England’s Smart Motorways: Safety Left Behind

Since evolving from a concept in 2005 smart motorways have been described as safer and more sustainable its-uk.org than conventional highways because they make use of “increased technology to improve traffic flow” roads.org.uk.

Smart motorways (SMs) introduced AI (Artificial Intelligence) automation to control aspects of remote management including “intensive CCTV monitoring” roads.org.uk and electronic signs enabling variable speed limits. According to National Highways who run them Smart motorways boast “best in class technology” devonlive.com to help us feel safe.

England’s Intelligent Transport Society (ITS) its-uk.org.uk advocate “using technology to improve safety” and have said smart motorways are being “permanently adopted”. There is a problem: it is increasingly evident from NH’s studies and data that SMs are not proving either popular or safe.

Can it be true, as some have observed, that a “smart motorway creates more chances for human error nationalworld rather than fewer”? On England’s SMs innovative new technology is being prioritised as the key to improved safety.

Collisions arise from human error, but on SMs drivers are guided by digital signs and lanes can be live one minute and closed the next. This dynamic approach to motorway lane management hascaused many accidents. National Highways reported that, “ we have had several incidents…where AA (Automobile Association) members’ cars have been hit in a live lane on “smart” motorways.

”On these digitally dynamic SMs the margin for human error can be significantly increased with abrupt changes in traffic flow brought about by the very smart technologies being introduced tomanage safety. On smart motorways motorists are managed by AI systems and we should not forget they are not wholly reliable. “‘ bad reasoning’ stfalcon.com is the most frequent cause of AI’s foolishmistakes .”

AI’s potential for “artificial stupidity” is well-documented. As data from an automated vehicle has shown, AI left to its own devices wouldn’t prevent a collision, because “it spent long seconds on identifying what kind of object was ahead.” AI “experiences” everything it “senses” as data.

Automated sensing technologies have proliferated on roads since the 1980s and have modified behaviour. Motorways evolved into “intelligent transport systems”. Today, as the IoT (Internet ofThings) accelerates technological enforcement of policy remains the same central goal. In the name of so-called progress and technological advancement, National Highways and the ITS haveclaimed AI and automation will deliver safety and value to the public.

AI automated monitoring is continually introduced to reduce human error and risk with an array of predictive technologies including active traffic management (ATM) wikipedia.org techniques to regulate traffic flow. Some technologies support NH’s sustainability goals. Automated and virtual technologies like the “Digital Twins” concept infrastructure-intelligence facilitate infrastructure upgrades mitigating human risks and unnecessary costs or environmental impacts.

National Highways argue such technology can “save money and enhance safety” by improving infrastructure remotely and virtually. National Highways are always monitoring data. Since the inception of SMs safety has been the most critical issue, yet sustainability goals and decarbonising travel seem easier for National Highways to action using technology. A central goal of NH is to transition motorists to automated vehicles (AVs), again using technology, this time to connect to and control the vehicles themselves through AI and data.

By investing in digital twinning technologies National Highways anticipatate of the arrival of 6G by 2030 storkacc.com when intelligent machines, such as drones, robots and driverless vehicles will utilise latency free simulations of our world to operate in smart cities and on SMs

The sustainable road

The testing of driverless cars and HGVs appears well under way. Predictive AI technologies and driverless vehicles are being rapidly introduced because, it is argued, human error causes unacceptable risks on roads. A study published by the Royal Society royalsocietypublishing.org has analysed smart road technologies and states “Traffic safety is still the core for many researchers in the transportation field.” “The World Health Organisation estimates bbc.com that more than 1.3 million people die each year as a result of road traffic crashes”. WHO is the lead agency for road safety in the UN.

The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set targets for reducing road traffic injuries, and emissions. The UN advocates “the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) to keep roads safe for everyone” news.un.org . Intelligent traffic management utilising AI is being integrated to ultimately support automated driverless schemes but while National Highways’ focus is delivering the UN’s “smart” and “sustainable” goals, some of their safety policies have caused concern.

