All Lane Running - Smart Motorways ?

[Bomag]

The multiple motorway fatality involving a bus has already happened.

A driver of a minibus on the M40 struck a stationary maintenance vehicle on the hard shoulder and 13 people died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_minibus_crash

Smart motorways have problems, but people screeching about how wonderful hard shoulders are have clearly never actually used one.

Almost certainly a case of target fixation, I suspect. Hard shoulders aren't safe for stationary vehicles for that reason, but those hard shoulder collisions are unlikely to be affected by it being a smart motorway, yet it opens up more potential collisions.

The M40 minibus crash had significant circumstantial evidence of the 'moth' or target fixation issue but a combination of the diver having taken off her glasses (to clean?) and other points led the coroner to prefer the option that she had nodded off (and managed to hit almost the only vehicles on the M40 hard shoulder). In any event guidance on works vehicles in TSM Chapter 8 is to make them more conspicuous rather than making any warning beacon the centre of attention. To many works vehicles look like Christmas trees.

Going back to the suggestion that smart motorways are much safer than APTR ete, well they would be with all the safety kit (assuming it works and the ROC is awake). The critical aspect is is ALR more or less safe that a similar controlled motorway. There is no direct evidence since there is limited direct correlation between the M25 CM sections and anywhere else. While vehicles stopping in what is lanes 2 to 4 on an ALR has a equal level or slight increase in safety, as so does any vehicle which can limp to an EA, traffic which could get to the hard shoulder on a controlled motorway, but no further then there is a significant increase in risk for ALR. While the functional requirements of M42 ATM caused issues with the effectiveness of the design, the HSR operational requirements were set on mitigating the risk to this last group.

[highwayman]

Are these so called smart motorways really going to work , think about it , not every motorist that breaks down on them will reach a E.R bay , therefore putting there own lives and other motorists lives at risk , along with causing tail backs , leading to another risk of collision, H.E traffic officers being put at risk having to deal with the breakdowns.

Basic maintenance, such as litter picking , gully emptying on the near side cant no longer be done along the nearside of the carriageway .

We're going back in time , anyone remember the S 3's , left lane , right lane , sucide, those roads were introduced, not to long after , they went back to S 2 , I can see similar happening with the smart ( sucide) motorways ,,,, at least it won't take anywhere near as long to change back to 3 lane with hard shoulder.

Unfortunately for the smart motorways to be scrapped, there will have to be a multi fatal collision, involving a coach full of passengers or schoolchildren, breaking down at night , then a HGV , colliding with the coach ,,,,,, I pray to God that this will never happen , the chance of this happening is higher than a motorway with a hard should6

Reality check, statistical analysis has shown that Smart Motorways are just as safe as normal motorways and MUCH safer than busy all purpose roads such as the A34, A43, A19,A1 etc. Comparing them with S3 roads is simply grotesque. Many 3 lane roads still exist they are simply marked as alternating 2 lane and 1 lane sections. Behold the A16 at Louth.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.35610 ... authuser=0

Another point to remember is that not every driver who breaks down on a conventional motorway makes it to the hard shoulder either. In an ideal world we would follow the practice in many US States where they have a shoulder alongside both the road edge and median.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.93600 ... authuser=0

However Ohio has about 20% of the population density of England and its mostly flat with low land prices, a typical suburban house comes with up to an acre of land.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.93072 ... authuser=0

Another guy who has never worked on the motorwaysor trunk roads , I've been working on the the motorway and trunk network for the last 31 yrs ,,,,, trust me sooner or later they will come to an end

[RichardA35]

Another guy who has never worked on the motorwaysor trunk roads , I've been working on the the motorway and trunk network for the last 31 yrs ,,,,, trust me sooner or later they will come to an end

However, beyond opinion and possibly relevant historic experience, what evidence is there currently to support the view that Smart Motorways "will come to an end"?
The political landscape shows no sense of moving to change the strategy and a move to relinquish current driving lane capacity for a hard shoulder is likely to be a far harder sell than carrying on converting existing motorways to their smart counterparts.

