Smart Motorways

[sadoldgit]

Too smart for the public it would seem as they are not now going to roll them out. For me this was an idea that should never of left the drawing board. Hard shoulders are not overly safe but they are a lot safer than no hard shoulders. My local motorway is the M20 (soon to become a lorry car park if Brexit gets done). It is a smart motorway and it is a nightmare. It doesn’t help with all of the left hand drive lorries from the continent using it, but we have had several fatalities on it recently despite being told that they are safer. Good news that they are not rolling them out. I just hope that they dump them all together and return the current ones to normal motorways.

[OldNick]

return them back!!!!OMG the cost and inconvenience yet again. They obviously are flawed and I couldnt believe they were given the go ahead in the first place. Problem is more cars and a road system that is not up to it.

[badgerx16]

return them back!!!!OMG the cost and inconvenience yet again. They obviously are flawed and I couldnt believe they were given the go ahead in the first place. Problem is more cars and a road system that is not up to it.

 

Surely all that is required to 'turn them back' is to disconnect the matrix signs over the left hand lane/hard shoulder, and take down any signage referring to it's use. I find the more annoying, and potentially dangerous, aspect of them is the variable speed limit.

[Whitey Grandad]

A stupid idea that’s being forced through because somebody has a theory. Three years of disruption whilst they convert each individual stretch during which time there are no emergency laybys and no overhead signals. One breakdown or shunt and the whole area reaches gridlock. At the very least they should build the new laybys first.

 

If you stop on a normal hard shoulder and remain in the car your life expectancy is Reported as anywhere between ten and thirty minutes so why would it be any less if you stop in the running lane of a smart motorway? There’s only a Red Cross on an overhead sign to protect you.

 

The hard shoulder is not a normal running surface with all sorts of lumps and bumps and needs to be dug up and replaced.

 

In any case I don’t believe that they will help congestion which in most cases is cause by queues at the junctions where traffic joins and leaves. They will not solve our problems.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So I use the M25 and M1 for about 90 miles of SMART motorways every day, and they are excellent for keeping extremely busy motorways moving. However, not sure it's worth converting the less busy motorways.

[Wurzel]

I'm in two minds.

My first experience of using one "in action" was traveling South from NEC on M42. Heavy traffic, use of the hard shoulder eased it and kept if flowing. Seemed perfectly safe.

But then I took the left fork to merge onto the South-Eastwards M40. Suddenly the M42 hard shoulder I was correctly traveling in became the M40 hard shoulder which was a "non-smart" not to be driven on hard shoulder. Some rapid lane changing was necessary as we crossed over into the M40 inside lane. Seemed like an accident waiting to happen.

I guess in that instance further improved signage would help.

[sadoldgit]

A stupid idea that’s being forced through because somebody has a theory. Three years of disruption whilst they convert each individual stretch during which time there are no emergency laybys and no overhead signals. One breakdown or shunt and the whole area reaches gridlock. At the very least they should build the new laybys first.

 

If you stop on a normal hard shoulder and remain in the car your life expectancy is Reported as anywhere between ten and thirty minutes so why would it be any less if you stop in the running lane of a smart motorway? There’s only a Red Cross on an overhead sign to protect you.

 

The hard shoulder is not a normal running surface with all sorts of lumps and bumps and needs to be dug up and replaced.

 

In any case I don’t believe that they will help congestion which in most cases is cause by queues at the junctions where traffic joins and leaves. They will not solve our problems.

 

It is terrifying enough stopping on the hard shoulder for both the driver and the recovery vehicle. Multiply that by 1000 for breaking down with no hard shoulder. You would think with the models they can build with today’s technology they could have seen what a bad idea this is. Just a few weeks ago there was a guy on tv saying how safe they were. Now we are told that they are not being rolled out, clearly because they are not safe. I drove by a fatality a few weeks ago on the M20. I can’t say that it was the result of being “smart” but this was a very dangerous motorway at the best of times. Now I use the A20 in preference. We have also the extra problem of Operation Brock. Over 20 miles of a single lane of the M20 will be turned into a lorry park post Brixit so we have lost another lane anyway (it has been blocked off since the last Brexit exit point in March).

[Lighthouse]

The do a decent job of keeping busy traffic moving, so I think they are a good idea in the right places.

 

If they were going to do something around here, I’d rather they made the feeder road into the city from junction 7 a dual carriageway. The backlog from that seems to go half a mile down the slip road, as swell as gridlocking half of Hedge End.

[sadoldgit]

The problem is the number of cars on the road v our expenditure on infrastructure to accommodate them. From the day it opened the M25 wasn’t fit for purpose. Planers hadn’t factored in people jumping on and off for one or two junctions. Utilised the hard shoulder is a relatively cheap way to give you another lane. The issue is that it is there for a completely different purpose and provides a crucial space for those who need it. The emergency vehicles couldn’t get to the accident I saw for ages do to there not being a hard shoulder for them to drive on. They had to work their way through the traffic jam.

[aintforever]

Stupid idea. The benefits of having another lane is obvious during the rush hour but I wouldn't fancy breaking down and being stuck on the carriageway at night or in poor visibility when the traffic is going full pelt.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Stupid idea. The benefits of having another lane is obvious during the rush hour but I wouldn't fancy breaking down and being stuck on the carriageway at night or in poor visibility when the traffic is going full pelt.

 

And in those situations it shouldn't be open.

 

Maybe it's more the implementation of it?

[Lighthouse]

Stupid idea. The benefits of having another lane is obvious during the rush hour but I wouldn't fancy breaking down and being stuck on the carriageway at night or in poor visibility when the traffic is going full pelt.

 

Is that not the idea though?

 

The hard shoulder lane is only used when its particularly congested, in which case the traffic would be doing about 40 and any breakdown would lead to the lane being closed anyway, with a massive red X.

[Whitey Grandad]

It is terrifying enough stopping on the hard shoulder for both the driver and the recovery vehicle. Multiply that by 1000 for breaking down with no hard shoulder. You would think with the models they can build with today’s technology they could have seen what a bad idea this is. Just a few weeks ago there was a guy on tv saying how safe they were. Now we are told that they are not being rolled out, clearly because they are not safe. I drove by a fatality a few weeks ago on the M20. I can’t say that it was the result of being “smart” but this was a very dangerous motorway at the best of times. Now I use the A20 in preference. We have also the extra problem of Operation Brock. Over 20 miles of a single lane of the M20 will be turned into a lorry park post Brixit so we have lost another lane anyway (it has been blocked off since the last Brexit exit point in March).

 

I read that getting out of one of these emergency laybys is no joke either. There is no distance to pick up speed before rejoining.

Edited 25 October, 2019 by Whitey Grandad

[aintforever]

Is that not the idea though?

 

The hard shoulder lane is only used when its particularly congested, in which case the traffic would be doing about 40 and any breakdown would lead to the lane being closed anyway, with a massive red X.

 

It's never that black and white though is it, traffic and weather conditions can change quickly. Also if you break down how long does it take for the red X to appear?

[Weston Super Saint]

There's not a lot wrong with smart motorways - apart from the fact the speed cameras are not turned off during the very rare occasions that 'national speed limit' applies.

 

It's the stupid drivers that use them that causes issues - probably the same drivers who drive for miles in the middle lane when the inside lane is empty - but hopefully Darwinism will win through and remove the thick ones from the road.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

There's not a lot wrong with smart motorways - apart from the fact the speed cameras are not turned off during the very rare occasions that 'national speed limit' applies.

 

It's the stupid drivers that use them that causes issues - probably the same drivers who drive for miles in the middle lane when the inside lane is empty - but hopefully Darwinism will win through and remove the thick ones from the road.

 

That's not true, it depends on which County you are in and how the police force in that county polices it (on both %age of speed over limit and whether they are turned on).

 

And are you really saying that you hope that those that drive in the middle lane die? They're annoying, yes, but quite extreme to wish death on them for that?

Edited 25 October, 2019 by Unbelievable Jeff

[OldNick]

From the day it opened the M25 wasn’t fit for purpose. .

If you recall people were against it as they said we would run out of oil by the time it was made and we wouldn't need it!!

