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
User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by thatapanydude »

Bendo wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 14:46
fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21
jackal wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 17:28 The ORR seem pretty happy with the evidence stocktake:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ata-report

National Highways response:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-response
So why don't I feel safe on them ?
Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
I don't feel unsafe on them, but the abysmal lane discipline is extremely irritating as even when traffic is light, there is usually a swath of idiots sat in L3 doing ~ 60 for no reason whatsoever and L1 near empty.
I would argue that without a HS or soft verge on these smart motorways being in lane 1 is a risk not worth taking considering the risk of a stopped vehicle and not being able to get out of the lane in time.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19205
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by KeithW »

Ruperts Trooper wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:21 The ban on HGVs and trailers in the outside lane where there's 3 or more lanes only applies to motorways - it doesn't apply to other dual carriageways, not that there are many with 3 or more lanes.
Which is something of an anomaly probably down the fact that when the legislation was passed there were no D3 all purpose roads.
Bendo
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bendo »

thatapanydude wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 15:57
Bendo wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 14:46
fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21
So why don't I feel safe on them ?
Can it be the HGVs in Lanes 1, 2, and 3 ?
I don't feel unsafe on them, but the abysmal lane discipline is extremely irritating as even when traffic is light, there is usually a swath of idiots sat in L3 doing ~ 60 for no reason whatsoever and L1 near empty.
I would argue that without a HS or soft verge on these smart motorways being in lane 1 is a risk not worth taking considering the risk of a stopped vehicle and not being able to get out of the lane in time.
Personally I'd say if someone can't leave a sufficient gap to react then they probably shouldn't be driving in any lane.
Last edited by Bendo on Thu Sep 09, 2021 00:07, 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 »

KeithW wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 17:28
Ruperts Trooper wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 11:21 The ban on HGVs and trailers in the outside lane where there's 3 or more lanes only applies to motorways - it doesn't apply to other dual carriageways, not that there are many with 3 or more lanes.
Which is something of an anomaly probably down the fact that when the legislation was passed there were no D3 all purpose roads.
There were but they were short and in cities so it didn't matter - the Great West Road was D3 before the M4 was built on top of it for instance and the Kingston Bypass has had a D3 section from opening day.
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
Stevie D
Member
Posts: 8000
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 17:19
Location: Yorkshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Stevie D »

fras wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 09:21
jackal wrote: Tue Sep 07, 2021 17:28 The ORR seem pretty happy with the evidence stocktake:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ata-report

National Highways response:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-response
So why don't I feel safe on them ?
Maybe because people are notoriously bad at relative risk assessment, and our gut instinct is a poor indicator of which of two options is safer 🤷🏻‍♂️
SteelCamel
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2020 15:46

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by SteelCamel »

Owain wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 16:18 Which reminds me of a strange and potentially dangerous experience on the M1 last week:

- Signage came on imposing 40 limit.
- Signage also closed lanes 1 and 2, causing traffic to move over to 3 and 4. I moved to lane 3 and got caught behind a car that was doing a bit less than 40.

Traffic was light. After cruising along like this for some time, with just one or two cars passing us in lane 4, I noticed a tsunami of vehicles approaching at speed across all of the lanes behind us. One van even dived from lane 3 into lane 1 and undertook both me and the car in front at roughly double our speed, presumably because the flow in lane 4 wasn't fast enough for him.

Only when the next gantry came into sight did I realise what must have happened; the lower limit and lane closure signs must have been switched off just after I'd passed the last gantry, leaving me driving ridiculously slowly in the wrong lane without knowing that the restrictions had been lifted until the next gantry came into view.

I appreciate that there isn't much that can be done about such a situation, and also that such a situation will only affect a small number of vehicles for a few seconds, but it still struck me as being yet another reason for not driving on these roads if they can be avoided.
Surely the solution to this is to limit the speed of changes. So a 40 limit can't just be switched straight to NSL, it has to change to 50 for a few minutes, then 60, then NSL. Also a closed lane opening would have to take the speed limit of the open lanes, which can't be increased for a few minutes. So in your case it would go from X X 40 40 to 40 40 40 40 (or maybe it should even go to X 40 40 40 first, reopening one lane at a time) - meaning that traffic is now using all lanes but shouldn't be catching up the traffic in front much if at all, as everyone is under a 40 limit. Then it goes to 50 50 50 50, and the following traffic catches up but only at a 10mph difference, and so on for each step. It does mean that it would take longer to remove a severe limit. but would surely be much safer as no-one would ever see more than a 10mph difference in speed limit.
There's no need to limit the speed of changes down - if the limit suddenly drops from 70 to 40, the traffic will be separating not closing as the traffic behind is going slower. And a full closure could step straight to NSL, as the section ahead is empty so there's nothing to catch up.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Peter Freeman »

Bendo wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 14:46 ... the abysmal lane discipline is extremely irritating as even when traffic is light, there is usually ... L1 near empty.
"When traffic is light", is that a major problem? You'll find that when traffic is heavy on the D4, L1 does get used. Heavy traffic periods are the reason for ALR conversion, and for the very presence of that L1.
thatapanydude wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 15:57 I would argue that without a HS or soft verge on these smart motorways being in lane 1 is a risk not worth taking considering the risk of a stopped vehicle and not being able to get out of the lane in time.
Quite so. Especially in light traffic at night-time. I have in the past (in this thread, I think) suggested that, in order to avoid crashes into stopped vehicles in ALR L1, a red X should be displayed above that lane when traffic is light - a part-time hard shoulder, sort-of. I can argue against that too, of course, but I mention it as somewhat relating to your issue.
User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by thatapanydude »

Owain wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 16:18 Which reminds me of a strange and potentially dangerous experience on the M1 last week:

- Signage came on imposing 40 limit.
- Signage also closed lanes 1 and 2, causing traffic to move over to 3 and 4. I moved to lane 3 and got caught behind a car that was doing a bit less than 40.

Traffic was light. After cruising along like this for some time, with just one or two cars passing us in lane 4, I noticed a tsunami of vehicles approaching at speed across all of the lanes behind us. One van even dived from lane 3 into lane 1 and undertook both me and the car in front at roughly double our speed, presumably because the flow in lane 4 wasn't fast enough for him.

Only when the next gantry came into sight did I realise what must have happened; the lower limit and lane closure signs must have been switched off just after I'd passed the last gantry, leaving me driving ridiculously slowly in the wrong lane without knowing that the restrictions had been lifted until the next gantry came into view.

I appreciate that there isn't much that can be done about such a situation, and also that such a situation will only affect a small number of vehicles for a few seconds, but it still struck me as being yet another reason for not driving on these roads if they can be avoided.
I have experienced similar too when following the speed limit signed on the M25 while cars left and right of us were racing along because the gantry did not have a speed camera !! It seems like on the M25 J23-J27 that the regulars don't follow the speed limit and just break for the camera's - which can catch out law-abiding drivers.

To rectify this issue I would add camera's to all gantries and have them made average speed camera's to NSL or the displayed limit. Yes this is not ideal or fun one bit especially as someone who is happy cruising at 80mph but safety comes first.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1
User avatar
thatapanydude
Member
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 21:35
Location: Bedfordshire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by thatapanydude »

thatapanydude wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 15:57 I would argue that without a HS or soft verge on these smart motorways being in lane 1 is a risk not worth taking considering the risk of a stopped vehicle and not being able to get out of the lane in time.
Quite so. Especially in light traffic at night-time. I have in the past (in this thread, I think) suggested that, in order to avoid crashes into stopped vehicles in ALR L1, a red X should be displayed above that lane when traffic is light - a part-time hard shoulder, sort-of. I can argue against that too, of course, but I mention it as somewhat relating to your issue.
[/quote]

I mentioned this a few months back as a proposal worth looking at too. If we can display a red X for breakdowns and roadworks, I see no reason why not in light traffic to display a red X too.
A1/A1(M) >>> M1
Bendo
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Bendo »

Peter Freeman wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 09:44
Bendo wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 14:46 ... the abysmal lane discipline is extremely irritating as even when traffic is light, there is usually ... L1 near empty.
"When traffic is light", is that a major problem? You'll find that when traffic is heavy on the D4, L1 does get used. Heavy traffic periods are the reason for ALR conversion, and for the very presence of that L1.
It's a problem as there is always seems to be a bunch of cars sat in L2 and L3 and dawdlers in L4 trying to creep past but afraid to do anything above an indicated 70 slowing down for every gantry in case there a camera that wouldn't get them unless they were doing 10MPH more anyway.
domcoop
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 22:27
Location: Orrell, Lancashire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by domcoop »

thatapanydude wrote: Fri Sep 10, 2021 11:45 To rectify this issue I would add camera's to all gantries and have them made average speed camera's to NSL or the displayed limit. Yes this is not ideal or fun one bit especially as someone who is happy cruising at 80mph but safety comes first.
100% agree!

The one I encounter is M62 E/B at Eccles Interchange. Almost always busy, so the signs are almost always showing some lower limit. Lane 1 & 2 is for M60 clockwise and is the main flow. Lane 3 is for M60 anti-clockwise and for M602, and lane 4 is for M602.

Except that's the theory and how the junction approach is laid out for those who follow the Highway Code.

The day-to-day reality is that Lane 1 & 2 are backed up and usually standing traffic, for the M60 clockwise. Lane 2 is also for dawdling yummy mummies who take their eyes off facebook and realise that the Trafford Centre needed them to be in Lane 3, so they just cut across the solid white line.

Lane 3 is for Audis who are too important to wait in queued traffic and therefore bomb along as fast as possible until the exact point of the diverge and then use the "magic indicator" (the sole use for the yellow light on Audis) to cut in to Lane 2 (whether there's space or not).

Lane 4 is for BMW drivers wishing to do the same.

So if I'm going to the M602, and respecting the speed indication, doing 50 MPH in Lane 3, during the 90 seconds or so it takes to go through that section, I'll inevitably have at least three morons driving 2 inches from behind my bumper in indignation that I'm slowing them down (them not wanting to overtake and go onto Lane 4, because they're planning on cutting in to Lane 2), and often another moron doing 90 in Lane 4 who sees a gap in the queue in Lane 2 and decides to just cut right across my lane.

Then your option are either put up with it, or stick to Lane 4 at the indicated speed, but either get tailgated or have someone bomb down the motorway at 90 behind you, them obviously believing the speed indicators are voluntary. (which I think in effect they are because the last gantry before J12 doesn't have HADECS, and neither does the gantry above the diverge).
Dominic
Duple
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 21:58

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Duple »

I have to say I am not the biggest fan of Smart Motorways, they feel more of a hinderance than a help.

Especially today southbound M6 just after Junction 8 when the gantries went NSL > 50 > 40 > NSL - when there was 1 truck and 4 cars around. Needless slowing down and causes "bunching".

Doesn't inspire much confidence in the software, but it is a government procured system.. I assume. And they don't have a good track record with that! :|
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 »

Duple wrote: Sat Sep 11, 2021 21:51I have to say I am not the biggest fan of Smart Motorways, they feel more of a hinderance than a help.
Yes, I got that from the fact you've posted five complaints about them in five separate threads this evening.
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker »

https://www.saferhighways.co.uk/post/po ... 5e300915b5

A quick drive through the South Yorkshire SM sections on Google Streetview shows many locations where extra ERAs (or additional SOS phones) could be installed. One, count it, one, new ERA is being proposed. One might muse that if NH were serious about allaying peoples fears, the production of reports would come second to actually installing numerous ERAs/SOS phones - but then that might be viewed as an admission of failure. Particularly when NEW SM schemes will have ERAs at no more than 1 mile intervals, but no mention is made of making the same level of provision on existing schemes.

For example in West Yorkshire:

1) M1 northbound between J39 and 40, where the distance from the single ERA provided on that link to the next non-live lane location where a vehicle could stop (the J40 exit slip) is around 2.2km. No SOS phone on the exit slip to enable quick communication with the RCC. There is a marked ERA (no SOS phone though) some 150m further along the exit slip, making it 2.35km between ERAs.
2) Also from the J40 NB exit slip location to the next ERA between J40 and J41, it's also around 2.2km, there being nowhere for mainline traffic to pull over onto the NB entry slip either.
3) From the ERA mentioned in 2 above, it's 1.9km to the next potential pull over location on the J41 NB exit slip.
4) From the exit slip mentioned in 3 above, it's a further 2.2km to the hardshoulder at J42 and this through a section which is 5 lanes wide for the majority of it.

I'm not aware of any proposals to provide extra ERAs through the above links. Perhaps someone can tell me of proposals for more ERAs there?
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
domcoop
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 22:27
Location: Orrell, Lancashire

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by domcoop »

Conekicker wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:14 https://www.saferhighways.co.uk/post/po ... 5e300915b5

A quick drive through the South Yorkshire SM sections on Google Streetview shows many locations where extra ERAs (or additional SOS phones) could be installed. One, count it, one, new ERA is being proposed. One might muse that if NH were serious about allaying peoples fears, the production of reports would come second to actually installing numerous ERAs/SOS phones
Well only if the people's fears were well-founded. If somebody fears something irrationally, the way to deal with that is to produce reports confirming they are wrong, surely? Not pander to them and build expensive additional ERAs. You gave examples of 2.2km gaps between ERAs, which is just over 1.3 miles. That seems a reasonable distance to me. Driving at 60MPH, and then decelerating in neutral, the chances are you'd be able to stop in an ERA, unless you broke down just after the last one. The fact is, whether you think it's logical or not, the number of people killed in a breakdown on a live lane is an order of magnitude smaller than have been killed in stops on the hard shoulder.

