Smart motorways and accidents.

[ThomasG]

Unfortunately didn't.

But I think I know the main theme of it.

Convincing that on smart motorways accidents won't happen, emergency laybays don't need to be spaced any denser, because there will be no break downs, and with spacing as is, it takes a minute at 70mph to get from.one to another anyway. A great victory to highway agency.

Right guess?

[john.wigley]

That was indeed the 'gist' of it, Thomas. J.

[ThomasG]

Didn't loose anything then

Cheers.

[Whippy]

BBC News - 38 killed on smart motorways in last five years
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51236375

[DaveNP]

The bald figure of 38 killed on Smart Motorways over 5 years sounds bad, but they also say around 90 people die on UK Motorways each year or 450 over 5 years, so new headline 412 die on Unsmart Motorways or less than 10% of motorway deaths are on Smart Motorways. From what I can find with a quick internet search 488 miles of the 2173 miles of the UK Motorway network are Smart Motorways, around 22%, so the Smart Motorways are less than half as deadly as the regular Motorway. Given that Smart Motorways are the busier parts that's pretty good.

Now whether that's down to the intrinsic design of Smart Motorways or because most of the drivers take extra care because they think them dangerous ...

[roundyuk]

Originally Posted by DaveNP

The bald figure of 38 killed on Smart Motorways over 5 years sounds bad, but they also say around 90 people die on UK Motorways each year or 450 over 5 years, so new headline 412 die on Unsmart Motorways or less than 10% of motorway deaths are on Smart Motorways. From what I can find with a quick internet search 488 miles of the 2173 miles of the UK Motorway network are Smart Motorways, around 22%, so the Smart Motorways are less than half as deadly as the regular Motorway. Given that Smart Motorways are the busier parts that's pretty good.

Now whether that's down to the intrinsic design of Smart Motorways or because most of the drivers take extra care because they think them dangerous ...

This....

Smart motorways are not the problem, un-smart motorists are. It’s typical media headline making. In the long run I bet they’re safer, regulating traffic speeds during congested periods and reducing danger will out weigh people getting killed I bet. People die on motorways, regardless whether they are smart or not.

[Bendolfc]

Originally Posted by DaveNP

The bald figure of 38 killed on Smart Motorways over 5 years sounds bad, but they also say around 90 people die on UK Motorways each year or 450 over 5 years, so new headline 412 die on Unsmart Motorways or less than 10% of motorway deaths are on Smart Motorways. From what I can find with a quick internet search 488 miles of the 2173 miles of the UK Motorway network are Smart Motorways, around 22%, so the Smart Motorways are less than half as deadly as the regular Motorway. Given that Smart Motorways are the busier parts that's pretty good.

Now whether that's down to the intrinsic design of Smart Motorways or because most of the drivers take extra care because they think them dangerous ...

Not sure where you got the figure of 488 miles of smart motorway from. It is currently closer to 230, much of that completed in the past two years. At the end of 2017, there was approx 100 miles of ALR smart motoway in place.

ALR could be safe with stationary vehicle detection, without it on average it takes 17 mins to detect a stopped vehicle plus another 3 min KPI target to close the lane.

[green van man]

The study that smart motorways were based on had refuges every 500m so there was always one in sight and could if necessary be coasted to.

The built smart motorways moved those refuges to every 2500m without consolation with any of these who contributed to the original study, according to the AA.

The M25 is held up as an example of a safe smart motorway but it was explained that the average speed on the M25 is a lot lower because of congestion and it has stationary vehicle technology. The smart motorways without this technology it takes 17 minuets to detect the stationary vehicles 3 minuets to close the lane and another 17 min to clear the lane. In total near 40 min for something to run into it ..

Paul.

[ThomasG]

And when something runs into it, how long does it take for ambulance/fire brigade/police to arrive, when there is no hard shoulder they can use?

Lead to water.. indeed.

[roundyuk]

Watched the BBC documentary last night; and it definitely opened my eyes, and to be honest changed my thoughts a little bit.

The spacing of the refuge areas was one thing.....but the realisation that only the M25 has the stopped vehicle detection was a face slap. I was really shocked...

Something has to change, but....there is still one thing that stood out so much for me; how thick some motorists are. Two out of the four (women lol) people asked in Fleet services what a smart motorway was had no clue, even though they had just been down one!!! Where are these people living, in a bloomin bubble?!?

Also...
People getting out of their car in live outside lanes - WTF?
People exchanging details in live lanes - WTAF?

Mind you, my other half struggled with the comprehension that staying in her car with the seatbelt on was the safe thing to do if you were stranded with no refuge option.

The amount of drivers simply not paying attention - sickens me...

But, final thoughts....

There really needs to be some better education or something to improve motorists driving on motorways.

I think the dynamic hard shoulder is a safer alternative, the shoulder is only used once the traffic volume is increased and therefore speed controlled.

We seemed to cope quite well without hard shoulders on some of the fastest stretches of A-roads, could it be that driving standards have just simply deteriorated over the last 20 years?