If we had known the M"% would have been made 4 or 5 lanes

[Wurzel]

The problem is the number of cars on the road v our expenditure on infrastructure to accommodate them. From the day it opened the M25 wasn’t fit for purpose. Planers hadn’t factored in people jumping on and off for one or two junctions. Utilised the hard shoulder is a relatively cheap way to give you another lane. The issue is that it is there for a completely different purpose and provides a crucial space for those who need it. The emergency vehicles couldn’t get to the accident I saw for ages do to there not being a hard shoulder for them to drive on. They had to work their way through the traffic jam.

 

Same with the M27. It was considered to be a Southampton By-Pass, they never predicted Hedge End to Eastleigh (as an example) type traffic would ever use it.

[Lighthouse]

It's never that black and white though is it, traffic and weather conditions can change quickly. Also if you break down how long does it take for the red X to appear?

 

I believe it’s almost instant. I’m sure I read somewhere it’s all done with cameras and sensors on the gantry. There must be some failsafe to ensure these kinds of accidents don’t (or rarely) happen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in use whereby there were clear roads with national speed limit, with the hard shoulder available for driving.

[sadoldgit]

I raid that getting out of one of these emergency laybys is no joke either. There is no distance to pick up speed before rejoining.

 

I hadn’t thought of that but yes, that would be a problem.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I believe it’s almost instant. I’m sure I read somewhere it’s all done with cameras and sensors on the gantry. There must be some failsafe to ensure these kinds of accidents don’t (or rarely) happen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in use whereby there were clear roads with national speed limit, with the hard shoulder available for driving.

 

Yep, pretty much instantaneous.

[Weston Super Saint]

That's not true, it depends on which County you are in and how the police force in that county polices it (on both %age of speed over limit and whether they are turned on).

 

And are you really saying that you hope that those that drive in the middle lane die? They're annoying, yes, but quite extreme to wish death on them for that?

 

Not at all, just assuming that the thick people who are too stupid to figure out what is essentially a fairly simple system, won't be around long enough to cause chaos for the rest of us.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Not at all, just assuming that the thick people who are too stupid to figure out what is essentially a fairly simple system, won't be around long enough to cause chaos for the rest of us.

 

Nope, you said the following:

 

but hopefully Darwinism will win through and remove the thick ones from the road.

 

Keeping up with the rest of your Brexiteer mates? By the way, did you ever get us a police reference for your crusade against racist costumes and sellers on EBay?

[Plastic]

So I use the M25 and M1 for about 90 miles of SMART motorways every day, and they are excellent for keeping extremely busy motorways moving. However, not sure it's worth converting the less busy motorways.

 

Was going to say exactly that re m25, the variable speed limits work very well. M3, not so much.

[John Boy Saint]

I believe it’s almost instant. I’m sure I read somewhere it’s all done with cameras and sensors on the gantry. There must be some failsafe to ensure these kinds of accidents don’t (or rarely) happen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one in use whereby there were clear roads with national speed limit, with the hard shoulder available for driving.

Sadly its not instant,

I drive 30k miles a year and use the motorways quite a bit, increasingly more and more smart motorways. The amount of times I have seen stranded cars on the inside lane of the M3, M25 in Kent, M1 with the occupants standing on the verge and yet no Red X or warning is astounding, the M3 seems particularly slow in switching on the signs. Apparently when the Red X is in operation if you are recorded as passing 3 without exiting that lane you are now likely to see a fine and points drop through your letter box...............but if the M3 can't spot a stranded car in less than a minute fat chance they are going to spot the same car going past 3 Red X's. Then you add into this the use of the big Matrix signs currently telling us to get our paperwork ready for the 1st November, the amount of times I see the speed limit down to 60mph and the messages "Report of Pedestrians" Report of Debris" "Report of Animals" ("Report of On coming Vehicle" focuses the mind somewhat) some bellend no doubt who rides a bicycle to work and doesn't drive a car thinks that this will make drivers slow down, but after 10-15-20 miles of seeing this same message and no sign of Pedestrians, Debris, or Animals it becomes a bit like the Boy who Cried Wolf so when a Red Cross does actually come on over a lane most people just go "really?".............but then like middle lane plodders so many people I see driving along on the motorway have a fixed 5 mile stare You could have a Rainbow Coloured Unicorn fly across the motorway 1/4 of a mile in front of them and they wouldn't see it: just like they don't see the Police car coming up behind them at 100+mph with every single light flashing then sitting on their bumper for 1/2 a mile!!

