'Smart' Motorways.

[RonJeremy 10]

That`s a very tendentious and inaccurate and also rather personal comment.

I don`t argee with it but can`t be bothered to argue with someone making such a statement.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2016 at 11:14 ----------

 

 

I agree speed cameras are a blunt weapon, but in my experience aggressive and/or impatient drivers (i.e. the most dangerous drivers) tend to also be those most likely to speed. There isn`t a 100% correlation but it`s pretty strong.

But anyway, the formula for kinetic energy would objectively contradict anyone who says that more speed does not equate to more danger.

 

The truth obviously hurts you. You are obsessed with speed and claim virtually any other contribution to vehicle and driver safety is irrelevant. My point stands. Sorry if I have offended you by pointing out that you are tendentious about speed.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2016 at 11:44 ----------

 

And even if you no longer to address my points, I shall continue to address yours, so they don't stand unchallenged. Not that it will make an enormous difference as on the few occasions you do reply to a difficult point, it takes so long, some have lost interest in the subject. Delaying tactics are a useful tool I guess.

[Justin Smith 10]

You aren't going to catch DANGEROUS drivers with cameras, only speeding ones who may or may not be dangerous.

 

On the subject of which, I think the fact the police are now using dash cam footage to prosecute dangerous drivers could possibly become biggest advance in road safety in a generation. Not only are there relatively few police cars to see (and video) the dangerous driving in the first place, the dangerous drivers are more likely to be driving more sensibly if the see a car with dayglo markings and blue lights on top. I think the police should make it as easy as possible for the public to send in footage of dangerous drivers, what have they got to lose other than having to watch it ? It cuts the cost of catching dangerous drivers hugely, in theory as more cars have dash cams (it may even become a standard feature) if it was easy enough to pass on the footage it could potentially eliminate dangerous drivers from the roads completely.

[sgtkate 10]

On the subject of which, I think the fact the police are now using dash cam footage to prosecute dangerous drivers could possibly become biggest advance in road safety in a generation. Not only are there relatively few police cars to see (and video) the dangerous driving in the first place, the dangerous drivers are more likely to be driving more sensibly if the see a car with dayglo markings and blue lights on top. I think the police should make it as easy as possible for the public to send in footage of dangerous drivers, what have they got to lose other than having to watch it ? It cuts the cost of catching dangerous drivers hugely, in theory as more cars have dash cams (it may even become a standard feature) if it was easy enough to pass on the footage it could potentially eliminate dangerous drivers from the roads completely.

 

Yes me too. I would much prefer a system with no mandatory speed limits as I actually think they encourage people to drive faster, and have far more prosecutions for dangerous or careless driving. Number of times you see someone not speeding doing something absolutely shocking on the roads is appalling, yet we have almost no convictions unless they hit someone.

[Justin Smith 10]

Yet more proof that ditching the hard shoulder is a bad idea :

 

A report in The Times (15 Feb 16) reporting that the Central Emergency Police Group say :

 

All lane running should be scrapped in its current form because it was unsafe for drivers who break down. A broken down vehicle is far more likely to result in a serious injury or fatality.

Absence of the hard shoulder also makes routine stopping of vehicles too dangerous in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The emergency refuge areas are increasingly being misused by drivers of foreign trucks who mistake them for rest lay-bys

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As an aside, on this and other forums, I have noticed that generally it`s the same people who :

 

Have no problem with getting rid of the hard shoulder.

Dislike middle laners with a passion (even if they`re driving the speed limit).

Dislike speed cameras.

Think drivers should be able to break the speed limit if they want.

 

The theme here is they`re more bothered about getting to their destination a bit quicker and/or enjoying themselves doing it, than they are about safety. The problem being that it isn`t just their own safety is it ? That`s what the Motoring Mafia will never comprehend........

Edited February 17, 2016 by Justin Smith

[truman 10]

Yet more proof that ditching the hard shoulder is a bad idea :

 

A report in The Times (15 Feb 16) reporting that the Central Emergency Police Group say :

 

All lane running should be scrapped in its current form because it was unsafe for drivers who break down. A broken down vehicle is far more likely to result in a serious injury or fatality.

Absence of the hard shoulder also makes routine stopping of vehicles too dangerous in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The emergency refuge areas are increasingly being misused by drivers of foreign trucks who mistake them for rest lay-bys

 

As

 

Can you provide any figures for broken down cars on a m/w with no hardshoulder being hit by other vehicles..could you compare it to the number of cars hit whilst parked on the hard shoulder? Genuine question..

[Obelix 11]

Have we had hard shoulder running long enough for that data to be available and meaningful though?

[Cyclone 10]

Isn't it all monitored by CCTV? In the event of a breakdown the lane (hopefully the inside one) is immediately closed by the overhead signs.

 

Out of interest, the new section of 4 lane, managed motorway close to Leeds still has a hard shoulder doesn't it?

[Justin Smith 10]

Can you provide any figures for broken down cars on a m/w with no hardshoulder being hit by other vehicles..could you compare it to the number of cars hit whilst parked on the hard shoulder? Genuine question..

 

Sorry, aren`t we getting side tracked here, these are senior police officers saying this. Are we saying they`re just saying all this for no reason at all ? It doesn`t compute does it ?

[truman 10]

Sorry, aren`t we getting side tracked here, these are senior police officers saying this. Are we saying they`re just saying all this for no reason at all ? It doesn`t compute does it ?

 

Nope I'm asking for figures that's all...you often read of HGVs ploughing into the back of vehicles parked on the hard shoulder..have you heard of it happening on a smart motorway ? Genuine questions..

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

Is this all just another excuse for you to drive in one of the middle lanes?

[Obelix 11]

Isn't it all monitored by CCTV? In the event of a breakdown the lane (hopefully the inside one) is immediately closed by the overhead signs.

 

Out of interest, the new section of 4 lane, managed motorway close to Leeds still has a hard shoulder doesn't it?

 

No. And it's not actively monitored either. It's ludicrous and I've had more near misses there since it opened from lanes vanishing off into slip roads than I ever had in the ten years before.

[truman 10]

No. And it's not actively monitored either. It's ludicrous and I've had more near misses there since it opened from lanes vanishing off into slip roads than I ever had in the ten years before.

 

To be honest Ob I drive on the M62/M1 almost every day and haven't had an issue...apart from when they drop the limit on a clear road...