# Not so Smart motorways



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

So finally it's being recognised that using the hard shoulder as an active lane kills people.
Rather than invest in proper roads or better still trains and buses the government has continued to put peoples lives at risk. 
I imagine the next phase is balancing how many people can die balanced against the cheapness of that solution.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

We might get 'smart' motorways but dumber drivers.

Ray.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

My money is on a fudge. The Government and Highways England will not admit they have made the motorways less safe and the figures will be 'massaged' in their favour. It makes no difference how drivers perceive the higher risk the Government know best. Smart motorways are about control with speed cameras and dynamic speed limits. It has been confirmed that the speed limit is lowered automatically by computers and that these limits contribute towards the congestion. Of course the speed cameras are particularly profitable when the limit is artificially lowered below the road and traffic conditions.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I think that the problem may be in the name. Smart motorway implies that the road is capable of thinking, or at least reacting to events. And of course if the road could think or be managed in real time in an intelligent and effective way then it might be possible to use the hard shoulder as a lane but to change it back to it's original function almost instantly as the need occurred.

It can't of course be managed beyond lighting up a few signs to say this or that.

A road isn't smart. It can't be. It's a lump of tarmac. To call a road smart is to tell a lie and to represent the road as being capable of reacting to the needs of the motorists using it. This is an obvious misrepresentation and because it isn't true that the road is smart it makes an already dangerous road more dangerous.

All of that would have been quite obvious to those who introduced the lie. I'd be very keen to see the risk assessments they carried out. It seems to me that no amount of "creative thinking" could make using the hard shoulder as a normal lane appear to be possible without making the road more dangerous.

It looks very like the same kind of risk assessment as was carried out on the Grenfell cladding. 

I expect there must be plenty of shiny new consultancies who'll risk assess anything for you and deliver the result you want. File that away and you are immune, especially if you are a Government Department. That's the safe way to do it. 

You commissioned a professional assessment from a specialist company, preferably a foreign based plc, in the interests of accuracy and thoroughness. Sadly and very unexpectedly the company, it turns out, is of no real substance, had little or no specialist knowledge or experience and unfortunately just liquidated at the first sign of trouble. Even more unfortunately all their information was accidentally destroyed at that time. 

That's the way to do it.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

I feel we have a generation who will rely on anything 'smart' to enable, control or aid their lives without actually thinking too deeply themselves. We rely and have confidence on traffic lights barrowing through junctions when we have the green light never considering the impending accident by someone not so aware.

Ray.


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

For many years I sat in traffic jams thinking that it would be so much better if the hard shoulder could be used. I'm sure I was not alone.

Now I find it odd that people are prepared to drive on the "hard shoulder" of a smart motorway but will not pull into the "slow lane" of a 3-lane highway even when it's clear for miles ahead and the law was changed to specifically enforce this.

Gordon (travelling in hope of never being caught in a tragedy)


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

I avoid driving on the smart hard shoulder.
Cars still get punctures and breakdown and they still pull as far to the left as they can. Why drive in a lane that may have a family broken down ahead of you?
The traffic light system has a delay and is only repeated at set intervals.

However there is good evidence that variable speed limits increase flow. 
The assumption that going faster allows more traffic to flow isn't true. As humans we increase the gap between us and the car in front as the speed increases. 
Slowing the traffic actually increases the flow rate. That's been proven.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Pat-H said:


> ......... As humans we increase the gap between us and the car in front as the speed increases. ..............


I must say that my experience doesn't necessarily support that generalisation Pat.

I do leave a proper gap, especially in the van. Remember the two second rule? But my gap constantly gets filled by overtakers who can't bear to see that there's a space in front of me and who apparently don't understand that my van will take a little more stopping than their car.

On the rare occasions when I do drive on a UK motorway it nearly always seems to be raining or to be dark and raining. It horrifies me to see how close people drive to the vehicle in front.

This from someone who's a car nut and loves fast cars and who competed in motorsport. I'd say that driving on an ordinary UK motorway on an ordinary day is very probably more dangerous than taking part in motorsport.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

" Panorama, Britain's Killer Motorways? is on BBC One at 20:30 GMT on Monday 27 January"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...king-degree-carelessness-smart-motorway-roll/


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

erneboy said:


> Pat-H said:
> 
> 
> > ......... As humans we increase the gap between us and the car in front as the speed increases. ..............
> ...


They have conducted numerous tests on traffic olune and imposed limits and it always improves. 
Think in crawling traffic you leave what a 3ft gap or less. At 70mph it's supposed to be 300ft.
So even if it's half that. You can fit 10 or more cars. So per second only a 10tb of the cars pass at 70mph.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Pat-H said:


> .......
> Think in crawling traffic you leave what a 3ft gap or less.


If you did you'd never get stopped if the car in front braked suddenly. You probably wouldn't even get your foot on the pedal.



Pat-H said:


> At 70mph it's supposed to be 300ft.


I'm sure it is, but I rarely see anything close to that. The two second rule would have you at just over 200ft.



Pat-H said:


> So even if it's half that. You can fit 10 or more cars. So per second only a 10tb of the cars pass at 70mph.


I'm no expert but I'd have thought that how many cars can fit in a space isn't what's relevant.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

erneboy said:


> Pat-H said:
> 
> 
> > .......
> ...


It's how many cars pass per second that counts.

Loads of info online just search. 
evidence thatower speed limits increase traffic flow

It's well researched and documented.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Pat-H said:


> It's how many cars pass per second that counts.


As a non expert I haven't commented on the bits I don't understand. I'll take your word for it that traffic flow is measured in cars per second, even though at first glance logic would seem to dictate that there would be no cars per second unless they were very close together and travelling very fast, at least not whole cars. I wasn't saying otherwise because I don't know how it's measured and am not sufficiently interested to research it.

I'm content to stay at what I consider to be a safe distance, even if the two second rule only give me just over 200ft at 70. It's still a lot more distance than I see others allowing.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

At 70mph each car travels just over 100 ft. That's less than 30 mtrs. So with a 200ft gap it's half 1 car every 2 seconds.
At 40mph you travel nearly 60ft and in reality drives at 40 mph leave much less than a 60ft gap probably half that or less so you get 2 cars per second. 4 times what you get at 70mph.

If you lower the limit much below 40mph the gains drop off as the gap does decrease that much.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Interesting thought....

Here in France the National Speed limit of 90 kph was reduced to 80 kph in order to reduce accidents.

One Department has now taken action to raise it back to 90 kph, as Macron approved back in the summer. They said that the reduction has not had the beneficial effect they were lead to believe would accrue.

Other Deoartments are considering doing the same. It is also rumoured that Macron will end the 2 year experiment later this year for the same reasons, although cynics might say it was to increase his re-election chances.......

But, the most obvious point is that doing do has NOT reduced accidents although it has increased Government income through fines massively.....


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm sure that's right. If cars are 30ft apart at 40mph the drivers will need most of that distance as thinking time. Let's hope there aren't too many elderly drivers, drivers with poor reactions, older cars with inefficient brakes, poorly maintained cars, overloaded cars or cars towing trailers in these queues, oh and that nobody looks away from the road in front for more than a moment.

I'm no disputing what you say, merely opting out of it.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

After the TV prog it looks even more dangerous than I thought. I'm staying in France.

Ray.


----------



## MeFeinMcCabe (Mar 28, 2009)

Unfortunately driver behaviour in the UK is deteriorating from what I have see and this also plays a part.

I was on the M4, M3 and M25 a couple of days ago and the amout of drivers that still will not utilise the left hand lane is shocking.

Lots of them stick the cruise control on at 70 mph and thats its

We wouldnt need the fourth lane if we all drove a bit more considerately


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

I do not know anyone who has taken a test recently but would love to know how much emphasis is given to stopping distances. Judging by young drivers (particularly young women in my area) they are only given a cursory glance.

Young people are all brought up now with technology that responds in an instant and I am sure that most young drivers think that a foot on the brake is like pressing a keyboard button i.e. you will get an instant reaction from the car and it will stop.

The word "Smart" used about motorways, as Ray said above, is the worst term that could be used, probably invented by a twelve year old. It just implies that it is looking after you.

Why didn't they dream up something like - you can use the hard shoulder but must put your hazard lights on and drive at 40 mph?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

A friend of mine taught in a local academy. He retired a few years ago but in the years before that he frequently attended funerals of students he'd taught who'd been killed in car crashes.

He was convinced that they drove their fast little Corsas etc. as though they were playing a video game and believed that just like on videos crashed could be walked away from. Some of those Corsas, which often came with free insurance even for young drivers, were ridiculously fast for a small engined car.


----------



## Matchlock (Jun 26, 2010)

The problem with smart motorways is that they open lane 1 at too high a speed, they are keen to impose speed limits down to 50/40mph for no apparent reason as they are computer controlled but lane 1 should not be opened to traffic until the average speed on the motorway is down to 30mph thus giving more braking time but hey |I am not a computer programmer, well I am but I have more common sense.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Matchlock said:


> The problem with smart motorways is that they open lane 1 at too high a speed, they are keen to impose speed limits down to 50/40mph for no apparent reason as they are computer controlled *but lane 1 should not be opened to traffic until the average speed on the motorway is down to 30mph thus giving more braking time *but hey |I am not a computer programmer, well I am but I have more common sense.


