No new Smart Motorways

[Breelander]

The building of new smart motorways is being cancelled as Rishi Sunak acknowledged concerns about safety and cost.

Fourteen planned smart motorways – including 11 that are already paused and three earmarked for construction – will be removed from government road-building plans, given financial pressures and in recognition of the lack of public trust.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... ys-england

[Spet0789]

Not clear this is being done for the right reasons rather than in response to a vocal group of opponents.

All roads are dangerous to a degree and I would bet that smart motorways are more dangerous than regular motorways but also far safer than other roads.

The key question is whether more congested motorways (which absent higher spending is what will follow this decision) will force more drivers onto other routes and thus increase fatalities overall.

[Dod101]

Not clear this is being done for the right reasons rather than in response to a vocal group of opponents.

All roads are dangerous to a degree and I would bet that smart motorways are more dangerous than regular motorways but also far safer than other roads.

The key question is whether more congested motorways (which absent higher spending is what will follow this decision) will force more drivers onto other routes and thus increase fatalities overall.

Irrespective of that point, so called Smart Motorways have been proven to be highly dangerous, and are clearly not the solution to motorway congestion so they are being stopped. It may be partly political but that is how things go. I think the government is making the right response. Smart Motorways are not the solution so we need to stop building them.

Dod

[MrFoolish]

When smart motorways were first introduced (under a Labour government) the refuges were quite close together. But the Tories have been building them on the cheap with the refuges much further apart. You get what you pay for.

[Mike4]

"No new smart motorways" announcement misses the point monumentally. We need lane one on the existing ones converting back to hard shoulder, surely?

The real problem is the monitoring of lane one for incidents doesn't work as intended. There was a BBC R4 programme a couple of weeks ago by a BBC employee who obtained a job in a smart motorway control room and the programme revealed the monitoring was fraught with problems, ranging from cameras that don't work to shifts for monitoring staff frequently remaining unfilled. Quite shocking and no surprise people are being killed on smart motorways.

[AF62]

Not clear this is being done for the right reasons rather than in response to a vocal group of opponents.

All roads are dangerous to a degree and I would bet that smart motorways are more dangerous than regular motorways but also far safer than other roads.

Irrespective of that point, so called Smart Motorways have been proven to be highly dangerous

Incorrect.

Smart motorways have been proven to be safer than normal 'dumb' motorways.

However the issue is that for the media it is obvious to point to someone who has been killed or injured on a smart motorway and go 'look they are dangerous', whereas it isn't possible to identify those that have been saved from being killed or injured because they are safer than normal motorways.

"No new smart motorways" announcement misses the point monumentally. We need lane one on the existing ones converting back to hard shoulder, surely?

And frankly if the lack of a hard shoulder is the issue, then shouldn't every dual carriageway in the country be closed down (or at least the speed limit reduced from the speed allowed on motorways).

[Mike4]

Smart motorways have been proven to be safer than normal 'dumb' motorways.

[/quote]

Does that include the smart motorways where the monitoring cameras are broken or there is no-one in the control room to notice a broken down vehicle and close the lane?

[AF62]

Smart motorways have been proven to be safer than normal 'dumb' motorways.

Does that include the smart motorways where the monitoring cameras are broken or there is no-one in the control room to notice a broken down vehicle and close the lane?

Are those motorways more dangerous than dual carriageways that have the same speed limits (and in many cases the volume of traffic)?

As before, if the lack of a hard-shoulder is dangerous then why is there not a campaign to close down all the dual carriageways or seriously reduce their speed limits?

[Mike4]

Does that include the smart motorways where the monitoring cameras are broken or there is no-one in the control room to notice a broken down vehicle and close the lane?

Are those motorways more dangerous than dual carriageways that have the same speed limits (and in many cases the volume of traffic)?

As before, if the lack of a hard-shoulder is dangerous then why is there not a campaign to close down all the dual carriageways or seriously reduce their speed limits?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

[JohnB]

I'm sure there are campaigners demanding dual carriageways become single ones, and others demanding 50mph speed limits, and others demanding the banning of private vehicles. You can always find campaigners.

With modern vehicles and cameras, we don't need a continuous hard shoulder. But we do need more refuges, and to convince people that sitting in a broken-down car is not preferable to standing in the rain the other side of a barrier.

But to go back from a 4 lane motorway to a 3 lane is impossible giving increasing traffic levels (and rise of the middle lane brigade).

How hard can it be to select extra points for refuges away from pinchpoints like bridges. How can that be so expensive that the Torries penny-pinched on it.

[CliffEdge]

Are those motorways more dangerous than dual carriageways that have the same speed limits (and in many cases the volume of traffic)?

As before, if the lack of a hard-shoulder is dangerous then why is there not a campaign to close down all the dual carriageways or seriously reduce their speed limits?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

Is that a good question?

[Dod101]

Irrespective of that point, so called Smart Motorways have been proven to be highly dangerous

Incorrect.

Smart motorways have been proven to be safer than normal 'dumb' motorways.

However the issue is that for the media it is obvious to point to someone who has been killed or injured on a smart motorway and go 'look they are dangerous', whereas it isn't possible to identify those that have been saved from being killed or injured because they are safer than normal motorways.

"No new smart motorways" announcement misses the point monumentally. We need lane one on the existing ones converting back to hard shoulder, surely?

And frankly if the lack of a hard shoulder is the issue, then shouldn't every dual carriageway in the country be closed down (or at least the speed limit reduced from the speed allowed on motorways).

Do you have any evidence that Smart Motorways are safer than 'dumb' ones? We do not often get vehicles being rammed from behind on 'dumb' motorways because of course there is a hard shoulder on which to take refuge, so I do not see how Smart motorways without a hard shoulder can be safer.

There is a major distinction between a motorway and a dual carriageway. Signage for a start and for the last 60 years and more, drivers have associated Motorways with clear lanes with no expectation, almost no possibility, of an obstruction with the result that illegal speeding has become the tolerated norm. We do not get that on dual carriageways very often because drivers are attuned to the possibility of an obstruction, a slowing or even stopped car, waiting to turn left or right, usually at traffic lights which are of course non existent on Motorways.

Dod

[AF62]

Incorrect.

Smart motorways have been proven to be safer than normal 'dumb' motorways.

However the issue is that for the media it is obvious to point to someone who has been killed or injured on a smart motorway and go 'look they are dangerous', whereas it isn't possible to identify those that have been saved from being killed or injured because they are safer than normal motorways.

And frankly if the lack of a hard shoulder is the issue, then shouldn't every dual carriageway in the country be closed down (or at least the speed limit reduced from the speed allowed on motorways).

Do you have any evidence that Smart Motorways are safer than 'dumb' ones? We do not often get vehicles being rammed from behind on 'dumb' motorways because of course there is a hard shoulder on which to take refuge, so I do not see how Smart motorways without a hard shoulder can be safer.

There have been various pieces of statistical work that have shown a lower frequency of accidents on smart motorways, both serious and less serious, compared to similar normal motorways (similar levels of traffic, etc.).

There are various theories about why this might be the case, including one that because drivers are less happy with smart motorways they pay more attention.

In addition, smart motorways tend to come with speed cameras that curb some of the excess behaviour that exists elsewhere.

But as before, people can see the car that was hit whilst stopped because in lane 1 because there was no hard shoulder, but they don’t see all the shunts that didn’t take place because the traffic was being regulated by variable speed limits and cameras.

There is a major distinction between a motorway and a dual carriageway. Signage for a start and for the last 60 years and more, drivers have associated Motorways with clear lanes with no expectation, almost no possibility, of an obstruction with the result that illegal speeding has become the tolerated norm. We do not get that on dual carriageways very often because drivers are attuned to the possibility of an obstruction, a slowing or even stopped car, waiting to turn left or right, usually at traffic lights which are of course non existent on Motorways.

The dual carriageways around me are virtually indistinguishable from motorways with the level of heavy traffic, speed of traffic, lack of junctions, etc. so that argument doesn’t stand up.

[Dod101]

Do you have any evidence that Smart Motorways are safer than 'dumb' ones? We do not often get vehicles being rammed from behind on 'dumb' motorways because of course there is a hard shoulder on which to take refuge, so I do not see how Smart motorways without a hard shoulder can be safer.

There have been various pieces of statistical work that have shown a lower frequency of accidents on smart motorways, both serious and less serious, compared to similar normal motorways (similar levels of traffic, etc.).

There are various theories about why this might be the case, including one that because drivers are less happy with smart motorways they pay more attention.

In addition, smart motorways tend to come with speed cameras that curb some of the excess behaviour that exists elsewhere.

But as before, people can see the car that was hit whilst stopped because in lane 1 because there was no hard shoulder, but they don’t see all the shunts that didn’t take place because the traffic was being regulated by variable speed limits and cameras.

There is a major distinction between a motorway and a dual carriageway. Signage for a start and for the last 60 years and more, drivers have associated Motorways with clear lanes with no expectation, almost no possibility, of an obstruction with the result that illegal speeding has become the tolerated norm. We do not get that on dual carriageways very often because drivers are attuned to the possibility of an obstruction, a slowing or even stopped car, waiting to turn left or right, usually at traffic lights which are of course non existent on Motorways.

The dual carriageways around me are virtually indistinguishable from motorways with the level of heavy traffic, speed of traffic, lack of junctions, etc. so that argument doesn’t stand up.

