"Smart" motorways?

[661-Pete]

I was fortunate enough to be on my own, and adult. I can cope with a few hours without food...

For me, and I guess for many others of my generation, it's what 'comes out' rather than what 'goes in' that is often the problem. OK I can cope with the lack of privacy, but without a hard shoulder to manoeuvre onto, where can I stop - even if it's only for a minute?

[mjr]

I wonder if the variable speed limits in the 'smart' sections are in fact set too high? I noticed that they were set at 60mph in the more open sections, and 40mph in the heavily congested sections (where it wasn't possible to go over 30mph anyway!). If a speed limit is set at 60, most motorists will do 70mph, speed cameras notwithstanding, in the belief that they will 'get away with it'.

If the vari-limits were set to, say, 45mph in the more open sections, rather than 60, maybe the pockets of heavy congestion wouldn't build up in the way they did.

I think you mention the real reason: motorists ignore the smart motorway limits like they do most limits when they can't see an obvious reason like a village or sharp bend and that means they arrive at congestion quicker which means the congestion gets worse and road capacity falls below what it could be.

They shouldn't set the limits lower in the hope that motorists will then drive slowly enough to produce the effect of the limit you would set - that would punish law-abiding motorists who drive below the limits. Also, what then happens when drivers realise that a 45 limit means they're wanting 60? They'll start doing 70 again in the hope that beggar-thy-neighbour works and they get through faster, as one car going above the limit doesn't itself make much difference, but then you get too many doing 70 and you're back to square one. Sooner or later, the limit's got to be enforced or you might as well abandon it and let the roads jam up.

So I feel they should noisily do 100% enforcement of the limits - announce that the 10% "speedo error" grey area is now the wrong side of the line in smart motorway zones and motorists will get only the 3mph or so misjudgement/reading tolerance but no more, so if you don't want a fine, err on the side of caution. It seems to have worked on most drivers with average speed cameras in roadwork zones, so let's roll that out to busy zones.

[thirdcrank]

On a procedural note, the Highways Agency now manage the motorways themselves and the police role is restricted to policing. I understand the problems with medical emergencies and otherwise normal situations which develop into emergencies, but I can't see much benefit in going round what is essentially a large crowd asking if everybody is OK. In an emergency, the most certain way of asking for help is to dial 999 and I cannot see much difference here. (It's true that thirty years ago when I've been the duty officer in the police control room which covered all the motorways and trunk roads in West Yorks., as well as a lot of other things, calls from mobiles were discouraged in preference to the phones on the hard shoulder but that was largely because the system was then so erratic, and a call from West Yorkshire could easily be routed to somewhere like Anglesey: experience speaking there.)

I also know from experience how frustrating it is to be stuck on the motorway, perhaps for hours, with little information - again a role which is more suited to others - and no movement. Closing a stretch of motorway, even with the permanently signed diversions, can cause a lot of congestion on nearby roads. During all but the quietest hours, a motorway's volume of traffic isn't going to funnel easily onto local roads. This sometimes applies with planned closures for repairs during the night. I think the hard fact is that diverting traffic off the motorway at the junction before a crash is sufficiently dangerous not to increase the danger by adding more traffic approaching that junction in the "wrong" direction even under police supervision. I also think that's always been the nationally agreed policy and not something that's down to some dumbo at the time.
===========================================
AFAIK, the speed cameras on smart motorways enforce the variable limits. They will rarely flash if the limit is set at 50 and all the traffic is nose-to-tail at 40. A frequent occurrence around here. Also, AFAIK, the overriding idea of variable speed limits is not primarily safety, although that should be a feature, but rather keeping traffic moving faster overall through moving slowly, rather than a stop/start at speed which ripples back bring everything to a standstill.

[AlaninWales]

Although given the regularity and predictability of some motorway traffic jams and the potential for them anywhere, I am surprised that parents don't cater for this when taking kids on motorways. I carry enough to cope with any such likelihood: Are parents not expected to be responsible for their children's well-being any more?

How much time *do* you cater for?

I was fortunate enough to be on my own, and adult. I can cope with a few hours without food...
But if you were doing a ten mile trip - how many hours worth of food do you take?

Because if on every little trip you take enough food and entertainment for 7+ hours then I'd suggest you are over prepared, and probably wasting food and fuel...
Particularly when you note that many of those trips would be to go and eat somewhere (like home)...

Well it's not likely to be "every little trip" as most people don't go to their local shops via the motorway. I use motorways as part of travelling large distances and so will take a day's supply of consumables and water and will organise to break the journey. When I have travelled with kids, we'd certainly be taking a picnic. At a minimum there is always biscuits, water, tea/coffee/sugar and a means of heating water in the car (plus blankets, FA kit, change of clothing etc) in the car.

[thirdcrank]

... Well it's not likely to be "every little trip" as most people don't go to their local shops via the motorway. I use motorways as part of travelling large distances and so will take a day's supply of consumables and water and will organise to break the journey. When I have travelled with kids, we'd certainly be taking a picnic. At a minimum there is always biscuits, water, tea/coffee/sugar and a means of heating water in the car (plus blankets, FA kit, change of clothing etc) in the car.

