'Smart Motorways'

[dangie]

Can you send a link to the location?

I'll have a look tomorrow when I get back on the computer. Not sure if I know how to send the location but I'll have a go.

 

[bramling]

There does need to be a lot more weight put, for all types of road user from pedestrian to the biggest lorry, on the core driving principle that you should not take an action that requires another vehicle to change speed or direction in order to avoid a collision, unless the priorities provided by the rules of the road would require them to give you priority. Trouble is that to enforce that you need Police on the ground to see it, and motorway policing has been near non-existent since civilian Traffic Officers took over most of the role.

Agreed.

It doesn’t help that this country has piled resources into enforcing simple compliance with speed limits rather than driving laws in general. Sometimes this is justified, but many times it isn’t - for example I know a local camera van regularly hides just outside the gates of Blenheim Palace around closing time, a 30mph road but one most people probably wouldn’t expect to be, plenty of non-locals about, and no repeater signs for people coming out of the palace gates. (*)

The latter example is simply a waste of police resource, and simply furthers the breakdown of the implicit contract that exists between people and state, something that’s been progressively breaking down for the last couple of decades.

(* I haven’t been caught there, but I know someone who has. One more person added to the list of people who have zero confidence in the police - not good).

 

[johncrossley]

There does need to be a lot more weight put, for all types of road user from pedestrian to the biggest lorry, on the core driving principle that you should not take an action that requires another vehicle to change speed or direction in order to avoid a collision, unless the priorities provided by the rules of the road would require them to give you priority. Trouble is that to enforce that you need Police on the ground to see it, and motorway policing has been near non-existent since civilian Traffic Officers took over most of the role.

There has never been much respect for traffic laws, on motorways or anywhere else. That can be seen by watching YouTube videos of old filmed road trips. For example, I watched a video of someone drive from London to Bath when there was only a short section of the M4 open and even then there was road rage and some ridiculous behaviour to be seen.

In Germany you can apparently be caught on camera for not keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front and receive the notification in the post, so perhaps it is possible to automate the enforcement of that offence.

 

[bramling]

There has never been much respect for traffic laws, on motorways or anywhere else. That can be seen by watching YouTube videos of old filmed road trips. For example, I watched a video of someone drive from London to Bath when there was only a short section of the M4 open and even then there was road rage and some ridiculous behaviour to be seen.

In Germany you can apparently be caught on camera for not keeping a safe distance from the vehicle in front and receive the notification in the post, so perhaps it is possible to automate the enforcement of that offence.

The trouble with that one is I don’t know how you could deal with the situation of someone having left a perfectly safe gap but then someone else filling it when they shouldn’t, which is the big thing on motorways here. Enforcement of this relies on the judgement of a police office, backed up with evidence like dashcam to show the offence happening.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not motorways but others: Lane markings.
When you’re in a town or city or in fact anywhere you haven’t driven before, lane markings at junctions and large multi-lane roundabouts can often be confusing to say the least. Which lane am I supposed to be in?

We have a large roundabout near to us on the A5. This roundabout is usually very busy. Approaching the roundabout the outside lane has road arrows indicating straight on and right. Many vehicles going straight on use this lane. No problem, the arrow says you can. Unfortunately following this lane the road arrow then goes to right only. There is no straight on. This results in drivers having to brake, indicate and move left, unless they continue round the roundabout and start again. I drive this route frequently, I’m always glad when I’ve passed it.

I think I read somewhere that right arrows are not supposed to be used on the immediate approach to roundabouts, in order to guard against the unlikely case of someone turning right as soon as they get to the give way line, and ending up facing oncoming traffic on the roundabout. Perhaps the guidance has changed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I read somewhere that right arrows are not supposed to be used on the immediate approach to roundabouts, in order to guard against the unlikely case of someone turning right as soon as they get to the give way line, and ending up facing oncoming traffic on the roundabout. Perhaps the guidance has changed.

I can think of lots, so I would be pretty confident it has.

 

[Hadders]

Having endured 5 years of roadworks on the M1 to create the smart ALR motorway it wold be a travesty if the hard shoulder was reinstated and we lost 25% of the capacity the road now has.

That said I do think some changes should be considered:

- Signs above each lane indicating the speed limit, and when a lane is closed rather than the newer type sign on the nearside. The red X on the new style signs is very small
- Comprehensive publicity campaign educating drivers about the rules of smart motorways
- Improved technology to make sure that stopped vehicles are detected immediately

It does seem to me as though the decision the Government has made is more about saving money, and even better for them if it's seen as a popular one.

 

[MotCO]

- Comprehensive publicity campaign educating drivers about the rules of smart motorways

With cameras to catch those travelling in a red cross lane, if not more police patrols to enforce it.

 

[Hadders]

With cameras to catch those travelling in a red cross lane, if not more police patrols to enforce it.

I wouldn't have an objection to that. I think much of the bad press they get is because most people don't actually know how they work and what they are supposed to do when driving on them.

 

[Speed43125]

I can think of lots, so I would be pretty confident it has.

I've been told that any remaining ones painted on the floor are hold overs that will eventually be removed. Signs are apparently different and this doesn't apply.

 

[tomuk]

I think I read somewhere that right arrows are not supposed to be used on the immediate approach to roundabouts, in order to guard against the unlikely case of someone turning right as soon as they get to the give way line, and ending up facing oncoming traffic on the roundabout. Perhaps the guidance has changed.

2003 Guidance
8.31 Right turn arrows are best avoided on the approach lanes to a roundabout, other than a mini-roundabout, particularly as they can mislead overseas drivers used to driving on the right. Where a right hand lane is dedicated to a specific destination, this should be associated with an ahead arrow until the vehicle is in the circulatory carriageway.

2018 Guidance

6.7.2.  It is possible that the use of a right-turn arrow on the approach to a roundabout might
encourage some drivers, particularly those from overseas, to turn the wrong way into the
circulatory carriageway. However, in most situations the clockwise direction of circulation
should be apparent. Where the right-hand lane is dedicated to right-turning traffic, a right-turn
arrow should not present any difficulties and will ensure appropriate use of the lane.

 

[jfollows]

The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...t-serious-mistake-says-aa-president-fs2rxmkf3) had a long article yesterday which I attach; I'm certainly in agreement with much of it and also "guilty" of the wisdom of hindsight - the article talks about the M42 scheme in 2006 which I remember and thought was inventive and positive, but goes on to talk about the 2011 opinion that it had been 'over engineered' and led to the significant detrimental changes in most of the schemes since then.
It's also interesting that it reports that it was only with Grant Shapps in 2019 that any transport secretary listened to what wiser people like the AA were saying.
I find it dissembling to say that new schemes have now been cancelled (with all their cost) but there is no money to reverse the changes made on existing motorways. It's just words to avoid more negative publicity if everyone had to see more road works to reverse the previous road works I think.
I don't personally worry about these roads - as others have said, there is no hard shoulder on dual carriageways and we don't worry about encountering broken-down vehicles. But I have sympathy for people who do, and therefore won't drive in the left-hand lane on motorways with no hard shoulder, which clearly exacerbates the traffic problem and means that the benefit of the changes is minimised.

Smart motorways the ‘most serious mistake’, says AA president
Although the project has been scrapped, roads already converted will remain, with coroners warning of the risk of further deaths as a result​

Ben Clatworthy

Transport Correspondent | Poppy Koronka

Monday April 24 2023, 12.00am, The Times

Gridlock and congestion on the UK’s motorway network had become such a problem by 2007 that ministers were in desperate need of a silver bullet. With car ownership at a record high, the Labour government urgently needed a way to ease queues that were costing the economy an estimated £20 billion a year.

The solution? Open up the hard shoulder to traffic to increase capacity by a third, at a fraction of the cost of widening roads.

When the results of a trial on the M42 were returned, Tony Blair’s team were so sure they had found the answer they celebrated by committing to splash more cash on converting two sections of the M6 near Birmingham into “managed motorways”.

By the following year 500 miles of the motorway network had been identified for “upgrade” as the centrepiece of a £6 billion road investment package. Now, 15 years, nine transport secretaries and six prime ministers later, the “smart motorway” project — as it came to be known — has been scrapped, after the loss of more than 40 lives which a series of coroners have said could have been saved had the hard shoulder still been in place.

Edmund King, the president of the AA, said the scheme was the “most serious [road policy] mistake” he had witnessed in his time, as he hit out at the failings of successive transport secretaries.

However, those roads already converted will stay, and only last week Anne Pember, senior coroner for Northamptonshire who presided over the inquest of David Levett, the latest known person to die on a smart motorway, warned of the risk of more deaths.

Although the initial M42 scheme — launched in September 2006 — was largely a success, modifications and belt-tightening by successive governments would produce a combination that proved to be lethal.

On the M42, the hard shoulder was deactivated at peak times. There were variable speed limits to keep traffic flowing and, crucially, emergency lay-bys about 500m apart. Within six months journey times on that stretch of road had dropped by a quarter.

Ruth Kelly, then the transport secretary, hailed the “really impressive” M42 test a success, adding that “innovative thinking to help drivers beat motorway jams really works”.

But by the time a section of new smart motorway opened on the M25 in 2014 the hard shoulder would be gone entirely — not just at peak hours. And crucially, emergency lay-bys were not 500m apart, but spaced at up to 1.5 miles.

After Labour lost power in 2010, the coalition government adopted the strategy by endorsing a large-scale package of managed motorways. That backing, however, came against a backdrop of post-recession austerity.

Nonetheless, the proposed schemes would not be thwarted. Behind the scenes, the Highways Agency was developing the revised concept that first appeared on the M25 in 2014. All-lane running (ALR) motorways were born.

Thirteen years later that decision — to prioritise saving money over safety — has been proved to be flawed.

There are now more than 400 miles of smart motorway, although no new sections will be built, after the government announced this month that it was making good a pledge by Rishi Sunak to axe the scheme. The move means 14 proposed schemes, including seven that were paused last year for a safety review, will be cancelled.

King, who became president of the AA in 2008, is one of only a handful of people who has been in post throughout the whole sorry saga.

“I’ve been to see 14 transport secretaries of state or roads ministers in that time,” he said. “The frustrating thing for me is I’ve been raising these issues for more than 12 years. In the interim, people have died who may or may not have if there had been more emergency refuge areas and if [stopped vehicle detection] technology had been rolled out more quickly.”

King is particularly aggrieved at the fact that the government “changed the goalposts” between the M42 test and the introduction of the schemes, which suddenly had lay-bys so much further apart.

“With the M42 it would be fair to say it worked relatively well,” he said. “But some people said it was ‘over engineered’ and therefore it cost too much. They obviously looked at that and thought, ‘Well, let’s roll it out but let’s make it cheaper by spacing out the emergency lay-bys.’ ”

He is referring to Sir Mike Penning, then a junior transport minister, who stood in the Common in 2011 and said: “My background is in the fire service and I was very sceptical about managed motorways when I first looked at the technology.

“Nevertheless, when the system was piloted on the M42 under the previous administration, it was massively over-engineered at the time, but it worked. We have since moved the engineering down, and rolled the system out around the country.”

That decision was one that would cost lives. The minutes of one meeting between officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) in May 2011 reveal how a government lawyer “queried whether corporate manslaughter had been considered” if a motorist died.

By 2012, with spades already in the ground, the Highways Agency’s own hazard assessment into managed motorways indicated that risks on the M42 pilot were about a third lower than their proposals for the introduction of ALR. But the warnings were ignored.

On the eve of the first stretch of ALR motorway opening on the M25 in 2014, both the AA and the RAC expressed concern, warning of the “added risk” of increasing the distance between lay-bys, adding: “We are disappointed so far at the absence of action to address them.”

By mid-2017 serious doubts over the system had emerged within the DfT after intense lobbying from motoring groups. At the same time a pattern of deaths on ALR motorways was emerging: a “cluster” of at least seven deaths on the M1 north of Nottingham were identified, yet officials had failed to spot a correlation.

King said: “I really think part of the problem is with road policies compared to rail or air policies. If there’s a rail crash, you know about it. There’s a full investigation and actions are taken.”

He reported the M1 cluster to No 10 and the DfT in early 2020. “The problem was the officials didn’t even have the facts at their fingertips,” he said. “They didn’t realise that there were clusters of deaths north of Nottingham over 18 months to two years.

“This has been a general problem with road deaths. They become almost accepted. Because you don’t get one major incident like one train crashing or one plane crashing . . . it’s over time. I think that’s possibly another reason why they’ve just continued with it.”

The arrival of Grant Shapps as transport secretary under Boris Johnson in 2019 proved a turning point. King said: “To his credit he did listen to us and take the situation seriously, which I would argue none of the previous ministers did.

“He did start to institute change with a stocktake, looking at more emergency areas and the issues with stopped vehicle detection. But it’s almost a patchwork approach after the horse is bolted. These things should have been done at the outset if they were to be truly safe.”

In January last year, following a damning report into the safety of the roads by the transport select committee, Shapps said he would pause the introduction of smart motorways for at least two years, allowing five full years of safety data to be collected on stretches introduced before 2020.

The DfT also agreed to provide £900 million to improve their safety, which included 150 new emergency refuge areas on sections already open or under construction at a cost of £390 million. To date only 14 have been built.

It also vowed to double the number of available places to stop and reduce the distance between them to 0.75 miles in the majority of cases.

For campaigners, including the bereaved, the move was welcomed, but considered not to have gone far enough. Claire Mercer, who blames smart motorways for her husband’s death, said it “will save lives”, but added that all motorways should have a hard shoulder.

Her husband Jason, 44, died in June 2019 when a lorry hit him on the M1 where the hard shoulder had been turned into a live lane. Mercer and Alexandru Murgeanu, 22, a delivery driver, were involved in a shunt, and were struck and killed when they stopped to exchange details.

Sunak’s decision this month to scrap any future building has also been seen as another step in the right direction by campaigners, including Mercer, who said it “steels me to carry on the fight”.

She said: “It’s great, it’s very good news. I’m particularly happy that it’s been confirmed that the routes that are in planning, in progress, have also been cancelled. I didn’t think they’d do that.

“So it’s good news, but obviously it’s the existing ones that are killing us. And I’m not settling for more emergency refuge areas. So it’s half the battle, but we’ve still got half the battle to go.”

Their crusade now is to win a total u-turn and see the hard shoulder restored on all 400 miles of smart motorway. Downing Street is rejecting the calls, arguing it would be “too disruptive” and cost a “significant” amount.

It is a hard sell. Only last week David Levett, 53, became the most recent death attributed to smart motorways at an inquest. Levett, who had cerebral palsy, died after a collision on the M1 in January 2018.

His carer, who has not been named, had pulled into the inside lane of the smart motorway at about 6pm to assist his brother-in-law, whose Volvo had broken down on the road.

The carer switched his hazard lights on and got his brother-in-law to do the same. The brother-in-law then followed the carer back to his Seat Leon to drive to a safe place and wait for help.

Yet moments after the brother-in-law got into the passenger seat, an HGV rammed into the back of the vehicle. Levett, who was in the rear seat of the car, died nearly a month later. The carer and his brother-in-law were seriously injured but have recovered.

“For disabled people it’s that much more difficult for them to be able to get out of the car that’s broken down,” Angela Mower, Levett’s sister, said.

“If you [break down] you’d like to think you could get out and jump on to a bank or verge — but that’s not quite this the case for them. Many, many lives have been unnecessarily lost over the years.”

Mower, 57, added that the announcement was a small piece of closure for her after her brother’s death. “These people that we’ve lost, nothing will ever bring them back,” she said. “It’s tragic and so many people [are] in this situation, but I think whatever can be done in their memory [to] help other people, helps. There’s some good in that, isn’t there? It makes you feel they’re not lost in vain.”

For King, it is stories like these that motivate him to keep campaigning for a change in the policy. He highlights that research by the Highways Agency that showed the ALR roads were more dangerous than the M42 trial.

He said: “The point is that if they’d looked at their own assumptions all along and you know, been responsible, taken safety as the No 1 objective, then they would have made improvements. They would have built more emergency areas. And, undeniably, lives would have been saved.”