|
Well, I think they're ridiculous. The amount of money and space spent on building refuges at certain intervals may as well be spent on just making the whole thing a bit wider and having a hard shoulder.
They're probably not statistically all that dangerous, but why introduce a new risk? I also think they fail to ease congestion because nobody in their right mind would drive in lane 1 at anything above 40.
|
|
The only positive is that cars have become far more reliable with many fewer breakdowns.
In the good old days (holiday season), the motorway hard shoulder would be littered with overheated steaming vehicles. Smart motorways would have seen carnage.
They are a cheapskate way to increase road capacity. Poorly implemented with too few refuges, and inadequate monitoring of traffic flows. Illuminated information signs are often ignored - they take too long to update, or report incidents cleared hours or days ago.
Personally - on smart motorways I usually drive in lane 2.
|
Personally - on smart motorways I usually drive in lane 2.
Which is one of the issues with them - people don't drive in them properly.
The two other issues the slow updating of the signs and the lack of refuge points should have been dealt with before they were built.
|
|
You have just admitted driving in the wrong lane, not sure if you realised that and it is people like you who I often pass while on being on an empty lane 1.
|
You have just admitted driving in the wrong lane, not sure if you realised that and it is people like you who I often pass while on being on an empty lane 1.
Think you meant to respond to Terry W - although he knows he driving wrongly.
|
|
|
|
The amount of money and space spent on building refuges at certain intervals may as well be spent on just making the whole thing a bit wider and having a hard shoulder.
Easily said. Less easily done, especially if the extra strip of adjacent land is expensive or simply unavailable. Replacing every bridge with wider ones doesn't come cheap either.
|
|
|
nobody in their right mind would drive in lane 1 at anything above 40.
Personally - on smart motorways I usually drive in lane 2.
Which are precisely the sort of problems that prevent them from being effective. I loved them when they were first introduced, the muppets wouldn't use the inside lane, which left it available to me to cruise along at a legal 70MPH. Now you see lots of us cruising down the inside lane, undertaking!
Now we need to convince the lane blockers that 'zip merging' is legal.
|
|
Pity the software controlling the "Smart" bit is unreliable. Or the hardware is. As for not updating in real time... ATC can do it, banks can do it...Nectar does it..
Real time it should run 24/7 without failure with duplicate facilities in event of failure. Pretty sure they do not have that necessity.
|
|
|
Which are precisely the sort of problems that prevent them from being effective. I loved them when they were first introduced, the muppets wouldn't use the inside lane, which left it available to me to cruise along at a legal 70MPH. Now you see lots of us cruising down the inside lane, undertaking!
Now we need to convince the lane blockers that 'zip merging' is legal.
Using lane 1 of a smart motorway is a little like driving with a wheel nut missing, or a couple of bald tyres, or a worn track rod end.
Most journeys will be completed without incident - but why knowingly increase the risks.
The smart thing to have done with smart motorways would have been to ensure they were smart - refuges, decent traffic flow monitoring, signs that worked properly etc.
An idea that may have had some merit woefully and crassly implemented.
I make no apology for preferring lane 2!
Edited by Terry W on 21/06/2024 at 10:47
|
|
<< I make no apology for preferring lane 2!
No surprise there - very few drivers apologise for their habits, even if they may seem wrong to others -:)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I think they're ridiculous. The amount of money and space spent on building refuges at certain intervals may as well be spent on just making the whole thing a bit wider and having a hard shoulder.
If widening the motorway was easy they'd have done it. If it needed more land then it risks getting bogged down in planning, getting CPO etc.
Massive roadworks currently on the M1 where they're inserting extra refuges becuase of the stupidity of previous designs leaving them way too far apart.
|
Massive roadworks currently on the M1 where they're inserting extra refuges becuase of the stupidity of previous designs leaving them way too far apart.
Not sure if they're even doing that, between 13 and 10 it looks like renewing the central divide.
Course in a sane world they would have put extra refuges in while all the equipment etc was in place while building the current smart sections over the past 5/10 years, but then smart only applies to the motorway sections not necessarily those running the show.
Apart from anything else said refuges are all far too short, OK for a couple of cars but once a truck is in place there's no room for a second one.
|
Not sure if they're even doing that, between 13 and 10 it looks like renewing the central divide.
Work I was referring to is north of 16 (and prob south as well). Same on parts of the M6.
50 through the works. Feels slow but in reality effect on point to point times over a decent distance isn't massive.
|
|
The other issue with refuges is they aren't long enough to get up speed to join the inside lane.
One north of Sheffield has been highlighted following a serious accident where a car leaving was hit as it is actually a blind bend and anyone leaving can't see what is approaching.
You are supposed to request assistance and the highways officer or police will close the inside lane to enable a safe exit. Stopping to empty a full bladder is a seriously bad idea.
Edited by daveyjp on 23/06/2024 at 16:54
|
The other issue with refuges is they aren't long enough to get up speed to join the inside lane.
