Smart Motorway court case

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

Bendo
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Bendo »

Patrick Harper wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:13
JammyDodge wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 09:04 There is part of me which says that HE probably should have been done for corporate manslaughter alongside the lorry driver getting a jail term.

While I don't mind smart motorways overall, they have too many problems to be truly as safe as conventional motorways.
Smart motorways are safer overall. The current crop (2013 onwards) of ALR projects have always included VSLs, concrete barriers, revamped signs and monitoring equipment...all of that stuff is welcome. The contentious part is the absence of hard shoulders.
Variable speed limits don't necessarily make a road safer. Concrete barriers may improve safety ever so slightly, their main benefit is lower ongoing maintenance but a wagon will still go through them.

No hard shoulder and an average of 11 mins to close a lane however speaks for itself. It simply shouldn't have been signed off without SVD in place. Likewise it shouldn't have taken 5 plus years to type approve HADECS cameras for red x offences, that should have been there from day one to increase compliance.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Bendo wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:37 Likewise it shouldn't have taken 5 plus years to type approve HADECS cameras for red x offences, that should have been there from day one to increase compliance.
Although only of any use on the few gantries that actually have HADECS cameras.
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by someone »

No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
WHBM wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 01:24It's a bit difficult reconciling "Judge Jeremy Richardson QC said: "Had there been a hard shoulder ... this catastrophe would never have occurred" with the jail term for the truck driver.
I would assume the judge was stating that had there been a motorway the incident would not have occurred, as a general point about the circumstances leading to the incident, but that a fatal collision would still have been avoided had the lorry driver been paying more attention, as a specific judgement about the matter being tried.

As others have said, had the crash been on a dual carriageway you could equally say a hard shoulder would have prevented the accident, but few would consider the lack of one as mitigation against a death caused by careless driving.

The big difference in this case is there was a hard shoulder and a conscious decision made to remove the facility, so it is a material issue to note rather than just a hypothetical one. Motorways also tend to be faster and busier, with farther between junctions, and they lack lay-bys for legal and safe stopping.

Any of the arguments about how dangerous it is to stop on a hard shoulder apply more so to stopping in a live lane. I have no confidence about being seen as a motorcyclist if I had to stop in a live lane.

It is funny how some people on here protest the need for blue lines because of how different motorways are, yet when it comes to smart motorways they argue there is no need for hard shoulders as they are no different!
jervi wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 09:53(Although this is a joke, it is more plausible than their baseless court case)
The baseless case of R vs Szuba on two counts of causing death by careless driving?
User avatar
trickstat
Member
Posts: 8738
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 14:06
Location: Letchworth Gdn City, Herts

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by trickstat »

someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
Well done.

I also think that it is generally important to use correct terminology when reporting court cases of any kind.
Simon_GNR
Member
Posts: 925
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2004 19:20
Location: North Nottinghamshire

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Simon_GNR »

KeithW wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 09:30 The most thar could be said is that

"Had there been a hard shoulder ... this catastrophe MAY never have occurred'

The reality is the hard shoulder is a dangerous place with around 100 RTC's on them every year even before the large scale introduction of smart motorways. Extend that to all roads and its about 25 per week
Not quite. This is a past event and there is no doubt that it actually happened so one could say that:

"Had there been a hard shoulder ... this catastrophe MIGHT never have occurred'
marconaf
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 14:42

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by marconaf »

This is exactly why removing HS from motorways should have put HE Officials in the dock, corporate manslaughter would have been appropriate.

How many more need to die before those pushing cheap and dirty capacity increases are heod accountable?
booshank
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by booshank »

roadtester wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:54 The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether we need some degree of smartification on D4Ms to deal with stranded vehicles even if a hard shoulder is present.

It's an awful long way in a failing vehicle on a busy motorway from lane 4 across to the (relative) safety of the hard shoulder.
That's why a lot of North American ones have an inner hard shoulder too. Seem to recall the D3M roads around Calgary having a median hard shoulder.
WHBM
Member
Posts: 9708
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 18:01
Location: London

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by WHBM »

someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
That's just what normal members of the public typically call it. Doing so long term has not led to dangerous driving. Regardless of how TSRGD may style it, that's everyday speech.

Being the BBC, whose news team is largely made up nowadays of almost-unpaid USA university journalism course interns doing their year overseas, I wouldn't have been surprised to see it called the "curbside lane". I've seen that on BBC news web pages before.
fras
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 18:34

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by fras »

I hesitate to join this discussion, but will do anyway !

I think there would have been far less opposition if the emergency refuges had been spaced much closer together. I also cannot understand why crash barriers have been installed so close to the edge of the carriageway. The car is the really vulnerable vehicle if stopped, but this crash barrier makes it much more difficult to exit the vehicle. If the driver stops the car close to this barrier it makes it safer for him to exit, but difficult for passengers.

Anyway, just my tuppence !
booshank
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by booshank »

WHBM wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 13:48
someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
That's just what normal members of the public typically call it. Doing so long term has not led to dangerous driving. Regardless of how TSRGD may style it, that's everyday speech.

Being the BBC, whose news team is largely made up nowadays of almost-unpaid USA university journalism course interns doing their year overseas, I wouldn't have been surprised to see it called the "curbside lane". I've seen that on BBC news web pages before.
"Curbside" (or "kerbside") would be more intuitive than "outside"... even if you hadn't come across the term before you'd know what it meant.
Bendo
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Bendo »

someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
I did, but assumed from the wording that was how it was described by someone in court. Regardless, the description probably has zero impact on how people drive.
User avatar
hoagy_ytfc
Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 00:10

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by hoagy_ytfc »

someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story....

Crikey. Really?
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by someone »

WHBM wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 13:48
someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
That's just what normal members of the public typically call it. Doing so long term has not led to dangerous driving. Regardless of how TSRGD may style it, that's everyday speech.
You might not think that forcing people to either undertake or have to move across three lanes and back is dangerous. Causing people to have to brake because when they catch up with someone doing 60 mph, or a queue formed behind them, with everyone have to force themselves into a faster moving lane to pass them. But I disagree and I imagine the police and road safety organizations would too.

Using everyday speech if okay where it does not have an effect, it is even preferable where it makes something more understandable than using the correct technical jargon. But using that term in influential or official capacities is essentially saying that middle lane hogging is not only acceptable but the correct way to drive. That that lane is for going slow, if you are not you should not be in that lane.

The BBC of all institutions should not be passively contradicting the Highway Code. It is irresponsible and encourages dangerous driving.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19207
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by KeithW »

booshank wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 13:39
roadtester wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:54 The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether we need some degree of smartification on D4Ms to deal with stranded vehicles even if a hard shoulder is present.

It's an awful long way in a failing vehicle on a busy motorway from lane 4 across to the (relative) safety of the hard shoulder.
That's why a lot of North American ones have an inner hard shoulder too. Seem to recall the D3M roads around Calgary having a median hard shoulder.

And a lot do not and very few have barriers to prevent wrong way crossovers, CCTV, emergency phones or good mobile coverage outside cities. In fact by UK standards most US Interstates and Canadian National Highways have rather poor safety provision. They are for the most part VERY much less densely populated that the UK

This is I-70 in western Ohio
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.83654 ... 384!8i8192

No median hard shoulder, no side or centre barriers

Those roads in Calgary are pretty new. for a more representative idea see these examples of the Trans Canada Highway
Manitoba
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.91414 ... 312!8i6656

Rogers Pass - Who needs barriers or road markings
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.30142 ... 384!8i8192

East of Calgary
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.03788 ... 312!8i6656

Field BC- the flat junction was hairy
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.39871 ... 384!8i8192

Passing through Revelstoke - the traffic lights are an interesting touch
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.01036 ... 384!8i8192

And then there is Hope BC - good old fashioned S4 with flat junctions
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.37988 ... 312!8i6656
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3754
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Conekicker »

The safety barrier a bit further along on one of the links above looks to be not much use:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.90833 ... 312!8i6656
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
booshank
Member
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 19:05

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by booshank »

KeithW wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 16:23
booshank wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 13:39
roadtester wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:54 The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether we need some degree of smartification on D4Ms to deal with stranded vehicles even if a hard shoulder is present.

It's an awful long way in a failing vehicle on a busy motorway from lane 4 across to the (relative) safety of the hard shoulder.
That's why a lot of North American ones have an inner hard shoulder too. Seem to recall the D3M roads around Calgary having a median hard shoulder.

And a lot do not and very few have barriers to prevent wrong way crossovers, CCTV, emergency phones or good mobile coverage outside cities. In fact by UK standards most US Interstates and Canadian National Highways have rather poor safety provision. They are for the most part VERY much less densely populated that the UK

This is I-70 in western Ohio
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@39.83654 ... 384!8i8192

No median hard shoulder, no side or centre barriers

Those roads in Calgary are pretty new. for a more representative idea see these examples of the Trans Canada Highway
Manitoba
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.91414 ... 312!8i6656

Rogers Pass - Who needs barriers or road markings
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.30142 ... 384!8i8192

East of Calgary
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.03788 ... 312!8i6656

Field BC- the flat junction was hairy
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.39871 ... 384!8i8192

Passing through Revelstoke - the traffic lights are an interesting touch
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.01036 ... 384!8i8192

And then there is Hope BC - good old fashioned S4 with flat junctions
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@49.37988 ... 312!8i6656
Yes but the topic was the problem of getting from lane 3 or higher to the (outer) hard shoulder in the case of an emergency. None of those roads have a lane 3 or more and only the interstate is a motorway or motorway-like, so I don't see any relevance. It's as relevant as the absence of a hard shoulder on the A36 is to whether the M4 has one ie barely or not at all.
Bendo
Member
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 02:52
Location: Liverpool

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Bendo »

someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 16:08
WHBM wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 13:48
someone wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:47 No one else has picked it up, but I have made a complaint to the BBC for referring to it as the "slow lane" in the story. They should not be promoting this incorrect idea which just encourages dangerous driving.
That's just what normal members of the public typically call it. Doing so long term has not led to dangerous driving. Regardless of how TSRGD may style it, that's everyday speech.
You might not think that forcing people to either undertake or have to move across three lanes and back is dangerous. Causing people to have to brake because when they catch up with someone doing 60 mph, or a queue formed behind them, with everyone have to force themselves into a faster moving lane to pass them. But I disagree and I imagine the police and road safety organizations would too.

Using everyday speech if okay where it does not have an effect, it is even preferable where it makes something more understandable than using the correct technical jargon. But using that term in influential or official capacities is essentially saying that middle lane hogging is not only acceptable but the correct way to drive. That that lane is for going slow, if you are not you should not be in that lane.

The BBC of all institutions should not be passively contradicting the Highway Code. It is irresponsible and encourages dangerous driving.
It's quite a leap to suggest that calling it the slow lane will result in people hogging the middle lane. Indeed look at any smart D4M and a bigger issue is more often people sat in L3 for no reason rather than L2. Calling it the slow lane is not the cause, it is simply abysmal driving standards.
someone
Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:46
Location: London

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by someone »

Bendo wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 18:45It's quite a leap to suggest that calling it the slow lane will result in people hogging the middle lane. Indeed look at any smart D4M and a bigger issue is more often people sat in L3 for no reason rather than L2. Calling it the slow lane is not the cause, it is simply abysmal driving standards.
In what way do you think lane 3 is not a middle lane on a four-lane road?

The "abysmal driving standard" in this instance is in large part because people think the inside lane is a slow lane, a belief that get constantly reinforced by calling it that. And if it is "the slow lane" then they can quite rightly think they are not driving abysmally but doing the right thing.

You cannot even begin to challenge people's behaviour — "it is not the slow lane so move over" — if you keep calling it the slow lane. The two are incompatible.

We are in an era where the damaging effects of political rhetoric, by governments of various political persuasions, has never been more stark at promoting falsehoods and risking lives. That anyone still thinks that what you call something has no effect or influence on people's beliefs and behaviours is bewildering.

I have big problems with the Sappir-Whorf Hypothesis, but even I would not deny a connection between language and thought, nor dismiss what have been shown by psychology and sociology. Mind I suppose one of the defining features of this era is rejecting science when it contradicts ideology.

Seventy years later, and we are apparently defending doublethink. There is no slow lane, which is the slow lane.
Peter Freeman
Member
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 07:52
Location: Exits 9 & 10, M1 East, Melbourne, Australia

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Peter Freeman »

KeithW wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 12:18 Which is why HE have started rolling out Stopped Vehicle Detectors on the M25 and M62
https://navtechradar.com/stopped-vehicl ... -highways/
https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/High ... %20traffic.
The Navtech 'Clearway' system was recently installed on Kwinana Freeway in Perth, Western Australia -
https://navtechradar.com/clearway-impro ... ffic-flow/

(This post has been edited in order to transfer most of the content to a more appropriate topic - 'The Future of Smart Motorways).
Last edited by Peter Freeman on Sun Nov 08, 2020 04:46, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16909
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Smart Motorway court case

Post by Chris5156 »

WHBM wrote: Tue Oct 20, 2020 13:48Being the BBC, whose news team is largely made up nowadays of almost-unpaid USA university journalism course interns doing their year overseas, I wouldn't have been surprised to see it called the "curbside lane".
Absolute hogwash. Would you care to back up that unfounded nonsense?
Post Reply