The M42 & M6 round Birmingham pretty much operates well because the hard shoulder is still defined by a solid line, when the sign says to use the hard shoulder you do notice people drive on it with some trepidation, unlike the M3 where they have just gotten rid of the hard shoulder altogether there is no safety net.

[Whitey Grandad]

Was going to say exactly that re m25, the variable speed limits work very well. M3, not so much.

There are often inconsistencies on the M25. Several times I have been coming home at night after 11 o’clock on a virtually empty motorway only to find a sudden isolated gantry showing a 40 mph limit.

[aintforever]

What a surprise, forcing people to wait for help in a live lane is ****ing dangerous.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51236375

[buctootim]

What a surprise, forcing people to wait for help in a live lane is ****ing dangerous.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51236375

 

Saw a crash only last week on M23. Truck slammed into a broken down car stopped on the inside lane.

[kyle04]

I travel on the M6 regularly, which has been a traffic cone utopia for years now with long stretches of speed restrictions , and still not due to finish for years.

What moron thought it would be a good idea to abandon a long established emergency stopping lane and replace it with short laybys a mile apart, if you get a puncture or your ECU packs up chances are you will be marooned in oncoming traffic with nowhere to go. Having witnessed the slow developments on that road I assumed a "smart" motorway would be constant speed cameras and speed restrictions often for no apparent reason, annoying yes but just about tolerable. I wonder how many people have to die in needless accidents before the penny drops. What with HS2 this county sure knows how to waste money.

[Marsdinho]

I had a blown tyre on the M3 on our way to the semi final at Wembley a couple of seasons ago. Managed to get over to the smart lane, and thats where the fun started...trying to change a rear drivers side tyre, when lorries are flying past you only inches away, is quite the experience!

 

Eventually, they shut the left hand lane down as they must have seen us risking our lives on CCTV...they then shut the whole of M3 northbound with a rolling road block, so the recovery vehicle could get to me, and get me away safely....

 

So, if you were held up in traffic getting to Wembley a couple of years ago, it was my cars fault! I did feel bad looking at all the waiting traffic queueing behind the road block, loads of saints fans! Sorry !

[sadoldgit]

There was some terrifying footage of near misses last night on the news along with a report of a couple killed in their car as the lane had not been closed. It is a recipe for disaster and should not have made its way off of the drawing board. It is bad enough on the hard shoulder as it is.

[Whitey Grandad]

There was some terrifying footage of near misses last night on the news along with a report of a couple killed in their car as the lane had not been closed. It is a recipe for disaster and should not have made its way off of the drawing board. It is bad enough on the hard shoulder as it is.

 

Life expentancy on a standard hard shoulder is short enough anyway. I would never recommend anybody to chage the tyre themselves and I would always advise getting over to the other side of the safety barrier. The rumble strips between the inside lane and the hard shoulder need replacing every few months because they wear out so quickly. That tells you how often vehicles stray over it.

 

The AA and the RAC have said that they will not be attending breakdowns on smart motorways so always take a prayer book with you and probably some rosaries and a couple of crucifixes as well.

[LGTL]

They’re an absolute balls up thought of by someone sat in an office who never needs to drive long distances. They are causing, and will cause, people to die.

[whelk]

Do they come up figures for lost time queuing on the fcking M27 and impact to the economy?

 

And after the fcking thing is built I won’t even be able to speed.

[Batman]

Do they come up figures for lost time queuing on the fcking M27 and impact to the economy?

 

And after the fcking thing is built I won’t even be able to speed.

 

Horrendous isnt it. what, 2 years to build?

[Huffton]

Yet no one loses their mind about people breaking down on a dual carriageway. 70mph limit, no hard shoulder (or very few). Whats the difference?

I'm a professional driver, upwards of 70k a year. Smart motorways are not the problem, the idiots that use them that can't read/obey signs are.

[Huffton]

 

Eventually, they shut the left hand lane down as they must have seen us risking our lives on CCTV...they then shut the whole of M3 northbound with a rolling road block, so the recovery vehicle could get to me, and get me away safely....

!

 

Did you try calling the services? On any motorway you are never more than 500m or so from an emergency phone. Hop over the barrier, walk to the nearest phone, job done

[whelk]

Panorama about it tonight

[aintforever]

Smart motorways are not the problem, the idiots that use them that can't read/obey signs are.

 

But there will always be idiots that can't read/obey signs, that is exactly why hard shoulders are safer.

[sadoldgit]

Yet no one loses their mind about people breaking down on a dual carriageway. 70mph limit, no hard shoulder (or very few). Whats the difference?

I'm a professional driver, upwards of 70k a year. Smart motorways are not the problem, the idiots that use them that can't read/obey signs are.

 

There is a massive difference between driving and breaking down on a dual carriageway and a motorway. For a start there are a lot more lorries on motorways. If you are a professional driver you must be aware of the differences between driving on the two types of roads.

[sadoldgit]

So the police and the AA both say that these motorways are inherently dangerous. The current minister and the minister who commissioned them are clearly not happy with them. So not down to “idiots” using them. What Panorama failed to mention was the added problem of the emergency services not being able to reach accidents as there is no clear hard shoulder to use.

[HedgeEnder]

There is a massive difference between driving and breaking down on a dual carriageway and a motorway. For a start there are a lot more lorries on motorways. If you are a professional driver you must be aware of the differences between driving on the two types of roads.

 

And a dual carriageway is 2 lanes not 3 so there are a lot less vehicles on the road.

[Chez]

What I would like to know is how they were approved in the first place?

 

When someone presented the idea to the Department for Transport, and was asked, "how do we spot broken down cars?", I assume the answer back then would have been "using cameras". The natural reply, would then be, "and these would be positioned every few hundred meters or so I assume, so that there were no blind spots?" and the answer would be "yes, that's right, every 400m, allowing cars to be spotted almost immediately". And then "how many people would be required to watch the CCTV monitors?" "we will have a large team ensuring nothing can be missed and we will thoroughly test the efficiency of that team to see if we need more eyes."

"OK, that sounds good. Lets proceed..."

 

Yet the reality is that there is limited technology in place, so either someone has failed to implement what they said they would or the meeting must/should have gone:

"How do we spot broken down cars", "We have some cameras....but these won't cover the entire stretch of motorway. If a car breaks down in a blind spot, we will rely on a passing police car to radio it in, or a member of the public or the driver of the car themselves...assuming they know the number, have a working mobile phone..and haven't already been killed because they were not spotted in time."

"OK, that sounds mental let's not proceed."

Edited 28 January, 2020 by Chez

[Whitey Grandad]

What I would like to know is how they were approved in the first place?

 

When someone presented the idea to the Department for Transport, and was asked, "how do we spot broken down cars?", I assume the answer back then would have been "using cameras". The natural reply, would then be, "and these would be positioned every few hundred meters or so I assume, so that there were no blind spots?" and the answer would be "yes, that's right, every 400m, allowing cars to be spotted almost immediately". And then "how many people would be required to watch the CCTV monitors?" "we will have a large team ensuring nothing can be missed and we will thoroughly test the efficiency of that team to see if we need more eyes."

"OK, that sounds good. Lets proceed..."

 

Yet the reality is that there is limited technology in place, so either someone has failed to implement what they said they would or the meeting must/should have gone:

"How do we spot broken down cars", "We have some cameras....but these won't cover the entire stretch of motorway. If a car breaks down in a blind spot, we will rely on a passing police car to radio it in, or a member of the public or the driver of the car themselves...assuming they know the number, have a working mobile phone..and haven't already been killed because they were not spotted in time."

"OK, that sounds mental let's not proceed."

 

The stopped vehicle detection systems are not reliable.

 

https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/smart-motorways-dont-always-detect-broken-down-cars/

 

"According to documents obtained by The Sunday Times, there is no way to detect a stopped car when the volume of traffic exceeds a certain level. Similar issues occur when speeds drop to crawling pace. On average, drivers spend 17 minutes in live lanes before they are detected as being stationary."

