SMART MOTORWAY ? (1 Viewer)

[Odd job]

Years ago I had a puncture on a busy dual caregeway, I put the hazards on and kept going, I didn't care it it broke the wheel I wasn't going to stop in a live lane. It finished the tyre but the wheel was OK

 

[bigtwin]

Years ago I had a puncture on a busy dual caregeway, I put the hazards on and kept going, I didn't care it it broke the wheel I wasn't going to stop in a live lane. It finished the tyre but the wheel was OK

Sensible move. The last thing you want to be is stationary.

Even, on a Motorway with a hard shoulder, I’d rather not be there and would, if at all possible, endeavour to get off the motorway.

Ian

 

[Marmite]

These look good! I've ordered one set and may well buy another set for the van.

I have been using these road flares for around 3-4 years. and they are great IMO.

Unfortunately the breakdown "triangle" is a waste of time, and have been advised by traffic police both in the UK (M4) and on a French Toll motorway to remove it and not use it again. Apparently, they often fall over and are thus useless, and most folk drive off without them, with consequential further accidents when they eventually end up in the traffic lane.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Trevor Wbm]

Not sure I would try that, if you can’t make it to a refuge, chances are your car is going to stop quickly. Choosing to go in front of a HGV when you know you are going to stop might end badly.

You could hope that the HGV driver is aware and assists but not all will. They are usually very good and have experience of the terror of breaking down in a running lane.

It is a dire choice to put anyone in, hence why I hate them!

In 2019 I was in the outside lane of a stretch of 'smart' motorway travelling at 70 (and to be honest probably a bit more, but nothing daft) mph when my rear offside tyre split from the rim and overtook me. I've had driving courses, so I knew this was a bad thing ... some very, very, swift mirror-signal-maneuvering (coming ready or not) got me into lane 1, previously the hard shoulder, and down to 40 mph on the wheelrim. Hazard lights on and tapping the brake pedal to flash the lights had no effect at all on the speed of the artic approaching from behind at around 60mph, so took the chance of carrying on for what felt like over a mile - but probably wasn't - until I could swerve into a refuge, still at not much less than 40mph. The trick then is to stop before you hit the other end of it - particularly challenging when you're 25% down on rubber on the road. If there was any technology watching Lane 1 for stationary vehicles it wasn't working, as the first the operators knew was when I reported in to tell them my tyre was still in lane 4.

With hindsight, concentrating on not dying prevents you feeling scared at the time, but having changed the wheel and carried on I then pulled in to some services for a coffee and a minor personal breakdown.

Smart motorways are bloody dangerous.

 

[Marmite]

They (lights) are good and work very well, but you need to put them at least a half mile before the breakdown. Walking, that's 10 minutes. Even on good-old hard-shoulders, the average time before being hit was just 11 minutes! With smart lanes, just grab your phone and abandon the vehicle.

11 minutes average if the car is hit ... most cars aren't, and the newspaper that reported this a while back was pulled up for its misrepresentation of the facts.

I have no problem with SMART motorways per se, but think the main issue is the significant extension of distance between safe zones from when they were first set up. If they had at least two safe zones every mile (would prefer 4), then I think they will be much safer, and they could cut the cost of building motorways but still retain adequate safety. I would also propose that periodic safe zones, as they are more akin to a layby and not in the main traffic flow are safer than a continuous hard shoulder

 

[Vipar]

Most dangerous invention since wimmin they wont last long, only long enough for the inventor not to lose face. GET RID OF THEM.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

Having safe zones is all well and good if you can choose where to breakdown. Most can’t and probably will have just passed a safe zone when the car just stops.

 

[Markman]

While I agree that "smart" motorways will always be frightening to stop on, the overall statistics for them aren't noticeable in terms of all road deaths - see linked report of UK government data:

1. Motorways are responsible for just 6% of UK road fatalities

.

