Proposed abandonment of Smart Motorways

[ashkeba]

Distinguishing red from green in isolation (like seeing a colour light signal at night, or a distinguishing between a ship's red and green navigation lights) might be a problem, (depending on the degree of impairment) but being completely unable to see a big red X and flashing lights would probably mean that someone was too blind to be allowed to drive at all!

Which I think is why it is an X and not a no-entry which would look almost the same as a light green circle to some people.

 

[OneOffDave]

Which I think is why it is an X and not a no-entry which would look almost the same as a light green circle to some people.

It's also why the light flashing pattern is different to the amber ones. The amber ones flash top and bottom (like a nod) and the red ones flash side to side (like a shaking head)

 

[Bletchleyite]

A significant proportion of drivers have red-green colour blindness, which makes red a dubious choice for the danger colour. Red and green traffic signals can usually be distinguished by their relative vertical position, but this does not apply to overhead signs.

People with this condition are barred from becoming train drivers but not from holding a driving licence.

Even if they see it as green, an X with flashing lights is a symbol that a lane is out of use all over the network.

The only possible confusion is with the Clearway symbol (red X in a red circle on a blue background) but that never occurs on electronic signs.

 

[Greybeard33]

Even if they see it as green, an X with flashing lights is a symbol that a lane is out of use all over the network.

According to the DfT "Know your traffic signs" publication, downloadable from https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/signs-and-signals.html, the red X on a dynamic smart motorway is not necessarily accompanied by flashing lights. It states on p92:

Before the hard shoulder is made available to traffic, a speed limit will be applied to the main carriageway. This will be the same for all lanes and will usually be 50 mph. The speed limit shown over each lane will be in a red ring (see page 20) with no signals. There will be a red cross, with no signals, above the hard shoulder to indicate that it is closed. When the hard shoulder is in use as a traffic lane, the red cross will change to a speed limit (the same as for the other lanes). Should it be necessary to close any lane, including the hard shoulder when it is in use as a traffic lane, a red cross with red lamps flashing in vertical pairs will be shown above that lane (see page 89). The previous signal will show an arrow, inclined downwards to the left or to the right, indicating that you should move into the adjacent lane (see page 90).

This publication was last updated in 2007 and so does not even mention the more recent All Lane Running type of smart motorway. Earlier versions, pre-dating all types of smart motorways, would have stated that the red X always has flashing lights. IIRC, when motorway variable signs were first introduced the "Stop" sign was just the red flashing lights without an X.

Considering that many drivers will never have studied the highway code since they passed their test, it seems optimistic to expect that they will comprehend all the subtleties of smart motorway signage when they first encounter it.

 

[dcsprior]

The point I was trying to make was: why use a symbol which only appears on one type of road (and a subset of them!) rather than the symbols used elsewhere, such as the no entry sign.

I learned to drive relatively recently, so am aware of this sign, I also like to think it'd have been obvious anyway, but for some people it may not be.

And an awful lot of people would only very very rarely come across it. My normal weekly driving pattern no longer takes me on motorways at all but I used to do a once a week journey which took me on the M8, M9 and M876. A ~1mile section of that 30 miles of motorway has recently become "smart" though I've never seen a red X on it. I think the entirety of Scotland has about 10 miles of smart motorway. Yet rather than use the same sign that appears on the other 99.99% of the road network, we use one just for these motorways!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The red X is also used elsewhere, primarily on bridges and tunnels with lane control, and has been for years. The old style matrices can also show it in the event of a closure I believe.

On a smart motorway it would almost always be accompanied by a message on the text sign anyway, and be preceded by a keep left/right sign.

I think this is excuses, to be honest.

 

[Meerkat]

Red crosses are used on station ticket barriers. Don’t see people struggling with the concept there!

 

[ashkeba]

The reason not to use the no entry has been given but let me try again: the no entry only works for color blind people because of its positional element which is not present in overhead matrix signs. At a glance without color sensitivity or its usual position, no entry could look very like the derestriction ∅ which is exactly what you don't want people to do!

 

[PeterC]

Red crosses are used on station ticket barriers. Don’t see people struggling with the concept there!

Apart from all the people who try to use them. I see plenty of instances on the Underground.

 

[Greybeard33]

The red X is also used elsewhere, primarily on bridges and tunnels with lane control, and has been for years. The old style matrices can also show it in the event of a closure I believe.

The history of matrix signs is described in https://www.roads.org.uk/articles/mixed-signals/enter-matrix. In the original MS1 sign, introduced from the late 1960s, the matrix consisted only of a 13x11 array of white pixels and so could not display a red X. Lane closure was signalled just by flashing red lights above the closed lane(s), with the matrix blank. Or, where the signs were only at the side/centre of the motorway rather than over individual lanes, flashing amber lights with white T bars indicating the closed lanes. It was not until 1989 that rollout of an upgrade began. This added red pixels to enable display of the X, and replaced the white derestriction symbol with the word "End".

 

[Geezertronic]

In normal running, the hard shoulder is not No Entry but is more Do Not Use. With a No Entry, you could get people assume that they cannot use the shoulder for emergency purposes

 

[Lucan]

The reason not to use the no entry has been given ... the no entry only works for color blind people because of its positional element At a glance without color sensitivity or its usual position, no entry could look very like the derestriction ∅

They look very different to me even without colour :

 

[PeterC]

How to they look at 60mph on a dark and rainy night.

 

[edwin_m]

Don't the signs sometimes display national speed limit as a white circle with a diagonal white line across? This might be more easily confused with a "no entry" type sign.

 

[Lucan]

See the pictures in my post above. which may or may not have added red to the No Entry sign depending on your eyesight. If you can see these signs at all, I don't know how you could confuse them, any more than with any other sign (a speed limit sign for example).

 

[ashkeba]

They look very different to me even without colour :

Remember, the derestriction is reversed on gantries and red-green colourblindness is not necessarily achromatism but makes red appear lighter than that to some, so no-entry can look like a round green light, which rarely (never in UK?) appears as a metal sign. See http://www.vischeck.com/examples/ for examples. This may be why green ↓ is used, not green circle.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe having a different shape as well as a different colour helps the brain distinguish between different messages, even if not colour blind.

 

[Merle Haggard]

SMART MOTORWAY - a downright dangerous stretch of motorway that's overloaded with traffic for much of the day and the government would rather allow tens of people to get killed on by withdrawing the hard shoulder than widen it or seek a proper solution. To be used in conjunction with COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS which would explain that those few dozen deaths would be compensated by the 'benefits' to those who saved five minutes getting to Milton Keynes.

As you might gather, I have strong opinions on the subject.

Breaking my self-imposed policy of only posting on railway subjects - but there is a railway aspect to this.

This subject was discussed on R4 Today the other morning. The highway engineers were set the objective to 'reduce congestion and improve journey times' and the Smart Motorway does just that. The objective 'and not make it more dangerous while doing so' was NOT included, so the highway engineers didn't need to take safety into account.

What more can be said except if the railways adopted that approach...

 

[Crossover]

I thought they'd started enforcing red Xs by turning the cameras on in that lane but set to 0mph? Have they not?

Isn't it an offence (points/fine) to drive under a red X anyway? Or does that only pertain to the closures where the red cross is displayed along with the flashing red lights (also sometimes poorly observed!)

 

[edwin_m]

Breaking my self-imposed policy of only posting on railway subjects - but there is a railway aspect to this.

This subject was discussed on R4 Today the other morning. The highway engineers were set the objective to 'reduce congestion and improve journey times' and the Smart Motorway does just that. The objective 'and not make it more dangerous while doing so' was NOT included, so the highway engineers didn't need to take safety into account.

What more can be said except if the railways adopted that approach...

That almost certainly wasn't the full set of objectives. I heard a Highways England person on the telly the other day saying that casualties had halved on a smart motorway compared with a conventional one. Sorry can't remember which motorway or which programme it was on.

 

[PeterC]

Red crosses are used on station ticket barriers. Don’t see people struggling with the concept there!

Really? I have seen plenty of people trying to get through gates on the Underground that are set for the opposite direction.

 

[tony_mac]

The point I was trying to make was: why use a symbol which only appears on one type of road (and a subset of them!) rather than the symbols used elsewhere, such as the no entry sign.

They have different meanings. A no-entry sign applies to the whole carriageway.
It's also an offence to enter a closed lane even after you have passed the sign - a no entry sign only prohibits passing it.

 

[Busaholic]

That almost certainly wasn't the full set of objectives. I heard a Highways England person on the telly the other day saying that casualties had halved on a smart motorway compared with a conventional one. Sorry can't remember which motorway or which programme it was on.

36 deaths on smart motorways (all 200 miles of them) in five years, which even Highways England finds 'concerning'. A Freedom of Information request by BBC's Panorama programme concerning the M25 produced the following answer:- 72 'near misses' reported in five years before conversion to smart motorway, 1,485 in five years after conversion. Those are the official figures, only provided after that FoI request. Only someone with a Trumpian view of life (or Chris Grayling) would dismiss that out of hand.

 

[ashkeba]

36 deaths on smart motorways (all 200 miles of them) in five years, which even Highways England finds 'concerning'. A Freedom of Information request by BBC's Panorama programme concerning the M25 produced the following answer:- 72 'near misses' reported in five years before conversion to smart motorway, 1,485 in five years after conversion. Those are the official figures, only provided after that FoI request. Only someone with a Trumpian view of life (or Chris Grayling) would dismiss that out of hand.

And is detection and repprting of near misses affected by the number of cameras installed to smarten the motorway?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The objective 'and not make it more dangerous while doing so' was NOT included, so the highway engineers didn't need to take safety into account.

What more can be said except if the railways adopted that approach...

Exactly- sickening double standards

 

[Busaholic]

And is detection and repprting of near misses affected by the number of cameras installed to smarten the motorway?

It's not the presence of cameras which causes these near misses: if, indeed, extra cameras were installed because of the ''smartening'' (no amount of apostrophes can conceal the utter inappropriateness of the word) then someone somewhere in a position of authority must have thought the consequences could prove dire, in which case the total inaction by those authorities shows total contempt for the safety of the public.

 

[Meerkat]

It's not the presence of cameras which causes these near misses: if, indeed, extra cameras were installed because of the ''smartening'' (no amount of apostrophes can conceal the utter inappropriateness of the word) then someone somewhere in a position of authority must have thought the consequences could prove dire, in which case the total inaction by those authorities shows total contempt for the safety of the public.

I think you totally missed the point. The suggestion was that the presence of the cameras might lead to more reporting of near misses.

 

[Busaholic]

I think you totally missed the point. The suggestion was that the presence of the cameras might lead to more reporting of near misses.

I wonder what evidence would persuade you? If your mind is made up, I suspect the answer is none. Shapps, to his credit, realised on being appointed that his predecessor's inaction on this matter alone couldn't be allowed to continue. He must have received considerable pressure from his department staff to have adopted that stance virtually from day one.

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder what evidence would persuade you? If your mind is made up, I suspect the answer is none. Shapps, to his credit, realised on being appointed that his predecessor's inaction on this matter alone couldn't be allowed to continue. He must have received considerable pressure from his department staff to have adopted that stance virtually from day one.

It's entirely reasonable to expect that if cameras are installed to supervise 100% of a motorway, and people or automated systems are monitoring them, then any near-misses are more likely to be detected than on a traditional motorway where they would only be detected if someone happened to notice or one of the people involved reported it. There may be more actual near-misses, but the mere statement of numbers doesn't constitute convincing evidence of that.

The other issue is that the rather misleading title of this thread actually refers only to those smart motorways where the hard shoulder is sometimes but not always used as a general traffic lane. Do the figures you quote on near-misses or actual accidents refer to those smart motorways, or to the other types?

You ask what evidence would be persuasive. The answer is a lot more detail than is contained in the simple headline figures you quoted.

 

[gswindale]

It's not the presence of cameras which causes these near misses: if, indeed, extra cameras were installed because of the ''smartening'' (no amount of apostrophes can conceal the utter inappropriateness of the word) then someone somewhere in a position of authority must have thought the consequences could prove dire, in which case the total inaction by those authorities shows total contempt for the safety of the public.

What would you rather drive down?
A "dumb" motorway where you could come across a stricken vehicle in any plans with very little warning;
A "smart" motorway where you will have greater warning that there is an obstruction up ahead.

I'm not convinced that there is much difference between a 3/4 lane motorway with all lane running than a normal dual carriageway - certainly I would suggest that the motorway would be safer due to the increased monitoring of the traffic.