Driving standards

[rockershovel]

32 minutes ago, Nick C said:

Doesn't most of the ESA heavy lift stuff go up from the spaceport in French Guiana?

 

Very probsbly, but I was referring to the RAF providing lifting capacity for French troops in Mali. 

 

Speaking of which, I see that three British born astronauts (one Dual National, and two naturalised American citizens) have flown with NASA, only one with ESA. Tim Peake, the ESA astronaut is a vocal and high-profile advocate of the EU project, which is understandable. 

 

 

[bimble]

7 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

 

Very probsbly, but I was referring to the RAF providing lifting capacity for French troops in Mali. 

 

Speaking of which, I see that three British born astronauts (one Dual National, and two naturalised American citizens) have flown with NASA, only one with ESA. Tim Peake, the ESA astronaut is a vocal and high-profile advocate of the EU project, which is understandable. 

 

 

 

Don't forget our first, Cosmonaut Helen Sharman, who went up in a joint British/Soviet mission.

[ejstubbs]

21 hours ago, bimble said:

Most things will use multiple systems, We make use of GPS, Galileo and GNSS at work.

 

Do you mean GLONASS, rather than GNSS (which I understood to be the generic term for all satellite-based global navigation systems)?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation

[rockershovel]

16 minutes ago, ejstubbs said:

 

Do you mean GLONASS, rather than GNSS (which I understood to be the generic term for all satellite-based global navigation systems)?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_navigation

 

I had also assumed that to be what was meant? 

[bimble]

most of our equipment dates back to when there was only GPS and GLONASS, so we just shortened it to GNSS because there just weren't all the options that there are these days. With the others now available we probably should differentiate... though we probably won't as most of our gear only collects data from GPS/GLONASS and not also Galileo & BeiDou

[StuAllen]

I’ve just been reading this piece about Smart Motorways https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51236375 - the statistics are hard to argue against, but I don’t understand what makes them so much more dangerous. We don’t have masses of people complaining about traditional dual carriageways such as the A12,A14, A23 or A27 etc. These have no hard shoulder or gantries to show that a lane is closed. Are these major A roads as dangerous as smart motorways? Or is it that people just drive differently?

[ejstubbs]

As far as I can see the article doesn't say that smart motorways are more dangerous than non-motorway dual carriageways.  The article only discusses motorways, and only gives figures for smart motorways.  So although the numbers look bad - 38 dead people is never going to look good - there is no information provided to allow the reader to gauge the risk relative to other types of road.

 

38 deaths in five years is just under eight a year, which is around 0.4% of total road casualties each year.  It would be useful to have some kind of context in which to understand that.  For example, smart motorways could reasonably be expected to be carrying well towards the upper end of the range of traffic volumes - that's why they've been made "smart".  How much of a contributory factor might that be to the number of fatalities and near misses?

 

That said, I do think that people drive differently on motorways: there is a fundamental expectation of being able to make unimpeded rapid progress.  People tend to drive on motorways with that kind of mindset, and anything that conflicts with it - even if it's intended to make their overall journey smoother - is regarded as a hindrance to be overcome, rather than accommodated in a safe fashion.

[duncan]

One point differing duel carriageways & smart motorways is that on a DC, you expect slow traffic, tractors, bikes, pedestrians & vehicles turning right possibly blocking the right hand lane.  One on a SM, therefore a stationery vehicle is very unexpected.  

Given how inaccurate / out of date the information usually is on overhead motorway signs (only my experience), I expect drivers don't always take full notice of them.  I certainly have half a brain expecting the information shown to be incorrect.

[Joseph_Pestell]

10 minutes ago, duncan said:

One point differing duel carriageways & smart motorways is that on a DC, you expect slow traffic, tractors, bikes, pedestrians & vehicles turning right possibly blocking the right hand lane.  One on a SM, therefore a stationery vehicle is very unexpected.  

Given how inaccurate / out of date the information usually is on overhead motorway signs (only my experience), I expect drivers don't always take full notice of them.  I certainly have half a brain expecting the information shown to be incorrect.

 

I think someone else mentioned that this problem is not just about "smart" motorways. This evening, driving back from Penkridge, I have done two stretches of motorway where the hard shoulder has been converted into a fourth lane. But these are not "smart" motorways with frequent signalling gantries. I can just about "get" the smart motorway where, if Lane 1 (the former hard shoulder) is blocked, motorists can be warned. But with no warnings, having no hard shoulder is total lunacy.

 

Strangely, it is the "smart" motorways with part-time fourth lanes on the hard shoulder which seem to be in Grant Shapps' gun sights.

[30801]

7 hours ago, duncan said:

Given how inaccurate / out of date the information usually is on overhead motorway signs (only my experience), I expect drivers don't always take full notice of them.  I certainly have half a brain expecting the information shown to be incorrect.

 

The AA reckon it takes 17 minutes to spot a breakdown and set the gantries.

Not surprising that they won't attend breakdowns on smart motorways but instead wait for Highways England to move you somewhere safe.

 

https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/news/17-minutes-to-spot-a-live-lane-breakdown-on-smart-motorways

[47137]

I've used a couple of sections of motorway with selective hard shoulder running - the M6 near Birmingham and the M5 near Bristol, and I didn't feel too happy on either. As a "visitor" I suppose I was particularly aware of the gantries and current permissions. On one occasion, I felt a few drivers were using the hard shoulder as a running lane because they often do, even though the gantries were switched off.

 

The human brain can only track about four things at the same time, and if one of these is the state of the overhead gantries, the tracking of other traffic reduces a great deal ... this looks like a state where collisions are more likely.

 

I am glad, Highways England have said they won't be building any more roads with selective hard shoulder running.

 

- Richard.

 

[eastglosmog]

10 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

As far as I can see the article doesn't say that smart motorways are more dangerous than non-motorway dual carriageways.  The article only discusses motorways, and only gives figures for smart motorways.  So although the numbers look bad - 38 dead people is never going to look good - there is no information provided to allow the reader to gauge the risk relative to other types of road.

 

38 deaths in five years is just under eight a year, which is around 0.4% of total road casualties each year.  It would be useful to have some kind of context in which to understand that.  For example, smart motorways could reasonably be expected to be carrying well towards the upper end of the range of traffic volumes - that's why they've been made "smart".  How much of a contributory factor might that be to the number of fatalities and near misses?

 

That said, I do think that people drive differently on motorways: there is a fundamental expectation of being able to make unimpeded rapid progress.  People tend to drive on motorways with that kind of mindset, and anything that conflicts with it - even if it's intended to make their overall journey smoother - is regarded as a hindrance to be overcome, rather than accommodated in a safe fashion.

I may be getting cynical in my old age, but following the principles set out in "How to lie with statistics" by Darrel Huff, whenever someone fails to provide the essential numbers, I always suspect those numbers do not support their cause!

[PhilJ W]

45 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

I may be getting cynical in my old age, but following the principles set out in "How to lie with statistics" by Darrel Huff, whenever someone fails to provide the essential numbers, I always suspect those numbers do not support their cause!

You should look at the Jack-the-Ripper theories.

[rockershovel]

Quite. Expecting motorists who regularly drive the same piece of road, usually in the distracted state common among commuters, to selectively observe that the hard shoulder is/isn’t closed is asking too much of at least, a small percentage of them.

 

I’m not surprised the AA won’t attend breakdowns on “Smart “ motorways. They are a commercial organisation which is obliged to produce Risk Assessments and Safe Systems of Work for their employees. Highways England’s SSOW probably involves controlling the risk by controlling traffic flow through the gantries, ie signalling that the hard shoulder is closed. AA, or any other such organisation for that matter, can’t do that. 

 

Since HE have stated that they won’t be building any more motorways with hard shoulder running (although I suspect that the usual caveat regarding genies and bottles, will prove to be applicable) does that mean that the cynics who thought it was a stupid idea all along, have been proved right in this instance? 

[Nick C]

13 hours ago, ejstubbs said:

As far as I can see the article doesn't say that smart motorways are more dangerous than non-motorway dual carriageways.  The article only discusses motorways, and only gives figures for smart motorways.  So although the numbers look bad - 38 dead people is never going to look good - there is no information provided to allow the reader to gauge the risk relative to other types of road.

 

38 deaths in five years is just under eight a year, which is around 0.4% of total road casualties each year.  It would be useful to have some kind of context in which to understand that.  For example, smart motorways could reasonably be expected to be carrying well towards the upper end of the range of traffic volumes - that's why they've been made "smart".  How much of a contributory factor might that be to the number of fatalities and near misses?

 

That said, I do think that people drive differently on motorways: there is a fundamental expectation of being able to make unimpeded rapid progress.  People tend to drive on motorways with that kind of mindset, and anything that conflicts with it - even if it's intended to make their overall journey smoother - is regarded as a hindrance to be overcome, rather than accommodated in a safe fashion.

That's the thing I really hate about those kinds of articles - there's no context to the numbers. How many deaths were there on the same stretches of roads before making them 'smart'? How many were there on an equivalent length of 'normal' motorway over the same time period?

[petethemole]

The use of hard shoulders as part-time running lanes, and the conversion to full-time running lanes, may not have been going on long enough to provde meaningful statistics. However both situations are inherently more dangerous than the use of hard shoulders as originally intended. I don't have the figures and wouldn't know where to find them, but I have seen sufficient news reports to know that collisions with vehicles stopped on the hard shoulder are not infrequent and occasionally result in death or serious injury to police officers, Highways officers, recovery personnel and car occupants.  Current advice not to stay with the vehicle but to get behind the crash barrier is based on this risk.  These collisions are caused by vehicles that should not be on the hard shoulder but have veered off the carriageway for some reason.  With no hard shoulder a breakdown means stopping in a live traffic lane, which potentially could result in a collision before anyone has even got out of the vehicle to safety. 

 

I don't drive but am a frequent passenger, going back to the opening of the first section of the M1, and have been in a hard shoulder situation, waiting for recovery.. It's not pleasant, especially on a cold winter night, with kids, when you'd rather sit in the car out of the wind.

[ejstubbs]

6 hours ago, Nick C said:

That's the thing I really hate about those kinds of articles - there's no context to the numbers.

 

Omitting any useful context is probably #1 on the list in the book referenced previously by eastglosmog.  Number 2 is prboably what I call "the lie of the big number".  It's a favourite of politicians and special interest groups alike: quote a (genuine) figure for cost, forecast expenditure or the like and, so long as it ends in "illion", most people won't even bother to ask about the wider context.  There seems to be a "think what I could could do with all that money" kind of thought process going on in too many people's minds.  (Another popular one these days seems to be a combination of the lie of the big number with failure to mention that the expenditure concerned was actually already budgeted for - so as to make it look like additional money is being committed to something-or-other when in fact nothing has actually changed.)

[royaloak]

Hard shoulders are a waste of time anyway, when they breakdown a lot of new drivers just stop in the lane they are in rather than get on the hard shoulder, and think the hard shoulder is only there for when they need to stop for a piss!

 

++ not an entirely serious post+++

[bimble]

I do think an important point was the change in the distance between safety laybys, if there is one close by you might be tempted to try to make it. But if there's no sign of somewhere "safe" to stop you might well be tempted to come to a stop. Then you're relying on the people come up behind you to notice that you've stopped.

 

I am more of a fan of the other smart motorway design with the smart hardshoulder, though I disagree with the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps when he says they're too confusing for drivers. If you can't understand the difference between "Use Hardshoulder" and "Hardshoulder for emergency use only" you probably shouldn't be driving.

[JDW]

Yes, I've said that before on here I think. There's a very clear difference between allowing traffic to use the hard shoulder when speeds are slow, traffic is busy and it is safe to do so, and preventing traffic using lane one when there is no hard shoulder and there is a danger. I have absolutely no idea why we can't do it like that, most (all?) the similar schemes I've come across abroad work like that. The default setting is safety, the exception is hard shoulder running when needed and safe. Simple, no? 

[eastglosmog]

I have driven along the M42 quite often when it is in "Use hardshoulder" mode.  The hardshoulder lane is intermittent, because you are not allowed to use it between the exit and entrance at each junction.  Consequently I think its most useful purpose is to act as a very long lead off and lead in lane.  The lead off part keeps traffic queuing to get off due to typical Birmingham congestion from blocking the main running lanes which is of great benefit.

[bimble]

In non-motorway complaining, I have been annoyed today by people turning right into a side road, but only half pulling into the lane provided for turning right, and therefore blocking the main carriageway until they are able to cross the oncoming traffic

[ejstubbs]

Back in the late 1970s I was taught always to turn right from the 'crown' of the road, whether or not there was a ghost island and lane provided for that purpose.  This doesn't seem to be taught nowadays, and I suspect may be a reason why some folks don't use the facilities intended for that purpose when they are provided.  Another explanation, of course, is that some folks are too damn lazy to turn their steering wheel more than a few degrees, so have to take wide swings in to turnings (as also evidenced by people by who swing out to the right before turning in to a road/driveway on the left).

 

To return briefly to the subject of motorways and the presence or otherwise of hard shoulders: up until the mid-1970s the standards for motorways in Scotland did not require hard shoulders.  The M90 was built with no hard shoulders in the vicinity of the Kinross bypass section, and still doesn't have them (although I'm told that the grass verge to the left of lane 1 was deliberately left wide enough to allow one to be retrofitted).  Although I've not be along any of these recently, I've read that other Scottish motorways without hard shoulders are the M8 between the M80 and A803 junctions, and the whole of the M898 and the A823(M) (which are both quite short).

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, bimble said:

In non-motorway complaining, I have been annoyed today by people turning right into a side road, but only half pulling into the lane provided for turning right, and therefore blocking the main carriageway until they are able to cross the oncoming traffic

I had one like that this afternoon who compounded it by signaling the driver waiting to pull out of the turning to go first. 

[ejstubbs]

The other very poor habit when turning right in to side roads is egregiously cutting the corner.  Our street is a bit of a rat run and at a junction just down the hill from us I've seen vehicles enter the side road wholly to the right of the centre line junction marking.  It's not quite so bad these days since the area became a 20mph limit - seeing folks abusing the junction this way at 30mph+, when they couldn't possibly have had time to observe traffic approaching on the side road was quite scary - but it still happens.

 

On another forum, when this kind of behaviour was complained about, someone did actually respond saying that they did it because it meant that they didn't have to turn their steering wheel so far.  This sort of attitude, and other sheer laziness such as people who can't be bothered to use their indicators, really annoys me.  People are permitted to drive large, fast, polluting vehicles on the road to save themselves time and effort in transporting themselves and their chattels provided that they do so in accordance with norms which have been established to make the process as safe as reasonably possible for themselves and other road users.  If the tiny amount of muscular exertion required to  turn a steering wheel a few more degrees or flick their indictors on really is too much effort for them, perhaps a spell of having to having to walk, cycle or take the bus would remind them of the exceptional benefits they could enjoy if only they could manage to comport themselves appropriately behind the wheel...