Smart Motorways

[Udayana]

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

The government claims that smart motorways are safer but they are still lethally dangerous if you breakdown in a live lane with no hard shoulder;  they are using statistics to lie to us.

What would you do if you had a puncture or broke down in one? Yesterday a friend broke down on the M27 - still being converted. He manged to get to the LHS - got out and had to scramble up a bank to get a reasonable distance from the crash barrier.

As the roadworks were still ongoing with free towing, a truck turned up within minutes and towed the car away.

However they left friend abandoned in a field, miles from an actual road or village, despite seeing that he was trying to get back down!

[Roses]

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

The government claims that smart motorways are safer but they are still lethally dangerous if you breakdown in a live lane with no hard shoulder;  they are using statistics to lie to us.

What would you do if you had a puncture or broke down in one? Yesterday a friend broke down on the M27 - still being converted. He manged to get to the LHS - got out and had to scramble up a bank to get a reasonable distance from the crash barrier.

As the roadworks were still ongoing with free towing, a truck turned up within minutes and towed the car away.

However they left friend abandoned in a field, miles from an actual road or village, despite seeing that he was trying to get back down!

So many things which have the title 'smart' are too smart for their own good, and that of everyone else, imo.

[Harrowby Hall]

Of course "smart" motorways are another example of government cost-cutting. No doubt some clever cost accountant is being praised for calculating the relative savings from converting hard shoulders into running lanes in terms of tax payers' lives.

Sooner or later there is going to be a major demonstration of their inadequacies.

[Udayana]

There have already been a number of failings and at least one court case is ongoing.

The problems have been aggravated by a lack of driver education and cameras and technology vital for safety only being implemented in patches.

[Spud]

I need to learn what a smart motorway is.

[SteveH]

Smooth black tarmac with no holes or patch-repairs, neatly trimmed grass verges, that sort of thing - is that what you mean?

[jeremyp]

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

The government claims that smart motorways are safer but they are still lethally dangerous if you breakdown in a live lane with no hard shoulder;  they are using statistics to lie to us.

No they are not. The extra risk to people who have broken down is more than offset by the reduced risks in other areas.

What would you do if you had a puncture or broke down in one? Yesterday a friend broke down on the M27 - still being converted. He manged to get to the LHS - got out and had to scramble up a bank to get a reasonable distance from the crash barrier.

The M27 is a long way from being finished. I'm not sure your anecdote proves anything.

As the roadworks were still ongoing with free towing, a truck turned up within minutes and towed the car away.

However they left friend abandoned in a field, miles from an actual road or village, despite seeing that he was trying to get back down!

What? They towed the car and left him behind? I don't think you can put that down to being the motorways  fault.

[jeremyp]

Of course "smart" motorways are another example of government cost-cutting.

They are actually quite expensive. However, they are safer than non smart motorways which will lead to a cost saving in the long term.

[Nearly Sane]

No they are not. The extra risk to people who have broken down is more than offset by the reduced risks in other areas.The M27 is a long way from being finished. I'm not sure your anecdote proves anything.
What? They towed the car and left him behind? I don't think you can put that down to being the motorways  fault.

There may be a gap in the processes but I agree with you that this doesn't seem related to the idea of smart motorways themselves.

[jeremyp]

There may be a gap in the processes but I agree with you that this doesn't seem related to the idea of smart motorways themselves.

I have to drive that particular stretch of motorway quite a lot and I'd say it subjectively feels like it's a really dangerous stretch. My impression is that there are some really dangerous drivers on it i.e. a lot of people who tail gate or don't use proper lane discipline and such.

Since they introduced the 50mph speed limit while they do the upgrade, it seems much better.

[Nearly Sane]

I have to drive that particular stretch of motorway quite a lot and I'd say it subjectively feels like it's a really dangerous stretch. My impression is that there are some really dangerous drivers on it i.e. a lot of people who tail gate or don't use proper lane discipline and such.

Since they introduced the 50mph speed limit while they do the upgrade, it seems much better.

Does the subjective feeling perhaps contribute to a better safety record? I'm reminded of the idea that people would drive more safely if there was a spike instead of an airbag?

[Christine]

I heard the widow of a man killed on a "smart" motorway on PM some time ago.  She said that the government's statistics demonstrating relative safety were based on lay-bys every 20 metres but the roads they are converting now will have lay-bys only every 100 metres.  The story was harrowing.  Personally, I find driving now quite frightening anyway and I definitely won't use a motorway which has no hard shoulder.  Perhaps that's how they intend to cut congestion?

This government and the previous two, or three, since 2010 anyway, have demonstrated time and again that they care nothing about the welfare of ordinary people and don't mind telling blatant lies.  Based on past performance, I expect this is a scheme to put more taxpayer's money into private hands, regardless of risks.  I do wonder why they haven't just given the go-ahead to build more roads, but perhaps the return for their mates is quicker and higher with this scheme. 

[Udayana]

No they are not. The extra risk to people who have broken down is more than offset by the reduced risks in other areas.