I think it's important to remember that those motorways which take new routes, rather than upgrade existing roads, inevitably cross remote areas, even in lower lying areas: if there's an area which has historically been free of longer through routes, it's because it was too rugged for normal transport. The M62 is the obvious example round here, but it's still the same elsewhere. The level of preparation and precautions that any individual takes is up to them of course, but I'd expect most experienced cyclists to get the idea. A couple of months ago, I was irritated by the numerous mobile signs on the M60 to the North of Manchester, currently being upgraded, which repeatedly warned drivers not to run out of fuel. A bit late when somebody is stuck in roadworks but if drivers routinely set off on a motorway journey without adequate fuel, it's hardly surprising they don't bother with things like a warm coat to wear if they have to leave the vehicle for any reason.
==================================================================================
PS
Some drivers treat what would once have been a real trek as no more than a local jaunt. OK till things go wrong.

[reohn2]

Why only deal with the symptom (moving people around) and not the sickness (people feeling they must travel so much)?

You have to first recognise there's a sickness,not everyone will agree with you on that.

Apparently. Building more roads is just another variation on the "Smart Motorways" idea of adding road capacity to ease congestion which is about as smart as dealing with obesity by buying bigger clothes.

That's without dispute,unless you have the foresight of a system that doesn't give a damn.

At some point, the consequences are going to catch up with us! Will we realise it before we've trashed pretty much everything except agribusiness land and a few national parks?

If the past is anythingnto go by,I doubt it.

So what's the national transport equivalent of losing some weight? I feel we've got to start making changes to travel more space-efficiently (which will probably include cycles for short/medium distances and ebikes for medium ones, as well as better mass transport) and to distribute employment and services more evenly so more people can afford to live closer to where they need to go for work or whatever. There are many possible ways to do that, from rail franchise reform to full-on nationalisation, which might work or could be screwed up, but continually tarmacking our green and pleasant land isn't one of them.

Weve created a society which depends on profit at all costs,where some make lots and most get by,a top heavy system that we haven't learned to control and even out,housing and personal transport are the classic examples of it.
In short we've been sold a mickie.
Buy a house so you'll be investing in bricks and mortar,you can't lose,but many have,because jobs aren't stable so to pay the mortgage,Mr&Mrs Average has to follow the work,either they travel daily however long it takes or they move which makes the housing merry go round happen.
If they travel it blocks up the roads.There's a lot of profit for government and business in travel and housing and so it goes.
If public transport were integrated,reliable,clean and affordable,and or if housing was available at reasonable and controlled rent with both owner and tenant made to be responsible by meaningful and well administered laws it could aleviate some of the personal travel problems IMO.
My 2d's worth.

[softlips]

Parts of the M42 have been 'Smart' for at least fifteen years, not caused any issues in my experience down there.

[thirdcrank]

... The police don't need to respond with serious catering, but to tell the HA to get down there ...

This has reminded me how little power the police have to tell anybody to do anything.

I'm reminded of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. In the aftermath, officers from West Yorkshire were invited to Zeebrugge to help with the Casualty Bureau system, established to try to deal with casualty identification etc., after the fire at Valley Parade soccer ground in Bradford. On their return, they were full of admiration for the effective immediate response of the Belgian emergency services. The regional governor (prefect?) - or perhaps the officer i/c the police control room acting on the prefect's behalf in the early stages - had directed taxis and public transport to the scene to serve as makeshift ambulances. Accommodation in hotels and guest houses was requisitioned so rescued people being landed were wrapped in blankets, bundled into a vehicle and quickly distributed to what we'd call "places of safety" throughout the area. Triage at the waterside enabled those needing hospital treatment to be taken there by emergency ambulance. The result was probably more people saved from the effects of the extreme cold, but at the expense of their whereabouts being unclear. I don't know about now, but in those days there was nobody with the unquestioned authority here to say "I'm in charge." On a smaller scale, it's the same in a case like this.

[[XAP]Bob]

Although given the regularity and predictability of some motorway traffic jams and the potential for them anywhere, I am surprised that parents don't cater for this when taking kids on motorways. I carry enough to cope with any such likelihood: Are parents not expected to be responsible for their children's well-being any more?

How much time *do* you cater for?

I was fortunate enough to be on my own, and adult. I can cope with a few hours without food...
But if you were doing a ten mile trip - how many hours worth of food do you take?

Because if on every little trip you take enough food and entertainment for 7+ hours then I'd suggest you are over prepared, and probably wasting food and fuel...
Particularly when you note that many of those trips would be to go and eat somewhere (like home)...

Well it's not likely to be "every little trip" as most people don't go to their local shops via the motorway. I use motorways as part of travelling large distances and so will take a day's supply of consumables and water and will organise to break the journey. When I have travelled with kids, we'd certainly be taking a picnic. At a minimum there is always biscuits, water, tea/coffee/sugar and a means of heating water in the car (plus blankets, FA kit, change of clothing etc) in the car.

