Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 23 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 2866 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

How do we make Smart Motorways safer?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Smart Motorways bring significant benefits, as they have been designed and implemented to address recurrent congestion on heavily used sections of motorways. We submitted a response to the Transport Select Committee on the roll-out and safety of smart motorways.


Our view is that firstly, safety can be improved by reducing the number of times vehicles stop on motorways and then improving how they are detected, and other drivers then warned and instructed, as illustrated in this diagram. 

72ba677680cffc513876a145d8a88a22-huge-ssd4011-smart-motorways-infographic-v4.jpg
Smart Motorways Infographic.pdf


In order to achieve this we believe that the Government should:



  • Think users: through more training and increasing vehicle roadworthiness.

  • Make use of what is there already: using sat nav for in-vehicle messaging and services such as Waze, to alert drivers.

  • Safeguard the future: through learning lessons from other transport modes.


We have also written a blog on this topic with more information: How do we make Smart Motorways safer?


We are interested in your thoughts on making Smart Motorways more safe, our proposed solutions, or if there is anything that we've missed. Please log in to your IET Community account to share your comments.


  • 0
    I commented earlier and came back to see any new contributions, it has a tiny number of comments so I guess its just not seen by anyone.


    It concerns me that the IET will lend some credibility to what is a ridiculous scheme, that no amount of technology that could be implemented in the short term can fix.

    People will die.

    Your comment:

    "In order to achieve this we believe that the Government should:
    • Think users: through more training and increasing vehicle roadworthiness.

    • Make use of what is there already: using sat nav for in-vehicle messaging and services such as Waze, to alert drivers.

    • Safeguard the future: through learning lessons from other transport modes."

    None of this will make any difference, and the IET is likely to be quoted in the daily press by Shapps as supporting the project.

    If you cant bring yourselves to file a critical assessment it is better that you do not respond at all.

    You should take note that the Commanders of two of the Police Forces in the North have fiercely criticised it.
  • 0
    We are interested in your thoughts on making Smart Motorways more safer, our proposed solutions, or if there is anything that we've missed. Please log in to your IET Community account to share your comments.


     


    If you're interested in our thoughts, why did you publish that submission before asking anybody else in the IET what they thought of it?


  • 0
    Three points.

    " Analysis of safety and performance data on implemented Smart Motorway schemes has shown overall improvements in safety" This phrase has been regularly rolled out but the IET document could be improved by referencing the actual analysis so we can draw our own conclusions.


    "However, the percentage of EVs running out of power only accounts for 4% of EV breakdowns in the UK." This is probably because electric cars are only 4% of the cars running on the road. So this will get to be a real problem as the number of electric cars inevitably increases.


    The tone of the driver education piece appears to be along the lines of, "maintain your car or expect to be killed when you break down." It is clearly intended to divert the attention to the driver and maintenance of the car rather than the danger posed by the lack of hard shoulder. Well maintained cars still breakdown. I'd dont want to be put at unnecessarily high risk if that happens. I see a potential parallel in health care: scrap ambulances to spend the money on bigger hospitals and an education programme encouraging the population to look after themselves and not get ill to avoid dying when they cant get to hospital - unlikely to be a popular policy.
  • 0
    William Parke:


    "However, the percentage of EVs running out of power only accounts for 4% of EV breakdowns in the UK." This is probably because electric cars are only 4% of the cars running on the road. So this will get to be a real problem as the number of electric cars inevitably increases.


     


    Do you want to try reading that quote again.  Only 4% of EV breakdowns are caused by running out of power.  Not 4% of all breakdowns.


    The solution to that is to have a charging network that's fit for purpose.  Not a random collection of charging networks, each with a different payment method, and with chargers being left un-repaired for weeks or months when they break down.


  • 0
    Fair point and thats after including it as a quote ?. Does make me wonder though what percentage of all breakdowns are made up of EVs and which direction it is trending - will the EV + Driver system proove to be more reliable than the nonEV vehicle plus driver system? I suspect power drain will be an increasing percentage of EV breakdowns as growing EV numbers outstrip the poor charging infrastructure, drivers get more blaze about having enough juice in the battery for the next leg and EVs come to be driven by all parts of the population. Which ever way it goes breaking down on the motorway should not be Russian Roulette.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Simon Barker: 

    We are interested in your thoughts on making Smart Motorways more safer, our proposed solutions, or if there is anything that we've missed. Please log in to your IET Community account to share your comments.

     

    If you're interested in our thoughts, why did you publish that submission before asking anybody else in the IET what they thought of it?

    Hi Simon,

    The consultation did go out to members for comments before it was submitted. This is an opportunity to share further thoughts for any of our future work.

    You can find out more about getting involved in the process here:

    The Consultation Process (theiet.org) 

    Consultations Process - Email Alerts (theiet.org)

    Thanks

  • 0
    Can you provide a link to the submission please.
  • 0
    mapj1:

    There is the point that most of the automated motorway signage about lane closures, animals in the road, ice etc are left switched on long after the hazard has passed, and this is a very poor practice, and not at all erring on the side of safety.

    There is little point in slowing the traffic for a non-event, after all the whole aim is to keep it moving. And you are teaching drivers not to take it seriously. 

    So a sign saying breakdown 1 mile ahead, or xx metres ahead is useful, you know what to expect and when, but turn it off as soon as the road is clear, not 30 mins later.


    A sign that in effect might as well say 'take care, unknown hazard at unknown distance ahead, or probably not there at all really' is asking to be ignored.

    And will be treated with contempt.

    M.


    I entirely agree. I see little point in adding even more technical sophistication to motorway signage if we can't overcome this too-frequent problem of "crying wolf".


  • 0
    When I drive on a smart motorway in non-congested conditions I simply don't use the left lane, even if it is open and fairly clear. I notice that some, but by no means all, other drivers act likewise.


    The serious smart motorway accidents that I hear about involve a vehicle at high speed crashing into a stationary vehicle in lane 1 - i.e. non-congested conditions.


    My suggestion, which could take immediate effect, would be to close the left lane with the red X except during the congested conditions that smart motorways are supposed to overcome. When vehicles are queuing at slow speed, a high speed collision is much less likely to occur. If a vehicle in a slow queue looses speed it slows down the queue behind it, possibly to a standstill. In congested conditions, illuminated speed restriction signs are usually functioning anyway.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Arthur Monks:

    Can you provide a link to the submission please.


    The roll-out and safety of Smart Motorways (theiet.org)


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines