Is there any evidence that motorways converted to four lanes with no hard-shoulder are more likely NOT to be in the SE area? The M25 AFAIK has a hard-shoulder in all four lane sections.

Is there any evidence that motorways converted to four lanes with no hard-shoulder are more likely NOT to be in the SE area? The M25 AFAIK has a hard-shoulder in all four lane sections.

I don't think you could stand up a conspiracy.......

The SE is (geographically) quite limited but is usually taken to include Buckinghamshire. Most of the section of the M1 south of J15 currently being converted to 'smart' is in Bucks. There are also sections of the M1 in Bedfordshire that are all lane running.

As well as the M3 and M27 mentioned above sections of the M20 are also being converted. Not sure what's planned for the M4 or M11. I also suspect any further modification to the M25 will remove hard shoulder.

The M4 is currently being converted, at least from London down to the M5. If I recall, I think it's due for completion in about 2-3 years - I've come across lots of roadworks in conjunction with the upgrade on my travels to the West Country (going on holiday) over the last 2 years, especially this year.

Bad move all-around in my view. I do not have any confidence that 100% (it only takes one driver to forget, not understand [foreign drivers] or not bother and you're potentially dead) of drivers would adhere to the matrix signs when someone has broken down in lane 1.

Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life -

That happens quite often - like the NHS deciding if a certain drug is value for money or not. Or if all roads should be limited to 30mph - that would bring death rates down a lot.

If they were personally held responsible for their decisions I don't think they would have been so keen.

Sadly this is all to often the case in many situations, (especially when they are likely to personally benefit very handsomely from their actions)?

Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life -

That happens quite often - like the NHS deciding if a certain drug is value for money or not. Or if all roads should be limited to 30mph - that would bring death rates down a lot.

I'm surprised that our Nanny State 'Chief Medical Officer' (who just said eating food and drink [apart from water] on public transport should be banned for health reasons [bad enough, love to know how they would enforce that]) hasn't advocated a return to the man (or woman) walking in front of cars waving a red flag.

Maybe we should all work from home and never venture out. Maybe we should all go back to living in mud huts and caves - that would also 'save the planet'

I give up.

Yet you don't like the idea of smart motorways because some people won't use them properly...but also don't like a 'nanny state'. Surely a smart motorway would be fine for people unless you want to nanny' them?

I think the problem with the Mercer case was at least partially down to driver error.

That. Exactly.

What's needed is firstly some additions to the Highway Code to cover the specifics of All Lane Running and then a public information campaign.

I doubt the Mercer JR has any hope of success. She's so far only crowd sourced a tenth of what she needs. It's pretty high hurdle to show either ALR in general or authorisation of a specific scheme was unlawful, unreasonable or in some way proceduraly improper. And if it was found to be such the government may simply re-make the decision this time getting it right.

She may be able to show negligence in the operations room if opportunities to shut the lane were missed.But it's 'ordinary' negligence; the threshold for manslaughter is nowhere near being crossed.

I'd be very interested, indeed, to hear what the Breakdown Service Drivers think about Smart Motorways.

I think I can probably guess!

"....with the tech not able to pick up stationary vehicles for at least a minute (assuming its in range)...."

Yes, that's the point isn't it: if the Mail report is to be believed, the car was stationary for only 45 seconds before the lorry hit it. A operator can't be looking everywhere at ince, so there has to be reliance on some God-forsaken computer.

Agreed, the hard shoulder isn't the safest place to be, but it's better than the inside lane. Better still is the dedicated refuge area, but these need to be every 500 yards / metres, not 1.5 miles apart as the men in suits have decreed that they should be.

There is a fairly easy opportunity to make them much safer, and less reliant on the operators/tech detecting stranded cars.

They just need to go back to smart motorways version 1, as used on the M42. This only uses the hard shoulder at peak times. When there is enough traffic to need the fourth lane, any broken down vehicle will cause a traffic jam behind it as it rolls to a stop, so nothing will approach it at any speed so relatively safe.

When traffic is light, a blockage of one lane doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic enough to slow it down. You are then reliant on every single driver paying enough attention to avoid the broken car. The M42 solves that by that lane being closed hy default in light traffic.

These are the times when I've come across stranded vehicles with no warning on several occasions on the Yorkshire stretch of the M1, and the fourth lane wasn't needed at that time of day in the first place. As an aside, that particular stretch of motorway has always been a bit substandard in my opinion, with steeper gradients and tighter curves than pretty much anywhere else on the core motorway network.

Going back to the M42 style should be relatively simple to do, and although it doesn't produce quite as much theoretical capacity, due to the hard shoulder lane running down the exit at each junction and only 3 lanes through the junction, it works fine on the M42.

