This has been discussed before, but my advice is try it before you knock it.
Having been on the M42 when it's in operation it works well. The hard shoulder is only used when traffic is heavy and it links with the variable speed limit system - a combination of both systems keeps the traffic flowing.
There are refuges at regular intervals for emergency use.
|
>>but my advice is try it before you knock it.<<
I have also used this road, so have tried it before knocking it. If you feel safe that if you (or someone close in front of you) had a vehicle emergency that you and your family would be safe then thats your opinion.
Imo, its bordering on downright dangerous!
Have you ever been to a broken down vehicle to repair/recover it? Its dangerous to even attach tow rope/ tow assembly etc. And thats on a dedicated hard shoulder. On a shoulder that is now a carriageway! No money on earth would get me to attend 1 !
Imo to attend such an incident it would require 2 police cars/officers and substantial coning off before I would even consider stopping let alone getting out of vehicle and attaching up !
Try that before knocking it maybe?
|
For me the system works. Traffic was going at about 40mph in all lanes, no fools lane chopping to get a few feet ahead etc etc - it was some of the most civilised motorway behaviour I've seen.
If you wouldn't attend without a hard shoulder what do you do if called out to a breakdown on a dual carriageway where traffic could be approaching at 70+ mph? Do you then require police cars, coning off etc? The M42 is no different - in fact its better as traffic will be going much slower when the hard shoulder lane is operative.
I do not hear weekly reports of carnage on the M42 as a result of the hard shoulder being used and until I do I'll have no problem with the system.
|
|
Agree with daveyjp. Have used the M42 set up several times and it works well. Would comment that there are speed cameras on every gantry which encourages everyone to comply.
|
|
I reckon it's probably safer to break down on the hard shoulder of the M42 than most other places. If you come to a stop in that lane, you're going to cause a queue of stationary traffic behind you which can only creep past. At the worst, the computers will detect you blocking the lane, close the lane further back, and traffic is moving past you at a maximum of 40mph.
|
|
|
|
Hard Shoulder running is only allowed when the average speed of vehicles in the 3 lanes is down to 50 mph, so ypu won't have such fasy moving traffic coming past you. Every inch of the entire section is covered by CCTV and is monitored constantly by the Highways Agency Control Room. As soon as a stranded vehicle is spotted, the dedicated signal operator will set the gantry signs to move traffic off the hard shoulder lane in that location.
There is always a Highways Agency 4x4 on standby in the vicinity who will be dispatched and will drag the vehicle to the Emergency layby (every 500m). If that is not possible, the gantries will be set not to allow hard shoulder running between the two junctions where the stranded vehicle is.
All in all, it's proving no more dangerous than a normal 3 lane M'way plus hard shoulder.
|
>>All in all, it's proving no more dangerous than ...
Yes, quite. I'm surprised that people aren't outraged at how dangerous an ordinary dual carriageway is. 70 mph running, vehicles overtaking with no hard shoulder - what's the problem?
|
Having experienced the M42 several times, I work about 100 yards away from it, I don't think the extra lane helps congestion at all. The hard shoulder is "next exit only" for the stretch before a junction and that means that the regulars, like me, don't use it. It is frequently almost empty when running.
What eases the congestion is the variable speed limits and the compliance cameras which do exactly the same job on the M25 near Heathrow where the hard shoulder IS NOT used.
Or don't the Variable limits on the M25 work?
One of the HA contractors will make a lot of money installing the systems, and someone in the government/DpT is likely to have a nice part time non exec directorship when they retire out of this if nothing before!
|
|
|
Yes, quite. I'm surprised that people aren't outraged at how dangerous an ordinary dual carriageway is. 70 mph running, vehicles overtaking with no hard shoulder - what's the problem?
The possibility of an incident are greatly increased with the interactions of 3,4 possibly 5 lanes running in parallel. I've used the M42 when HS was in use & it struck me how 'knife-edge' things were - a little jitter in the outer lane was transferred & magnified to the inner lanes - it reminded me of the classically unstable system: starlings flocking. If only we drove as well as starlings fly, no problem. I also think the claustrophobia you get when running in parallel with no HS increases the chances of driver error.
