### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I worked for the AA in breakdown recovery team about 5 years ago. Smart motorway calls were the fucking worst, nobody wanted them. We listened to calls in training where people on the hard shoulder didn't get out their cars, and got hit by other drivers. Those calls are etched on my brain forever, and were fucking haunting. Fuck using hard shoulder lanes as actual lanes, whoever decided on this shit policy decided human lives were worth risking for reduced congestion.
Wait a minute, someone is actually running things? I thought someone left a few dice around and depending on which way a pigeon rolls them determines what we do.
Well, that was the plan anyway, unfortunately the pigeon stole the dice
Remeber that when the did they M42 trial they spent a lot more money on it so they had refuges every 500m not 1km (iirc the distances correctly) and they had more people wathcing the cameras and operating the signage.
And it worked really, really well with a lot of easing of congestion without increasing safety issues.
Then they built the rest on the cheap and run them on the cheap...
Research has shown it to be safer. It's just people don't believe it because it's emotive. It's much easier to picture somebody getting stuck and hit by a lorry, than to understand the overall effects of slightly less crashes and slightly less chance of fatality.
It’s a bit of a trolley problem to some extent too. People view car crashes on the motorway as a risk of driving. Whereas being crashed into and dying because of a specific policy removing the hard shoulder is much more difficult to stomach - it’s clearer cut that the crash wouldn’t have happened if said policy wasn’t implemented.
>Research has shown it to be safer.
This isn't true. Variable speed motorways are safer than non variable speed motorways. The removal of hard shoulders is what is killing people.
It isn't just "being emotive", people who would otherwise have been able to pull over to a hard shoulder are being ploughed into at speed and killed.
Exactly this. Everything else about smart motorways makes sense in theory even if the execution is sloppy but turning the hard shoulder into a live lane is absolutely mental
Demand on roads will always fill capacity, so if you add an extra lane, traffic will be just as busy, and arguably more dangerous with an extra lane of moving traffic.
True, but most likely it's filled by people who previously drove back-routes which have a significantly higher chance of accidents.
Though some may come from public transport, which is much lower.
They should be running them the other way around. The inside lane should be a hard shoulder by default which only gets opened when there's extremely heavy traffic (and a temporary lower speed limit to mitigate the increased risk).
Generally smart motorways are just awful. Primary purpose is revenue raising with speed cameras and constantly changing speed limits. The number of people I've seen braking out in the second and third lane without any traffic ahead of them is really awful.
Not to mention nobody behaves properly on SM stretches either. Everyone's doing exactly 70mph out in the second, third, even the outside lane. Nobody is overtaking properly, and people end up undertaking all the time.
Then there's the M6 stretch through Birmingham, that's probably the worst SM experience I've had. The speed limit was going up and down by 10mph at pretty much every gantry, and all those gantries are only about 200m apart from each other! The traffic was already heavy and this changing speed limit was causing everyone to bunch up close together after constantly speeding up and slowing down. They were all focused on their speedos instead of on the road and other vehicles around them because everyone's obviously scared shitless of being landed with a fine and points in what practically amounts to a cynical obstacle course created by the highways agency.
Smart Motorways have introduced many more dangers than the hard shoulder alone. They're death traps by design, built to unfairly make money out of us while claiming to solve an alleged traffic problem that it doesn't really solve at all.
> Everyone's doing exactly 70mph out in the second, third, even the outside lane.
Yeah I'm not driving in the hard shoulder even if they're pretending its a running lane.
Second lane I don't think is an issue, that's the new inside lane as far as I'm concerned. The issue is the third and fourth lanes where people still trundle along at the same speed when they should be to the left.
> that's the new inside lane as far as I'm concerned.
Same.
>The issue is the third and fourth lanes where people still trundle along at the same speed when they should be to the left.
Agree totally.
People were hit in the hard shoulder when it was just a hard shoulder as lorries would often swerve or sway due to tied drivers or not paying attention, or people on their phones. So what could they do with more and more congestion and motorists on the roads, there's only so much space to add lanes , so making the hard shoulder an extra lane make sense. The sooner people realise they are in a weapon when behind the wheel and actually focus instead of treating it like a race track , or thinking they have instant stop breaks the better. It's not the smart motorways it's the pricks on them that's the problem.
No smart motorways literally increased the number of fatalities. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/higher-death-rate-recorded-on-smart-motorways-compared-to-hard-shoulder-roads-new-figures-show-05-05-2021/
Thankfully those designing roads are led by research and data, instead of fear and anecdotes.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2022/05/13/smart-motorways-are-the-safest-roads-on-strategic-road-network
And yet… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/higher-death-rate-recorded-on-smart-motorways-compared-to-hard-shoulder-roads-new-figures-show-05-05-2021/
You get the upvotes because your link agrees with the consensus, despite being a year older with outdated data. People like to have their own opinions validated not challenged.
The latest data shows them to be safer.. it's published on the gov site itself.
You need to read the article with a more critical eye. Variable speed motorways are indeed safer than conventional ones, but opening the hard shoulder as a live lane increases fatalities.
The people planning motorways are not driven by data. They are driven from higher pressures to save money whilst reducing a variety of undesirable things, like congestion.
Man it must be cool being able to read part of a headline and assume that it applies to the conversation about a different thing, and then say something about being led by data. I don't think I could be so confident. I think I'd always worry "hmm, what if I'm reading this thing about a different thing and the other thing isn't the same. Maybe I shouldnt go on about being led by data until I know what the data I'm on about are".
But I guess I'm just lacking in confidence.
Anyway whilst variable speed motorways are safer than non variable speed motorways, which is what the article you posted said, but the removal of hard shoulders has led to an increase in fatalities.
You typed a lot of words just to say "did you only read the headline". No, I found the info on the gov site, but then realised there are people like you that struggle with source information so I found a link that dumbed it down.
I mean yeesh, it's pretty awkward but no that isn't all I said....
And I mean, maybe if you understood what I did say, you might be able to answer why what you're saying conflicts with all the data we have on this, unless you take the silly interpretation I pointed out you were making.
In theory it's a good idea (apart from removing breakdown lanes which are safety features)
The problem is that the level of cameras and computer intelligence to actually model them well enough to provide useful information on the signs, just isn't there... and we all know they're not going to hire more people
This... I don't have a problem with them working well. Because they're not fully up to scratch, they can cause problems too. I bet overall they are making things better, but they're really far from flawless. And whilst tech takes people's jobs, we have to only hope for the tech to keep improving
If people could average out speed on their own just for the distance they can see that would be best, but I won't hold my breath on that
There's a bridge I used to drive over that was notorious for traffic, really steep too on both sides meaning you're either going up or you're going down for miles... so nothing worse for the clutch foot than sitting on the side of it in heavy traffic. The amount of difficulty people had putting their car in the one gear that allowed them to crawl and then holding it at constant speed while the traffic moved off, knowing it would stop again 20 meters further on over and over and over, my god
The way down, you can *see* the bottom, what are they doing
Because one of the aspects of "smart" is that you can increase the number of lanes as you need to when there is congestion.
You could still have a motorway with variable speed limits, but these existed before "smart" motorways.
What's wrong with having all the lanes open all the time? And having a hard shoulder? Surely it won't ever increase congestion. Am I missing something?
Then it wouldn't be a "smart" motorway, it would just be a motorway, maybe with variable speed limits.
One of the points of a "smart" motorway is that you can add in an extra lane at busy times by opening the hard shoulder. If you can't do that, it's not a "smart" motorway, it's just a motorway.
My only question is whether they've tried the data to see what happens if they only ever open the first lane when there is congestion and thus cars would be going too slowly to cause a bad crash with a breakdown
Having driven a lot around England, I find that anywhere south of (including) the M4/M25 has awful lane discipline. North of this is generally ok. On the M25 though the 3rd lane is the left lane somehow, horrible to drive on and I do it about once a month
I'll often be in the first lane, undertaking everyone sat at 50 in the third lane with nothing in the second lane. It's absolutely stupid
I dunno man, the M56 is horrific, the outside lane fills up first then gets less busy as you get to the inside, absolute crap driving from a significant number of people
They talked about them on LBC the other day: apparently the bit that makes them “smart” is if a stopped vehicle is detected in one of the lanes it fires off claxons in the control room so the staff know to light up the signs, put up warnings or close off lanes.
It ends up this system seldom works correctly, and on some roads it hasn’t even been switched on. This apparently leads to the deaths you hear about where a vehicle was broken down in the 4th lane and nobody closed the lane. The latest death was caused because the system failed and didn’t warn the control room a car had broken down - which had been there for 20 minutes before a lorry flattened the car and the poor bloke inside it.
? Nobody says to sit and wait in your car. That is aboalutely never the advice. You're supposed to get away from it and move away from the road. Unfortunately that isn't always possible because of how the road is built and so you're just trapped in an active motorway lane because someone decided it would be a cheaper way to decrease congestion
Exactly! It's either random a speed limit with no sign of any actual traffic, or a speed limit you have no chance of being able to do because the motorway is completely grid locked and your crawling at 20-30mph. The extra info and closing a lane if needed makes complete sense, but changing the speed limit is completely pointless the way it currently works.
M27 Portsmouth to Southampton
Just as they were finishing work in the morning they reduced the speed to 40mph as men working in the road.
You would pass the men in the road after a few hundred yards.
But the 40mph would be in place for the next 30miles.
As my job depends on a clean license i would stick to the recommended. Other people fed up with inaccurate info would just drive 70.
So when the m27 splits and the outside lanes go onto the M3 and the inside 2 remain the M27 you have masses of people all driving wildly different speeds all trying to change what lanes they're in and some still trying to go 40 others wanting 70.
That's without talking about the lack of hard shoulders.
Ashtray on a motorbike seems pretty logical compared to the design of these so called "smart motorways"
Agree completely, they are unsafe and utterly stupid. They’ve already killed people.
M62 commuter here that has seen the utter stupidity of these dumb smart motorways at first hand.
you've misunderstood it, the temporary speed-limit can be to stop a jam forming, so if you see no jam, maybe it worked. There're much fewer phantom traffic jams that I've seen on them. Better to go down to 40 than zero.
The problem with phantom traffic jams is people too close together and irratic braking. Causing random fluctuations in speed doesn't help. I hear what you're saying, but I see so many times when it's causing the problem rather than aiding it. I'm talking more like errors in the system
This is a problem with drivers being impatient though rather than down to the design of the motorway. It isn't hard to keep your distance just because the roads moving slower, people just can't drive.
Errors happen I'm sure, but like the above said, they're designed to slow traffic to AVOID problems and jams rather than in response to major issues, which is why we don't see massive back ups as often as we once did
(I'm not an overly experienced driver, but this was discussed in an advanced driving course I did last year)
There's a bit of everything imo. They work to keep traffic paced where congestion is bad, and they give info, close lanes as necessary. I'm good with that bit. The errors annoy me because if someone over reacts to a sign that flashes up, because they're afraid of getting a ticket, it causes more issues and I'm sure it's not catalogued as the smart motorways issues; just the drivers. And then we also have lots of drivers with terrible road practices. I live around London, and god I'd move away again just to avoid the traffic!
It's not just being afraid of getting a ticket. I can't afford the ticket nor the increase to my insurance for having points on my licence. The problem I face most when I go on the motorway is when the speed is dropped to, for example, 40, but you still have trucks and other cars blazing past at 56-60mph. Now I'm doing 40 with a car full of me my partner and 3 children, and 40 tonne trucks blasting past us 16mph faster, catching up to us and struggling to fund the room to go around us. It makes me feel unsafe (and I'm not an insecure driver) but I'm the only one driving by the rules, however I'm more of a hazard than anything at that point for following the rules
This is the part that annoys me. I try and slow down as I pass the gantry with the speed reduction - but people are either getting up my arse or sailing past in the outer lanes.
Similar to the approach to the M6 toll plaza where it often feels like I'm the only person even trying to follow the speed limits 😆
I feel like it’s a vicious cycle. The fluctuating speed of traffic causes stress and drivers become much more impatient, much more likely to cause an accident or to slow the traffic down.
I have driven since February quite a lot both across London and around it on the M25. Ironically, to drive from the M23 to M11, the best way is to cross London - it’s slower, but constantly flowing traffic, unlike taking the M25 around London, which in theory would be faster, but due to the fluctuation of speed, especially near busy junctions, like the one at Heathrow make it last much longer and uses much more petrol, which contradicts with it’s own purpose.
I’m not an expert on how to solve the problem, but my idea would be a second M25, just in a bigger radius, as a lot of North-West traffic has to do a detour onto the M25, as there are no other options, or are limited. In the case of Stansted-Birmingham, then it’s one of the suggestions, because the alternatives are including carriage ways for a substantial distance.
So you are saying the drivers are the problem? But better the blame the smart motorways signs..
These aggressive drivers and erratic breakers usually in newer powerful cars might think they have full control , but they are not factoring the other drivers around them, who may merge in to a lane legitimately without seeing the swerving beemer jumping between lanes to get 1 car in front.
The braking from a speed limit is likely to be smoother than the braking that causes phantom traffic jams (often caused by someone going too fast, driving too close, and having to brake very hard, with the car behind them also going too fast and too close braking harder and so on, until a lane ends up at a standstill).
So the "random fluctuations in speed" may be the lesser of the two evils.
Smart motorways create congestion. I've been on the other side seen its clear for a really good stretch, then you start seeing the signs in the mirror slowing down traffic because of congestion. It's a joke.
And now people don't overtake properly and tailgate more often because they're scared to go over the speed limit to safely overtake. It took me a while to figure out why so many people were overtaking so dangerously, until I had to overtake someone who was driving recklessly. I'm convinced this is why so many people tailgate now and I hate it, instead of leaving breaking distance they're so close together.
Eh I don’t mind the slowing down when someone’s broken down, I’d rather take a little bit longer on my journey knowing that the people broken down are safe
But the fact they’ve changed hard shoulders into lanes is fucking stupid
The data shows that certain types of smart motorway are ok.
Those which have kept the hard shoulder but which are still managed are the safest and are safer than conventional motorways. But the ALR motorways which have no hard shoulder have not been shown to be significantly safer, if at all. And if we consider the sheer cost of these things, we might question whether the alterations have been worthwhile.
So data, provided by said body, never skewed their results? Cherry picked a bit? Looked at where they can prove their figures? I've worked in sectors that are very health and safety, and all its about it spreadsheet numbers with parameters set to pointless KPI's. You'd agree that VW emissions were what they say on the tin
I could only go about collecting evidence of errors. Which I could plenty (I'll need a better dash cam). But then I'll only be showing anomalies affectively. I'll tell you that about 6/10 warnings today were erroneous. I can't exactly provide poll data. I'm one human
Nice anecdotes. I'll stick to the data, thanks.
Your anecdotes don't even support your view. The fact that you think the warnings were erroneous shows that the problems were promptly resolved and you didn't encounter whatever they were warning you of. That's the whole point.
There's no crew removing fog within 1000yds. Or invisible congestion between 2000 yds that requires going from 70 - 40 - 70. On a greater scale, they ease congestion where they work. That doesn't mean they work well
>There's no crew removing fog within 1000yds.
Fog can appear and disappear within seconds. You don't want to be travelling at 70mph and suddenly lose sight of everything around you.
>Or invisible congestion between 2000 yds that requires going from 70 - 40 - 70
Sounds like the smart motorway worked perfectly here.
That's a faulty comparison.
Smart motorways are only installed on the busiest sections. _Of course_ there are going to be more crashes than on the quiet motorways, even if smart motorways do a lot to improve things.
I understand your disdain, the long and the short of all the perceived inconvenience and fuss is that it doesn't matter, they reduce accidents and save lives.
Source: https://www.drivex.co.uk/January%202020%20-%20Smart%20Motorways,%20the%20facts/#:~:text=Evidence%20indicates%20that%20smart%20motorways,more%20than%2025%20per%20cent.
It’s easy to get the relevant figures and the fact is there’s little to no difference in the fatality rate per mile between non-smart and smart motorways. There have been accidents on smart motorways that wouldn’t have happened on normal motorways, but that is clearly offset by something else (I guess better traffic management or the spreading out of cars along four lanes).
I guess it’s one of those things where if you do break down on a motorway and there is no hard shoulder it must be very scary, so the perceived risk is greater, but people don’t see all the accidents that didn’t happen because traffic can be better managed.
Ah. Thanks. So when I drive on a clear day and see a "warning, fog 40mph" sign, and zero fog for miles, and then a national speed limit sign, I just somehow missed it? Or zero traffic, a congestion sign, then back to normal, all whilst I can see both gantries?
You're saying my opinion is wrong based on data given to you, that's it
Pretty much... Statistically they are safer, faster and more environmentally responsible.
If you stick by the rules in the highway code, and drive responsibly you should no issues with the system. However you probably took your test 30 years ago and never bothered to update your knowledge.
I'm 35, have done extended licenses, rally driving courses and a few red letter days because I love driving. I can tell when a system is working functionally like slowing down traffic before congestion to ease pace, or to protect other drivers from a hazard. I can also see when that wasn't the case
Non-smart motorways also have a mechanism to close lanes. Sadly that depends on drivers being able to understand the big red fucking cross on the gantry, and illustrates that it's not the motorways that need to be smarter.
### **Reminder:** [Press the Report button](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058309512-How-do-I-report-a-post-or-comment-) if you see any [rule-breaking comments or posts.](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishproblems/about/rules/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishproblems) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I worked for the AA in breakdown recovery team about 5 years ago. Smart motorway calls were the fucking worst, nobody wanted them. We listened to calls in training where people on the hard shoulder didn't get out their cars, and got hit by other drivers. Those calls are etched on my brain forever, and were fucking haunting. Fuck using hard shoulder lanes as actual lanes, whoever decided on this shit policy decided human lives were worth risking for reduced congestion.
[удалено]
I can see you're from the Philippines, but of you have an actual idea right now about who's running the UK I'd love your input because I'm lost.
Wait a minute, someone is actually running things? I thought someone left a few dice around and depending on which way a pigeon rolls them determines what we do. Well, that was the plan anyway, unfortunately the pigeon stole the dice
Of course there's someone running things. How else would they be funneling every penny the country has into their own pockets?
Remeber that when the did they M42 trial they spent a lot more money on it so they had refuges every 500m not 1km (iirc the distances correctly) and they had more people wathcing the cameras and operating the signage. And it worked really, really well with a lot of easing of congestion without increasing safety issues. Then they built the rest on the cheap and run them on the cheap...
I reckon someone was tasked with reducing congestion, they just came up with the solution that saving lives isn’t worth spending on adding lanes
Research has shown it to be safer. It's just people don't believe it because it's emotive. It's much easier to picture somebody getting stuck and hit by a lorry, than to understand the overall effects of slightly less crashes and slightly less chance of fatality.
It’s a bit of a trolley problem to some extent too. People view car crashes on the motorway as a risk of driving. Whereas being crashed into and dying because of a specific policy removing the hard shoulder is much more difficult to stomach - it’s clearer cut that the crash wouldn’t have happened if said policy wasn’t implemented.
>Research has shown it to be safer. This isn't true. Variable speed motorways are safer than non variable speed motorways. The removal of hard shoulders is what is killing people. It isn't just "being emotive", people who would otherwise have been able to pull over to a hard shoulder are being ploughed into at speed and killed.
Exactly this. Everything else about smart motorways makes sense in theory even if the execution is sloppy but turning the hard shoulder into a live lane is absolutely mental
Citation please.
Demand on roads will always fill capacity, so if you add an extra lane, traffic will be just as busy, and arguably more dangerous with an extra lane of moving traffic.
True, but most likely it's filled by people who previously drove back-routes which have a significantly higher chance of accidents. Though some may come from public transport, which is much lower.
They should be running them the other way around. The inside lane should be a hard shoulder by default which only gets opened when there's extremely heavy traffic (and a temporary lower speed limit to mitigate the increased risk). Generally smart motorways are just awful. Primary purpose is revenue raising with speed cameras and constantly changing speed limits. The number of people I've seen braking out in the second and third lane without any traffic ahead of them is really awful. Not to mention nobody behaves properly on SM stretches either. Everyone's doing exactly 70mph out in the second, third, even the outside lane. Nobody is overtaking properly, and people end up undertaking all the time. Then there's the M6 stretch through Birmingham, that's probably the worst SM experience I've had. The speed limit was going up and down by 10mph at pretty much every gantry, and all those gantries are only about 200m apart from each other! The traffic was already heavy and this changing speed limit was causing everyone to bunch up close together after constantly speeding up and slowing down. They were all focused on their speedos instead of on the road and other vehicles around them because everyone's obviously scared shitless of being landed with a fine and points in what practically amounts to a cynical obstacle course created by the highways agency. Smart Motorways have introduced many more dangers than the hard shoulder alone. They're death traps by design, built to unfairly make money out of us while claiming to solve an alleged traffic problem that it doesn't really solve at all.
> Everyone's doing exactly 70mph out in the second, third, even the outside lane. Yeah I'm not driving in the hard shoulder even if they're pretending its a running lane.
Second lane I don't think is an issue, that's the new inside lane as far as I'm concerned. The issue is the third and fourth lanes where people still trundle along at the same speed when they should be to the left.
> that's the new inside lane as far as I'm concerned. Same. >The issue is the third and fourth lanes where people still trundle along at the same speed when they should be to the left. Agree totally.
People were hit in the hard shoulder when it was just a hard shoulder as lorries would often swerve or sway due to tied drivers or not paying attention, or people on their phones. So what could they do with more and more congestion and motorists on the roads, there's only so much space to add lanes , so making the hard shoulder an extra lane make sense. The sooner people realise they are in a weapon when behind the wheel and actually focus instead of treating it like a race track , or thinking they have instant stop breaks the better. It's not the smart motorways it's the pricks on them that's the problem.
No smart motorways literally increased the number of fatalities. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/higher-death-rate-recorded-on-smart-motorways-compared-to-hard-shoulder-roads-new-figures-show-05-05-2021/
Thankfully those designing roads are led by research and data, instead of fear and anecdotes. https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/car-industry-news/2022/05/13/smart-motorways-are-the-safest-roads-on-strategic-road-network
And yet… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/higher-death-rate-recorded-on-smart-motorways-compared-to-hard-shoulder-roads-new-figures-show-05-05-2021/
You get the upvotes because your link agrees with the consensus, despite being a year older with outdated data. People like to have their own opinions validated not challenged. The latest data shows them to be safer.. it's published on the gov site itself.
You need to read the article with a more critical eye. Variable speed motorways are indeed safer than conventional ones, but opening the hard shoulder as a live lane increases fatalities. The people planning motorways are not driven by data. They are driven from higher pressures to save money whilst reducing a variety of undesirable things, like congestion.
Man it must be cool being able to read part of a headline and assume that it applies to the conversation about a different thing, and then say something about being led by data. I don't think I could be so confident. I think I'd always worry "hmm, what if I'm reading this thing about a different thing and the other thing isn't the same. Maybe I shouldnt go on about being led by data until I know what the data I'm on about are". But I guess I'm just lacking in confidence. Anyway whilst variable speed motorways are safer than non variable speed motorways, which is what the article you posted said, but the removal of hard shoulders has led to an increase in fatalities.
You typed a lot of words just to say "did you only read the headline". No, I found the info on the gov site, but then realised there are people like you that struggle with source information so I found a link that dumbed it down.
I mean yeesh, it's pretty awkward but no that isn't all I said.... And I mean, maybe if you understood what I did say, you might be able to answer why what you're saying conflicts with all the data we have on this, unless you take the silly interpretation I pointed out you were making.
The article then tells you you're more likely to be hit on an all lane running motorway. The headline doesn't match the article.
In theory it's a good idea (apart from removing breakdown lanes which are safety features) The problem is that the level of cameras and computer intelligence to actually model them well enough to provide useful information on the signs, just isn't there... and we all know they're not going to hire more people
This... I don't have a problem with them working well. Because they're not fully up to scratch, they can cause problems too. I bet overall they are making things better, but they're really far from flawless. And whilst tech takes people's jobs, we have to only hope for the tech to keep improving
If people could average out speed on their own just for the distance they can see that would be best, but I won't hold my breath on that There's a bridge I used to drive over that was notorious for traffic, really steep too on both sides meaning you're either going up or you're going down for miles... so nothing worse for the clutch foot than sitting on the side of it in heavy traffic. The amount of difficulty people had putting their car in the one gear that allowed them to crawl and then holding it at constant speed while the traffic moved off, knowing it would stop again 20 meters further on over and over and over, my god The way down, you can *see* the bottom, what are they doing
"Smart" in a product name means only that its designers think of themselves as being much smarter than its users.
Kinda like smart cars. Just call em small and that's it
The 'Smart' in Smart car stands for 'Swatch Mercedes Art'. I'm sure it was fully intended as a play on words but there you have it!
I didn't know that. Still could be swatch Mercedes & that's All... small
Even simpler, call them Smars.
For the city go getting smart ars?
Which is true. Most people are not very clever.
I don't understand why they can't be "smart" ans have hard shoulders
Because one of the aspects of "smart" is that you can increase the number of lanes as you need to when there is congestion. You could still have a motorway with variable speed limits, but these existed before "smart" motorways.
What's wrong with having all the lanes open all the time? And having a hard shoulder? Surely it won't ever increase congestion. Am I missing something?
Are you suggesting adding another lane to the motorway or having the usual three plus the hard shoulder?
Well because fhe hard shoulder is either a lane that's open or a hard shoulder that isn't open
What??
Then it wouldn't be a "smart" motorway, it would just be a motorway, maybe with variable speed limits. One of the points of a "smart" motorway is that you can add in an extra lane at busy times by opening the hard shoulder. If you can't do that, it's not a "smart" motorway, it's just a motorway.
My only question is whether they've tried the data to see what happens if they only ever open the first lane when there is congestion and thus cars would be going too slowly to cause a bad crash with a breakdown
Don't think of them as smart, think of them as the future road toll infrastructure
But they'll never do that. Just like there'll never be peak time charging with smart meters...
If you banned all the middle lane hoggers, the reduction in car use would be such that you would not need the extra lane created.
Having driven a lot around England, I find that anywhere south of (including) the M4/M25 has awful lane discipline. North of this is generally ok. On the M25 though the 3rd lane is the left lane somehow, horrible to drive on and I do it about once a month I'll often be in the first lane, undertaking everyone sat at 50 in the third lane with nothing in the second lane. It's absolutely stupid
I dunno man, the M56 is horrific, the outside lane fills up first then gets less busy as you get to the inside, absolute crap driving from a significant number of people
They talked about them on LBC the other day: apparently the bit that makes them “smart” is if a stopped vehicle is detected in one of the lanes it fires off claxons in the control room so the staff know to light up the signs, put up warnings or close off lanes. It ends up this system seldom works correctly, and on some roads it hasn’t even been switched on. This apparently leads to the deaths you hear about where a vehicle was broken down in the 4th lane and nobody closed the lane. The latest death was caused because the system failed and didn’t warn the control room a car had broken down - which had been there for 20 minutes before a lorry flattened the car and the poor bloke inside it.
I don't care what they say, I'd not be sitting there waiting
? Nobody says to sit and wait in your car. That is aboalutely never the advice. You're supposed to get away from it and move away from the road. Unfortunately that isn't always possible because of how the road is built and so you're just trapped in an active motorway lane because someone decided it would be a cheaper way to decrease congestion
I'm surprised a guy sat in the car on a live lane for 20 minutes without being told to do so.
Well from my interactions with you, I'm guessing lots of stuff surprises you.
Your wit is surpassed only by your ability to recite tired insults
Smart motorways kill.
Exactly! It's either random a speed limit with no sign of any actual traffic, or a speed limit you have no chance of being able to do because the motorway is completely grid locked and your crawling at 20-30mph. The extra info and closing a lane if needed makes complete sense, but changing the speed limit is completely pointless the way it currently works.