For example, safety refuges for motorists have been predominantly lacking in their smart motorway plans. England now has controversial All Lanes Running (ALR) systems on 236 miles of smart motorways keithmichaels.co.uk, with automated variable speed limits. The hard shoulder was economically eliminated from these roads which now can accommodate more traffic. Nick Harris, National Highways’

Chief Executive said: “We’ve added 500 miles of lane without widening roads, so that’s been environmentally sustainable.” kentonline.co.uk

What about safety?

In 2022, according to National Highways’ most recent data express.co.uk serious injuries and deaths on “ALR smart motorways…. [are] more than three times higher” than on controlled SMs using a hard
shoulder. Removing the hard shoulder to create ALR SMs has been clearly associated with an increase of accidents on these roads. While this is widely recognised, other risks to safety on SMs are less apparent to most people. The safety risks of LED lighting and 5G have been ignored by National Highways because sustainability goals always trump safety, or so it seems.

Light systems

National Highways are a company fulfilling the government’s highway infrastructure policies with a focus on “Digital, Data and Technology Strategy ” infrastructure-intelligence National Highways intalls sensors nationalhighways.co.uk and predictive technologies with the goal of ensuring safety on roads using AI. Data is analysed remotely collected from connected technologies like road sensors feeding digital motorway signage to control the flow of traffic. Data is also collected from a multitude of connected devices and smart cars wikimotors.org (intelligent vehicles). Motorway “lighting” can assist in the process.

Since first rolling out LED motorway lighting 2017 National Highways say it is “improving value by locking in safety, customer, cost efficiencies and environment benefits.” gov.uk But once upon a time, motorway lighting had a simple goal – safe illumination. That has changed. What exactly is its value on England’s SMs? Li-fi demonstrates that LED lighting lifitn.com can transmit data . LED luminaires sustainder.com and lampposts also conveniently support line-of-sight millimetre wave transmitters lifewire.com for 5G.

Gathering and conveying data through lighting and radiofrequency infrastructures has resulted in “intelligent lighting.” its-uk.org.uk For National Highways LED lighting clearly had a value in realising UN goals for roads, because asthey said in their plans for connected andautonomous (CAV) infrastructure autonomousvehicleinternational.com, “streetlighting couldbe used to pave the way for autonomous vehicles.” NH’s “Illuminate Project” in 2021 showed how LED lighting can “communicate data to office equipment and tablet computers.”

For National Highways LEDs’ data collecting potentials add value to roads. Yet they have well-documented safety implications for drivers. LEDs’ remarkable luminance can increase human error on roads. A Royal Automobile Club (RAC) survey bbc.co.uk of 2061 motorists showed “Two-thirds [were] regularly dazzled” by oncoming headlights” with 15 percent of those polled suffering a near collision as a result.

The UKHSA’s (United Kingdom Health Security Agency) John O’Hagan lightwiseguild.com, a Professor in Laser and Optical Radiation Safety, had warned motorists that LEDs can cause “headaches, migraine and less specific feelings of malaise.” He described how drivers are at “risk of a stroboscopic effect. This effect may manifest itself as moving objects appearing to jump, rather than move smoothly.” Additionally LED “glare increases lightwiseguild.com during poor driving conditions as blue wavelengths reflect off water molecules making white LEDs less effective in rain, mist, fog and snow.”

LED lights began to appear on car headlights ledoutfitters.com in 2006 and were fitted to cars as part of the UN’s World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations which is surprising because they are

not sustainable and “contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances” scientificamerican.com.

Scientists have examined LED “traffic signal lights, and automobile head and brake lights” considering their content to be “hazardous waste” and have recommended “ crews attending to car accidents or broken traffic lights should be required to wear protective gear newatlas.com Regardless of the serious issues with LED lighting National Highways replaced traditional high pressure sodium bulbs with LED lights disposing of millions of useful fit-for-purpose bulbs.

But it was not enough that National Highways removed high pressure sodium lamps from roads. Most of the sodium lighting wasn’t replaced leaving previously well-lit roads dark. A National Highways’ report from 2019 thesun.co.uk “found an increase of 88 percent on the number of casualties on the sections of unlit motorway which were previously illuminated.” Absence of motorway lighting evidently increases collisions.

By not replacing the lights, National Highways saved money and despite arguably causing many accidents pitched the debacle as an energy-saving initiative. The ways in which National Highways safety and sustainability decisions promote human error on roads is quite concerning to say the least. Fatalities and data Mature surveillance technologies like speed cameras (traffic enforcement cameras) and CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) have gradually replaced highway police and show us it’s not the first-time political and technological considerations have overridden safety  considerations.

A report by the University of South Florida’s College of Public Health in the USA whatcar.com, concluded speed “cameras provoke motorists into making abrupt stops, which causes more crashes.” Researchers at the UK’s University of Leeds confirmed this finding themselves in a study headed by Dave Keenan news.bbc.co.uk. When National Highways are introducing technology it is not operating in the ways we might have imagined.

Data is a very effective persuader. Accident data can be pointed at to justify more and more technology to support “safer roads” policies. The National Highways’ Fatalities Database amazonaws.com growing dataset for safety analyses they use to inform accident countermeasures, i.e., introduce more technology. The data influences traffic management practices and facilitates the introduction of new smart technology solutions to achieve National Highways’ Digital Roads 2025 ambitions nationalhighways.co.uk and deliver “vehicle technology and connectivity”.

Real-time data “connectivity” to AI is realised through zero-latency infrastructure of 5G networks. AI integrates with existing security infrastructure including CCTV on the Strategic Road Network (SRN) assets.publishing.service.gov.uk. All this “smart” control is going to AI, yet SMs are still the most dangerous stretches of road, as study after study seems to confirm. An investigation revealed one in ten CCTV cameras are not working independent.co.uk on smart motorways impacting safety and accident detection.

Medical Data, Human Error, and Autonomous Vehicles

Preventing accident through “prediction” is something that interests National Highways. We are already familiar with a data-dependent motoring experience. England’s drivers are policed through their health data and “you can be fined up to £1,000 gov.uk if you do not tell the DVLA (Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency) about a medical condition that affects your driving”. This includes disabilities, and mental health issues, like depression.

National Highways is monitoring accidents, and more specifically their potential to happen, and is linking citizens’ health data to AI and predictive technologies. This is for “Improved detection of people at high risk of medical episodes…[to] identify the potential target population of drivers at risk of this particular collision type [Medical Episode Collisions] s3.eu-west.” The goal of National Highways, supporting the UN’s vision for AI controlled road systems is to realise increasingly autonomous SMs with automated vehicles (AVs) to prevent collisions caused by types of human error or medical episodes.

In this regard China, a “trusted development partner with the UN” working towards it’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is convinced AVs are a sound idea. England, also pursuing SDGs raced against China to 5G. Will it similarly race towards vehicular automation? The World Economic Forum, favouring automation and other Industry 4.0 developments aligned to SDGs has been supportive of normalising autonomous delivery weforum.org and admires China, where “71 percent of Chinese drivers remain positive” about AVs.

However, it should be noted that “Prior to covid-19, autonomous vehicles were not as widely used in China as they are today”. In China “autonomous driving…proved to be essential in the fight against the pandemic” which was not the case in Europe or the UK. Currently the UK government presses ahead with self-driving vehicles to “improve road safety by reducing human error, which contributes to 85 percent of accidents.”

We see remote surveillance, predictive technology and automated control with AI already moving into cars. The arguments for doing so abound. “Automated vehicles potential to save lives and reduce injuries is rooted in one critical and tragic fact: 94 percent of serious crashes are due to human error.” Assistive technologies in cars are leading us to full automation. Is there any proof we are safer because of it?

Driver assistance technologies can increase collision risks, and human error. “Controlled tests show this doesn’t prevent all crashes”. A study from the United States warns how driver assistance technologies create a false sense of security, increasing human error. “Adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping-assist technologies lull drivers into letting their guard down, which puts them at greater risk of crashing, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found.”

