That was my second 999 call in a week, the first was on the M25 in Essex, a large bumper on the carriageway in lane 2, I gave the operator a description of the problem, and even the nearby gantry reference number but still he could not cope. Where are these people found, what training are they given???
999 operators are to get you to relevant service. Even once you're through to Police or Ambulance control it can be difficult. About 12 years ago a colleague had a fit in the office kitchenette. I phoned an ambulance while another staff member went to find the first aider. Office was in Chancery Lane, main thoroughfare of 'Legal London', but had a hell of a game being quizzed as to precise location.
In meantime the 'patient' was back on his feet. He was diabetic and had cocked up his food/insulin. First Aider somehow understood and found necessary sugar, once she got it down him it was like a switch being flicked.
Something on highway is probably better reported directly to Highways Agency/Traffic England as it'll be the Traffic Wombles who are dispatched to remove debris and their control room that sorts out gantries.
|
|
I would suggest the problem is because of completely inexperienced telephone operators (and in their mitigation, they probably get into big trouble if they don't "follow the script")?
Common sense is in serious short supply, (look in the HoP for a good example).
|
|
The inquest is currently underway into the fatal crash on the M4 last October where a HGV drove into the back of a school minibus. Three staff died and two staff with life changing injuries. The bus had only just broken down and the hard shoulder had been blocked off by temporary barriers for maintenance work.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-49978787
Not covered in the link above was the dashcam footage from the HGV - the driver didn't stand a chance of stopping in time. I don't know whether the footage will make it to national news, but has been shown on lunchtime local news. Quite chilling.
|
|
The driver crashed into the minibus because he only saw it at the last second.That was because another truck in front of him pulled out of the way.
Surely that indicates that the driver was much too close to the vehicle in front? HGV drivers seem to drive way too close to one another routinely. They should surely leave at least a truck length whereas often there is less than a car length. Maybe that should start being policed?
|
|
I think the smart motorway sections with no hard shoulder are a double-edged sword.
If you get a problem with your vehicle and you're able to keep going to the next emergency refuge lay-by, then you're a lot safer than if you have to stop on the hard shoulder of a normal motorway. It's more difficult to get out into the traffic again, though, I guess.
But if you have a sudden acute problem like your engine cuts out forcing you to stop in lane 1 short of a refuge lay-by, then it's more dangerous than being on a hard shoulder.
If your vehicle has a catastrophic sudden failure and you come to a stop in lane 2, 3 or 4 - as does happen sometimes - then whether or not there's a hard shoulder is irrelevant!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 10/10/2019 at 18:14
|
|
Surely that indicates that the driver was much too close to the vehicle in front? HGV drivers seem to drive way too close to one another routinely. They should surely leave at least a truck length whereas often there is less than a car length. Maybe that should start being policed?
Smart motorway or not it does appear that the lorry that hit the mini bus was travelling way to close to the one that saw the broken down mini bus. We all see lorries slip streaming on the motorway often 3 or 4 travelling that you would have a job to slot a car in between them! All well and good until the unexpected happens. Same thing with some car drivers behind lorries, they are so close to the rear of the lorry that they cannot possibly see the road ahead! It is difficult on todays busy roads to keep a safe distance.. I drive an ordinary saloon but sometimes find it difficult following the large SUVs and seeing the road ahead.
There is talk about fully automated lorries travelling in large convoys in the future, I hope I am not on the road then!
|
|
|
|
|
Have you seen the footage? I don't think he was that close. The point is, the minibus occupants didn't stand a chance. Had the hard shoulder been available, they would have been relatively safe.
|
|
Another one today, M6 west mids section between jct 7 and 8 northbound, slight left hand bend about 1 mile from jct 8 and there's a vehicle stationary on the left live lane, luckily i was in lane 3 (of 4) and had just cleared the van i was overtaking in lane 2, so the two lorries on the left lane had somewhere to go as the van was able to swing out of their way behind me.
describing it like this sounds like we were all going 90 mph, nothing could be further from the truth, but as i've said here many times, when all of sudden that unwarned stationary vehicle is there even at 50 mph you are closing on it very quickly.
Darwin award goes to the foreign lorry driver on the M1 near Crick turn, parked in the refuge, but not very far over to the left and standing on the very edge of the live lane without any reflective clothing peering at the side of his trailer.
|
|
Sounds like non-smart Smart Motorways populated by lots of non-smart people, observed by not very smart staff at Highways England.
Not 'smart'. Isn't there some TV programme on this week about 'smart' motorways? I wonder if it'll be the usual guff and pendering or a proper forensic analysis of the system.
|
|
It must be possible to unambiguously analyse accident rates pre and post conversion to smart - if not now, certainly in a few years time when there is more data.
We can then judge whether
- they work well - no increase in accidents and cheap, or
- increased accident rates - still cheap but hardly desirable
Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life - therefore it may be cheaper than alternative ways to increase capacity, and cause more accidents.
|
|
Is there any evidence that motorways converted to four lanes with no hard-shoulder are more likely NOT to be in the SE area? The M25 AFAIK has a hard-shoulder in all four lane sections.
|
|
The M3 is partially Smart and they are working on the M27 at present.
|
Is there any evidence that motorways converted to four lanes with no hard-shoulder are more likely NOT to be in the SE area? The M25 AFAIK has a hard-shoulder in all four lane sections.
I don't think you could stand up a conspiracy.......
The SE is (geographically) quite limited but is usually taken to include Buckinghamshire. Most of the section of the M1 south of J15 currently being converted to 'smart' is in Bucks. There are also sections of the M1 in Bedfordshire that are all lane running.
As well as the M3 and M27 mentioned above sections of the M20 are also being converted. Not sure what's planned for the M4 or M11. I also suspect any further modification to the M25 will remove hard shoulder.
|
Is there any evidence that motorways converted to four lanes with no hard-shoulder are more likely NOT to be in the SE area? The M25 AFAIK has a hard-shoulder in all four lane sections.
I don't think you could stand up a conspiracy.......
The SE is (geographically) quite limited but is usually taken to include Buckinghamshire. Most of the section of the M1 south of J15 currently being converted to 'smart' is in Bucks. There are also sections of the M1 in Bedfordshire that are all lane running.
As well as the M3 and M27 mentioned above sections of the M20 are also being converted. Not sure what's planned for the M4 or M11. I also suspect any further modification to the M25 will remove hard shoulder.
The M4 is currently being converted, at least from London down to the M5. If I recall, I think it's due for completion in about 2-3 years - I've come across lots of roadworks in conjunction with the upgrade on my travels to the West Country (going on holiday) over the last 2 years, especially this year.
Bad move all-around in my view. I do not have any confidence that 100% (it only takes one driver to forget, not understand [foreign drivers] or not bother and you're potentially dead) of drivers would adhere to the matrix signs when someone has broken down in lane 1.
|
Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life -
That happens quite often - like the NHS deciding if a certain drug is value for money or not. Or if all roads should be limited to 30mph - that would bring death rates down a lot.
|
|
The widow Claire Mercer has set up a fundraising campaign to make legal objections to these so called 'Smart Motorways' here:
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/smart-motorway-jr/
and a Website here:
https://smartmotorwayskill.co.uk
I would like to know the name of government official who signed off this crazy idea ?
If they were personally held responsible for their decisions I don't think they would have been so keen.
|
If they were personally held responsible for their decisions I don't think they would have been so keen.
Sadly this is all to often the case in many situations, (especially when they are likely to personally benefit very handsomely from their actions)?
|
Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life -
That happens quite often - like the NHS deciding if a certain drug is value for money or not. Or if all roads should be limited to 30mph - that would bring death rates down a lot.
I'm surprised that our Nanny State 'Chief Medical Officer' (who just said eating food and drink [apart from water] on public transport should be banned for health reasons [bad enough, love to know how they would enforce that]) hasn't advocated a return to the man (or woman) walking in front of cars waving a red flag.
Maybe we should all work from home and never venture out. Maybe we should all go back to living in mud huts and caves - that would also 'save the planet'
I give up.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 12/10/2019 at 16:13
|
Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life -
That happens quite often - like the NHS deciding if a certain drug is value for money or not. Or if all roads should be limited to 30mph - that would bring death rates down a lot.
I'm surprised that our Nanny State 'Chief Medical Officer' (who just said eating food and drink [apart from water] on public transport should be banned for health reasons [bad enough, love to know how they would enforce that]) hasn't advocated a return to the man (or woman) walking in front of cars waving a red flag.
Maybe we should all work from home and never venture out. Maybe we should all go back to living in mud huts and caves - that would also 'save the planet'
I give up.
Yet you don't like the idea of smart motorways because some people won't use them properly...but also don't like a 'nanny state'. Surely a smart motorway would be fine for people unless you want to nanny' them?
|
|
I think the problem with the Mercer case was at least partially down to driver error. They’d had a minor bump- non immobilising bump. Rather than pull off at the next safest spot, they chose lane 1 to exchange details. Doesn’t avoid the blame for the vehicle that hit them, but it does at least call into question the wisdom of getting out and exchanging details in a live lane for a damage only bump where the vehicles were still driveable. I wouldn’t want to get into victim blaming at all, and that’s not where I’m going, but we all as drivers, if we know we’re on a smart motorway, need to know what to do and how best to try not to get wiped out.
|
I think the problem with the Mercer case was at least partially down to driver error.
That. Exactly.
What's needed is firstly some additions to the Highway Code to cover the specifics of All Lane Running and then a public information campaign.
I doubt the Mercer JR has any hope of success. She's so far only crowd sourced a tenth of what she needs. It's pretty high hurdle to show either ALR in general or authorisation of a specific scheme was unlawful, unreasonable or in some way proceduraly improper. And if it was found to be such the government may simply re-make the decision this time getting it right.
She may be able to show negligence in the operations room if opportunities to shut the lane were missed.But it's 'ordinary' negligence; the threshold for manslaughter is nowhere near being crossed.
|
|
In this week's motoring agony column HJ (we assume) answers a query about countdown markers on motorways under 'smart' construction, where he states that smart motorways are actually safer for stranded vehicles than a hard shoulder, due to cameras triggering warning signs.
is it me? have i been imagining the sudden evasive actions required all of these unwarned of stranded vehicles i've personally seen, were the victims of the resulting mayhem a result of fevered imaginations too, i'll take a hard shoulder if there's a choice of where to be every time ta very much.
Mike's link below is a heatbreaker.
Edited by gordonbennet on 13/10/2019 at 14:41
|
|
Another sad story here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7567723/Coroner-warns-smart-motorways-putting-lives-risk-boy-eight-died.html?
It seems that the operator re-opened the lane prematurely. I suppose that they have to decide whether a vehicle is moving or is stopped and how long does that take?
Edited by MikeM100 on 13/10/2019 at 14:26
|
|
I'd be very interested, indeed, to hear what the Breakdown Service Drivers think about Smart Motorways.
I think I can probably guess!
|
I'd be very interested, indeed, to hear what the Breakdown Service Drivers think about Smart Motorways.
I think I can probably guess!
Most used to park their vehicle behind the brokwn down car - I wonder if they'll continue to do so now many more accidents are of this type?
|
I'd be very interested, indeed, to hear what the Breakdown Service Drivers think about Smart Motorways.
I think I can probably guess!
Probably could not be printed on an online forum suitable for polite company.
Report in today's press about an 8 year old killed on a smart motorway, coroner has demanded answers from highways on how to improve detection of stranded motorists.
|
Incidentally the government in assessing the effectiveness of this sort of investment actually puts a value on life -
That happens quite often - like the NHS deciding if a certain drug is value for money or not. Or if all roads should be limited to 30mph - that would bring death rates down a lot.
I'm surprised that our Nanny State 'Chief Medical Officer' (who just said eating food and drink [apart from water] on public transport should be banned for health reasons [bad enough, love to know how they would enforce that]) hasn't advocated a return to the man (or woman) walking in front of cars waving a red flag.
Maybe we should all work from home and never venture out. Maybe we should all go back to living in mud huts and caves - that would also 'save the planet'
I give up.
Yet you don't like the idea of smart motorways because some people won't use them properly...but also don't like a 'nanny state'. Surely a smart motorway would be fine for people unless you want to nanny' them?
I'm saying they aren't smart because they don't have the tech to be so - even admitted by the Highways people themselves, with the tech not able to pick up stationary vehicles for at least a minute (assuming its in range) and they have to rely on staff to visually scan CCTV to check, which takes time and people make mistakes for many reasons.
At least when the hard shoulder was there, everyone knew not to drive in it and what it was for. Now many people have no idea what to do (not just bad signage), especially foreign and elderly drivers who may not use these roads much and aren't familiar about what to do.
I don't like 'smart' motorways because they patently aren't smart and rely on 100% of drivers keeping an eye out at all times and knowing what to do. Having a hard shoulder is an easy thing to understand.
As some have said, I bet they've crunched the numbers, seen how many extra accidents are cuased by them vs the fewer number due to less congestion and basically said they do better. The problem for me is that accidents due to 'congestion' are mostly caused by people driving too close, which is far easier to overcome than the complex situation of negotiating what the matrix signs say as regards the old hard shoulder lane and what to do when a sign on them changes.
Another article today in the Telegraph gives more credence to such assertions:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/12/smart-motorway.../
[update] Apologies as the above article is essentially the same story as Mike referred to in another paper.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 13/10/2019 at 17:41
|
|
"....with the tech not able to pick up stationary vehicles for at least a minute (assuming its in range)...."
Yes, that's the point isn't it: if the Mail report is to be believed, the car was stationary for only 45 seconds before the lorry hit it. A operator can't be looking everywhere at ince, so there has to be reliance on some God-forsaken computer.
Agreed, the hard shoulder isn't the safest place to be, but it's better than the inside lane. Better still is the dedicated refuge area, but these need to be every 500 yards / metres, not 1.5 miles apart as the men in suits have decreed that they should be.
|
"....with the tech not able to pick up stationary vehicles for at least a minute (assuming its in range)...."
Yes, that's the point isn't it: if the Mail report is to be believed, the car was stationary for only 45 seconds before the lorry hit it. A operator can't be looking everywhere at ince, so there has to be reliance on some God-forsaken computer.
Which don't appear to be up to the job, yet they went ahead using them anyway, rather like self-driving cars in parts of the US. I think that the tech is still years away, and that those flogging it pretend its way more advanced than it really is, rather like AI (which seems to be perpetually 'on the verge' of a breakthrough [rather like nuclear fusion]).
Agreed, the hard shoulder isn't the safest place to be, but it's better than the inside lane. Better still is the dedicated refuge area, but these need to be every 500 yards / metres, not 1.5 miles apart as the men in suits have decreed that they should be.
Even 500yds may not be enough for a vehicle that suddenly dies, especially if its being driven in the outside lane and/or in busy (but moving) traffic.
The decision appears to me at least to be a) about money, and b) that will ironically saves the lives of bad drivers (more road capacity so better chance in them surviving an accident they cause) but sacrifices more innocents who were unfortunate to suffer a breakdown or tyre failure and have nowhere safe to go and have to rely on 100% of other drivers knowing what to do in a complex, changing situation and are paying attention..
Peachy.
Of course, increased road usage has many causes that has resulted in all this happening, yet they are mostly swept under the rug because they often involve 'politically sensitive (or inconvenient) issues' that are used as stick to beat people on each side of the debate.
|
|
There is a fairly easy opportunity to make them much safer, and less reliant on the operators/tech detecting stranded cars.
They just need to go back to smart motorways version 1, as used on the M42. This only uses the hard shoulder at peak times. When there is enough traffic to need the fourth lane, any broken down vehicle will cause a traffic jam behind it as it rolls to a stop, so nothing will approach it at any speed so relatively safe.
When traffic is light, a blockage of one lane doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic enough to slow it down. You are then reliant on every single driver paying enough attention to avoid the broken car. The M42 solves that by that lane being closed hy default in light traffic.
These are the times when I've come across stranded vehicles with no warning on several occasions on the Yorkshire stretch of the M1, and the fourth lane wasn't needed at that time of day in the first place. As an aside, that particular stretch of motorway has always been a bit substandard in my opinion, with steeper gradients and tighter curves than pretty much anywhere else on the core motorway network.
Going back to the M42 style should be relatively simple to do, and although it doesn't produce quite as much theoretical capacity, due to the hard shoulder lane running down the exit at each junction and only 3 lanes through the junction, it works fine on the M42.
|
|
Air Traffic controllers have computer systems driven by radar with speed and height.. As That is 3D and teh motorway is only 2D and therfiore simpler, a radar system tracking cars and speed monitoring is not beyond the wit of man..
Of course the invetstment required to make it work over hundreds of miles may make conventional motorway expansion appear a much cheaper laternative
|
They just need to go back to smart motorways version 1, as used on the M42. This only uses the hard shoulder at peak times. When there is enough traffic to need the fourth lane, any broken down vehicle will cause a traffic jam behind it as it rolls to a stop, so nothing will approach it at any speed so relatively safe
I agree, there is no reason for all night 4 lane running, i'd also suggest no hard shoulder running during the hours of darkness or fog or falling snow.
Where part time hard shoulder running fails is that drivers in larger numbers than should be the case have no idea whether the lane is usable or not, the number of cars and vans mainly who drive the M6 sections of closed hard shoulder are only outnumbered by the people who refuse completely to use the live lane but insist on driving at least 10mph below the posted limit, not sure which group cause more hassle for everyone else.
This thread is showing the vast majority of us are against the present smart motorway roll out in its current form, with solid armco to the left and a shortage of refuges meaning you have to extremely lucky to get your vehicle off the live road if its breaks down.
I notice the M6 west mids section has the left live lanes open less often than was the case even a year ago, there has to be a reason for this and no i am not imagining it.
Edited by gordonbennet on 14/10/2019 at 13:54
|
The decision appears to me at least to be a) about money, ...............
You'll be telling me the Pope is a catholic next. ;)
|
|
Millions were spent making the M3 downright dangerous in the places the hard shoulder has been removed. I dread my car having major break down and having no way to reach a refuge. It would be abandoned in the inside lane and require me getting out in the traffic and hopefully legging it up the bank etc. Madness.
|
Millions were spent making the M3 downright dangerous in the places the hard shoulder has been removed. I dread my car having major break down and having no way to reach a refuge.
You should still be 'legging it up the bank' even if there is a hard shoulder.
What are the real numbers, over a period of time, for fatalities, life changing injuries and +minor/no injury collisions involving breakdowns on (a) All Lane Running with refuges v (b) conventional motorway with a 'hard shoulder'?
We really need to know that rather than making a judgment that they are downright dangerous - however much it seems 'common sense'. As already mentioned the hard shoulder is not a safe place and significant numbers have been killed on them every year since they first appeared in the sixties.
If your car is suddenly rendered utterly imobile in lane 3 then smart running is neither here nor there. You're stopped in a running lane. If your lucky and have enough residual energy and other's make way you might I suppose make the hard shoulder but no certainty and that in itself may be a downright dangerous manoeuvre. No definite numbers but I'd wager that the number of 'dead stop' breakdowns is only a small proportion. The vast majority could make a refuge even if driving with a priority warning light (the sort that light the STOP annunciator on Eg PSA cars) or a flat tyre.
Jason Mercer and Dev Naran died in circumstances where there was no apparent need to stop in a live lane. Even if we bult no more smart m/way and abandoned those planned we've still got hundreds of miles od permanent or part time all lane running. Government needs to crack on with an amend to the Highway Code, a public information blitz on what to do on Smart M/way in case of breakdown/minor accident and to add refuges if gaps are, in some schemes, too long (and I think they are).
Well publicised convictions for those stopping where cause is running out of fuel would be another plus.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 16/10/2019 at 13:27
|
What are the real numbers, over a period of time, for fatalities, life changing injuries and +minor/no injury collisions involving breakdowns on (a) All Lane Running with refuges v (b) conventional motorway with a 'hard shoulder'?
Agreed - this is the info we need first before anything else is done. Would be interesting to know how many cars do come to a complete stop as well without being able to drive further even at reduced speed as I don't think most cars even when failing do come to a total halt all of a sudden.
|
What are the real numbers, over a period of time, for fatalities, life changing injuries and +minor/no injury collisions involving breakdowns on (a) All Lane Running with refuges v (b) conventional motorway with a 'hard shoulder'?