One north of Sheffield has been highlighted following a serious accident where a car leaving was hit as it is actually a blind bend and anyone leaving can't see what is approaching.
You are supposed to request assistance and the highways officer or police will close the inside lane to enable a safe exit. Stopping to empty a full bladder is a seriously bad idea.
You're supposed to call the control centre from the adjacent phone, they then close lane 1 with a red X and allow you to rejoin the motorway - like any aspect of our roads, if people don't use them properly things can go wrong.
|
|
Who has received detailed instructions how to operate a vehicle on Smart Motorways?
Like by email , or poster?
Or seen signs at motorway entrances?
People do no know as there has been no education. Or if there has, I have missed it,
|
Who has received detailed instructions how to operate a vehicle on Smart Motorways?
People do no know as there has been no education. Or if there has, I have missed it,
I've been banging on about this for ages. When Smart M/way and All Lane Running was introduced there should have been updates to the Highway Code and a blitz of public inforamtion films inserts with VED reminders etc.
|
|
|
Who has received detailed instructions how to operate a vehicle on Smart Motorways?
Like by email , or poster?
Or seen signs at motorway entrances?
People do no know as there has been no education. Or if there has, I have missed it,
Have heard radio adverts/seen some info on gantry signs as well as some adverts to read whilst using the urinals at some motorway services!
|
|
|
Who has received detailed instructions how to operate a vehicle on Smart Motorways?
You shouldn't need to. You drive on the left, unless overtaking, or signage states otherwise.
|
Who has received detailed instructions how to operate a vehicle on Smart Motorways?
You shouldn't need to. You drive on the left, unless overtaking, or signage states otherwise.
There is a local junction where one lane is straight ahead, two lanes turn right.
For some reason the right hand of these two lanes invariably has a queue of up to ten cars waiting for the lights to change, I use the empty left lane of the two and maybe one or two will follow me to the stop line to be in front of the 'right lane' queue-ers.
Leading up to this junction is half a mile of bus-lane, which blue signs show that it only applies at morning and evening rush-hours, Monday to Friday.
Most drivers are very unobservant (or so illiterate) they studiously trundle along the right lane avoiding the empty bus-lane.
The driving test (assuming they have passed that) doesn't seem to cover such situations.
Edited by galileo on 11/07/2024 at 13:04
|
You shouldn't need to. You drive on the left, unless overtaking, or signage states otherwise.
I think the issue is more about 'what to do if' situations.
For a long time people seemed not to understand that a red cross means lane closed. I was on the M25 a few years ago, smart section east side, and nearside lane was closed. Highways Agency guy was a couple of hundred metres short of the accident flagging people out.
Don't stop in an active lane unless it's unavoidable - like a seized engine. Even if you can only trundle along in first gear get it to the emergency lay by if you can. Same with a minor accident. One of the well publicised fatalities was where people stopped in the live lane to exchange details.
|
people stopped in the live lane to exchange details.
I came across this situation on a dual carriageway stopping all traffic. I was around a dozen cars back. I got out and confirmed no-one was injured. Got the cars moved to the LH lane and by the time I walked back to my car, the ones behind were tooting aggressively, because my car was now blocking a lane!
|
For a long time people seemed not to understand that a red cross means lane closed.
A worrying statistic
Almost a third of road users do not know what to do when they see a Red X sign displayed, the Highways Agency’s 2014 National Road User Survey shows. Around one in twelve said they would stop if they saw a Red X.
www.gov.uk/government/news/red-x-means-dont-drive-...e
|
For a long time people seemed not to understand that a red cross means lane closed.
A worrying statistic
Almost a third of road users do not know what to do when they see a Red X sign displayed, the Highways Agency’s 2014 National Road User Survey shows. Around one in twelve said they would stop if they saw a Red X.
www.gov.uk/government/news/red-x-means-dont-drive-...e
Only yesterday I was in a stream of traffic moving through a traffic light controlled junction. The i**** in front of me suddenly stopped dead: there was a pedestrian on the pavement patiently waiting for the lights to change.
Clearly propaganda about 'giving way to pedestrians' was completely misunderstood by the driver who stopped.
These problems are due mainly to many of the population being not very bright. The ever wider Nanny state treatment from childhood causes this or makes it worse.
|
|
There are so many issues with "smart" motorways (where to begin?) that they should never have got off the ground.
1. Lanes are not wide enough as it is. It takes so long to get through planning, purchase of land etc. that a section of M'way designed as 3 lanes or 4 lanes is never realistically going to be widened. Once traffic flow builds up, the use of the hard shoulder as a stopgap measure is always going to cause resistance: car drivers disbelieve or disobey the signage and an inattentive HGV driver correctly using the hard shoulder/running/live lane (the lane eschewed by car drivers!) simply cannot move to lane 2, or slow down 44 tonnes, with the agility of a car. Car drivers are largely ignorant of the dynamics of a 44 tonne HGV.