The decision appears to me at least to be a) about money, ...............

You'll be telling me the Pope is a catholic next. ;)

Millions were spent making the M3 downright dangerous in the places the hard shoulder has been removed. I dread my car having major break down and having no way to reach a refuge.

You should still be 'legging it up the bank' even if there is a hard shoulder.

What are the real numbers, over a period of time, for fatalities, life changing injuries and +minor/no injury collisions involving breakdowns on (a) All Lane Running with refuges v (b) conventional motorway with a 'hard shoulder'?

We really need to know that rather than making a judgment that they are downright dangerous - however much it seems 'common sense'. As already mentioned the hard shoulder is not a safe place and significant numbers have been killed on them every year since they first appeared in the sixties.

If your car is suddenly rendered utterly imobile in lane 3 then smart running is neither here nor there. You're stopped in a running lane. If your lucky and have enough residual energy and other's make way you might I suppose make the hard shoulder but no certainty and that in itself may be a downright dangerous manoeuvre. No definite numbers but I'd wager that the number of 'dead stop' breakdowns is only a small proportion. The vast majority could make a refuge even if driving with a priority warning light (the sort that light the STOP annunciator on Eg PSA cars) or a flat tyre.

Jason Mercer and Dev Naran died in circumstances where there was no apparent need to stop in a live lane. Even if we bult no more smart m/way and abandoned those planned we've still got hundreds of miles od permanent or part time all lane running. Government needs to crack on with an amend to the Highway Code, a public information blitz on what to do on Smart M/way in case of breakdown/minor accident and to add refuges if gaps are, in some schemes, too long (and I think they are).

Well publicised convictions for those stopping where cause is running out of fuel would be another plus.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 16/10/2019 at 13:27

What are the real numbers, over a period of time, for fatalities, life changing injuries and +minor/no injury collisions involving breakdowns on (a) All Lane Running with refuges v (b) conventional motorway with a 'hard shoulder'?

Agreed - this is the info we need first before anything else is done. Would be interesting to know how many cars do come to a complete stop as well without being able to drive further even at reduced speed as I don't think most cars even when failing do come to a total halt all of a sudden.

In response to Bromp's comment, for cars coming to a rapid halt from the outside lane, it's far easier trying to quickly move over three lane to a continuous hard should than to either just stop in the original lane or hop that the vehicle makes it to the next refuge (assuming it's not already being used).

I agree that far better driver awareness of their own vehicle's condition should be taught and a lack thereof taken seriously by the authorities. This includes ensuring that all UK drivers are capable of knowing all the rules of the road - I wonder how many from abroad have either taken a test or our DoT has bothered to check the standard of those nation's driving exams?

'Smart' motorways are still relatively new, so we all could do with a brush up on the Highway Code, never mind people who've been driving abroad for years and may need lessons in UK laws/road rules etc.

Indeed, but the 'smart' part of the motorways can still help those stuck in the other three lanes. The ironic thing is that the more traffic and slower speeds, the less chance in a nasty RTA, but more chance of holdups because of the situation you describe.

I truly hope all the evidence does get published, not the usual whitewash/cover-up to avoid/move blame as often happens. We all just want whichever is the safest without it busting the bank. I agree that drivers also need to play their part, who contribute to most of the problems by their poor/inattentive driving.

Makes you wonder, if your car started to peg out and you were in the outside lane, would you in fact be safer personally stopping in that lane as far over as possible, where the typical traffic will be cars and vans, where the chances are the following traffic will have better visibility past the vehicle in front, generally narrower more agile vehicles who could move over easier, than stopping on the inside lane where most traffic is likely to be lorries...again i re-iterate, the lead lorry should see you without any issues if he's awake and attentive, its the ones following him, often tailgating (which already describes the skill of the individual), who may see the broken down vehicle too late.

Not saying anyone should do this out of choice, just wondering if your chances of escaping unscathed are theoretically better in the outside lane, if your car should get hit it would be by a light'ish vehicle with better stopping power than the admittedly probably slower travelling but 20 times as heavy (and no crumple zones) HGV.

Just thinking aloud here, but wouldn't be surprised if people have deliberately chosen this action as the lesser of two evils, knowing they would have a valid excuse as unable to cross the traffic with a rapidly slowing vehicle.

The obvious downside is that you have nowhere to run to.

There is some guidance on driving here:

www.gov.uk/guidance/how-to-drive-on-a-smart-motorw...y

And some justifications here

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/safety-on-smart-motorways

I remain sceptical

Trouble is you get two + tonne Transit sized vans doing 70mph + in outside lanes- and often using phones if my observations are valid..(or a Bentley/large Mercedes doing 80+)

Or coaches in a hurry.

More depressing reading on this subject here;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-7507769/Deaths-UK-motorways-8-Highways-England-says-smart-routes-safe.html

A Mr Richard Leonard is apparently Highways England’s Head of Road Safety.

Anyone got his email address ?

Why depressing - we are the 3rd safest country in the world according to the bottom graph.

The stats show a decrease in casualties on smart motorways after conversion from ones with hard shoulder. This is counterintuitive but I think we should follow the data. It's a 25% decrease, which is significant.

It certainly is - yet most people are saying they are more dangerous...always worrying when people allow their own thoughts to override facts.

More depressing reading on this subject here;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-7507769/Deaths-UK-motorways-8-Highways-England-says-smart-routes-safe.html

The depressing thing is that like so much of the Mail's reportage it mixes fact and opinion with no visible differentiation. An 8% increase from a start point of around a hundred could be down to just a couple of nasty smashes - fog pile ups for example.

Is there ANY evidence to show that 8% increase has anything to do with smart motorways?

A Mr Richard Leonard is apparently Highways England’s Head of Road Safety.

Anyone got his email address ?

richard.leonard@(organistion).gov.uk usually works for government but I'd imagine Mr Leonard will have a PA to divert operational queries to the responsible team.

Quite interesting the discussion stopped when facts show the smart motorways are not as dangerous as people are making out

Various people from Highways England gave evidence to the Commons Transport Committee earlier this week.

Account from Daily Wail is here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7606327/Highways-England-pulls-plug-new-smart-motorways.html

Spoiler: The article doesn't say what the url suggests

For those who prefer to go to the source for information the Committee's page, including a link to the hearing, is here:

https://tinyurl.com/yxomgq2r (tiny url used as url on gov website is over long)

HAven't had chance to watch it yet so no opinion to offer on the content.

Quite interesting the discussion stopped when facts show the smart motorways are not as dangerous as people are making out

No - it's more like people have said all they need to, and besides, there's another article critical of smart motorways in today's Telegraph. Today's 'facts' are often open to interpretation in the current post-truth world and the current 'climate'.

I suspect that at most, the figures show that the increased road capacity has lead to less deaths caused by (and of) people irresponsibly driving too close together at high speed, but at the expense of innocent people who were unfortunate to have a breakdown and who don't get to safety in time because operators form the Highways Agency didn't spot them soon enough.

The other problem is that each road is different - some will undoubtedly have more HGVs running on them, some are renowned for bad weather in certain parts, some are busier at odd times of the day due to local factors such as nearby 24/7 large employers having odd shift-change hours.

Smart motorways may work in some areas and not others, or only at certain times of the day and/or in certain weather conditions. I also don't think it helped at all that how to use them and their more widespread introduction was not more widely publicised, relying on drivers themselves to look up what to do/changes. This would be especially true for foreign drivers (especially HGV drivers) who may not be aware of any of this, never mind what the impact is.

Having been taken to task regarding overhead gantries and my obvious lack of observational skills I am still left contemplating. The argument put forward that because nothing was observed it could well have been a problem earlier. Nothing to dispute there. Except one of my points was that the signs are clearly not updated in real time. if the problem has gone, then switch the signs off or alter the information. Simples. The gantries have the potential to be very useful and personally I do follow their instructions to be extra safe. But very many don't. Apart from the usual amount of idiots, most people I speak to don't trust the information given. A problem for the Highways Agency methinks.

Interesting today that the government and the highways people are imposing a moratorium on smart motorway development in view of recent tragic events. This is course flies in the face oblast weeks accepted wisdom. Time will tell.

Cheers Concrete

Indeed - and many people won't trust that signage unless it's proven to be accurate and up to date. I've seen drivers completely ignore the red 'move over' and cross (lane closed) matrix signs because they believe they are either out of date or can see far enough ahead to know when to pull over (if at all).

I suspect that the moratorium has come about because the politicians don't want any more negative press copverage, whether it's justified or not. To me, that shows either they don't trust their own Civil Servants' figures (surely if they did [or had the ability/know-how to understand them] they would defend them) or they would rather keep the status quo because it means their department won't be blamed for accidents - only bad drivers.

Today's 'facts' are often open to interpretation in the current post-truth world

I always take that to mean people believe what they want to think no matter what the actual facts are.

Perhaps, but it's also that those in positions of authority/power also take advantage of that in an increasing number of cases to put out falsehoods or exaggerations to justify their own agendas under the guise of 'official facts'.

As we often see, it's very easy to rig surveys or reports to get the answer you want if you know what questions to ask or how to frame them, especially when those commissioning the reports/polls already know the answer and want a skewed new one to muddy the waters.

For example, I receieved a letter from my MP about putting our views about the local cottage hospital, amongst other aspects of local healthcare, and the online questionairre had many loaded questions about chosing ONLY this or that, rather than improving how the system works to get more for less, despite it being framed as a way to make the system 'more cost effective'.

Government studies and reports are notorious for doing this sort of thing. Opinion polls with loaded questions are also very similar, and why an increasing number of people distrust them and say 'No thnaks' to participating, even when it's proven they are a genuine polling firm conducting a non-marketing poll.

People are far more skeptical and distrusting these days, and for good reason.

Friday is "bury bad news at 5.00pm " day..

Always read teh late news on Friday websites.. amazing what you read..

I find reading The Guardian and Th Telegraph gives two often widely conflicting "facts" about the same story - often teh numbers at a rally/protest.. Both sides seek to maximise / minimise numbers attending to support their own viewpoint.. I learned this in the 1960s as a student.. so nothing new ...

Sadly, the days of separated (genuine) factual news reporting and commentary/opinion have practically gone - very few articles, from any MSM paper are genuinely just factual reporting.

In my experience as a long term subscriber to the Telegraph, this, in my view changed from when the Barclay Bros took over, going for clicks by (I think) deliberately including some (and now increasing) number of leftist/woke/activist/feminist/columnist journalists rather than 'just journalists'.

You can normally tell who they are because after getting absolutely trashed by readers pointing out their bias and idiotic opinions, their articles now do not come with comments sections below. I should note that The Guardian pulled ALL reader commentary years ago, likely because their free online service meant that right-of-centre people logged in to do very much the same by destorying their arguments and pointing out biases, not just on opinion pieces but on supposed 'factual news' reporting too.

It's got so bad in the MSM that I'm a hair's width away from cancelling my Telegraph subscription. I just wish we could go back to mainly factual reporting (and no sensationalism like on the TV News) with SOME separate opinion/commentary from staffers where readers can comment/discuss, rather than professional trolls now making a mockery of such areas on major issues so that real debate is crushed.

I remember when I was at school/college (late 80s to mid 90s) that you could essentially pick up ANY broadsheet newspaper and not get much bias if you stayed away from the Opinion section and obvious political pieces. I believe I know what kicked off all these changes...in 1997.

Some smaller scale independent media firms are sort of filling the void, but the MSM and their establishment friends are trying to stop them by getting them deplatformed, smeared or having funding removed via their chums in the finance world.

Post-truth world indeed. People in the media (and more widely) used to lie occasionally, now it appears to be accepted normal practice because 'their agenda' is more important than saying/reporting the actual truth.

People are far more skeptical and distrusting these days, and for good reason.

People tend to believe things without a full understanding of things though - just look at child vaccination levels which are decreasing despite them being shown again and again to be safe. People are afraid that an ingredient in a vaccination could be Formaldehyde which they see as a dangerous chemical even though it's perfectly safe as it's an incredibly low dose and your own body produces Formaldehyde in higher doses than the vaccines. Or that they can contain mercury - although they never do - they contain ethylmercury which is a safe form of mercury which reacts differently. People not understanding and thinking they are being sceptical means children are and will continue to die from diseases that were being controlled and eradicated.

bad example// Crowded surgeries, delays etc are equally to blame - a report today says..

Having said that, I give taster sessions to aspriing beekeepers.. At one, I talked about treatment for bee diseases.. Up pipes a woman.."I don't believe in vaccination and what you are doing to bees is wrong" and then quoted stats on vaccnbation (I looked them up later - they were US stats,, so irrelevant)..

I basically said "we're here to talk about keeping bees, your views on human vaccination are irrelevant and what are you doing here if you apparently know so much about beekeeping ? She shut up and I have never seen her again. Rude and ignorant and aggressive and a cultist.. - is my summary of her:-)

Today's 'facts' are often open to interpretation in the current post-truth world

I always take that to mean people believe what they want to think no matter what the actual facts are.

It is a sad indictment of our current 'ruling classes' which seems to be the norm. I have long found when dealing with 'officialdom' that if they didn't think of it first, then no matter how good an idea is it will not be adopted. They think it will make them look stupid if they change their mind in favour of a better idea. The reverse is the truth, but the truth always gets in the way of an official diktat. They will make any information or statistic fit their current position.

I don't wish to slur any diligent and capable local government employees, but the fact of the matter was, when I left school, all the lads that didn't do too well ended up working for the local council. Their wages then were below average but of course the pension was very good if you stayed the course. Some of my contemporaries although nice, decent lads were not the sharpest tools in the box so I can only imagine how they coped with decision making. Although it was usually done through a committee to eleviate the possibility of personal responsibility I suspect. It seems nothing much has changed.

Cheers Concrete