Agreed - this is the info we need first before anything else is done. Would be interesting to know how many cars do come to a complete stop as well without being able to drive further even at reduced speed as I don't think most cars even when failing do come to a total halt all of a sudden.
In response to Bromp's comment, for cars coming to a rapid halt from the outside lane, it's far easier trying to quickly move over three lane to a continuous hard should than to either just stop in the original lane or hop that the vehicle makes it to the next refuge (assuming it's not already being used).
I agree that far better driver awareness of their own vehicle's condition should be taught and a lack thereof taken seriously by the authorities. This includes ensuring that all UK drivers are capable of knowing all the rules of the road - I wonder how many from abroad have either taken a test or our DoT has bothered to check the standard of those nation's driving exams?
'Smart' motorways are still relatively new, so we all could do with a brush up on the Highway Code, never mind people who've been driving abroad for years and may need lessons in UK laws/road rules etc.
|
In response to Bromp's comment, for cars coming to a rapid halt from the outside lane, it's far easier trying to quickly move over three lane to a continuous hard should than to either just stop in the original lane or hop that the vehicle makes it to the next refuge (assuming it's not already being used).
If you're in outside lane and lose power you MAY be able to make the hard shoulder. Depends on circs. Say the timing belt lets go and engine more or less seizes - if you can dip the clutch fast enough to retain some energy you might make it to hard shoulder. OTOH you might find insufficient energy and/or a solid line of vehicles to your left.
If it's fuel starvation or and electrical fault or engine is giving residual power you might do better. My petrol BX, 1989 to 93, was prone to vapour lock in fuel filter on hot weather; hesitation followed by power loss. Hesitation gave a warning but it was dicey on a busy m/way if it 'hiccupped' in lane 3.
And that was in traffic volumes of all but 30 years ago.
|
|
Indeed, but the 'smart' part of the motorways can still help those stuck in the other three lanes. The ironic thing is that the more traffic and slower speeds, the less chance in a nasty RTA, but more chance of holdups because of the situation you describe.
I truly hope all the evidence does get published, not the usual whitewash/cover-up to avoid/move blame as often happens. We all just want whichever is the safest without it busting the bank. I agree that drivers also need to play their part, who contribute to most of the problems by their poor/inattentive driving.
|
|
No measures can cover every eventuality but having a hard shoulder gives you a better chance of getting off the carriageway. I've had one episode of needing the hard shoulder in the last few years, pulled in, waited for a gap, out of the car and over the barrier. The car is out of the traffic and I'm well away in a field. The same episode without the hard shoulder leaves my car in a live lane, this could only be dangerous.
|
|
Makes you wonder, if your car started to peg out and you were in the outside lane, would you in fact be safer personally stopping in that lane as far over as possible, where the typical traffic will be cars and vans, where the chances are the following traffic will have better visibility past the vehicle in front, generally narrower more agile vehicles who could move over easier, than stopping on the inside lane where most traffic is likely to be lorries...again i re-iterate, the lead lorry should see you without any issues if he's awake and attentive, its the ones following him, often tailgating (which already describes the skill of the individual), who may see the broken down vehicle too late.
Not saying anyone should do this out of choice, just wondering if your chances of escaping unscathed are theoretically better in the outside lane, if your car should get hit it would be by a light'ish vehicle with better stopping power than the admittedly probably slower travelling but 20 times as heavy (and no crumple zones) HGV.
Just thinking aloud here, but wouldn't be surprised if people have deliberately chosen this action as the lesser of two evils, knowing they would have a valid excuse as unable to cross the traffic with a rapidly slowing vehicle.
The obvious downside is that you have nowhere to run to.
|
|
Trouble is you get two + tonne Transit sized vans doing 70mph + in outside lanes- and often using phones if my observations are valid..(or a Bentley/large Mercedes doing 80+)
|
|
They can produce as many statistics as they like about the reduced number of accidents, but they ignore the likelihood of a fatal accident happening as a result of someone hitting a stationary vehicle on a 'smart' motorway.
|
Trouble is you get two + tonne Transit sized vans doing 70mph + in outside lanes- and often using phones if my observations are valid..(or a Bentley/large Mercedes doing 80+)
Or coaches in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
|
