All Lane Running - Smart Motorways ?

[rhyds]

I’m not dismissing any of the concerns in this thread, but that statistic is all shock value and zero meaning.

Very much this. The Radio 4 show More or Less goes to great lengths to explain various statistics in context, and show how a very shocking number is in fact what you expect it to be given the wider statistical context.

As for this M25 example, I'm assuming that any near miss incidents would either have been spotted by the (much sparser) pre Smart Motorway CCTV network or would be via police reports, while the post SM works would have much more sophisticated detection kit.

[A303Chris]

Trouble with statistics is how you present them can always back the argument you want.

What I would like to see is a comparison between the number of near misses / accidents per annual vehicle flow for ALR as a percentage and for long distances of Expressways, for example the 95 miles of the A30 through Devon and Cornwall, the A38 through Devon, the A38 through Staffordshire, Derbyshire, A303 west of the M3, A12 through Essex and Suffolk, the A1 through Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire etc, all of which have no hard shoulder.

I find driving the ALR running safer than the APDC given the technology available etc and better sight lines.

The only bad section of smart motorways for me is the M1 J10 to J13 which is a mixture of ALR through junctions and Toddington services and Hard Shoulder Running between junctions. This can be confusing and should be converted to ALR.

[XC70]

Trouble with statistics is how you present them can always back the argument you want.

What I would like to see is a comparison between the number of near misses / accidents per annual vehicle flow for ALR as a percentage and for long distances of Expressways, for example the 95 miles of the A30 through Devon and Cornwall, the A38 through Devon, the A38 through Staffordshire, Derbyshire, A303 west of the M3, A12 through Essex and Suffolk, the A1 through Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire etc, all of which have no hard shoulder.

I find driving the ALR running safer than the APDC given the technology available etc and better sight lines.

The only bad section of smart motorways for me is the M1 J10 to J13 which is a mixture of ALR through junctions and Toddington services and Hard Shoulder Running between junctions. This can be confusing and should be converted to ALR.

I am afraid I don't agree with your comparator.

You should compare smart motorway with comparable normal motorway. Or smart motorway after "smartification" with the same motorway before.

All purpose expressways are a lower design standard and adopting the arguement that "a smart motorway is OK because it is just as safe as a road which was always at a lower standard than what the road was before" is just nonsense.

[c2R]

1. Reduce the speed limit on ALR to 60 mph in daylight and 50 mph at night.

This is simply a harsher and permanent invocation of existing VSL capability. I know this idea will be decried, as I sense a great aversion to low-ish speed limits in many Sabristi - sorry, but I do have to say that. But spotting, and avoiding, a stopped vehicle is much easier at this slower pace. Here in Australia (and I'm not claiming that we have the answers) most ALR parts of our metropolitan motorways operate at 80 kph instead of the usual 100. Some drivers here too find that rather frustrating, but it is safer. Also, the danger of slamming into an unnoticed stopped vehicle applies more than ever at night-time in the dark.

These aren't urban motorways, though, they're long stretches of core motorway infrastructure between the three largest cities in the UK. And as has already been pointed out, the majority of accidents are going to occur by an HGV hitting a stationary vehicle, which will most likely be travelling at 90kmh.

[rhyds]

Trouble with statistics is how you present them can always back the argument you want.

What I would like to see is a comparison between the number of near misses / accidents per annual vehicle flow for ALR as a percentage and for long distances of Expressways, for example the 95 miles of the A30 through Devon and Cornwall, the A38 through Devon, the A38 through Staffordshire, Derbyshire, A303 west of the M3, A12 through Essex and Suffolk, the A1 through Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire etc, all of which have no hard shoulder.

I find driving the ALR running safer than the APDC given the technology available etc and better sight lines.

The only bad section of smart motorways for me is the M1 J10 to J13 which is a mixture of ALR through junctions and Toddington services and Hard Shoulder Running between junctions. This can be confusing and should be converted to ALR.

I am afraid I don't agree with your comparator.

You should compare smart motorway with comparable normal motorway. Or smart motorway after "smartification" with the same motorway before.

All purpose expressways are a lower design standard and adopting the arguement that "a smart motorway is OK because it is just as safe as a road which was always at a lower standard than what the road was before" is just nonsense.

The best comparison I can think of is between the M6 J1-3 and the A14. Both carry the same mix of traffic across similar terrain. The only difference is one has blue signs and is D3HS, while the other has green signs and is D2AP.

As for comparing with similar stretches of non smart motorway, that is a fair comparison, however allowances have to be made for the vastly different AADTs that exist over the network and the mix of traffic. The M6 north of Preston for example is a massively different beast to the M6 south of there, despite both being of similar design standards

[nowster]

And again this Friday evening. TM were setting out cones on the westbound M62.

Near Birch Services there were white ↘ ↘ arrows above lanes 1 and 2, and a 50 limit.

This turned into xx↑↑ and 40 where the TM crew were setting out the cones.

Then the next three gantries were blank (except for a pair of NSL on the slip roads to Simister Island), and finally there were NSL signs across all lanes at the Whitefield junction.

Something's very wrong somewhere.

[Piatkow]

SNIP

The only bad section of smart motorways for me is the M1 J10 to J13 which is a mixture of ALR through junctions and Toddington services and Hard Shoulder Running between junctions. This can be confusing and should be converted to ALR.

I agree on that one, it certainly did my head in the first time I drove through it.

[Bendo]

And again this Friday evening. TM were setting out cones on the westbound M62.

Near Birch Services there were white ↘ ↘ arrows above lanes 1 and 2, and a 50 limit.

This turned into xx↑↑ and 40 where the TM crew were setting out the cones.

Then the next three gantries were blank (except for a pair of NSL on the slip roads to Simister Island), and finally there were NSL signs across all lanes at the Whitefield junction.

Something's very wrong somewhere.

Have you reported it?

[nowster]

Have you reported it?

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

[mikehindsonevans]

Have you reported it?

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

And where would you stop to report it!

Sorry, couldn't resist! Of course one would call HA/HE...

Seriously, I am always impressed by the responsiveness of the HA call centre ops when I make contact.

[XC70]

Have you reported it?

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

And where would you stop to report it!

Sorry, couldn't resist! Of course one would call HA/HE...

Seriously, I am always impressed by the responsiveness of the HA call centre ops when I make contact.

My understanding is that this is policy and it is basically ridiculous. The TM is activated in the run up to the works area, then the actual works area it is switched off as the area is the responsibility of the contractor. So typically on over night works with no mandatory reduced limit you get lots of excitable TM signs bringing you down to 40 (or even 30) and bright lane closure matrix signs. Then just as the guys are dumping out cones it all goes black and hey presto you are allowed to do 70 again. Right where the workers are. It is basically a complete failure of common sense which confuses drivers and increases risk. But my understanding is that it is policy......

[Bendo]

Have you reported it?

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Doesn't sound like it would be policy, restrictions should be on all the signs until canceled, if you tell them the location, time and what you saw they should be able to check what was shown and what was intended to be shown and whether there is some type of systems failure or human error.

[XC70]

Have you reported it?

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Doesn't sound like it would be policy, restrictions should be on all the signs until canceled, if you tell them the location, time and what you saw they should be able to check what was shown and what was intended to be shown and whether there is some type of systems failure or human error.

See my reply above.

[Bendo]

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Doesn't sound like it would be policy, restrictions should be on all the signs until canceled, if you tell them the location, time and what you saw they should be able to check what was shown and what was intended to be shown and whether there is some type of systems failure or human error.

See my reply above.

I did, but it doesn't make sense as a policy, an unlit gantry, as far as I am aware, doesn't override the restrictions so all they are doing is causing confusion as to the limit which will result in some people sticking to the limit and some taking a chance. Probably less of an issue if the cones and TM is setup but restrictions, blank gantries then an end of restrictions, if that is policy suggests there is a lot more wrong with smart motorways than just lack of SVD. You need to add sheer incompetence to the list.

[JonH]

Have you reported it?

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Doesn't sound like it would be policy, restrictions should be on all the signs until canceled, if you tell them the location, time and what you saw they should be able to check what was shown and what was intended to be shown and whether there is some type of systems failure or human error.

A phone number might be more useful - though why members of the public should be policing the highways chimps for not doing their job is beyond me.

Besides, emails get easily ignored - I had no response to the one I sent a while back to point out yet another discrepancy between road markings and signage on an "improved" roundabout.

On the otherhand, if must be nice working on highways - you can be absolute rubbish at your job and get away with it.

[Phil]

In the five years before the road was converted into a smart motorway there were just 72 near misses. In the five years after, there were 1,485.

I'm intrigued as to how they measure that. A near miss, by definition, is a non-hit. Who reports that? Maybe more people do when it's a smart motorway because they think the signs should be warning them. I find it hard to believe that any section of the M25 more than about 6 yards long had only 72 near misses in 5 years – that's barely more than one a month. That number just isn't credible.

Or have we converted accidents into near-misses? How many of those 1485 would have been hits without the smart technology?

Indeed, I find those figures very questionable for these reasons and others. It’s impossible to know, from the information given, what is being discussed and whether it’s a meaningful comparison.

On an ordinary motorway, there is not the surveillance or manpower to monitor the road and everything that happens on it in as much detail. How much of the difference in figures is down to the fact that near misses are being recorded for intensively-monitored and scrutinised Smart Motorways but not on other roads?

What is the difference in actual collisions and other incidents, and the severity of those incidents? Is it higher or lower? Are we seeing a situation where there are more near misses but fewer incidents? More near misses and more incidents but the incidents are generally less serious? More near misses and collisions that are generally more likely to result in death or serious injury? We just don’t know.

I’m not dismissing any of the concerns in this thread, but that statistic is all shock value and zero meaning.

