Smart motorways - Go Left safety campaign

[MCYorks]

It seems like the death toll will have to get into the hundreds before the people making the decisions about road policy realise that (so called) Smart Motorways are a bad idea.......
I wonder how many before they do something about it.....
Or will they just blame drivers in general as usual (and do nothing)...............
Best wishes,
Mike.

Hi Mike, I'm not sure people making the decisions will ever admit Smart Motorways are a bad idea. At least not while they're the ones making the decisions.

I've read that Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has said the following words on the issue. He said he "inherited the issue" of smart motorways and the government couldn't "just undo" them. "I've looked at it", he said. "It would require the equivalent land of 700 Wembley Stadium-sized football pitches to somehow undo all this". "We'd have to buy people's homes, we'd have to destroy acres of greenbelt."

He also said "They are the safest form of road, but I think they should be safer." so he has ordered Highways England to "Put more emergency areas in, put the stop detection in."

So it appears the solution to the problem is to:
a. Blame it on the previous government (that's original).
b. Say it's far too expensive to reverse them and so they should just plough more taxpayers money into them (£32m for a Stopped Vehicle Detection system, for starters) and assumedly hope that makes the problem go away.

Now may be it's just me but what being said doesn't add up. If they are the 'safest form of road' then why put money into making them safer when that money it could be better spent improving the 'least safe form of road'?

If I understand correctly, Smart motorways were created by converting the existing hard shoulder to a running lane and using available highways land to add the gantries and refuge areas. So to undo them would simply require a solid white line/rumble strip painting on the outside edge of lane 1, thereby turning it back into a hard shoulder, and changing any signage if required. You then have 3 running lanes and a hard shoulder. No land purchase, home or green belt destruction required and minimal cost. They can even keep the emergency refuge areas, gantries and extra CCTV as an added safety feature. Now that would be smart

[geoberni]

If I understand correctly, Smart motorways were created by converting the existing hard shoulder to a running lane and using available highways land to add the gantries and refuge areas. So to undo them would simply require a solid white line/rumble strip painting on the outside edge of lane 1, thereby turning it back into a hard shoulder, and changing any signage if required. You then have 3 running lanes and a hard shoulder. No land purchase, home or green belt destruction required and minimal cost. They can even keep the emergency refuge areas, gantries and extra CCTV as an added safety feature. Now that would be smart

Yes, you could do that, but in doing so you're forgetting the reason it was done in the first place; because we needed the extra lane, and didn't have the extra land....

[Admin]

If I understand correctly, Smart motorways were created by converting the existing hard shoulder to a running lane and using available highways land to add the gantries and refuge areas. So to undo them would simply require a solid white line/rumble strip painting on the outside edge of lane 1, thereby turning it back into a hard shoulder, and changing any signage if required. You then have 3 running lanes and a hard shoulder. No land purchase, home or green belt destruction required and minimal cost. They can even keep the emergency refuge areas, gantries and extra CCTV as an added safety feature. Now that would be smart

See, what you've done there is applied a dangerous dose of logic to the equation, which is silly. In fact, it's worse than silly, but the word I have isn't permitted. Try watching this video from 1m50s in, where a similar situation unfolds in the company of one Blackadder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc

[MCYorks]

If I understand correctly, Smart motorways were created by converting the existing hard shoulder to a running lane and using available highways land to add the gantries and refuge areas. So to undo them would simply require a solid white line/rumble strip painting on the outside edge of lane 1, thereby turning it back into a hard shoulder, and changing any signage if required. You then have 3 running lanes and a hard shoulder. No land purchase, home or green belt destruction required and minimal cost. They can even keep the emergency refuge areas, gantries and extra CCTV as an added safety feature. Now that would be smart

See, what you've done there is applied a dangerous dose of logic to the equation, which is silly. In fact, it's worse than silly, but the word I have isn't permitted. Try watching this video from 1m50s in, where a similar situation unfolds in the company of one Blackadder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGxAYeeyoIc

Ah yes, my apologies, I should know better than applying any form of logic to these sort of important decisions I do enjoy the said Blackadder. Quite a few of his wise words would be suitable for many a real life situation

[MCYorks]

Yes, you could do that, but in doing so you're forgetting the reason it was done in the first place; because we needed the extra lane, and didn't have the extra land....

A very valid point and the consequences of going back to 3 running lanes were not lost on me.

I can only speak from personal experience but the motorway network seems to cope well most of the time. Barring accidents, roadworks and weather related delays, I can get from A to B reasonably quickly. Peak times on certain sections of motorway are a different matter of course, and I've spent my fair share of time sat in motorway jams. However, I still find it difficult to justify the use of 'All Lane Running' and the inherent dangers that brings. I can see the benefits of using the 'Dynamic' hard shoulder arrangement, but only in very heavy traffic conditions and with a strict 30 - 40 mph limit on all lanes to protect anyone who may break down. Of course once something does break down then you're back to 3 lanes anyway.

Again speaking from personal experience, it's rare to get a day where there isn't a minor bump or breakdown on the motorway I use. On the 'normal' section any stranded vehicles are usually on the hard shoulder, so traffic flow in the 3 running lanes is unaffected. However, on the 4 lane ALR section they have to shut a lane and impose a speed restriction. This creates a bottle neck and unless traffic is very light to begin with the whole lot grinds to a halt With 4 lanes of stationary traffic and no hard shoulder to use the emergency services are likely to take longer reaching the scene of an incident.

Maybe the need for the extra lane will be removed in the longer term anyway. This pandemic has resulted in more people working from home or on staggered / flexible working hours. Now if that translates into some permanent workplace changes then we could see a reduction in commuter traffic. The use of rail for more long distance freight could also possibly help. There's even been talk recently of using the canals again to shift some heavy materials
Also young people are apparently shunning car ownership in increasing numbers, for various reasons. It seems difficult to conceive a situation where car ownership can continue to increase indefinitely. We'll eventually run out of road and parking space, even with extra lanes.

Of course I respect others will have a different experience and views on the issue.

[john newton]

one must realise that the very clever poeple who thought up the fourth lane idea all came through university with honours can not even on a good day, tie there own shoe laces or open a bottle of milk.any form of common sense is unknown to these twerps. regards john.

[jagnut66]

Reading through the new comments on this issue brings to the fore one small point:
The minister states that they would have to purchase and plough up millions of acres of greenbelt (which can otherwise be ploughed up for housing and business estates but I digress).
Yet there is still enough land, that they already own, at the sides of the motorways for the addittion of refuge areas.
Now maybe I'm just being thick here but if they are able to include these it strikes me that they must own the land in between them, so surely they could simply link up all the refuges and recreate a hard shoulder, whilst retaining their precious fourth lane.
Of course this would involve spending money and in effect be an admission that we were better off (safer) as we were and we can't have that, can we.
I am left wondering whether they consider a few lives expendable, better that than loss of face...............
Best wishes,
Mike.