The future of smart motorways

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac »

the cheesecake man wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 13:29 Everyone also seems to assume that smart motorways and removal of hard shoulders are the same thing. This isn't helpful. It's quite possible to have either without the other (and it has been done). Are the valid safety concerns really about smartification or hard shoulder removal? Why do we need to stop the other?
Removal of the hard-shoulder was to add much-needed extra capacity...

The infrastructure is, as you suggest, separate - but probably essential without the hard-shoulder... but debatably less cost-effective with the retained HS
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 »

I suspect the real reason is with the cost of the pandemic increasing minute by minute that the economics now say people are travelling less so upgrading motorways becomes less of a priority. Same dumb logic that's hamstrung HS2.

As for the safety problems on ALR, the solution is to fix the safety problems, not kick the can down the road and hope the bother goes away. I've been saying for years had proper lane control signalling been used and not this ridiculous reliance on 'lights out = all is normal' (lights out should have been a failure condition with a specific set of instructions to drivers), a lot of this could have been avoided.

Perhaps we also need to revisit the guidance to swap insurance details in the middle of a collision site. When I was driven into the back of by an inattentive driver on the A56 at Haslingden I ordered the other driver to follow me and move off to the adjacent slip roads where it was safer to deal with the incident (both cars were drivable) than blocking lane 2.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jackal »

The government's response to the committee's report has some interesting details:
15. As such, we will immediately pause the roll-out of ALR schemes yet to commence construction. This includes the M3 J9–14, M40/M42 interchange, the M62 J20–25, and the M25 J10–16. At some of these locations, we will continue to invest in additional safety measures by making improvements to the central reservation.

16. We will complete schemes already in construction given they are all over 50% complete.
I thought the M40/M42 interchange scheme was already in construction, as do NH. I'm also surprised M6 J21a-J26 is over 50% complete - it seems it will continue. I guess there is a bit of bending of definitions here as it seems unlikely that all smart motorway schemes would happen to be over 50% complete.
20. The Government’s overarching objective is to make ALR smart motorways as safe as they possibly can be, and we believe that providing more places to stop in an emergency can contribute to that aim. As such the Government is committing £390m over the duration of the second Road Investment Strategy to roll out an EA retrofit programme. This will see over 150 additional EAs being added to ALRs in operation and construction by 2025, with works expecting to start later in the year. These additional EAs will give drivers added reassurance that there is a safe place for them to stop in an emergency.
The 150 includes schemes under construction, but even so it seems there will be a lot of retrofitted EAs.

There's a lot of stuff in the response that basically involves the government reviewing things when they already know the answer (e.g., DHS being a bad idea). But I guess they feel they have no choice given the irrationality that they're up against.

The response: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... eport.html
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jnty »

Anyone know what's going to happen with the M27 scheme? I think it's almost finished.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Chris5156 »

jnty wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 16:23 Anyone know what's going to happen with the M27 scheme? I think it's almost finished.
Given that all schemes already underway will continue, it will continue and be finished as planned. It may get extra refuge areas bolted on in the next few years.
User avatar
the cheesecake man
Member
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
Location: Sheffield

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by the cheesecake man »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 14:09 Removal of the hard-shoulder was to add much-needed extra capacity...
It was, but this could have been done without smartification. I don't think it has been but there's plenty of fast roads without them and have been for decades.

Smartification could have been done without adding lanes and would have improved safety and better managed capacity.

Smartification and adding a fourth lane could be done while keeping a hard shoulder. This has been done on the M1 north of Nottingham.

but debatably less cost-effective with the retained HS
Quite. Why spend money doing things properly? :coat:
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jackal »

the cheesecake man wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 13:21
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 14:09 Removal of the hard-shoulder was to add much-needed extra capacity...
It was, but this could have been done without smartification. I don't think it has been but there's plenty of fast roads without them and have been for decades.
The M8 in Glasgow has progressively lost hard shoulder without smartification (there is no ALR standard in Scotland). No one seems to care though this is undoubtedly less safe than ALR.
Smartification could have been done without adding lanes and would have improved safety and better managed capacity.
How could that 'better manage capacity'? In capacity terms it's just the same thing minus a lane. It's also probably less safe due to the increase in congestion-related collisions, a much bigger factor than presence or absence of HS. This is an old standard in fact, now called 'controlled motorway' - some of these roads like M20 J4-5 have subsequently had the hard shoulder converted due to the obvious limitations. You'll note that no one, not even the select committee, are proposing to turn ALRs into controlled motorways, which is telling.
Smartification and adding a fourth lane could be done while keeping a hard shoulder. This has been done on the M1 north of Nottingham.
The problem is the very high cost of course, a factor that people are very dismissive of, though in their own lives it is a primary determinant (e.g., no one would buy a car or a house without considering the price). I guess it makes a difference when it's (mostly) other people's money...
Last edited by jackal on Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:17, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06
the cheesecake man wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 13:21
Micro The Maniac wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 14:09 Removal of the hard-shoulder was to add much-needed extra capacity...
It was, but this could have been done without smartification. I don't think it has been but there's plenty of fast roads without them and have been for decades.
The M8 in Glasgow has progressively lost hard shoulder without smartification (there is no ALR standard in Scotland). No one seems to care though this is undoubtedly less safe than ALR.
Although crucially none of the sections in question are operating at NSL - the D5 cheapo ALR between the M80 and Townhead is very much 50 mph. Hard shoulders have always been a luxury on urban motorways though - none of the sub-NSL urban motorways built in the 60s/70s ever really had them as a standard; the three famous isolated inner city ones definitely don't bother!
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jackal »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:16
jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06
the cheesecake man wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 13:21

It was, but this could have been done without smartification. I don't think it has been but there's plenty of fast roads without them and have been for decades.
The M8 in Glasgow has progressively lost hard shoulder without smartification (there is no ALR standard in Scotland). No one seems to care though this is undoubtedly less safe than ALR.
Although crucially none of the sections in question are operating at NSL - the D5 cheapo ALR between the M80 and Townhead is very much 50 mph. Hard shoulders have always been a luxury on urban motorways though - none of the sub-NSL urban motorways built in the 60s/70s ever really had them as a standard; the three famous isolated inner city ones definitely don't bother!
Not that I disagree with the general sentiment, but some is 70mph, e.g., J24 to 25 westbound: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.85008 ... 384!8i8192

The M8 in Glasgow was generally built on a larger scale than other British inner city motorways and most of it had HS originally. A lot of HS was removed before my time, including I think the whole section from J14-J17. Another big removal came with the M74 completion from J21 to J25. The Kingston Bridge always lacked HS but was more the exception than the rule, and the M8 in Glasgow mostly lacking hard shoulders is a surprisingly recent invention.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Micro The Maniac »

the cheesecake man wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 13:21 Smartification and adding a fourth lane could be done while keeping a hard shoulder. This has been done on the M1 north of Nottingham.
For example, I would be interested to know how you would propose to have added a fourth lane on the M3 between Junction 3 and Junction 2, given that (a) a big chunk is through the Chobham Common National Nature Reserve and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, and (b) HE had to jump through enough hoops to convert the existing hard-shoulder to a running lane.

There is NO WAY that the Wildlife Trust who owns (?) and manages CC NNR would have allowed several metres of the NNR on either side to be taken up by motorway.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Chris5156 »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 16:11
the cheesecake man wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 13:21 Smartification and adding a fourth lane could be done while keeping a hard shoulder. This has been done on the M1 north of Nottingham.
For example, I would be interested to know how you would propose to have added a fourth lane on the M3 between Junction 3 and Junction 2, given that (a) a big chunk is through the Chobham Common National Nature Reserve and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, and (b) HE had to jump through enough hoops to convert the existing hard-shoulder to a running lane.
It's equally impossible on much of the M6 through the West Midlands. With no realistic way to widen the existing viaducts, you have the choice of turning the hard shoulder into a running lane or keeping the road at its existing three-lane width. There was no other option.