[Whitey Grandad]

Apart From safety they don't seem to actually increase traffic flow.

 

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7426929/Half-drivers-avoid-using-hard-shoulder-smart-motorway.html

Edited 28 January, 2020 by Whitey Grandad

[sadoldgit]

What I would like to know is how they were approved in the first place?

 

When someone presented the idea to the Department for Transport, and was asked, "how do we spot broken down cars?", I assume the answer back then would have been "using cameras". The natural reply, would then be, "and these would be positioned every few hundred meters or so I assume, so that there were no blind spots?" and the answer would be "yes, that's right, every 400m, allowing cars to be spotted almost immediately". And then "how many people would be required to watch the CCTV monitors?" "we will have a large team ensuring nothing can be missed and we will thoroughly test the efficiency of that team to see if we need more eyes."

"OK, that sounds good. Lets proceed..."

 

Yet the reality is that there is limited technology in place, so either someone has failed to implement what they said they would or the meeting must/should have gone:

"How do we spot broken down cars", "We have some cameras....but these won't cover the entire stretch of motorway. If a car breaks down in a blind spot, we will rely on a passing police car to radio it in, or a member of the public or the driver of the car themselves...assuming they know the number, have a working mobile phone..and haven't already been killed because they were not spotted in time."

"OK, that sounds mental let's not proceed."

 

They trialled it on the M42 I think. It worked better because there was 600m between the safety points. For some reason when they rolled it out the 600m gap changed to a gap of 2.5 miles between them! I can only assume because of cost. As for the “smart” bit it doesn’t look as if there was much due diligence done. It can still take up to 30 minutes to close a line. They told the story of a guy who stopped in a central lane with 5 people in the car. He phoned for help and within seconds you heard him say “****” - there was a loud crash and the phone went dead. Someone he driven into the back of him. Fortunately he and his kids were ok.

[Weston Super Saint]

They told the story of a guy who stopped in a central lane with 5 people in the car. He phoned for help and within seconds you heard him say “****” - there was a loud crash and the phone went dead. Someone he driven into the back of him. Fortunately he and his kids were ok.

 

Cool story bro'.

 

However, it does confirm that you can't legislate for stupidity. Why on earth did he stop in the central lane? Did his car mysteriously go from about 70mph to 0mph in the blink of an eye? Smart motorway or normal motorway, anyone stopping in the "central lane" is an accident waiting to happen - pull over, moron!

[aintforever]

Cool story bro'.

 

However, it does confirm that you can't legislate for stupidity. Why on earth did he stop in the central lane? Did his car mysteriously go from about 70mph to 0mph in the blink of an eye? Smart motorway or normal motorway, anyone stopping in the "central lane" is an accident waiting to happen - pull over, moron!

 

To be fair you can’t really label the guy a moron unless you know the full details of what happened. Their are certain circumstances that could leave you stranded in the middle lane, eg an accident, not having an opportunity to safely pull over or breaking down in stationary traffic.

 

You can legislate for stupidity - that’s what a hard shoulder does.

[Whitey Grandad]

Cool story bro'.

 

However, it does confirm that you can't legislate for stupidity. Why on earth did he stop in the central lane? Did his car mysteriously go from about 70mph to 0mph in the blink of an eye? Smart motorway or normal motorway, anyone stopping in the "central lane" is an accident waiting to happen - pull over, moron!

 

Do you mean pull over from the central lane into another lane with the same amount of traffic?

[Weston Super Saint]

To be fair you can’t really label the guy a moron unless you know the full details of what happened. Their are certain circumstances that could leave you stranded in the middle lane, eg an accident, not having an opportunity to safely pull over or breaking down in stationary traffic.

 

You can legislate for stupidity - that’s what a hard shoulder does.

 

You seem to have missed the part of the story that stated "within seconds of calling for help, the man said ***** and there was a LOUD crash". Surely that description of a motorway suggests it was running normally - there wouldn't be a 'loud crash' in stationary traffic and unless his car suddenly stopped like no other car, ever (without hitting something very large), then there was ample opportunity to pull over.

 

Do you mean pull over from the central lane into another lane with the same amount of traffic?

 

Where does it state the same amount of traffic?