National Highways - lane 1 divert instead of closure?
Discussion
Mr GDB Official has posted quite a few YouTube videos where he has requested that lane 1 is closed while he and his customer join the main carriageway safely. His latest one here:
To me this makes logical sense, as a lane closure is legally binding. However, National Highways seem to have a 'new' policy where they will instead put a lane divert in place instead. Of course this is not legally binding, and thus renders lane 1 as a live lane which would need to be used to get up to speed when emerging from the emergency bay. In his videos you see numerous vehicles ignoring the divert and continuing down lane 1 while National Highways (from their nice warm office) tell him that drivers are complying.
Does anybody understand the reason for this policy change and the reluctance of National Highways to use a red X? Surely if they actually cared about driver safety, they would close the lane temporarily.
Instead they seem to dig their heels in and refuse to close it, leaving two vehicles in the emergency bay unable to safely join. What should be a 60 second lane closure becomes a 10 minute stand-off over the phone. I honestly think these 'smart' motorways would work so much better if the people employed to operate it were smart.
To me this makes logical sense, as a lane closure is legally binding. However, National Highways seem to have a 'new' policy where they will instead put a lane divert in place instead. Of course this is not legally binding, and thus renders lane 1 as a live lane which would need to be used to get up to speed when emerging from the emergency bay. In his videos you see numerous vehicles ignoring the divert and continuing down lane 1 while National Highways (from their nice warm office) tell him that drivers are complying.
Does anybody understand the reason for this policy change and the reluctance of National Highways to use a red X? Surely if they actually cared about driver safety, they would close the lane temporarily.
Instead they seem to dig their heels in and refuse to close it, leaving two vehicles in the emergency bay unable to safely join. What should be a 60 second lane closure becomes a 10 minute stand-off over the phone. I honestly think these 'smart' motorways would work so much better if the people employed to operate it were smart.
I watched this (follow his youtube because I'm local to him). It does seem ridiculous that they wouldn't close lane 1 (especially as he has proof on video that people were not following the lane divert instructions).
I personally wouldn't want to pull out of an emergency bay without a lane 1 closure on (especially with only 68BHP propelling me along!!).
The thought of a breakdown on a smart motorway terrifies me and i've always been a very confident person behind the wheel.
I personally wouldn't want to pull out of an emergency bay without a lane 1 closure on (especially with only 68BHP propelling me along!!).
The thought of a breakdown on a smart motorway terrifies me and i've always been a very confident person behind the wheel.
DKS said:
The cynic in me suggests National Highways or their contractor running the road get 'fined' for any lane closures. Profit more important that safety.
Possibly, but by who? It just seems insane that anybody would be penalised for attempting to make the road safer to use. If anything, they should be incentivised to close the lane.James_N said:
I watched this (follow his youtube because I'm local to him). It does seem ridiculous that they wouldn't close lane 1 (especially as he has proof on video that people were not following the lane divert instructions).
I personally wouldn't want to pull out of an emergency bay without a lane 1 closure on (especially with only 68BHP propelling me along!!).
The thought of a breakdown on a smart motorway terrifies me and i've always been a very confident person behind the wheel.
A more powerful car might be fine, but lower powered cars would take time to get up to speed which must be done in lane 1.I personally wouldn't want to pull out of an emergency bay without a lane 1 closure on (especially with only 68BHP propelling me along!!).
The thought of a breakdown on a smart motorway terrifies me and i've always been a very confident person behind the wheel.
All it takes is one driver to not be paying attention to the emerging car to cause a collision.
aturnick54 said:
A more powerful car might be fine, but lower powered cars would take time to get up to speed which must be done in lane 1.
All it takes is one driver to not be paying attention to the emerging car to cause a collision.
Indeed, but to me this is a question of driving standards. Do we really want to legislate to the lowest common denominator, or should we be raising the standards?All it takes is one driver to not be paying attention to the emerging car to cause a collision.
aturnick54 said:
DKS said:
The cynic in me suggests National Highways or their contractor running the road get 'fined' for any lane closures. Profit more important that safety.
Possibly, but by who? It just seems insane that anybody would be penalised for attempting to make the road safer to use. If anything, they should be incentivised to close the lane.MustangGT said:
Indeed, but to me this is a question of driving standards. Do we really want to legislate to the lowest common denominator, or should we be raising the standards?
Ideally a bit of both. I'm sure we've all had occasions where we've briefly lost concentration, especially on a long motorway drive. That brief loss of concentration is what will cause you to plow into the back of someone trying to rejoin.We should legislate to reduce risk where possible, and closing the lane seems like a fair compromise.
Trikster said:
Of course, you could just drive in the middle lane all the time and reduce the risk of someone pulling out into lane 1 …. Oh….. 
Or they could reinstate lane 1 as a hard shoulder and then everyone can drive in the correct lane and allow people to build up speed along the hard shoulder. But that would just make senseaturnick54 said:
Or they could reinstate lane 1 as a hard shoulder and then everyone can drive in the correct lane and allow people to build up speed along the hard shoulder. But that would just make sense
In my experience, probably less than 10% of them do this, despite being given concise instructions.Standard method was 1st gear - 2nd gear, indicate right (optional), swerve right into L1 irrespective of speed or adjacent traffic.
littleredrooster said:
In my experience, probably less than 10% of them do this, despite being given concise instructions.
Standard method was 1st gear - 2nd gear, indicate right (optional), swerve right into L1 irrespective of speed or adjacent traffic.
I suppose a lack of motorway tuition is to blame for thatStandard method was 1st gear - 2nd gear, indicate right (optional), swerve right into L1 irrespective of speed or adjacent traffic.
Has been discussed elsewhere, but it's not a new policy by any stretch of the imagination. The operators can set a lane 1 red X if it's required, which is usually only needed for trucks, or recovery dragging trucks that need extra space and time to get out.
a lane 1 divert is enough in the vast majority of cases to get people out safely, with options to escalate to a red x, or even sending a unit to put a rolling closure on if compliance is especially problematic.
a lane 1 divert is enough in the vast majority of cases to get people out safely, with options to escalate to a red x, or even sending a unit to put a rolling closure on if compliance is especially problematic.
Altitude said:
a lane 1 divert is enough in the vast majority of cases to get people out safely, with options to escalate to a red x, or even sending a unit to put a rolling closure on if compliance is especially problematic.
The problem is that the operator sat in a nice warm office looking at the camera has a different idea of compliance to the person stood at the side of the road watching people roll by in lane 1aturnick54 said:
The problem is that the operator sat in a nice warm office looking at the camera has a different idea of compliance to the person stood at the side of the road watching people roll by in lane 1
Sometimes, the operator often has a better view and can see if people actually are complying or not. I hadn't actually realised this was a new one, thought it was the same as the last one. Having a quick skim watch you can easily see places he could have rejoined without a single issue, much like his last one. He's got to be baiting for the arguments and YT content at this point rather than actually being concerned about the safety of himself or his customers, you'd absolutely be taking the first chance to get out of the bay when it present itself rather than standing there making a video arguing. As always though, we only get to see a tightly editied video so it's always going to be impossible to tell what has actually gone on, been set or been discussed on either side.
How does he cope on A roads, the speeds are faster and there's no signs (when diverts are set it also slows speeds down to help) I'll bet a pound to a penny he does it just fine without calling 999 for the police. (though I've not watched his videos so could well be wrong!)
And he's wrong about his last point again too, the TO's usually leave without any signs at all, a divert at best.
Gassing Station | Roads | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff