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.
I like the way HE are trying to twist it back round, now claiming the presence of hard shoulders makes them unsafe...
Could the dangerous hard shoulder be the from the first tranche of smart motorways which were dynamic hard shoulder running, M1 J10 to J13, M6 through Birmingham, M42 , M5 / M4 around Bristol, M62 around Leeds. The M1 and M6 are the worse with all lane running through the junctions and dynamic hard shoulder running between. These to me are confusing and more dangerous than ALR where you know where you are. Could they be turning the earlier versions into ALR under there new tag line "Digital Motorways"
That would at least make sense, although "Digital Motorways" is a bit of an eye-roller.
I thought it was a new synonym for the Information Superhighway ...
“The quality of any advice anybody has to offer has to be judged against the quality of life they actually lead.” - Douglas Adams.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
I like the way HE are trying to twist it back round, now claiming the presence of hard shoulders makes them unsafe...
Could the dangerous hard shoulder be the from the first tranche of smart motorways which were dynamic hard shoulder running, M1 J10 to J13, M6 through Birmingham, M42 , M5 / M4 around Bristol, M62 around Leeds. The M1 and M6 are the worse with all lane running through the junctions and dynamic hard shoulder running between. These to me are confusing and more dangerous than ALR where you know where you are. Could they be turning the earlier versions into ALR under there new tag line "Digital Motorways"
That would at least make sense, although "Digital Motorways" is a bit of an eye-roller.
Active Traffic Management > Managed Motorways > Smart Motorways > Digital Motorways
Presumably "digital" means they are either flowing (1) or stationary (0)
Berk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 01:20
I like the way HE are trying to twist it back round, now claiming the presence of hard shoulders makes them unsafe...
This is not a new stance, and I'm surprised so many replies are unfamiliar with it. There is no question over whether having a hard shoulder causes people to put themselves in danger: it absolutely does, people use it to answer the phone, have a nap and check the sat nav.
The question has always been whether the safety offered in a genuine emergency outweighs the risks posed by idiots not using it properly, and whether Highways England's faith in technology will mitigate that risk enough to make it acceptable. That is a debate which has gone on for years on here, and will never end.
Also, it's totally unlike Highways England to invent a new name for something they had just invented a new name for.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 15:58
The question has always been whether the safety offered in a genuine emergency outweighs the risks posed by idiots not using it properly, and whether Highways England's faith in technology will mitigate that risk enough to make it acceptable. That is a debate which has gone on for years on here, and will never end.
Part of that debate needs to include the fact that lack of enforcement increases the number of people in the idiot category - with an alternative view that technology could be used to enforce many traffic laws, other than speeding and bus lane encroachment.
EpicChef wrote: ↑Sun Jan 06, 2019 20:21
But still HOV 2+ lanes work, and may help to bring some purpose to a running hard shoulder. Less vehicles buys time for any occupants of a broken down vehicle to escape. And MS4s can vary from 2+ to 3+ and then possibly to buses/coaches/NationalExpress only if the traffic is too bad.
I'd disagree that they work - I've used them in the UK and abroad, and they encourage unpredictable driver behaviour; if the lane is on the hardshoulder side, it means that vehicles need to cross it to enter or exit the motorway, and also if HGVs aren't considered high occupancy, they can be stuck in lane 1 going nowhere, thus blocking access to the HOV hard shoulder and the exits and entrances. Where the HOV lane is in the middle, it encourages drivers to move across several lanes because they're in a people carrier or minibus full of people, even if they're only on it for a short while, and then move back over again. If they're then holding up a driver behind, the driver behind might choose to move out into the rest of the lanes to undertake, if the other lanes start running faster - particularly if the vehicle in the HOV lane is limited to a speed under the speed limit.
In some places in the US painted lines were used to demark the crossover points where you may leave or exit the HOV - and in others where these are ignored, I've seen physical barriers used. But physical barriers mean an inability to pass obstructions, meaning that more than one lane is then required....
It's sort of the law of good intentions; it seems like a good idea to begin with, but then there are all sorts of external factors as to why it isn't...
