck or something hammers into the back of someone who can't get off the motorway, or swerves to miss a vehicle half on/half off and causes some kind of huge accident, it's only a matter of time.
I'm all for expanding motorways and can see why they've done it this way (lack of funds to do it properly), but it's just another Grenfell tower type situation in waiting.
There should be less barriers, or they should have been moved further away to allow a 'soft shoulder' for emergency break downs.
They could also make the early warning messages actually work properly, I have never, ever, ever driven through a set of warning signs to find 'Debris on the carriageway', 'People on the carriageway' or rarely any good reason to be doing 50 when it was supposed to be 70. They just seem to put them on and leave them on for 6hrs after the event creating a 'Boy who cried wolf' situation. To me it just means don't slow down at all, just be extra vigilant.
worse than that.. ease off a bit for the first sign just in case it's real. If nothing by the second pick up speed but vigilantI'm all for expanding motorways and can see why they've done it this way (lack of funds to do it properly), but it's just another Grenfell tower type situation in waiting.
There should be less barriers, or they should have been moved further away to allow a 'soft shoulder' for emergency break downs.
They could also make the early warning messages actually work properly, I have never, ever, ever driven through a set of warning signs to find 'Debris on the carriageway', 'People on the carriageway' or rarely any good reason to be doing 50 when it was supposed to be 70. They just seem to put them on and leave them on for 6hrs after the event creating a 'Boy who cried wolf' situation. To me it just means don't slow down at all, just be extra vigilant.
If by the third, still nothing, theyve been left on by mistake, as you were.
Covered in previous threads
227bhp said:
I expect that one day there will be a nasty incident where a truck or something hammers into the back of someone who can't get off the motorway, or swerves to miss a vehicle half on/half off and causes some kind of huge accident, it's only a matter of time.
Because that never happens/happened on hard shoulders, right?TooMany2cvs said:
227bhp said:
I expect that one day there will be a nasty incident where a truck or something hammers into the back of someone who can't get off the motorway, or swerves to miss a vehicle half on/half off and causes some kind of huge accident, it's only a matter of time.
Because that never happens/happened on hard shoulders, right?227bhp said:
I expect that one day there will be a nasty incident where a truck or something hammers into the back of someone who can't get off the motorway, or swerves to miss a vehicle half on/half off and causes some kind of huge accident, it's only a matter of time.
I'm all for expanding motorways and can see why they've done it this way (lack of funds to do it properly), but it's just another Grenfell tower type situation in waiting.
There should be less barriers, or they should have been moved further away to allow a 'soft shoulder' for emergency break downs.
They could also make the early warning messages actually work properly, I have never, ever, ever driven through a set of warning signs to find 'Debris on the carriageway', 'People on the carriageway' or rarely any good reason to be doing 50 when it was supposed to be 70. They just seem to put them on and leave them on for 6hrs after the event creating a 'Boy who cried wolf' situation. To me it just means don't slow down at all, just be extra vigilant.
If we were fed accurate information it would be a good start.
its seems a sad inevitability.I'm all for expanding motorways and can see why they've done it this way (lack of funds to do it properly), but it's just another Grenfell tower type situation in waiting.
There should be less barriers, or they should have been moved further away to allow a 'soft shoulder' for emergency break downs.
They could also make the early warning messages actually work properly, I have never, ever, ever driven through a set of warning signs to find 'Debris on the carriageway', 'People on the carriageway' or rarely any good reason to be doing 50 when it was supposed to be 70. They just seem to put them on and leave them on for 6hrs after the event creating a 'Boy who cried wolf' situation. To me it just means don't slow down at all, just be extra vigilant.
If we were fed accurate information it would be a good start.
TooMany2cvs said:
227bhp said:
I expect that one day there will be a nasty incident where a truck or something hammers into the back of someone who can't get off the motorway, or swerves to miss a vehicle half on/half off and causes some kind of huge accident, it's only a matter of time.
Because that never happens/happened on hard shoulders, right?Basically someone or a body of people somewhere decided that a tower block needed tarting up and insulating at the risk of lives lost, just the same that someone has said that we can get from A to B quicker with the increased risk of serious accidents/lives lost because we can't afford to do it properly.
Then we have a thread going on currently whereby people in ivory towers are pontificating and saying we should pay our taxes, every single penny, to improve the country, but it doesn't does it. We waste it on (killing people in) tower blocks, tearing off what has been done, putting it back again, enquiries into the deaths all of which runs into hundreds of millions which means not spending it from the roads so we kill more people there too.
It's a moral issue and nothing new, the poor and working class are sacrificed in the name of progress, history just repeats itself. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it all really.
We live in a country run by rich greedy idiots.
Edited by 227bhp on Sunday 22 July 14:22
227bhp said:
That's down to user error, an accident caused by a breakdown with no hard shoulder is not.
How are they different?Or are you suggesting that drivers can't possibly be expected to see stationary things ahead of them at 56-70mph? Even with a sodding great big red X saying "DO NOT USE THIS LANE"?
TooMany2cvs said:
227bhp said:
That's down to user error, an accident caused by a breakdown with no hard shoulder is not.
How are they different?Or are you suggesting that drivers can't possibly be expected to see stationary things ahead of them at 56-70mph? Even with a sodding great big red X saying "DO NOT USE THIS LANE"?
What about the minutes that pass by between the car breaking down and a warning light going on that usually lies anyhow?
Do you think it's instantaneous? Think again.
227bhp said:
TooMany2cvs said:
227bhp said:
That's down to user error, an accident caused by a breakdown with no hard shoulder is not.
How are they different?Or are you suggesting that drivers can't possibly be expected to see stationary things ahead of them at 56-70mph? Even with a sodding great big red X saying "DO NOT USE THIS LANE"?
What about the minutes that pass by between the car breaking down and a warning light going on that usually lies anyhow?
Do you think it's instantaneous? Think again.
Yes, until the X is switched on, it's is the same as a multi lane A road. Yes, this is more dangerous, in the even of a breakdown, than a standard motorway with a hard shoulder. No, the risk does not warrant reducing the capacity of smart-motorways by 25% at all times. Breaking down on a fast road is never going to be safe. The hard shoulder isn't safe. The extra £millions required to add an additional, for the vast majority of the time, unused, lane to an overloaded trunk road are unaffordable in the current economic climate.
Drive up the M1 4 lanes sections any time of the day & lanes 1 & 2 are almost always empty. Lanes 3 & 4 however are full of 60 somethings.
Same as the M6 smart sections, lane 1 is always the least busy.
I know smart motorways are a stupid idea but the most of UK's drivers are even more stupid imho.
Same as the M6 smart sections, lane 1 is always the least busy.
I know smart motorways are a stupid idea but the most of UK's drivers are even more stupid imho.
Matthen said:
I think it happens, in it's worse case scenario, as quickly as you can dial 999 and tell the person on the other end of the telephone that you're stranded in lane 1 of X motorway at highway marker Y. It won't be long until the computers that run the motorways spot you breaking down before you've even come to a stop, and have flipped on the red X's.
Yes, until the X is switched on, it's is the same as a multi lane A road. Yes, this is more dangerous, in the even of a breakdown, than a standard motorway with a hard shoulder. No, the risk does not warrant reducing the capacity of smart-motorways by 25% at all times. Breaking down on a fast road is never going to be safe. The hard shoulder isn't safe. The extra £millions required to add an additional, for the vast majority of the time, unused, lane to an overloaded trunk road are unaffordable in the current economic climate.
Let's hope they apply that same tech to not telling us there was debris on the motorway 6hrs ago because that was a multi million pound fat waste of money.Yes, until the X is switched on, it's is the same as a multi lane A road. Yes, this is more dangerous, in the even of a breakdown, than a standard motorway with a hard shoulder. No, the risk does not warrant reducing the capacity of smart-motorways by 25% at all times. Breaking down on a fast road is never going to be safe. The hard shoulder isn't safe. The extra £millions required to add an additional, for the vast majority of the time, unused, lane to an overloaded trunk road are unaffordable in the current economic climate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff