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.
domcoop wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 22:30
Saw the exact same thing going Northbound at J9 a couple of weeks ago. People are idiots, quite frankly. I have long had the theory that the average driver simply doesn't have the slightest clue what road markings or road signs mean, or what the Highway Code says, or the correct way to drive.
Having commuted around there for a long time (and recently stopped) it's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care.
There's been decades of the only rule ever being much enforced being 'exceeding the speed limit', and that enforcement is automated. Some large fraction of people have spent their entire driving lives finding that they can do whatever they like to get ahead of everyone else, and the only result is that they save time every day with no consequences. And the people who follow the rules see people flouting them, every day, and getting away with it. People drive up the shoulder on stretches that have never had HSR, now, if it lets them get ahead.
domcoop wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 22:30
Saw the exact same thing going Northbound at J9 a couple of weeks ago. People are idiots, quite frankly. I have long had the theory that the average driver simply doesn't have the slightest clue what road markings or road signs mean, or what the Highway Code says, or the correct way to drive.
Having commuted around there for a long time (and recently stopped) it's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care.
There's been decades of the only rule ever being much enforced being 'exceeding the speed limit', and that enforcement is automated. Some large fraction of people have spent their entire driving lives finding that they can do whatever they like to get ahead of everyone else, and the only result is that they save time every day with no consequences. And the people who follow the rules see people flouting them, every day, and getting away with it. People drive up the shoulder on stretches that have never had HSR, now, if it lets them get ahead.
Yeah - it's just another way of getting ahead that "doesn't do any harm". If there ever is any enforcement, it'll end up in the paper with quotes like "it was unclear", "what else was I supposed to do", "haven't they got better things to be doing" etc.
domcoop wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2023 22:30
Saw the exact same thing going Northbound at J9 a couple of weeks ago. People are idiots, quite frankly. I have long had the theory that the average driver simply doesn't have the slightest clue what road markings or road signs mean, or what the Highway Code says, or the correct way to drive.
Having commuted around there for a long time (and recently stopped) it's not that they don't know, it's that they don't care.
There's been decades of the only rule ever being much enforced being 'exceeding the speed limit', and that enforcement is automated. Some large fraction of people have spent their entire driving lives finding that they can do whatever they like to get ahead of everyone else, and the only result is that they save time every day with no consequences. And the people who follow the rules see people flouting them, every day, and getting away with it. People drive up the shoulder on stretches that have never had HSR, now, if it lets them get ahead.
Yeah - it's just another way of getting ahead that "doesn't do any harm". If there ever is any enforcement, it'll end up in the paper with quotes like "it was unclear", "what else was I supposed to do", "haven't they got better things to be doing" etc.
..."innocent law-abiding people going about their business"
There must be means of setting cameras up with software that limits their coverage to individual lanes, whether they are 'red X' lanes or dynamic hard shoulders.
Patrick Harper wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 10:54
There must be means of setting cameras up with software that limits their coverage to individual lanes, whether they are 'red X' lanes or dynamic hard shoulders.
I understand red X cameras do exist so technologically it's possible. But I suppose there's a risk that automated enforcement creates a situation, like with speeding, where the rules are felt to only apply around cameras, whereas hard shoulder incursion should just be something you never ever do.
The latest assessment is out. Overall, smart motorways are confirmed safer than other motorways, but the exception is the small minority of accidents involving stopped vehicles.
Little reporting so far, except the Mail and Telegraph which predictably focus on the exception rather than the overall picture.
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
The latest assessment is out. Overall, smart motorways are confirmed safer than other motorways, but the exception is the small minority of accidents involving stopped vehicles.
Little reporting so far, except the Mail and Telegraph which predictably focus on the exception rather than the overall picture.
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
This assumes that it's OK to move the risk to a small population (and make it vary risky) to reduce total KSI (know as Globally at least as equivalent GALE). If they designed ALR on the same basis as M42 ATM (i.e. no population, or significant sub population, to be exposed to an increased risk) then they would have had the same/similar/better reduction in KSI without moving risk to the population of those previously who could stop on the shoulder, but on ALR cannot get to an ERA (sorry RA) and have to stop on a live carriageway. This comes of moving SM schemes from competent road safety specialities to being a technology led project.
The latest assessment is out. Overall, smart motorways are confirmed safer than other motorways, but the exception is the small minority of accidents involving stopped vehicles.
Little reporting so far, except the Mail and Telegraph which predictably focus on the exception rather than the overall picture.
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
This assumes that it's OK to move the risk to a small population (and make it vary risky) to reduce total KSI (know as Globally at least as equivalent GALE). If they designed ALR on the same basis as M42 ATM (i.e. no population, or significant sub population, to be exposed to an increased risk) then they would have had the same/similar/better reduction in KSI without moving risk to the population of those previously who could stop on the shoulder, but on ALR cannot get to an ERA (sorry RA) and have to stop on a live carriageway. This comes of moving SM schemes from competent road safety specialities to being a technology led project.
...and technology never fails.
No...
Wait...
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
The latest assessment is out. Overall, smart motorways are confirmed safer than other motorways, but the exception is the small minority of accidents involving stopped vehicles.
Little reporting so far, except the Mail and Telegraph which predictably focus on the exception rather than the overall picture.
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
This assumes that it's OK to move the risk to a small population (and make it vary risky) to reduce total KSI (know as Globally at least as equivalent GALE). If they designed ALR on the same basis as M42 ATM (i.e. no population, or significant sub population, to be exposed to an increased risk) then they would have had the same/similar/better reduction in KSI without moving risk to the population of those previously who could stop on the shoulder, but on ALR cannot get to an ERA (sorry RA) and have to stop on a live carriageway. This comes of moving SM schemes from competent road safety specialities to being a technology led project.
...and technology never fails.
No...
Wait...
No, the new safety assessment doesn't assume that technology never fails. The safety assessment is based on actual incidents on the road network which occurred with whatever technology was installed on the road at the time of any particular incident, comparing the four different types of motorway (Conventional / DHS / ALR / Controlled). If a technology failure occurred and a PIC (personal injury collision) occurred during the period of the failure, the safety stats will attribute it to the respective type of motorway accordingly.
Unless I have misunderstood (quite possible!), my point stands: more people have died as a result of the anti-smart motorway campaign. Why does nobody think this is an issue?
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 23:20
Unless I have misunderstood (quite possible!), my point stands: more people have died as a result of the anti-smart motorway campaign. Why does nobody think this is an issue?
Controlled motorways with hard shoulder are safest though, looking at that study.
I've also broken down on a smart motorway and it had to have a closure for me to be recovered. The issues are financial, but building new motorways to replace aging D2 like the A1 also costs lives, for example.
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 23:20
Unless I have misunderstood (quite possible!), my point stands: more people have died as a result of the anti-smart motorway campaign. Why does nobody think this is an issue?
Well, what IS an issue is that if you break down on an ALR motorway, you are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured than before when you had the hard shoulder. The M6 near me between Jns 16-19 has refuges at approx one mile intervals. I think that is just too far apart on what is an extremely busy motorway.
This assumes that it's OK to move the risk to a small population (and make it vary risky) to reduce total KSI (know as Globally at least as equivalent GALE). If they designed ALR on the same basis as M42 ATM (i.e. no population, or significant sub population, to be exposed to an increased risk) then they would have had the same/similar/better reduction in KSI without moving risk to the population of those previously who could stop on the shoulder, but on ALR cannot get to an ERA (sorry RA) and have to stop on a live carriageway. This comes of moving SM schemes from competent road safety specialities to being a technology led project.
...and technology never fails.
No...
Wait...
No, the new safety assessment doesn't assume that technology never fails. The safety assessment is based on actual incidents on the road network which occurred with whatever technology was installed on the road at the time of any particular incident, comparing the four different types of motorway (Conventional / DHS / ALR / Controlled). If a technology failure occurred and a PIC (personal injury collision) occurred during the period of the failure, the safety stats will attribute it to the respective type of motorway accordingly.
M42 ATM was designed to be safe with the system 'off', this is different from the current system where Charm/Dynac can sprout a whole lot of garbage.
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 23:20
Unless I have misunderstood (quite possible!), my point stands: more people have died as a result of the anti-smart motorway campaign. Why does nobody think this is an issue?
No, more people have died because ALR is GALE and not ALARP. Future schemes are cancelled but there was always a possibility of them being culled in RIS3.
I disagree. You could always save lives by spending more money. Making roads that are already amongst the safest even safer costs lives, given the budget is inevitably limited.
Bomag wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2023 01:32
M42 ATM was designed to be safe with the system 'off', this is different from the current system where Charm/Dynac can sprout a whole lot of garbage.
