And when that becomes busy just reduce the speed limit to 30. Job done.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.
The future of smart motorways
Moderator: Site Management Team
Re: The future of smart motorways
Re: The future of smart motorways
The lack of an incident would mean that there is no direct relevance. In addition there is all stuff associated with works e.g. vehicle recovery, regular inspections/maintenance, enhanced delineation and the odd clenched buttocks which affects any correlation.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.
Re: The future of smart motorways
Car ownership was soaring in the sixties and the old trunk roads had to be replaced quite quickly as they were filling up, and the railways were seen as old fashioned and being closed down in many areas. In 1960 there were only 6 million cars on the roads, by 1969 this had reached 11.5 million, and also commercial vehicles had increased massively. A motorway like the M1 from London to Leeds relieved the major cities considerably and led to huge improvements in journey speeds.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 16:32In 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.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.
Re: The future of smart motorways
The DHSR on the M42 near Birmingham has a very similar mechanism in place already – the hard shoulder is only used as a running lane when the speed limit is set to 60mph or below. It wouldn't be hard to change the policy to have a 50mph requirement instead.jnty wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 14:07It 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!
Re: The future of smart motorways
It originally was 50 before the hard shoulder could open. The change to 60 came about because it was causing compliance and enforcement difficulties.ais523 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 22:09The DHSR on the M42 near Birmingham has a very similar mechanism in place already – the hard shoulder is only used as a running lane when the speed limit is set to 60mph or below. It wouldn't be hard to change the policy to have a 50mph requirement instead.jnty wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 14:07It 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!
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
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
Re: The future of smart motorways
The original design was only safe for 50mph. It was changed when the 2011 Amendment Regs, along with Class R4 road marking materials allowed improved delineation for LBS1. It was always the aim to be able to operate DHS at 60mph; however, the majority of the benift would be when conditions would still mandate a 50 mph limit, so the requirement to have to use a 50mph with DHS was not a great problem. Then again one of the requirements for 60mph running were identified as Red X (Dia 5003.1) enforcement and an effective SVD. Problem was the responsibility for development was transferred from highway engineers to technology specialists, since it's only sticking a load of signals up aint it?Bryn666 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 23:55It originally was 50 before the hard shoulder could open. The change to 60 came about because it was causing compliance and enforcement difficulties.ais523 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 22:09The DHSR on the M42 near Birmingham has a very similar mechanism in place already – the hard shoulder is only used as a running lane when the speed limit is set to 60mph or below. It wouldn't be hard to change the policy to have a 50mph requirement instead.jnty wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 14:07It 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!
Re: The future of smart motorways
Experienced yet another poorly operated smart motorway moment today at Almondsbury. Coming off M32 westbound onto J20, the first set of signals was 60 - (!) - SLOW DOWN. All the remaining sets were either completely blank or Red X LBS1 - Hardshoulder for emergency use only.
Challenge. Now you have a motorway full of confused drivers who are doing 60, 70, or 50 'just to be safe'. Sure, we can tell drivers that blank means NSL, but especially on approach to a known HADECS set, many people won't take the risk of trouble with the law. The easiest way to control this issue is to rewrite the book on how NH control rooms operate the motorways. There seems to be no one standard that's adhered to, a total lack of thoroughness, and poorly thought out use of signals. Not to mention the excessive number of leftover signals from earlier incidents.
Challenge. Now you have a motorway full of confused drivers who are doing 60, 70, or 50 'just to be safe'. Sure, we can tell drivers that blank means NSL, but especially on approach to a known HADECS set, many people won't take the risk of trouble with the law. The easiest way to control this issue is to rewrite the book on how NH control rooms operate the motorways. There seems to be no one standard that's adhered to, a total lack of thoroughness, and poorly thought out use of signals. Not to mention the excessive number of leftover signals from earlier incidents.
-
- Member
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 19:11
- Location: Leatherhead
Re: The future of smart motorways
Indeed. I regularly drive J6A - J13, and 10-13 will stick out like a sore thumb as what always seems like a substandard section of motorway (especially between 10 and 11A) on a ~60 mile stretch of what will be D4M/D4ALR once 13-16 is complete.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:55 [the] real loss that comes out of this announcement and leaves us stuck with dangerously inconsistent roads (M1 J10-13 is the prime example) that will increase driver confusion and increase the risk of accidents. It means that rather than just deciding to stop installing something of disputed safety, we are also failing to remove something proven to be badly understood and risky. Such a shame.
The DSHR is rarely used to its full potential anyway it seems, often the HS is closed with queuing traffic.
As you say, a shame, as even under the Labour govt this section was slated for widening to D4M.
Formerly ‘guvvaA303’
Re: The future of smart motorways
With the pausing of the M3 J9 to M27 scheme, will this affect the M3J9 work? Might they think that without the extra capacity south of J9 its not worth completing J9?
If we are to get all these extra ERAs, what will happen to the elevated motorways like the M6 through Birmingham?
If we are to get all these extra ERAs, what will happen to the elevated motorways like the M6 through Birmingham?
Re: The future of smart motorways
According to a local newspaper they are pausing the smart motorway between J14 and J15 on the M1 so they can gauge the info on the safety of not having hard shoulders by coning off one of the four lanes... in effect making it a 3 lane "smart" motorway without refuges #facepalm
A fine is a tax for the naughty, tax is a fine for the good!
- Norfolktolancashire
- Member
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
- Location: Cornwall
Re: The future of smart motorways
The "fun" begins when the signs show 40 mph on all lanes from NSL as happened to myself on the southbound M5 near Worcester last week.
I was in lane 4 with all lanes busy and HGV's in particular carrying on at 50+mph.
Yes I slowed down to the required speed, however at great risk of being "rear ended" by vehicles behind me and no clear space to pull into the other lanes.
Despite all the regulations, tests, computer runs, etc. when you are faced with this it is a very dangerous position.
I was in lane 4 with all lanes busy and HGV's in particular carrying on at 50+mph.
Yes I slowed down to the required speed, however at great risk of being "rear ended" by vehicles behind me and no clear space to pull into the other lanes.
Despite all the regulations, tests, computer runs, etc. when you are faced with this it is a very dangerous position.
- Ruperts Trooper
- Member
- Posts: 12045
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 13:43
- Location: Huntingdonshire originally, but now Staffordshire
Re: The future of smart motorways
That's nothing to do with smart motorways - it's all to do with general lack of compliance with speed limits - on a recent trip along the conventional M5 I slowed to 55 for a couple of 50 mph stretches covering roadworks but everyone else carried on without slowing.Norfolktolancashire wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 19:48 The "fun" begins when the signs show 40 mph on all lanes from NSL as happened to myself on the southbound M5 near Worcester last week.
I was in lane 4 with all lanes busy and HGV's in particular carrying on at 50+mph.
Yes I slowed down to the required speed, however at great risk of being "rear ended" by vehicles behind me and no clear space to pull into the other lanes.
Despite all the regulations, tests, computer runs, etc. when you are faced with this it is a very dangerous position.
Lifelong motorhead
-
- Member
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
- Location: Gone
Re: The future of smart motorways
Accidents and incidents through the roadworks, while not quite being a daily occurrence have been quite a regular thing. Particularly at junction mergesSteveM 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.
- Norfolktolancashire
- Member
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
- Location: Cornwall
Re: The future of smart motorways
Agreed, however there are plenty of roadworks ahead signs before you hit the 50mph area unlike the 40mph overhead signage that you can only see a few seconds before if the previous signage was NSL.Ruperts Trooper wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 20:05That's nothing to do with smart motorways - it's all to do with general lack of compliance with speed limits - on a recent trip along the conventional M5 I slowed to 55 for a couple of 50 mph stretches covering roadworks but everyone else carried on without slowing.Norfolktolancashire wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 19:48 The "fun" begins when the signs show 40 mph on all lanes from NSL as happened to myself on the southbound M5 near Worcester last week.
I was in lane 4 with all lanes busy and HGV's in particular carrying on at 50+mph.
Yes I slowed down to the required speed, however at great risk of being "rear ended" by vehicles behind me and no clear space to pull into the other lanes.
Despite all the regulations, tests, computer runs, etc. when you are faced with this it is a very dangerous position.
It is the sudden change in speed restriction that is the danger here on Smart Motorways.
Re: The future of smart motorways
You should be able to see Smart Motorway signals well ahead and have plenty of time to read and interpret them. If you can only see one a few seconds before passing it, there is something very wrong.Norfolktolancashire wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 20:37Agreed, however there are plenty of roadworks ahead signs before you hit the 50mph area unlike the 40mph overhead signage that you can only see a few seconds before if the previous signage was NSL.
It is the sudden change in speed restriction that is the danger here on Smart Motorways.
Chris
Roads.org.uk
Roads.org.uk
Re: The future of smart motorways
M1 J14-15 was fully open four lanes in each direction this Saturday last, albeit with 50 and 60 limits.timbucks wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 18:20 According to a local newspaper they are pausing the smart motorway between J14 and J15 on the M1 so they can gauge the info on the safety of not having hard shoulders by coning off one of the four lanes... in effect making it a 3 lane "smart" motorway without refuges #facepalm
Owen
- Norfolktolancashire
- Member
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:34
- Location: Cornwall
Re: The future of smart motorways
Agreed you can see the signs some way ahead, however many road users incorrectly do not anticipate the speed reduction ahead. Apart from enforcement and education I cannot see an answer to this.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 22:12You should be able to see Smart Motorway signals well ahead and have plenty of time to read and interpret them. If you can only see one a few seconds before passing it, there is something very wrong.Norfolktolancashire wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 20:37Agreed, however there are plenty of roadworks ahead signs before you hit the 50mph area unlike the 40mph overhead signage that you can only see a few seconds before if the previous signage was NSL.
It is the sudden change in speed restriction that is the danger here on Smart Motorways.
- the cheesecake man
- Member
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 13:21
- Location: Sheffield
Re: The future of smart motorways
In my experience a three lane smart motorway would be a big improvement on a three lane non-smart motorway.jackal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 15:06How 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 could have been done without adding lanes and would have improved safety and better managed capacity.
Back in 2000-2001, just as the first smart motorways were being trialled, I spent six months working in Leeds. Traffic was horrendous (although I spent most of my time out of the office so didn't go every day it was still enough to resign as soon as I could), a 36 mile journey took anything from 1 to 2 hours.
Some days traffic blasted along at 70 then ground to a sudden halt repeatedly. Some days traffic trundled along at 40-50. The latter was usually quicker, not quite as stressful, used noticeably less petrol and felt much safer. A smart motorway that enforced the latter situation would have been a great improvement.
In general smart must be safer than non-smart, four lanes must be safer than three lanes, and hard shoulder must be safer than no hard shoulder. But if you can't have all three and have to choose which two you want it gets difficult.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
- Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia
Re: The future of smart motorways
True. That is what happens. VSL, actually used, proactively, can prevent flow breakdown.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 13:21 Some days traffic blasted along at 70 then ground to a sudden halt repeatedly. Some days traffic trundled along at 40-50. The latter was usually quicker, not quite as stressful, used noticeably less petrol and felt much safer. A smart motorway that enforced the latter situation would have been a great improvement.
My pick of two, for capacity/safety/cost compromise: smart and four lanes (but smart done properly).In general smart must be safer than non-smart, four lanes must be safer than three lanes, and hard shoulder must be safer than no hard shoulder. But if you can't have all three and have to choose which two you want it gets difficult.
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Fri Jan 21, 2022 07:09, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The future of smart motorways
I find Smart Motorway signs surprisingly hard to read at range. They're clear when you're near them, but blurred and faint from a long distance (in much the same way that modern computer screens are clearer to read at some angles than at others).Chris5156 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 22:12You should be able to see Smart Motorway signals well ahead and have plenty of time to read and interpret them. If you can only see one a few seconds before passing it, there is something very wrong.Norfolktolancashire wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 20:37Agreed, however there are plenty of roadworks ahead signs before you hit the 50mph area unlike the 40mph overhead signage that you can only see a few seconds before if the previous signage was NSL.
It is the sudden change in speed restriction that is the danger here on Smart Motorways.
Normally there's enough time to react to them in the distance where you can clearly see the sign, but especially in cases where a 50 limit is indistinguishable at range from a 60 limit, I'm worried that there isn't always going to be enough time for everyone to react to what the sign says.