OP
OP
Doh! just me being "thick" - again! Thanks.HS - hard shoulder.
I wasn’t going to type it every time as on the iPad currently
"smart" motorways
- Thread starter Pugglt Auld Jock
- Start date
Currently reading:
"smart" motorways
I can understand your distrust. I think what doesn’t help is the **** poor driving standards in this country.
Wack a camera on every gantry (I suspect they’ve already got them anyway), fine EVERYONE, and 6 points, that goes through a red X. No ifs and buts. People would moan at first but it seems to be the only way to improve driving standards. Would generate a nice bit of ££ for the coughers at the same time also. Win win really.
Re: "smart" motorways
From what I have read on the subject and training on smart motorways I think you are spot on. The technology to detect stationary vehicles and close the affected lane quickly enough has not been fully installed or fully tested on all sections of the current smart motorway sections.
Plus there has not been a national education campaign on how to drive safely on a smart motorway.
I would not expect everyone on the smart motorway to know what a red x over Lane means.
Plus if confronted by all lanes having red x s over them but no visable problems ahead who will be brave enough to be first to stop especially in lane 3 or 4!
Hi Jock,
From what I have read on the subject and training on smart motorways I think you are spot on. The technology to detect stationary vehicles and close the affected lane quickly enough has not been fully installed or fully tested on all sections of the current smart motorway sections.
Plus there has not been a national education campaign on how to drive safely on a smart motorway.
I would not expect everyone on the smart motorway to know what a red x over Lane means.
Plus if confronted by all lanes having red x s over them but no visable problems ahead who will be brave enough to be first to stop especially in lane 3 or 4!
Last edited:
Re: "smart" motorways
Well I hate to be really blunt but they shouldn’t be driving then. It’s clearly stated in the Highway Code.
Interesting point, but I doubt that’d ever happen, more than likely close all bar 1 lane and have that down to 20/30mph.
If the incident is that sever to require total road closure I’d expect the police to be on scene fairly quickly or the traffic unable to pass so slow / stop naturally.
Well I hate to be really blunt but they shouldn’t be driving then. It’s clearly stated in the Highway Code.
Interesting point, but I doubt that’d ever happen, more than likely close all bar 1 lane and have that down to 20/30mph.
If the incident is that sever to require total road closure I’d expect the police to be on scene fairly quickly or the traffic unable to pass so slow / stop naturally.
Re: "smart" motorways
There are lots of people who shouldn't be driving but that's no help as they are out there posing a very real threat to life.
It is possible for all lanes to be closed at very short notice by the smart motorway system without input from humans.
Boeing 737max was repeatedly said to be completely safe and the design of the aircraft played no part in several crashes before it was grounded.
There are lots of people who shouldn't be driving but that's no help as they are out there posing a very real threat to life.
It is possible for all lanes to be closed at very short notice by the smart motorway system without input from humans.
Boeing 737max was repeatedly said to be completely safe and the design of the aircraft played no part in several crashes before it was grounded.
Last edited:
Re: "smart" motorways
And there in lies the issue.
Not quite the same. One is a machine that can’t be correctly controlled causing crashes, the other is idiots who cannot drive, where there isn’t a reason they can’t if up to the correct standards and removed from roads via the penalty point system if not. The system is equally as much to blame.
And there in lies the issue.
Not quite the same. One is a machine that can’t be correctly controlled causing crashes, the other is idiots who cannot drive, where there isn’t a reason they can’t if up to the correct standards and removed from roads via the penalty point system if not. The system is equally as much to blame.
GeorgeDamper
Established member
There will be a number of cars behind you before the red x is activated. The Times did an article stating it can be up to 17 minutes. Even if you are spotted straight away - there will be the cars that have already travelled under the gantry.
I live next to the M1 and travelled on it every day before lockdown. I've lived in this area all my life and everybody I know is concerned about it.
I live next to the M1 and travelled on it every day before lockdown. I've lived in this area all my life and everybody I know is concerned about it.
Last edited:
Two conflicting argument here, if a car breaks down then there is no hard shoulder on the motorway anymore...
but then every dual carriageway is still a 70mph limit and they don’t have a hard shoulder, so to argue a smart motorways is dangerous because of the lack of hard shoulder means we should also be arguing for every dual carriageway to have hard shoulders installed.
Also the risk to life is if a car brakes down in a live lane (which happens hard shoulder or not) then a car could crash into the back of stationary traffic in that live lane.
Over the years I wonder how many fatalities there have been through people not wanting to wait in the slow moving motorway traffic and deciding to press ahead at full speed down the hard shoulder.... and then crashed into the back of something broken down.
At least with a smart motorway, the moron in his rep mobile is forced to travel with the traffic rather than putting everyone else’s life in danger.
It’s new, there are lessons to be learned from accidents that have happened but It doesn’t mean it’s any less safe than what we had.
The 737 Max was entirely Boeing’s fault trying to cut corners and not have to have all 737 pilots re-type rated to fly the new version (costs £30k-40k for a pilot to get type rated) so they put in a single piece of electronics with no fail safe that could freely control the engines and not be disabled.... so it’s not quite the same, it wasn’t done to make anything “safer” than it was before
but then every dual carriageway is still a 70mph limit and they don’t have a hard shoulder, so to argue a smart motorways is dangerous because of the lack of hard shoulder means we should also be arguing for every dual carriageway to have hard shoulders installed.
Also the risk to life is if a car brakes down in a live lane (which happens hard shoulder or not) then a car could crash into the back of stationary traffic in that live lane.
Over the years I wonder how many fatalities there have been through people not wanting to wait in the slow moving motorway traffic and deciding to press ahead at full speed down the hard shoulder.... and then crashed into the back of something broken down.
At least with a smart motorway, the moron in his rep mobile is forced to travel with the traffic rather than putting everyone else’s life in danger.
It’s new, there are lessons to be learned from accidents that have happened but It doesn’t mean it’s any less safe than what we had.
The 737 Max was entirely Boeing’s fault trying to cut corners and not have to have all 737 pilots re-type rated to fly the new version (costs £30k-40k for a pilot to get type rated) so they put in a single piece of electronics with no fail safe that could freely control the engines and not be disabled.... so it’s not quite the same, it wasn’t done to make anything “safer” than it was before
Exactly, and they’ll slow with you. When a car brakes down it doesn’t stop dead instantly.
People will rightly be concerned as it’s change / something different. It’s human nature. Still doesn't make it any more dangerous.
One could argue the consensus of it being dangerous will make people get out their car and to safety rather than foolishly sitting in it while on the hard shoulder awaiting for someone to hit them - as vehicles are still hit on Hard Shoulders.
I’d love the see the stats for fatal accidents on smart motorways cause with stationary vehicles sitting in a live lane vs the same for stationary vehicles sitting on a had shoulder. These don’t seem to have been published. I wonder if it’s because they actually show less fatalities on smart motorways??
There is a lot going on with this thread.
Dual carriageway with no hard shoulder is not as safe as a motor way. They worked this out in France as speed limits on dual carrigeway are lower than motor way - that's saying something.
If smart motorways working as they are meant too then it should be ok provided people know it's limitations.
It is a machine/system and in some instances it appears not to have worked as intended.
Smart motorway trainers have been told to tell people :-
that cars don't break down anymore you will always be able to use limp mode to get to a refuge.
If a car stops in a live lane the system will automatically close that lane straight away, so you will be fine stay in your vehicle.
My view is if smart motorways work as intended/fully installed and all drivers know how to drive on smart motorway then they should be very nearly as safe as a traditional motor way.
I don't think I'm going to add any more to this topic.
Dual carriageway with no hard shoulder is not as safe as a motor way. They worked this out in France as speed limits on dual carrigeway are lower than motor way - that's saying something.
If smart motorways working as they are meant too then it should be ok provided people know it's limitations.
It is a machine/system and in some instances it appears not to have worked as intended.
