SMARTening motorways

[The Spin Doctor]

I never said that you did.

FFS, Malc... you implied it clearly enough, since you were responding to my statement that "So far no arguments that have been put forward for all lane running suggests to me that they are anything other than far more dangerous than a motorway with a hard shoulder when an accident or breakdown happens."

[Horse]

I never said that you did.

FFS, Malc... you implied it clearly enough, since you were responding to my statement that "So far no arguments that have been put forward for all lane running suggests to me that they are anything other than far more dangerous than a motorway with a hard shoulder when an accident or breakdown happens."

It wasn't a reply, it was a 'standalone' post, no quoting, and it was an add-on to the list in the post immediately preceding it, where I listed some advice - including:

- Get away from the hard shoulder (if there is one), they're not 'safe' places

[Lutin]

So called "smart" motorways are in the news again for all the wrong reasons - M1 deaths: Coroner calls for smart motorway review

A coroner has called for a review of smart motorways after an inquest heard the deaths of two men on a stretch of the M1 could have been avoided.

Jason Mercer, 44, and Alexandru Murgeanu, 22, died when Prezemyslaw Szuba crashed his lorry into their vehicles near Sheffield on 7 June 2019.

Coroner David Urpeth said smart motorways without a hard shoulder carry "an ongoing risk of future deaths".

Highways England said it was "addressing many of the points raised".

Mr Urpeth recorded a verdict of unlawful killing at Sheffield Town Hall. He added he would be writing to Highways England and the transport secretary asking for a review.

The inquest heard the deaths of the two men may have been avoided had there had been a hard shoulder.

[Horse]

Might also have been avoided if they hadn't stayed in a live lane to exchange details after their relatively minor collision.

Might also have been avoided if they had kept a watch for approaching traffic.

[iansoady]

Agreed. You have to be particularly daft to stop in a live lane if your vehicle is still mobile. However, I don't see how a motorway can be designated "smart" unless it has stationary vehicle detection and automatic lane closure.

[The Spin Doctor]

Might also have been avoided if they hadn't stayed in a live lane to exchange details after their relatively minor collision.

Might also have been avoided if they had kept a watch for approaching traffic.

And because either of those errors are ENTIRELY predictable, it's the SYSTEM that should be designed to mitigate against them.

Simply blaming people for making mistakes is unacceptable.

[Horse]

Would you go and stand in a high speed live lane without checking for traffic? Professionally, I'm not supposed to, personally I wouldn't.

Umpteen links broke in this 'chain':
- initial collision
- decision to exchange details there
- lack of awareness
- hgv driver's actions

To simply blame the lack of hard shoulder is looking at one more link.

OK, my work background gives me a view that simply having, or restoring, a hard shoulder isn't the panacea that some people think.

Here's another HGV strike (the impacting truck is the burnt-out wreckage further ahead):

20210119_121910.jpg (240.7 KiB) Viewed 1332 times

[Zimbo]

I really can't see how a smart motorway is any different to a NSL dual carriageway really, except that it has more lay-bys, less distance apart. If Smart Motorways are dangerous because of the lack of hard shoulder and should be banned, then surely so should roads like the A34 or A30?

[The Spin Doctor]

And I remind you again, Horse, that I was lucky to survive a forced stop on a live lane a fast dual carriageway - the car was hit before I'd even managed to get onto the hard shoulder and I was still crossing in front of it when it was rammed at 60-odd mph by another car. So I am FULLY away of the risks of stopping.

I've never said that a hard shoulder is a panacea. But if you can get the car off the running lane it has to be safer.

[The Spin Doctor]

I really can't see how a smart motorway is any different to a NSL dual carriageway really, except that it has more lay-bys, less distance apart. If Smart Motorways are dangerous because of the lack of hard shoulder and should be banned, then surely so should roads like the A34 or A30?

Mostly, they are two lane. So as soon as one vehicle stops and blocks a lane (usually the nearside but I have come across a stopped vehicle in the offside lane), two lanes of traffic are forced into one and the entire traffic flow slows down for some distance back up the road. By the time you encounter the stopped vehicle, it's obvious there's a problem and you're travelling a lot more slowly. Generally speaking, you've also got far more chances to get OFF a dual carriageway if you have a problem because there are so many side turnings.

Stretches between exits on motorways are far longer - that was one of their design features - so you're less likely to be able to detect a problem and get off the carriageway before the vehicle comes to a halt. Where motorways have been widened by removing the hard shoulder you're usually going from three to four lanes, and speeds tend to stay high past the obstructing vehicle, until it's finally spotted by the control room and the warning signs come on. And that is taking far too long.

[The Spin Doctor]

To simply blame the lack of hard shoulder is looking at one more link.

Wrong way round.

Removing the hard shoulder is removing one of the barriers in your Swiss Cheese model of system failure.

[Horse]

I really can't see how a smart motorway is any different to a NSL dual carriageway really, except that it has more lay-bys, less distance apart.

Additional technology in place, such as dynamic speed enforcement.

[The Spin Doctor]

I really can't see how a smart motorway is any different to a NSL dual carriageway really, except that it has more lay-bys, less distance apart.

Additional technology in place, such as dynamic speed enforcement.

But it was claimed that lane closures and speed alerts would be automatic and effective in seconds which often ISN'T the case! Mostly the overhead gantry speed limits and big red X are manually activated and it's been taking far too long.

https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom ... -motorways

"The AA has discovered a report written by Highways England that highlights how long it takes to identify a vehicle broken down in a live lane of an All Lane Running (ALR) motorway when Stationery Vehicle Detection (SVD) systems are not in place.

The report from Highways England identifies that in ALR schemes where SVD technology does not exist, more than a third (36%) of live lane breakdowns took more than 15 minutes to find, with the longest taking more than an hour to discover on CCTV.

"The report, Stationary Vehicle Detection (published in March 2016) states that using data for breakdown live lane incidents for the M25 J25-26 ALR scheme, ‘reviewed CCTV footage to identify incidents where the event occurrence time could be recorded…our analysis found the average time…was 17 minutes and 1 second.’

"The same report also highlights that Operation Centres have a three-minute window to set signal changes, like red ‘X’, once a vehicle has stopped in a live lane:

"‘Key Performance indicator to set signs and signals within 3 minutes of an incident being verified. Assuming that once a broken down vehicle (or other incident) has been detected on the network by any means, the corresponding actions required to set signs and signals take the same amount of time regardless of the detection methods’."

According to Highways England’s own analysis, stopping in a live lane of an ALR motorway more than triples the danger when compared to a traditional motorway with a continuous hard shoulder:

‘A stationary live lane obstruction creates a particular hazard during off-peak conditions (when flows are low and speeds are high) due to the increased severity associated with collisions involving large speed differentials. This is captured in the ALR generic hazard log as hazard H135: “vehicle stops in a running lane – off peak”. Compared to the D3M design used as the safety baseline, the assumption in the hazard log is that the H135 risk increases by 216%, making it the fourth highest scoring residual hazard.’

[Horse]

I've never said that a hard shoulder is a panacea.

You said that last time this came up and, as I said too last time, I've never said (or, actually, ever thought) you're one of them.

Might also have been avoided if they hadn't stayed in a live lane to exchange details after their relatively minor collision.
Might also have been avoided if they had kept a watch for approaching traffic.

Simply blaming people for making mistakes is unacceptable.

Either? Don't forget the truck driver too, that's three people.

So when does pointing out what happened stop being 'facts' and become 'blaming' and unacceptable? "Bad things happen to good people", etc. as Just Culture would have it. Fine, but here was a sequence of bad things, mistakes, errors, whether chain or Swiss cheese.

And because either of those errors are ENTIRELY predictable, it's the SYSTEM that should be designed to mitigate against them.

So how would a systems approach have helped you?

I was lucky to survive a forced stop on a live lane a fast dual carriageway - the car was hit before I'd even managed to get onto the hard shoulder

Serious question, real situation, what could have been done, using a systems approach, to have improved your safety?

I'll be honest, I struggle a bit with 'systems safety'. Whilst I appreciate that things are interlinked and can't be dealt with in isolation, 'systems' often can't be changed as one whole, only as individual elements, incremental changes. So if you can tell me how the situation you describe could be improved?

dynamic speed enforcement.

But it was claimed that lane closures and speed alerts would be automatic and effective in seconds which often ISN'T the case!

Well at least this might cheer you up.
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/ ... -upgrades/

Three lane roads, no hard shoulder? Here's one:

20210119_213244.png (193.34 KiB) Viewed 1316 times

And, coincidentally, actually at the start of a long incremental change process.

[Cousin Jack]

Additional technology in place, such as dynamic speed enforcement.

Enforcement? Nobody STOPS me speeding, they just fine me after the event (if I am still alive).

[Horse]

Additional technology in place, such as dynamic speed enforcement.

Enforcement? Nobody STOPS me speeding, they just fine me after the event (if I am still alive).

Fair point. Although they may use scare tactics of threatening you with a course instead of a fine. Ironically, xmthose course are now being run via Zoom

Also, on a similar theme, amazing how many people don't apear to understand 'average', particularly in the context of average speed cameras.

[Pseudonym]

There's nothing there that would encourage me to use a smart motorway. How many more dead do there have to be before they are seen as utterly ridiculous and beyond sense?

Depending on where you live/work, some of us have no choice.

I am 100% against them

[Pseudonym]

The worst is when you're entering a smart m/way, from a non smart m/way (which is very well lit), to one that is in complete darkness. The M1 northbound from J28 does exactly that.

[Lutin]

38 killed on smart motorways in last five years

Thirty-eight people have been killed on smart motorways in the last five years, the government has told BBC Panorama.

It is the first time that the total number of deaths has been reported.

Smart motorways have been criticised because they do not have a hard shoulder and drivers who break down can be trapped in the speeding traffic.

The network is facing an overhaul with the results of a government review due to be announced shortly.

A Freedom of Information (FoI) request sent by Panorama to Highways England revealed that on one section of the M25, outside London, the number of near misses had risen 20-fold since the hard shoulder was removed in April 2014.

In the five years before the road was converted into a smart motorway there were just 72 near misses. In the five years after, there were 1,485.

A "near miss" is counted every time there is an incident with "the potential to cause injury or ill health".

The FoI request also revealed that one warning sign on the same stretch of the M25 had been out of action for 336 days.


The Panorama programme is on this coming Wednesday (27th) at 8:30pm.

[Horse]

38 died how? Absolutely meaningless.

On the stretch of M4 I would typically use, there have been a few fatalities. For example, a motorcyclist hit debris, someone tried to commit suicide off a bridge (actually died from car impacts) and an elderly person went missing and walked in front of an HGV.