'Smart Motorways'

[cactustwirly]

You must drive on a different bit of the M40 than I do because I find the lane discipline on it appalling with people dawdling about in all lanes leading to outer lane convoys.

Normally junction 9 to 16

 

[Bald Rick]

the M6 between Stafford and Stoke in heavy traffic is absolutely nerve-wracking with its very high volume of HGVs.

I hope you don’t mean ‘nerve wracking’. If so, then really you shouldn’t be driving.

You must drive on a different bit of the M40 than I do because I find the lane discipline on it appalling with people dawdling about in all lanes leading to outer lane convoys.

The lane discipline (and standard of driving generally) on the M40 deteriorates noticeably south of High Wycombe. Similarly on the M1 south of Luton. It must be something to do with the Chiltern Ridge.


Meanwhile I absolutely love ALR and Dynamic Hard Shoulder stretches of motorway. When it is reasonably busy (ie anlmost every time I use them) almost no one seems to use lane 1, so I have it to myself and make much better progress than the other lanes. Keeping a sharp lookout for any stranded vehicles in a live lane obviously (albeit despite using them regularly, I’ve never seen one).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find smart motorways awful to drive on, lane discipline goes out of the window.
You then get cars in your Blindspot travelling the same speed as you, so it's difficult to move across to exit.

You are allowed to slow to move left, you know. This seems to be a blind spot for many, not just on motorways.

The M1 is hellish to drive on compared to the M40 which is bliss in comparison. The M4 west of Reading can be good, but seems to be infected with Middle lane drivers, so I end up staying on the inside lane for miles overtaking them

They won't move over if you do that. Enjoy the process of overtaking them correctly, it's wonderfully sanctimonious and they sometimes wake up!

 

[cactustwirly]

You are allowed to slow to move left, you know. This seems to be a blind spot for many, not just on motorways.



They won't move over if you do that. Enjoy the process of overtaking them correctly, it's wonderfully sanctimonious and they sometimes wake up!

I don't want to run the risk in being rear ended.
Much easier to blitz it to 75 and slip in front of them. Although harder if there's a speed restriction.
Lots of people on smart motorways don't like leaving sensible gaps either.

 

[JonathanH]

They won't move over if you do that. Enjoy the process of overtaking them correctly, it's wonderfully sanctimonious and they sometimes wake up!

Indeed, I always enjoy doing that as well, particularly when you can basically go straight from lane 4 to lane 1, indicating separately for each movement, past a car that has been in lane 3 for ages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't want to run the risk in being rear ended.

You won't be rear ended if you slow by a couple of miles per hour to tuck in behind a car that was going the same speed you were.

Seriously, pretty much every case of "I need to break the speed limit or X bad thing will happen" is a pitiful excuse. Use your brakes instead, e.g. abort a misjudged overtake rather than speeding up to complete it.

 

[D365]

Indeed, I always enjoy doing that as well, particularly when you can basically go straight from lane 4 to lane 1, indicating separately for each movement, past a car that has been in lane 3 for ages.

Glad that it's not only my own guilty pleasure.

 

[zwk500]

They won't move over if you do that. Enjoy the process of overtaking them correctly, it's wonderfully sanctimonious and they sometimes wake up!

Very rarely, in my experience. I still do try and overtake correctly where able, and make a point of each lane change when doing so, but often the M1/M25 is busy enough that it's safer for me to let a gap build up in lane 1 and then power through the undertaken at reasonable speed above the lane hogger than to fight my way into a too small gap in lanes 2 and 3.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very rarely, in my experience.

Sometimes they do. And even if they don't it is still fun.

 

[zwk500]

Sometimes they do. And even if they don't it is still fun.

I get less and less joy out of acting like a saint on the road when I reflect on my own performances in other areas. I also have gradually lost interest in trying to educate other drivers because even if it were my job to lead the horses to water, they refuse to drink.