Smart motorway trainers have been told to tell people :-
that cars don't break down anymore you will always be able to use limp mode to get to a refuge.
If a car stops in a live lane the system will automatically close that lane straight away, so you will be fine stay in your vehicle.
My view is if smart motorways work as intended/fully installed and all drivers know how to drive on smart motorway then they should be very nearly as safe as a traditional motor way.
I don't think I'm going to add any more to this topic.
GeorgeDamper
Established member
They must have exceptional eyesight if they can "slow with me" when the x is activated 17 minutes after I have stopped.
A very fair point, in cases where people have a minor bump then stop and stand out in the live lane of a motorway, while a guy in a lorry drives along it playing with there phone or otherwise distracted, in that situation it’s very hard to blame the workings of the motorway, Red Cross on the gantry or not but is one of the arguments being used to say these roads are unsafe.
If there is a significant delay in the Red Cross activating when a lane is blocked then yes that’s not a good thing.
If things work as intended then they should by all rights be safer, that’s the whole intention. People are using situations that have occurred where significant driver error has been to blame, combined with hypothesis “if this doesn’t happen in time” to claim that they are more unsafe than what they replace,
But as pointed out, if we don’t have stats or aren’t analysing stats on people being killed by misusing the hard shoulder, or separating accidents that happen in an inactive lane 1/hard shoulder from accidents that happen in say lane 4 that’s been made inactive then it’s very hard for us to make any argument on here which is more unsafe then the other, which I’m guessing is why they are holding an official enquiry to look into it.
OP
OP
Re: "smart" motorways
I've often thought about how you can address this and I think it's actually an insurmountable and unrealistic objective. Instruction and the driving test as it is prepares you quite well in terms of rules of the road and basic car control - reversing round corners etc - But when we look at car control it's only a start and the majority of drivers never progress beyond it. The majority of people don't get any in depth practice of controlling a vehicle in extreme conditions because for 99.9% of one's driving life the conditions are not extreme. So when you are confronted with a serious situation requiring very quick decisions and instantaneous reactions with large and violent movements of controls and you are going at the sort of speeds you get on motorways it's almost guaranteed control will be lost.
In my youth I learned to drive by bombing around the fields, going sideways most of the time and then later went rallying for a couple of years. High speeds on very slippery surfaces taught me an enormous amount about car control. the only really useful thing I can carry over from it to driving on the road (because hopefully no one is going to drive 10/10ths on the public highway) is that when things get really "hairy" I don't feel a sense of panic and immediately start thinking about my way out. If the car starts going sideways etc, then I may be able to exert some control which will improve my chances. I believe most people, and it's not their "fault", under these circumstances seize up with panic and the result is depressingly predictable.
I've absolutely no idea how you can teach the average everyday driver car control like this though? I suspect it's unrealistic and unattainable. I think too that many drivers lack so much imagination and perception I find it depressing! For instance, last year in the heavy snow, with the gritters concentrating on the main routes, we had to get out to my boy's house for childminding duties (had to go to collect child from the school - parents at work). The snow was hard packed on these smaller roads with more falling and very slippery. Going down a long shallow hill I cut my speed first to 20mph then 15mph knowing there were traffic lights around the bend half way down the hill. The cars in front, which hadn't slowed, were all over the place trying to slow for the lights but, although I was experiencing some ABS action I was able to slow in a straight line. The car behind me, who had been sitting only a couple of car lengths off my rear bumper (barely acceptable in normal driving) actually overtook me - He obviously thought I was being too cautious, and ended up on the kerb on the other side of the road because he couldn't bring it back to our side of the road!
I've often thought about how you can address this and I think it's actually an insurmountable and unrealistic objective. Instruction and the driving test as it is prepares you quite well in terms of rules of the road and basic car control - reversing round corners etc - But when we look at car control it's only a start and the majority of drivers never progress beyond it. The majority of people don't get any in depth practice of controlling a vehicle in extreme conditions because for 99.9% of one's driving life the conditions are not extreme. So when you are confronted with a serious situation requiring very quick decisions and instantaneous reactions with large and violent movements of controls and you are going at the sort of speeds you get on motorways it's almost guaranteed control will be lost.