That's because you have lumped everything together. The reduced risks are possible because of speed control: as well as being able to vary speed limits according to conditions, more cameras enable better policing of speeding. The variable speeds also enable "waves" of congestion to be smoothed out - which is also safer. All of that is possible without removing the hard shoulders.

The hard shoulders are removed to enable more capacity - which in the long run will not reduce congestion and will not provide any savings.

The M27 is a long way from being finished. I'm not sure your anecdote proves anything.
What? They towed the car and left him behind? I don't think you can put that down to being the motorways  fault.

That is right - but as there was no hard shoulder any recovery vehicles and workers are in just as much danger - as the M27 is not finished there are not even red-cross lane signs in some parts. I don't think the recovery truck driver was willing to wait even an extra few seconds.

[Udayana]

I have to drive that particular stretch of motorway quite a lot and I'd say it subjectively feels like it's a really dangerous stretch. My impression is that there are some really dangerous drivers on it i.e. a lot of people who tail gate or don't use proper lane discipline and such.

Since they introduced the 50mph speed limit while they do the upgrade, it seems much better.

Although, locally, I have avoided the M27 since conversion started - by using other roads, I regularly use the M3/M25/M1 to get to Cambridge and back so about half the journey is on smart motorways; it is quite common to see people driving at speed in "closed" lanes.

[Udayana]

I heard the widow of a man killed on a "smart" motorway on PM some time ago.  She said that the government's statistics demonstrating relative safety were based on lay-bys every 20 metres but the roads they are converting now will have lay-bys only every 100 metres.  The story was harrowing.  Personally, I find driving now quite frightening anyway and I definitely won't use a motorway which has no hard shoulder.  Perhaps that's how they intend to cut congestion?

This government and the previous two, or three, since 2010 anyway, have demonstrated time and again that they care nothing about the welfare of ordinary people and don't mind telling blatant lies.  Based on past performance, I expect this is a scheme to put more taxpayer's money into private hands, regardless of risks.  I do wonder why they haven't just given the go-ahead to build more roads, but perhaps the return for their mates is quicker and higher with this scheme.

I thought the emergency refuge areas were supposed to be every half a mile, but in practice there is usually a 1.5 mile distance between them.

Also the closed lane (red cross) system is highly dependent on cameras or radar detecting stopped vehicles - and this has been fully implemented only on a small part of the system.

[jeremyp]

That's because you have lumped everything together.

Whereas you are cherry picking.

The reduced risks are possible because of speed control: as well as being able to vary speed limits according to conditions, more cameras enable better policing of speeding. The variable speeds also enable "waves" of congestion to be smoothed out - which is also safer. All of that is possible without removing the hard shoulders.

Are you certain about that? Maybe incorporating the hard should helps with all that.

The hard shoulders are removed to enable more capacity - which in the long run will not reduce congestion and will not provide any savings.

You can't make a blanket statement like that. Traffic congestion is a difficult beast to predict and, often, apparently innocuous changes can have major unpredictable effects.

but as there was no hard shoulder any recovery vehicles and workers are in just as much danger - as the M27 is not finished there are not even red-cross lane signs in some parts. I don't think the recovery truck driver was willing to wait even an extra few seconds.

But it wasn't a smart motorway, it was roadworks. It doesn't support your case.

[jeremyp]

it is quite common to see people driving at speed in "closed" lanes.

I've driven on many smart motorways, including the M4, M1 and M3 and I would say it is quite uncommon to see people driving in closed lanes.

I wouldn't advise doing it, by the way, you'll get ticketed.

[Udayana]

My "case" is essentially that everyone needs to be aware of the new dangers on these roads and how to cope with them.

Anyway some links for anyone interested:

 Smart motorways to be reviewed over driver safety fears

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50169527)

Highways England says it wants a network where 'no one is killed or injured' - but claims smart motorways are safe despite 8% rise in fatalities on our fastest roads

(https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7507769/Deaths-UK-motorways-8-Highways-England-says-smart-routes-safe.html - has a discussion of stats and refs video on danger of ignoring the closed lane red cross:

A recent poll found that more than one in five drivers have ignored a red x sign on smart motorway in the last 12 months as concerns for their safety have escalated

[Spud]

Smooth black tarmac with no holes or patch-repairs, neatly trimmed grass verges, that sort of thing - is that what you mean?

A self-repairing motorway - excellent!

[Walter]

I have to drive that particular stretch of motorway quite a lot and I'd say it subjectively feels like it's a really dangerous stretch. My impression is that there are some really dangerous drivers on it i.e. a lot of people who tail gate or don't use proper lane discipline and such.

Since they introduced the 50mph speed limit while they do the upgrade, it seems much better.

also , have you noticed that every other driver is not as good as you ? 😂😂😂

[Udayana]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/26/uks-smart-motorways-to-be-reviewed-after-increase-in-near-misses

Britain’s network of smart motorways – where drivers can use the hard shoulder – is being urgently reviewed by the government after it was discovered that it resulted in 20 times more near-misses on the M25 London ring road alone.
...
Research by the AA suggests it takes an average of 17 minutes for highway authorities to spot a stopped vehicle, and then another 17 minutes for emergency vehicles to reach the scene. “You spend an average of more than half an hour sitting there in a broken-down vehicle praying,” said the AA.
...
His concerns were echoed by a former government minister, who approved the roll-out of smart motorways. Sir Mike Penning agreed to the expansion in 2010 while a junior transport minister, after the successful pilot.

Now, however, Penning has told Panorama that smart motorways are endangering people’s lives. He said: “There are people that are being killed and seriously injured on these roads, and it should never have happened.”

[jeremyp]

Britain’s network of smart motorways – where drivers can use the hard shoulder – is being urgently reviewed by the government after it was discovered that it resulted in 20 times more near-misses on the M25 London ring road alone.
...
Research by the AA suggests it takes an average of 17 minutes for highway authorities to spot a stopped vehicle, and then another 17 minutes for emergency vehicles to reach the scene. “You spend an average of more than half an hour sitting there in a broken-down vehicle praying,” said the AA.

You shouldn't be sitting in your vehicle. Even with a hard shoulder, you get out of your car.

His concerns were echoed by a former government minister, who approved the roll-out of smart motorways. Sir Mike Penning agreed to the expansion in 2010 while a junior transport minister, after the successful pilot.

Now, however, Penning has told Panorama that smart motorways are endangering people’s lives. He said: “There are people that are being killed and seriously injured on these roads, and it should never have happened.”

The problem is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other that smart motorways are more dangerous than the dumb motorways they replaced. The statistics say that, in 2018, there was an 8% rise in motorway fatalities and the total figure for all motorways was 108. This is not statistically significant. Eight more people died in 2018 than in 2017.

[Udayana]

You shouldn't be sitting in your vehicle. Even with a hard shoulder, you get out of your car.

There are plenty locations and situation where it is not possible to get out of the car, even via the passenger door. On roads without a hard shoulder the chances of being trapped in the car are much higher. 

The problem is that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other that smart motorways are more dangerous than the dumb motorways they replaced. The statistics say that, in 2018, there was an 8% rise in motorway fatalities and the total figure for all motorways was 108. This is not statistically significant. Eight more people died in 2018 than in 2017.

What people are concerned about is the relative risk of being struck by another vehicle whilst broken down on a motorway without a hard shoulder against one with. This can be calculated given the relevant figures. The total motorway fatalities figure is not of any use here.

We don't need the statistics to prove anything as simple logic is sufficient.

Did you watch the Panorama documentary?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dtqv/panorama-britains-killer-motorways
 

[jeremyp]

There are plenty locations and situation where it is not possible to get out of the car, even via the passenger door. On roads without a hard shoulder the chances of being trapped in the car are much higher. 

On motorways?

What people are concerned about is the relative risk of being struck by another vehicle whilst broken down on a motorway without a hard shoulder against one with. This can be calculated given the relevant figures. The total motorway fatalities figure is not of any use here.

Yes it is.

It may be more dangerous to break down on a smart motorway, but if other types of fatal accidents are reduced more than the increased risk of breaking down, that's a net gain.

We don't need the statistics to prove anything as simple logic is sufficient.

Yes we do because what you think is simple logic ain't necessarily so. For example, the mandatory introduction of seatbelts would have increased certain types of fatalities where it is important to get out of the car really quickly, but the decrease in almost every other type of fatality makes it a good law.

I'm not saying smart motorways are definitely good, I'm saying the evidence is not conclusive and by focussing on only one aspect ofd them, it is possible that we may throw away something that is generally an improvement.

[Udayana]

On motorways?

Indeed. In fact one of the cases discussed concerned a granddad and child trapped in a live lane on a bridge with nothing except a metal wall on the left - no where to go even if they managed to get out of the car. IIRC they were hit 45 seconds after coming to a halt.

The transport minister (Shapps) , AA and Police on the programme confirmed that there were many cases where the only advice could be was to stay in the car, call 999 and wait until rescued. 

This on motorways where the radar systems, that smart motorways were designed to have, have not been implemented - most smart motorways, ie. everywhere apart from the M25.
 

Yes it is.

It may be more dangerous to break down on a smart motorway, but if other types of fatal accidents are reduced more than the increased risk of breaking down, that's a net gain.

If there are such features, then there is no reason why they can't be implemented on motorways that do have hard shoulders or adequate refuge areas. As far as the statistics go, we must remember that in general overall fatal and serious injuries on motorways have been coming down for some years due to more speed cameras and better safety features in vehicles. 

Yes we do because what you think is simple logic ain't necessarily so. For example, the mandatory introduction of seatbelts would have increased certain types of fatalities where it is important to get out of the car really quickly, but the decrease in almost every other type of fatality makes it a good law.

I'm not saying smart motorways are definitely good, I'm saying the evidence is not conclusive and by focussing on only one aspect ofd them, it is possible that we may throw away something that is generally an improvement.

Well, I think there is now sufficient momentum to get the worst aspects fixed:

- Accessible refuge areas
- Radar detection of stopped vehicles
- Elimination of temporary hard shoulder use

They need to do something about driver education also though. I can't see them throwing away anything good - such as the speed or monitoring cameras and variable speed limits.