PACTS and the AA have raised safety concerns about Government plans to permanently open more than 100 miles of hard shoulder on Britain’s motorways in an attempt to reduce congestion, according to the Telegraph.
The Highways Agency will also more than double the distance between refuges, which are currently about 1,000 metres apart. Other changes include the removal of the majority of overhead gantries which inform drivers of variable speed limits. In their place will be new signs, which only cover the new nearside lane.
Work is scheduled to start next year at eight locations including stretches of the M25, M1, M60, M62, M3 and M6.
The Highways Agency says it will be monitoring the motorway by CCTV, enabling it to intervene swiftly by closing down a blocked lane and redirecting traffic until the broken-down vehicle can be recovered.
Commenting on the proposals, the AA said: “Drivers who have endured hours of being stuck in traffic jams may breathe a sigh of relief, but that will soon turn to fear if they break down in the middle of the night and have no hard shoulder to retreat to.
“The plans are being pushed through with only scant consultation. Solving congestion on the cheap poses real road safety risks. While active traffic management worked well and was popular with drivers, this idea is a huge gamble.”
Robert Gifford, executive director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: “I think that the new specification could be very misleading to motorists. The current gantries extend across all four lanes. It is very clear to a driver in the outside lane that a speed limit applies to him or her.
“The new proposal for a pole extending over just the hard shoulder could all too easily lead drivers in the other lanes to think that the speed limit only applies to that lane and not across the entire carriageway.”
A spokesman for the Highways Agency said: “Through experience of operating the M42 and M6 schemes, we have produced proposals where the hard shoulder is converted to a running lane on a permanent basis and less infrastructure is needed on the existing route of future managed motorway schemes.
“We are working with road user organisations to develop the detail for these proposals. We are confident that once these proposals are fully developed they will provide the additional capacity required, without compromising overall safety.”
Click here to read the full Telegraph report.
Murphy’s law states that if it can happen it WILL HAPPEN and in this instance to use the hard shoulder as a lane is ludicrous. These advocates have obviously not driven in Greece where the hard shoulder is used at will. There are instances where as here drivers do not see further than the end of their nose. Consequently there will be someone stopped on the hard shoulder for whatever reason and they will be hit because like Greece they will be boxed in so that they cannot avoid hitting the parked driver until it is too late.
Michael Hall Nottingham ABD member
+1
Hard shoulder should only ever be used for emergencies. Anyone running into a vehicle on the hard shoulder should be automatic imprisonment.
A law passed same as the USA, any emergency vehicle on the hard should be given one safe lane distance, meaning all vehicles have to by law, go to lane one or two when passing anyone in the hard shoulder.
David in Bristol
0
So far, I have yet to speak to anyone who thinks this idea is a good one. Everyone is fearing for their lives should they be unfortunate to break-down. What will it take to make those who gave the go ahead to reverse their decision?
Fiona – Bracknell
0
This scheme is already dangerous on the roads it is currently implemented on (I believe the M6 and M42 have it on at the moment).
The biggest problem I’ve found with it is the amount of drivers who aren’t looking properly whether the hard shoulder running scheme is on or not. Last year I was driving down a motorway towing a trailer on one of these roads which allows drivers to use the hard shoulder during times of congestion. There was no congestion, and the lights weren’t on to inform drivers they could use the hard shoulder, so unless they were broken down they shouldn’t be in the hard shoulder.
As I came to try and exit the motorway from first lane to exit, a number of cars whizzed down the side of me, all using the hard shoulder as an extra lane, despite the fact the signs weren’t on to tell them they could use the hard shoulder. It was a nightmare trying to get off that motorway, especially towing a trailer, and not hitting car drivers who were just assuming the lights were on when they weren’t.
As I was only towing a small trailer tent I dread to think what it’s like for an articulated lorry driver to get off the motorway at these points. The biggest problem is that people get into an automatic mode if they’re driving the same way everyday, and if they drive that route every day during rush hour and the hard shoulder is open, then when it’s not they’re likely to just automatically use the hard shoulder anyway.
Darren, Ludlow
0
From what I have read, the reason why the statistics say that using the Hard Shoulder makes driving safer, is because the only time the hard shoulder is used is while the speed has been reduced. Isn’t that the real reason, if the hard shoulder was available, wouldn’t the statistics be even better. As many people have said, what idiot decided this was a good idea?
Andrew, Hampshire
0
There is a huge difference between the M42 and this type of scheme. On the M42, the hard shoulder is opened to traffic when there is heavy flow and with mandatory speed limits in place. The risk of breaking down in those circumstances is relatively low, as traffic would build up behind you and the motorway would quickly become congested at that point.
The new proposals will mean that if you break down outside peak periods e.g. overnight, there will be relatively light flows, no reduced speeds and, potentially, no lighting. The liklihood and impact of a collision in those circumstances is much higher.
There will be serious accidents when this is brought in and I suspect they’ll be pretty soon after implementation. Whether that will cause a re-think is another matter.
Concerned, UK
0
I have broken down three times in the past ten years. My vehicle weighs close to two tonnes I guarantee I will not push it to a reserve and I almost always have a caravan connected so the rig will weigh over three tonnes. When I have broken down I always evacuate the vehicle, switch on the hazards and get my passengers to a safe area. But my vehicle is still a hazard to other users. I think this idea is ridiculous.
Jim Mennie
0
If vehicles that are hit on the hard shoulder have been stationary for 20 minutes on average, that does NOT mean that the average length of time before a vehicle on the hard shoulder is hit is 20 minutes.
That time might be measured in months, or even years!
The very 1st time I heard that statistic I thought it sounded like someone was trying to deceive the listener, but I can’t find the source now.
Dave Finney – Slough
0
Kate – You state that “half of motorway stops are discretionary…”. From my work it is more like 9-10 discretionary stops to every true emergency stop. This has also been verified through the M42 post opening usage of the ERAs.
Darren Powell
0
So all will be well if we open up another lane, well actually we are not only opening up another lane but effectively closing one. A very important one. One which was considered and still is considered a lifesaver.
The developers of our motorway network knew what they were doing when they opened up a specific lane for the use of emergency vehicles. Police, fire and ambulance were given speedy unrestricted access to accidents where life may be in danger of being lost.
OK go ahead with this scheme but be willing to bear the consequences when people who previously would have returned to their loved ones, no longer will.
I have previously outlined the reasons for delays on our motorway system and it is not merely a subjective one. It is objective, after many years in the police service as well as millions of miles driving, many on motorways.
bob craven Lancs
0
Before we start even contemplating hard shoulder running we need to get the majority of drivers to use all the lanes that are there now!
If a large proportion appear incapable of returning to the left hand lane now it will simply mean another lane left empty.
Engineering our road infrastructure to be better is a great idea. Just cannot understand why education and retraining are not bed fellows..?
Pierre, Manchester
0
As I recall the M42 works involved significant re-engineering works which in addition to the now proposed reduction in refuges and gantries also included re-construction of the hard shoulders as these were never designed to taken constant loading.
From an engineering perspective my worry would be an HA/DfT “desperate” to be seen to be doing something, but under a significant cost constraint from the Exchequer at a minimum cost, not undertaking such work.
(On a related matter if this was part of the “privatised” HA would we then be paying, eg toll charged, for the cost?)
Tony,Bristol
0
Thanks, Honor – like someone else here I have read how short a time anyone can stop on the hard shoulder without being hit – and it’s measured in minutes, not hours. Anyone know the average figure? In this context, the length of time between a vehicle breaking down and it being hit is obviously very important, compared to the response time of the emergency systems.
Saturday’s 6am, which would not have happened had the coach stopped on the hard shoulder, was always more likely on a motorway where, unlike on other roads, drivers do not expect to come across stationary obstacles and are more prone to maintain speed in fog on the assumption that the road ahead must be clear.
According to the BBC reports http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17497711 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17500107, the Highways Agency’s CCTV triggered warning signs and prompt despatch of emergency vehicles (above report) failed lamentably on this occasion because the crash happened within 12 minutes and the emergency vehicles arrived 6 minutes later.
Idris Francis
0
It seems to me that we are either getting ahead of ourselves or adding two and two and getting eight.
If you close one lane of a three lane motorway what do get? Apart from more anger, queues, tailgating, frustration and the increased posibility of accidents.
It’s like having 12 lab rats in three square yards of space in tunnels and then removing a square yard, they start to get in each other’s way, they become aggressive towards each other and fights and squabbles start and all that is understandable. And when we as drivers become crowded and see our space invaded by others we become less relaxed and more tense. Add to this increased stress the closer proximity to other vehicles then accidents can happen.
On the other hand if u suddenly open up another lane to the motorway, what happens? Drivers relax because space becomes available between vehicles, there is less pressure as traffic volumes relax and drivers make less hindered progress perhaps because HGV and towing vehicles like caravans [both speed restricted] are taking the first and second lanes and there is therefore enough with two lanes left for faster traffic.
bob craven Lancs
0
Kate,
Thank you for the link to the HA report. This report shows that there is an overall reduction in hard shoulder and rear end shunts and in the overall collision rate and severity when both hard shoulder running AND variable speed limit management were used together. Although there was an increase in side impact collisions but that these were mostly slights. Provided this combination of leasures is what is being proposed on the additional lengths of motorway, with hard shoulder running as an adjunct to managed variable speed limits, it should work and I’ll be happy with that.
Thanks again for the link
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
When seeing the supporting evidence (eg. no fatalities since the M42 / M6 schemes were active to the present, so about 6 years now) the improved journey times, reduced driver stress etc, there is a strong case for these types of schemes. It would also appear from the comments made generally, that you’re unaware that the hard shoulder, statistically speaking, is the most dangerous location on the motorway. I forget the time, but there’s an average amount of time (say 20 minutes approx), before an accident occurs involving a vehicle stopped on the hard shoulder being struck by a vehicle on the motorway.
Perhaps if you think of the situation from the opposite perspective – what if the M42 / M6 examples hadn’t occurred at all, and were kept as they were with the hard shoulders, and traditional motorway features there would by now be numerous fatalities. As the lottery likes to state – “it could be you”… or your friends / family who would no longer be here today potentially if they didn’t develop and use these techniques?
Victor Meldrew
0
I fear some of the comments above are not informed by the evidence. My first reaction to MM was similar – 5 years or so ago – but it works; accidents halved! http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge_compendium/64A9E660C4D342578695740F018E3BDC.aspx
The main benefits come from speed-control and greater capacity meaning:
• fewer lane changes
• smoother traffic flow (less stop-start)
• narrower speed distribution (less high and low speed)
Like many more recent ideas (removing guardrail, turning off rural streetlights, shared space – all show great safety benefits when done with care) it might seem dangerous but that very fact leads to caution. Half of all motorway stops are discretionary (not emergency) and they stop. Cars are more reliable than the past and we must accept that net public benefit (safety alone, and safety plus wider benefits) is served by using the hard shoulder differently.
If we say ‘I might have a breakdown so the hard shoulder must be available 24/7’ ironically we fail to get the massive casualty reduction that MM can bring.
Even the new variant – 24/7 running not tidal like M42 – is likely to have a solid net benefit for the same reasons. This doesn’t mean there are no hazards, but the change has a net benefit.
I’d also argue that some things might be adverse in safety terms, but if there are massive economical or environmental benefits, they might be appropriate if the savings are used for other casualty reduction measures. If we advocate no adverse effect anywhere ever, we’ll lose our place in the decision team where we can call for intelligence-lead decision making.
Kate Carpenter, all over the UK!
0
The HA quoted their “experience” on M6 and M42, not research. We have yet to see this experience report so cannot judge its quality or objectivity. The current design of motorway with hard shoulder lanes still sees collisions involving vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder and there has been considerable effort put into making stopping there in an emergency safer – education to move behind barriers, wear hi viz et al. So I would want to see positive evidence, independently reviewed or at least published as the minimum requirement before this radical step is undertaken. It is necessary to look at all aspects and outcomes when the main motivation is to cut costs rather than to improve or maintain safety.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
If the research done on the M42 & M6 trials shows it can be done safely then surely it needs more consideration. Dismissing the idea out of hand due to a few personal experiences is hardly being objective.
Dave, Leeds
0
Most congestion is caused by HGVs running in tandem at their so called maximum speed of 56 mph. This clogs up two carriageways and causes a backlog of vehicles that are effectively tailgating. Legislation should be put in place to stop such manoeuvres that cause so much frustration and could be considered driving without reasonable consideration for other vehicles. The highway authority patrols and cameras can then pick up obvious bottlenecks and remove any slower that normal HGV onto a service area where checks can be made. Gantry signes can be used to inform drivers of exits and HGVs should be required to give a distance in front to enable others to exit in safety.
Bob Craven, Lancs
0
Idris, I couldn’t have put it better myself! Having had to change an offside wheel (on my Alvis)on the M40 with 3 x young children and, at that point, no accessible verge within which to place them while I worked, I completely agree with your proposal. Whoever dreamed this up hasn’t been there.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
Utterly appalling! Having broken down on motorways several times over the years (big end, thrown tread, failed ignition coil, punctures etc) I know how seriously dangerous it is to be stuck for ages even on a proper hard shoulder.
The people behind this scheme should be chained for hours to the km markers until they change their minds.
Idris Francis
0