In the US recentlyTesla’s implementation of the technology has been probed as it has caused serious accidents and “A total of 14 crash deaths have been reported in those investigations.” Out of 35 crash investigations by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Tesla’s “ADAS, Autopilot has been ruled out only in three.” The marketing of the technology can also create false impressions of AI driver assist systems and their capabilities leading drivers into error.

Connectivity with AI systems can be hijacked or malfunction resulting in harm to motorists. The potential for that to happen is much increased on SMs. Smart systems on motorways are highly vulnerable to cyber-attacks as they rely on wireless 5G infrastructure which as we know is managed by software. “An attacker that gains control of the software managing the network can also control the network.”

Smart Motorway Accidents

Between 2015-19, “there have been 38 deaths”. More have been reported since. A Freedom of Information (FoI) request sent by [BBC’s] Panorama to Highways England [National Highways] revealed that on one section of the M25, outside London, the number of near misses had risen 20-fold since the hard shoulder was removed in April 2014.

In the five years before the road was converted into a smart motorway, there were just 72 near misses.

In the five years after, there were 1,485.

According to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the “use of ‘smart’ to describe all-lane-running motorways (ALRs) is a ‘misnomer’”. National Highways say compared to conventional motorways with a hard shoulder “They’re just as safe – often safer.”

ALR smart motorways were supposed to be safer road systems. However, following their introduction the Automobile Association (AA) found that on a 13-mile smart section of the M3 between Junction 2 between August 2017 to October 2019 “more than 2,200 breakdowns [had] forced lane closure after drivers couldn’t reach a refuge area…” In response Highways England (National Highways) said, “this stretch has increased capacity by a third and made overall journeys more reliable.”

In 2019 “the fatality rate for ALR roads was eight percent higher than ordinary motorways”. Further, “eight people were killed on [smart] motorways without a hard shoulder present in 2020 alone.” In 2020 it was suggested increasing the frequency and number of refuge areas would help mitigate collisions but the AA would confirm National Highways didn’t agree.

National Highways wanted to address the problem with more automated technological safety measures, such as radar, underlining their aim of “embedding digital, data and technology in everything we do.” National Highways’ Smart Motorways progress report in 2021 revealed “Education” and appropriate adjustments to the highway code would inform people and make smart motorways “safer”.

This reframed the safety issues transferring the onus to the public to make sure they followed “the rules”.

The human error argument had resurfaced to justify another technology roll out in the name of safety.

The Radar Solution

Electromagnetic induction loops have been used for over 35 years by National Highways MIDAS (motorway incident detection and automated signalling) technology which reduced accidents by 18 percent, when trialled on the M1. National Highways has increasingly gravitated towards radar solutions in recent years. MIDAS is being phased out in favour of Stopped Vehicle Detection Radar (SVD) technology and despite its “lethal flaws” it is being recommended for all smart motorways by September 2022.

The SVD system has an 80 percent successful detection rate. Test revealed it couldn’t detect very low cars and there was wide scope for other missed detections. Roads and Bridges Civil Engineer Mr Alan Hames C.Eng., MICE, MCIHT suggested that in a real-world scenario, its expected success rate meant 2 in 10 breakdowns (or 20 percent) could stay undetected and at continued risk on the motorway.

He further added “..when the true number at risk when the ‘Allowable Missed Detections’ are not added to the ‘System Detected Events’, [means] there will be at least … 30 percent of breakdowns not accounted for.” A report similarly suggested the SVD technology “could fail to warn operators about thousands of stranded cars.” RAC head of Roads Policy Nicholas Lyes said“ it’s worrying that the system isn’t able to detect more stranded vehicles.”

5G

Like radar, 5G exposes us to radiation because it uses microwave technology. Flawed and unhealthy technologies have proliferated on smart motorways because the government and National Highways fail to take public safety seriously enough. 5G was rolled out on England’s roads in the same way LED had no safety testing or public debate. Wireless technology, the lynchpin of “smart” has an unacknowledged electromagnetic footprint.

Wireless emissions are more commonly known as Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) and electro smog. This highlights another safety issue, cumulative RFR exposure during travel on SMs. This is being permitted because of flawed guidelines based on measuring thermal effect while foregoing cumulative effects. Lloyds of London understood this very well and won’t insure against damage from RFR exposure.