The other stumbling blocks for me are lack of safe breakdown area & lane mixing in anticipation of an exit & merging at a slip road. It seems all these (already tricky) manoeuvres & contingencies would, in the HS-used situation, require almost perfect driving at all times if they're not to cause an accident or upgrade an incident to an accident.
I'm sure a clever statistician/mathemetician could calculate the net overall effect of increased accident per mile travelled vs. extra flow in using HS (not to mention casualties).
Let's not forget, the HS was invented for a reason.
|
Let's not forget, the HS was invented for a reason.
Well, yes, one of the major reasons being that there was no way to clearly and immediately signpost a hazard ahead back in 1960-whatever. They didn't want you to have to hop out and pop your warning triangle 100 yards down the carriageway!
With electronic signs and constant CCTV monitoring, this concern no longer applies.
|
They didn't want you to have to hop out and pop your warning triangle 100 yards down the carriageway!
With electronic signs and constant CCTV monitoring, this concern no longer applies.
Well, there'll be absolutely no risk of that then - there won't be a hard shoulder!
So, if you're silly enough not to have planned your breakdown near a haven of some kind, you can safely rely on the HA/traffic control to have reacted in seconds & all the traffic to magically steer around you as you sit on a 'live' motorway lane?
The HS 'solution' is a disastrously daft idea.
|
But how many people have instant breakdowns where the car just stops? And whats to say that wouldn't happen in lane 3? And then whats the difference between that and two cars having a shunt? Its the samething.
Hard Shoulder running works just fine - all it does is convert a motorway into a dual carriageway type situation - excep with emergency refuges every 500yards.
Its unusual for me to say this, but a thumbs up to this government policy (now that was hard to say!)
Nothing daft about, and if drivers can't cope with it they shouldn't be on the road IMHO.
|
>>Nothing daft about, and if drivers can't cope with it they shouldn't be on the road IMHO.
>>But how many people have instant breakdowns where the car just stops?
Not relevant really. The fact is you'll be slowing down or stopping in a 'live' lane mostly, not an unused HS & you may be more than a a quarter of a mile from refuge.
And whats to say that wouldn't happen in lane 3?
We're talking about the additional risk of using the HS.
>And then whats the difference between that and two cars having a shunt?
See above.
>>Nothing daft about, and if drivers can't cope with it they shouldn't be on the road IMHO.
I worry more more about those drivers with poor risk assessment abilities.
|
I stand by my comments, so I think we will agree to disagree!!
I just find the whole risk assessment etc.. culture of the world these days all wrong. Life is full of risk - I know eating a bacon sandwich is unhealthy, but I still do it. I know climbing on the desk to pin something on the noticeboard is dangerous, but I still do it.
So the benefit to using the hard shoulder outweighs any risks attached to using it. Just my views, and not neccesarily those of anyone who knows me, employs me or stands next to me.
|
Yes we all take risks, but what make of tyre will you be buying when you ruin the ones you've got. As I said in the OP, I have not heard any mention of the up keep of these HSs, to carriageway standard.
You might ignore the risks, but I bet when it comes to pound notes you'll be in lane one.
|
|
Interesting debate. The conversation amongst my colleagues is if this becomes nationwide, how do we operate safely. We use the hard shoulder as a place to stop and check vehicles. We can't be doing that if it's a live lane.
|
>>how do we operate safely
What would you currently do on a dual carriageway?
|
We use the hard shoulder as a place to stop and check vehicles. We can't be doing that if it's a live lane.
Why not do what you would do on dual carriageways? (i.e. nothing ?)
People are so mollycoddled in matters of safety these days that if these wet people were allowed to make decisions on safety, all our power stations (including wind-turbines, oil, coal, gas and nuclear) and chemical plants would be shut down. Also, all motoring would be banned as too dangerous. Reminds me of
www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=99
|
I have not heard any mention of the up keep of these HSs, to carriageway standard.