[KeithW]

Another guy who has never worked on the motorwaysor trunk roads , I've been working on the the motorway and trunk network for the last 31 yrs ,,,,, trust me sooner or later they will come to an end

I may not have 'worked' on motorways or trunk roads but I have spent 45+ years driving on them and am well aware that most non motorway trunk roads have never had a hard shoulder. Let me give you a short list.
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9 etc. I drive the A19, A174 and A66 every day and have somehow managed to survive despite their being high speed D2 trunk roads with no hard shoulder, no smart VMS signs and no stopped vehicle detection system. Let me introduce you to the one of the busiest trunk roads in the North East. This has an AADF of over 100k and no hard shoulder. Somehow we smoggies have learned to master it.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.56671 ... authuser=0

If you want the prize winner for inadequate trunk roads let me introduce you to it. *Roll of drums* - here is the A259 at Winchelsea in all its glory.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.92817 ... authuser=0

Sooner or later everything comes to an end of course. There are not too many Turnpike Roads any more for example and those Romans have done a terrible job of maintaining the roads they built.

[Justin Smith]

Are these so called smart motorways really going to work , think about it , not every motorist that breaks down on them will reach a E.R bay , therefore putting there own lives and other motorists lives at risk , along with causing tail backs , leading to another risk of collision, H.E traffic officers being put at risk having to deal with the breakdowns.

Basic maintenance, such as litter picking , gully emptying on the near side cant no longer be done along the nearside of the carriageway .

We're going back in time , anyone remember the S 3's , left lane , right lane , sucide, those roads were introduced, not to long after , they went back to S 2 , I can see similar happening with the smart ( sucide) motorways ,,,, at least it won't take anywhere near as long to change back to 3 lane with hard shoulder.

Unfortunately for the smart motorways to be scrapped, there will have to be a multi fatal collision, involving a coach full of passengers or schoolchildren, breaking down at night , then a HGV , colliding with the coach ,,,,,, I pray to God that this will never happen , the chance of this happening is higher than a motorway with a hard should6

Reality check, statistical analysis has shown that Smart Motorways are just as safe as normal motorways and MUCH safer than busy all purpose roads such as the A34, A43, A19,A1 etc. Comparing them with S3 roads is simply grotesque. Many 3 lane roads still exist they are simply marked as alternating 2 lane and 1 lane sections. Behold the A16 at Louth.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.35610 ... authuser=0

Another point to remember is that not every driver who breaks down on a conventional motorway makes it to the hard shoulder either. In an ideal world we would follow the practice in many US States where they have a shoulder alongside both the road edge and median.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.93600 ... authuser=0

However Ohio has about 20% of the population density of England and its mostly flat with low land prices, a typical suburban house comes with up to an acre of land.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.93072 ... authuser=0

I think you miss the point.
It's about risk perception.
Most people have a very poor grasp of risk probability, thus explaining why they shut half the country down for a virus which kills about 1 in 150 with an average age of nearly 83, and and most significantly, with the support of a significant majority of the country......

[Phil]

The multiple motorway fatality involving a bus has already happened.

A driver of a minibus on the M40 struck a stationary maintenance vehicle on the hard shoulder and 13 people died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_minibus_crash

Smart motorways have problems, but people screeching about how wonderful hard shoulders are have clearly never actually used one.

It helps if you actually compare comparable things Bryn!

In the M40 case the whether the motorway had a hard shoulder or not is irrelevant - the minibus left the carriageway and hit something! It could just as easily have been a bridge pier or one of those massive MS4 supports or even a vehicle parked in an ERA!

There are only a few situations where you can legitimately compare Smart and non Smart motorways (and leaving the carriageway then hitting something isn't one of them)

The most obvious comparison (and the one which most of the public think when they call Smart motorways 'dangerous') is when, although still controllable, the vehicle / driver suffers a problem and needs to stop immediately.....

.... On a Conventional motorway - driver moves across to hard shoulder, stops and everyone bails out of the vehicle and as far away from said shoulder as the topography and vegetation allows while an emergency call is made / waiting for recovery. Small chance of being hit while exiting the vehicle but far less stood up the bank and the risk to other motorists is minimised by the hard shoulder legally only being for emergency use and not a traffic lane.

.... on a Smart motorway - driver moves to left most lane, stops and hopes nobody smashes into them while making an emergency call / waiting for recovery. Getting out the vehicle is difficult because of (1) the tendency to install miles or Armco close to the carriageway so the occupants are trapped inside until the Police / recover come along (hint its pretty difficult to know what the lane control signs are showing BEHIND you and whether the lane is closed or not).

For the second scenario to come close to the first in terms of keeping the occupants of the affected vehicle and other road users safe its imperative that on Smart motorways that blocked lane is closed and becomes a 'virtual hard shoulder'. The fact that it has taken up to 18 minutes before for anyone in these supposedly wonderful control centres to do anything on a Smart motorway means that for those 18 minutes the Smart motorway was much less safe than an ordinary one and no amount of talking will disguise that brutal TRUTH.

