An interesting perspective...
Clearly HE think not having laybys on the A303 and A34 makes the road safer than having them... hence most are currently coned off.
Moderator: Site Management Team
An interesting perspective...
Indeed , apart from anything else vehicles were hitting cars on the hard shoulder long before either gadgets or smart motorways came along. A major factor has always been driver fatigue with the accompanying loss of attention and worse people falling asleep at the wheel. I saw both happen in the 1970's.
Having a hard shoulder is generally safer than not having one, if all other factors are equal. But a D4M ALR smart motorway and a D3M+HS traditional motorway are not "all other factors equal". The extra capacity means better traffic flow and reduced accidents. The smart technology can allow for better mitigation of incidents leading to fewer accidents. The benefits of smartification can easily outweigh the benefits of the hard shoulder.
I understand that this has now been implemented at M20 J3-5.RichardA35 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 20:20 A whisper reaches me that, on a current scheme in construction, the technology will not be ready in time but HE state the scheme MUST be opened by April. One of the options for opening being looked at is to risk assess 4 lane running with a mandatory 40 which at least gets the traffic management off the road....
Except that it does. In every way.
It depends what you're comparing. Whatever the merits of smart D4 v D3M, I suspect proper D4M with good old-fashioned hard shoulders is safer than smart D4 without and I'm certain it's safer than unsmart D4 without.
Well, as long as you "suspect" that that's the case, I guess we don't need to bother looking at any evidence or studies on the matter thenthe cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:09I suspect proper D4M with good old-fashioned hard shoulders is safer than smart D4 without.
I suspect that confirmation bias has more to do with that. The majority of problems on D4M have nothing to do with any presence or absence of a hard shoulder, any more than it is on the A46, for example.the cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:09It depends what you're comparing. Whatever the merits of smart D4 v D3M, I suspect proper D4M with good old-fashioned hard shoulders is safer than smart D4 without and I'm certain it's safer than unsmart D4 without.
Given the sub-standard nature of many of said Lay-bys, then technically HE may well be correct.Micro The Maniac wrote: ↑Sat Mar 14, 2020 11:50An interesting perspective...
Clearly HE think not having laybys on the A303 and A34 makes the road safer than having them... hence most are currently coned off.
Well, that's why "Expressways" are half on the table. Upgrade said routes that you mentioned to a motorway standard (slightly relaxed standards in some places as where a HQDC meets 120KMH APDC requirements, works to increase them to motorway standards aren't required IIRC), and boosh, our "Motorway" network contains thousands of more miles. And most of the "Expressway" standards are greater than other western EU countries motorway (or equivalent) standards minus Hardshoulder Standards (as there is none)Phil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 23:11 Given the sub-standard nature of many of said Lay-bys, then technically HE may well be correct.
However that sort of response ignores the REAL issue.....
... Namely that in any other western European country such key roads would NOT be bog standard A roads in the first place!
Instead they would be motorways WITH hard shoulders!
Go and compare the motorway network of western Europe and you will find the UK stands out as having one of the smallest motorway networks for its size - and a disproportionate number of all purpose dual carriageways (e.g. A34, A14, A42, A1, A11, A12, A55, A23, A38, A43 etc.... performing the function of motorways elsewhere*.
* Even if they are not motorways such as in Brittany - many will be equipped with hard shoulders (take a look at Michean maps which highlight such things).
As ever, it depends on what you are comparing and as such 'the Cheesecake man' has a point.Stevie D wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:54Well, as long as you "suspect" that that's the case, I guess we don't need to bother looking at any evidence or studies on the matter thenthe cheesecake man wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:09I suspect proper D4M with good old-fashioned hard shoulders is safer than smart D4 without.
That's the sort of cloud cuckoo land thinking I just love to see on SABRE
I think there's a couple of pertinent questions to be asked here:
Why is it? No one else in Europe builds strategic roads as anything other than motorways, with hard shoulders. Where non-motorway dual carriageways exist they are very often of a similar standard to motorways (except in Italy).
Indeed. But equally, the flip side of that coin is never engaged with either: namely, that a large percentage of all vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder are not stopped for emergencies, they are stopped for phone calls or toilet trips in the undergrowth or to get something out of the boot, and the drivers making those non-emergency stops are putting themselves in huge danger because they incorrectly perceive that there is somewhere safe for them to pull over. Accidents happen in significant numbers that would be entirely avoided if those vehicles were not stopped and their drivers had found some safer place to stop off the motorway.Phil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 23:53In other words which can be better protect the occupants of a vehicle breakdown. Does closing the lane they are stranded in provide the same (or better) protection from being hit by other vehicles compared to having a space to pull into that is banned from being used by traffic.
THAT is the simple question to be answered - and its rather tiresome when road professionals keep trying to divert the discussion onto A roads or capacity benefits etc
I agree about the hard shoulder giving a false sense of security. A friend of mine suffered life changing injuries after his car was rear ended on the HS while he had his head under the bonnet trying to fix a problem himself.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 05:13Indeed. But equally, the flip side of that coin is never engaged with either: namely, that a large percentage of all vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder are not stopped for emergencies, they are stopped for phone calls or toilet trips in the undergrowth or to get something out of the boot, and the drivers making those non-emergency stops are putting themselves in huge danger because they incorrectly perceive that there is somewhere safe for them to pull over. Accidents happen in significant numbers that would be entirely avoided if those vehicles were not stopped and their drivers had found some safer place to stop off the motorway.Phil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 23:53In other words which can be better protect the occupants of a vehicle breakdown. Does closing the lane they are stranded in provide the same (or better) protection from being hit by other vehicles compared to having a space to pull into that is banned from being used by traffic.
THAT is the simple question to be answered - and its rather tiresome when road professionals keep trying to divert the discussion onto A roads or capacity benefits etc
Removing the hard shoulder removes the temptation. Does the absence of all those vehicles unnecessarily and dangerously stopped on a live motorway provide a safety improvement, compared to a world where people are routinely trying to change tyres or getting toddlers out of the car for a wee next to a 70mph live lane?
Its stories like this that have made me decide that, HS or not, if my car develops an issue (puncture etc) I'm carrying on as quickly/safely as possible to a junction, ERA or other "safer" area than the HS, even at the risk of further damage to my car. It only takes one unaware driver to wander from L1 across the line to cause, as you describe, life changing injuries.Piatkow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 08:39I agree about the hard shoulder giving a false sense of security. A friend of mine suffered life changing injuries after his car was rear ended on the HS while he had his head under the bonnet trying to fix a problem himself.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 05:13Indeed. But equally, the flip side of that coin is never engaged with either: namely, that a large percentage of all vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder are not stopped for emergencies, they are stopped for phone calls or toilet trips in the undergrowth or to get something out of the boot, and the drivers making those non-emergency stops are putting themselves in huge danger because they incorrectly perceive that there is somewhere safe for them to pull over. Accidents happen in significant numbers that would be entirely avoided if those vehicles were not stopped and their drivers had found some safer place to stop off the motorway.Phil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 23:53In other words which can be better protect the occupants of a vehicle breakdown. Does closing the lane they are stranded in provide the same (or better) protection from being hit by other vehicles compared to having a space to pull into that is banned from being used by traffic.
THAT is the simple question to be answered - and its rather tiresome when road professionals keep trying to divert the discussion onto A roads or capacity benefits etc
Removing the hard shoulder removes the temptation. Does the absence of all those vehicles unnecessarily and dangerously stopped on a live motorway provide a safety improvement, compared to a world where people are routinely trying to change tyres or getting toddlers out of the car for a wee next to a 70mph live lane?
This is indeed a valid point - but...Piatkow wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 08:39I agree about the hard shoulder giving a false sense of security. A friend of mine suffered life changing injuries after his car was rear ended on the HS while he had his head under the bonnet trying to fix a problem himself.Chris5156 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 05:13Indeed. But equally, the flip side of that coin is never engaged with either: namely, that a large percentage of all vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder are not stopped for emergencies, they are stopped for phone calls or toilet trips in the undergrowth or to get something out of the boot, and the drivers making those non-emergency stops are putting themselves in huge danger because they incorrectly perceive that there is somewhere safe for them to pull over. Accidents happen in significant numbers that would be entirely avoided if those vehicles were not stopped and their drivers had found some safer place to stop off the motorway.Phil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 23:53In other words which can be better protect the occupants of a vehicle breakdown. Does closing the lane they are stranded in provide the same (or better) protection from being hit by other vehicles compared to having a space to pull into that is banned from being used by traffic.
THAT is the simple question to be answered - and its rather tiresome when road professionals keep trying to divert the discussion onto A roads or capacity benefits etc
Removing the hard shoulder removes the temptation. Does the absence of all those vehicles unnecessarily and dangerously stopped on a live motorway provide a safety improvement, compared to a world where people are routinely trying to change tyres or getting toddlers out of the car for a wee next to a 70mph live lane?