If they’ve been competent enough to come to a halt toward the near side of the near side lane there is more than enough room to exit the vehicle safely. Again, a driver competency issue. If they’d rather stay in their car and let some clown plough in the back of them then that’s just Darwin’s theory at work and I’m all for that.All roads have the same problem.... bad drivers. At least with a dedicated hard shoulder, you have the relative safety that under normal circumstances, the lane is not used by anyone unless they are stationary (apart from entering and rejoining the main carriageway). With the 'Smart Motorways', that safety net has been taken away, and you are now reliant on the technology to close the lane quickly. However, 'closing' a lane is just putting a red cross on the gantry's above the lane. You are then still at the mercy of drivers a) knowing it is illegal to travel under a red cross, therefore moving out of the lane and b) actually bothering to pay attention to the red crosses, they see a clear lane and think 'fuck it, nice and empty, I will fly down there and save some time'
Not everyone will feel they can safely exit a vehicle with traffic flying past them either, so just telling them to head for the trees is a little naive.
If they’ve been competent enough to come to a halt toward the near side of the near side lane there is more than enough room to exit the vehicle safely. Again, a driver competency issue. If they’d rather stay in their car and let some clown plough in the back of them then that’s just Darwin’s theory at work and I’m all for that.
With that being the case, surely you agree that putting in Smart Motorways was a monumentally stupid idea. After all, it's a system that is solely reliant on ALL drivers looking beyond the end of their own bonnets. Why even consider a system that's not compatible with the realities of the road?It happens though because the roads are overrun with abysmal drivers who don’t look beyond the end of their own bonnet.
If they’ve been competent enough to come to a halt toward the near side of the near side lane there is more than enough room to exit the vehicle safely. Again, a driver competency issue. If they’d rather stay in their car and let some clown plough in the back of them then that’s just Darwin’s theory at work and I’m all for that.
A smart motorway is only as smart as the people using it, and a lot of assumptions have been made along the way;
If those assumptions are correct then you will eliminate 99% of the issues faced by motorists up and down the country on a daily basis.
- People will drive to the conditions
- People will observe lane discipline
- People will pay attention to the road signs
- People will ensure they are adequately rested, and they are not hungry, thirsty or needing the toilet (basic human functions)
- People will plan their journeys
- People will ensure their vehicle is adequately fuelled
- People will ensure any load is properly secured and within the weight limit of their vehicle
- People will maintain their vehicle properly (Service regularly, check fluids, check tyres)
Unfortunately, the lowest common denominator is a stupid human, and that should always be accounted for. Until you can breed out stupid from the human condition smart motorways are always going to be a problem.
Yes, I can’t disagree.With that being the case, surely you agree that putting in Smart Motorways was a monumentally stupid idea. After all, it's a system that is solely reliant on ALL drivers looking beyond the end of their own bonnets. Why even consider a system that's not compatible with the realities of the road?
This is the reason why many major projects overspend and then cutback in more critical areas. People don’t properly understand (CSM) risk assessments and mitigation but instead just “build it to the standard”. The designers often don’t understand why certain requirements exist and are not willing to challenge them. But on the other hand they will quite happily write off real hazards that are not mandated by standards if it doesn’t fit the budget.I think many of the lay byes are often over engineered with retaining walls that are just not needed or over designed. I worked on the M56 widening near the airport years ago and despite the Mercia Mudstone being stable at a very high angle, a very costly concrete retaining wall was still designed and installed for miles.
This is why thick people die. The official advice is to get to the near side lane (shouldn’t be too difficult) and then leave your vehicle. NOT stay in it as you state. Even if I’d had no advice I think I’d have the brains to not stay in my car in a live lane.So what do you suggest then you break down in the middle of busy motorway the official advice is to stay put? I never would have thought Darwin had built in to his theory you playing chicken with your family on a busy stretch of the motorway to get you and your family across to somewhere safe on the motorway with no hard shoulders. I would say its more like a game of Russian roulette but with one killing you when some numpty ploughs into the back of you the other you get mowed down by someone in one of the other lanes or both?
On the Panorama programme last night the 2 people killed on the M6 exited the vehicle that had broken down,the problem they had was they were on an elevated stretch of the motorway about 60 feet in the air...nowhere to go unless you supply them with parachutes....If they’ve been competent enough to come to a halt toward the near side of the near side lane there is more than enough room to exit the vehicle safely. Again, a driver competency issue. If they’d rather stay in their car and let some clown plough in the back of them then that’s just Darwin’s theory at work and I’m all for that.