2. The UK is still, almost, the leader in lowest deaths per miles travelled globally (despite smart motorways; beaten by Norway, Sweden and Switzerland) and about 1/2 the rate of France:

3. The decrease in the rate of deaths has plateaued but still far, far better than when we were young:

4. Yes the "young idiots" do die, but the rate is also a classic bathtub curve:

Link to the report:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/922717/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2019.pdf

 

[Marmite]

But if the safe zones are regular enough (say every 1/4 mile) , most with a breakdown will be able to get to one, and as I said earlier, I think the safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder as they are not continuous with the running lanes.

If the car just stops (e.g. sudden engine seizure), you are stuck in whatever lane the problem occurred

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

But if the safe zones are regular enough (say every 1/4 mile) , most with a breakdown will be able to get to one, and as I said earlier, I think the safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder as they are not continuous with the running lanes.

If the car just stops (e.g. sudden engine seizure), you are stuck in whatever lane the problem occurred

Unless of course you just shove the clutch in and drift to the hardshoulder. Ahh, there's the problem there isn't one.

 

[Marmite]

I still stick with MO that safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder. I would be interested in understanding what breakdown condition would not permit you to reach a safe zone within 1/4/ mile.

 

[joe and sue]

I still stick with MO that safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder. I would be interested in understanding what breakdown condition would not permit you to reach a safe zone within 1/4/ mile.

Broken cambelt, total electrical failure, seized engine, any total loss of power, come to mind immediately

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

I still stick with MO that safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder. I would be interested in understanding what breakdown condition would not permit you to reach a safe zone within 1/4/ mile.

Cam belt gone for one, total loss of oil causing complete seizure of the engine. Broken drive shaft causing immediate loss of drive. Broken con rod. There are many breakdowns that mean you’re going nowhere.

 

[Minxy]

From The Telegraph;

"Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri", tells the story of a woman who rents the billboards to call attention to the unsolved rape and murder of her daughter.

It was based on this.

Kathy Page

Real Name: Lucille Katherine Fulton Page Nicknames: Kathy Location: Vidor, Texas Date: May 14, 1991 Details: Early in the morning on May 14, 1991, thirty-four-year-old Kathy Page was found dead in her car stuck in a ditch in an apparent car accident near Vidor, Texas. As investigators looked...

unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com

 

[bobnick]

Great film anorl

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Marmite]

But you said in previous post that with a seized engine, put in neutral and coast to hard shoulder .. same for all the other scenario's outlined. If safe/refuge zones are every 1/4/ mile, then should normally be able to get there, and as I said earlier, as they are not continuous with the main carriageway (as a hard shoulder is), they are safer. The issue with some of the more recent SMART motorways is the reduction in safe/refuge areas.

 

[Minxy]

Cam belt gone for one, total loss of oil causing complete seizure of the engine. Broken drive shaft causing immediate loss of drive. Broken con rod. There are many breakdowns that mean you’re going nowhere.

But if that was the case it could happen in any of the MH lanes so if it brought you to an immediate stop it wouldn't be safe regardless of where it happened.

 

[Otter Spotter]

Stick a derogstory message about the Chief Constable on Face book and see how long it takes for the bobbies to come knocking, that will get their attention

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jockaneezer]

I think they need to make the refuges about 1/4 of a mile long and have, oh I don't know, 4 per mile maybe ?

 

[glenn2926]

But if that was the case it could happen in any of the MH lanes so if it brought you to an immediate stop it wouldn't be safe regardless of where it happened.

All of the instances I mentioned allow a driver to shove the clutch in and drift to the hard shoulder. If there isn’t a hard shoulder just where do you expect them to go?

 

[glenn2926]

But you said in previous post that with a seized engine, put in neutral and coast to hard shoulder .. same for all the other scenario's outlined. If safe/refuge zones are every 1/4/ mile, then should normally be able to get there, and as I said earlier, as they are not continuous with the main carriageway (as a hard shoulder is), they are safer. The issue with some of the more recent SMART motorways is the reduction in safe/refuge areas.

