Why do we think smart motorways aren’t as safe

Coming down the A1 tonight and it got me thinking. Why is this any different to a smart motorway? Why do we go on about how much of a stupid idea a smart motorway is and unsafe when the A1 (and other major dual carriageway trunk roads) has been around for longer than any smart motorway.

M1 M6 and A1 all have the same speed limit. All have unlit bits, the A1 even more so. The A1 has no hard shoulder just like a smart motorway. It’s got lay-bys of which during the day about 50% are full at any one time and at night 80-90% are full. The smart motorway has refuge areas which are for emergency only. So how is the A1 any different or any safer? Or are smart motorways just something for us to moan about as it’s the newer thing.

When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. Taking away the hard shoulders makes them less safe.

No one moaned about the “new fangled” hard shoulders, on new motorways.
People moan about the lack of hard shoulders because it is making a road less safe than it currently is.

Edit to add.
You’re only asking half a question in the thread title.
Do we think smart motorways are less safe… … than what?
Less safe than an A road? About the same, as you say.
Less safe than a m-way with hard shoulder, which they are replacing? Yes.

Franglais:
When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. Taking away the hard shoulders makes them less safe.

No one moaned about the “new fangled” hard shoulders, on new motorways.
People moan about the lack of hard shoulders because it is making a road less safe than it currently is.

Edit to add.
You’re only asking half a question in the thread title.
Do we think smart motorways are less safe… … than what?
Less safe than an A road? About the same, as you say.
Less safe than a m-way with hard shoulder, which they are replacing? Yes.

I’m saying a smart motorway is no more dangerous than the A1. Possible even safer. It’s more a discussion point than directly a question. As that’s my opinion that I’m giving. Yes less safe than with a hard shoulder but for the advantage of the extra capacity plus traffic management it’s no worse than other roads we have. So I don’t see the huge fuss that some people make over them as 4 lanes clearly gives more capacity than 3. And when heavily congested forcing everyone to slow to 40 smooths out the flow and keeps everyone moving. The only downside being there’s no hardshoulder but this is my point, the A1 doesn’t have one either and no one kicks up a fuss about that.

Rowley010:

Franglais:
When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. Taking away the hard shoulders makes them less safe.

No one moaned about the “new fangled” hard shoulders, on new motorways.
People moan about the lack of hard shoulders because it is making a road less safe than it currently is.

Edit to add.
You’re only asking half a question in the thread title.
Do we think smart motorways are less safe… … than what?
Less safe than an A road? About the same, as you say.
Less safe than a m-way with hard shoulder, which they are replacing? Yes.

I’m saying a smart motorway is no more dangerous than the A1. Possible even safer. It’s more a discussion point than directly a question. As that’s my opinion that I’m giving. Yes less safe than with a hard shoulder but for the advantage of the extra capacity plus traffic management it’s no worse than other roads we have. So I don’t see the huge fuss that some people make over them as 4 lanes clearly gives more capacity than 3. And when heavily congested forcing everyone to slow to 40 smooths out the flow and keeps everyone moving. The only downside being there’s no hardshoulder but this is my point, the A1 doesn’t have one either and no one kicks up a fuss about that.

Having more capacity is largely irrelevant if it has more actual traffic. Two full lanes are the same as four full lanes.
The point is: a road with a hard shoulder, is being converted into a road with no hard shoulder. You can argue about capacities, increased demand, all you wish, but one road type is being replaced by one inherrently less safe.

Rowley010:

Franglais:
When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. Taking away the hard shoulders makes them less safe.

The only downside being there’s no hardshoulder but this is my point, the A1 doesn’t have one either and no one kicks up a fuss about that.

think of the hard shoulder as a proven useful life saver though. Yes not every road has one but you feel a lot safer with one there than not so why do away with it. A bit like another proven life saver… a seat belt. Yes we never used to have them but if no longer a legal requirement would you feel safe driving without one now? I certainly wouldn’t.

The A1 (and other D C s) may not have hard shoulders but there are often grass verges where you can pull a car mostly off the running lane and there are frequent slip roads, farm entries etc.
Obviously these aren’t much use for HGVs, but then, you are less vulnerable in those than in a car if rear-ended.

Smart motorways seem to have Armco barriers which mean you stay in the running lane, though occupants can hop over the barrier to a safer position.

Buckstones:
The A1 (and other D C s) may not have hard shoulders but there are often grass verges where you can pull a car mostly off the running lane and there are frequent slip roads, farm entries etc.
Obviously these aren’t much use for HGVs, but then, you are less vulnerable in those than in a car if rear-ended.

Smart motorways seem to have Armco barriers which mean you stay in the running lane, though occupants can hop over the barrier to a safer position.

like this

^^^ agreed.

On dual carriageways established as such since they were first opened, one expects slow moving, agricultural, even horse drawn traffic one in a while, likelihood of pedestrians crossing the road plus junctions of varying quality along the route, and one is also aware of the possibility of stationary vehicles following breakdown.

Motorways were never like this, the usually 3 live lanes were designed for constant moving traffic moving at a sensible suitable speed, junctions usually designed with adequate slip roads to enable slowing and acceleration once off the lanes, in the event of breakdown the normal motorist dropped onto the hard shoulder and then slowed up, and once the breakdown was fixed could et up to normal speed before attempting to merge again.

Unsmart motorways ave taken away almost all of this, it wouldn’t have been so bad if they’d at least lit the bloody things, but in the dark in gloomy weather particularly, too few and too short refuges, even those difficult to see as you approach until you’re almost on them, a dangerous place indeed to break down especially in a small vehicle, doubly dangerous if you have full electrical failure so are unlit.
As Buckstones mentions, it would be so bad if they’d allowed a decent amount of grass verge where possible to give the switched on motorist a fair chance of getting their vehicle off the live lane as the vehicle rolled to a halt, but with miles of armco to the left the chances of this are much reduced.

Its OK for those of us in lorries to be so blase about the dangers, chances are if we were hit up the back by even the biggest artic we’d come off fairly unscathed (unlike the bod who ran you up the arse) but now put you and you wife and children in a car and what is a grave possibility of extreme danger for them in an unlit section on a wet filthy night, if she’s on her own how’s your wife supposed to extract herself and a couple of terrified just woken up nippers from their car seats into the freezing cold rain, get them safely over the armco (for elevated sections presumably you pack parachutes) and into some warm clothing, all while vehicles are pounding past merely a car’s length from the vehicle they are tailgating.

We as regular road users covering multi thousands of miles a month might be well switched on about such dangers and some of us will already have taken steps by various means to minimise the dangers to our loved ones when they travel without us, but what about the average motorist, who may not be as experienced as us, may not be fit enough to leap over that armco and they have not so able passengers with them, old or young makes no difference when another vehicles cleans them up.

This is not a think of the cheeldren scare story, this was a stupid half baked idea that as usual no one ever thought to ask experienced road users for input before deciding on the cheapest method of all of putting a plaster on the needs of the country’s infrastructure now it’s servicing millions more people than it was ever designed to, with numbers still rising ever day.

I for one am concentrating a hell of lot more on these roads, particularly in the dark, and making doubly sure i am fare enough back to have an adequate field of vision past the vehicle in front, so should the chap in front suddenly swerve to avoid that unlit car, if i am unable to change lanes also i can stop in time, but one wonders if the many clowns now in our industry are doing the same.

Rowley010:
Coming down the A1 tonight and it got me thinking. Why is this any different to a smart motorway? Why do we go on about how much of a stupid idea a smart motorway is and unsafe when the A1 (and other major dual carriageway trunk roads) has been around for longer than any smart motorway.

M1 M6 and A1 all have the same speed limit. All have unlit bits, the A1 even more so. The A1 has no hard shoulder just like a smart motorway. It’s got lay-bys of which during the day about 50% are full at any one time and at night 80-90% are full. The smart motorway has refuge areas which are for emergency only. So how is the A1 any different or any safer? Or are smart motorways just something for us to moan about as it’s the newer thing.

That is the way I see it when you get these guys on this type of thread saying’‘I never use lane 1 it’s too dangerous having no hard shoulder’’ :unamused: so do they just use lane 2 on a 4 lane dual carriageway going by that concept.
Sure you need to have your wits about you, adapt and use a bit more care, but that’s what goes with being a ‘pro driver’ ain’t it,…adapt and react…button can never legislate for the d/heads and car drivers with Class 1s amongst us. :unamused:

The problem with smart motorways is that we have (car) drivers who are not smart at all, and can’t even use a normal motorway properly.

Juddian:
^^^ agreed.

On dual carriageways established as such since they were first opened, one expects slow moving, agricultural, even horse drawn traffic one in a while, likelihood of pedestrians crossing the road plus junctions of varying quality along the route, and one is also aware of the possibility of stationary vehicles following breakdown.

Motorways were never like this, the usually 3 live lanes were designed for constant moving traffic moving at a sensible suitable speed, junctions usually designed with adequate slip roads to enable slowing and acceleration once off the lanes, in the event of breakdown the normal motorist dropped onto the hard shoulder and then slowed up, and once the breakdown was fixed could et up to normal speed before attempting to merge again.

Unsmart motorways ave taken away almost all of this, it wouldn’t have been so bad if they’d at least lit the bloody things, but in the dark in gloomy weather particularly, too few and too short refuges, even those difficult to see as you approach until you’re almost on them, a dangerous place indeed to break down especially in a small vehicle, doubly dangerous if you have full electrical failure so are unlit.
As Buckstones mentions, it would be so bad if they’d allowed a decent amount of grass verge where possible to give the switched on motorist a fair chance of getting their vehicle off the live lane as the vehicle rolled to a halt, but with miles of armco to the left the chances of this are much reduced.

Its OK for those of us in lorries to be so blase about the dangers, chances are if we were hit up the back by even the biggest artic we’d come off fairly unscathed (unlike the bod who ran you up the arse) but now put you and you wife and children in a car and what is a grave possibility of extreme danger for them in an unlit section on a wet filthy night, if she’s on her own how’s your wife supposed to extract herself and a couple of terrified just woken up nippers from their car seats into the freezing cold rain, get them safely over the armco (for elevated sections presumably you pack parachutes) and into some warm clothing, all while vehicles are pounding past merely a car’s length from the vehicle they are tailgating.

We as regular road users covering multi thousands of miles a month might be well switched on about such dangers and some of us will already have taken steps by various means to minimise the dangers to our loved ones when they travel without us, but what about the average motorist, who may not be as experienced as us, may not be fit enough to leap over that armco and they have not so able passengers with them, old or young makes no difference when another vehicles cleans them up.

This is not a think of the cheeldren scare story, this was a stupid half baked idea that as usual no one ever thought to ask experienced road users for input before deciding on the cheapest method of all of putting a plaster on the needs of the country’s infrastructure now it’s servicing millions more people than it was ever designed to, with numbers still rising ever day.

I for one am concentrating a hell of lot more on these roads, particularly in the dark, and making doubly sure i am fare enough back to have an adequate field of vision past the vehicle in front, so should the chap in front suddenly swerve to avoid that unlit car, if i am unable to change lanes also i can stop in time, but one wonders if the many clowns now in our industry are doing the same.

spot on - I have called it in several times when I have seen abandoned cars in the live lane, on an unlit section, that all are swerving around,

Of course, everyone agrees that the most dangerous place on a non-smart motorway is the hard shoulder; the refuges on smart motorways are a lot safer by comparison.

I would like to see some real statistics of the number of deaths and serious injuries on a stretch of motorway (like the M42) to compare the years before and the years after the conversion.

Rowley010:

Franglais:
When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. Taking away the hard shoulders makes them less safe.

No one moaned about the “new fangled” hard shoulders, on new motorways.
People moan about the lack of hard shoulders because it is making a road less safe than it currently is.

Edit to add.
You’re only asking half a question in the thread title.
Do we think smart motorways are less safe… … than what?
Less safe than an A road? About the same, as you say.
Less safe than a m-way with hard shoulder, which they are replacing? Yes.

I’m saying a smart motorway is no more dangerous than the A1. P

It might not be any worse than the A1, safer perhaps as you don’t have certain types of vehicles. However it’s not an upgrade of dual carriageways but smart motorways have replaced safer motorways with hardshoulders, which even our wonderful leaders have now admitted was a flawed policy and the more recent ones weren’t built to the same specifications as the trail section on the M42.

I think one of the dangers of motorways is that they have so few points of joining traffic that people will sometimes slip into a trance like state, often unable to recall driving the last few miles, so when they come across an obstruction like a stranded vehicle they are way too slow to respond.

We’re coming over for a month in March 2020 and are hiring a car. I haven’t seen or used a smart motorway and wonder what happens at slip roads. If continuing on the motorway at a slip road, do you need to get off the hard shoulder? What about joining traffic, do they come on to the hard shoulder? Are you ducking and diving on and off this hard shoulder/live lane? I do reckon that this is the worst idea that your fearless leaders have come up with since deciding to let half the worlds population live there, legally or illegally.

as above.
yes its a pish ludicrous dangerous idea.
as for using the hard shoulder then the gantry signs and info signs will tell you to use it or not.
these are the gantrys every mile or less with the variable speed limits on them which change at random for never any apparent reason with the speed cash cow cameras linked to change with them.
if the 3,4,or 5 lanes are all clear at 3-00 on the morning with no other traffic in sight and the gantry above the lane you are on changes to 30mph,then the speed camera on top of it will be active also…its as ludicrous as that.
masses will never use the hard shoulder as a running lane anyway because once the gantry tells you to rejoin lane 1,all the traffic on lane 1 will not want to let you back in as you are seen as a queue jumper.
if you assume that wherever you live and hire the car from,you will be banned with 4 speeding convictions merely by going down the chinkys for a chop suey supper then you wont be far wrong.
i bought a jag a while ago 15 miles from junction 15 on the m6 and went through 15 cameras getting there through the villages and along the A 34. :unamused:

Diesel dog clearly has a problem following simple instructions but they aren’t as bad as he’s just made out. Yes at 2am there can sometimes be a lower speed limit up for what we can all see as no good reason for it, but if you just do what it says then you aren’t going to get gone done speeding. Simple concept.

There’s 2 kinds of smart motorway. There’s the one where there’s 4 lanes but the hard shoulder is sometimes a hard shoulder and sometimes open as lane 1. They can be used as a 3 lane motorway or a 4 lane motorway. On these ones when approaching a junction it tends to say on the sign hard shoulder for junction x only. Then once you pass the junction it becomes lane 1 again, I agree that’s crap because it just means people are having to keep changing lanes which in itself causes congestion.

The other kind is like j16-19 of the m6 where it’s permanently 4 lanes with refuge areas and permanently no hard shoulder unless the overhead gantrys have any red x on them. This sort tend to be continuous 4 lanes and don’t make lane 1 for the junction only.

Franglais:
When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. .

No, it was because they were wide lanes, no roundabouts, long sweeping corners and everyone around you going in the same direction.

Franglais:
When motorways (with hard shoulders) were built, they were safer than the roads already in existence because they had…hard shoulders. Taking away the hard shoulders makes them less safe.

No one moaned about the “new fangled” hard shoulders, on new motorways.
People moan about the lack of hard shoulders because it is making a road less safe than it currently is.

Edit to add.
You’re only asking half a question in the thread title.
Do we think smart motorways are less safe… … than what?
Less safe than an A road? About the same, as you say.
Less safe than a m-way with hard shoulder, which they are replacing? Yes.

^ This.
Also don’t remember the usual blanket motorway rules like no stopping applying to A roads.Or A road type junction designs being allowed on motorways.Or motorways ever being subjected to a continuously variable speed limit etc etc.

Now the things are just an unfit for purpose liability of all downsides no upsides.Might as well use A/B roads wherever possible. :bulb:

Is much of the problem people rather than design though. People not using them properly. People not reducing their speed to what it says. People continuing on through red Xs. People not using all the space to filter properly. People not allowing each other in and out of lanes when they need to change if a lane has turned to a junction only lane. I think there’s not a lot wrong with them until you put humans and selfish attitudes and I can’t see a reason for that so I’m not doing it attitude.

I still maintain that I don’t actually see how a broken down vehicle in a live lane 1 is any less safe than a broken down vehicle in the live lane 1 maybe partially on the grass verge of the A1. Same speeds, less lanes for traffic to use for avoidance, at night less visibility, and no traffic management once highways realise.