I'll drive as safely as I can for myself and anybody around me while trying to keep out of the way of the idiots (plenty of those on the M1 and M25 south of Luton), and in the meantime support any proposal for needing to renew personal driving licenses. I'd prefer 5-year theory retest and 10-year practical retest but I'd settle for 10-year theory retests at this point.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Obviously non of us would wish to break down on any motorway, but if you did would you feel more unsafe breaking down on a smart motorway especially if you couldn't reach the next refuge layby?

I think you are saying that if you don't have the land available to widen a motorway, then capacity can't be increased, even though congestion is a cause of accidents as well.

There is an obvious issue that drivers see a gantry sign and ignore it if they can't see the road ahead blocked, then have surprise that someone is stopped ahead, but it is equally the case that accidents happen in hard shoulders and lane 3 of motorways.

I recently made a journey down the M1, the amount of people who had broke down was in double digits (there were around 20 breakdowns). On one of the "smart" sections, a woman with kids had to drive off the carrigeway whilst the nearside (outside?) lane was closed and all the other lanes were 40 max. The signals over a good two mile stretch were stating "stranded vehicle".

The what I call a high risk section of the M1 is near Leicester Forest East services where there is no hard shoulder throughout the site and as far as I'm aware isn't a smart section. Should the carriageways had to be wided with a hardshoulder then the services would have to close entirely as they're in the way. However should the Wheatstone Pastures services be built then the M1 can be widened at Leicester Forest meaning the hardshoulder can return.

Realisically the emergency refuges should, in my opinion, be located every quarter of a mile with a gantry every half a mile. Then should anyone conk out could make it to an emergency refuge and get assistance this is on top of having rest areas located between every service area which double the chance of being able to pull off should a fault develop. Take the M4 and M48 between Reading and the Severn Crossings, there were suppose to be a service area at Wootton Bassett and another at Pucklechurch that were never built, these sites could easily be used as a rest area - read as a 200 space car park with a fuel station forecourt complete with a shop, corporation food joint, coffee lounge, bakery and toilets. An example would be Tiverton services off M5 Junction 27.

 

[cactustwirly]

You won't be rear ended if you slow by a couple of miles per hour to tuck in behind a car that was going the same speed you were.

Seriously, pretty much every case of "I need to break the speed limit or X bad thing will happen" is a pitiful excuse. Use your brakes instead, e.g. abort a misjudged overtake rather than speeding up to complete it.

But speeding up is less risk towards myself, by suddenly braking on a live running lane is creating a hazard for the cars behind me, who may not be paying attention or haven't left a big enough gap.

Or I can blitz it and tuck in faster, which is a lot easier on a non smart motorway

 

[tomuk]

I recently made a journey down the M1, the amount of people who had broke down was in double digits (there were around 20 breakdowns). On one of the "smart" sections, a woman with kids had to drive off the carrigeway whilst the nearside (outside?) lane was closed and all the other lanes were 40 max. The signals over a good two mile stretch were stating "stranded vehicle".

The what I call a high risk section of the M1 is near Leicester Forest East services where there is no hard shoulder throughout the site and as far as I'm aware isn't a smart section. Should the carriageways had to be wided with a hardshoulder then the services would have to close entirely as they're in the way. However should the Wheatstone Pastures services be built then the M1 can be widened at Leicester Forest meaning the hardshoulder can return.

Realisically the emergency refuges should, in my opinion, be located every quarter of a mile with a gantry every half a mile. Then should anyone conk out could make it to an emergency refuge and get assistance this is on top of having rest areas located between every service area which double the chance of being able to pull off should a fault develop. Take the M4 and M48 between Reading and the Severn Crossings, there were suppose to be a service area at Wootton Bassett and another at Pucklechurch that were never built, these sites could easily be used as a rest area - read as a 200 space car park with a fuel station forecourt complete with a shop, corporation food joint, coffee lounge, bakery and toilets. An example would be Tiverton services off M5 Junction 27.

Are there no junctions where you can leave the motorway? I only use the services if nature calls, food and fuel can be found elsewhere of probably better quality and certainly cheaper cost.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Are there no junctions where you can leave the motorway? I only use the services if nature calls, food and fuel can be found elsewhere of probably better quality and certainly cheaper cost.

There are, but if you have a breakdown between junctions 21 and junction 20 on the M1 (the distance is around ten miles between the two) and there is no real way of leaving the motorway.

I once had to carry out some emergency repairs in a motorway service area after the exhaust had broke loose, I felt far safer doing it at an MSA than in a closed lane on a smart motorway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, I always enjoy doing that as well, particularly when you can basically go straight from lane 4 to lane 1, indicating separately for each movement, past a car that has been in lane 3 for ages.

whilst I do enjoy doing that, after about 50 occasions I get bored of doing so and end up on the inside.

en route from Scotland to Worcestershire last year on a quiet Sunday evening I went past about 200 people lane hogging on the M74 and M6 (mostly south of Lancaster), and by the time I got to the M5 and saw an Audi A3 doing 60 in lane 2 with nothing in sight in lane 1 I’m afraid I got rather annoyed and gave him full beam and then a good dose of the horn when I went past. No, I shouldn’t have done that, but then he shouldn’t have been smoking a joint either.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But speeding up is less risk towards myself, by suddenly braking on a live running lane is creating a hazard for the cars behind me, who may not be paying attention or haven't left a big enough gap.

Or I can blitz it and tuck in faster, which is a lot easier on a non smart motorway

Suddenly braking? Wha? Slightly lifting off.

You know if the car behind is too close because you've looked, haven't you?

 

[tomuk]

There are, but if you have a breakdown between junctions 21 and junction 20 on the M1 (the distance is around ten miles between the two) and there is no real way of leaving the motorway.

I once had to carry out some emergency repairs in a motorway service area after the exhaust had broke loose, I felt far safer doing it at an MSA than in a closed lane on a smart motorway.

I think you may need to review the suitability of your vehicle if it can't do 10 miles on a Motorway without requiring running repairs.

 

[zwk500]

But speeding up is less risk towards myself, by suddenly braking on a live running lane is creating a hazard for the cars behind me, who may not be paying attention or haven't left a big enough gap.

Or I can blitz it and tuck in faster, which is a lot easier on a non smart motorway

You should be using your anticipation to avoid putting yourself in a situation where you'd be suddenly braking, both in terms of putting yourself alongside a car in the first place and in how close cars are up your bumper, choosing to change lanes if needed to maintain a safe(r) gap*.

* - I recognise following distance is not wholly within a driver's control.

 

[mikeb42]

whilst I do enjoy doing that, after about 50 occasions I get bored of doing so and end up on the inside.

Sounds familiar... The newish All Lane Running section of the M4 from the edge of London to past Reading is a prime location for this, along with great stretches of the M6 from Knutsford to Bescot.

Has someone passed a law that says after 10 pm you must drive in lane 3 of 4 lane motorways at all times regardless of... absolutely everything?

Last night on the M4 on the way back from London I got bored of counting after the first 30 or so vehicles I passed in lane 1 with lane 2 quite empty and them sat catatonic in lane 3 at 6x mph indefinitely. The total has breached 50 before now on a 100 mile journey down the M6 at night. Overtaking them by going 1-4-1 gets wearing after the first 20 or so.

When feeling particularly motivated to try to stir the delinquents from their trance a good ruse is to correctly overtake them by going 1-4-1, then slow down so they pass you again and repeat until you get bored of doing circles around them. Just occasionally one is shaken from their zombie state into something like sentience.

How many years of massive disruption and £bns of capex did it cost to make lanes 1 and 2 apparently highly radioactive or prone to spontaneous explosion?

 

[Annetts key]

A Chief Scientist from the Transport Research Laboratory, that... well known beacon of sloppy thinking and casual disregard for forensic analysis of data, notes…

But it’s not really about science or statistics. It’s about human factors.

"TRL has done extensive research with road users on all manner of things related to the strategic road network. Whenever we speak to people about smart motorways, one thing we consistently hear mentioned (not from everyone, but from many people) is the fear of breaking down in a live lane. Some even mention that they actively avoid smart motorways when they can, as a result of this fear. When confronted with the facts around objective safety - smart motorways are considerably safer overall than the A and B roads that people migrate to - nothing changes. Again, we have an example of a solution which works (in safety terms, overall) but which is rejected by users..."

Exactly, humans are not logical. Hence in any system where humans are let loose controlling fast moving heavy objects, human factors should be considered. Unfortunately it appears that with roads, often human factors are not taken into account sufficiently.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all-lane-running, but I think the dynamic hard shoulders with a reduced speed is a good idea overall. Yes, it's a little more confusing having it variable, but the increased capacity at times of high demand is not to be sniffed at. It should also not be that difficult to convert stretches of all-lane-running to dynamic use if it is decided that changes need to be made - it would give the advantage of the extra lane during rush hour when everyone is going slow anyway, while giving an unobstructed hard shoulder the rest of the day when traffic is flowing freely.

The whole point of having a continuous hard shoulder was to improve safety on fast roads…

So removing it must, by definition, in a lot of peoples minds, means that a section of motorway without a “proper” permanent continuous hard shoulder, is less safe. It does not really matter what the science or statistics say. There are other areas where people want something done to make the situation safer, even though what they want done will not make any significant difference. But the work may get done to improve the perception of safety. Is this really the wrong thing to do?

Most of the campaigners are just against hard shoulder running (permanent or occasional). The other features* are definitely safety and congestion management gains and nobody bar those who like driving at 90mph seem to oppose them.

Absolutely. Although how many people actually obey the overhead/gantry signs is another matter.

If the Government said they'd continue the programme but retaining the permanent hard shoulder and reinstating it on existing ones then I don't think there'd be much complaint.

I don’t think this is very likely, but I would not object, other than I would prefer more investment in public transport and proper cycle paths (not just some white lines being painted on roads).

Due to very poor lane discipline (and some who won't drive in lane 1 of a smart motorway due to the risk of a stationary vehicle) I'm not convinced the 4 lane sections add much capacity anyway, the new middle-lane-hogging seems to be lane-3-hogging!

Yes, I’ve driven on various all lane running four lane motorways and dynamic hard shoulder + three lane motorways, and the left most lane is almost always the one with the least amount of traffic in it. Unless the speed is less than around 40MPH (ish). Which means it’s not adding anything like the capacity that the theory would suggest. So, is this really an improvement on a conventional motorway that is provided with variable speed limits shown on overhead gantries?

Most coverage of this subject indulges only in emotive arguments. People take deaths on smart motorways to be evidence of failure, but they are not. They are only so if the risks on smart motorways exceed the risks of hard shoulders, and plenty of people have been killed on those.

Proper statisical analysis is the correct response along with looking at ways to mitigate risks.

Again, it’s all about human factors. See above.

It seems pretty obvious that the government is cancelling projects purely to save money and their sudden conversion to the anti-smart-motorway argument is a smokescreen.

About normal for the current Conservative government…

The lane discipline (and standard of driving generally)…

Is fairly poor on lots of our roads and motorways. On a three lane motorway, you will see people hogging lane 2, with everyone who wants to go faster queuing in lane 3. On a four lane motorway, or a motorway with an open to running hard shoulder plus three other lanes, you see the often see same thing, but now it’s lanes 2 & 3 that attract the hogs…

Meanwhile I absolutely love ALR and Dynamic Hard Shoulder stretches of motorway. When it is reasonably busy (ie anlmost every time I use them) almost no one seems to use lane 1, so I have it to myself and make much better progress than the other lanes. Keeping a sharp lookout for any stranded vehicles in a live lane obviously (albeit despite using them regularly, I’ve never seen one).

But you get this with a three lane motorway as well quite often…

My personal opinion is that all motorways should have a continuous permanent hard shoulder (except where is not possible due to bridges or other structures).

I don’t have any evidence to justify this. But I have experienced a blow out thirty years ago when driving in lane 3. This was on a conventional motorway, so I lifted off the gas and indicated left. The other cars let me make my way to the hard shoulder. Whereby the contents of the boot got emptied out. Out came the spare wheel. I changed the wheel. The wheel with the puncture went back in the boot, along with everything that had been taken out. And I resumed my journey. Okay, this was around thirty years ago when motorways were not as busy.

But can you imagine that on a so called “smart” motorway… Yes, I know that is not what you are supposed to do on a smart motorway. But people will do what they think is best…

 

[tomuk]

My personal opinion is that all motorways should have a continuous permanent hard shoulder (except where is not possible due to bridges or other structures).

I don’t have any evidence to justify this.

I rest my case m'lord.

 

[Annetts key]

I rest my case m'lord.

Point of order, this is not a court case

And anyway, I’ve now jacked it up on bricks… so it’s fully supported

 

[Bald Rick]

Is fairly poor on lots of our roads and motorways. On a three lane motorway, you will see people hogging lane 2, with everyone who wants to go faster queuing in lane 3. On a four lane motorway, or a motorway with an open to running hard shoulder plus three other lanes, you see the often see same thing, but now it’s lanes 2 & 3 that attract the hogs…

I agree, but in my experience it is considerably worse on 4 lane motorways, and worse still on ALR / Dynamic Hard Shoulder.

But whilst I think driving on motorways in this country is bad, a quick trip across the Atlantic will show you that U.K. motorway drivers are positively brilliant.

 

[deltic]

But it’s not really about science or statistics. It’s about human factors.


Exactly, humans are not logical. Hence in any system where humans are let loose controlling fast moving heavy objects, human factors should be considered. Unfortunately it appears that with roads, often human factors are not taken into account sufficiently.


The whole point of having a continuous hard shoulder was to improve safety on fast roads…

So removing it must, by definition, in a lot of peoples minds, means that a section of motorway without a “proper” permanent continuous hard shoulder, is less safe. It does not really matter what the science or statistics say. There are other areas where people want something done to make the situation safer, even though what they want done will not make any significant difference. But the work may get done to improve the perception of safety. Is this really the wrong thing to do?


Absolutely. Although how many people actually obey the overhead/gantry signs is another matter.


I don’t think this is very likely, but I would not object, other than I would prefer more investment in public transport and proper cycle paths (not just some white lines being painted on roads).


Yes, I’ve driven on various all lane running four lane motorways and dynamic hard shoulder + three lane motorways, and the left most lane is almost always the one with the least amount of traffic in it. Unless the speed is less than around 40MPH (ish). Which means it’s not adding anything like the capacity that the theory would suggest. So, is this really an improvement on a conventional motorway that is provided with variable speed limits shown on overhead gantries?


Again, it’s all about human factors. See above.


About normal for the current Conservative government…


Is fairly poor on lots of our roads and motorways. On a three lane motorway, you will see people hogging lane 2, with everyone who wants to go faster queuing in lane 3. On a four lane motorway, or a motorway with an open to running hard shoulder plus three other lanes, you see the often see same thing, but now it’s lanes 2 & 3 that attract the hogs…


But you get this with a three lane motorway as well quite often…

My personal opinion is that all motorways should have a continuous permanent hard shoulder (except where is not possible due to bridges or other structures).

I don’t have any evidence to justify this. But I have experienced a blow out thirty years ago when driving in lane 3. This was on a conventional motorway, so I lifted off the gas and indicated left. The other cars let me make my way to the hard shoulder. Whereby the contents of the boot got emptied out. Out came the spare wheel. I changed the wheel. The wheel with the puncture went back in the boot, along with everything that had been taken out. And I resumed my journey. Okay, this was around thirty years ago when motorways were not as busy.

But can you imagine that on a so called “smart” motorway… Yes, I know that is not what you are supposed to do on a smart motorway. But people will do what they think is best…

Changing a wheel on the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous. Vehicles stopped on hard shoulders are regularly side swiped by HGVs and plenty of people have been killed on them. They give people a false sense of security. If you have to stop on a hard shoulder the clear advice is that you get out of your vehicle and stand behind the safety barrier if there is one and await rescue.

In 2019 21 people were killed on the hard shoulder

 

[johncrossley]

In 2019 21 people were killed on the hard shoulder

That's one of the reasons for getting rid of the hard shoulder. Too many people stop there unnecessarily. Far fewer people use the laybys on smart motorways. So when judging the safety record of smart motorways you have to take into account the number of lives saved by people no longer stopping there.

 

[Simon11]

In 2019 21 people were killed on the hard shoulder

Where is your source for that stat as doesn't seem in line with information below?

I only found the below information:

Despite the hard shoulder being a place to stop in an emergency, there is still a risk to the safety of vehicle occupants. On average, 1 in 12 (8%) fatalities on motorways occur on the hard shoulder. Between 2014 and 2017 there were 27 fatalities on hard shoulders

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/25613/html/#:~:text=Despite%20the%20hard%20shoulder%20being,on%20hard%20shoulders%5B5%5D.

 

[Annetts key]

Changing a wheel on the hard shoulder is incredibly dangerous. Vehicles stopped on hard shoulders are regularly side swiped by HGVs and plenty of people have been killed on them. They give people a false sense of security. If you have to stop on a hard shoulder the clear advice is that you get out of your vehicle and stand behind the safety barrier if there is one and await rescue.

Yes, now the advice is to get out of and away from the vehicle. And await rescue.

But not everyone will do that.

AND how long before the National Highways staff notice that a vehicle has stopped in a live running lane? One minute, two? Three? Five? It only takes a matter of seconds for someone not paying attention to hit another vehicle.

In 2019 21 people were killed on the hard shoulder

That's one of the reasons for getting rid of the hard shoulder. Too many people stop there unnecessarily. Far fewer people use the laybys on smart motorways. So when judging the safety record of smart motorways you have to take into account the number of lives saved by people no longer stopping there.

And doing away with it makes it safer? Instead you HAVE to bring your vehicle to a halt in a live running lane, and that’s safer?

At least with a continuous permanent hard shoulder, the vast majority of vehicles will not be driving on it or drifting over into it. Unlike a live lane.

Unfortunately as I said earlier, the statistics are not important or even relevant, the more important thing is taking into account what people may do or not do, and their concerns and fears.

What works on paper, in theory, does not always happen in practice.

If everyone followed the rules and good practice, we would not need seat belts or airbags. But these are now considered normal.

 

[zwk500]

And doing away with it makes it safer? Instead you HAVE to bring your vehicle to a halt in a live running lane, and that’s safer?

I believe the consensus is that a modern car is unlikely to suffer a mechanical failure so severe you cannot nurse it to the next ERA or exit slip road. Stopping in a live lane would therefore happen only in the event of a collision, when all traffic would be coming a halt anyway.

However, as you say:

What works on paper, in theory, does not always happen in practice.

And I 100% agree with you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's one of the reasons for getting rid of the hard shoulder. Too many people stop there unnecessarily. Far fewer people use the laybys on smart motorways. So when judging the safety record of smart motorways you have to take into account the number of lives saved by people no longer stopping there.

Have both the shoulder AND the laybys inside it, though, and you're probably fine to change your wheel.

It's undeniable that if you have all the features EXCEPT all lane running/dynamic hard shoulder, you have a VERY safe and efficient road, and so that's what should be done.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Apr 2023 ==

I believe the consensus is that a modern car is unlikely to suffer a mechanical failure so severe you cannot nurse it to the next ERA or exit slip road. Stopping in a live lane would therefore happen only in the event of a collision, when all traffic would be coming a halt anyway.

The most common failure of a modern vehicle is a burst tyre, absent run-flats being compulsory. If the tyre blows out completely rather than a slow loss of air, you're going to need to stop quick else you're likely to lose control, particularly if it's a front, as well as damaging the rim beyond repair.

 

[Simon11]

Agree with ZWK500, must safer to actually break down on a live lane, put on your hazards and have the traffic behind you slow/ stop, while you deal with it or get emergency services there. Provides a more safer environment than pulling over to the hard shoulder where everyone then ignores you and continues to drive past at 70mph!