Admittedly these are exceptions, and that much of the current ALR mileage could have had a new hard shoulder added alongside even if it was discontinuous through bridges. But that only works when you're in a greenfield location. And even then it would have meant the schemes would have spent years longer in development because extra land would have to be acquired, which in turn means CPOs and a compulsory public inquiry.
Last edited by Chris5156 on Thu Jan 13, 2022 16:30, edited 1 time in total.
DB617
Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 00:51
Location: Bristol

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by DB617 »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 16:11
the cheesecake man wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 13:21 Smartification and adding a fourth lane could be done while keeping a hard shoulder. This has been done on the M1 north of Nottingham.
For example, I would be interested to know how you would propose to have added a fourth lane on the M3 between Junction 3 and Junction 2, given that (a) a big chunk is through the Chobham Common National Nature Reserve and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, and (b) HE had to jump through enough hoops to convert the existing hard-shoulder to a running lane.

There is NO WAY that the Wildlife Trust who owns (?) and manages CC NNR would have allowed several metres of the NNR on either side to be taken up by motorway.
This seems to be a big problem with trying to expand motorway capacity using extra land take. During the motorway mania era, though I can't corroborate this, it would appear to have been far easier to take up swathes of privately owned land than it is today. I can't see how else the motorway network could have been constructed through agricultural, urban and protected land alike.

Plus as Chris alluded to above (ninja post), there are a lot of structures to be replaced. Look at the M4 scheme - even upgrading to D4ALR has cost a considerable number of structures being totally replaced. Many viaducts and bridge structures were built with capacity for D3M even on D2M schemes, but to get up to continuous 4 lanes just pushes that structure replacement burden too far to be realistic.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16908
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Chris5156 »

DB617 wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 16:28This seems to be a big problem with trying to expand motorway capacity using extra land take. During the motorway mania era, though I can't corroborate this, it would appear to have been far easier to take up swathes of privately owned land than it is today. I can't see how else the motorway network could have been constructed through agricultural, urban and protected land alike.
In the 1960s there was far less objection to development in general. There was also more trust in the state. It was "progress" and people tended not to object. The original length of the M1, for example, was 60+ miles of motorway through the Home Counties, but there was no public inquiry because all disputes were settled by the planners on amicable terms and there were no objections. Such a thing would be unthinkable now, largely because of changing attitudes towards development and the hardship and inconvenience that might be experienced if something like a new road is built close to where you live.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 »

jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:59
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:16
jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06
The M8 in Glasgow has progressively lost hard shoulder without smartification (there is no ALR standard in Scotland). No one seems to care though this is undoubtedly less safe than ALR.
Although crucially none of the sections in question are operating at NSL - the D5 cheapo ALR between the M80 and Townhead is very much 50 mph. Hard shoulders have always been a luxury on urban motorways though - none of the sub-NSL urban motorways built in the 60s/70s ever really had them as a standard; the three famous isolated inner city ones definitely don't bother!
Not that I disagree with the general sentiment, but some is 70mph, e.g., J24 to 25 westbound: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.85008 ... 384!8i8192

The M8 in Glasgow was generally built on a larger scale than other British inner city motorways and most of it had HS originally. A lot of HS was removed before my time, including I think the whole section from J14-J17. Another big removal came with the M74 completion from J21 to J25. The Kingston Bridge always lacked HS but was more the exception than the rule, and the M8 in Glasgow mostly lacking hard shoulders is a surprisingly recent invention.
Yes, good spot! I had forgotten about that bit, and as you say most of these changes are post-opening retrofits presumably applying the logic it's a city location so doesn't need the same spec as rural motorways anyway.

I'm sure the GMA lads would be able to quote chapter and verse about these incremental changes of course.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jnty »

jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06 How could that 'better manage capacity'? In capacity terms it's just the same thing minus a lane. It's also probably less safe due to the increase in congestion-related collisions, a much bigger factor than presence or absence of HS. This is an old standard in fact, now called 'controlled motorway' - some of these roads like M20 J4-5 have subsequently had the hard shoulder converted due to the obvious limitations. You'll note that no one, not even the select committee, are proposing to turn ALRs into controlled motorways, which is telling.
In theory at least, restricting speeds on lanes should increase the capacity of a congested road, because you can fit more cars into a given stretch, sudden braking is less likely to occur and lane changing is discouraged. (Look at how very busy 50mph roadworks sections still seem to flow freely a lot of the time.) As you allude to, it also reduces the potential speed differential of vehicles and therefore can help prevent and reduce the severity of (usually rear-end) accidents. Finally, it can also close lanes affected by live-lane breakdowns and crashes, and close lane 2 to increase the safety of people stopped or carrying out recovery operations in the hard shoulder.

Presumably changing to 'controlled motorway' has a different set of cost-benefit tradeoffs which would need to be assessed. Either conventional widening or ALR may still be progressed within the next decade so there could be a lot of wasted effort if they just went ahead with slapping gantries up over the motorway as-is.
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jackal »

jnty wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:35
jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06 How could that 'better manage capacity'? In capacity terms it's just the same thing minus a lane. It's also probably less safe due to the increase in congestion-related collisions, a much bigger factor than presence or absence of HS. This is an old standard in fact, now called 'controlled motorway' - some of these roads like M20 J4-5 have subsequently had the hard shoulder converted due to the obvious limitations. You'll note that no one, not even the select committee, are proposing to turn ALRs into controlled motorways, which is telling.
In theory at least, restricting speeds on lanes should increase the capacity of a congested road, because you can fit more cars into a given stretch, sudden braking is less likely to occur and lane changing is discouraged. (Look at how very busy 50mph roadworks sections still seem to flow freely a lot of the time.) As you allude to, it also reduces the potential speed differential of vehicles and therefore can help prevent and reduce the severity of (usually rear-end) accidents. Finally, it can also close lanes affected by live-lane breakdowns and crashes, and close lane 2 to increase the safety of people stopped or carrying out recovery operations in the hard shoulder.

Presumably changing to 'controlled motorway' has a different set of cost-benefit tradeoffs which would need to be assessed. Either conventional widening or ALR may still be progressed within the next decade so there could be a lot of wasted effort if they just went ahead with slapping gantries up over the motorway as-is.
My point was that all the benefits of controlled motorways in terms of regulating traffic flow are also captured by ALR, which has the same gadgets. And it gives you an extra lane as well.

It is frustrating that gantries are often built so close to the edge of the carriageway, especially now that the structures are so massive and expensive to replace. See, for instance, these three on M1 J42 to 41 southbound, which were installed with ALR works in the early 2010s:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.72235 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.71935 ... 384!8i8192
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.71915 ... 384!8i8192

They seem to restrict the carriageway to its current four lane width southbound, even though it's five lanes northbound. The same is likely to be required southbound, and arguably should be provided as part of the Lofthouse upgrade. (The older bridge is also in the way of the extra lane, but that's hardly an excuse.)
SteveM
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 13:36
Location: Portsmouth

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by SteveM »