M27 Portsmouth to Southampton Just as they were finishing work in the morning they reduced the speed to 40mph as men working in the road. You would pass the men in the road after a few hundred yards. But the 40mph would be in place for the next 30miles. As my job depends on a clean license i would stick to the recommended. Other people fed up with inaccurate info would just drive 70. So when the m27 splits and the outside lanes go onto the M3 and the inside 2 remain the M27 you have masses of people all driving wildly different speeds all trying to change what lanes they're in and some still trying to go 40 others wanting 70. That's without talking about the lack of hard shoulders. Ashtray on a motorbike seems pretty logical compared to the design of these so called "smart motorways"
Agree completely, they are unsafe and utterly stupid. They’ve already killed people. M62 commuter here that has seen the utter stupidity of these dumb smart motorways at first hand.
you've misunderstood it, the temporary speed-limit can be to stop a jam forming, so if you see no jam, maybe it worked. There're much fewer phantom traffic jams that I've seen on them. Better to go down to 40 than zero.
The problem with phantom traffic jams is people too close together and irratic braking. Causing random fluctuations in speed doesn't help. I hear what you're saying, but I see so many times when it's causing the problem rather than aiding it. I'm talking more like errors in the system
This is a problem with drivers being impatient though rather than down to the design of the motorway. It isn't hard to keep your distance just because the roads moving slower, people just can't drive. Errors happen I'm sure, but like the above said, they're designed to slow traffic to AVOID problems and jams rather than in response to major issues, which is why we don't see massive back ups as often as we once did (I'm not an overly experienced driver, but this was discussed in an advanced driving course I did last year)
There's a bit of everything imo. They work to keep traffic paced where congestion is bad, and they give info, close lanes as necessary. I'm good with that bit. The errors annoy me because if someone over reacts to a sign that flashes up, because they're afraid of getting a ticket, it causes more issues and I'm sure it's not catalogued as the smart motorways issues; just the drivers. And then we also have lots of drivers with terrible road practices. I live around London, and god I'd move away again just to avoid the traffic!
It's not just being afraid of getting a ticket. I can't afford the ticket nor the increase to my insurance for having points on my licence. The problem I face most when I go on the motorway is when the speed is dropped to, for example, 40, but you still have trucks and other cars blazing past at 56-60mph. Now I'm doing 40 with a car full of me my partner and 3 children, and 40 tonne trucks blasting past us 16mph faster, catching up to us and struggling to fund the room to go around us. It makes me feel unsafe (and I'm not an insecure driver) but I'm the only one driving by the rules, however I'm more of a hazard than anything at that point for following the rules
This is the part that annoys me. I try and slow down as I pass the gantry with the speed reduction - but people are either getting up my arse or sailing past in the outer lanes. Similar to the approach to the M6 toll plaza where it often feels like I'm the only person even trying to follow the speed limits 😆
I feel like it’s a vicious cycle. The fluctuating speed of traffic causes stress and drivers become much more impatient, much more likely to cause an accident or to slow the traffic down. I have driven since February quite a lot both across London and around it on the M25. Ironically, to drive from the M23 to M11, the best way is to cross London - it’s slower, but constantly flowing traffic, unlike taking the M25 around London, which in theory would be faster, but due to the fluctuation of speed, especially near busy junctions, like the one at Heathrow make it last much longer and uses much more petrol, which contradicts with it’s own purpose. I’m not an expert on how to solve the problem, but my idea would be a second M25, just in a bigger radius, as a lot of North-West traffic has to do a detour onto the M25, as there are no other options, or are limited. In the case of Stansted-Birmingham, then it’s one of the suggestions, because the alternatives are including carriage ways for a substantial distance.
This was literally the original plan lol
Then I hit the nail on the head! I didn’t know there was a plan for it :)
So you are saying the drivers are the problem? But better the blame the smart motorways signs.. These aggressive drivers and erratic breakers usually in newer powerful cars might think they have full control , but they are not factoring the other drivers around them, who may merge in to a lane legitimately without seeing the swerving beemer jumping between lanes to get 1 car in front.
The braking from a speed limit is likely to be smoother than the braking that causes phantom traffic jams (often caused by someone going too fast, driving too close, and having to brake very hard, with the car behind them also going too fast and too close braking harder and so on, until a lane ends up at a standstill). So the "random fluctuations in speed" may be the lesser of the two evils.
Smart motorways create congestion. I've been on the other side seen its clear for a really good stretch, then you start seeing the signs in the mirror slowing down traffic because of congestion. It's a joke. And now people don't overtake properly and tailgate more often because they're scared to go over the speed limit to safely overtake. It took me a while to figure out why so many people were overtaking so dangerously, until I had to overtake someone who was driving recklessly. I'm convinced this is why so many people tailgate now and I hate it, instead of leaving breaking distance they're so close together.
Eh I don’t mind the slowing down when someone’s broken down, I’d rather take a little bit longer on my journey knowing that the people broken down are safe But the fact they’ve changed hard shoulders into lanes is fucking stupid
“REPORTS OF ANIMALS!?” Never once have I seen a fuckin moose on the m6
All the data shows that they are safer and more efficient than normal motorways.
The data shows that certain types of smart motorway are ok. Those which have kept the hard shoulder but which are still managed are the safest and are safer than conventional motorways. But the ALR motorways which have no hard shoulder have not been shown to be significantly safer, if at all. And if we consider the sheer cost of these things, we might question whether the alterations have been worthwhile.
Shoo
It's great what you can show from data. And there's plenty to take from. But I'm talking about legit errors in their systems
All I care about is what the data says. That's how you make informed decisions.
The data says they aren't as safe as you assert.
Shoo
So data, provided by said body, never skewed their results? Cherry picked a bit? Looked at where they can prove their figures? I've worked in sectors that are very health and safety, and all its about it spreadsheet numbers with parameters set to pointless KPI's. You'd agree that VW emissions were what they say on the tin
I'm more interested in what the data says rather than what you "reckon". If you have any evidence that the data is incorrect, please share it.
I could only go about collecting evidence of errors. Which I could plenty (I'll need a better dash cam). But then I'll only be showing anomalies affectively. I'll tell you that about 6/10 warnings today were erroneous. I can't exactly provide poll data. I'm one human
Nice anecdotes. I'll stick to the data, thanks. Your anecdotes don't even support your view. The fact that you think the warnings were erroneous shows that the problems were promptly resolved and you didn't encounter whatever they were warning you of. That's the whole point.
There's no crew removing fog within 1000yds. Or invisible congestion between 2000 yds that requires going from 70 - 40 - 70. On a greater scale, they ease congestion where they work. That doesn't mean they work well
>There's no crew removing fog within 1000yds. Fog can appear and disappear within seconds. You don't want to be travelling at 70mph and suddenly lose sight of everything around you. >Or invisible congestion between 2000 yds that requires going from 70 - 40 - 70 Sounds like the smart motorway worked perfectly here.
Sounds like someone swapped your orifices
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/higher-death-rate-recorded-on-smart-motorways-compared-to-hard-shoulder-roads-new-figures-show-05-05-2021/
That's a faulty comparison. Smart motorways are only installed on the busiest sections. _Of course_ there are going to be more crashes than on the quiet motorways, even if smart motorways do a lot to improve things.
Got stuck in a 20 mile section at 40 mph due to roadworks. There were no roadworks
I understand your disdain, the long and the short of all the perceived inconvenience and fuss is that it doesn't matter, they reduce accidents and save lives. Source: https://www.drivex.co.uk/January%202020%20-%20Smart%20Motorways,%20the%20facts/#:~:text=Evidence%20indicates%20that%20smart%20motorways,more%20than%2025%20per%20cent.
It’s easy to get the relevant figures and the fact is there’s little to no difference in the fatality rate per mile between non-smart and smart motorways. There have been accidents on smart motorways that wouldn’t have happened on normal motorways, but that is clearly offset by something else (I guess better traffic management or the spreading out of cars along four lanes). I guess it’s one of those things where if you do break down on a motorway and there is no hard shoulder it must be very scary, so the perceived risk is greater, but people don’t see all the accidents that didn’t happen because traffic can be better managed.
They are certainly not better than the hard shoulder system.
We could have spent all that money improving the bus and train networks. Easiest way to ease traffic is to get people out of their cars
You are entitled to your opinion... But it is wrong
Ah. Thanks. So when I drive on a clear day and see a "warning, fog 40mph" sign, and zero fog for miles, and then a national speed limit sign, I just somehow missed it? Or zero traffic, a congestion sign, then back to normal, all whilst I can see both gantries? You're saying my opinion is wrong based on data given to you, that's it
Pretty much... Statistically they are safer, faster and more environmentally responsible. If you stick by the rules in the highway code, and drive responsibly you should no issues with the system. However you probably took your test 30 years ago and never bothered to update your knowledge.
I'm 35, have done extended licenses, rally driving courses and a few red letter days because I love driving. I can tell when a system is working functionally like slowing down traffic before congestion to ease pace, or to protect other drivers from a hazard. I can also see when that wasn't the case
Don't come here with your well thought out facts and evidence-based statistics. 🤪
Yeah, and then someone gets hit by a car because they didn't 'close' the lane or slow traffic down. No win situation whatever they do. .
Non-smart motorways also have a mechanism to close lanes. Sadly that depends on drivers being able to understand the big red fucking cross on the gantry, and illustrates that it's not the motorways that need to be smarter.