No new Smart Motorways

[dealtn]

I simply do not accept that a four lane no hard shoulder motorway is going to be safer then. Three lane motorway with a hard shoulder.

Dod

Your original post, to which i replied, was of you saying you can't see how they could be safer. I merely showed you that "how" to which you appear to have now conceded you understand how this might be so.

I have made no comment whether they are safer, or dangerous, in aggregate, nor whether such alternative riskiness is down to their poor design, implementation, or use.

[Spet0789]

Let me try again.

A road with no cars on it, and zero density, has zero chance of an accident on it. A road packed with cars has almost zero traffic flow and close to zero chance of an accident. Any such accident will be low impact and non-fatal.

Between those 2 extremes lie a "curve" of increasing probability of accidents, and fatality outcomes, rising from both sides, until the point they meet to make a single curve.

Changing from a 4 lane smart motorway (with no hard shoulder) to that same road space now used as a 3 lane non-smart motorway with a hard shoulder, changes the density of that road space, and the position on its probability "curve".

This is not a discussion that is going to get either of us very far but in your example, I guess it depends, as always.If you leave out any reference to a hard shoulder I would agree with you, assuming of course that we have the same volume of traffic trying to use the one road as the other but a very high density use is as you have said, going to slow the traffic such that the chances of a serious accident is very low. And of course you appear to have omitted the benefit of the hard shoulder on the here lane motorway. It was not on grounds of safety that the so called Smart motorway was introduced anyway, but to try to improve the traffic flow, which, in your example, will increase the chances of an accident anyway. I simply do not accept that a four lane no hard shoulder motorway is going to be safer then. Three lane motorway with a hard shoulder.

Dod

Frankly I think you’re both arguing about a non-issue.

All-lane running (ie using a former hard shoulder as a running lane all the time) is no doubt more dangerous than having a hard shoulder. However, unless we find a few bn down the back of the sofa to built additional lanes, that’s irrelevant.

The key question is whether these are a reasonably safe way of adding capacity, given finite resources. I have seen no evidence that smart motorways are more dangerous than alternative non-motorway roads. As has been said, we have had roads without hard shoulders (and without any ‘smart’ monitoring) for years.

By a parallel, after 9/11, lots of Americans got scared of flying and drove instead. There was an appreciable increase in road deaths, enough to have offset 9/11 becoming an annual event in terms of passenger fatalities.

Similarly, I would be prepared to bet that more people will die on the other roads they will be forced to take to avoid increased congeestion on the non-smart motorways, than would have died if these smart motorways were constructed.

[Redmires]

There was a BBC Panorama a couple of years ago on the subject. The really dangerous 'smart' motorways are the elevated sections. One driver had broken down in the inside lane. On normal motorways at least there's a chance of diving out of the passenger door to the safety of the grass banking. On an elevated section, you can't open the passenger door as your up against the wall. There's a 30ft drop on the other side of the wall and there's nowhere to escape to.

[MrFoolish]

And let me say that I can think of two places (the M4/M5 interchange and the Walsall area of the southbound M6) where the peak traffic queues were so legendary that nobody in their right mind would ever want them back.

Yes, this is very true. The M6 used to be appallingly congested. The smart motorway now in place is far from perfect but at least the traffic now flows. At least you now can make reasonable progress and are not falling asleep from hours of sitting in stationary traffic.

I get the impression some here complaining about the smart motorways have little experience of the nightmare that preceded them.

[JohnB]

I am very surprised that the AA want existing smart motorways downgraded. Loosing so much existing capacity on our motorway network would be a disaster. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65294356

[CliffEdge]

If smart motorways are safer why aren't they building any more of them?

[Crazbe7]

If smart motorways are safer why aren't they building any more of them?

Hysteria

[tjh290633]

Since the current refuge areas replace the old hard shoulder, surely the obvious answer is to join them up into a new hard shoulder. It needs a little bit more land, which may not be available everywhere, but where it is, like on most of the M23, why not do that?

TJH

[JohnB]

Er, bridges, culverts, ancillary structures, re-profiling embankments and cuttings, new compulsory purchase orders ....

[didds]

Since the current refuge areas replace the old hard shoulder, surely the obvious answer is to join them up into a new hard shoulder. It needs a little bit more land, which may not be available everywhere, but where it is, like on most of the M23, why not do that?

TJH

then they can create a 5th lane eventually!!

[Spet0789]

Since the current refuge areas replace the old hard shoulder, surely the obvious answer is to join them up into a new hard shoulder. It needs a little bit more land, which may not be available everywhere, but where it is, like on most of the M23, why not do that?

TJH

then they can create a 5th lane eventually!!

We don’t have the cash!

[XFool]

Since the current refuge areas replace the old hard shoulder, surely the obvious answer is to join them up into a new hard shoulder. It needs a little bit more land, which may not be available everywhere, but where it is, like on most of the M23, why not do that?

then they can create a 5th lane eventually!!

It's starting to remind me of men's razor blades...

[didds]

then they can create a 5th lane eventually!!

We don’t have the cash!

all those new maths teachers from those 17 year olds studying forced advanced long division paying all that extra PAYE will cover the costs I'm sure

[Dod101]

Since the current refuge areas replace the old hard shoulder, surely the obvious answer is to join them up into a new hard shoulder. It needs a little bit more land, which may not be available everywhere, but where it is, like on most of the M23, why not do that?

TJH

It will also take a whole lot of time, but in view of the support for the Smart motorway from some here I was surprised to read in my newspaper of what seems to be widespread support from motorists for the Government's action in stopping them, to the extent that some want what is now the inside lane 1 to revert to the hard shoulder but I can imagine that that would cause a huge amount of confusion.

Dod

[tjh290633]

Since the current refuge areas replace the old hard shoulder, surely the obvious answer is to join them up into a new hard shoulder. It needs a little bit more land, which may not be available everywhere, but where it is, like on most of the M23, why not do that?

TJH

It will also take a whole lot of time, but in view of the support for the Smart motorway from some here I was surprised to read in my newspaper of what seems to be widespread support from motorists for the Government's action in stopping them, to the extent that some want what is now the inside lane 1 to revert to the hard shoulder but I can imagine that that would cause a huge amount of confusion.

Dod

Probably little more than painting the surface a different colour, like the current refuges, and a bit of signage.

TJH

[Mike4]

It strikes me the problem is the monitoring regime is simply not robust enough.

If the Lane One monitoring worked reliably and there was a better method of "closing" Lane One*, smart motorways might be causing a lot fewer deaths.


* A red cross on a gantry every 3/4 of a mile is a ludicrously crude and ineffective way of closing a lane when there is a stationary vehicle in it.

[richlist]

Anyone who has got a puncture (like me) or who has broken down on a motorway with a hard shoulder will know just how scary motorways are. Just changing a wheel on a hard shoulder was enough to scare me to death. NOT having a hard shoulder doesn't bare thinking about. Perhaps the answer is run flat tyres for everyone.

[Hallucigenia]

If smart motorways are safer why aren't they building any more of them?

A government 15 points behind in the polls and this. In particular, oldies don't like them (79:11 against), whereas the young are relatively fine with them (35:38), possibly because they're the ones who actually travel at rush hour...

[Alaric]

If the Lane One monitoring worked reliably and there was a better method of "closing" Lane One*, smart motorways might be causing a lot fewer deaths. .

Not all the smart motorways are the same. What may have been a prototype, the M42 round Birmingham, is different from later designs. The inner lane has tarmac in a different colour and is signed as only for use as a congestion buster. Also the refuge areas are very frequent. Elsewhere the inner lane just looks like any, the recently completed M4 near Reading being an example.

[quelquod]

Perhaps the answer is run flat tyres for everyone.

I prefer run-on-flats for just that reason together with helping avoid loss of control on a blowout but they’re not a complete solution of course. A bad enough cut or tear in the tyre from running over an object will still cause an immediate deflation. On top of that most run-on-flat users have no spare wheel and a gash in the tyre can’t be repaired with the usual can of sealant.