M1 Junction 23a-25 Smart Motorway

[jackal]

I did eastbound A50 -> A453 this morning.

OK, but the run up to the roundabout took an age because there is only one lane for Nottingham, and way too much traffic heading in that direction compared to the other two lanes. Maybe the middle lane needs to be marked for Nottingham too, in addition to its current marking (A50?).

There should really be a freeflow left turn onto the A453 but that convoluted quarry egress is in the way.

[danfw194]

I did eastbound A50 -> A453 this morning.

OK, but the run up to the roundabout took an age because there is only one lane for Nottingham, and way too much traffic heading in that direction compared to the other two lanes. Maybe the middle lane needs to be marked for Nottingham too, in addition to its current marking (A50?).

The marking of the middle lane on the original slip road was for Loughborough A6, is it still marked as that by any chance?
Once the Kegworth bypass is open, that would need to be re-marked - but they wouldn't necessarily give precedence to the A453 Nottingham-bound anyway, more likely the Airport-bound A453. What we mustn't forget is that A50 eastbound traffic is directed onto M1 northbound for Nottingham before it reaches J24 (or at least it was before all of this work kicked off). And also not much M1 southbound traffic will be expected to be going Nottingham-bound A453. I fully accept that the reality is probably different!

[Sabrista]

The marking of the middle lane on the original slip road was for Loughborough A6, is it still marked as that by any chance?

It’s just marked for Kegworth, with a white panel on the sign.

Serena

[Chris5156]

One thing that is a bit strange, the SPECS cameras monitoring the 50 limit seem to operate in visible light rather than IR, which means that there are rather disconcerting floodlights at night that do dazzle drivers to some extent. I do wonder how that made it through the risk assessment. Is it because there are IR-blocking number plate covers that render the IR lit SPECS and presumably also Truvelos ineffective? And if so, was it deemed less bad to dazzle drivers than let a handful slip through the net?

Not sure if they are actual SPECS cameras or another type of average speed camera made by a different manufacturer, but this type (with rack of LED floodlights on separate column) has been standard on TfL dual carriageways for a few years now - the A406, A12, A102 etc. have several of them.

[danfw194]

It’s just marked for Kegworth, with a white panel on the sign.

Serena

Thanks. That is such a waste of a lane, definitely should be re-marked. Although I imagine that would lead to some remodelling of the lanes on the roundabout itself.

[Truvelo]

The new-left turn jet lane from A453 NB to A50 WB works well...

It didn't work well for me. A large amount of standing traffic waiting at the lights was blocking access to it.

[darkcape]

The new-left turn jet lane from A453 NB to A50 WB works well...

It didn't work well for me. A large amount of standing traffic waiting at the lights was blocking access to it.

Ah right I haven't done it in rush hour yet.

Thinking a bit more, perhaps 3 lanes southbound for A50 at J24a should've been provided (stealing one lane from westbound) to avoid queues of tunnelling traffic into one lane for the M1 (previously there has always been at least two through the roundabouts). Two lanes M1 south to A50 west seem excessive.

[Hdeng16]

One thing that is a bit strange, the SPECS cameras monitoring the 50 limit seem to operate in visible light rather than IR, which means that there are rather disconcerting floodlights at night that do dazzle drivers to some extent. I do wonder how that made it through the risk assessment. Is it because there are IR-blocking number plate covers that render the IR lit SPECS and presumably also Truvelos ineffective? And if so, was it deemed less bad to dazzle drivers than let a handful slip through the net?

I’ve seen these in other places too and it’s a complete disgrace - it really is a blinding flash as you drive ‘through’ the beam.

[mikehindsonevans]

One thing that is a bit strange, the SPECS cameras monitoring the 50 limit seem to operate in visible light rather than IR, which means that there are rather disconcerting floodlights at night that do dazzle drivers to some extent. I do wonder how that made it through the risk assessment. Is it because there are IR-blocking number plate covers that render the IR lit SPECS and presumably also Truvelos ineffective? And if so, was it deemed less bad to dazzle drivers than let a handful slip through the net?