Just because you have not heard of it does not mean there is any problem.
If you want proof, just go and try out the M42 where this system has now been working perfectly well for months without any adverse incident. It is better monitored than most other sections of Motorways or Dual Carriageways. The lane open/closed plus speed control system, and the high density of camera observation/monitoring points probably makes it the safest road to travel on of any other M-way or DualC-way in the UK. I would rather break down there than anywhere else.
|
Shh!
Let them all avoid the motorways, it will reduce the congestion for me!
|
Well I Police the M42 and it's not pleasant. You have limited options where cars can be pulled and the majority don't think "oh, there's the safety bay", they just stop. Not ideal when you've got a load of artics coming up your chuff.
I don't stop cars on a dual carriageway, I wait until the road layout changes. It's not something you can do on the m/way. For those talking about health and safety, I invite you to come and stand with me on the motorway.
|
For those talking about health and safety, I invite you to come and stand with me on the motorway.
Agree with you entirely. However, the concept of safety or danger is a relative measure, which can be estimated with statistical analysis, but which can also be misjudged by flawed perception.
The hard shoulder on a M-way with traffic rushing past at 70mph plus is a very very dangerous place even if you are parked as far off on the hard shoulder as you can physically park (which is why the advice is to get out of your car and wait for rescue some distance away behind the barriers ). In contrast, on the M42 hard shoulder with traffic controls means that the hard shoulder is signed with a red X and the open lanes are signed 50mph or less. So that part of the M42 is the safest M-way you can find yourself on. And it is definitely far safer than a broken down stopped on a dual carriageway.
|
Good point jbif - we all seem to have forgotten about the fact that when the hard shoulder is open the road is limited to 50mph, with cameras to monitor that speed. This is why it works so well.
As for the comments about punctures - my work takes me on building sites so I tend to buy cheap tyres anyway. There's nothing wrong with the Maxxis on my Golf!
|
|
i was wondering.. if the hard shoulder is going to be used as lane 1 then it will get a lot of heavy traffic , and with it being the edge of the tarmac wont it tend to crack and seperate toward the grass verges? and is'nt the sub layer (hard core) thinner on the emergency lane? any highway agency lads in the room?
|
There's a rather spurious comparison being made by the pro-HS lobby between motorways without HS & dual carriageway/A-roads. Dual carraigeways (even NSL with big signs & everything!) are nothing like typical motorways. Motorways have intersections often 10s of miles apart, no lay-bys & consistently fast (70+ mph) traffic. NSL DC/A-roads even without an 'official' hard shoulder often have run-off areas or wide unfenced verges & ample off-route possibilities - the motorway HS was the attempt to provide at least a vestige & refuge of safety in the absence of that.
It seems though some are willing to trade increased safety (theirs & others) for a few minutes saved on journey time. The M42 is held up as a shinig example of how non-HS motorways can 'work - just imagine for a moment not just 20 miles driving under those circumstances, but 50, 100 or more in the long, dark, wet months. Utter madness.
|
The M42 is held up as a shinig example of how non-HS motorways can 'work
That is precisely because it is a shining example of the system really works to the advantage of everyone on the M-way. Ideally you would want to widen the motorway and add another lane, but in the circumstances the solution of using the hardshoulder under tightly controlled conditions works wonders. All the concerns imagined by woodbines and many more were raised during the trial phase of the M42 scheme, but they have all been proved to be utterly unfounded.
So it is not utter madness at all, but a genius of a solution given the circumstances. As the saying goes, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". As usual, it seems people who get used to a comfort zone are initially reluctant to adapt to new and better systems.
p.s. I am not a supporter of may daft ideas that this Government or its Civil Servants or Consultants dream up, but on the hard shoulder issue, I think that they have got it absolutely right.
And if "madf" if right as he says in another thread, in 10 years time the traffic will have disappeared due to oil prices and taxes putting driving beyond the reach of most people in the UK.
Edited by jbif on 08/03/2008 at 10:51
|
There's a rather spurious comparison
Not really.
