Interesting discussion on BBC Breakfast this mornig about concerns raised by the AA about the perceived safey of Smart Motorways;

the AA reported that more then 55% regard Smart Motorways as the most dangerous roads and will not use the 4th lane (aka hard shoulder) even when it is posted as open - there are many concerns about the spacing of the refuges - according to the Highways Authority they ae supposed to be every 1.5 miles but AA research shows that drivers will only go a maximum of 0.5 miles when their car breaks down.

The Highways Authority and Transport Deprtment say there are considerations to make the refuges every 1.0 mile but that if you are in one you no longer are regarded as an emergency .......

Have any of our members any experience of these expensive and often inaccurate systems?

How far would you be prepared to limp along in a duff MH (if you can at all.....)?

It all comes down to cost - there is not the finance available to provide the extra lane needed for traffic flow so te Smart system looks as if it might help.....

but does it?

There are a very large number f adverse reports that the introduction of the system has ONLY resulted in a massive number of motorists now being charged with speeding offences due to the very frequent cameras...

Any comments?

cameras on roads are there to police the traffic and fine anyone that is breaking the law

how else are they going to recoup the cost of all the systems that are in place to keep us in tow

just look at all the cameras and over head signs at bagshot camberley on the m3


barry

I have little faith in 'smart' anythings so far.
Smart Televisions ..................... why.
Smart light and heat controls ..... why?
Smart cars so far do things no one wants.

Gimmee an example of a smart useful item.

Ray.

I quite like my smart phone.

Its all about cost. Its cheaper to make the hard shoulder a lane. People will and have been killed due to that choice and more will be.
It doesn't make any sense from a safety perspective this is just about saving money.
And its the public who vote for their MPs and the political parties and its those parties that attempt to deliver the will of the people (lower taxes) by trading lives for more speed on the motorway.
Improved traffic flow is proven by using variable speed limits but the public hate to be told to slow down. So instead we trade a safety feature to retain the highest speed we can.

Me! Me! Me!

I am only an item.

My experience is that lower speed limits do not improve traffic flow. If they did why do 50 limits in roadworks (3 lanes at 70 limit going into 3 lanes at a 50 limit) cause such big queues? Smart motorways are a cheap way of increasing capacity but reduce safety. Not only do hardshoulders provide a safer refuge for broken down cars but also an access route for emergency vehicles.

Steve

it's called the Accordian Effect - info here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accordion_effect. it has very little to do with traffic volume but driver reactions to the car in front which propagates back through the traffic to create stoppages further back. if drivers learned how to a) space themselves correctly from the car in front, and b) stopped bloody reacting to every little issue and braking for no need then traffic flow would be much smoother.

and roadworks have lower speed limits for worker safety not vehicle safety

Not according to the Highways Agency. They kept many speed limits in place at unworked motorway road work sites over the Christmas period because of narrow lanes etc.

It is interesting that it is proposed to increase the default speed limit through motorway road work sites from 50mph to 60mph. https://news.sky.com/story/motorway-...60mph-11090874


At a stroke of a pen what was unsafe suddenly becomes safe. Hard shoulder running, road work speed limits, HGV speed limit increased on single carriageway NSL roads, allowing vehicles of 4250kg GVW to be driven on a B Licence [if powered by alternative fuels] etc.

Whereas in la belle France speed limits are to be reduced at a stroke w.e.f. July 1st.