To think smart motorways should be got rid of

[Helpmechangemymindsetplease]

Apparently 40 people have died after stopping on smart motorways “hard shoulders”.

What was the rationale behind them - money saving ??

AIBU to think they shouldn’t be made “safer” , they should be scrapped.

1. They find that when you build more capacity on the roads more people use them, so back to square 1. Probable increase in pollution and decrease in public transport use which is counter to direction we should be heading

1. There isn't any money for libraries don't you read the news loads have closed. I haven't noticed large numbers of swimming pools around the place tbh and the ones that exist cost an arm and a leg. About £20 for a family of 4 to go for a swim! Public facilities should be affordable.

I think above poster is goafy with their stance of
Fuck people having access to books
Fuck kids having access to somewhere to do their work if home is not quiet, and the resources to learn
Fuck access to computers for those who don't have them at home (massive impact on job seekers, benefit claimants etc)
Fuck kids and adults getting exercise

Build more roads and generate more pollution!

Oh yes and get people out of public transport and into their cars

Yep definitely a joke!

I'm in Manchester. I have to use them almost daily.

Hate them.

TBH it's almost at the point where I'm considering going the long way round with the A roads to avoid it completely.

Quite often I have my two small kids with me (on my own). How the hell I"m supposed to get them out of a stationery vehicle on a live lane and over the barriers is beyond me.

REALLY pisses me off that they don't just leave the grass at the side, because then at least you would have somewhere to go. But no. They have to put huge barriers up.

Dangerous.

'Overall, between 2014 and 2018 there were 503 deaths on UK motorways. The Panorama investigation found that 38 of these were on smart motorways, amounting to seven per cent of fatalities while smart motorways now account for around 17 per cent of the motorway network'.

That isn't a valid comparator without knowing the relative usage statistics, including stats divided between those smart motorways which have the hard shoulder in full time use as traffic lanes and those which only have them in use at busy times.

It would also be useful to know the different statistics according to availability of refuges; in the Panorama programme it was pointed out that the original smart motorway had refuges 500 metres apart, whereas on newer ones they can be up to 2.5 metres apart. That's 1.6 miles - I must say, I would hate to become aware of serious engine or other problems whilst driving in an active motorway lane 1.5 miles away from the nearest refuge.

In addition to the fatalities, there were obviously non-fatal accidents, and freedom of information requests showed that near-misses on smart motorways had increased 20-fold.

If stopping on a hard shoulder is dangerous, it's not hard to work out that stopping in an active lane is even more so. The problem isn't really remedied by the possibility of closing the lane, since that seems to be dependent on whoever's keeping an eye on the camera noticing that there is a problem, which they will very rarely do immediately.

Apparently it's not necessarily addressing the original problem, because people avoid the inside lane as they're scared of using it.

Variable speed limits are a brilliant idea. No hard shoulder is not! It terrifies me.

I understand that when they trialled these, it was with laybys every 60 yards ish. When they rolled them out, a lot of them have increased layby distances of up to 2.5 miles. They also replaced a lot of the arnco with concrete walls so you cant even leave the car and nip over the arnco to wait safely. This, coupled with the average 30 minute wait to be rescued is just irresponsible and stupid. Either increase the laybys or ban them.

You can not compare them to accidents on normal motorways with all different kinds of accidents such as moving lanes, high speed etc.
You need to compare to motorist who have broken down and used the hard shoulder vs no hard shoulder.

I agree with you OP . you cannot guarantee to break down at exactly the right place where there is a refuge area. absolute crazy idea and 'smart' motorways are a great cash cow

@JudyCoolibar

Exactly this!

I drive a hell of a lot of motorway miles due to family and friends, and whenever I'm on a smart motorway where the hard shoulder is "live", it's glaringly evident how many people don't ever want to travel in that lane.

The bunching up in lanes 2, 3 and 4 is unreal.

Smart motorways for me are the direct result of what happens when middle lane hoggers get their own way and clog up the entire motorway network forcing the road planners to expand in a dangerous way.

If they can find money for public libraries and swimming pools then surely they should be able to provide the most basic essential infrastructure first

Not only are there no new libraries and swimming pools, but the old ones are being closed, and the money doesn’t even come from the same pot. Roads are funded by the government; libraries and pools come from local authorities’ money. I’d choose the latter first every time. R

I hate them. I know hard shoulders are dangerous (my friend was killed on one), but at least on the hard shoulder, you can get out and scramble over the barrier without having to cross a lane or several of traffic.

How can they build the motorways wider when they are running through towns?
The grass and trees are there to prevent flooding, and to absorb sounds.
So the cost aside, where are they going?

I also wish, when they are making smart motorways, they could be required to minimise the stretches where they put on average speed limits. Driving at a strip 50 mph average is essentially a matter of following the car in front , and becomes incredibly tedious - even more so when it's a stretch . I regularly find my eyelids drooping out of sheer boredom and I have to do a quick exit for a cup of strong coffee.

Clearly a contrary view, but I think they should be universal. Motorway capacity would be increased by 33% overnight. Hard shoulders come from the days when cars regularly broke down. If the motorway were invented today, a hard shoulder would not be designed in.
What happens if you break down, you ask? The same as if you break down on a dual carriageway. You pull over into a safe layby or park on the road with your hazards on.
Further safety aspects may be needed e.g. max speed of 40mph in lane 1 - what was the hard shoulder. These are not insurmountable.

I've heard an argument it's actually better to stay in one of the 3 other lanes if you break down rather than try to move over to the quieter hard shoulder. If you slow and stop in lanes 2-4, then there'll be traffic behind you also slowing and stopping so you''ll actually be protected. However if you move to a hard shoulder with little traffic using it, you're more likely to be rear-ended as there's no stream of traffic behind you to protect you. Not sure if it really works like that, but an interesting theory.

They are horrific. James Delingpole (sp) did a column on what happened to him when he broke down on one in The Spectator. I used to have to use the M60 regularly and when working EOW, I’d get to the section near the Trafford Centre at around 0630 on a Saturday morning and the speed limit would be set to 50 with the signs flashing ‘Queue Caution’. There would maybe be about 10 other cars on the road. Every afternoon when finishing an early shift, the same section (but in the opposite direction) would be displaying the national limit sign, then at the same time every day suddenly reduce to 50. Occasionally I have to use the section of the M62 that is still being upgraded, I try and avoid it if I can.

Why they thought it was a good idea I will never know.
Because they are cheaper than doing a proper job, just like almost everything else in the UK :)

Why they thought it was a good idea I will never know.

Because they were planned to have real time monitoring so the matrix displays could change to "X" and reduce the speed as soon as a vehicle got into trouble. In reality, the control room are far too slow to react.

I hate them. I know hard shoulders are dangerous (my friend was killed on one), but at least on the hard shoulder, you can get out and scramble over the barrier without having to cross a lane or several of traffic.

Eh?

Personally I think there should maybe be an education programme on the TV. Almost like a party political broadcast. Some people literally have no idea what to do when they break down or are about to break down. I would also make motorway driving a compulsory part of a Driving Test including questions on what to do if you break down.

I get the red x thing, but they assumed people would take heed. Instead of storming down the “hard shoulder” whilst under taking three cars.

'smart' motorways are a great cash cow

How are they a "cash cow"?

There's many dual carriageways though that are 70mph limits, have no hard shoulder and people still break down on them. Why is it smart motorways are only the focus of anger? Those dual carriageways have been around for decades, the A9 is a particularly good example. And I can guarantee most people aren't doing 70. Even the lorries dont. So speed isn't the difference either. They drive fast there too.

Really, the type of road is never, ever the issue. It's the people using it. The only way you are going to reduce accidents is better tests, and more tests. Really, retesting should occur every 5 years to check you know what you're doing. There should be more bans for bad drivers and a 'strike' system. 3 failings and you're done, no licence ever again. Of course, extremely bad offenders just don't get a licence at all after one offence that results in death.

Yes it's extreme, but you're not going to solve any of these issues entirely just by making roads bigger. That will just increase speeding. No one cares about speeding. By retesting and extreme banning, you get rid of the crap drivers and give the rest an incentive to pay more bloody attention. Or they then have to use public transport.

YANBU
The theory of how they work may be ok but the implementation has been seriously lacking and dangerous.

Personally I think there should maybe be an education programme on the TV.

You seriously think people would take notice? So many drivers don't even indicate, can't keep to the speed limit, drive whilst under the influence, drive without insurance, hog the middle lane, etc. People wouldn't watch them, and even if they did, it's forgotten after a couple of minutes of Love Island!