In my youth I learned to drive by bombing around the fields, going sideways most of the time and then later went rallying for a couple of years. High speeds on very slippery surfaces taught me an enormous amount about car control. the only really useful thing I can carry over from it to driving on the road (because hopefully no one is going to drive 10/10ths on the public highway) is that when things get really "hairy" I don't feel a sense of panic and immediately start thinking about my way out. If the car starts going sideways etc, then I may be able to exert some control which will improve my chances. I believe most people, and it's not their "fault", under these circumstances seize up with panic and the result is depressingly predictable.
I've absolutely no idea how you can teach the average everyday driver car control like this though? I suspect it's unrealistic and unattainable. I think too that many drivers lack so much imagination and perception I find it depressing! For instance, last year in the heavy snow, with the gritters concentrating on the main routes, we had to get out to my boy's house for childminding duties (had to go to collect child from the school - parents at work). The snow was hard packed on these smaller roads with more falling and very slippery. Going down a long shallow hill I cut my speed first to 20mph then 15mph knowing there were traffic lights around the bend half way down the hill. The cars in front, which hadn't slowed, were all over the place trying to slow for the lights but, although I was experiencing some ABS action I was able to slow in a straight line. The car behind me, who had been sitting only a couple of car lengths off my rear bumper (barely acceptable in normal driving) actually overtook me - He obviously thought I was being too cautious, and ended up on the kerb on the other side of the road because he couldn't bring it back to our side of the road!
Stopping distance at 70mph is under 100 metres, your eyesight is so bad you can’t see a stationary car at 100metre, then you’ve got bigger problems than a smart motorway.
And that 100 meters dates from the 60s and was measured in an old Ford Anglia with all round drum brakes and cross ply tyres
Smart motorway is safe in the same a cliff with a sign saying "caution steep drop stay away" is safe.
As long as everyone obeys the signs at all times, no one dies, but that's not human nature and never was.
As long as everyone obeys the signs at all times, no one dies, but that's not human nature and never was.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 240
- Points
- 111
Smart Motorways were introduced to increase capacity and reduce congestion, all at a reduced cost, compared to adding a conventional extra lane. They were not introduced to improve safety.
The initial trial recommended emergency refuge areas 500 yards apart. This has been ignored and the gaps have been extended on recently introduced sections.
They have already conceded that congestion is worse then conventional motorways when there is an incident.
I wonder how long they will continue to argue the safety aspect.
So when the vehicle in front of you slows you just carry on and smash it out of the way do you
Red X means lane closed get / stay out of it. It’s the brake lights in front as a vehicle slows, or the closing gap, which makes you slow / stop as the vehicle in front does.
With the exception of the 3 idiots who have driven into the back of me while I’ve been stopping during my driving carrier, everyone else behind has always slowed / stopped ‘with me’ when I have. If they didn’t they’d all be hitting me!
GeorgeDamper
Established member
So when the vehicle in front of you slows you just carry on and smash it out of the way do you
Red X means lane closed get / stay out of it. It’s the brake lights in front as a vehicle slows, or the closing gap, which makes you slow / stop as the vehicle in front does.
With the exception of the 3 idiots who have driven into the back of me while I’ve been stopping during my driving carrier, everyone else behind has always slowed / stopped ‘with me’ when I have. If they didn’t they’d all be hitting me!
No, I have never been in an accident.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 19,783
- Points
- 3,373
The main problem is a plethora of speed cameras. Yellow boxes at the side of lane sign gantries, Ordinary scamera boxes watching a fixed 50 zone, Cameras over each lane, ccamera vans trying their luck, variable speed signs with random numbers. Do they apply to all lanes just the slip road lanes or just one lane? People are so busy watching all that lot they don't watch the road ahead.
I've never seen different speed limits on different lanes
And any speed limit shown apply to all lanes why would they only apply them to certain lanes?
Similar threads