The failure to appreciate the sense behind such a fundamentally obvious point is a repeat of the mindset that says that * no laws will be introduced about the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets will be put forward until a clear majority of riders are wearing them voluntarily*

To me such the idiocy of NOT following such common sense ideas illustrate the craziness of law making in the UK.

Surely, once a benefit of a particular action has been demonstrated Laws should be enabled to compel such an occurrence ?


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

This is especially true when we have a National Health Service that is picking up the bill for all the injuries that occur on our roads. It would be cost effective to make them as safe as possible. A lack of joined up thinking seems to be at the bottom of it. Government departments that vie with each other rather than cooperate with each other.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

patp said:


> This is especially true when we have a National Health Service that is picking up the bill for all the injuries that occur on our roads. It would be cost effective to make them as safe as possible. A lack of joined up thinking seems to be at the bottom of it. Government departments that vie with each other rather than cooperate with each other.


And that feeds into my Nasty Britian thread. 
A cruel destructive benefits system causes massive mental health issues that overwhelm our NHS. It's failure also through under funding, then feeds into increased crime. Over crowded ineffective prisons, a perceived dropping of safety in society. 
Damaged families tgst then raise damaged children and so the cycle escalates and continues. 
Nothing works in isolation and a system that is cruel deliberately drives the downward spiral of community.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yes most of the vast mental health homes have been sold off for very expensive 'executive' housing at least in high value counties.
With the excuse integration into the community helps them. 
Helps who.??

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes I can think of two mental hospitals in NI which were once the homes of titled families and have now been sold again. One for use as a private house and the other converted into luxury flats. Market forces, the chaning hands of houses is all fair enough I hear the right wingers say. But that is to ignore one important consideration.

The families sold them because they couldn't afford to keep them. I'm not sure the same can credibly be said of the NHS. In any case the families obviously went on to live elsewhere whereas the NHS bed space was simply lost.

In the tow cases I mention above the new owners were greatly helped by snapping these properties up. There was a great fuss about the way in which one of them was sold off. It was alleged that the process was rigged favour the man who ended up getting it. Sill not resolved I think.

Having regularly refused to pay bribes to public officials in return for awarded that I'd be awarded contracts I know how this works. Although of course I can't prove it. I never did get a contract for which I'd been asked for bribe and refused to pay it, which leads me to believe that they have ways of subverting the bidding process so as to arrange the outcome. The simplest one I'm aware of is the claim that a tender was received after the closing time for bids. I was always suspicious of any authority which refused to issue written receipts recording the delivery date and time.

It's become easier for them in recent years since tenders now demand (or did when I was preparing them a few years ago) a whole range of ancillary information, policies and evidence of training, competences assessments, insurances etc. All they have to do now to reject any tender is to say the accompanying information was incomplete or inadequate.

Civilisation rests on the assumption that we act in good faith, the good chap model of Government England claims to have for example. It falls on it's arse when people involved aren't good chaps. So does tendering. So does civilisation.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/12/18/britains-good-chap-model-of-government-is-coming-apart


----------



## eurajohn (May 9, 2005)

For many years I lived in Epsom Surrey there were 5 mental hospitals with many more in the surrounding districts, almost all have been closed!
The decline in proper places for dealing with mental health problems began in 1990 with the introduction of the "care in the community" implemented by the Margaret Thatcher government, although the proposals started in the 50's.
A little research shows how many facilities there were and now are not for people with mental health problems https://thetimechamber.co.uk/beta/sites/asylums/asylum-history/the-asylums-list

Perhaps one of the less well advised ideas to come from our masters, little wonder the NHS are in turmoil, trying to cope with what there should be a proper infrastructure in place to deal with.

.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Care on the community was and is another way of saying "your problems aren't the responsibility of society to help with"
And that fitted well with Thatchers look after number 1 ethos. 
Our society is still suffering from that across the board. 
I'm involved in Scouting and adults today, when asked to help, often come back eith"whats on it for me"
Mental health funding costs money and that tmrequires taxation. Yet we have created a society where taxation is seen as a burden to be reduced or avoided. 
We give rich people tax cuts that results in mental heath issues on our streets and in our morgues.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

eurajohn said:


> For many years I lived in Epsom Surrey there were 5 mental hospitals with many more in the surrounding districts, almost all have been closed!
> The decline in proper places for dealing with mental health problems began in 1990 with the introduction of the "care in the community" implemented by the Margaret Thatcher government, although the proposals started in the 50's.
> A little research shows how many facilities there were and now are not for people with mental health problems https://thetimechamber.co.uk/beta/sites/asylums/asylum-history/the-asylums-list
> 
> Perhaps one of the less well advised ideas to come from our masters, little wonder the NHS are in turmoil, trying to cope with what there should be a proper infrastructure in place to deal with. .


Yes John. The Epson Horton 'hospitals' were some of the ones I was meaning. Plus a few more like Springfield in New Malden and others in Teddington and Hampton Wick.

Ray.


----------



## Matchlock (Jun 26, 2010)

Weird how a question about smart motorways moves onto mental hospitals, think their is some kind of propaganda going on here.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Matchlock said:


> Weird how a question about smart motorways moves onto mental hospitals, think their is some kind of propaganda going on here.


Under Funding. Cutting corners. Economising those who can't argue back.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Saving money by endangering people so that taxes at least dont need to be raised and can perhaps be reduced.

It's very unlikely that the worst off will benefit from that. Much more likely it'll be higher rate income tax and corporation tax that's reduced .

That's what brexit is about. Singapore upon Thames won't be designed to benefit The Sheeple.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Seems it's been suspended anyway......………..

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-n...letter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Pat-H said:


> So finally it's being recognised that using the hard shoulder as an active lane kills people.
> Rather than invest in proper roads or better still trains and buses the government has continued to put peoples lives at risk.
> I imagine the next phase is balancing how many people can die balanced against the cheapness of that solution.


Yes. I think Pat may have been hinting at that.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Matchlock said:


> Weird how a question about smart motorways moves onto mental hospitals, think their is some kind of propaganda going on here.


Maybe it's just that saving money on "smart" killer motorways is the same government that staves the NHS and abandons the mentally ill.
That they are all linked by a cokmon thread. Gread, profit and uncaring power.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Last night about 3am on a dual carriageway near me a luton type van left the carriageway and ended up in a ditch. The Police and ambulance service arrived and parked up in the inside lane reportedly with blue lights etc on . A national Express coach ran into the Police car shunting it into the ambulance.
We were taught that on Motorways the hard shoulder was a dangerous place and to exit the vehicle and get beyond the crash barrier. It is therefore unbelievable that hard shoulder running or all lane motorways were introduced. 
I think everyone involved in introducing them should be made to sit in a stationary vehicle together with their family for an hour starting with the Transport Secretary.
I watched Grant Shapps on TV explaining his intention to hold a 'stocktake' of the dangers of hard shoulder running. I can guarantee a fudge coming.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I watched this this morning clip.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Pat-H said:


> Maybe it's just that saving money on "smart" killer motorways is the same government that staves the NHS and abandons the mentally ill.
> That they are all linked by a cokmon thread. Gread, profit and uncaring power.


To quote from Wikipedia about smart motorways:

_"The traffic management technique, including hard shoulder running, was first used in its full specification in the UK on the M42 motorway in the West Midlands in 2006.[3][4] A higher speed limit of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) was trialled on the southbound carriageway between junctions 4 and 3A from 2008 (a 10 miles per hour (16 km/h) increase on the previous maximum permissible speed).[5]

In 2007 plans were announced by the then secretary of state for transport, Ruth Kelly, to extend the scheme to two sections of the M6 motorway near Birmingham (4-5 and 8a-10) by 2011 at a cost of £150 million.[6][7] The emergency refuges were to be extended to every 800 metres (0.50 mi) on the roll out.[8] A study into the use of ATM on the M1, M4, M20 and M25 motorways was also announced,[6] however the Department for Transport had decided to proceed with a scheme to widen sections of the M25.[9]"_

So let's just think back to which government was in power when smart motorways were introduced. The one now that is presumably referred to as "the same government that staves the NHS and abandons the mentally ill"? I don't think so - it was a Labour government that introduced smart motorways.

Why does nearly every single topic on here seemingly have to end up getting politicised - and quite often blaming the wrong party as well!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

How long have the Tories had to reverse the policy if they didn't like it. Just remind us.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

peribro said:


> To quote from Wikipedia about smart motorways:
> 
> _"The traffic management technique, including hard shoulder running, was first used in its full specification in the UK on the M42 motorway in the West Midlands in 2006.[3][4] A higher speed limit of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h) was trialled on the southbound carriageway between junctions 4 and 3A from 2008 (a 10 miles per hour (16 km/h) increase on the previous maximum permissible speed).[5]
> 
> ...


It does not matter a single jot who came up with the idea, as soon as any concerns were raised and were identified as having truth the whole process and implementation should have been stopped and reversed if needed.

But no, there are still implementation of this dangerous policy being installed - the M27 is currently being upgraded and that process only started last autumn - after concerns about safety were raised.

No more should be implemented and ways should be sought to ameliorate the dangers that have been launched. There are considerable concerns that motorists do not have the time to avoid stationary vehicles on the former hard shoulder- the computer system cannot react fast enough. There is also considerable, unexpected,evidence that the arbitrary imposition of lower speed limits has INCREASED the likelihood of collisions, particularly when successive lowering is not identifiable with any perceived increased risk factor.

Crying wolf comes to mind and drivers will give less credence to restrictions for future encounters.

A bad policy should not be allowed to continue.

.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

At least The French can rescind and go back to before like the 90 to 80 and back to 90kmph. As well as priority a droit and breath kits.

Ray.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

rayc said:


> Last night about 3am on a dual carriageway near me a luton type van left the carriageway and ended up in a ditch. The Police and ambulance service arrived and parked up in the inside lane reportedly with blue lights etc on . A national Express coach ran into the Police car shunting it into the ambulance.
> We were taught that on Motorways the hard shoulder was a dangerous place and to exit the vehicle and get beyond the crash barrier. It is therefore unbelievable that hard shoulder running or all lane motorways were introduced.
> I think everyone involved in introducing them should be made to sit in a stationary vehicle together with their family for an hour starting with the Transport Secretary.
> I watched Grant Shapps on TV explaining his intention to hold a 'stocktake' of the dangers of hard shoulder running. I can guarantee a fudge coming.


Here is a picture of the Police car


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

rayc said:


> Here is a picture of the Police car


But by an large doesn't it just kill working people or public servants. The rich and powerful don't ride in the 1st lane. And the imperative is to cut their taxes.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Whose going to pay for the car? Us.

Ray.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Pat-H said:


> But by an large doesn't it just kill working people or public servants. The rich and powerful don't ride in the 1st lane. And the imperative is to cut their taxes.


Are you for real?


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

raynipper said:


> Whose going to pay for the car? Us.
> 
> Ray.


I suspect that the National Express Insurer will be coughing up.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

The side on view


----------



## kabundi (Feb 14, 2011)

That’s not a 10mph shunt!


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

That's not going to buff out.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

peribro said:


> Are you for real?


Yup. Do you think Johnson or any of our super rich politician drive in lane 1 of the motorway?
Why would they care?


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Pat-H said:


> Yup. Do you think Johnson or any of our super rich politician drive in lane 1 of the motorway?
> Why would they care?


Everyone is supposed to drive in lane 1 unless overtaking. However nearly every car on the road these days is capable of driving at speeds well in excess of 70mph so you don't have to be super rich to be able to afford a car that can keep up in the "fast lane"!

Should I presume that Jeremy and Rebecca only drive in lane 1?


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Jeremy sits on the floor of trains while there are seats available so who knows which lane he would drive in?


----------



## H1-GBV (Feb 28, 2006)

An analysis in the late 60s showed that sitting on the floor, I believe on the train to Brighton, actually was more comfortable than sitting on the seats: all to do with resonance! :nerd:

[If "Jeremy" = "Corbyn" then you may appreciate that his brother. Piers, has a PhD in Physics from Imperial College, so he may have inside information!]

Gordon

PS Piers was there at the same time as Brian May (and me). :smile2:


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

patp said:


> Jeremy sits on the floor of trains while there are seats available so who knows which lane he would drive in?


This comment refers to a political campaign he was running at the time about lack of public transport and in particular, over crowded trains. His advisers set up a photo opportunity with him sitting on the floor because there were not enough seats on the train. It backfired when the other commuters published photos of all the spare seats that he could have occupied.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I was travelling back 1st class recently from London when a ticket inspector came around - guy sitting opposite had a standard class ticket so instead of apologising and saying something like he hadn't realised he was in the wrong compartment, he tried to argue it on health and safety grounds. He said it was unsafe for him to stand and he would sue Thameslink if he fell over. The inspector asked him to stand up and look through the door at all the empty seats in the standard class compartment! In my view he should have been fined but he was let off! He probably does it every day.

ps before greygit says anything it costs me an extra £5.70 return to upgrade with a railcard to 1st class - off-peak!


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

I regularly use the train and its tiresome having to hear the fare dodgers excuses. Don't they realise the inspectors will have heard them all dozens of times.
Just accept you are caught and cough up.


----------