Many dual carriageways do have more junctions than motorways - but there are periodic extra run off areas added beyond the hard shoulder where hard shoulder running is used. In this respect, the comparison is valid.
On the issue of verges, I would argue that motorways are far more likely to have a decent interval of grassy verge at their side, whereas dual carriageways sometimes pass within yards of buildings. Again, the comparison is at least valid if not generous.
I think the case for a spurious comparison, and that HS running is utter madness has not been made.
|
On the issue of verges, I would argue that motorways are far more likely to have a decent interval of grassy verge at their side, whereas dual carriageways sometimes pass within yards of buildings. Again, the comparison is at least valid if not generous.
Paradoxically, the places where HS-use is being/likely to be considered, are exactly those intra & inter urban M-ways where space is at a premium - and not likely to enjoy luxuriantly verdant & expansive areas beyond the HS - more likely are impenetrable barriers of some kind, armco for example.
Any rational case beyond the expedient, in my view, hasn't been made.
|
>>Paradoxically, the places where HS-use
Doubtlessly, we could trade examples of places which we would find to be both particularly suitable or unsuitable for a long time. As ever, the same is true for the intra and inter urban dual carriageways which run without a hard shoulder routinely.
>>Any rational case beyond the expedient
The way you say that makes expediting traffic sound like a bad thing!
|
>>Any rational case beyond the expedient
The way you say that makes expediting traffic sound like a bad thing!
Sorry, I think you're confusing the different meanings of 'expedient' & 'expedite' - common mistake!
|
Expedient may mean that there there is a moral dimension which is being overlooked to obtain the advantage, but it does not automatically and rigidly imply this.
I mis-used your meaning, but not the pedantic use of English!
|
I mis-used your meaning, but not the pedantic use of English!
Language needs to be precise, as I'm sure you'll agree. Would you tolerate a misplaced decimal point?
|
No, but, I maintain that I haven't been imprecise with language either. Expedient does not *always* have a negative connotation.
|
The feasibility study:
tinyurl.com/24apzs
|
The feasibility study: tinyurl.com/24apzs
Thanks for that HairyHatMan. But I doubt if any of the anti-hard-shoulder-running brigade will bother to read it.
Language needs to be precise, as I'm sure you'll agree.
expedient vs expediency
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansr...m
9 Jan 2008 : Column 854
" Earl Cathcart moved Amendment No. 103:
..... In such circumstances, what amendments to the provisions of the Bill could possibly be required as a matter of expediency, and in what circumstances might expediency be considered relevant by the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
3.45 pm
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have one supplementary question to ask, following on from my noble friend Lord Cathcart. The Oxford English Dictionarygives three definitions of ?expedient?. The first is, ??expeditious? or ?speedy??; the second is ?Conducive to advantage in general, or to a definite purpose; fit, proper or suitable to the purposes of the case?; and the third, in a depreciative sense, is, ??Useful? or ?politic? as opposed to ?just? or ?right??. I quote in particular an example given in the OED of a predecessor or mine as Member of Parliament for Westminster, John Stuart Mill, who said:
?The expedient, in the sense in which it is opposed to the right, generally means that which is expedient for the particular interest of the agent himself?.
I realise that in Humpty Dumpty?s view, the words could mean anything one chose them to mean, but which particular interpretation do the Government have in mind?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I have yet to be compared to Humpty Dumpty in this House, but there is a first time for everything. I very much hope that I can offer Members of the Committee reassurance on this probing amendment, which I am sure is helpful. I thank the noble Earl for tabling it and allowing us to have this mini discussion.
Clause 19(3) allows the Secretary of State to make any consequential amendments to the Act as may be necessary or expedient as a result of including further ...."
So I have now managed to include Humpty Dumpty in a discussion about hard shoulders!
|
Excellent material jbif!
>>I realise that in Humpty Dumpty?s view, the words could mean anything one chose them to mean, but which particular interpretation do the Government have in mind?
In comparison, this forum is gentle, peaceful and calm!
|
Thanks for that HairyHatMan. But I doubt if any of the anti-hard-shoulder-running brigade will bother to read it.
Oh, why? I did - although I skimmed some parts. I must say it does modify my view in some ways. The level of investment in the ancilliary technology for control/use & the physical road changes/upgrades would give me greater confidence in it should it become more widely adopted. However, there are several provisos in the report regarding safety, mainly relating to the shortness of the pilot period & the psychological effect that novel road layout/schemes have upon driver behaviour, i.e. they tend to moderate the more devil-may-care. It also notes raised concerns by the emergency services about access & safety & notes these are still to be tested, across a range of scenarios, in practice.
By the way, interesting you took the time to delve into possible meanings of the word 'expedient'. The quotation quotes the OED, which distinguishes separate meanings. As you may well know, when divergent or subtly different meanings for a word are indicated, the context in which they occur should disambiguate (the meanings) for the reader. I'm sorry if my sceptical & contrary stance on HS-usage wasn't clear - otherwise I'm sure the meaning would have been clear.
|
Like other posters, I don't see that using the hard shoulder as a fourth lane need cause all the danger and difficulty predicted. The overhead London section of the M4 extension, to take one example, has no hard shoulder and is in daily heavy use. Obviously a breakdown will cause a delay, but the essential thing is to have people and equipment ready to get to the spot within say ten minutes and lift everything clear. It would cost something to put this extra system in place, but not as much as widening a motorway. And it wouldn't take quite as long either :o}
Sloping, but not too sloping, grass verges are present beside a lot of motorways too. Moving the crash barrier back and providing an unsurfaced sort of soft shoulder would also be (relatively, as they say) inexpensive.
Needs must when the devil drives. Let's just hope they don't counter the 30 per cent increase in road area with a 30 per cent drop in the mandatory speed limit, and a host of nasty little robot cameras to enforce it.
|
A few years ago, I attended a RTC on this section of the M4. An airport worker on his way home, quite late, in relatively quiet traffic, stopped in lane one due to a puncture. As he got out to remove the spare from the boot he was rear ended by a car in lane 1. When we eventually arrived through the tailback, we were confronted with this guy pinned between both cars. He died later from his injuries.
If there was a HS, he would have been safer and we could have got to him quicker. Bearing in mind that this section of motorway has many cameras, and matrix gantries, it wasn't helpful to him in this case.
As you probably know this piece of the M4, you must be aware then that any broken down vehicle or biff creates large tailbacks and gridlocking around this area especially Chiswick, as drivers try to avoid by using the A4 underneath the flyover.
|
stopped in lane one due to a puncture. As he got out to remove the spare
That isn't what you do. You hobble to the next exit destroying your tyre and rim too if necessary. First things first. What are you doing on the elevated section if you don't even know that?
If there was a HS he would have been safer, yes. But it's a real world and he was at risk, poor fellow.
|
|
I and you know what we should do. But I was sharing how this situation led to such an outcome. I'm sure almost all RTCs can be put down to not doing the right thing at the time. Simply, a hard shoulder has its purpose.
|
By the way, interesting you took the time to delve into possible meanings of the word 'expedient'.
What did you expect after your claim " the different meanings of 'expedient' & 'expedite' - common mistake! "
|
One summer, about 13 years ago, I was making progress en route to Vienna, on a tight schedule, when my new car suddenly cut out on a two lane stretch of autobahn in the south of Germany with no hard shoulder. I coasted well on to the grass verge and immediately set about fault finding the problem. I suspected it was the electrical supply to the fuel pump as the fuel gauge had been uncharacteristically erratic in the few minutes prior to the breakdown.
Within seconds of stopping I could smell hot, burning grass. The grass on the verge had been trimmed but was still 8 to 10 inches high and the sun-baked stems were smouldering against my red hot catalyst. I could see wisps of smoke as I scrabbled about underneath the rear of the car tracing the fuel pump wire.
Sure enough, the wire had come unclipped, and the 100++ mph wind flow had caused it to come into contact with the hot exhaust which had melted the insulation, had shorted it out and blown the fuse. The melted insulation had stuck the wire on to the exhaust, I pulled it off so it hung free, changed the fuse. I drove off quickly, noticing, in the rear view mirror, the small black circle of grass that had been burning under my car!
At the next stopping point, I reflected on the possibility that the whole car could have gone up in flames, as I taped up the wire and relocated it.
|
Some very good points made (imo) on both sides of the argument of hard shoulder use.
Only 2 points have not been answered to my satisfaction about using the HS.
1 Just imagine a vehicle fire/people trapped/serious accident, and describe exactly how emergency services/breakdown trucks etc can get to the scene through 4 blocked lanes of traffic? It is not easy with a Hs in use.
2 All those who favour the use of the HS (probably seasoned travellers in fairness) have probably never had to attend to a vehicle in these areas. I asure you standing in close proximity at a car at 30 is dangerous, at 50 its extremely dangerous, at 70 more so! I agree too much is made of Health and Safety in daily use; but why is it ok for emergency services/recovery operators to be told the risk is ok by people who have never experienced it?
Have you ever stood within 3 feet of a car going past at 50? Try it before saying how safe this idea is maybe?
|
|
In a situation as you describe, a seperate fire attendance is always made on the opposite carriageway just in case of hold ups. Though due to rubber neckers this attendance could be hampered without the use of a HS. And there is the safety of the crew to consider. Stopping in a flowing carriageway, crossing over a barrier with heavy cutting gear or firefighting hoses. It is not practical and the truck would be blocking the opposite carriageway. Our procedures for RTCs is to use the truck to fend off lanes to protect people and crew from being hit from flowing traffic. Working from an opposite carriageway would be difficult. Hard shoulders were created for a reason and serve an important purpose. If a carriageway warrants it, build more lanes instead. Cutting corners costs lives.
|
>>All those who favour the use of the HS (probably seasoned travellers in fairness) have probably never had to attend to a vehicle in these areas.
YB - had you said most instead of all, I would agree.
Yes, there will be instances when people will die because there's no hard shoulder there. Of course, it's a tragedy for all personally involved, but, the extra risk posed by hard shoulder running needs to be balanced against the reduction in congestion.
Every time we step onto or drive onto a road, we are taking a significant risk - but, we choose to take the risk because the benefits outweigh the risks.
What we are talking about is really moving around in shades of grey, there's no absolute safe road system, and there's no absolutely unsafe road system being imposed. So, it's a question of striking a balance. In my view, the balance is currently being struck much too conservatively, and we could and should afford to be more bold.
|
You will have to excuse me then for regarding the safety of the emergency services and recovery people in higher regard than those of the normal road user.
Driving entails risks (from mild to life threatening). Attending to those incidents that happen should have that risk reduced as much as possible.
As scribe says so well, cutting corners costs lives. If the congenstion warrants it, cure it, not just worsen it and the risk, by putting more vehicles on the same road.
We will have to agree to disagree, I think that sacrificing the HS (an emergency refuge) for increased flow is a backward step.
as for danger in a car (I am involved in motorsport and probably take more risks as such in a car than most). But with all things, its a calculated risk.
Dont forget that in an accident scenario the hs can be used to allow the flow of the road to continue wislt the incident is attended to. Without a HS its likely the road will be closed !
|
I do see your point of view YB, but, I can't go along with it.
people in higher regard than those of the normal road user.
As far as safety, injuries and deaths go, we're all absolutely equal.
risk reduced as much as possible.
If this (flawed but fashionable) phrase is followed to its logical conclusion, each incident, even small incidents would close the road. The thing that's missing is the idea of balance, the loss sufferred by those held up, the loss to business and trade.
>>We will have to agree to disagree
That's OK! It would be a dull discussion if we all just nodded our heads in synch!
As yet, the M42 experiment has not shown significantly worse accident stats to normal motorway. When someone can show me real data which prove that it's a significant extra safety risk, I might buy into the reduced safety argument.
|
|
|
|
|