Well it does where I live. In any case, as I said, there is a political dimension which Sunak is perfectly entitled to acknowledge. I think you are looking at this from a very narrow perspective but then I do not live near any Smart Motorway (or any other Motorway for that matter).

Dod

[AF62]

There have been various pieces of statistical work that have shown a lower frequency of accidents on smart motorways, both serious and less serious, compared to similar normal motorways (similar levels of traffic, etc.).

There are various theories about why this might be the case, including one that because drivers are less happy with smart motorways they pay more attention.

In addition, smart motorways tend to come with speed cameras that curb some of the excess behaviour that exists elsewhere.

But as before, people can see the car that was hit whilst stopped because in lane 1 because there was no hard shoulder, but they don’t see all the shunts that didn’t take place because the traffic was being regulated by variable speed limits and cameras.



The dual carriageways around me are virtually indistinguishable from motorways with the level of heavy traffic, speed of traffic, lack of junctions, etc. so that argument doesn’t stand up.

Well it does where I live. In any case, as I said, there is a political dimension which Sunak is perfectly entitled to acknowledge. I think you are looking at this from a very narrow perspective but then I do not live near any Smart Motorway (or any other Motorway for that matter).

A narrow perspective in that I actually use busy smart motorways (and busy dual carriageways) on a frequent basis - yes, that’s a terrible situation to be in have an opinion on the subject

But yes it’s a political decision, and like most political decisions panders to the press and doesn’t consider the facts.

[dealtn]

... so I do not see how Smart motorways without a hard shoulder can be safer.

You don't consider that vehicle density might be a factor in the statistical possibility of a crash, and the number of vehicles that might be involved were that to happen? Being blind to considering only the singular potential accident type of a rear end shunt of a stationary vehicle and not other accident types gives me concern in your argument.

Reintroducing a hard shoulder to a 4 lane smart motorway would mean all the traffic now sits in 3 lanes. Even ignoring the productivity improvements of traffic flow, you need to consider how a new 3 lane motorway with a hard shoulder would operate differently to its previous version. More crashes, involving more vehicles, and more deaths might easily be statistically a likelier outcome, even were hard shoulder or "near lane" fatalities significantly reduced.

Are you now better placed to consider, or "see" that?

[Dod101]

... so I do not see how Smart motorways without a hard shoulder can be safer.

You don't consider that vehicle density might be a factor in the statistical possibility of a crash, and the number of vehicles that might be involved were that to happen? Being blind to considering only the singular potential accident type of a rear end shunt of a stationary vehicle and not other accident types gives me concern in your argument.

Reintroducing a hard shoulder to a 4 lane smart motorway would mean all the traffic now sits in 3 lanes. Even ignoring the productivity improvements of traffic flow, you need to consider how a new 3 lane motorway with a hard shoulder would operate differently to its previous version. More crashes, involving more vehicles, and more deaths might easily be statistically a likelier outcome, even were hard shoulder or "near lane" fatalities significantly reduced.

Are you now better placed to consider, or "see" that?

No.

Dod

[dealtn]

You don't consider that vehicle density might be a factor in the statistical possibility of a crash, and the number of vehicles that might be involved were that to happen? Being blind to considering only the singular potential accident type of a rear end shunt of a stationary vehicle and not other accident types gives me concern in your argument.

Reintroducing a hard shoulder to a 4 lane smart motorway would mean all the traffic now sits in 3 lanes. Even ignoring the productivity improvements of traffic flow, you need to consider how a new 3 lane motorway with a hard shoulder would operate differently to its previous version. More crashes, involving more vehicles, and more deaths might easily be statistically a likelier outcome, even were hard shoulder or "near lane" fatalities significantly reduced.

Are you now better placed to consider, or "see" that?

No.

Dod

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".

[bungeejumper]

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".

So far, so logical. 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.

But what makes the smart solution difficult, I feel, is the very fact that, by design, the hard shoulder has a schizophrenic character. Some days it's a (relatively) safe haven in a breakdown, and other days it'll kill you if you try using it that way. Obviously, the changes of function are signalled - well, in theory, if not always in practice - but there are always idiots, drunks and truck drivers on Tik Tok out there, and they don't always pay attention.

But heck, that's so obvious that it hardly needs saying. What bugs me more is the way that a red X on a hitherto open hard shoulder/inside lane is a cue for the traffic in that lane to force itself bodily upon the already-overfull lane to its right. We've all seen smart-alecs, go-faster merchants and even heavy lorries performing quite insanely risky manoeuvres in their efforts to make it into what used to be lane 1. And the flashing, competitive hooting, finger gestures, accidents and near misses which result. All of which does nothing to make the journey any less challenging.

I'm not against all smart motorways - far from it - but I think some of the people who've designed and specified them could do with a system upgrade of their own. And to hell with trying to do them on the cheap.

BJ

[Dod101]

No.

Dod

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