Lloyds have described how “Guidelines are drawn up with the intention of protecting against acute effects of high levels of EMF [electromagnetic field] exposure, such as stimulation of nerve and muscle cells due to induced currents and tissue heating. The current potential health issues surround the possibility that health effects could occur at exposure levels below those set in the guidelines when exposure is over a longer term.”

5G networks were recently married to the security infrastructure making 5G a protected asset through the Telecommunications (Security) Act in 2021. A public health hazard is now defended as a piece of essential infrastructure, and as we have seen 5G is essential to the sustainable roads envisaged by National Highways following the lead of the United Nations’ SDGs.

Problems of accountability

Discernible safety violations have outraged the public. BBC coverage highlighting the rise in Smart Motorway Deaths publicised the experiences of the victims. In 2022 after a long overdue “stock take” and following objections to the continued roll out of SMs, the House of Commons nominated Transport Select Committee announced “the government is pausing the roll out of smart motorways for five years. They’re pausing the roll out so they can gather a full five years’ worth of safety data.”

Legal action and accusations of Corporate Manslaughter against National Highways have also been widely publicised.

It was revealed by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that “in legal terms, the organisation (Highways England [now known as National Highways]) did not owe road users a ‘relevant duty of care’ under the terms set out in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.”

National Highways are “the licence holder and owner of the land for the strategic road network [SRN]… including but not limited to the verges, central reservation, on- and off-slip roads, overbridges and underbridges including and any apparatus related to that motorway.”

Yet the agency is deemed immune from liability.

The Digital Roads and Digital IDs In the connected smart world agencies like governments, corporations and powerful organisations will derive more power and influence from IoT’s predictive rationales using citizens’ data as should be evidenced by developments around us. Each new surveillance innovation unveiled helps facilitate a scalable Digital ID system, brought to us by wireless technologies and connectivity.

National Highways are a company delivering data profitability from SMs and smart road systems, integral to the “Digital Roads” project. The UK government states the “digital identity market could add three percent to UK GDP by 2030.” This market feeds into the health data paradigm too. Currently WHO has a contract with German telecommunications multinational, Deutsch Telekom to build the global vaccine passport system, part of a proposed digital ID rollout.

5G infrastructure is a necessary component in realising all of these systems feeding into the UN’s SDGs. Wireless SMs infused with AI can easily be utilised in ways we might never have envisaged, and with vulnerability to cyber-attacks they present an array of further health and safety challenges. Everything being connected might not be a good idea, as we saw recently in the case of Insteon a corporation which left “connected” customers stranded in their Smart homes.

We could easily be left stranded (and people already are in collisions on SMs) as technology replaces humans and accountability remains unaddressed.

National Highways doesn’t appear accountable for our safety, while Lloyds of London anticipate a future health crisis.

The issues of our safety and health have converged on Smart Motorways. In England the smart future accelerates towards automation and intelligent technologies heralding Digital Roads and Digital ID.

Our data is being used without adequate accountability, balance, or transparency.

Ethical values are sorely missing from this aspect of our human progress and suppressing human error through technological interventions could just as easily limit freedom movement and freedom of choice.

Over and above sustainability goals transparency and ethical urgency need to be reinstated otherwise the issue of our safety, and the inherent risks and shortcomings of smart technologies, may never be sufficiently addressed.

Header image: Visordown

Bold emphasis added

Editor’s note: Notice the UN’s & World Economic Forum’s praise of China, a hard-line Communist country.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    Howdy

    |

    5G, remote, computer, AI, emissions, autonomous, LED lamps transmitting information, and the rest.

    “The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has set targets for reducing road traffic injuries, and emissions.”
    There will be minimum access to roads and vehicles if the usual mob get their way, thus target accomplished.
    Like above, there are numerous references to the supposed benefits and similar scenarios in the article, read between the lines.

    Assinine Intelligence is as good as the programmer. Even then, It can’t operate outside of it’s environment and make a snap decision like humans can. Are air traffic controllers human, or machine? Do you trust your safety to a faceless ‘coder’.

    Good article.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via