HC consultation
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/highway-code/
https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/highway-code/
CycleChat Investigates - Smart Motorways
- Thread starter Drago
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Not any more. It broke down in the live lane and 12 sdconds later was shunted by a 40 tonner.
randynewmanscat
Veteran
- Location
- Vienne, Poitou-Chrentes
I escaped before the M60 was turned into an orbital death trap. I don't think I could exit the car fast enough if I was in one that had to stop on what used to be the emergency lane.
- Location
- London
They have seemed sheer madness to me ever since they first came in. Common sense seems to tell me that they are death traps.
I'd like to know who dreamt them up* - god knows what their other bright ideas were.
(*Putin?)
I'd like to know who dreamt them up* - god knows what their other bright ideas were.
(*Putin?)
randynewmanscat
Veteran
- Location
- Vienne, Poitou-Chrentes
One that is being followed by zoned out irritable and very very tired HGV drivers in a nose to tail convey of 5.
randynewmanscat
Veteran
- Location
- Vienne, Poitou-Chrentes
Possibly brought to us by the same people who thought it was a good idea to substitute expensive Armco with cheaper tensioned wire cable and posts.
Not so bad in a car or truck but fiercely dangerous for motorcyclists.
Not so bad in a car or truck but fiercely dangerous for motorcyclists.
randynewmanscat
Veteran
- Location
- Vienne, Poitou-Chrentes
If my car was still rolling I would probably try and get two wheels up onto the banking but some of the banking is like the North face of the Eiger.
- Location
- London
Well they would be the first to get squashed by the artic unless they were getting pally with the driver in the front.
Riffing on my above thought, like why the fark, I can't help but wonder if the idea was brought up at a meeting with several other suggestions and the poor sods were working under some rule that at least one of the barmy ideas had to be ticked off/implemented before they were allowed to leave the room/go home for the weekend.
Last edited:
Joey Shabadoo
My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
It was dreamt up by somebody who's never broken down on the hard shoulder and had the scary experience of cars and lorries hammering past at high speed. Somebody who's never had a tyre explode or a piston bang through the bonnet at 60mph necessitating an immediate stop.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
South Yorkshire police are already reviewing the Coroners records to see if there is sufficient evidence and legal reasoning to pursre charges against Higheays England. Indeed, the coroner himself has referred the matter to the CPS to consider whether there is a case to anseer for corporate manslaughter.
I hope there is and they do.
Theres a big culture of penny pinching big projects in this country, and it never works. Instead of building new roads (or even better,discouraging car use) we get smart motorways, which is accruing an expensive bill in lives.
Aircraft carriers without nuclear propulsion, so badly compromised by cost cutting that the F35B is the only fighter in production that can fly from them...and the rising cost of a squadron more than outweights the cost saved on nuclear propulsion.
The NHS Lorenzo computer system, a Cray level ambition for ZX Spectrum money, too ambitious for the budget, scrapped after billions had been spent.
Either do it properly and accept that it is going to cost what it costs, or don't bother trying. To attempt to do cut corners and get a major project done on the cheap usually costs far more than the envisioned financial savings, and often has a cost in human life too.
It isn't being prudent with public money, it isn't cost effective - its stupid.
I hope there is and they do.
Theres a big culture of penny pinching big projects in this country, and it never works. Instead of building new roads (or even better,discouraging car use) we get smart motorways, which is accruing an expensive bill in lives.
Aircraft carriers without nuclear propulsion, so badly compromised by cost cutting that the F35B is the only fighter in production that can fly from them...and the rising cost of a squadron more than outweights the cost saved on nuclear propulsion.
The NHS Lorenzo computer system, a Cray level ambition for ZX Spectrum money, too ambitious for the budget, scrapped after billions had been spent.
Either do it properly and accept that it is going to cost what it costs, or don't bother trying. To attempt to do cut corners and get a major project done on the cheap usually costs far more than the envisioned financial savings, and often has a cost in human life too.
It isn't being prudent with public money, it isn't cost effective - its stupid.
Joey Shabadoo
My pronouns are "He", "Him" and "buggerlugs"
Haud the bus, whit's this?
Nuclear aircraft carriers are a folly that the Royal Navy rightly chose not to get involved with. The only advantage of nuclear propulsion is ships don't have to refuel as often. But you may have noticed that every aircraft carrier is followed everywhere they go by a rather large tanker carrying fuel for the aircraft. If you've got a ready source of fuel on hand, why do you need nuclear? A nuclear power plant also means many allies would not allow our ships to berth - Australia and New Zealand for example. So nuclear is a limiting factor, not an enabler.
The carrier was designed for the aircraft and the preferred aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm was the F35B. It can operate in heavier sea states than the other versions and requires less training to operate - to the point that the RAF can land on a carrier without any particularly onerous training. If we'd gone for catapults and traps, the air arm would have had to practice constantly to stay current which would lead to more expense and, inevitably, lives lost. Cats and traps also either require massive steam generation which would have compromised the ship's design or taking a risk on the US EMALS system that still doesn't work right and is costing an awful lot of money to get right.
It's not for nothing that the US Navy (and the USMC in particular) are looking to copy the design for their own uses - pork barrel politics being the main barrier.
As the F35 develops into the later, more capable and expensive marks, UK PLC wins because 15% of the jet is built in Britain - so that money comes back to us.
OP
OP
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Indeed, but if wed gone for cats and traps wed have true interoperability with the Americans, and not just with their Wasp class assault ships.
Yes, more training but less maintenance on the airframes, massively greater range, significantly higher weapons loads, and 3 or 4 units for the price of one F35B.
And while the USN are showing an interest in the British technologies for the B, the USAF look set to pull back heavily from the program because of massive cost and delivery over runs and the breathtaking cost of running the aircraft. An enhanced gen 4.5 version of the F15 looks set to be their choice - cheaper, tougher, far less cost per hour of flight, improved availability rates, much greater range, vastly better weapons payload, better air combat characterstics, and 3 or 4 units for the price of 1 x 35.
Weighed advantave v advantage, there is very little in favour of the B and ski jumps. The fact remains thet the worlds largest carrier fleet remains with cats and traps for a boat load of very good reasons. The British government saved a few pence on the cost of the ships but then negated that saving, and then some, with the chosen weapons platform.
Saving money on large projects, no matter the 'cost', is the British way.
PS, since a major uograde and recertification for flight in February 2020, EMALS and AAG on the Gerald Ford has demonstrated a better launch and recovery rate rate between breakdowns than the Ronald Reagan has in the same period. It seems some observers are overlooking this development and recent operational record when judging the system. And now it works they can launch aircraft with a sheet load of weapons and fuel on board, something the QE class cant manage under any circumstances.
Yes, more training but less maintenance on the airframes, massively greater range, significantly higher weapons loads, and 3 or 4 units for the price of one F35B.
And while the USN are showing an interest in the British technologies for the B, the USAF look set to pull back heavily from the program because of massive cost and delivery over runs and the breathtaking cost of running the aircraft. An enhanced gen 4.5 version of the F15 looks set to be their choice - cheaper, tougher, far less cost per hour of flight, improved availability rates, much greater range, vastly better weapons payload, better air combat characterstics, and 3 or 4 units for the price of 1 x 35.
Weighed advantave v advantage, there is very little in favour of the B and ski jumps. The fact remains thet the worlds largest carrier fleet remains with cats and traps for a boat load of very good reasons. The British government saved a few pence on the cost of the ships but then negated that saving, and then some, with the chosen weapons platform.
Saving money on large projects, no matter the 'cost', is the British way.
PS, since a major uograde and recertification for flight in February 2020, EMALS and AAG on the Gerald Ford has demonstrated a better launch and recovery rate rate between breakdowns than the Ronald Reagan has in the same period. It seems some observers are overlooking this development and recent operational record when judging the system. And now it works they can launch aircraft with a sheet load of weapons and fuel on board, something the QE class cant manage under any circumstances.
Last edited:
