'Smart Motorways'

[Domh245]

the M6 between Stafford and Stoke in heavy traffic is absolutely nerve-wracking with its very high volume of HGVs.

I can't disagree, but I fail to see how the issue there is the smart motorway, rather than the sheer volume of traffic?

 

[mikeb42]

... M6 between Stafford and Stoke in heavy traffic is absolutely nerve-wracking with its very high volume of HGVs.

It's not particularly pleasant at times. However, having driven Birmingham - Liverpool/Manchester hundreds of times before the Smart motorway was installed I don't recall it being a pleasant experience then and for much the same reasons. It was considerably more congested and more like wacky races though. It tended to oscillate between stationary and screaming along once the volume reached a certain level, which again doesn't seem to happen the same now.

Personally I didn't find the presence of a hard shoulder - access to which was almost perpetually blocked by a torrent of HGVs driving on their speed limiters with gaps of about 0.2 seconds rather than 2 seconds between them - all that reassuring.

My question would be (and I acknowledge it can be a bit hair raising at times and that everyone experiences the same thing in different ways) if you find it nerve wracking, how wracked are your nerves when you travel on one of the parallel A roads like the A50 or A534, or their equivalent anywhere in the country?

The answer ought to be about 5-10 times as wracked. You are at as much as 10 times the risk of being killed or seriously injured there, all things being equal (it's difficult to put an exact figure on it, but whatever the ratio is, it's a lot).

A Chief Scientist from the Transport Research Laboratory, that... well known beacon of sloppy thinking and casual disregard for forensic analysis of data, notes:

"TRL has done extensive research with road users on all manner of things related to the strategic road network. Whenever we speak to people about smart motorways, one thing we consistently hear mentioned (not from everyone, but from many people) is the fear of breaking down in a live lane. Some even mention that they actively avoid smart motorways when they can, as a result of this fear. When confronted with the facts around objective safety - smart motorways are considerably safer overall than the A and B roads that people migrate to - nothing changes. Again, we have an example of a solution which works (in safety terms, overall) but which is rejected by users..."

No comment required.

 

[dangie]

In the UK for whatever reason, we seem hell bent on putting more vehicles onto the roads instead of developing infrastructure to get them off. Until that happens it can only get worse.

 

[Tetchytyke]

German Autobahnen had dynamic hard shoulder running many years before it was a thing in the UK, and funnily enough it is not a problem in Germany.

It’s a populist move which happily stops them having to spend money upgrading motorways.

 

[JonathanH]

In the UK for whatever reason, we seem hell bent on putting more vehicles onto the roads instead of developing infrastructure to get them off.

There is nothing stopping people using buses or coaches to reduce their personal road space use. It isn't just about infrastructure.

The government is even paying part of the bus fare for people at the moment.

What did you have in mind?

 

[dangie]

There is nothing stopping people using buses or coaches to reduce their personal road space use. It isn't just about infrastructure.

The government is even paying part of the bus fare for people at the moment.

What did you have in mind?

Maybe I should have added 'we' need to change people's mindsets that there are other ways to travel, but only if this goes to where you want to go.
However it has to be convenient, regular & punctual. Certainly in the town where I live this criteria isn't met.
No buses after 6-7pm. No buses on a Sunday. Rarely at the advertised time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

German Autobahnen had dynamic hard shoulder running many years before it was a thing in the UK, and funnily enough it is not a problem in Germany.

It’s a populist move which happily stops them having to spend money upgrading motorways.

Isn't it the case that the Autobahnen have an extremely poor safety record and UK motorways much better? Though the massive speed differentials are probably most of that, if you slapped a 130km/h limit on them (as per most of Europe) I suspect you'd see a considerable improvement.

An accident at 60mph is still sufficient to kill if there is a stationary vehicle in the way.

That's not the point.

While it's only 10mph slower, there's a considerable reduction in the amount of attention required to stay on top of driving at even a slightly slower speed. Thus, at 60, it's more likely the stopped car will be seen far enough in advance to be avoided safely and smoothly than at 70.

Given your suggestion for restoration of a continuous hard shoulder, it would most likely need a permanent 50mph speed limit to retain at least some of the capacity lost.

Why wouldn't you just install the "controlled motorway" kit and set a limit appropriate to the traffic? The only bad bit of smart motorways (unless you're a serial speeder) is the lack of hard shoulder - pretty much all of the rest of the concept is good. I was listening to one of the campaigners on LBC yesterday and they said the same thing - just put the hard shoulder back, keep all the rest of it and continue the rollout of other features.

A 50mph speed limit would tick the safety and capacity box. At the same time, the mooted 40mph speed limit for single carriageway roads could similarly be introduced.

You're talking about 50mph NSL and 40mph on singles? That's gross overkill. You're not Jeremy Vine in disguise are you?

 

[JonathanH]

You're talking about 50mph NSL and 40mph on singles? That's gross overkill.

It increases both capacity and safety, reduces pollution, and discourages road use relative to other, faster means of travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It increases both capacity and safety, reduces pollution, and discourages road use relative to other, faster means of travel.

It would be nonsensical. My suggestion is a more pragmatic one that would have significant safety benefits (not least pretty much ending overtaking on singles other than by those seriously speeding) and is in line with current Council policies in a number of areas which are signing singles to 50 and duals often to 60 anyway. And a hard-shoulderless motorway is just an A road with special status, so shouldn't have a different limit from those (bar the automatic limits).

I think your latter clause is the most important here - it's an anti car measure. I'm not up for that; any speed limit changes should be pragmatic. The car has an important role; primary measures to push peoplem onto other modes should be carrots, i.e. quality public transport with quality connections and affordable fares, Dutch style cycling infrastructure etc.

 

[johncrossley]

The Flemish region of Belgium has a 70 km/h limit on single carriageways (about 42 mph).

 

[dosxuk]

A Chief Scientist from the Transport Research Laboratory, that... well known beacon of sloppy thinking and casual disregard for forensic analysis of data, notes:

"TRL has done extensive research with road users on all manner of things related to the strategic road network. Whenever we speak to people about smart motorways, one thing we consistently hear mentioned (not from everyone, but from many people) is the fear of breaking down in a live lane. Some even mention that they actively avoid smart motorways when they can, as a result of this fear. When confronted with the facts around objective safety - smart motorways are considerably safer overall than the A and B roads that people migrate to - nothing changes. Again, we have an example of a solution which works (in safety terms, overall) but which is rejected by users..."

The discussion about smart motorways has almost become religious - with otherwise sensible people refusing to listen to explanations or logic and instead focus on a dogmatic desire to just get rid of them. As the scientist says, people are blind to any advantages or improvements that they have, instead focusing on a small number of accidents - many of which are caused by inattentive drivers - which could happen in identical circumstances on many A roads but cause little to no outcry. Certainly the improved signage, detection and monitoring systems are a good reason to carry on rolling out smart motorways, even if there is further discussion on lane / hard shoulder usage.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all-lane-running, but I think the dynamic hard shoulders with a reduced speed is a good idea overall. Yes, it's a little more confusing having it variable, but the increased capacity at times of high demand is not to be sniffed at. It should also not be that difficult to convert stretches of all-lane-running to dynamic use if it is decided that changes need to be made - it would give the advantage of the extra lane during rush hour when everyone is going slow anyway, while giving an unobstructed hard shoulder the rest of the day when traffic is flowing freely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The discussion about smart motorways has almost become religious - with otherwise sensible people refusing to listen to explanations or logic and instead focus on a dogmatic desire to just get rid of them. As the scientist says, people are blind to any advantages or improvements that they have, instead focusing on a small number of accidents - many of which are caused by inattentive drivers - which could happen in identical circumstances on many A roads but cause little to no outcry. Certainly the improved signage, detection and monitoring systems are a good reason to carry on rolling out smart motorways, even if there is further discussion on lane / hard shoulder usage.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all-lane-running, but I think the dynamic hard shoulders with a reduced speed is a good idea overall. Yes, it's a little more confusing having it variable, but the increased capacity at times of high demand is not to be sniffed at. It should also not be that difficult to convert stretches of all-lane-running to dynamic use if it is decided that changes need to be made - it would give the advantage of the extra lane during rush hour when everyone is going slow anyway, while giving an unobstructed hard shoulder the rest of the day when traffic is flowing freely.