I can't help but observe that in the three, getting on four years that the M27 smartification has been going on, that for most of the time it has been running as D3M without hard shoulder - just a metal wall to one side of you or the other. I'm not aware (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) of any major incidents under that arrangement. If capacity is the issue on any future D3M > D4M scheme, perhaps the quickest way to make it run safely is to paint out the hard shoulder as lane 1, have lane 4 as the narrower car only lane (saves the smidgen of carriageway widening required) and have average speed cameras running permanently, set to 50mph. That would help air quality as well into the bargain. :stir:
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jnty »

jackal wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 13:09
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:35
jackal wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06 How could that 'better manage capacity'? In capacity terms it's just the same thing minus a lane. It's also probably less safe due to the increase in congestion-related collisions, a much bigger factor than presence or absence of HS. This is an old standard in fact, now called 'controlled motorway' - some of these roads like M20 J4-5 have subsequently had the hard shoulder converted due to the obvious limitations. You'll note that no one, not even the select committee, are proposing to turn ALRs into controlled motorways, which is telling.
In theory at least, restricting speeds on lanes should increase the capacity of a congested road, because you can fit more cars into a given stretch, sudden braking is less likely to occur and lane changing is discouraged. (Look at how very busy 50mph roadworks sections still seem to flow freely a lot of the time.) As you allude to, it also reduces the potential speed differential of vehicles and therefore can help prevent and reduce the severity of (usually rear-end) accidents. Finally, it can also close lanes affected by live-lane breakdowns and crashes, and close lane 2 to increase the safety of people stopped or carrying out recovery operations in the hard shoulder.

Presumably changing to 'controlled motorway' has a different set of cost-benefit tradeoffs which would need to be assessed. Either conventional widening or ALR may still be progressed within the next decade so there could be a lot of wasted effort if they just went ahead with slapping gantries up over the motorway as-is.
My point was that all the benefits of controlled motorways in terms of regulating traffic flow are also captured by ALR, which has the same gadgets. And it gives you an extra lane as well.
Ah - I interpreted the post you were replying to as saying that smartification of a regular motorway with no other changes would still increase capacity - which I think is true - whereas it sounds like you're saying that adding an extra lane to an otherwise smart motorway will increase capacity even further - certainly also true!

SteveM wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 13:58 I can't help but observe that in the three, getting on four years that the M27 smartification has been going on, that for most of the time it has been running as D3M without hard shoulder - just a metal wall to one side of you or the other. I'm not aware (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) of any major incidents under that arrangement. If capacity is the issue on any future D3M > D4M scheme, perhaps the quickest way to make it run safely is to paint out the hard shoulder as lane 1, have lane 4 as the narrower car only lane (saves the smidgen of carriageway widening required) and have average speed cameras running permanently, set to 50mph. That would help air quality as well into the bargain. :stir:
Honestly I think this is close to what will end up happening for the most congested sections - and probably what happens naturally for much of the time on most smart motorways. Perhaps not what opponents really want but definitely a case of be careful what you wish for!

It occurs to me that a hybrid scheme where lane 1 is normally shut but, if open, speeds will always be restricted to 50mph or below might be a reasonable mitigation to the genuine safety concerns, but still probably not meet the approval of opponents in the general public!

I agree that the roadworks section of the M27 certainly seems to run very smoothly whenever I've driven it despite being pretty busy.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35755
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bryn666 »

jnty wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 14:07 It occurs to me that a hybrid scheme where lane 1 is normally shut but, if open, speeds will always be restricted to 50mph or below might be a reasonable mitigation to the genuine safety concerns, but still probably not meet the approval of opponents in the general public!
That sounds like a Dutch plus lane - which is now a deprecated policy due to the sheer complexity of when they could be opened:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plusstrook
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
jnty
Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2021 00:12

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jnty »

Bryn666 wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 14:16
jnty wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 14:07 It occurs to me that a hybrid scheme where lane 1 is normally shut but, if open, speeds will always be restricted to 50mph or below might be a reasonable mitigation to the genuine safety concerns, but still probably not meet the approval of opponents in the general public!
That sounds like a Dutch plus lane - which is now a deprecated policy due to the sheer complexity of when they could be opened:

https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plusstrook
Interesting - it does occur there's a funny cliff edge where when you open the new lane, the road becomes less congested yet you have to drop the speed limit to 50mph.
Post Reply