Letter to Highways re Smart Motorways

[Cyker]

Hi all,

I'm writing an e-mail to Highways because I'm getting really annoyed at how they're operating the Smart Motorway system, but as most of you are smarter than me I wanted to run it by you all first for recommendations/suggestions for improvement:

Quote

 

Dear Highways,

I feel compelled to write to you, as the current way the Smart Motorway system is being operated is greatly increasing the danger to drivers.

What prompted me to send this was a particular egregious example recently: I was heading up the M1 and the Smart Motorway gantry limits were active, but they were constantly changing - At one point, in 4 gantries in sequence, the limits were 40mph, 60mph, NSL, 40mph - I think you'll agree this is ridiculous, confusing and not conducive to safe motoring.

I would propose you change your operational procedures to be more along the following:

* Speed limits below 60mph must NOT be used for traffic management or traffic calming, but only in the event of a genuine accident
    -> The reason for this is, when you set the speed limit to 50mph or less, you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the outer lanes speeding up

* Instead, perhaps make use of Speed Advisories more rather than Hard Limits all the time - This is a useful tool that, currently, Smart Motorways are not using at all
    -> For instance, where there is congestion but traffic is still flowing, showing 50 or 60mph recommendations (i.e. without the red ring) would give drivers a headsup there is congestion but still empower them to make sensible speed decisions based on prevailing traffic. We have been been trained to drive to get our licences - Allow us to apply that training.

* Speed limits between gantries must NOT exceed 10mph difference - e.g. gantries can NOT show 60 then 40, but would need to change from 60 to 50 then to 40.
    -> The biggest danger is not extreme speed, but extreme changes in speed; A 20mph speed differential is a big one and greatly increases the chances of a collision - The more gradual you can make the speed change, the safer it is for everyone. Especially in my earlier example, where gantries had some very large changes back and forth for no apparent reason which causes traffic to bunch up dangerously as drivers get confused what speed they should be doing when they can see the gantry ahead has a totally different limit to the one right in front of them, and some cars slow down while others decide to accelerate.

* The removal or increase of speed limits must occur UPSTREAM FIRST, e.g. when returning to National Speed limit, you MUST show the sign at the upstream end FIRST, and cascade down
    -> This is to avoid the, currently, frequent situation where everyone at the front is still operating under e.g. a 40mph speed limit, while everyone behind them sees NSL signs and you end up with the NSL people behind accelerating into the 40mph people in front - A situation which obviously increases the risk of an accident significantly!  

I would appreciate if you could take these recommendations on-board for the improved safety of all motorists.

Thank you for your time

 

What do you think?
 

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Speed advisories wouldn't work. Advisories would mean that drivers have the discretion to either abide by them or ignore them, and this in itself could lead to more accidents, etc. We all see daily examples of drivers behaving in idiotic and illegal ways, despite the vast majority having gone through driver training and are supposedly responsible drivers.

As regards HGVs, as far as I'm aware, legally they shouldn't be using the outer lane of a three or four lane motorway.

What happens if there is debris or a person/people on the motorway? Not an accident as such, so in these cases no warning or reduction in speed would be notified via the gantry system.

At the end of the day the purpose of smart motorway and dumb motorway cameras IS traffic management.

[Roy124]

47 minutes ago, Cyker said:

you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the outer lanes speeding up

This or 

you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the inner lanes speeding up

or 

you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the other lanes speeding up

[Roy124]

22 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

We all see daily examples of drivers behaving in idiotic and illegal ways

As today.  I was doing 63 in a dual carriageway strategic highway.  BMW (what else) over takes me, undertakes the car in lane 2 and then, to avoid the truck ahead of me in lane 1 pulls in front of the car just undertaken.

Brake lights ON as he slows behind another car overtaking the truck.  He was still jam in than sandwich a mile on as no other undertaking opportunity presented. 

[Cyker]

20 minutes ago, Roy124 said:

This or 

you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the inner lanes speeding up

or 

you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the other lanes speeding up

Ahh, thank you! Well spotted!!

 

41 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Speed advisories wouldn't work. Advisories would mean that drivers have the discretion to either abide by them or ignore them, and this in itself could lead to more accidents, etc. We all see daily examples of drivers behaving in idiotic and illegal ways, despite the vast majority having gone through driver training and are supposedly responsible drivers.

As regards HGVs, as far as I'm aware, legally they shouldn't be using the outer lane of a three or four lane motorway.

What happens if there is debris or a person/people on the motorway? Not an accident as such, so in these cases no warning or reduction in speed would be notified via the gantry system.

At the end of the day the purpose of smart motorway and dumb motorway cameras IS traffic management.

I think that's a bit cynical - The whole point of the advisories is to allow the driver to use their experience and training to make their own decision in situations where you want to manage traffic flow but it's not a dangerous or emergency situation; The hard limits are just as, if not more, dangerous as they are currently implemented, as you get drivers who immediately abide by them, and ones that don't, causing sudden and large speed differentials, which are the biggest cause of accidents.

I'm not sure what you mean by "What happens if there is debris or a person/people on the motorway? Not an accident as such, so in these cases no warning or reduction in speed would be notified via the gantry system."

Severity, not withstanding, that would clearly constitute an emergency and would still warrant speed reduction and/or lane closure, as is currently the case, although this is implemented very inconsistently - Another area the Smart Motorway really needs to improve:

I've had cases where there has been a broken down car in an outer lane and we've only been given 60mph hard limits - A badly insufficient response, where lane closure and lower limits should have been triggered.

Conversely, I've seen 2 lane closures and a 40mph limit implemented for a bit of soil that has fallen from a tipper/skip truck - A disproportionately overboard response.

It's very very clear the people operating the Smart Motorway gantries do not have enough information to operate them properly, and seem reliant on reports from the public - I was hoping these new radar systems designed to detect unusually slow/stopped vehicles would improve things, but either they haven't deployed them very far, or they're not working.

I have to say, despite them being active for so long, the effect of the Smart Motorways has been consistently inferior to normal Hard-shoulder-equipped motorways.

They consistently have more congestion and closures, but at the same time never provide any useful warnings or information to drivers - From my experiences, the response to congestion is often indistinguishable to the response for a catastrophic accident.

I've encountered some very stark examples, e.g. once where an entire section M1 was closed for what I later found out was a very minor incident in a Smart section, while later in the week there was a 5 vehicle incident involving 2 coaches but they had all managed to get on the hard shoulder and while traffic naturally slowed to around 50mph around them it did not stop - That a non-Smart section can handle an incident better and maintain better flow than a Smart section on the same stretch of motorway is extremely damning. This is why I think drivers need to be trusted more to handle situations, and trying to micromanage them is actually making the effect of incidents worse in a lot of cases.

They need to be better, esp. for the amount of money that's been poured into them.

[FROSTYBALLS]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

Speed limits below 60mph must NOT be used for traffic management or traffic calming, but only in the event of a genuine accident

Extract from your letter 

3 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "What happens if there is debris or a person/people on the motorway? Not an accident as such, so in these cases no warning or reduction in speed would be notified via the gantry system."

Severity, no withstanding, that would clearly constitute an emergency and would still warrant speed reduction and or lane closure, as is currently the case

Contradicts the extract from your letter.

[Cyker]

Ah, semantics - Thank you, I will amend that. Would "genuine accidents or dangerous incidents" be a better fit? I'm am just trying to convey that they should be used in situations where there is genuine danger or risk and not just used routinely, does this make sense? Help with better phrasing would be appreciated!!

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

'Potential hazard' would probably be better as that covers a multitude of possibilities - whether it is an accident, debris, pedestrians on the motorway, escaped livestock, etc. In practice that is what we have now.

As regards being cynical about speed advisories, just being realistic. Given the varying degrees of training drivers in the UK have had - which ranges from passing a driving test pre-driving theory, to passing a driving test in another country which may have different standards, etc - I wouldn't trust some drivers to behave responsibly when faced with a speed advisory. 

[Cyker]

Thanks, that's useful.

re. the speed advisory, you're right but that's partly the reason I want to recommend it for non-emergency situations, where they just want to slow traffic a bit for e.g. flow reasons - it blunts the difference between the law abiding, who will try to obey a hard limit, and the few who just don't care regardless.

There's a bit of the M25 I traverse regularly where they like to set a hard 40mph limit at evening rushhour, whether there is heavy congestion or if it's relatively clear, and the outer-lanes become very dangerous as law-abiding cars try to slow from 70+mph to 40mph while the smeg pots try to dodge around them; With an advisory it would allow law abiding people to slow down more gradually rather than feeling they have to slow much more rapidly for the gantry, which can only be safer.

There are non-smart sections of the M1 where they use speed advisories, and they work really well - Sometimes they are set to 40mph, but as we can all see it's clear, we don't immediately slow to 40mph and can do it in a more gradual and safer way on our own judgement without breaking the law.

That said, if they implement the graduated speed reduction suggestion, that would also help a great deal.

I really want the current situation, where the speed limit can go from NSL to 40mph just for the sake of traffic calming, but not anything 'Potentially hazardous', to be revised as it creates needless danger.

 

[2toyos]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

Hi all,

I'm writing an e-mail to Highways because I'm getting really annoyed at how they're operating the Smart Motorway system, but as most of you are smarter than me I wanted to run it by you all first for recommendations/suggestions for improvement:

What do you think?
 

 

Won't make a blind difference, it's a profitable business, I got prosecuted for going through a 20mph sign that was between 2 national speed limit signs, it's a system that will be able to charge us per mile, they won't get rid or change, they do not care

[Cyker]

That is why we need to do something and not just sit here and take it - Write to the powers that be, your MP, someone! We need to make them work for us and make them aware of things!

If enough people raise their concerns and issues with, in this case info@nationalhighways.co.uk, at worst nothing will happen, but maybe, just maybe they'll listen and make it better...

 

[AJones]

The issue I find most annoying and concerning regarding safety, is the failure to consistently display the NSL symbol at the end of a section of speed limits or lane closures, leaving the motorist to guess whether the reduced speed limit and/or lane closures have ended, or whether the operators in the control centre have made an error or there's a problem with the gantry. 

I've had quite a few experiences where there's either a variable limit in place, or a lane closure and you come to the next blank gantry which should mean that these have ended, only to find at the next gantry after that, that the variable limit or lane closure is still in force.

For simplicity, it would be better to have the NSL symbol showing on all gantries by default.

[Cyker]

That's a good point, I will add that!

Draft 2! Thoughts?

Quote

 

Dear Highways,

I feel compelled to write to you, as I feel the current way the Smart Motorway system is being operated is greatly increasing the danger to drivers.

A particular egregious example I experienced recently was when I was heading up the M1 some weeks ago, and the Smart Motorway gantry limits were active, but they were constantly changing between gantries - At one point, 4 gantries in sequence had limits of 40mph, 60mph, NSL, 40mph - I think you'll agree this is ridiculous, confusing and not conducive to safe motoring.

I would propose you change your operational procedures to be more along the following:

* Speed limits below 60mph must NOT be used for traffic management or traffic calming, but only in the event of a genuine accident or potential hazard (e.g. debris, escaped animals, people on the road etc., but NOT just for routine traffic management or slow traffic/congestion, UNLESS it's caused by an incident/hazard)
    -> The reason for this is, when you set the speed limit to 50mph or less when traffic is free-flowing, you trigger a large number of HGV drivers to move into the outer lanes to overtake people, and they are often trapped out there when the speed limit zone ends due to people on the inner lanes speeding up to the new limit; This needlessly creates a period of increased danger until it all shakes out - By keeping the limit higher, it encourages everyone to stay in their lane.

* Instead, perhaps make use of Speed Advisories more, rather than Hard Limits all the time, for routine traffic management - This is a useful tool that, currently, Smart Motorways are not using at all
    -> For instance, where there is congestion but traffic is still flowing well, showing 50 or 60mph recommendations (i.e. without the red ring) would give drivers a headsup there is congestion but still empower them to make sensible speed decisions based on prevailing traffic. We have been been trained to drive to get our licences - Allow us to apply that training.

* Speed limits between gantries must NOT exceed 10mph difference - e.g. gantries can NOT show 60 then 40, but would need to change from 60 to 50 then to 40.
    -> The biggest danger is not extreme speed, but extreme changes in speed; A 20mph speed differential is a big one and greatly increases the chances of a collision - The more gradual you can make the speed change, the safer it is for everyone. Especially in my earlier example, where gantries had some very large changes back and forth for no apparent reason which causes traffic to bunch up dangerously as drivers get confused what speed they should be doing when they can see the gantry ahead has a totally different limit to the one right in front of them, and some cars slow down while others decide to accelerate. I've heard more extreme anecdotes of people being shown NSL then 20mph then NSL on an incident-free stretch and this should *never* be allowed to happen!

* The removal or increase of speed limits must occur UPSTREAM FIRST, e.g. when returning to National Speed limit, you MUST show the sign at the upstream end FIRST, and cascade down
    -> This is to avoid the, currently, frequent situation where everyone at the front is still operating under e.g. a 40mph speed limit, while everyone behind them sees NSL signs and you end up with the NSL people behind accelerating into the 40mph people in front - A situation which obviously increases the risk of an accident significantly!

* Where a speed limit zone ends, NSL signs should be shown for 2 or 3 gantries after the end and cascaded back, as described above, to the beginning of the zone before being turned off so that all drivers get a clear indication the limit has ended - Currently, it is very common for gantries to just show nothing, making drivers unsure whether the zone has ended or not, and again causes a skew where some drivers maintain the last limit seen while others speed off at NSL again.

I would appreciate if you could take these recommendations on-board for the improved safety of all motorists.

Thank you for your time

 

 

[glencrannog]

The ones that irritate me the most is you see a sign for 40mph and not 100 yards ahead another showing 30mph. I cannot see how they need to have the 40 mph sign at all as you've beeb doing that speed previously. My favourite is at a place on the A696 at Powburn in Northumberland when travelling South. As you enter the village a sign just before the left hand bend says 40mph. A couple of yards further as you enter the slight bend, a 30mph sign is painted on the road. All within 10 yards or so. Why oh why could they not have just put a 30mph sign up in the first place? Maybe an easy touch for a speed trap methinks.

[Roy124]

Brian, that is probably County Highways. 

My favourite was a 40 zone. NSL and a few yards on Bend Slow.   I said why not move the NSL.  No dice.

Same county. Long straight,  NSL passed a school.  A 30 limit imposed 24/7 as its a primary school and that's the policy and they might have after hours clubs.  I pointed out the secondary road passed the school gates was NSL. They had to move the NSL sign 😄

[Cyker]

Right, I have added this:

"Additionally, and I don't know if this is technically possible, but it would be nice if the signs flashed maybe 3 times when they change as this will alert drivers to the change; I've missed changes on occasion as I'm concentrating on the road ahead, and e.g. a 60 has become a 50 imperceptibly. You may need to consult how good an idea this is however, as it may be deemed too distracting or an epilepsy risk, and the lessor of two evils be for drivers to miss the sign change."

and sent it!

 

Thanks for your input all! Your help and support is appreciated  

 

[Roy124]

Cyker, walking the dog this morning I recalled a talk by Brigadier Thompson defence correspondent of the Daily Telegraph who said he would use the Tellem system.  It occurred to me that you might get more impact if you shortened your message.  

You should Tellem what you are writing about.  Tellem.  Then Tellem what you told them and what you want.

If you can shorten it to just one salient point - VAS management - and how you suggest it should work.  If you want to expand on the point(s) then attach an annex with more detail.  Send it to Nick Harrison, the CEO.  nick.harris@highwaysengland.co.uk

He may glance at the basic letter before passing it on to a minion.  The minion may read the annex too.

[Roy124]

Having found his address I will be sending him a message too.  On the newly resurfaced A1 red bands have been placed across both lanes before high speed exit slips and before the following entry.  

There is no logic why vehicles should slow down before the exit slip (and zero chance of a truck so doing) and the slow before traffic joins is also pointless as there is no sign to suggest a hazard.

AFAIK there is no such slow sign for traffic exiting before reaching the 50 or slower speed limits or for traffic joining.

[Haliotis]

The simple answer is, get rid of the smart motorways and put back the continuous hard shoulder.  The smart motorways were intended to speed up traffic movement, but this has clearly been at the cost of reducing road safety.     Campaigner Claire Mercer’s husband and another driver were killed on a smart motorway after they had stopped to exchange details due to a minor collision.

The experienced driver will tell you that these motorways are a menace for several reasons.  Some of the problems can be blamed on poor driver behaviour, but not all of them. Nobody can say when or where a vehicle will break down or suffer a punctured tyre.  Without a continuous hard shoulder, the facility to pull over into one of the periodic short refuges becomes matter of shear luck.  And the system itself renders these refuges to be unsafe.  True, a vehicle can enter the hard shoulder and plough into a stationary vehicle, but the hazards are much less likely than  with smart motorways.  Instances on the two types of motorway have proven by comparison that the smart motorway is by far the most dangerous.

Prevarication by government and passing Transport Ministers has shown a stubborn reluctance to accept and face the true facts.  Legislation has been rushed through on  matters of far less consequence - truth is, government just doesn’t like the ordinary motoring public to be proven right!

GET RID OF THESE ABOMINABLE SMART MOTORWAYS ASAP!!!

[Cyker]

Yeah, the 'Smart' bit is no replacement for having a Hard shoulder - The fact the guy pushing this keeps spouting the rhetoric that all-lanes running Smart motorways are safer than normal motorways makes me want to stick him in a broken down Mk1 Vauxhall Corsa on one and see if that changes his mind!

I'm not averse to Smart Motorways per-se - They need to sort out the operational aspects, as at the moment they're usually more of a hinderance than a help to drivers, but if it was all working properly it would be an improvement.

What's not an improvement is lumping All-Lanes Running along with it - Everyone who signed off on that should be fired. Into the sun preferably.

Smart Motorways WITHOUT all-lanes running, and with the operators being better trained and given more common sense (And also being banned from setting 40mph speed limits when they want a laugh, I swear they do this!!) has the potential to be an actual improvement.

The section of the M1 through London that isn't Smart, but has a hard shoulder and active signage, is one of the safest bits despite regular sudden congestion - I've very rarely been stuck there.

However, as soon as you get past that bit and out past the M25, the traffic is always much worse and I often have to divert onto the A5, M40, M1 or A414 because the traffic is so bad or an entire section has been closed and I can't be ubik'd to crawl through that, even with the hybrid!!

 

I don't know why they were so obsessed with adding a 4th lane that they'd be willing to sacrifice safety so much - I can honestly say it's made no appreciable difference to the amount of congestion; If anything it's somehow worse with 4 lanes than it was with 3, probably because relatively minor incidents now have much larger consequences!

I'd much rather have 3 lanes and a hard shoulder than 4 lanes and none. If they really feel 4 lanes is necessary, they should have done it properly like they did with e.g. the original M1 widening, and not on the cheap like they're doing now. Anyone who thinks it's acceptable to cut corners with public safety to save a few quid should be sacked immediately.

 

[Roy124]

Cyker, how does a blanket 20 limit with effectively no overtaking work?

Could that be translated to motorways?  

Imagine M180-M18-M1-M25.

The M180 is free running but likely to hit heavy traffic at the M18.  Approaching the M180 the limit is dropped progressively until the approach speed matches the M18.  The speed drop is paced to ensure no bunching.

Beyond the M18 congestion the limit is raised progressively to avoid Hamilton trying to hit 70 in front of Vestapan.

The same progressive limits are imposed at successive choke points aiming to get a constant traffic flow.

Could it work?

[Yugguy1970]

Unless they stop lorries stringing across 3 of the 4 lanes of a "smart" motorway then they are utterly pointless and dangerous.

Whenever you see the word "smart" as a prefix, it invariably is not.

"Smart" meters my ****.

I've just spent a long weekend doing a lot of motorway driving and the smart motorway gantries are a joke. 

"Report of an obstruction" my ****.

What speed is safe?  40, 60, 50, ooh let's give 60 a go, nope, 40 again.

[Cyker]

51 minutes ago, Roy124 said:

Cyker, how does a blanket 20 limit with effectively no overtaking work?

Could that be translated to motorways?  

Imagine M180-M18-M1-M25.

The M180 is free running but likely to hit heavy traffic at the M18.  Approaching the M180 the limit is dropped progressively until the approach speed matches the M18.  The speed drop is paced to ensure no bunching.

Beyond the M18 congestion the limit is raised progressively to avoid Hamilton trying to hit 70 in front of Vestapan.

The same progressive limits are imposed at successive choke points aiming to get a constant traffic flow.

Could it work?

Not sure what you're trying to get at, but 20mph blanket limit would just drive people insane I think. I'm interested to see if incidents of road-rage increase in Wales if they go through with lowering their urban NSL to 20 without modifying the roads to suit.

There are a few roads here that are 3 lanes wide that were 40mph when I first started driving, but have been lowered to 20mph over the years, and they are now some of the most dangerous roads I traverse -A few people, usually people unfamiliar with the area, do 20mph while the majority do 40mph, brake sharply for the speed camera, then speed off again. The roads have not been altered and are long, straight and super wide with excellent visibility - Doing 20mph on them feels like you aren't moving, so very few stick to 20mph because, ironically, it feels very dangerous because it is such an inappropriate speed for the road design. Also, for bonus points, one of these roads has a bus lane, and the busses, which do the 20mph because they are monitored, have to cross all the lanes to make a right turn half-way along it. I am always amazed they are able to this without being crashed into regularly. I usually try to avoid these roads.

As for the progressive limits, they can help, but they don't reduce congestion, just stretch it out so the speed gradient isn't as steep.

Where there are choke points like this, this is exactly the sort of thing Highways are supposed to monitor and plan road improvements to eliminate.

 

 

And I also have noticed the irony of things labelled Smart usually being the opposite  

 

[Roy124]

Cyker, the blanket 20 I was referring to was London.  I quite agree that you hardly seem to be moving.

I have only driven there once and the majority seemed to stick with 20.  Generally too busy, even on a Saturday,  or too narrow. 

My previous driving in London was to aim for a gap as fast as possible and ignoring any vehicles abaft the beam.  As far as I was concerned,  it was my gap and they were not in my way.

Unlike Parisiennes they seemed to yield. 😅

[Haliotis]

There is a danger of technology pushing the average driver out of his, or her, comfort zone.  “Smart” motorways do not automatically produce smart drivers.  On conventional motorways, with good road conditions, drivers still manage to collide with each other.  As road design becomes more complex, so the percentage of drivers likely to come to grief increases.  The powers can put in as much warning signage as they like, too many drivers are not disciplined sufficiently to behave in a safety conscious manner, so RTC occurrences become evermore commonplace.  The introduction of more and more signage, plus the abundance of white lines and controlling carriageway markings on the road, means more drivers either ignore the signs/markings and “do their own thing”, or they become overloaded with the information displayed a get confused to the point that it puts them in danger.

The introduction of onboard vehicle control devices and driver aids probably causes drivers to expect the car to do the safety work for them.  This alone encourages lack of due concentration.   Some safety devices, even if activated, later become deactivated in the course of standard driving procedures.   Another negative factor - how many drivers hit the horn before the brakes, never appreciating that a horn doesn’t stop the car progressing towards a collision?