'Smart' Motorways.

[Cyclone 10]

Ah now they are flying

 

Is that faster than whizzing?

 

It wasn't me either. I didn't quote alchresearch... I've no idea if he would consider whizzing to be faster than flying.

 

---------- Post added 17-02-2016 at 15:46 ----------

 

I don't speed???

 

You're missing the point.

 

srt didn't tell you that your speedo was reading 4 mph slow. He told someone else.

 

So why share the fact that your speedo is well calibrated? So what?

[srt2016 10]

It wasn't me either. I didn't quote alchresearch... I've no idea if he would consider whizzing to be faster than flying.

 

---------- Post added 17-02-2016 at 15:46 ----------

 

 

You're missing the point.

 

srt didn't tell you that your speedo was reading 4 mph slow. He told someone else.

 

So why share the fact that your speedo is well calibrated? So what?

 

speedos over read,not slow

[Truck 10]

If you cant understand the rules of the motorway, stay off it. If you feel intimidated by the new lane thats been constructed, stay off it. If you cant see a vehicle broken down, you need your eyes testing. If you cant see the overhead matrix signs giving clear instructions when a lane is ending then car share with a competent person who can. It works just fine when its used by competent drivers, but not so well when dubious nervous irritants use it. Its these nervous irritants that are the problem, not the network.

[Eater Sundae 12]

If you cant understand the rules of the motorway, stay off it. If you feel intimidated by the new lane thats been constructed, stay off it. If you cant see a vehicle broken down, you need your eyes testing. If you cant see the overhead matrix signs giving clear instructions when a lane is ending then car share with a competent person who can. It works just fine when its used by competent drivers, but not so well when dubious nervous irritants use it. Its these nervous irritants that are the problem, not the network.

 

Pretty much all crashes, injuries and deaths are caused by people either driving badly or making mistakes.

 

The point is that motorways are designed to carry a lot of vehicles at a reasonable speed in safety, even when they make mistakes or drive badly. Removing the hard shoulder without other actions to maintain safety will put more drivers at risk, and that includes the competent ones.

[littlebasher 11]

I notice that the distance between the overhead gantries is much greater than is found elewhere, for instance the M42. Same applies to the refuge areas.

 

Only issue I can see is where a vehicle becomes stranded between the gantries, any vehicle travelling behind may not get sufficient warning of the stranded vehicle (since they have already passed the overhead signs). This would be more of an issue when it's dark and in bad weather, especially if that vehicle has no power to lights.

 

I don't understand why they chose to make this section permanent 4 lane running, and not use the hard shoulder for peak use only as they have elsewhere.

 

Obviously we run this risk already on dual carriageways, but until now motorways always had somewhere to stop out of the live carriageway.

[DT Ralge 10]

As I see it, variable speed limits are a great idea. I'm less convinced by using the hard shoulder as an extra lane, but provided the lane is monitored and the overhead signs changed as soon as anyone stops in it then OK, as long as it proves (and has been proved from the trials) to be safe.

 

However, if the hard shoulder is changed to a running lane but the lane is not continuously monitored, (and closable in an instant) then I think that is a very retrograde step. At a stroke it converts a safe motorway into just another trunk road. Fast, but without a (comparatively) safe area to stop in an emergency.

 

One of the main safety points about motorways is that they minimize the risk of a fast moving vehicle coming across a stationary one, by having an emergency stopping place.

 

I share your disquiet about permanent four-lane running (along with SYP) but the HA say that they have every stretch of the motorway covered by monitored CCTV - at the time they told me they were looking to relocate/add a camera to cover one particular blind spot. They suggested (from memory) that their response would be be within 40-seconds - 2 minutes, hence my disquiet.

[sgtkate 10]

I notice that the distance between the overhead gantries is much greater than is found elewhere, for instance the M42. Same applies to the refuge areas.

 

Only issue I can see is where a vehicle becomes stranded between the gantries, any vehicle travelling behind may not get sufficient warning of the stranded vehicle (since they have already passed the overhead signs). This would be more of an issue when it's dark and in bad weather, especially if that vehicle has no power to lights.

