The future of smart motorways

[Bryn666]

I still think the lane 1 issue is massively overplayed. We do not have thousands of deaths on all-purpose roads with no hard shoulder.

A driver hitting a stopped vehicle is bad planning and ignorance. Those who think overhead signs don't apply to them

I see your point but i think that driving all all purpose road with one or two lanes either side is very different to motorway driving which needs a hard shoulder to keep it running.

You're right. Rural dual carriageways with no hard shoulders or any signalling/CCTV monitoring should have their speed limits reduced to 60 immediately to offset this danger.

[Phil]

Claims that smart motorways tech leaves drivers at risk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68848418

Power outages lasting days are not acceptable….

And all you Smart motorway fanboys take note - without that fancy kit you are Turing a Smart motorway into an insanely busy D4 dual carriageway!

[Bryn666]

Claims that smart motorways tech leaves drivers at risk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68848418

Power outages lasting days are not acceptable….

And all you Smart motorway fanboys take note - without that fancy kit you are Turing a Smart motorway into an insanely busy D4 dual carriageway!

The NH techbros are denying there's a problem, of course. The concept isn't the problem here, it's the shoddy execution and continued substandard management of it that is a big concern.

[jnty]

Claims that smart motorways tech leaves drivers at risk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68848418

Power outages lasting days are not acceptable….

And all you Smart motorway fanboys take note - without that fancy kit you are Turing a Smart motorway into an insanely busy D4 dual carriageway!

The NH techbros are denying there's a problem, of course. The concept isn't the problem here, it's the shoddy execution and continued substandard management of it that is a big concern.

I think news that localised failures occur is not a surprise to regular travellers - it's rare that you see a restrictions or an incident without one or two gantries out of action. At the very least, a single lane's sign is often broken. If safety-critical equipment failed with this frequency on the railways, the whole network would implode.

[nowster]

The MS4 on the M60 Clockwise at Worsley has been broken for nearly two years now, often showing a single lit square.

You often see parts of MS4s where blocks of pixels are offset vertically. There are some with permanently on wigwag elements.

There are often VMS signs with partial/flickering red rings (eg. Simister).

And that's before considering how inconsistently they're used (especially during roadworks setup).

[Bryn666]

Claims that smart motorways tech leaves drivers at risk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68848418

Power outages lasting days are not acceptable….

And all you Smart motorway fanboys take note - without that fancy kit you are Turing a Smart motorway into an insanely busy D4 dual carriageway!

The NH techbros are denying there's a problem, of course. The concept isn't the problem here, it's the shoddy execution and continued substandard management of it that is a big concern.

I think news that localised failures occur is not a surprise to regular travellers - it's rare that you see a restrictions or an incident without one or two gantries out of action. At the very least, a single lane's sign is often broken. If safety-critical equipment failed with this frequency on the railways, the whole network would implode.

Absolutely, there's routinely issues with this on the M60. Signals being blank then a random NSL, occasional solo 50s (plus bonus speed camera flashes) when no other signals are lit, misleading info regarding lane closures, etc. There are also numerous AMIs that simply don't illuminate when their adjacent ones do.

It doesn't inspire confidence.

Edit: Nowster has observed the same problems it seems!

[nowster]

On the way back from the SABRE AGM two Saturdays ago, I was on the "smart" ALR section of M6 south of Sandbach.

There was a van fire in lane 1. On the approach, the VMS correctly funnelled all traffic into lanes 3 and 4.

Then someone changed it to "motorway closed ahead" with no lane restrictions, meaning that lanes 1 and 2 filled up. A little while later a fire engine attempted to get through the standing traffic.

Thankfully motorists were sensible and gradually opened up a gap between lanes 3 and 4. This wasn't easy as there were many HGVs in lane 3 from the previous lane closure. It did however greatly delay the fire engine.

Later, when things were under control, after passing the incident the next MS4 was set to ××↑↑ (40) and had cameras. It was merrily flashing away as many impatient folk were entering lanes 1 and 2 having passed the smouldering shell of the van.

[ManomayLR]

Claims that smart motorways tech leaves drivers at risk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68848418

Power outages lasting days are not acceptable….

And all you Smart motorway fanboys take note - without that fancy kit you are Turing a Smart motorway into an insanely busy D4 dual carriageway!

The NH techbros are denying there's a problem, of course. The concept isn't the problem here, it's the shoddy execution and continued substandard management of it that is a big concern.

This will be the topic of tonight’s Panorama.
If only the BBC had brought you in for your viewpoint…

[Debaser]

From the Generic Hazard Log v0.2a

Hazard H101 - 'Unable to set signs and signals to protect incident'
Event
Frequency - 3.0 (Occasional - 1 occurrence / year / mile)
Probability - 2.0 (Occasional - This hazard, if it occurs, will occasionally cause an accident)
Severity - 1.0 (Average, The distribution of collisions (i.e. ratio of damage-only to fatal) is expected to be similar to the motorway average [Speed differential approx. 40 mph])
Overall (unmitigated) Risk Score = 6.0

Frequency justification - Occasional' Based on calculations from other schemes.
Obtain Assumption 12 ‘Number of Lane Closures per day per motorway mile’: 0.22 = 80 per year per mile
The frequency depends upon the integrity of the system and any confusion that arises from its use. Consider how often this is likely to occur for each lane closure (which acts as a proxy for the number of incidents) and for how long. In the absence of more specific information a value of ‘Occasional’ would be considered appropriate.

Probability justification - When incidents do occur, drivers will still generally be able to react to it. 'Occasional'.

Severity justification - Although there is the potential for a severe outcome, including multi-vehicle pileup, the traffic will, in the majority of cases, have an opportunity to begin slowing down. The most likely collisions are tail of queue collisions, which take place at low speed differentials, because some braking has usually taken place by the time the collisions occur. 'Average'.

The hazard was therefore known and will have been accounted for in the Hazard Log for any particular scheme. Whether the above assumptions were/are reasonable, well we can now play at being 'Captain Hindsight'. To me any underscoring of the risk is due to assuming that drivers will drive to the conditions and therefore at a speed at which they can see a hazard and stop in time. Lord knows I've been told often enough times on this forum how unrealistic that requirement is.

[Big L]

Claims that smart motorways tech leaves drivers at risk https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68848418

Power outages lasting days are not acceptable….

And all you Smart motorway fanboys take note - without that fancy kit you are Turing a Smart motorway into an insanely busy D4 dual carriageway!

The NH techbros are denying there's a problem, of course. The concept isn't the problem here, it's the shoddy execution and continued substandard management of it that is a big concern.

This will be the topic of tonight’s Panorama.
If only the BBC had brought you in for your viewpoint…

The first Panorama on the subject was an error-laden hatchet job; I’m not expecting any different.

[tom66]

There are so many times I've driven through smart motorway sections with completely insane signals I've lost hope in NH's infrastructure.

All gantries blank but one sign set to 40 mph = what do you do? Everyone else is going 70, and the camera isn't flashing, but legally, you'd be bang to rights if anyone did catch you.

One gantry on 20 mph and others on 40 mph = illegal signage configuration (as no division in carriageway), but some people were complying with it.

Blank signs amongst normal speed limit signs, or signs with illegible markings, or signs with red rings lit up but no speed limit specified. There's been one of those on the M25 for at least the last year, still not fixed.

Sudden drop to 40 mph in otherwise normal traffic for no apparent reason, about 50% of cars comply, get overtaken by HGVs in lane 2 who don't care about the new limit, kinda terrifying.

[deadly]

Sudden drop to 40 mph in otherwise normal traffic for no apparent reason, about 50% of cars comply, get overtaken by HGVs in lane 2 who don't care about the new limit, kinda terrifying.

This is my biggest scare of Smart Motorways. Whilst compliance to overhead individual-lane speed limit signs seems quite high, in my experience compliance to (changes of) speed limits displayed on MS4s is minimal, leading to a mix of 40 mph and 80 mph vehicles.

My suggestion would be to not allow a change in speed limit via MS4, only allowing them to be used as repeaters.

[B1040]

If smart motorways are to run, they need ongoing maintenance and the expense of cameras and staff (including policing).
Are we a country prepared to do this?

[ManomayLR]

Sudden drop to 40 mph in otherwise normal traffic for no apparent reason, about 50% of cars comply, get overtaken by HGVs in lane 2 who don't care about the new limit, kinda terrifying.

This is my biggest scare of Smart Motorways. Whilst compliance to overhead individual-lane speed limit signs seems quite high, in my experience compliance to (changes of) speed limits displayed on MS4s is minimal, leading to a mix of 40 mph and 80 mph vehicles.

My suggestion would be to not allow a change in speed limit via MS4, only allowing them to be used as repeaters.

How can people not believe that a single speed limit sign does not apply to all lanes? If it was a normal fixed sign there would be a sign on the nearside and perhaps one in the central reservation, and people would know that applies to all lanes.

Gantries create visual pollution - which is one reason why lane control signals are avoided when they are not needed.

[nowster]

I've mentioned this before, but I don't think smart motorway signals should be used for setting out roadworks in the way they are used at the moment.

There's too much crying wolf which reduces compliance.

The Red Xs start well before the cones start. I can understand this for setting up to protect the workers.

And then you reach the start of the roadworks area proper and the gantries are all blank without even a speed limit. What's the law there? You get a dangerous mixture of traffic speeds with people confused as to what they should be doing.

Eventually at the end of the roadworks area (which may be many miles of blank gantries further on) there are NSL signs on the gantries.

[tom66]

I've mentioned this before, but I don't think smart motorway signals should be used for setting out roadworks in the way they are used at the moment.

There's too much crying wolf which reduces compliance.

The Red Xs start well before the cones start. I can understand this for setting up to protect the workers.

And then you reach the start of the roadworks area proper and the gantries are all blank without even a speed limit. What's the law there? You get a dangerous mixture of traffic speeds with people confused as to what they should be doing.

Eventually at the end of the roadworks area (which may be many miles of blank gantries further on) there are NSL signs on the gantries.

Sometimes they seem to cut power through roadworks areas, which is probably sensible if they are doing electrical work or possible digging near cable trenches etc.

The problem with this is you enter a system of roadworks having gantry signs on 50 mph, the roadworks end, the streetlights are still off (presumably as power has been isolated) and there's no terminal NSL signs (because there's no way to light them up!) So legally the road is still a 50, but there's no sign that tells you this. Half of the traffic assumes the limit has increased, the other half doesn't, and you end up with wide speed deltas which are known to be more hazardous.

I've had this happen twice on the M1 past Luton.

If they're going to do something like this then they need to have a physical backup too, I think. Perhaps only using the electronic signs for the entry into roadworks, but physical signs for the end.

[deadly]

Sudden drop to 40 mph in otherwise normal traffic for no apparent reason, about 50% of cars comply, get overtaken by HGVs in lane 2 who don't care about the new limit, kinda terrifying.

This is my biggest scare of Smart Motorways. Whilst compliance to overhead individual-lane speed limit signs seems quite high, in my experience compliance to (changes of) speed limits displayed on MS4s is minimal, leading to a mix of 40 mph and 80 mph vehicles.

My suggestion would be to not allow a change in speed limit via MS4, only allowing them to be used as repeaters.

How can people not believe that a single speed limit sign does not apply to all lanes? If it was a normal fixed sign there would be a sign on the nearside and perhaps one in the central reservation, and people would know that applies to all lanes.

Gantries create visual pollution - which is one reason why lane control signals are avoided when they are not needed.

I don't know - but I've noticed similar for lane control information displayed on MS4s too: people ignore it. Perhaps it's because people are used to these types of boards being purely informational rather than containing rules. I'm sure they must have been tested out on the public before being unleashed.

[ManomayLR]

I've mentioned this before, but I don't think smart motorway signals should be used for setting out roadworks in the way they are used at the moment.

There's too much crying wolf which reduces compliance.

The Red Xs start well before the cones start. I can understand this for setting up to protect the workers.

And then you reach the start of the roadworks area proper and the gantries are all blank without even a speed limit. What's the law there? You get a dangerous mixture of traffic speeds with people confused as to what they should be doing.

Eventually at the end of the roadworks area (which may be many miles of blank gantries further on) there are NSL signs on the gantries.

Sometimes they seem to cut power through roadworks areas, which is probably sensible if they are doing electrical work or possible digging near cable trenches etc.

The problem with this is you enter a system of roadworks having gantry signs on 50 mph, the roadworks end, the streetlights are still off (presumably as power has been isolated) and there's no terminal NSL signs (because there's no way to light them up!) So legally the road is still a 50, but there's no sign that tells you this. Half of the traffic assumes the limit has increased, the other half doesn't, and you end up with wide speed deltas which are known to be more hazardous.

I've had this happen twice on the M1 past Luton.

If they're going to do something like this then they need to have a physical backup too, I think. Perhaps only using the electronic signs for the entry into roadworks, but physical signs for the end.

But surely the power should only be isolated for the section of works, and as soon as the works finish the following gantry or VMS should be on and set to NSL. The other day I saw NSL signs with a VMS saying "roadworks end", for the first time. Ignoring the fact that all the previous signs had been set incorrectly in that instance, that should be seen more.

[tom66]

But surely the power should only be isolated for the section of works, and as soon as the works finish the following gantry or VMS should be on and set to NSL. The other day I saw NSL signs with a VMS saying "roadworks end", for the first time. Ignoring the fact that all the previous signs had been set incorrectly in that instance, that should be seen more.

I would agree, but my guess is that the works areas and the section over which they can isolate power don't necessarily match up. Hypothetically (ficticious numbers), the works area might be 2 miles long, but the power supply might only be isolatable in 10 mile sections or between junctions or something like that. It would mean the roadworks would end up being longer than necessary if that was always applied.

[Bomag]

Sudden drop to 40 mph in otherwise normal traffic for no apparent reason, about 50% of cars comply, get overtaken by HGVs in lane 2 who don't care about the new limit, kinda terrifying.

This is my biggest scare of Smart Motorways. Whilst compliance to overhead individual-lane speed limit signs seems quite high, in my experience compliance to (changes of) speed limits displayed on MS4s is minimal, leading to a mix of 40 mph and 80 mph vehicles.

My suggestion would be to not allow a change in speed limit via MS4, only allowing them to be used as repeaters.

How can people not believe that a single speed limit sign does not apply to all lanes? If it was a normal fixed sign there would be a sign on the nearside and perhaps one in the central reservation, and people would know that applies to all lanes.

Gantries create visual pollution - which is one reason why lane control signals are avoided when they are not needed.

While this is covered in TSRGD S15-1-6, compliance seems to be better if there are other prescribed elements which may explain the reason for the limit.