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 15:58
There is no question over whether having a hard shoulder causes people to put themselves in danger: it absolutely does, people use it to answer the phone, have a nap and check the sat nav.
There is also the fact that the fatality count on the hard-shoulder (caused by vehicles drifting left) is non-insignificant.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 15:58
There is no question over whether having a hard shoulder causes people to put themselves in danger: it absolutely does, people use it to answer the phone, have a nap and check the sat nav.
There is also the fact that the fatality count on the hard-shoulder (caused by vehicles drifting left) is non-insignificant.
But would that figure have been even higher with no hard shoulder? The increased likelihood of stopping in a running lane, ie not able to get to a refuge, needs to be taken into account.
Ruperts Trooper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:21
But would that figure have been even higher with no hard shoulder? The increased likelihood of stopping in a running lane, ie not able to get to a refuge, needs to be taken into account.
The argument seems to be that the Refuges are safer (because traffic doesn't accidentally drift into a Refuge). But completely overlooks that there are not enough Refuges, and they are in stupid places.
Ruperts Trooper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:21
But would that figure have been even higher with no hard shoulder? The increased likelihood of stopping in a running lane, ie not able to get to a refuge, needs to be taken into account.
The argument seems to be that the Refuges are safer (because traffic doesn't accidentally drift into a Refuge). But completely overlooks that there are not enough Refuges, and they are in stupid places.
Statistics would show the reality though - I've experienced the difficulty of getting across a busy 3-lane motorway coasting from 70 mph - trying to coast across a busy 4-lane motorway from, say 50 mph, would be impossible and such a driver would be dependent on following drivers to avoid then until the camera monitors get the lane stopped.
Ruperts Trooper wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:21
But would that figure have been even higher with no hard shoulder? The increased likelihood of stopping in a running lane, ie not able to get to a refuge, needs to be taken into account.
The argument seems to be that the Refuges are safer (because traffic doesn't accidentally drift into a Refuge). But completely overlooks that there are not enough Refuges, and they are in stupid places.
Statistics would show the reality though - I've experienced the difficulty of getting across a busy 3-lane motorway coasting from 70 mph - trying to coast across a busy 4-lane motorway from, say 50 mph, would be impossible and such a driver would be dependent on following drivers to avoid then until the camera monitors get the lane stopped.
I've only looked at a couple of them (and haven't thoroughly read them), but the general point from the ones I have looked at seems to be that HSR schemes are at least as safe as what went before. As I say, I haven't read them in detail, but I suppose that the added hazard of broken down vehicles in running lanes is more than offset by the added safety of a) vehicles not using the hard shoulder for non-essential reasons and b) the new technology to observe traffic conditions and respond accordingly.
Johnathan404 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 15:58
Also, it's totally unlike Highways England to invent a new name for something they had just invented a new name for.
Very funny .
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
Big L wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 22:51
I have never seen 20 on a variable speed limit sign.
Mostly in the early hours on the M25. The clockwise slips to the M4 or the M40 are doozies. When they cone them off along with the approach lanes leaving the main three lane carriageway utterly clear but at the last gantries want you to do 20mph past the cones, perhaps thirty in the outside lane. Coming up on somebody actually doing that speed happens extremely quickly & is quite disconcerting, though it hasn't happened too often.
It's a perfectly ridiculous state of affairs though l haven't had cause to use that part of the motorway for some months so haven't seen it for a while.
Does it go down over a few miles - 60 40 30 20 maybe - or within the space of one gantry go from "Roadworks Slow" to a mandatory 20? There's a big difference in operational safety there.
I've been on that stretch of the M25 when they've put cones out and no actual workers in evidence, and you get no advance warning except "SLOW – WORKFORCE IN ROAD" and you're expected to be doing 20 under at least the next three gantries showing "20" in all lanes!!!
DB617 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:30
Does it go down over a few miles - 60 40 30 20 maybe - or within the space of one gantry go from "Roadworks Slow" to a mandatory 20? There's a big difference in operational safety there.
Well, even if it did, 20mph.....really?? With three live lanes beside an empty (very well) coned-off slip road, at three o'clock in the morning?
I can't be the only one thinking that's really well outside the bounds of reasonable caution.