They are NOT MEANINGLESS and only a fool who doesn't understand statistics would say so.

Working in the railway industry where we also have 'near misses' and 'incidents' means I am very well aware of the terms 'near miss' and 'incident' - you don't need to have some sort of ever present independent arbiter to draw up said statistics!

A near miss is an event which someone believes could have caused death or injury REGARDLESS of the mode of transport.

Best practice says that a high number of near misses indicates you have a problem - and rather than pretending there isn't, were these statistics being presented to anyone other than the road lobby then there would be demands for immediate action by the safety regulators!

Its pretty obvious that if you are safely on the hard shoulder then because that is not a live traffic lane then the number of near misses will be less. This would be similar to railway staff working inside a line blockage but with adjacent lines open - statistically you are a lot less likely to have a 'near miss incident' because vehicles should not enter the place where you are standing*.

On the other hand if you don't have a hard shoulder then its more akin to working on an open railway where you have 20 seconds to get clear - in such situations the risk of having a near miss shoots up dramatically. The same is true old a motorist braking down in a live lane - because they are not in a piece of road blocked to other road traffic then you are 100 % relying on other road users to take timely avoiding action.

Again a railway that has a sparse train service lowers the risk - just as a D2 A road like the A24 will have a vastly lower risk than the ALR M25 simply because of traffic volumes so all this nonsense about 'well we don't have hard shoulders of A roads' is bogus. The more traffic (and the more live lanes a road has the more traffic it will carry) the grater the chance of an incident or near miss occurring

Just as a train driver may make an official record of a 'near miss' so too might be a breakdown recovery driver, a Highways Agency traffic officer and theses should be no less believed.

Of course just as members of the public can report perceived near misses at level crossings, so might ordinary motorists - if they have felt the need to take evasive action because they came across a stationary vehicle in a live traffic lane, but the official signage had not been changed to warn of the obstruction then they may well phone the highways agency to report a near miss.

Ultimately the ONLY way an ALR motorway can be as safe as a conventional one is where you have the signs backed up by radar so they can react instantly combined with frequent laybys. The fact that neither of these have been implemented for cost cutting reasons by HE / DfT stinks - as any sane statistician would have easily been able to prove the number of near misses / incidents would go up significantly without them. Simply relying on a limited number human television watchers to spot things is NOT ON!

I do accept however that an ALR motorway PROPERLY kitted out with the above is probably safer than a traditional motorway.


* Having recently been the victim of a signaller removing the line blockage prematurely and running a train through my still blocked line as far as I was concerned does show its not foolproof - but its a lot safer than open line working.
Naturally if you increase opportunities for vehicles to get off the live lanes through increased refuges (i.e. making them more like the discontinuous hard shoulders we used to get on widening schemes) and install radar technology so the signs can react instantly then you go a long way to lowering risk factors - and thus near misses.

[Jeni]

On the otherhand, if must be nice working on highways - you can be absolute rubbish at your job and get away with it.

I'm sure the people on this forum who work on highways appreciate your comments towards them.

[Micro The Maniac]

I've spent god knows how many hours on the hardshoulder. It's clearly dangerous so you keep your wits about you. I've never had a near miss but know others who have and even some who never went home again. But 9 minutes seems very "off".

Statistics vary, but suggest that there are 24 cases of vehicles crashing into stationary cars on the hard shoulder every week!

https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/ ... every-week

[XC70]

info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Doesn't sound like it would be policy, restrictions should be on all the signs until canceled, if you tell them the location, time and what you saw they should be able to check what was shown and what was intended to be shown and whether there is some type of systems failure or human error.

See my reply above.

I did, but it doesn't make sense as a policy, an unlit gantry, as far as I am aware, doesn't override the restrictions so all they are doing is causing confusion as to the limit which will result in some people sticking to the limit and some taking a chance. Probably less of an issue if the cones and TM is setup but restrictions, blank gantries then an end of restrictions, if that is policy suggests there is a lot more wrong with smart motorways than just lack of SVD. You need to add sheer incompetence to the list.

Nope. Doesn't make any sense to me as a driver either but I am re-assured that this is how it works. I am also 100% certain that a black gantry legally means that the motorway reverts to standard ie. 70mph and all lanes open. You do not have to wait for a NSL sign on a gantry.

[Bendo]

To whom? It's so common, it must be policy.

info@highwaysengland.co.uk

Doesn't sound like it would be policy, restrictions should be on all the signs until canceled, if you tell them the location, time and what you saw they should be able to check what was shown and what was intended to be shown and whether there is some type of systems failure or human error.

A phone number might be more useful - though why members of the public should be policing the highways chimps for not doing their job is beyond me.

Besides, emails get easily ignored - I had no response to the one I sent a while back to point out yet another discrepancy between road markings and signage on an "improved" roundabout.

There is a phone number on https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... ys-england but generally they tend to reply to emails and pass them onto the appropriate people.