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.
DB617 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 13:59
The non-provision of green arrows for open lanes has also allowed for the new schemes having much larger intervals between gantries. On the M4 after Reading there are plenty of MS4s but the gantries seem quite far between, and with the bends in the road, the sight lines ahead more often than not don't include AMIs. Perhaps, then, the opportunity for granular permanent lane control has passed us by.
I made a similar comment about the M23... there are very few gantries along the full length.
IMHO, gantries should be placed at a designated fixed spacing.
(I've also commented before, about the inconsistency between gantry and MS4 indications)
I wonder if DHSR would be less confusing if there was greater cosmetic distinction between them and regular motorway layouts. Maybe if conventional hard shoulders were red-coloured, and dynamic hard shoulders were the standard black?
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:16
Only for motorways, but did you know that National Highways/Highways England are going down the 'no more signage' route?
'Naked highways' are highways with no signage, nor gantries. Data is delivered to vehicles in real-time.
No more blue signs - at least on the motorway itself?
In highway design circles, WSP are usually seen as blue sky pipe-dreamers. WSP basically saying "any vehicle older than brand new using tech that doesn't exist yet to be banned from motorways"?
Bryn Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already. She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.
I think the whole thing about smart motorways is now being lead by the MSM who have an agenda, and it is not balanced
Today I have driven the M4, M3, M25 and M23, smart and controlled motorways and the A23 HQDC as well as well as the A3 between the M25 and Guildford.
Both the A3 and A23 are three lane DC without hard shoulders and do not have any of the technology on them. I came across a stationery vehicle on both of them, with no warning ahead like on a controlled motorway.
No one has complained about the A14 at Huntingdon, which is basically a three lane smart motorway but as it has green signs its ok.
This is the issue, why is the new A14 fine and not mentioned by the MSM but the a smart motorway is a death trap.
At least on here we can have a balanced discussion, I made the same point on our local FB last night and my word the abuse.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:39
In highway design circles, WSP are usually seen as blue sky pipe-dreamers. WSP basically saying "any vehicle older than brand new using tech that doesn't exist yet to be banned from motorways"?
I'm pretty sure that's a National Highways/HE directive/strategy, rather than a WSP one.
A303Chris wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 15:40
Both the A3 and A23 are three lane DC without hard shoulders and do not have any of the technology on them. I came across a stationery vehicle on both of them, with no warning ahead like on a controlled motorway.
There was a fatal on the A303 recently...
An HGV crashed into a recovery truck which was dealing with a broken down car. The wrecker driver and the car driver and passenger were killed. I see no clamour for dual-carriageways to be scrapped.
A303Chris wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 15:40
This is the issue, why is the new A14 fine and not mentioned by the MSM but the a smart motorway is a death trap.
The A14 was (or so we are led to believe) going to be A14(M) - nothing changed except the green instead of blue signs.
A303Chris wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 15:40
I think the whole thing about smart motorways is now being lead by the MSM who have an agenda, and it is not balanced
Today I have driven the M4, M3, M25 and M23, smart and controlled motorways and the A23 HQDC as well as well as the A3 between the M25 and Guildford.
Both the A3 and A23 are three lane DC without hard shoulders and do not have any of the technology on them. I came across a stationery vehicle on both of them, with no warning ahead like on a controlled motorway.
No one has complained about the A14 at Huntingdon, which is basically a three lane smart motorway but as it has green signs its ok.
This is the issue, why is the new A14 fine and not mentioned by the MSM but the a smart motorway is a death trap.
At least on here we can have a balanced discussion, I made the same point on our local FB last night and my word the abuse.
On the A14 and pretty much every major dual carriageway there is space to pull out of the road onto the verge, even if there is no dedicated hard shoulder.
A feature of smart motorways seems to be to put crash barriers up to the edge of the road, boxing in vehicles and providing no room to get out of a live lane.
Again we come back to the same point. Smart motorways are fine but space needs to be provided to get out of live lanes, period. Whether that’s onto a verge, or a narrow shoulder or a full hard shoulder I don’t know. The current set up however just doesn’t work and will need to be changed.
And for those who say well we can get Lane stop detection technology, fine. But an analogy to use would be lifts. They are always built to hold a certain number of passengers, but they actually are built to hold twice that number. You would never be able to get that many people in the lift but redundancy is built in to reduce risk of failure. We have to think along the same lines with our motorways.
Fundamentally smart motorways have not been brought in to increase safety or to better control traffic, but to increase capacity on the cheap. Cost is their sole reason for existence.
We now are just finding out that going for the cheapest option has its shortcomings and it will now cost to fix the mess they have created.
thomas417 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 23:38
....Fundamentally smart motorways have not been brought in to increase safety or to better control traffic, but to increase capacity on the cheap. Cost is their sole reason for existence.
We now are just finding out that going for the cheapest option has its shortcomings and it will now cost to fix the mess they have created.
Smart motorway conversion isn't cheap, and doing nothing would have been cheaper.
Make poetry history.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums?
Help with maps using the new online calibrator.
Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki.
Bryn666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:39
In highway design circles, WSP are usually seen as blue sky pipe-dreamers. WSP basically saying "any vehicle older than brand new using tech that doesn't exist yet to be banned from motorways"?
They also seem to have missed that, instead of signage in your field of vision, you now have to be constantly looking down to get the information.
thomas417 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 23:38
On the A14 and pretty much every major dual carriageway there is space to pull out of the road onto the verge, even if there is no dedicated hard shoulder.
A feature of smart motorways seems to be to put crash barriers up to the edge of the road, boxing in vehicles and providing no room to get out of a live lane.
The regulars here will know I have gone on about this one for a long time.
The reason is that is the Design Standard. Major roads have always had nearside verges in their design standard. Smart motorways have removed that from their standard, and substituted Armco barriers where on a main road there would be none.
I'd like to see the Risk Assessment of why the difference was accepted.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:16
Only for motorways, but did you know that National Highways/Highways England are going down the 'no more signage' route?
'Naked highways' are highways with no signage, nor gantries. Data is delivered to vehicles in real-time.
No more blue signs - at least on the motorway itself?
Well it is bound to happen at some point, which is why erecting gantries that could last through at least a millennium & a dozen nuclear wars is an odd choice as light weight gantries found everywhere else in the world has an appropriate lifespan and doesn't cost a tonne and waste a load of resources.
Variable speed limit information can be provided via NH's website (and I presume API), and some sat navs do use this information in real time I've seen, although I couldn't find these on Google.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:16
Only for motorways, but did you know that National Highways/Highways England are going down the 'no more signage' route?
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:16
Only for motorways, but did you know that National Highways/Highways England are going down the 'no more signage' route?
'Naked highways' are highways with no signage, nor gantries. Data is delivered to vehicles in real-time.
No more blue signs - at least on the motorway itself?
This would be foolish - because what if the technology fails? E.G. a device that you stick on to the windshield runs out of battery?
It the past we might have said having car-only 70mph roads is foolish - because what if the technology fails eg. the car you're driving runs out of petrol or breaks down?
Clearly you don't rely on the technology until it reaches a certain level of reliability.
There's a difference between a hillwalker relying on a half-charged smartphone to guide them off a dark mountain and a fighter jet pilot relying on their hardened and redundant navigation system to stop them crashing into one. You'd imagine a 'post-signs' system in cars might fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:16
Only for motorways, but did you know that National Highways/Highways England are going down the 'no more signage' route?
'Naked highways' are highways with no signage, nor gantries. Data is delivered to vehicles in real-time.
No more blue signs - at least on the motorway itself?
Well it is bound to happen at some point, which is why erecting gantries that could last through at least a millennium & a dozen nuclear wars is an odd choice as light weight gantries found everywhere else in the world has an appropriate lifespan and doesn't cost a tonne and waste a load of resources.
Variable speed limit information can be provided via NH's website (and I presume API), and some sat navs do use this information in real time I've seen, although I couldn't find these on Google.
I think the main reason for the bulkier gantries on newer schemes is it means that maintenance is easier.
For example, thisgantry on the M3 has no access, requiring a ladder, and probably requires the closure of the road below for safety reasons
Compared to this one on the A14, its bulkier because it has access through a protected area across the entire gantry and to the level above. This would allow maintenance to be conducted while the road is live
stu531 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 14:16
Only for motorways, but did you know that National Highways/Highways England are going down the 'no more signage' route?
'Naked highways' are highways with no signage, nor gantries. Data is delivered to vehicles in real-time.
No more blue signs - at least on the motorway itself?
This would be foolish - because what if the technology fails? E.G. a device that you stick on to the windshield runs out of battery?
It the past we might have said having car-only 70mph roads is foolish - because what if the technology fails eg. the car you're driving runs out of petrol or breaks down?
Clearly you don't rely on the technology until it reaches a certain level of reliability.
There's a difference between a hillwalker relying on a half-charged smartphone to guide them off a dark mountain and a fighter jet pilot relying on their hardened and redundant navigation system to stop them crashing into one. You'd imagine a 'post-signs' system in cars might fall somewhere in between these two extremes.
On the other hand it (the signs, not the fighter jet navigation system) is yet another example of ludicrous technological changes to do a job that works perfectly well with something far, far simpler. And such changes, no matter what justifications given for them (and don't pretend that I'm ignorant of them, I just don't find that makes them any less ludicrous) are always ridiculous. I'd pity the sort of people who want to live in the sort of world where such things are regarded as the norm, sensible, and great, if they hadn't already made such a joke of the real world.
JammyDodge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:53
I think the main reason for the bulkier gantries on newer schemes is it means that maintenance is easier.
For example, thisgantry on the M3 has no access, requiring a ladder, and probably requires the closure of the road below for safety reasons
Compared to this one on the A14, its bulkier because it has access through a protected area across the entire gantry and to the level above. This would allow maintenance to be conducted while the road is live
They both seem rather excessively bulky, compared to, say, this one. I suppose they want to avoid putting a leg in the central reservation, but the result of that is something that seems very much OTT.
JammyDodge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:53
I think the main reason for the bulkier gantries on newer schemes is it means that maintenance is easier.
For example, thisgantry on the M3 has no access, requiring a ladder, and probably requires the closure of the road below for safety reasons
Compared to this one on the A14, its bulkier because it has access through a protected area across the entire gantry and to the level above. This would allow maintenance to be conducted while the road is live
They both seem rather excessively bulky, compared to, say, this one. I suppose they want to avoid putting a leg in the central reservation, but the result of that is something that seems very much OTT.
In the North West, there are many concrete gantries that they reused for managed motorway signals.
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
JammyDodge wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:53
Compared to this one on the A14, its bulkier because it has access through a protected area across the entire gantry and to the level above. This would allow maintenance to be conducted while the road is live
Whatever the reasoning, there seems no excuse to putting such ludicrous large, sharp-edged concrete blocks so close to the carriageway, right hard up against the Armco - which can maybe deflect/contain a car striking at an angle, but not a more perpendicular direction, and certainly not a loaded HGV at any significant angle/speed. Maybe the designer thinks their structure is worth more than the lives of those who by mischance leave the carriageway.