The seven hour jam wasn't on a motorway - it was on an A road, the journey my friend was taking was only ten minutes... so it really does have to be every journey...

And yes, what comes out is inconvenient, but if you are stationary (handbrake on) for seven hours I think you can walk to the hard shoulder without significant difficulty...

[Cyril Haearn]

I do love the M62, the four lanes uphill by Huddersfield and the bit over the fells. Turned off there once and had a nice noisy walk by a leet

Then by Manchester one at last gets Radio Cymru

[thirdcrank]

...

What do others think of this idea of taking away the 'hard shoulder' and replacing it with 'refuges' every 1½ miles or so? ...

I think that if a completely new motorway were being built now and where land availability wasn't a limiting factor, then it would be built with at least four running lanes and no hard-shoulder, part time or otherwise.

I think significant changes in the available technology make this OK. The kit can detect abnormal traffic flows quickly and closed-circuit TV means the controllers can usually see immediately what's going on. They have the means to display quite detailed information on signs and can immediately impose mandatory, camera-enforced, speed restrictions and lane-closures.

Around here, at least, the four-lane, no hard-shoulder upgrade of the M1 was unsuccessfully opposed by the police on safety grounds. On reflection, I can't help thinking that this was partly because the whole "smart motorway concept" involved a role change for motorway patrols. Once upon a time, the police at the scene dictated to the control room what should be done in the way of signals etc., simply because they were the only people with any real knowledge of the situation. Not any more. The control room now has an overview which would be impossible for anybody standing at the scene.

This has coincided with a big reduction in police traffic patrols, especially motorway police. Around here, the motorway unit had a chief inspector in charge, reporting to the senior officers of the traffic division. Under him, the MU had four teams working shifts, each with its own inspector and sergeants, with admin, back at the ranch. All gone, replaced by Highways Officers with no tradition of saying what's going to happen.

[Abradable Chin]

MJR> Why only deal with the symptom (moving people around) and not the sickness (people feeling they must travel so much)?

I believe the roots of our travelling frequently and long distances lie in the abundance of higher education, the disintegration of families, crazy land prices, and the pull of cities. I can't see any of these causes diminishing unless there is a real shock, in which case, we might end up with only Fred Flintstone cars.

Falling Down: no, but Network: maybe.
[youtube]WINDtlPXmmE[/youtube]

[mjr]

Reopening this inspired by a comment from elsewhere:

And I thought there was supposed to be a moratorium on all 'smart' conversions which have now been proven to be dangerous. So what's going on?

When was that proven by whom? Even motoring lobbyists like the RAC as recently as this summer only say that motorists feel smart motorways are dangerous, while acknowledging that injury collision rates have actually fallen by over 20% on them. They call for them to be changed in various ways but do not call them more dangerous. https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driv ... motorways/

Really, all motorways and expressways are dangeous because undertrained undermonitored and underpoliced drivers are steering large heavy metal vehicles around at 70mph or sometimes much faster, often faster than can react to and sometimes faster than they can see. Adding a few more reminder signs, monitoring and enforcement cameras seems to me like it should improve safety!

The main thing they seem to be dangerous to are politicians' election chances, because they are so unpopular.

The pause in expansion for a safety review ended in April 2021, with an added requirement for radar detection of stopped vehicles, according to https://www.nationalworld.com/lifestyle ... es-3208547

I have mixed feelings about them. As a motorist, I like how fewer people speed wildly on them, how jams are reduced and that more cameras should eventually tame or remove criminal drivers. As a cyclist, I dislike how they increase road capacity which will induce more motor traffic and worsen roads feeding the motorways for cycling.

[thirdcrank]

In any discussion about road safety in the UK, it's worth remembering that this is only measured in terms of "injury accidents" which, increasingly means when there's death or life-threatening injury. Artics pirouetting across both carriageways are "safe" if nobody gets hurt.

At least one of the fatal crashes which led to campaigning and controversy, followed a minor collision when those involved stopped in the first lane to exchange details. That can be dodgy even where there's a hard shoulder but it's dangerous on the motorway carriageway, even with the red X closing the lane.

I do wonder, therefore, whether there are any plans to change the duties imposed on drivers involved in collisions so they can stop in a refuge, always assuming their vehicle is not immobilised.

Beyond that, the reality doesn't match the spin. I understand and support the concept that traffic on a crowded motorway should be moving more slowly, but around here (M62 with flexible hard shoulder, M1 south of Leeds with 4 lanes, no hard shoulder) the variable speed limit is often set at a speed higher than the typical traffic. At best, that's pointless and at worst it encourages drivers to believe they should be going faster.

[[XAP]Bob]

I was fortunate enough to be on my own, and adult. I can cope with a few hours without food...

For me, and I guess for many others of my generation, it's what 'comes out' rather than what 'goes in' that is often the problem. OK I can cope with the lack of privacy, but without a hard shoulder to manoeuvre onto, where can I stop - even if it's only for a minute?

As it happens the friend of mine who was only a few cars behind me had been shopping, so we did end up supplying various people with, amongst other things, loo roll.