(In fact I believe HE / HA / NH say the deaths in a live lane is zero, because the high profile examples are of people who didn't follow the rules, i.e. tried to "take a nap" on the carriageway, or stopped to take photographs, then drove on, and stopped again to exchange phone numbers, and did so whilst standing on the mainline of the motorway instead of waiting behind the barrier or calling the police / highways - or driving off at the next junction. I don't think this is quite fair to exclude them as engineering still has to take user behaviour into account, but nonetheless the numbers are low)
Dominic
XC70
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by XC70 »

Smart motorways could work I guess, if only HE operated then with some basic level of competence.

I came down the M1 S/B at 5.45pm yesterday. As soon as I passed J31 the signs said "report of blocked lane 60mph". This means someone has told them something and they haven't done anything tangible about it yet. Most people ignored the 60 as I would guess most believe it is the usual crying wolf. Exactly 1 mile before the 30 off slip there was a van based single car transporter stopped and blocking lane 1. Then particularly surprisingly there was an Astramax type van also blocking lane 1 about 500 yards before the offslip.

I rang HE and gave them this exact detail which the operator promised to pass on. I told him they should red cross lane 1 immediately. When exactly they did anything about it I don't know.

They knew something was up for at least 5 mins (the rough time it took me pass the first sign saying possible obstruction until I then left the motorway with the signs saying the same thing). I would guess probably a lot longer than 5 mins. Surely in that time a competent control room could scan the 100% CCTV coverage and find the vehicles? It was daylight, traffic was light and neither vehicle was particularly small - in fact the fladbed car transport had a car on the back which makes it even bigger and more visible.....

The whole concept was sold on the idea of a control room keeping everyone safe. Unfortunately in my experience as a motorist the control room seems to lack both urgency and accuracy in their response to any incident......
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7549
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by jackal »

Conekicker wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:14 https://www.saferhighways.co.uk/post/po ... 5e300915b5

A quick drive through the South Yorkshire SM sections on Google Streetview shows many locations where extra ERAs (or additional SOS phones) could be installed. One, count it, one, new ERA is being proposed. One might muse that if NH were serious about allaying peoples fears, the production of reports would come second to actually installing numerous ERAs/SOS phones - but then that might be viewed as an admission of failure. Particularly when NEW SM schemes will have ERAs at no more than 1 mile intervals, but no mention is made of making the same level of provision on existing schemes.

For example in West Yorkshire:

1) M1 northbound between J39 and 40, where the distance from the single ERA provided on that link to the next non-live lane location where a vehicle could stop (the J40 exit slip) is around 2.2km. No SOS phone on the exit slip to enable quick communication with the RCC. There is a marked ERA (no SOS phone though) some 150m further along the exit slip, making it 2.35km between ERAs.
2) Also from the J40 NB exit slip location to the next ERA between J40 and J41, it's also around 2.2km, there being nowhere for mainline traffic to pull over onto the NB entry slip either.
3) From the ERA mentioned in 2 above, it's 1.9km to the next potential pull over location on the J41 NB exit slip.
4) From the exit slip mentioned in 3 above, it's a further 2.2km to the hardshoulder at J42 and this through a section which is 5 lanes wide for the majority of it.

I'm not aware of any proposals to provide extra ERAs through the above links. Perhaps someone can tell me of proposals for more ERAs there?
As these are roads that have been open for years there is a lot of real world safety data, and those are the main drivers of interventions rather than raw distances between ERAs. Only at one location on the M1 (North of Woodall MSA) has a cluster of live line stoppages been identified by the independent review, so that's the one place they're adding an ERA. Many other interventions are proposed. You can see the reports (including proposed interventions) here: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... y-reviews/

Some unusual safety risks are mentioned, e.g.:

- On M6 J5-6, the emergency telephones have been retained on the viaducts, which increases ambiguity about whether the hard shoulder is open and might attract road users when it isn't open. Will be rectified by the ALR upgrade when the phones will be removed.
- On M1 J10-13, "Incidents have been reported of pedestrians in, or close to, the live lane of the motorway, who have demonstrated confusion and an unfamiliarity of their surroundings. These instances usually happen close to emergency areas and in and around Toddington Services, which is often the first stop for vehicles travelling to the country upon their arrival from Dover Port and is used as a drop off point or has been an opportunity for illegal immigrants to alight the vehicle and make their own way."
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by Conekicker »

Informative video, especially for new drivers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq_qBijChWk
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
ManomayLR
Social Media Admin
Posts: 3331
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:47
Location: London, UK

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by ManomayLR »

Conekicker wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 21:14 Informative video, especially for new drivers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq_qBijChWk
See also this thread

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42256&hilit=rettungsgasse#p1170713
Though roads may not put a smile on everyone's face, there is one road that always will: the road to home.
XC70
Member
Posts: 624
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 23:22

Re: The future of smart motorways

Post by XC70 »

In the case of double white lines, continue at the speed limit with the vehicle on blues behind you.....

Then get booked by the fuzz for failure to stop.
Post Reply