ChatterBank3 mins ago
Non C V Thread!
15 Answers
https:/
Looks like we are finally doing something about these monumentally stupid death traps. Any idea what they'll do? All I can think of is either put in more refuges are make the the left lane a hard shoulder once more.
Looks like we are finally doing something about these monumentally stupid death traps. Any idea what they'll do? All I can think of is either put in more refuges are make the the left lane a hard shoulder once more.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
I see the concept of 'smart motorways' as a triumph of theory over practicality
15:28 Mon 16th Mar 2020
If hard shoulders are so dangerous one ought not just get rid of them, one should understand why a lane that one isn't supposed to drive on, appears to be dangerous, and put in whatever is required to minimise any danger.
Refuge areas every ¾ to 1 mile apart ? If the vehicle has an issue one needs to pull in immediately ! Here's an idea, why not join up all those refuge areas to make it one continuous strip ?
Good it's being taken seriously, but unimpressed with what was actually said.
Refuge areas every ¾ to 1 mile apart ? If the vehicle has an issue one needs to pull in immediately ! Here's an idea, why not join up all those refuge areas to make it one continuous strip ?
Good it's being taken seriously, but unimpressed with what was actually said.
there was nothing wrong with the original concept and as implemented on the prototype site on the M42 it worked well, and continues to do so.
https:/
the problem though was the cost which, if rolled out across the network in that format, would have been prohibitive. so the government, having signed off on the scheme implemented economies, like a reduction of lane-specific signals on gantries and distances between refuges increased - in some instances - more than 5-fold. willing to bet these economy measures weren't risk assessed becuse they would not have given "the right answer".
https:/
the problem though was the cost which, if rolled out across the network in that format, would have been prohibitive. so the government, having signed off on the scheme implemented economies, like a reduction of lane-specific signals on gantries and distances between refuges increased - in some instances - more than 5-fold. willing to bet these economy measures weren't risk assessed becuse they would not have given "the right answer".
I see the concept of 'smart motorways' as a triumph of theory over practicality.
I am sure that some suits turned up at the MOT with a computer mockup of a smart motorway system and a vast sheaf of statistics to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new system - and sold the entire nonsense and got it built.
Of course, as is so often the case, reality turned out to be very different.
The notion that monitoring would ensure that lanes were closed when a breakdown / accident occurred never happened because, with the exception of a bit of the M25, no other SM has the monitoring hardware in place.
That system also presupposes that each and every motorist will adhere to the advice that a lane ahead is closed, and move out of it - evidence naturally proves that this is not the case.
What we have now is a death trap system with system-thwarting breakdowns all day every day unmonitored and causing further accidents and delays, adding to the existing horrendous death toll which is only set to rise.
The simple fact that the AA will not allow its mechanics to attend on 'smart motorways' should send a clear message to the MOT that this is an expensive disaster, and money and lives should be saved now by abandoning it and returning to the old system.
Failing that - make Grant Schapps and the team responsible for this disaster attend each and every victim's funeral in person, until the impact of their folly hits home.
I am sure that some suits turned up at the MOT with a computer mockup of a smart motorway system and a vast sheaf of statistics to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new system - and sold the entire nonsense and got it built.
Of course, as is so often the case, reality turned out to be very different.
The notion that monitoring would ensure that lanes were closed when a breakdown / accident occurred never happened because, with the exception of a bit of the M25, no other SM has the monitoring hardware in place.
That system also presupposes that each and every motorist will adhere to the advice that a lane ahead is closed, and move out of it - evidence naturally proves that this is not the case.
What we have now is a death trap system with system-thwarting breakdowns all day every day unmonitored and causing further accidents and delays, adding to the existing horrendous death toll which is only set to rise.
The simple fact that the AA will not allow its mechanics to attend on 'smart motorways' should send a clear message to the MOT that this is an expensive disaster, and money and lives should be saved now by abandoning it and returning to the old system.
Failing that - make Grant Schapps and the team responsible for this disaster attend each and every victim's funeral in person, until the impact of their folly hits home.
I can't see how it could possibly be a triumph of theory. The moment it was suggested most could see issues with it; and it'd take a blinkered authority to even spend time/money considering the suggestion.
(One wonders if there was an individual with a bee in their bonnet about their dodgy idea, and a bunch of "yes" men & women surrounding them and pushing it through.)
If you need an extra lane, make the case for it, and then build it. If you can't afford it then do without it until you can afford it. Don't start removing vital safety areas to pull into, out of traffic, in order to try to achieve an extra lane 'on the cheap'.
If the safety areas are proving unsafe, that's a different and more urgent project, to sort it out.
(One wonders if there was an individual with a bee in their bonnet about their dodgy idea, and a bunch of "yes" men & women surrounding them and pushing it through.)
If you need an extra lane, make the case for it, and then build it. If you can't afford it then do without it until you can afford it. Don't start removing vital safety areas to pull into, out of traffic, in order to try to achieve an extra lane 'on the cheap'.
If the safety areas are proving unsafe, that's a different and more urgent project, to sort it out.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Food & Drink38 mins ago