 

I don't understand why they chose to make this section permanent 4 lane running, and not use the hard shoulder for peak use only as they have elsewhere.

 

Obviously we run this risk already on dual carriageways, but until now motorways always had somewhere to stop out of the live carriageway.

 

It's because the fully managed motorways cost significantly more to build and to run each day. From what I understand on here the M1 isn't actively monitored so there is noone watching to see if a vehicle breaks down and to close the lane. I don't know how the lane gets closed if it does at all. Decision made to increase capacity at the expense of safety and only time will tell if that's the right decision or not.

[Obelix 11]

It's because the fully managed motorways cost significantly more to build and to run each day. From what I understand on here the M1 isn't actively monitored so there is noone watching to see if a vehicle breaks down and to close the lane. I don't know how the lane gets closed if it does at all. Decision made to increase capacity at the expense of safety and only time will tell if that's the right decision or not.

 

IT generally gets closed by a truck ramming a stopped car up the backside. Or just catching fire like a few days back.

 

If it was properly monitored like the M62 with refuges it'd be far less of an issue as you say.

[petemcewan 27]

We drove on the first completed section of the M1 "smart motorway" today, and I have to say I`m rather unimpressed, in fact I`m rather concerned about it.....

 

In the past we`ve driven on the M42 "smart motorway" quite often, and I have to say I was never very enthusiastic about it. I like the fact hard shoulders give you somewhere (relatively) safe to stop should you break down on a road with three lanes of traffic moving at up to 80mph or more. However, I was placated a bit by the fact that when the hard shoulder is in use the speed limit drops to 50mph and is apparently rigorously enforced by speed cameras.

 

Unless I`ve got this completely wrong, and West Yorks Police say I`m right, the M1 (not so) "smart motorway" is something entirely different, and I can see why local MPs and the South Yorks Chief Constable objected to it on safety grounds. Today, as we drove up it, none of the signs were on, much less indicating 50mph, yet traffic was doing 70mph or more in all four lanes, i.e. including what was the hard shoulder. Apparently that is how it`s supposed to work, rather different from the M42 "smart(er) motorway".

I agree with the SY Chief constable it should never have been allowed, it`s a straightforward trade off, more capacity for less safety and done on the cheap. I think it`s particularly dangerous in times of restricted visibility (e.g. at night) but also when driving behind a large vehicle and thus the drivers view of the road ahead is restricted.

As an aside, I did wonder, when it`s so basic, why it`s all taken so long to adapt the motorway.....

 

One last thing, normally I prefer to drive in the inside lane (provided it`s reasonably empty), but as far as I`m concerned the inside lane will now be what should be the hard shoulder (i.e. where broken down vehicles may lurk hidden from view by the artics which normally inhabit that lane.....), so I`ll be rather less keen to drive in it, particularly at night.

 

Addition (16 Feb 16) : Senior police road traffic officers criticise permanent all lane running (i.e. no hard shoulder) on motorways.

 

JS,

 

I drove on it just recently. The impression I got is that there's a pile up just waiting to happen-particularly when driving conditions are poor.

I will avoid driving on it in the future.

[littlebasher 11]

JS,

 

I drove on it just recently. The impression I got is that there's a pile up just waiting to happen-particularly when driving conditions are poor.

I will avoid driving on it in the future.

 

At which point the emergency service won't be able to reach the scene of the accident, as all four lanes will be rammed with cars with nowhere to go.

[alchresearch 215]

At which point the emergency service won't be able to reach the scene of the accident, as all four lanes will be rammed with cars with nowhere to go.

 

Then they get on at the next junction and head towards the accident in the "wrong" direction.

[Cyclone 10]

Then they get on at the next junction and head towards the accident in the "wrong" direction.

 

So they have to then do what? Park in the fast lane and climb over the barrier... That's likely to cause another accident on the other carriageway.

 

 

I took more notice whilst going to Leeds yesterday as I promised.

6 miles with no hard shoulder (at least according to the sign that says so)...

Weirdly, the central reservation is so wide that it could almost get a vehicle into it...

 

I didn't notice any point where a travelling lane converted into a slip road without plenty of warning and time though.