03-11-21, 12:49 PM
There is nothing smart about a "smart" motorway. The smaller brained people who thought it up thought that the general public had even smaller brains than them as their key selling point was "more lanes available reducing congestion and tailbacks".
How many brain cells does it need to calculate that a 5 mile tailback with 3 lanes will obviously be shorter if theres 4 lanes to fill up instead? (just in case you are struggling, it would be 15 miles of traffic between the 3 lanes and still 15 miles of traffic between 4 but only tailing back 3.75 miles instead of 5)
What they failed to remember was that cars and trucks breakdown regularly and are not always able to travel the extra 0.5 or 1 mile needed to get to a refuge. Previously we could pull/roll straight to the hard shoulder. This results in a lane being blocked so down to 3 lanes again. Only needs one breakdown on a stretch of road and you may as well have 3 lanes for the whole stretch.
Once a car/truck has broken down, you then need people to expect a stationary vehicle in lane 1 and take avoiding action quickly now where as before, they were on the hard shoulder and more or less out of harms way but certainly less of a risk to traffic that's still moving and therefore safer for the broken down vehicles occupants.
The hard shoulder was removed as it is cheaper than building a whole new lane. No compulsory purchases, no more embankment work to make the available space bigger, no real money being spent apart form strengthening the surface which the contractors seem to drag out for far too long.
Retrofitting refuges to the existing not-so-smart motorways will bring years of traffic chaos. You would have to shut at least 2 lanes so they could work safely - see the point above about lane reduction
How many brain cells does it need to calculate that a 5 mile tailback with 3 lanes will obviously be shorter if theres 4 lanes to fill up instead? (just in case you are struggling, it would be 15 miles of traffic between the 3 lanes and still 15 miles of traffic between 4 but only tailing back 3.75 miles instead of 5)
What they failed to remember was that cars and trucks breakdown regularly and are not always able to travel the extra 0.5 or 1 mile needed to get to a refuge. Previously we could pull/roll straight to the hard shoulder. This results in a lane being blocked so down to 3 lanes again. Only needs one breakdown on a stretch of road and you may as well have 3 lanes for the whole stretch.
Once a car/truck has broken down, you then need people to expect a stationary vehicle in lane 1 and take avoiding action quickly now where as before, they were on the hard shoulder and more or less out of harms way but certainly less of a risk to traffic that's still moving and therefore safer for the broken down vehicles occupants.
The hard shoulder was removed as it is cheaper than building a whole new lane. No compulsory purchases, no more embankment work to make the available space bigger, no real money being spent apart form strengthening the surface which the contractors seem to drag out for far too long.
Retrofitting refuges to the existing not-so-smart motorways will bring years of traffic chaos. You would have to shut at least 2 lanes so they could work safely - see the point above about lane reduction
Another ex-Fazer rider that is a foccer again