So you reckon you could coast 1/4 of a lie with no motive power. I Would like to see you coast 1/4 mile uphill. If the sudden loss of power occurred in lane three the driver only has to coast across two lanes. That’s what about 15metres. Quite a lot less than your 1/4 mile.
Why you and others of the same opinion think having the nearest safe place 1/4 of a mile away instead of 15metres is beyond me.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Otter Spotter]

I still stick with MO that safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder. I would be interested in understanding what breakdown condition would not permit you to reach a safe zone within 1/4/ mile.

Engine blow up, gearbox failure, collision with another vehicle, the list goes on

 

[Marmite]

Engine blow up, gearbox failure, collision with another vehicle, the list goes on

All of which leave you stranded, thus no difference between safe zone and hard shoulder, and as I said before, as the hard shoulder is continuous with driving lanes, the chance of being hit is higher

 

[BILL 875]

They are called smart motorways because they can remove cash from your bank account in a split second.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

All of which leave you stranded, thus no difference between safe zone and hard shoulder, and as I said before, as the hard shoulder is continuous with driving lanes, the chance of being hit is higher

You still don’t get it do you? All the problems quoted allow the driver to shove in the clutch and coast across to the hard shoulder. Which part of not being able to do that if there isn’t a hard shoulder do you not understand?

 

[bobnick]

Nothing but nothing is done in the UK unless someone is making money out of it. Be it the implementation? or the after use. The safety aspect blah blah is bollo@@@ks

 

[DJA]

As someone who has suffered a Cam Belt failure on a bend just at the top of a rise on the M4 as the traffic was rapidly slowing down to walking pace and managed to get to the hard shoulder be assured the chances of getting to a refuge were Nil, I can say I am very glad it was not a Smart Road at that point and pleased a Police car appeared within seconds and stopped with lights flashing to help as within minutes the traffic started flowing normally and the ability to get to any lay-by would have be nil. I was also in the same car when the Cam Belt failed again whilst on the A1 and was very lucky that there was a lay-by just ahead of where it happened and I managed to quickly direct my colleague into it . The thought of drifting to a halt on the inside lane of the A1 with all the traffic thundering along does not appeal.

I am also not sure that the refuges on all the Smart Roads are as frequent as every 1/4 mile and stopping in a live traffic lane, because you cant reach a refuge, is even less safe than on the hard shoulder.

Also I would add the car concerned was a Vauxhall Cavalier which was always fully maintained to specification and not one of the cam belts lasted long enough to complete the recommended replacement period.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Trevor Wbm]

I still stick with MO that safe zones are safer than a hard shoulder. I would be interested in understanding what breakdown condition would not permit you to reach a safe zone within 1/4/ mile.

Currently, them being 1.5 miles apart, apparently, maybe I did drive over a mile on the rim

 

[Minxy]

All of the instances I mentioned allow a driver to shove the clutch in and drift to the hard shoulder. If there isn’t a hard shoulder just where do you expect them to go?

I took your original comment below to mean you would stop dead in your tracks ... ie not moving/movable at all, as I've never experienced engine seizure etc I have no personal experience of whether a vehicle can still move or not, hence my comment.

Cam belt gone for one, total loss of oil causing complete seizure of the engine. Broken drive shaft causing immediate loss of drive. Broken con rod. There are many breakdowns that mean you’re going nowhere.

 

[Minxy]

All of which leave you stranded, thus no difference between safe zone and hard shoulder, and as I said before, as the hard shoulder is continuous with driving lanes, the chance of being hit is higher

You still don’t get it do you? All the problems quoted allow the driver to shove in the clutch and coast across to the hard shoulder. Which part of not being able to do that if there isn’t a hard shoulder do you not understand?

Glenn, please stop being so 'full-on' and personal, you don't want to end up in Coventry do you?

A safety zone will take you out of the main roadway, be it hard shoulder or one of the driving lanes - whilst a driver may 'drift' into a hard shoulder they're not likely to do the same into a safety zone.

Both options have merit, the best of both worlds would be hard shoulders WITH safety zones at the side so that once on the hard shoulder if possible you could coast/drive to the safety zone and tuck in out of harms way, but we all know that ain't gonna happen. What we do know is that the current 'smart' system is anything but.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}