However, there are OTHER comparisons where a Smart motorway will trump an ordinary one - lets imagine a vehicle suffers some sort of catastrophic failure and ends up stranded in the outside lane. In this comparison the ability to shut the outside lane and create a 'virtual hard shoulder' means that a Smart motorway is always safer.

Another comparison is where the vehicle has a problem but can limp on for a few more miles - This can make a significant difference because If it can make it to a decently sized ERA (the ones put in on recent schemes are **** poor in compassion with the ones on the original M42 trial site) then they will be further away from the traffic lanes than on the hard shoulder the Smart Motorway is safer. In principle the more ERAs the safer the Smart motorway becomes....


Therefore the distance between ERAs, the standard of ERAs and the ability of staff in control centres to react instantly a vehicle becomes stranded are going to be critical in determining the safety of Smart motorways against ordinary ones. While its perfectly possible a well designed + run Smart Motorway can be safer overall than an ordinary motorway - it should also become apparent to anyone with a brain that if said Smart motorway is poorly designed + run then its going to be less safe than an ordinary motorway.

(A 'well designed + run' Smart motorway' should have ERAs at no grater than 1 mile intervals, the footprint of said ERA should be such that a vehicle stopped inside has a full lane width between it and the carriageway and most importantly stationary vehicle detection installed so that closure of blocked lanes can be put in place within 30 seconds of the vehicle coming to a halt).

[someone]

Smart motorways have problems, but people screeching about how wonderful hard shoulders are have clearly never actually used one.

I have used one. And I felt a lot safer on it than I did when having to stop and eat in this lay-by on the A14, where I was much closer to passing lorries that they rattled my bike.

https://goo.gl/maps/VU22vUmgkBAg9edaA

But then I suppose I am similarly guilty of thinking all those who think smart motorways are safer and dismiss hard shoulder have never actually been diabetic motorcyclists. Vulnerable road users who are legally required to stop as soon as possible when they feel symptoms which need treatment.

I have been fortunate to have never hypoed while riding, but the A14 experience shook me how unsafe such roads are without a hard shoulder or a decent quality lay-by. Just a shame I had to stop at the first one I reached, as the next one along was segregated. Not that I had anyway of knowing that.

I am also fortunate to have not needed to use an E.R.A., but that yellow paint looks rather slippy to stop on on a bike, and they do not give much space to decelerate. Is it an anti-slip surface, though? And presumably you will need to call to have a whole lane closed down to be able to leave. And that could be over an hour later, all the while feeling you are relatively invisible with them being positioned offset from the road that it may look empty until relatively late to an approaching vehicle that also needs to stop. I guess in that case you would also need to call and tell them you will have to park there a while.

Alternatively you could just try to ride on to the next junction to leave. And at least smart motorways are sections with more frequent junctions. Though to do so would be driving under influence of drink or drugs. And is dangerous. Possibly because you will be trying to control steering, balance, the throttle, and the main brake with a shaking hand. But definitely because you will have impaired judgement, which is the reason it is an offence under s4 of the RTA 1988. It would also be an offence of driving otherwise in accordance with a licence, because as a condition of one you need to sign a document telling the D.V.L.A. you will "stop the vehicle safely as soon as possible". Which is not quite the same as "as soon as safe" which has more room for a subjective assessment.

The general N.H.S. advice for driving on a motorway is to stop on the hard shoulder. I have also seen more vague advice to "leave you car with the hazard warnings on and move to a position of safety," which I hope means on a hard shoulder and not a live lane. But I have not seen any specific advice at all regarding smart motorways. So I have no idea what you are expected to do on one, and if and when the time comes that I need to act, it will be when I am less able to make a reliable decision. Yay! I guess it the only option is the E.R.A., and to hope the next one is empty, but having to slow down in the live lane to not have to stop in short painted area at 70 mph does not make me feel safe now, let alone how I will feel and manage when I am feeling dizzy and confused.

But I should not presume to know about those of you who want to tell us how terrible hard shoulders are.

[Bryn666]

Both of these previous replies utterly miss the point. Hard shoulders are NOT safe places and the second you stop on one you are exposed to great risk, just as you are if you stop on a smart motorway and no one has picked you up on the camera coverage.

I appreciate "the point" and SABRE aren't good bedfellows but in simple layman's terms:

If an errant vehicle leaves the running lanes where you happen to be, you're screwed. It doesn't matter if they're cleaning their glasses, going into a diabetic coma, or playing with themself, the second that vehicle leaves the running lanes the presence of a hard shoulder means nothing because all it is is a painted line. Paint is not a barrier, it doesn't stop vehicles crossing it.

