Until the last few weeks they had all the machinery and the cones in place on the Northants/Beds section of M1 so could easily have put in extra refuges (which should be longer anyway) whilst the equipment was in place.
Wasn’t the result of the last official look at smart motorways after several tragic avoidable events that more refuges would help, and they were going to paint them orange or something too to make them more easily spotted, woopee, that’ll be a great help when you’re in your rapidly failing small car with your kids and disabled mum in the car trying to see around a wall of bloody lorries , once again they lied, they told people what they wanted to hear which shut them up and from what i see never had the slightest intention of carrying out…be an election soon ‘‘vote for me i’ll promise you more of your own money than the other lot’’…nothing changes its all lies and smoke and mirrors, and people are still falling for it.
Years ago when the UK used to suffer with smog lasting for days and the time CB radio’s were just starting to be popular few drivers slowed down and the amount of RTA’s due lack of visibility and speed were increasing drastically. I suggested that the police could send a signal from Motorway signs, that would reduce the speed of all vehicles. It would have obviously meant making it law that all vehicles would have have a receiver and a governor fitted to the vehicle. The cost to be borne by the vehicle owner and new vehicles manufactured would have to fit every vehicle with the device, It could also be required that every Used vehicle would also have to have the devise fitted prior to resale.
It would work, by the signal sent by the Police would be received by all vehicles travelling on a Motorway for a certain distance. For example between exits. On reception of the signal the Governor would automatically reduce the speed of all vehicles travelling the restricted distance to a safe speed for conditions.
Sadly it was not taken up because politicians were only interested in votes and feathering their own nest and bank balance…
I agree with posters above, we need smart drivers to make it work.
Likewise you should be able to stop the distance you can see, but in reality no one will do this nor would I, amount of times on the m1 im approaching a bend/brow on a smart motorway i just continue on my limiter in reality if i slowed down to 10mph then see around the bend it would be ‘safer’
Point is make smart motorway would more refuge area, and don’t have them were bends are sharper then x amount as scenario above.
The M27 was being changed to “smart” status, it was about to be opened, but was then re-specified and extra work carried out before it was opened.
The upgrades(?) were upgraded before it was even finished.
For sure it is a bit extreme but it shows there are good & bad road designs.
We pay to have our roads to be constructed to be as safe as possible, but there are examples of failures (less extreme than the above!) & we should expect them to be corrected when remediation is practicable.
Unfortunately we have to push on through the lies & obfuscation of authority & business before we can even be heard.
I’m thankful for those who are making the effort to have our safety improved to the point where we don’t have to be (the impossible) 100% perfect driver to have a safe journey.
ScaniaUltimate:
Accidents always a driver’s fault, never the road?
Try telling that to these poor drivers…
0
For sure it is a bit extreme but it shows there are good & bad road designs.
We pay to have our roads to be constructed to be as safe as possible, but there are examples of failures (less extreme than the above!) & we should expect them to be corrected when remediation is practicable.
Unfortunately we have to push on through the lies & obfuscation of authority & business before we can even be heard.
I’m thankful for those who are making the effort to have our safety improved to the point where we don’t have to be (the impossible) 100% perfect driver to have a safe journey.
You are misleading with that Photo, It was caused by an Earthquake in California a few years ago.
This on the other hand happened Sept 7th 2022 (2 days ago) bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-62705240 This was also a natural Disaster, and not caused by the Road.
switchlogic:
Motorways aren’t the problem, drivers are
there was a documentary on the tv recently might of been panorama can’t remember, Anyway the people involved in the concept of smart motorways where intervied and it was stated on the program that they are unsafe …So no it’s not the people who use them that’s the problem it’s the design and that was from the horses mouth
So you suddenly trust the people who designed what you think are death traps because now they agree with your opinion? Ok then. Not sure that’s a strong an argument as you think it is
switchlogic:
Motorways aren’t the problem, drivers are
there was a documentary on the tv recently might of been panorama can’t remember, Anyway the people involved in the concept of smart motorways where intervied and it was stated on the program that they are unsafe …So no it’s not the people who use them that’s the problem it’s the design and that was from the horses mouth
So you suddenly trust the people who designed what you think are death traps because now they agree with your opinion? Ok then. Not sure that’s a strong an argument as you think it is
The “smart m-way” as designed and trialed was one thing. A fairly decent concept and built thing. A Ford?
The “smart m-way” as approved and built was different. A Trabant?
You can`t knock a Ford engineer if you ask for a cheap copy.
Franglais:
The “smart m-way” as designed and trialed was one thing. A fairly decent concept and built thing. A Ford?
The “smart m-way” as approved and built was different. A Trabant?
You can`t knock a Ford engineer if you ask for a cheap copy.
Bad choice of companies for an analogy.
Smart motorways do use the ‘Ford’ cost benefit analysis philosophy as detailed below.
Deaths are factored in. It is what big business does, but Governments are supposed to look after us; unfortunately there is no real difference between business & Government anymore.
“Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the Pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign companies? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design but stuck to it for the next six years. What explains Ford’s decision? The evidence suggests that Ford relied, at least in part, on cost-benefit reasoning, which is an analysis in monetary terms of the expected costs and benefits of doing something. There were various ways of making the Pinto’s gas tank safer. Although the estimated price of these safety improvements ranged from only $5 to $8 per vehicle, Ford evidently reasoned that the increased cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design.”
Source: philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-mat … ord-pinto/
(Worth taking the time to read for anyone who does not understand that business will price death into a defective product to see if it can still make a profit.)
Franglais:
The “smart m-way” as designed and trialed was one thing. A fairly decent concept and built thing. A Ford?
The “smart m-way” as approved and built was different. A Trabant?
You can`t knock a Ford engineer if you ask for a cheap copy.
Bad choice of companies for an analogy.
Smart motorways do use the ‘Ford’ cost benefit analysis philosophy as detailed below.
Deaths are factored in. It is what big business does, but Governments are supposed to look after us; unfortunately there is no real difference between business & Government anymore.
“Thus, Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions. Ford officials faced a decision. Should they go ahead with the existing design, thereby meeting the production timetable but possibly jeopardizing consumer safety? Or should they delay production of the Pinto by redesigning the gas tank to make it safer and thus concede another year of subcompact dominance to foreign companies? Ford not only pushed ahead with the original design but stuck to it for the next six years. What explains Ford’s decision? The evidence suggests that Ford relied, at least in part, on cost-benefit reasoning, which is an analysis in monetary terms of the expected costs and benefits of doing something. There were various ways of making the Pinto’s gas tank safer. Although the estimated price of these safety improvements ranged from only $5 to $8 per vehicle, Ford evidently reasoned that the increased cost outweighed the benefits of a new tank design.”
Source: philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-mat … ord-pinto/
(Worth taking the time to read for anyone who does not understand that business will price death into a defective product to see if it can still make a profit.)
You make a good point, but… I deliberately didnt choose Rolls-Royce as the comparison. Smart M-Ways, even as first trialed, are not the *best* solution. The best (or at least one of the better) solution might be a 4 or 5 lane m-way, plus permanent hard shoulder. But as the Gov (and us tax payers) wont pay for that, a “S-M” is more acceptable. It is, I think, a Ford solution, as opposed to a R-R or a Trabant.
Yes, deaths are factored into road design. Human life does have a price.
It is unrealistic to imagine otherwise.
If I remember it was Sarah Palin, who was questioned on US TV when on a campaign, about a local girl refused medical treatment because of cost.
Something like: I don`t care if her treatment costs, a million, a billion, a trillion, she gets it. Cue applause.
So to save one life, a trillion$ ? In 2022, the US spent less than 2T$ on defense. Nice sentiments, bit totally unrealistic.
Macski:
Bit off topic but if it is windy do you still use the left lane of a smart motorway?
Why wouldn’t you?
I see what you’re getting at, a spare lane to swerve into for a gust?
But if someone is undertaking you at the time what have you achieved?
