SMARTening motorways

[Wossname]

Simply, you shouldn't be trying to leave it unaided.

It is also appearing that the fatal accident count has been fudged and is actually double what was claimed, thanks to a bit of sleight of hand on the count.

That's quite a serious suggestion - where does it come from, OOC?

[Horse]

Simply, you shouldn't be trying to leave it unaided.

It is also appearing that the fatal accident count has been fudged and is actually double what was claimed, thanks to a bit of sleight of hand on the count.

That's quite a serious suggestion - where does it come from, OOC?

Previous post requires a longer answer.

However, re data, search for the name of the scheme(eg M J - J) & POPE. That will give you a year post-opening.

Yes, I'd like to know too.

[Horse]

Something that occurred to me y'day is that there's nowhere for service personnel to operate from either. I passed someone working on an overhead gantry y'daay... van parked on the hard shoulder .

Well, if it sets your mind partially at test, you're not the first to think of it.

It's been part of a fundamental change in design, that maintenance must be considered.

Now, someone with geeky knowledge of such things can tell you that if it was a van on its own, then its driver wouldn't have been anticipating a stop beyond 15 minutes, otherwise various levels of signs and cones. But there, a hard shoulder allowed the stop. ALR doesn't, so it's likely that maintenance activities would be planned to undertake multiple works within a single closure.

Also, ALR has led to changes in the ways closures are installed too.

[The Spin Doctor]

Simply, you shouldn't be trying to leave it unaided.

It is also appearing that the fatal accident count has been fudged and is actually double what was claimed, thanks to a bit of sleight of hand on the count.

That's quite a serious suggestion - where does it come from, OOC?

The number of people killed on smart motorways is 'significantly' more than than the initial figure put forward by the Transport Secretary, according to Labour.

Last year a Panorama report said the Government said there had been 38 fatalities between 2015 and 2019, which Grant Shapps later revealed was 39.

But Shadow transport secretary Jim McMahon told MPs a 'stocktake' has shown 63 people lost their lives on the controversial all lane running (ALR) smart motorways over the same period.

[Horse]

Simply, you shouldn't be trying to leave it unaided.

This is not aimed at you but that's a perfectly ridiculous assumption.

There are any number of reasons a driver might need to stop for a few seconds then be ready to drive on.

First, that was part of lengthy responses tochallenges/questions:
- They won't know I'm there. Actually, they probably will.
- Isn't it dangerous to exit from them? Well, it might be.
- Why should 'they' have help getting out when I don't. Well, actually, it might be available for you too.

So, to "a perfectly ridiculous assumption". Actually, it's more of a simplification.

Complications could include:
- vehicle; not everything will accelerate briskly.
- driver; different interpretations of whether it's a good idea to emerge and how to do it.
- road layout; is there sufficient view upstream?
- conditions; is a good view available?
- traffic; light, heavy, spread across all lanes, any in lane 1 (not that there's any guarantees people won't move back into lane 1)?

Now, how long have you been stopped for? But more importantly, what difference does that make to an approaching driver? They won't know!

So, another simplification: if there is a potential benefit from a signal advising other drivers, why wouldn't you want it displayed?

[The Spin Doctor]

Eh?

Last time I reported something to the police a) they weren't interested and b) when I insisted it WAS within their remit, I was told "we don't have the manpower".

[Horse]

Eh? Which bit?

[Horse]

It is also appearing that the fatal accident count has been fudged and is actually double what was claimed, thanks to a bit of sleight of hand on the count.

That's quite a serious suggestion - where does it come from, OOC?

The number of people killed on smart motorways is 'significantly' more than than the initial figure put forward by the Transport Secretary, according to Labour.

But Shadow transport secretary Jim McMahon told MPs a 'stocktake' has shown 63 people lost their lives on the controversial all lane running (ALR) smart motorways over the same period.

From that document (published March 2020 - they really like to hide the data, don't they ... ?):

We looked at the last four years for which there are figures, 2015 to 2018 inclusive.

In all four years, the fatal casualty rate for smart motorways without a permanent hard shoulder was lower than it is on motorways with a hard shoulder.

In three of these four years, the "weighted rate" - that is, all casualties (fatal, serious and slight) weighted by seriousness - was lower for smart motorways without a permanent hard shoulder than it is on motorways with a hard shoulder.

The evidence on serious injuries alone is more mixed. In 2018, the serious casualty rate was slightly lower on motorways without a permanent hard shoulder. In 2015, 2016 and 2017, however, the serious casualty rate was slightly higher.

Reading all this, you may be asking, as I asked: how can a motorway without a hard shoulder have a lower fatal casualty rate than one with a hard shoulder? The answer is that while some risks on these roads are greater, others are less.

As the report shows, the risk of a collision between a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle is higher on non hard-shoulder motorways. But the risk of a collision between two or more moving vehicles is lower.

[Horse]

Report by the ORR supports National Highway’s findings that smart motorways are the safest roads in the country.

A report issued yesterday by the Office of Rail and Road to independently review the data to provide further analytical assurance and ensure that the conclusions of National Highways around Smart Motorways has concluded that the findings that smart motorways are the safest roads in the UK has confirmed that the government owned company's own findings are robust.

The report, Quality Assurance of All Lane Running motorway data, was a thorough undertaking; with the ORR drawing on its expertise as the monitor of England’s strategic road network.

The ORR analysed detailed information, interviewed relevant staff at both National Highways and the Department for Transport, and reviewed the evidence submitted to the Transport Select Committee inquiry, which commenced in February 2021.

More details
https://www.saferhighways.co.uk/post/gr ... 2e3ca54ab5


Report
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... y-data.pdf

[The Spin Doctor]

Err... the 'Office of Rail and Road' is to quote their own website a "non-ministerial government department" where all members of the ORR board are "appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport"...

...so perhaps not as 'independent' as all that. They have been criticised by groups like the RNIB.

Independent really SHOULD mean independent.

[Scootabout]

And, to be honest, I don't know what Highways England's procedures are, I just have access (as would you if the website was online) to the breakdown industry guidance, which give information on when signals might be used.

This is all good info that's not been communicated to the general public.

Are there signs in the refuges telling people to use the phone before rejoining the carriageway? There should be.

It seems rather odd that this info isn't in the public domain in an accessible form (Highway Code?)

[MrLongbeard]

And, to be honest, I don't know what Highways England's procedures are, I just have access (as would you if the website was online) to the breakdown industry guidance, which give information on when signals might be used.

This is all good info that's not been communicated to the general public.

Are there signs in the refuges telling people to use the phone before rejoining the carriageway? There should be.

It seems rather odd that this info isn't in the public domain in an accessible form (Highway Code?)

The book most normal people only read once in their life?
OK maybe twice if you coach your kids through it

[Horse]

And, to be honest, I don't know what Highways England's procedures are, I just have access (as would you if the website was online) to the breakdown industry guidance, which give information on when signals might be used.

This is all good info that's not been communicated to the general public.

Are there signs in the refuges telling people to use the phone before rejoining the carriageway? There should be.

It seems rather odd that this info isn't in the public domain in an accessible form (Highway Code?)

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/car ... rways.html

At last. But I have no idea what will be added.

[Horse]

https://www.saferhighways.co.uk/post/de ... 2e3ca54ab5

National Highways has agreed to upgrade a notoriously dangerous stretch of the M1, after a number of breakdown collisions resulted in serious injuries and fatalities on the road since it was converted to a smart motorway.

An additional emergency refuge area (ERA) will be added to the stretch of the M1 in South Yorkshire after an independent review into the motorway highlighted a “cluster of live lane breakdown collisions”.

Wonder whether the existing RAs were too far apart, or whether the new one will substantially reduce the distance from 'usual'?

Also, how was 'cluster' defined, were there any common factors in the reasons for people stopping?

[Scootabout]

The book most normal people only read once in their life?
OK maybe twice if you coach your kids through it

I'm not sure what your definition of 'normal people' is, but:

Recent conversation with my 88 year old mother, about to go on a speed awareness course (which, incidentally, she referred to as a 'speed driving course' ):

"How about checking the Highway Code for things like stopping distances, and speed limit signage?"
Hands me copy of HWC.
"Published 1995".
"But it probably hasn't changed, has it, dear?"
"Er, yes, it will have done."

[MrLongbeard]

I'm not sure what your definition of 'normal people' is,

I'd put a finger in the air and say 90% of people who hold driving licenses don't reread the HC, except unless they're coaching a family member later down the line.

[Horse]

"How about checking the Highway Code for things like stopping distances, and speed limit signage?"
Hands me copy of HWC.
"Published 1995".
"But it probably hasn't changed, has it, dear?"
"Er, yes, it will have done."

Speed limit signs? Number in a red circle, on a stick. Still.

Braking distances? Might only have been in imperial, now in metric. Don't know what else has changed.

[The Spin Doctor]

Speed limit signs? Number in a red circle, on a stick. Still.

Except the white and black one... which no longer means GLF.

Braking distances? Might only have been in imperial, now in metric. Don't know what else has changed.

Brakes? And stopping distances?

[Horse]

Brakes? And stopping distances?

HC content?

And have NSLs changed since '95? I somehow doubt whether his mother is a GLF type driver. It's impressive that she a. Kept a copy, and b. Could find it!

[The Spin Doctor]

Brakes? And stopping distances?

HC content?

And have NSLs changed since '95? I somehow doubt whether his mother is a GLF type driver. It's impressive that she a. Kept a copy, and b. Could find it!

No, but if she's in her 80s she probably learned when there was a national no-limit and brakes didn't have servos!