Smart Motorways, is it time to end them?

[Bletchleyite]

If you're doing this, you'd need to clear up the distinction between Dual-Carriageway roads with cross-traffic and frequent roundabouts and HQDCs that are not motorways for political/practical reasons (e.g. A14, A55). There's no good reason (in general) a 2-lane road with continuous Central reservation shouldn't be the same speed as a Motorway.

True. I suppose you could (and this might solve part of the smart motorway issue) define a motorway for these purposes as:

1. Has a continuous central reservation with a crash barrier and no right turns
2. Has a continuous hard shoulder of a specified minimum width
3. All public junctions including any lay-bys have acceleration/deceleration lanes of a minimum specified length
4. Does not permit cycling, pedestrians or other low speed vehicles

The ones you mention (I'd add A34, A5D* through MK, the Tingewick bypass on the A421) do fulfil (1) and look like motorways, but do have some non-motorway hazards like short laybys and no hard shoulder, which like the absence of (1) do increase the overall risk. Most of them also permit cycling which is a further potential hazard not present on a motorway.

The easiest way to classify these would be to very slightly loosen what can be described as An (M), while at the same time mandating smart motorways where there is no hard shoulder to be permanently set to 60 on the displays, and any sections of classic motorway without a hard shoulder or with particularly short acceleration lanes on a junction (there are a few; Leicester Forest used to be really short but has now been fixed) to be signed down to 60 through that section.

* Diversionary; not a formal name but is used locally to differentiate from the "old A5" i.e. V4 Watling St.

 

[ABB125]

If you're doing this, you'd need to clear up the distinction between Dual-Carriageway roads with cross-traffic and frequent roundabouts and HQDCs that are not motorways for political/practical reasons (e.g. A14, A55). There's no good reason (in general) a 2-lane road with continuous Central reservation shouldn't be the same speed as a Motorway.

Absolutely - this should be a priority for National Highways (I hate that new name!) regardless of any changes in speed limit

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely - this should be a priority for National Highways (I hate that new name!) regardless of any changes in speed limit

I hate the name too - why not just go back to Highways Agency if it once again has full-UK responsibilities?

Or, er, Great British Highways?

 

[ABB125]

I hate the name too - why not just go back to Highways Agency if it once again has full-UK responsibilities?

That would be sensible, but as far as I'm aware there hasn't been any change in responsibilities. A cynic might suggest that (back on topic) the rebrand is as a result of the recent fallout with smart motorways: "you're idiots for removing the hard shoulder" "sorry, nothing to do with us, that was Highways England".

Or, er, Great British Highways?

Why do I get the feeling that that was probably seriously considered?

 

[AM9]

Was it not the case that a study found evidence to support this?

I don't know, but even if that was found, not every driver is safer at higher speeds, - often those that claim they are 'good' drivers are quite the opposite, and when they get it wrong, the results are much more serious for everybody.

 

[bramling]

I don't know, but even if that was found, not every driver is safer at higher speeds, - often those that claim they are 'good' drivers are quite the opposite, and when they get it wrong, the results are much more serious for everybody.

I'd tackle this with much more stringent licensing. No point in a (potential) reduction in severity if it causes a significant increase in accidents due to monotony, which is what I suspect would happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd tackle this with much more stringent licensing. No point in a (potential) reduction in severity if it causes a significant increase in accidents due to monotony, which is what I suspect would happen.

Interestingly the roadworks speed has now been increased to 60mph (with other precautions, e.g. concrete barriers instead of cones) as that was considered safer than 50, largely because it reduces the amount of overtaking by lorries. Essentially an indicated 60 is about the actual 56 the lorries are limited to, so all traffic goes about the same speed.

 

[Bald Rick]

The ones you mention (I'd add A34, A5D* through MK, the Tingewick bypass on the A421) do fulfil (1) and look like motorways, but do have some non-motorway hazards like short laybys and no hard shoulder, which like the absence of (1) do increase the overall risk.

Someone with more knowledge than me will confirm, but AIUI there are many differences in the design standards between a Dual carriageway (even those with continuous central reservation etc) and a motorway. One example is slip road acceleration / decel lanes; on most of the A14 these are much shorter than on motorways, in my opinion this is a greater safety issue than not having a continuous hard shoulder.

Interestingly the roadworks speed has now been increased to 60mph (with other precautions, e.g. concrete barriers instead of cones) as that was considered safer than 50, largely because it reduces the amount of overtaking by lorries. Essentially an indicated 60 is about the actual 56 the lorries are limited to, so all traffic goes about the same speed.

It’s only 60 in certain circumstances, plenty are still 50.

 

[ABB125]

It’s only 60 in certain circumstances, plenty are still 50.

Something to do with a continuous barrier between the worksite and the running lanes?

 

[Ianno87]

Someone with more knowledge than me will confirm, but AIUI there are many differences in the design standards between a Dual carriageway (even those with continuous central reservation etc) and a motorway. One example is slip road acceleration / decel lanes; on most of the A14 these are much shorter than on motorways, in my opinion this is a greater safety issue than not having a continuous hard shoulder.

Can vouch for this, having personally witnessed a guy misjudge an exit slip road near St Ives (on what is now the former A14), carry straight on instead of the sharp bend and demolish the chevron sign in the process (the guy was OK).

That convinced me the A14 upgrade was fundamentally a good thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Something to do with a continuous barrier between the worksite and the running lanes?

I believe a concrete barrier is required for 60, yes, but given the massive safety improvement this provides over cones (the shape of the barrier will direct the car back into the lane with minor damage, not cause a pileup) it should be mandatory anyway.

 

[Ted633]

I believe they are looking at turning on the cameras under red Xs to allow prosecution of people who drive through them. This cannot come soon enough.

Bit of a late reply, but I think they are already doing this on stretches (certainly the Surrey stretch) of the M25. The gantries with the yellow cameras to the side of them will flash if a vehicle goes through a red 'X'. I've witnessed the cameras going berserk a few times, although don't know if they're prosecuting people.

 

[ABB125]

Can vouch for this, having personally witnessed a guy misjudge an exit slip road near St Ives (on what is now the former A14), carry straight on instead of the sharp bend and demolish the chevron sign in the process (the guy was OK).

That convinced me the A14 upgrade was fundamentally a good thing.

Indeed - safety is now one of the main reasons behind a lot of road upgrades these days. Though of course it's funny how some roads which are really dangerous (be it through volume of traffic, alignment etc) but the authorities show no interest in upgrading it

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - safety is now one of the main reasons behind a lot of road upgrades these days. Though of course it's funny how some roads which are really dangerous (be it through volume of traffic, alignment etc) but the authorities show no interest in upgrading it

"You can't put a value on a life".

But in fact that is what they actually do do (I believe it's well over a million quid, though I forget what it is) and it is used to work out which road safety issues to fix and which aren't worth it. Often some roads that appear dangerous are so obviously dangerous that people treat them with extreme care and so the number of KSIs (killed/seriously injured) is actually very low and so they are not dealt with. (Damage only accidents aren't really of great interest).

 

[ABB125]

I believe a concrete barrier is required for 60, yes, but given the massive safety improvement this provides over cones (the shape of the barrier will direct the car back into the lane with minor damage, not cause a pileup) it should be mandatory anyway.

Yes, but it's not always practical (eg: a short bit of work that will only take a few days) and costs more

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed - safety is now one of the main reasons behind a lot of road upgrades these days. Though of course it's funny how some roads which are really dangerous (be it through volume of traffic, alignment etc) but the authorities show no interest in upgrading it

"You can't put a value on a life".

But in fact that is what they actually do do (I believe it's well over a million quid, though I forget what it is) and it is used to work out which road safety issues to fix and which aren't worth it. Often some roads that appear dangerous are so obviously dangerous that people treat them with extreme care and so the number of KSIs (killed/seriously injured) is actually very low and so they are not dealt with. (Damage only accidents aren't really of great interest).

Although one of the big drivers of the A14 upgrade was the need to replace the bridge over the ECML at Huntingdon Station, I believe.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe a concrete barrier is required for 60, yes, but given the massive safety improvement this provides over cones (the shape of the barrier will direct the car back into the lane with minor damage, not cause a pileup) it should be mandatory anyway.

Not always practical to put a concrete barrier up though.

But in fact that is what they actually do do (I believe it's well over a million quid, though I forget what it is)

£1.653m. Same value is used in rail schemes.

 

[AM9]

Yes, but it's not always practical (eg: a short bit of work that will only take a few days) and costs more

Then if it is a "short bit of work that will only take a few days", the temporary speed limit can be set to a suitably low value as it will similarly only be in effect for 'a few days'.

 

[ABB125]

Then if it is a "short bit of work that will only take a few days", the temporary speed limit can be set to a suitably low value as it will similarly only be in effect for 'a few days'.

Which does already happen with 50mph limits. (I'm sure I've recently driven through a section with a temporary 40 limit with cones etc, but I can't remember where (or indeed whether I'm making it up!). It might have been on the A46 Warwick bypass (admittedly not a motorway) with a contraflow system in place on one carriageway with the other closed for resurfacing.)

I'm slightly surprised that the bit of the M6 being smartified north of the M62 hasn't got concrete barriers, only cones (I think; I may be misremembering!). Though even if it did, I wouldn't want to be doing any more than 50mph with the narrow lanes currently in place. It certainly wasn't fun in a Transit a few weeks ago!

 

[Bald Rick]

Which does already happen with 50mph limits. (I'm sure I've recently driven through a section with a temporary 40 limit with cones etc, but I can't remember where (or indeed whether I'm making it up!). It might have been on the A46 Warwick bypass (admittedly not a motorway) with a contraflow system in place on one carriageway with the other closed for resurfacing.)

I'm slightly surprised that the bit of the M6 being smartified north of the M62 hasn't got concrete barriers, only cones (I think; I may be misremembering!). Though even if it did, I wouldn't want to be doing any more than 50mph with the narrow lanes currently in place. It certainly wasn't fun in a Transit a few weeks ago!

When average speed cameras were brought in for Roadworks, they were usually 40mph. I’ve been through some with a 30 limit, probably in Scotland.

 

[ABB125]

When average speed cameras were brought in for Roadworks, they were usually 40mph.

Do you mean when average speed cameras were first "invented" (started being used for roadworks)?

I’ve been through some with a 30 limit, probably in Scotland.

Sounds painful!

 

[Bald Rick]

Do you mean when average speed cameras were first "invented" (started being used for roadworks)?

My memory is a little cloudy on the subject. It may have been when roadworks limits became mandatory rather than advisory, but we’re talking 20 years ago at least.

 

[ABB125]

My memory is a little cloudy on the subject. It may have been when roadworks limits became mandatory rather than advisory, but we’re talking 20 years ago at least.

Ok, I thought that might be the case.

 

[Roast Veg]

£1.653m. Same value is used in rail schemes.

Does this figure rise with inflation?

 

[AM9]

My memory is a little cloudy on the subject. It may have been when roadworks limits became mandatory rather than advisory, but we’re talking 20 years ago at least.

When the M1 was widened from the M25 to J10 from about 2005 to 2007, the speed limit was set to 40mph. There were over 10,000 speeding convictions so it was raised to 50mph. There were fewer convictions, but some drivers still didn't observe the law.
The stretch that I used then (J9-10) is still problematic with southbound HGVs exceeding their limters down the hill, in inadequately spaced convoys in the nearside lane making it difficult to exit at J9.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does this figure rise with inflation?

It certainly changes, although I don’t know how it is factored. Logically it would be by the change in value of economic output by an average person.

When the M1 was widened from the M25 to J10 from about 2005 to 2007, the speed limit was set to 40mph. There were over 10,000 speeding convictions so it was raised to 50mph. There were fewer convictions, but some drivers still didn't observe the law.
The stretch that I used then (J9-10) is still problematic with southbound HGVs exceeding their limters down the hill, in inadequately spaced convoys in the nearside lane making it difficult to exit at J9.

Perhaps that’s where I remember the 40 from as I was regular on that stretch then.

Southbound exit at J9 is a little tricky, I’d never considered it due to HGV speeds though. I always put it down to being the first stretch of ‘proper’ 4 lane, when people seem to speed up, and you often get people in all 4 lanes doing about the same speed.

 

[AM9]

Perhaps that’s where I remember the 40 from as I was regular on that stretch then.

Southbound exit at J9 is a little tricky, I’d never considered it due to HGV speeds though. I always put it down to being the first stretch of ‘proper’ 4 lane, when people seem to speed up, and you often get people in all 4 lanes doing about the same speed.

The problem thAT I had was that trucks would all sit in the LH lane and by halfway down the hill where I needed to get ready fo the slip, I had to squeeze in between them, often they were determined not to lose any of their kinetic energy from the hill before the following climb behind Redbourn village, so I was travelling with nowhere near enough space to stop, andmore importantly the guy behind wouldn't have stopped quick enough. This was even worse when the road works were on because the slip entrance wasn't always good enough for a fast exit.

 

[domcoop7]

Going back to Smart Motorways, I think they're brilliant. The M62 to Eccles now runs smoothly up until the junction (the interchange itself is always tailed back anyway, but there's nothign to be done about that), and I feel safer driving on it than on a normal motorway.

100 people a year are Killed / Seriously Injured on average on the hard shoulder itself, which is usually narrower (and on motorways not upgraded in the last 15 years or so, generally built to a lower specification - hence why they have to spend time strengthening the hard shoulder when converting to Smart Motorway).

The use of radar detection will also make a difference.

If I was in charge, changes I'd make would be more cameras to catch people ignoring the speed limits / red 'X's (as mentioned by some other posters above), and on top of that an average speed check. The hard shoulder that can be switched into or out of being a running lane is also dangerous and confusing - these stretches should be (and indeed will be) converted to all lane running. The most annoying thing for me about Smart Motorways is diligently following the indicated speed in the signals, only for Mr BMW / Mrs Audi to turn up 4.6mm behind my rear bumper indignant that I'm not doing 90MPH instead of 50.

In the unfortunate event I did break down and was unable to make it to a wide, camera controlled, barrier protected Emergency Refuge (or get off the motorway), I'd rather the car be in a signal controlled running lane with advance indication given to drivers than to be in a hard shoulder narrower than a normal lane that there's an odds on chance some yummy mummy reading Facebook whilst driving, or some HGV changing the song on his phone on Spotify is going to crash straight into.

It's also worth pointing out that some of the high profile deaths were of people who shouldn't even have stopped if there was a hard shoulder! There was a woman in Birmingham who "took a nap" in what she thought was a hard shoulder, but was a running lane; and the two people who died in South Yorkshire M1 had stopped to exchange phone numbers after a bump, and stopped in a running lane (right in front of a sign saying "Emergency Refuge - 1 mile").

 

[SargeNpton]

In the unfortunate event I did break down and was unable to make it to a wide, camera controlled, barrier protected Emergency Refuge (or get off the motorway), I'd rather the car be in a signal controlled running lane with advance indication given to drivers than to be in a hard shoulder narrower than a normal lane that there's an odds on chance some yummy mummy reading Facebook whilst driving, or some HGV changing the song on his phone on Spotify is going to crash straight into.

Except that the current technology that is supposed to quickly identify when a vehicle has broken down on the inside lane very often doesn't work, so that broken down vehicle can be a sitting duck for 15 minutes. Having a continuous hard shoulder in which to pull over quickly - and where the passengers can get out of the vehicle to climb over the barrier - is far safer.

I say this as someone who has broken down on the M1 on a motorcycle many years ago. On the hard shoulder is was scary enough but I'd be petrified in a live running lane.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would rather be on a hard shoulder with the inside running lane closed as well. There are not only two options.

When it is not busy and I see a car on the hard shoulder I often pull out to lane 2 to give it a wide berth - it frustrates me how people often "undertake" me, close passing the stopped car, when I do.