The DEATH of the hard shoulder

AdrianC

princeofpounds said:

Slightly different angle to safety here - are they even providing value for money at all? It seems like there is a green fetish for avoiding motorway widening, so they do this to try to use the available space.

There's also the minor detail that they may not own sufficient land to widen the carriageway.

Or, of course, things like bridges and flyovers...

Norman_Castle

AdrianC said:

princeofpounds said:

Slightly different angle to safety here - are they even providing value for money at all? It seems like there is a green fetish for avoiding motorway widening, so they do this to try to use the available space.

There's also the minor detail that they may not own sufficient land to widen the carriageway.

Or, of course, things like bridges and flyovers...

^And the cost. Smart motorways should be safe with proper, functioning signage and competent driving.

Not sure if my maths is correct but on a four lane smart motorway isn't there a 25% greater chance the inside lane will be obstructed compared to a three lane plus hard shoulder motorway?

facade

[Deleted User] said:

There may be no barrier. You may be in lane 3 of 4 or 5!

Meanwhile, on the M20 they have that roadzipper that lets them move a concrete barrier around to make a contraflow* (and only cost £55,000,000) because they know cars will crash head on in a contraflow, but somehow can cope with a no-barrier tidal flow system on the Aston Expressway.....

*operation Brock.

Roadzipper

https://www.highwaycare.com/copy-of-bg800-gate-1

fred246

I am amazed people don't understand the risks. Say your cambelt snapped and you were in lane 3 of a 4 lane motorway with no hard shoulder. What would you do? Where would you steer to? You can only brake. Which lane do you choose to stop in. Lane 1 and get hit by a 44 tonne truck or lane 4 and get hit by a 100MPH car? Or lane 2 or 3?

AdrianC

Norman_Castle said:

Not sure if my maths is correct but on a four lane smart motorway isn't there a 25% greater chance the inside lane will be obstructed compared to a three lane plus hard shoulder motorway?

Think you might need to show your working on that one...

Seems to me that if there's 10,000 vehicles go down the road, the number that'll break down will be the same regardless of the number of lanes... while the chances of a collision causing one or more to stop on the shoulder are probably lowered by lower density across more lanes.

The theory is, of course, that once a disabled vehicle is stationary in L1 of a 4-lane ALR m'way, the control room SHOULD immediately close that lane off, reverting the m'way to normal 3 lane + HS.

Of course, the controllers may not immediately spot the disabled vehicle on the CCTV.

But if a vehicle is disabled in another lane, that lane can be closed on a smart m'way, not on a normal one.

(And, yes, a closed lane still relies on drivers noticing the bloody great big red X and not using that lane. But I don't think that's too high a bar, is it?)

Grumpy_chap

fred246 said:

I am amazed people don't understand the risks. Say your cambelt snapped and you were in lane 3 of a 4 lane motorway with no hard shoulder. What would you do? Where would you steer to? You can only brake. Which lane do you choose to stop in. Lane 1 and get hit by a 44 tonne truck or lane 4 and get hit by a 100MPH car? Or lane 2 or 3?

My cam belt snapped a number of years back and I managed to make it through the motorway interchange junction and to the hardshoulder to stop safely to await recovery.

williamgriffin

facade said:

[Deleted User] said:

There may be no barrier. You may be in lane 3 of 4 or 5!

Meanwhile, on the M20 they have that roadzipper that lets them move a concrete barrier around to make a contraflow* (and only cost £55,000,000) because they know cars will crash head on in a contraflow, but somehow can cope with a no-barrier tidal flow system on the Aston Expressway.....

*operation Brock.

Roadzipper

https://www.highwaycare.com/copy-of-bg800-gate-1

The expressway isn't without its accidents and not help when idiots perform a u turn. 

princeofpounds

AdrianC said:

princeofpounds said:

Slightly different angle to safety here - are they even providing value for money at all? It seems like there is a green fetish for avoiding motorway widening, so they do this to try to use the available space.

There's also the minor detail that they may not own sufficient land to widen the carriageway.

Or, of course, things like bridges and flyovers...

Isn't that what compulsory purchase is for? Hasn't stopped them widening motorways in the past. Nor is it stopping them building lay-bys every few hundred metres. Bridges, that's a fair point.

Marvel1

AdrianC said:

Marvel1 said:

EssexExile said:
As for "How many people driving would know what a Smart motorway is" - I would hope most of them, they aren't exactly secrets.

I didn't know what they were until last August (lockdown was eased) driving in England as it was being built.

It's 26 years since the first variable speed limits on the M25, 16 years since the first M42 sections, and 12 years since wider roll-out started...

But, really, all you need to know is how to interpret some very basic signage - especially what a bloody great big red X above a lane means.

Ah, thought it something different.

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

The theory is, of course, that once a disabled vehicle is stationary in L1 of a 4-lane ALR m'way, the control room SHOULD immediately close that lane off, reverting the m'way to normal 3 lane + HS.

Of course, the controllers may not immediately spot the disabled vehicle on the CCTV.

I'm pretty sure the cameras have 'smarts' that will automatically detect a stationary vehicle and alert the controllers.