M1 roadworks (Leeds and Chesterfield)

[Haydn1971 10]

What is the most common scenario for accident in the hard shoulder?

 

No hard facts with me at the moment, but I'd image a glancing blow by a passing vehicle - typically either wiping out some unfortunate AA/RAC person changing a wheel, or shunting the stationary vehicle down the road a few dozen metres. Which is why you should always get out the vehicle and stand well away, far side of barriers and preferable a good distance from the stationary vehicle - they have a habit of travelling quite a distance when hit.

[alarmingmark 32]

And how much will the cctv cost to monitor all the lanes at all times and how much manpower cost to watch this ?

[Haydn1971 10]

And how much will the cctv cost to monitor all the lanes at all times and how much manpower cost to watch this ?

 

It's automated Mark - doesn't need specific manpower, software does the work

[samsparro 10]

It's automated Mark - doesn't need specific manpower, software does the work

 

And what happens when the system crashes or there is a power cut?

Edited September 29, 2015 by samsparro
Spelling error

[Haydn1971 10]

And what happens when the system crashes or there is a power cut?

 

There is redundancy built into the systems, it's not all reliant on a single 13 amp fuse and Windows 95. That said, there are always things that can go wrong, just like any other system of electronics, but you are getting into such infinitesimal possibilities here - risk of breakdown in live lane, small, risk of vehicle hitting stationary vehicle in live lane, small of small, time of exposure, small of small of small, risk of system failure, small of small of small of small. it could happen, but mitigations reduce the risk of it happening.

[Cyclone 10]

Isn't the risk of being clipped whilst stationary in a "closed" lane, just the same as the risk of being clipped whilst on the hard shoulder, except you have potentially lanes to both the left and the right, rather than just to your right, and you definitely can't exit your vehicle?

 

I can't see how closing a lane in the middle is any safer than an always closed lane (the hard shoulder) on the left.

[samsparro 10]

There is redundancy built into the systems, it's not all reliant on a single 13 amp fuse and Windows 95. That said, there are always things that can go wrong, just like any other system of electronics, but you are getting into such infinitesimal possibilities here - risk of breakdown in live lane, small, risk of vehicle hitting stationary vehicle in live lane, small of small, time of exposure, small of small of small, risk of system failure, small of small of small of small. it could happen, but mitigations reduce the risk of it happening.

 

It was actually a serious question. No technology is without its problems, so I was just interested to know what was in place to back it up should it fail...

 

This is the problem you face on Internet forums though when you start advising people on a topic based on your background, you do it to help people, yet when people begin asking reasonable questions about something, and it doesn't fit in with how you see it, it can appear that you are becoming quite annoyed at the constant questioning... Just ask planner1!!!!

 

Whilst I agree that there is a risk of stopping on the hard shoulder, it is still not as risky as a live lane breakdown/stoppage. And no amount of technology will make it safer to stop in a live lane, technology is only as good as when people see it. Those that don't see the warning matrix can't be accounted for.

 

Haydn, have a drive on the smart motorway when it's open and try stopping in a live lane to check it's working? I am sure everyone will be throughly warned to your stopping and be able to avoid you? Give it a try...

[Haydn1971 10]

Isn't the risk of being clipped whilst stationary in a "closed" lane, just the same as the risk of being clipped whilst on the hard shoulder

 

To a degree, but the difference is that a vehicle stationary on the hard shoulder has no buffer of traffic behind it - in general, most of the day a motorway is full of traffic, so a vehicle stopping in a live lane will create a buffer of slowing traffic behind it - help gets dispatched and things go back to normal very quickly, but the key thing is that traffic around the incident is moving much slower than usual lane speed, due to the loss in capacity.

 

Contrast this to a hard shoulder, no capacity is lost, so passing vehicles do so at full speed - severity of the collision increases, in that at higher speeds, things happen a lot quicker, are generally more catastrophic and generally create more severe injuries.

 

There are times of course when traffic volumes reduce to a trickle, but the risk doesn't really increase, because there's less chance of a breakdown and subsequent collision.

 

---------- Post added 30-09-2015 at 09:44 ----------

 

It was actually a serious question. No technology is without its problems, so I was just interested to know what was in place to back it up should it fail...

 

Agreed, no technology is fail safe... Yet I still get on an aircraft to go on holiday, which is full of technology systems that can fail - although it's probably less risky than stopping on the hard shoulder to read the map to find the way to the airport !

 

This is the problem you face on Internet forums though when you start advising people on a topic based on your background, you do it to help people, yet when people begin asking reasonable questions about something, and it doesn't fit in with how you see it, it can appear that you are becoming quite annoyed at the constant questioning...

 

To be fair, your reasonable questions have been answered and you just reply saying it's rubbish and in your opinion, blah de blah - the more you do that, the less you'll get from people who can actually inform you - that will be your loss, not mine ;-)

 

Just ask planner1!!!!

 

Planner1 and I know each other, we both had the best intentions to start with on helping people become more informed about traffic issues in the city - I stopped posting on here once the idiots started having a go, because I'd better ways to spend my free time - I worked for Sheffield in the past, I wasn't solely responsible for every single decision ever made... I'm on here this week because I'm on holiday, chilled next to the pool and typically get bored very quickly when my brain is inactive - there's only so many magazines to read and Facebook is a tad quiet in the day, because most of my friends work.

 

Whilst I agree that there is a risk of stopping on the hard shoulder, it is still not as risky as a live lane breakdown/stoppage. And no amount of technology will make it safer to stop in a live lane, technology is only as good as when people see it. Those that don't see the warning matrix can't be accounted for.

 

As outlined above, I disagree about the risk of stopping on the hard shoulder vs a live lane, specifically with regard to the buffer created by other traffic. The technology is there to warn others approaching the slowing traffic, reducing the risk - and yes, there's always some muppet who won't see the signs, the key ingredient here is to reduce risk, because we can't remove it completely.

 

Haydn, have a drive on the smart motorway when it's open and try stopping in a live lane to check it's working? I am sure everyone will be throughly warned to your stopping and be able to avoid you? Give it a try...

 

You are perhaps confusing me for someone who would be so dumb as to put themselves deliberately in a life thretening situation and dum enough to commit a traffic offence by stopping unnecessary on a motorway, just to prove a point to a stranger.

[samsparro 10]

Your 'points' are well written and it appears you have planned the SMART motorway well based on facts and figures.

 

however I disagree with you with regards to the safety difference between stopping on the hard shoulder and stopping in a live lane, no matter what amount of technology is present to try and 'reduce the risk'. And no amount of facts and figures will change my feelings on the matter... Just because you counter the argument doesn't mean that I should then accept yours or anyone else's views...

 

Why do I disagree so strongly? Years of working on the motorway, 24 hours a day. The hard shoulder is an awful place to work, but working in a live lane is one of the worse things you can do.

 

In the planning phase did you have the chance to experience working on the motorway at all?

 

The point I was trying to make with regards to stopping on the motorway was perhaps not written properly, what I was trying to say is 'should' you have to stop on the motorway for a breakdown, would you rather be on the hard shoulder where you can get out of your car safely and onto the grass verge, or be in any of the other lanes where you will have traffic running either side and be reliant on technology? I know where I would much rather me or my family be any day of the week...

 

Like we've actually agreed on earlier, we disagree. It's nothing to de with me rubbishing your points, my opinions are based on my own working experiences of the motorway, and no amount of facts or figures can account for that, they don't record near misses!!!

[Cyclone 10]

Is the main safety feature the fact that speeds are reduced as soon as a breakdown occurs then?

 

You talk about the buffer of traffic behind the broken down vehicle, but once you close that lane that buffer will vanish. I can see why traffic passing at 50 would be safer than passing at 70 (or 80) though.

 

The fact is sam that these decisions are not made on hunches or without real data. Risk analysis will have been performed, and it will have been established that the smart motorway is statistically safer than the dumb motorway + hard shoulder.

 

It doesn't seem intuitive, but that's why you apply a rigorous approach to proving it, and don't rely on intuition.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Cyclone

[samsparro 10]

Is the main safety feature the fact that speeds are reduced as soon as a breakdown occurs then?

 

You talk about the buffer of traffic behind the broken down vehicle, but once you close that lane that buffer will vanish. I can see why traffic passing at 50 would be safer than passing at 70 (or 80) though.

 

Your right in that passing at 50 is better than at 70, but what isn't being mentioned is that once that vehicle stops, is it going to be instantaneous for the warning signals to come on and for the following traffic to see them and the vehicle?

 

There will be a delay on things happening. People drive on cruise, drive by really paying attention. These are the things that technology can't account for. It's never really the first vehicle behind you that is the problem, it's the one behind that which is the danger.

 

If you drive in the roadworks you will see how close HGV's travel to each other...

 

I agree with Haydn (surprisingly) that technology has its part to play on the motorway, but I struggle to see how this stretch in South Yorkshire and Derbyshire has had the amount of warning matrix signs reduced compared to the other motorways in the UK.

 

I travelled to Nottingham and back on Monday and there is so much of a gap between each warning matrix that I can't see how it can be right, when as you drive south past junction 28 there are 2 or 3 times the amount!! Plus they have a hard shoulder as well.

 

Plus the refuge areas are about 1.5 miles apart, which is some distance to travel to get to one (I was sad enough to trip it on my car). They are 800 metres apart on the M62...

 

That's why I said it was penny pinching. Every government department has to save money, but my opinion is this is being done on the cheap and the reliance solely on technology isn't right. It seems the cost of this scheme is being played against the lives of people using the stretch...

 

But that's my opinion!!!!

[Cyclone 10]

I suppose that depends on the quality of the monitoring. I can't answer that question though.

 

If a car in front starts breaking the people behind will automatically break. They won't cruise into it.

 

Motorways are actually very, very safe. But time will tell if this one is more dangerous after the change.