open hard shoulders downgrade m ways to clearway status’ country is to small to allow the waste of an empty lane’ the speeds of trucks at 56 and the congestion makes m ways out of date.put laybys ect, i work the north east area lots of 2 lane duel c ways i can not see problem
fuse:
open hard shoulders downgrade m ways to clearway status’ country is to small to allow the waste of an empty lane’ the speeds of trucks at 56 and the congestion makes m ways out of date.put laybys ect, i work the north east area lots of 2 lane duel c ways i can not see problem
Would you still keep the same restrictions or allow cyclists, tractors etc 
no cyles ect i do think there is restrictions on clearways
OK - lets pose the question…
Which would trucknet members regard as more dangerous - our current dual carriageways or motorways where the hard shoulder is replaced by laybys - and why
i think it is evens, there are long stretches of 2 lane a1 its busy but i donot feel less safe on it the only thing i would say is to restrickt slow veh ie jcb tractors ect
fuse:
no cyles ect i do think there is restrictions on clearways
And wait for the uproar from the cycling groups! Despite the fact that cyclists are an absolute menace (both to themselves and to other road users) on dual carriageways they continue to use them even when a cycle lane is provided and signposted. 
Rog, dual carriageways are by far the more dangerous, since the accesses and exits are not necessarily designed for faster traffic. The A48/A40 from Pont Abraham services to St. Clears is a classic , tractors and skip wagons having to cross the opposite carriageway to turn right. We get at least one pileup a week, often many more.
i do not sudgest this could be done overnight ie no crossing carrage ways ie you go left down to next r about come back up i am sure that with the experiance on this site problems could be overcme
fuse:
i do not sudgest this could be done overnight ie no crossing carrage ways ie you go left down to next r about come back up i am sure that with the experiance on this site problems could be overcme
A few objections to that one Fuse;
-
If your next roundabout is five miles down the road, that’s 10 miles added to the trip. Multiply that by the number of times per trip you have to do it and then try convincing your customer that the distance is actually “x” miles when his 'puter shows “x minus 50”.
-
Traffic build-up at roundabouts.
-
Mr. average car driver does not expect trucks to go right round an island and back up the other way. We have to do this to access our depot due to a 7.5 tonne limit; near misses due to cars pulling out are a regular occurence and this despite warning signs which clearly state the case!
-
Assuming you’re still letting tractors etc use the dual carriageway, add them to 1) above and you’re stuck behind them for that much longer. Alternative routes aren’t always available for them.
Aren’t we going this way anyway with Active Traffic Management and use of the hard shoulder? (M42)
ROG:
OK - lets pose the question…
Which would trucknet members regard as more dangerous - our current dual carriageways or motorways where the hard shoulder is replaced by laybys - and why
I would regard dual carriagways as more dangerous.
[1] Because i know from statistics that motorways are our safest roads.
[2] Because everyone does motorway speeds on dual carriageways in real life and when someone turns off or on or gets it wrong thats when it all goes pear shaped with no where to go.
Roll on the blanket 50mph limit and no truck overtaking coming our way !!
just been out a while . motorways would be as they are now with no crossover points ect the outside lane for cars only could be narrowed 2 feet to allow more room for us and coaches .keep ideas comming
macplaxton:
Aren’t we going this way anyway with Active Traffic Management and use of the hard shoulder? (M42)
exactly mac. This was a trial & has obviously been seen as successful as the government have today announced it is to be introduced to other motorways.
Lets keep dual carriageway safety as a seperate issue.
Only announced it today? They put it in the latest Highway Code, so I couldn’t see them scrapping it! 
fuse:
i do not sudgest this could be done overnight
I’d say we might all be very surprised at what could be achieved overnight.
I agree with Mike-C’s point about the d/c junctions though…
On 3rd September 1967, Sweden changed from driving on the left like we do, to driving on the right.
To see how they did this, have a look at THIS
Our problem seems quite small now… 
IF hard shoulders are transformed into a new lane with emergency pull-ins (laybys) added and all drivers are made aware of this along with keeping the current restrictions on the type of vehicles allowed to use the motorways, would this work We are aware of such dangers on duals so would transferring that awareness to motorways cause us and the general public a problem
IMO. I dont think it would as long as there is a really accurate traffic management system that would allow the emergency services access in an incident with instant info given to drivers.
Think its a good idea on certain stretchs of motorway but only some.
Gotta remember the M42 is manned by camera staff, emergency vehicles ready to get on the scene quickly. Prob why it works. Its completly different doing it for 10miles of motorway compared to hundreds of miles of motorway and maybe not work that great.
Also hard shoulders were not designed as running lanes, they are smaller than normal running lanes, which means in a lot of cases having to make the hard shoulders larger to allow HGV’s espec to use them. Infact look at the M6 in between Preston and Lancashire the hard shoulder drops away when it passes a lot of bridges.
The M8 in Glasgow, the work in the summer round about the M77 junction was partly to resurface the hard shoulders because the surface wasnt designed for vehicles to drive on and would fall apart if used as a running lane, supposedly they are gonna introduce M42 type running lanes to it. This would need to be done on large sections of motorway and maybe more worthwhile just adding another lane.
Difference between Dual Carriageways and motorways, somtimes isnt any, some but somtimes there are huge differences. Motorways are designed to a certain standard to allow high speed use, some dual carriageways are some ain’t. Some have really tight corners, some junctions where you turn right to leave etc…
Kenny1975:
Also hard shoulders were not designed as running lanes, they are smaller than normal running lanes, which means in a lot of cases having to make the hard shoulders larger to allow HGV’s espec to use them.
The M1 is due to be a four lane stretch past here at J30. When it was proposed the Highways Agency sent out leaflets outlining the way that the system would work. I no longer have the leaflet to hand but I remember it saying that the hard shoulder would have to be strenghened, and then all four lanes would in fact be slightly narrower to be accomodated by the width of the road with lane 4 being the narrowest by a small margin.
I wonder how much wider a 4 lane would have to be over a 3 lane if the outer 2 lanes had a 2 metre width restriction?
ROG:
I wonder how much wider a 4 lane would have to be over a 3 lane if the outer 2 lanes had a 2 metre width restriction?
Short answer - depends on the stretch of motorway you’re referring to, as I learn many years back, that they’re all slightly different due to the prevailing rules at the time of construction. For instance early hard shoulders were only 8ft wide, where later ones were 10ft or something. Lane width varies a bit too depending on location.
Long answer - 3 x 3.65 = 10.95m cf. (2 x 3.65)+(2 x 2m) = 11.30m
Looking at the DfT’s M1/M62 Motorway Improvements in Yorkshire package page (the Google cached version is more detailed that the current one)
It says:
"Safety
Due to the new layout a full ‘safety case’ has been commissioned to look at the safety of the new layout. For us to construct this scheme, this safety case has to show that the new ‘four lanes with emergency access lane’ layout is at least as safe as the standard 3 lane motorway. The introduction of controlled motorway is seen to deliver safety benefits on top of this.Is it safe to have narrower lanes?
The lane widths will be 3.5m which is only marginally narrower than the current width of lanes on UK motorways of 3.65m. 3.5m lanes are the standard in other parts of the world (e.g. Italy and parts of Australia). Narrow lanes (lane width reduced to 3.0m) have been run successfully on other sections of the network, including M60 junction 12-14, for some time with no reduction in safety.Is it safe not to have a hard shoulder?
When vehicles break down, the emergency refuge areas will provide a safer refuge than the normal shoulder. If a vehicle breaks down and cannot make it to an emergency refuge area, they can stop on the hardened verge. Alternatively, if they break down and cannot move off the motorway, they will be detected by the controlled motorway systems and CCTV and the Regional Control Centre will close the lane they are in. Other vehicles on the motorway will thus be warned of the breakdown and moved into a different lane.Lengths of motorway in other areas of the country have no hard shoulder e.g. on parts of the M60, or a 2.5m wide hard shoulder, e.g. on the M621 before it joins the M1 near Leeds.
Many people stopping on the hard shoulder are not there because of an emergency breakdown. Recent research has shown that only 10% - 20% of vehicles stopping on the hard shoulder because they have broken down. Others are there to answer the phone, check the map or have a comfort break. It is illegal to stop on the motorway unless it is an emergency and clearly this is not a safe environment in which to make unnecessary stops."
Seems like too many folk are “doing a Fergie” and not using the hard shoulder as it was intended anyway 
Certainly the focus is on using existing roadspace as widening is so disruptive and expensive (I’m thinking how it took 2 years to complete J1A to J3 of the M40 - All the bridges to widen and loss of the hard shoulder at those points anyway.)
macplaxton:
Certainly the focus is on using existing roadspace as widening is so disruptive and expensive (I’m thinking how it took 2 years to complete J1A to J3 of the M40 - All the bridges to widen and loss of the hard shoulder at those points anyway.)
Less expensive true, but judging by the signs that have gone up between J25 & 28 of the M1 in the last week or so that state work is commencing as of this monday coming and it is going to last until 2010, I can only guess how much disruption there is going to be on one of the most congested stretches of motorway already. 