Most of the campaigners are just against hard shoulder running (permanent or occasional). The other features* are definitely safety and congestion management gains and nobody bar those who like driving at 90mph seem to oppose them.

If the Government said they'd continue the programme but retaining the permanent hard shoulder and reinstating it on existing ones then I don't think there'd be much complaint. Due to very poor lane discipline (and some who won't drive in lane 1 of a smart motorway due to the risk of a stationary vehicle) I'm not convinced the 4 lane sections add much capacity anyway, the new middle-lane-hogging seems to be lane-3-hogging!

* Speed control, dynamic speed limits to manage congestion, the possibility of closing other lanes if a car is stranded or an accident occurs, the laybys** etc.
** Still worth having them with a hard shoulder. People do get crashed into on the shoulder; if you have the laybys inside it and the car with an emergency can reach one then they're much safer. Easier for them to rejoin the motorway too.

 

[A0]

In the UK for whatever reason, we seem hell bent on putting more vehicles onto the roads instead of developing infrastructure to get them off. Until that happens it can only get worse.

When you increase the population of the country by over 20% in 20 years yet don't increase road capacity by anything like that over the same period of time, it's perhaps unsurprising things are more congested. If you're going to increase (or at least facilitate such a population increase) then inevitably you have to create more road space.

You're not going to "force" people to move away from using cars - the inflexibility of public transport outside of big cities means it will never reasonably compete. And there's no country in the world (bar perhaps North Korea) where such a change has been successfully imposed on people.

 

[dangie]

As been referred to earlier, stopping distance at 70mph is over twice the distance at 40mph. Therefore it makes sense to reduce motorway maximum speed to 40mph. That way we could fit twice in the number of vehicles.

Of course that’s no going to happen, but in reality faster speeds lead to greater distance between vehicles which obviously means less capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As been referred to earlier, stopping distance at 70mph is over twice the distance at 40mph. Therefore it makes sense to reduce motorway maximum speed to 40mph. That way we could fit twice in the number of vehicles.

That's like literally the whole point of the automatic variable speed limits. When the road is busy, the speed limit is reduced so that more vehicles can fit without grinding to a halt. I think it can automatically go as far as 40, but manually can be set lower (I've seen 20). It's extremely effective both at doing that and at not needing to have people crawling along at 40 at 3am when they're the only car for miles.

 

[Statto]

Another issue with smart motorways, when they need to use the motorway, emergency services often use the hard shoulder to get to an emergency when the motorway is jammed, which can't happen if the hard shoulder is being used as an extra lane, & the motorway is still jammed, so emergency services will be delayed getting to the emergency, which could end up being fatal

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another issue with smart motorways, when they need to use the motorway, emergency services often use the hard shoulder to get to an emergency when the motorway is jammed, which can't happen if the hard shoulder is being used as an extra lane, & the motorway is still jammed, so emergency services will be delayed getting to the emergency, which could end up being fatal

Very true, though it's often practice to get there by proceeding in the wrong direction along the blocked road anyway, though this can be risky if it's not totally blocked, so I'd imagine the first police car accesses it via the other open carriageway so they can block it completely before the ambulance etc proceed "bang road".

Interestingly in Germany practice is when in congestion to form a "Rettungsspur" or "Rettungsgasse" - rescue lane. Signage promotes it all over the place. On a three lane motorway it's done by lanes 1 and 2 all moving right to create a space to their left, while those in lane 3 move right almost onto the reservation, this creates a gap just about big enough for an ambulance or similar. I forget how it's done on a two lane one but I *think* everyone just moves right.

It's pictured here:

Alexander Dobrindt will Strafen gegen Gassen-Blockierer nach A9-Unglück verzehnfachen - WELT

Nach dem schrecklichen Busunglück auf der A9 behinderten Gaffer die Rettungsarbeiten, Autos blockierten die Rettungsgasse. Verkehrsminister will die Strafen für Verkehrssünder drakonisch verschärfen.

www.welt.de

(article not quoted because the text isn't relevant)

 

[zwk500]

I forget how it's done on a two lane one but I *think* everyone just moves right.

On a two lane road (even without hard shoulder), lane 1 moves to the verge and lane 2 to the central reservation, so there's a gap over the lane dividing dashes. It's done in the UK as well, but usually only once people start seeing blue lights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a two lane road (even without hard shoulder), lane 1 moves to the verge and lane 2 to the central reservation, so there's a gap over the lane dividing dashes. It's done in the UK as well, but usually only once people start seeing blue lights.

Yeah, the difference with Germany is that you move into that position as soon as it's clear things are going to stop, whereas in the UK people just try to move out of the way (with varying success) when the blue lights and sirens are bearing down on them.

 

[dosxuk]

Another issue with smart motorways, when they need to use the motorway, emergency services often use the hard shoulder to get to an emergency when the motorway is jammed, which can't happen if the hard shoulder is being used as an extra lane, & the motorway is still jammed, so emergency services will be delayed getting to the emergency, which could end up being fatal

Just like any other dual carriageway road.

Besides, the smart motorway features also mean that a lane can be signed to keep clear for emergency vehicle access, which seems to work except when the road ahead is completely blocked - but as above - in that case they can come the wrong way down from the next junction.

 

[zwk500]

Just like any other dual carriageway road.

Besides, the smart motorway features also mean that a lane can be signed to keep clear for emergency vehicle access, which seems to work except when the road ahead is completely blocked - but as above - in that case they can come the wrong way down from the next junction.

And it's not like the Hard Shoulder is always respected by drivers impatient to get to the next services/slip road etc...

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it's not like the Hard Shoulder is always respected by drivers impatient to get to the next services/slip road etc...

It isn't always (hence why even if we reinstate them we should keep the laybys as well) but it mostly is.

 

[johncrossley]

You're not going to "force" people to move away from using cars

You can certainly smooth out the peaks (at least) by introducing tolling/road pricing, just like trains do with peak fares and variable Advance fares. You might be able to reduce peak demand sufficiently so extra lanes are not needed.

 

[dosxuk]

You can certainly smooth out the peaks (at least) by introducing tolling/road pricing, just like trains do with peak fares and variable Advance fares. You might be able to reduce peak demand sufficiently so extra lanes are not needed.

That's the sort of thinking which looks great on paper, less so in the real world. While it may affect a small number of drivers, the vast majority of people travelling at peak times are doing so because they have little choice. Driving past Luton on the M1 around 5pm is a horrible experience, yet tens of thousands of people do it every single day. I doubt very few of them would choose to be in that queue if they had any other choice. Adding fines for travelling at those times will just make people resent their horrible journey even more.

If you want to change the demand for road capacity, you need to change the social and economic reasons that create that demand. Get rid of the office, make fuel / electricity so expensive nobody would consider commuting, get rid of working hours, stop people from moving around the country, scrap importing and exporting. Unfortunately, many of those things are extremely unappetising to the general public, even those who demand something needs to be done about the amount of road users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you want to change the demand for road capacity, you need to change the social and economic reasons that create that demand. Get rid of the office, make fuel / electricity so expensive nobody would consider commuting, get rid of working hours, stop people from moving around the country, scrap importing and exporting.

Permanent COVID lockdown? No, ta.

What we could and should do is implement high quality and affordable public transport and cycling facilities, copying Germany/Switzerland for the public transport and the Netherlands for the bikes. Then many car journeys will just evaporate.

Why would you drive to London if there was an HS2 train every 15 minutes and an Anytime Day Return from Manchester was say fifty quid?

(I can dream!)

However back to motorways, the variable speed limit system combined with sat-nav with congestion re-routeing (perhaps with some of the more silly rat-running designed out) does do pretty well to manage what capacity there is.

 

[MotCO]

Most of the campaigners are just against hard shoulder running (permanent or occasional).

But there is poor adherence to the 'red cross means lane closed' policy, and there appears to be little enforcement of it.

 

[jfollows]

But there is poor adherence to the 'red cross means lane closed' policy, and there appears to be little enforcement of it.

RAC (https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/half-of-smart-motorway-safety-cameras/) reports that "half" of the motorway cameras still haven't been upgraded with the capability of enforcing this. And, yes, this was in 2021 but the report says that the work won't be completed until mid-2023.

Half of smart motorway safety cameras can’t enforce ‘red X’ closed-lane signs​

3rd Mar 2021

Motorists could be avoiding fines for ignoring lane closure signs on smart motorways as “around half” of the safety cameras on these roads are not yet fully operational, The Times has discovered.
Despite the vital function of the ‘red X’ to close lanes following incidents and breakdowns, Highways England has admitted the camera network will not be fully upgraded until July 2023, meaning police can’t use footage to issue penalties to drivers disobeying the signs.
The news has reignited concerns over the safety of smart motorways where the hard shoulder is converted to a live running lane to improve traffic flow.
On these stretches, drivers can be left stranded if they break down or suffer an accident too far from a junction or SOS area. In this scenario their safety is dependent on the activation of the red X to close the lane and drivers then obeying the signs by changing lanes.
The hard shoulder has been converted to a running lane on 350 miles of motorway, including large sections of the M1, M6 and M25.
If drivers ignore lane closure signs, they can face a £100 fine and three penalty points. Under new legislation, police can use existing speed cameras to enforce this, whereas before officers could only punish those caught flouting the red X signs in person.
However, Highways England’s ‘HADECS 3’ cameras need upgrading to enable automatic enforcement, with the government-owned organisation revealing only “around half” of its cameras are currently able to detect red X violations.
The planned upgrades include changes to the cameras and software and police processing systems.
RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said it is “frightening” to think it will be two and a half years until all smart motorway cameras are upgraded.
“With the permanent removal of the hard shoulder on smart motorways, it’s important to realise that the red X ‘closed lane’ sign is the only protection offered to a stricken driver until assistance arrives. Therefore enforcement of the red X is absolutely vital,” he said.
“The safety of someone who has stopped in a live lane initially depends on three things – the red X sign being switched on, other drivers having an opportunity to see it, and then these same drivers moving into another lane. The consequences of the lane not being closed immediately, or of drivers either not seeing or even ignoring the red X can be tragic.
“There has been talk of using speed cameras to enforce the red X for a number of years, yet now we learn that a high proportion of them are not capable of being used for this purpose. It’s frightening to think therefore that it will be nearly two and a half years more until all smart motorway cameras are upgraded.”
Highways England’s disclosure comes after MPs on the cross-party transport committee announced a new inquiry into smart motorways last week, prompted by unrest over a number of fatalities on the roads.

 

[MotCO]

And a hard-shoulderless motorway is just an A road with special status,

There is one difference - often a hard-shoulderless motorway has crash barriers running down the side so there is no room to move off the carriageway. Other roads tend to have a soft verge you can pull onto, or at least get most of the vehicle out of the way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is one difference - often a hard-shoulderless motorway has crash barriers running down the side so there is no room to move off the carriageway. Other roads tend to have a soft verge you can pull onto, or at least get most of the vehicle out of the way.

Some motorways do have a verge. Indeed I saw a car pulled onto one on a motorway (the M6 though I forget exactly where) yesterday!

Many A roads have barriers too, or a verge you really don't want to pull onto because you'll sink (e.g. the Leighton Buzzard bypass, which is covered in signs telling you not to!)

 

[dangie]

You can certainly smooth out the peaks (at least) by introducing tolling/road pricing…

Problem here is that it favours those who are more financially well off either privately or commercially. To control traffic numbers fairly it has to be done by who needs to be on the road, not by who can afford to be on the road.