2. Lane markings cannot be magically changed to steer drivers away from a hazard, and the red Xs overhead are often ignored or simply don't register in some drivers' vision. I'd dread to think how much a new set of LED-based dynamic lane markings ("smart cats' eyes"?), capable of re-shaping and merging or disening lanes as needed would cost across the whole M'way network, but they might provide a safer solution, especially at night and in rain.
3. The "clutter" of information from signs, especially constantly changing speed limits, exit signs, warnings of merging traffic and slip roads, service areas, local tourist attractions etc. distract drivers from important new information such as a lane closing/closed.
4. Most drivers are not open to the idea of zip merging, and 4 lanes into 3 simply won't work. Queuing is such a sacred social issue that a lot of drivers would rather run someone off the road or write both cars off, rather than let another driver get past. Conversely, pushy aggressive drivers are always looking for a chance to get ahead any way they can.
5. The "spotting" of broken down vehicles, be it by computers or human observers, and the ensuing lane closures, warning signs, speed reductions cannot be 100% reliable. There is no way to guarantee a safe "bubble" around a breakdown and avoid any kind of incident, and it will be years before all vehicles on the road are equipped with the necessary collision avoidance technology to prevent pile-ups.
6. The most obvious point of all is that the lack of a hard shoulder impedes access by emergency vehicles and immediately puts lives in danger. That alone should have stopped the i****ic project before it started.
|
|
Hasn't Starmer (or whoever the transport minister is) waved his magic wand and got rid of these yet?
|
|
I'll dismiss your previous:
1: The lanes havebeen wide enough since the motorways were first introduced.
2: If drivers can't observe signage, they shouldn't be driving. I know we all have to deal with the muppets that have somehow got access to a car!
3: See 1 & 2.
4: Has no-one read the latest issue of the highway code? Fit a dashcam!
5; I've come across several vehicles stopped in running lanes. I f they want 'Darwin awards', let them have them.
6: See 1 to 5.
|
|
|
|
The other issue with refuges is they aren't long enough to get up speed to join the inside lane.
One north of Sheffield has been highlighted following a serious accident where a car leaving was hit as it is actually a blind bend and anyone leaving can't see what is approaching.
You are supposed to request assistance and the highways officer or police will close the inside lane to enable a safe exit. Stopping to empty a full bladder is a seriously bad idea.
To update this I've recently stumbled across a youtube channel of a rescue operative and the reality of rescues on smart motorways, it is now so dangerous I can't believe he continues in his job.
It appears from his recent experience that there is now a new National Highways policy that when you need to leave an emergency refuge area you still use the phone in the layby, but it is now at the operators discretion what signage to show and whether to close the inside lane with a red cross.
If they decide it is not needed it won't happen and you are on your own. The advice therefore is if a red cross isn't activated stay with your vehicle and call the police for assistance as they can insist on a temporary lane closure to allow vehicles to exit safely.
Feedback and comments suggest Highway Agency are now measured on how often a red cross lane closure is activated and too many is bad when audited. A crazy situation.
|
|
Smart motorways were crass developments from the outset. Too few refuges, and ineffective monitoring makes them potential death traps. Only the increased reliability of cars has limited the number of accidents.
To maximise personal safety leaving a refuge, one may need to take personal action - eg:
- flashing lights. Blue ones probably illegal. Very bright red, amber or green (or a mixed light show) would at least alert oncoming traffic
- a couple of marine flares may have the same result
|
|
In a normal car you can leave a refuge safely, but it requires a simple routine that seems impossible for far too many people to manage any more, very little different to how anyone sensible would enter a fast moving road of any description from either a layby or junction.
Choose the best gap and get you boot down when you do commit, this maneuver is not one to worry about fuel usage or seeing the rev counter go above a frightening 2000rpm, don't mince out in front of oncoming vehicles then meander up the road like you are sightseeing on a country lane, none of this is hard to grasp...it helps if you open the window and look over your shoulder at the approaching traffic, the vision afforded by typically silly sized car mirrors is not good enough.
|
|
gb, you've about as much chance of getting the average driver to do that as zip merging at lane closures. Incidentally, it seems there's been prosecutions of drivers who block others from doing it.
|
gb, you've about as much chance of getting the average driver to do that as zip merging at lane closures. Incidentally, it seems there's been prosecutions of drivers who block others from doing it.
Am i howling aty the moon again? probably true.
|
|
Does that also work if you are in a flatbed with a 3.5 tonne motor home in the back?
|
Does that also work if you are in a flatbed with a 3.5 tonne motor home in the back?
It can work in a fully freighted 44 tonner too, anyone sensible will already be indicating and looking for that space which might also coincide with the approaching truck (you almost never see a car in the inside lane) being able to get into the 2nd lane which most real drivers will do anyway, our truck driver will have reversed as far back as possible into the refuge so when emerging already has a bit of momentum going.
The thing with trucks is they have decent proportioned mirrors which helps no end, i have no idea how cameras where fitted in place of mirrors compare...and have no intention of finding out :-), i was issued a brand new vehicle earlier in the year and this will be my last albeing well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
