ChatterBank3 mins ago
Smart Motorways. Good News.
18 Answers
Looks as though their inherent lack of safety may be being acknowledged:
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
// cancellation may be due to money // the DfT's own press release appears to suggest that safety is indeed a secondary reason......
08:46 Sun 16th Apr 2023
// cancellation may be due to money //
the DfT's own press release appears to suggest that safety is indeed a secondary reason.......
https:/
the DfT's own press release appears to suggest that safety is indeed a secondary reason.......
https:/
Yes, money is obviously a factor. The big admission of their inherent danger is the admission that ‘ The government and National Highways continue to invest £900 million in further safety improvements on existing smart motorways. This includes progressing plans on installing 150 extra emergency areas across the network…’
I regularly drive along so called smart-motorways and it is quite common to see, for mile after mile, the left hand electronic signs displaying that there is a reported obstruction ahead – since by their own admission, those operating the motorway are completely unaware of the dangers faced by drivers using these motorways it is time to get rid of them all.
This is a perfect example of something looking fabulous in theory, and then people getting giddy and carried away without waiting for the actual practicalities to become apparent.
You can imagine it - a whiz-bang computer presentation at the Department of Transport, some guy in red braces with a computer model of a 'smart' motorway, and a fistful of statistics of how much more traffic will move how much faster, and how wonderful it will all be.
But of course, simply realities, like that fact that a huge number of motorists simply do not register a sign that tells than that their lane is closes, and they must move over, now.
That leads to the plethora of fatalities that the original computer modelling did not consider or allow for, because it focused entirely on faster traffic flow, not traffic flow catastrophically halted and backed up by a pile-up as one solitary car broke down in a live traffic lane with no-where to go.
It just needs a brave government to hold its hands up, admit the experiment is a failure, and reverse the construction back to hard shoulders, and safety for everyone.
I am all for fast flowing traffic, but not at the price being paid by people dying to prove that 'smart' motorways are actually anything but.
You can imagine it - a whiz-bang computer presentation at the Department of Transport, some guy in red braces with a computer model of a 'smart' motorway, and a fistful of statistics of how much more traffic will move how much faster, and how wonderful it will all be.
But of course, simply realities, like that fact that a huge number of motorists simply do not register a sign that tells than that their lane is closes, and they must move over, now.
That leads to the plethora of fatalities that the original computer modelling did not consider or allow for, because it focused entirely on faster traffic flow, not traffic flow catastrophically halted and backed up by a pile-up as one solitary car broke down in a live traffic lane with no-where to go.
It just needs a brave government to hold its hands up, admit the experiment is a failure, and reverse the construction back to hard shoulders, and safety for everyone.
I am all for fast flowing traffic, but not at the price being paid by people dying to prove that 'smart' motorways are actually anything but.
As good news it's VERY limited. This is just a pause, and then not for all projects. There are at least 3 they intending continuing to abuse the public kitty on because they've almost finished their pet scheme there.
Despite the only reason to pause is the admission that they are dangerous and those involved had oviously lost their senses in their wasting of our money on these things, there seems no acceptance that those built so far are not going to magically become any safer. No commitment to reversing their folly.
As far as one can read, the idea is to stop making dangerous smart motorways that periodically temporarily lose the hard shoulder into even more dangerous motorways that has permanently lost the hard shoulder.
This is totally unacceptable and all concerned should a) put it back as it was (or better) and b) refund the cost to the taxpayer of both the screwing up and the putting right of this insane set of projects, as we ought not see our tax money short for important things just because someone wasted it on dopey pet projects.
Despite the only reason to pause is the admission that they are dangerous and those involved had oviously lost their senses in their wasting of our money on these things, there seems no acceptance that those built so far are not going to magically become any safer. No commitment to reversing their folly.
As far as one can read, the idea is to stop making dangerous smart motorways that periodically temporarily lose the hard shoulder into even more dangerous motorways that has permanently lost the hard shoulder.
This is totally unacceptable and all concerned should a) put it back as it was (or better) and b) refund the cost to the taxpayer of both the screwing up and the putting right of this insane set of projects, as we ought not see our tax money short for important things just because someone wasted it on dopey pet projects.
// you can imagine it - a whiz-bang computer presentation at the Department of Transport, some guy in red braces with a computer model of a 'smart' motorway..... //
the model "red braces man" presented to the DfT was based on real life, ie the M42 "experiment" that ran from junctions 3A to 7. it actually worked. there was however much tooth sucking by the bean counters when the cost was revealed; keeping the road safe needed expensive add-ons like multiple sign gantries, cameras and lane sensors to detect hold-ups. so the the specification for the national roll-out was watered down to match the available budget, so that emergency refuges were spaced 3 times (or more) the distance of those in the original trial, the number of sign gantries was halved and the lane tracking technology reduced by an unspecified amount.
the model "red braces man" presented to the DfT was based on real life, ie the M42 "experiment" that ran from junctions 3A to 7. it actually worked. there was however much tooth sucking by the bean counters when the cost was revealed; keeping the road safe needed expensive add-ons like multiple sign gantries, cameras and lane sensors to detect hold-ups. so the the specification for the national roll-out was watered down to match the available budget, so that emergency refuges were spaced 3 times (or more) the distance of those in the original trial, the number of sign gantries was halved and the lane tracking technology reduced by an unspecified amount.
mushroom - // the model "red braces man" presented to the DfT was based on real life, ie the M42 "experiment" that ran from junctions 3A to 7. it actually worked. there was however much tooth sucking by the bean counters when the cost was revealed; keeping the road safe needed expensive add-ons like multiple sign gantries, cameras and lane sensors to detect hold-ups. so the the specification for the national roll-out was watered down to match the available budget, so that emergency refuges were spaced 3 times (or more) the distance of those in the original trial, the number of sign gantries was halved and the lane tracking technology reduced by an unspecified amount. //
The difference between the 'dream' and the reality manifested itself, not only in the absence of the appropriate number of emergency points where a vehicle could pull of the live lane, it was also in not allowing for the fact that a large number of drivers don't actually register and act on the warning signs in a timely manner.
Add to that the simple fact that the appropriate technology was either simply not installed, or did not work correctly, and the large and growing list of fatalities was the inevitable result.
Of course the government prefers to save face, rather than save lives, but not admitting that the experiment is a colossal and fatal failure, and commence addressing returns to the safer designs it had previously.
The difference between the 'dream' and the reality manifested itself, not only in the absence of the appropriate number of emergency points where a vehicle could pull of the live lane, it was also in not allowing for the fact that a large number of drivers don't actually register and act on the warning signs in a timely manner.
Add to that the simple fact that the appropriate technology was either simply not installed, or did not work correctly, and the large and growing list of fatalities was the inevitable result.
Of course the government prefers to save face, rather than save lives, but not admitting that the experiment is a colossal and fatal failure, and commence addressing returns to the safer designs it had previously.
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.