Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,053
Removing the hard shoulder from the motorways was an absolutely stupid move in the first place, whoever's made that decision is an absolute fool.
Smart motorways with hard shoulders only used at busy times are "too complicated for people to use"
- Thread starter Scania
- Start date
They could do with activating speed cameras on the closed lanes to start fining/points for drivers who are ignoring lane closures.
I disagree, if anything they should abandon the way the earlier smart motorways work (look at M6 J8 to J10) where the inside lane gets closed off if traffic is light. These lanes should be open 24/7 unless of a breakdown.
This really, honestly how hard can it be to drive in the far left lane until a sign tells you that the lane is closed.
There are way to many upsides to counter any downsides. There are too many cars on the roads these days, adding extra capacity was really a critical priority.
So assuming a normal smart motorway and all four lanes are full of static traffic, how do emergency services get through if there's an accident, I know let's make a lane just for that and give it a special name so they can get by. Feels like a step backwards Imo and was obviously a cheap and nasty way to get an extra lane.
How's that any different than when emergency vehicles have to get through traffic in city centres? I guess the luxury with motorways is that they have very wide lanes, so plenty of room for people to shuffle over.
Also if people follow the signs correctly, then the inside lane would be closed and free from cars for any emergency services to drive down.
The sequence of that event wouldn't have differed that much if it was a traditional motorway though. You'd have still had to veer across two other live lanes to land on the hard shoulder.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,150
It's not massively different true, but most city centres have bus lanes so surely they would go along them, plus there's normally more than one way to get to a place in a city centre whereas in a motorway there isn't always.
I guess they did the cost analysis and the 1million+ costs for a motorway/road mortality are outweighed by the economic benefit.
[
Nope,
like this misused click-bate introductory to posts, Nasher has an insightful point, SMART is usually an oxymoron with respect to the true value added, added to the product; the word AI is the next battleground.
]
Veering across lanes was the easy, and not too dangerous, bit. Driving down the left lane in a car that was losing speed was the dangerous bit, followed by having to exit the car in a live lane, and then having to leave the car there where it posed a danger to other road users.
So yes, I'd say the sequence of events, and the risk posed, was quite different to a traditional motorway set-up.
Everything you ask for predicates on making people drive well, which is something they don't do. Rather like fining speeders, it doesn't stop speeding, it just racks up a nice little source of income from those that are caught. If you base making the system work on something that won't happen (ie everyone drives perfectly all the time), then it's going to fail and people are going to die. Even the people who control the system are taking 20 minutes to spot a broken down car and close the live hard shoulder, so how is someone supposed to obey that sign when it's not lit for 20 minutes after someone has broken down and blocked the lane?
You might as well build systems predicated on the idea that "nothing ever goes wrong", and we know how the universe laughs at that idea. It's starting from a weak premise and building on a weak foundation. You have to deal with how things work in the real world when you put people into the mix.
Soldato
If proper lane discipline was enforced smart motorways wouldn't be necessary. Perhaps the money could have been used on enforcing middle lane hoggers instead
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,150
or just high more motorway police
.
No. Absolutely not.