Equally, many of those old style lay-bys that are narrow and only separated from the running lanes by a dashed line are being actively removed. They're certainly not permitted on new build trunk roads unless they are an SOS only lay-by - see examples on the A556 and new A14.

Saying "a hard shoulder is safe" and "a smart motorway is dangerous" is exactly the kind of unthinking binary view of the world that gives us bad road safety policy.

Stopping ANYWHERE on ANY high speed road is dangerous, which is why it is prohibited except in emergencies and at designated stopping points. This is why clearways were invented before motorways had even become a thing.

[JRN]

A lot of the danger of traditional hard shoulders is in their ease of use and perceived safety.

The British (and many other countries too) approach traditionally has been to have a wide hard shoulder on Motorways, but no emergency refuge areas.
A traditional 3.2m wide hard shoulder is wide enough to pull up a large vehicle such as an HGV next to the verge, open the door fully, and get out. So long as everyone stays in their lane this is safe.
The problem is the wide width and perceived safety make it inviting for people to stop on the HS when they don't really need to.

ERAs provide better protection from being rear-ended. They are better protected by barriers, and wider, and "depart" from the road in such a way as a tired driver is less likely to mistake it for the lane and "drift" onto it. A tired driver might drive for miles wholly or partially on the HS without realising, but they cannot do so in ERAs as they are intermittent.
The yellow colouration now used on ERAs on Smart Motorways in the UK makes it even less likely for drivers to accidentally enter them. Also the ERA puts you right where the emergency telephone is.

On the other hand, of course, you might break down where there is no ERA, and they'll be nothing you can do about it.

In many ways the safest combination would be a narrow hard shoulder - wide enough for a vehicle to stop in, but narrow enough to discourage its use outside of real emergencies, combined with occasional ERAs.
This is the model used in France and Italy:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@46.48160 ... 6656?hl=en

The ERA is for if you suffer a vehicle fault but can keep going (common with modern cars, they go into a "limp-home" mode). It's the safer option. But there is still a hard shoulder in case you absolutely have to stop *right now*.

Of course, this is only worth talking about as a standard for new, or completely rebuilt motorways. Personally I think that if we do build any proper new motorways, with hard shoulders (which seems increasingly unlikely, sadly), they should still have ERAs every mile or so.

But as for what can be done with our existing motorways, to increase capacity on a limited budget, I suppose I'm not really against ALR, it's a stopgap solution though really.

[WHBM]

I am sometimes surprised at how poorly some use the hard shoulder. Failure to get right over to the left is common, even small cars ending up only just clear. Exiting on the offside (and with children from the back ) likewise. Standing just ahead rather than behind. I think there is a lack of useful information about this because authority would rather you didn't use it at all, so minimises information - for example, blandly saying stand behind without saying why, and what hazard it avoids.

Of course, with ALR you now have to stop away from the left side, because of the Armco hard up against the left kerb, preventing opening the nearside door adequately.

The ERA is for if you suffer a vehicle fault but can keep going (common with modern cars, they go into a "limp-home" mode).

I think that's an unlikely situation, to suddenly go into "limp home" but be unable to get to the next junction. Far more common are other events - front wheel puncture; children vomiting in the back etc.

[the cheesecake man]

Saying "a hard shoulder is safe" and "a smart motorway is dangerous" is exactly the kind of unthinking binary view of the world that gives us bad road safety policy.

Sadly "safe" has indeed become a simplistic binary matter to many when it never can be. I am confident that considered in isolation DxM+HS is safer than DxMALR, that D(x+1)M is safer than DxM, that smart DxM is safer than unsmart DxM, that DxM is safer than Dx with right turns/inadequate sliproads/ property access, and that Dx is safer than S(2x). None of this helps with real decisions about real choices such as smartD4MALR v unsmartD3M+HS, or improve Axy v improve Mz. As is so often the case tabloid headlines trivialise complex issues and aim to sell papers rather than be useful.

Similarly new or occasional risks are often exaggerated compared to old or common ones, look how many people are at least nervous about getting on plane when the risk was far greater on the road to the airport. Or 15 years ago people who were reluctant to use their credit card online when they were happy to hand it over in a restaurant.

As noted we've had far too much of the same throughout the pandemic. We will never be "safe" from infectious diseases; there are thousands of them, always have been and always will be, and the consequences of trying to be "safe" aren't safe either.