But that has patently proven to not be the case because a subset of users who are 'familiar' with smart motorways will use the HS even if no aspect is displayed over it. Because, well, ALR has a completely different meaning for a blank aspect over LBS1 than DHS. It's a complete joke of system meta-design that the Highways Agency was allowed to change the fundamental driver-facing operational principles of the design, during roll out, meaning drivers could experience 3 different sets of rules on one journey (e.g. M6 > M42 > M5 to the South West). The principle of 'keep it simple stupid' has failed and as a result some drivers who were smart enough to pass their test but might be a few neurons short of a complex brain, just can't handle it.
I suppose I haven't disproved your point - the blame for the failure of DHS to remain easy to understand and safe lies with those who pushed to pivot to cheaper ALR schemes.
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 16:04
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
I agree about our horrible media, but the reality is much more nuanced about the actual figures.
Yes, the average person driving between two points does appear to be safer on a smart motorway. BUT if they have the misfortune to break down, they are significantly less safe.
Is that extra risk a justifiable choice? Can you think of any other circumstance where something similar happens? Would the knowledge that everybody else is statistically safer make you feel any more comfortable in the event you broke down in a live lane on a SM?
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 16:04
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
I agree about our horrible media, but the reality is much more nuanced about the actual figures.
Yes, the average person driving between two points does appear to be safer on a smart motorway. BUT if they have the misfortune to break down, they are significantly less safe.
Is that extra risk a justifiable choice? Can you think of any other circumstance where something similar happens? Would the knowledge that everybody else is statistically safer make you feel any more comfortable in the event you broke down in a live lane on a SM?
Overall smart motorways are marginally safer than conventional motorways (as per the safety assessment previously linked, Table 1, page 44). They are much, much safer than conventional A roads. Yes, beyond this there's a lot of nuance, but this is the summary, and if the aim of smart motorways is to make additional capacity available without worsening overall safety compared to conventional motorways, then they've satisfied their aim and I for one am ok with that. Of course further improvements are always possible and I'm glad to see that many improvements have already been implemented.
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 16:04
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
I agree about our horrible media, but the reality is much more nuanced about the actual figures.
Yes, the average person driving between two points does appear to be safer on a smart motorway. BUT if they have the misfortune to break down, they are significantly less safe.
Is that extra risk a justifiable choice? Can you think of any other circumstance where something similar happens? Would the knowledge that everybody else is statistically safer make you feel any more comfortable in the event you broke down in a live lane on a SM?
Unexpected breakdowns almost always going to increase your level of danger on any type of road. This is why there are many laws and procedures about the roadworthiness of vehicles and increasing technology inside them to prevent them ("limp mode", tyre pressure warnings, fuel level warnings etc). Almost every road upgrade compromises the safety of some type of breakdowns to some degree by increasing average speeds and traffic levels.
If you isolate individual negative events then every change to a road will perform worse on some selection of them. We judge the safety of a road based on the aggregate risk given the likelihood of those events. Upgrading a congested S2 to a grade separated D2 will dramatically increase driver safety at the cost of dramatically reducing the safety of pedestrians crossing the road. On rural roads they are often few and far between and in fact will often be repelled by the road, so the road will appear safer. In some communities these roads cause genuine severance issues. Is this OK, or should we restrict all roads where there's a chance someone might need to cross to 40mph with intermittent zebras or pelican just in case? I certainly don't see any anti-smart motorway campaigners calling for anything like that.
Bessie wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 16:04
The campaign against smart motorways, aided by our rotten and incompetent media, has cost lives. No-one cares.
I agree about our horrible media, but the reality is much more nuanced about the actual figures.
Yes, the average person driving between two points does appear to be safer on a smart motorway. BUT if they have the misfortune to break down, they are significantly less safe.
Is that extra risk a justifiable choice? Can you think of any other circumstance where something similar happens? Would the knowledge that everybody else is statistically safer make you feel any more comfortable in the event you broke down in a live lane on a SM?
Overall smart motorways are marginally safer than conventional motorways (as per the safety assessment previously linked, Table 1, page 44). They are much, much safer than conventional A roads. Yes, beyond this there's a lot of nuance, but this is the summary, and if the aim of smart motorways is to make additional capacity available without worsening overall safety compared to conventional motorways, then they've satisfied their aim and I for one am ok with that. Of course further improvements are always possible and I'm glad to see that many improvements have already been implemented.
In terms of further (cost effective) improvements I’ve never understood the priority given to standardisation. What are the arguments against discontinuous hard shoulders, or lots more refuges, where possible at low cost?