I’ve seen these in other places too and it’s a complete disgrace - it really is a blinding flash as you drive ‘through’ the beam.

Makes the cameras easier to spot at night?

[Arcuarius]

One thing that is a bit strange, the SPECS cameras monitoring the 50 limit seem to operate in visible light rather than IR, which means that there are rather disconcerting floodlights at night that do dazzle drivers to some extent. I do wonder how that made it through the risk assessment. Is it because there are IR-blocking number plate covers that render the IR lit SPECS and presumably also Truvelos ineffective? And if so, was it deemed less bad to dazzle drivers than let a handful slip through the net?

I’ve seen these in other places too and it’s a complete disgrace - it really is a blinding flash as you drive ‘through’ the beam.

Try slowing down then

[Sabrista]

It’s just marked for Kegworth, with a white panel on the sign.

Serena

Thanks. That is such a waste of a lane, definitely should be re-marked. Although I imagine that would lead to some remodelling of the lanes on the roundabout itself.

Checked again this morning on the way in. It also has M1(S) in a blue panel on that lane.

Serena

[Big L]

One thing that is a bit strange, the SPECS cameras monitoring the 50 limit seem to operate in visible light rather than IR, which means that there are rather disconcerting floodlights at night that do dazzle drivers to some extent. I do wonder how that made it through the risk assessment. Is it because there are IR-blocking number plate covers that render the IR lit SPECS and presumably also Truvelos ineffective? And if so, was it deemed less bad to dazzle drivers than let a handful slip through the net?

I’ve seen these in other places too and it’s a complete disgrace - it really is a blinding flash as you drive ‘through’ the beam.

Try slowing down then

Then it becomes a longer blinding flash.

The discussion here is about speed cameras where there are huge floodlights, usually pointed at the front of the vehicles, to illuminate numberplates so the cameras work. Just what you don't need at night on a motorway journey is a set of floodlights pointing straight at you every few miles. How this idea ever got past a risk assessment baffles me

[Arcuarius]

I’ve seen these in other places too and it’s a complete disgrace - it really is a blinding flash as you drive ‘through’ the beam.

Try slowing down then

Then it becomes a longer blinding flash.

The discussion here is about speed cameras where there are huge floodlights, usually pointed at the front of the vehicles, to illuminate numberplates so the cameras work. Just what you don't need at night on a motorway journey is a set of floodlights pointing straight at you every few miles. How this idea ever got past a risk assessment baffles me

Ah, fair enough. I misunderstood.

[M4 Cardiff]

With the main purpose of the complaint being that the older IR illuminated SPECS technology seems to work pretty well and is safe, so I am concerned about the safety of the visible-light illuminated ones. Not just the dazzling flash, but the negative impact on your night vision also. Maybe someone can FOI the risk assessment for these?

[darkcape]

With the main purpose of the complaint being that the older IR illuminated SPECS technology seems to work pretty well and is safe, so I am concerned about the safety of the visible-light illuminated ones. Not just the dazzling flash, but the negative impact on your night vision also. Maybe someone can FOI the risk assessment for these?

Is it much different to oncoming headlights? The floodlights are above the carriageway angling downwards, not straight into driver's faces

[Bryn666]

Or the trillion candela work site flood lights you get... those are hugely offensive on passing eyes.

[wrinkly]

I was in the area today and noticed that it looks as though 4 lanes each way will continue through junctions 24 and 24A. Is this true?

What about J25? I forgot to look when passing under that.

It seems there will soon be 4 lanes continuously from J23A to J32 (or to J35A if you neglect the insides of 32, 33 and 34).

[DB617]

Is there not a lane drop still across the Tinsley Viaduct? Haven't been up there in a year and I can't imagine anything on a motorway changing that fast.

[wrinkly]

Is there not a lane drop still across the Tinsley Viaduct? Haven't been up there in a year and I can't imagine anything on a motorway changing that fast.

Yes. The Tinsley Viaduct is J34. As implied in my post above there are also lane drops inside J32 (M18) and 33 (A630 Sheffield Parkway).

[DB617]

My mistake - I didn't realise it made up one junction not two.