Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

'Smart' motorway..

Recommended Posts

It really depends on the stretch of motorway. I think the stretches that are hard shoulders first then a live lane depending on traffic are a better bet than a live lane that covers to a hard shoulder. The stretch north of luton has gantries stretching over 4 lanes that a very very frequent - they might even have proper street lighting (can't remember). That stretch from 30 to 29 has very sporadic LED signs and no street lighting.

 

I've happened across a vehicle on occasion and the nearest gantry hasn't warned me - and it hadn't just happened, as the occupants had already scampered halfway up the embankment. 

 

It's not a bad idea, just badly done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Because the deaths of poor Northerners are an acceptable price to pay when a London-centric government expands a motorway on the cheap?

 

I know us Sheffielders like saving money, but deaths are too high a price to pay, even for a tight-arse skinflint like me

 

These deaths were expected, inevitable, and avoidable

Your my kinda guy Joker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all the years of disruption on the M1 they've now decided it was a bad idea after all !

 

Nearly as wasteful as Boris Johnson for stupid ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody got any data? Quite curious to see if accidents on the M1 stretch by Sheffield have indeed gone up or not. 

 

The reason I ask is this - in the Netherlands they changed the hard shoulder to 'rush hour' lanes and even though people kept claiming that it would increase accidents, a study over 5 years showed that it didn't, in fact, compared to 30 years ago there were fewer accidents, despite having twice as much traffic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall when the idea of using the hard shoulder was being proposed. The police were very much against it on safety grounds, and quite rightly so. The government still went ahead with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're  not so smart after all, common sense should have told them so before waiting until someone got killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/10/2019 at 20:51, The Joker said:

Because the deaths of poor Northerners are an acceptable price to pay when a London-centric government expands a motorway on the cheap?

 

I know us Sheffielders like saving money, but deaths are too high a price to pay, even for a tight-arse skinflint like me

 

These deaths were expected, inevitable, and avoidable

You need to get out more.  There are smart motorways (actual and built) down south as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2019 at 15:54, tzijlstra said:

Has anybody got any data? Quite curious to see if accidents on the M1 stretch by Sheffield have indeed gone up or not. 

 

The reason I ask is this - in the Netherlands they changed the hard shoulder to 'rush hour' lanes and even though people kept claiming that it would increase accidents, a study over 5 years showed that it didn't, in fact, compared to 30 years ago there were fewer accidents, despite having twice as much traffic.

You make a good point.  
Whether they are safe/safer/less safe is simple maths, really.   We need to take out emotions and ensure that any data analysis has validity and reliability at its core. 
i.e examine:

How many died on motorways, before and after the introduction of “managed” and “smart”.   
What lane: hard shoulder or nearside running lane or any other running lane did the fatalities happen in?
What were the root initial cause of the incidents: broken down, run out of fuel ... has the incidence of broken down etc stayed the same or changed?
What was the alignment of the road at the crash site - I guess “straight”.
Has there been a discernible change in figures since the introduction of “managed” and “smart”?
Where were the casualties stood/sat? (Where would a public information campaign - if we ever went back to those days - want them to be?)  More people die on the hard shoulder than in any other lane, so to think of them as safe havens is perverse. 
... and probably a few more questions.
 

Without this analysis, we are left with the emotive cliché, “smart m/w's aren’t that smart” (but, there again, neither are drivers).

 

So, emotions aside, as a professional driver trainer I’d like to ask y’all:

 

if you break down on a motorway (smart or otherwise), where would it be safest to stand?  Out of the vehicle, clearly, and over the barrier but stood UPSTREAM, NEXT to the vehicle or DOWNSTREAM from the vehicle?

 

Your choice makes a BIG difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

 

 

if you break down on a motorway (smart or otherwise), where would it be safest to stand?  Out of the vehicle, clearly, and over the barrier but stood UPSTREAM, NEXT to the vehicle or DOWNSTREAM from the vehicle?

 

Your choice makes a BIG difference. 

And the answer is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the recent deaths cited:

 

Quote

Mr Mercer was involved in a minor crash but when he got out of his car to exchange details he and the other driver, a young man from Mansfield, were hit by a lorry. Both died at the scene.

Why weren't they over the other side of the safety barrier and on the embankment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2019 at 15:54, tzijlstra said:

Has anybody got any data? Quite curious to see if accidents on the M1 stretch by Sheffield have indeed gone up or not. 

 

The reason I ask is this - in the Netherlands they changed the hard shoulder to 'rush hour' lanes and even though people kept claiming that it would increase accidents, a study over 5 years showed that it didn't, in fact, compared to 30 years ago there were fewer accidents, despite having twice as much traffic.

Don't have the link to hand, but I recall reading a UK government report that showed the removal of the hard shoulder increased deaths. Then it concluded that cost was worth the benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading an  RAC forum yesterday. There was/or is a petition for the police to cease stopping vehicles on the hard shoulder. The suggestion being put forward was to escort them off the motorway before dealing with minor traffic violations.

 

It was not clear how the police would potentially communicate their request to the driver. Maybe it was felt that once stopped the police would simply tell the driver to leave the motorway at the next exit?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.