Well 5 Years Is A Start I Suppose.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59125133
....but how can anyone with an ounce of sense think "death" motorways can ever be a good idea?

[mushroom25]

the amount of congestion on the motorways at the turn of the century meant something had to be done. widening schemes were (are) very expensive so other solutions had to be tried first (and seen to fail) before any road widening would be authorised. the concept of the managed motorway was born.

the M42 was the first, and it worked - journey times became 27% more reliable. https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/m42/

as with everything then interfered with by civil servants though, the M42 solution was declared "over engineered", and subsequent schemes were done on the cheap - distances between refuges increased from 500-800m to a mile and a half, number of cameras reduced, number of gantry signs reduced, etc.

it could have worked everywhere if the highways agency had been allowed to make the scheme specifications match the risk assessments done for the M42 scheme. but money talks.

[andy-hughes]

Interesting mushroom.

I figured it was a triumph of intended and advised traffic improvements coupled with fancy but inaccurate computer modelling, both dreamed up by people who don't actually commute on motorways and therefore have no experience of how they actually work.

[david small]

Blatantly obvious that avoidable deaths would occur. There is blood on the hands of government in more ways than one. Expediency overruled experience.

[ToraToraTora]

even if done to the original spec mush you can't get a car to breakdown at a refuge. Still very dangerous. The answer is to stop the amount of unnecessary journeys and empty seats that go up the motorways.

[douglas9401]

Maybe developing a breath test for doltism would help with the accident rate.

[mushroom25]

// you can't get a car to breakdown at a refuge. //

true. the original scheme provided for that by ensuring there were no blind spots. the number of cameras required (and provided) was considerable.

[ToraToraTora]

^^^ yes but the car is still on the carriageway. Camera's don't help with and artic up the jaxy.

[pixie374]

I think mushroom has explained it perfectly. There are infinite ways when "progress" or "Health and Safety", have been far more dangerous than "common sense".
It's a balance between how likely people are to sue/ be compensated... and the need to be seen to be doing "the right thing".
Or- actually keeping people safe.
We can't have it all ways, and compromise and balance, seems to mean trying all extremes to appease people.
This was never going to make sense. It just had to be proven.

[mushroom25]

// artic up the jaxy. //

been there (well almost) - inattention can happen anywhere.

one morning i was queueing to leave the M25 at the junction with the A12, and the back of the queue was on the main carriageway. behind me was a truck, i watched it in the mirror getting nearer, nearer, nearer, then saw smoke coming from the tyres and the trailer fishtailing.......

my dilemma then was whether to wake my sleeping companion to his impending fate, or leave him oblivious. in the end the truck found a gap and pulled right, missing my car by just a few feet and still travelling at 30-35mph.

[ToraToraTora]

I just think the original purpose of the hard shoulder still applies. I just don't think messing about with that is the way to go. We need to move into more efficient use of the roads we have, widen where feasible and discourage empty seats going everywhere. What with the introduction of electric vehicles I'd like to see a move to road pricing to replace VED.

[mushroom25]

with the advent of more EVs, one of the more likely changes for the motorway network would be to ban all vehicles that don’t have an autonomous capability. the legal framework already exists to do that (special roads act).

[ToraToraTora]

the SRA only applies to roads build for the purpose concerned. They'd never manage to legislate for that on current motorways.

[237SJ]

The gaps between the so called safe pulling-in places are a long way apart when your engine is about to die. I always wondered how many deaths would be considered acceptable before someone applies common sense and realizes that the hard shoulder is there for a reason.

[Electrochem]

I totally agree. The problem is that traffic planners never think ahead, so roads are built with no allowance for an increase in traffic density. The old adage says "it is better to be thirty minutes late in this world, than fifty years early in the next"

[youngmafbog]

I've had an engine die totally in the outside lane of the M3 (Cam belt snapped and valves shoved through pistons) in the 'rush hour'. Believe me it was difficult enough getting across two lanes of traffic to the hard shoulder let alone trying to work out where any refuge was and could I get to it.

These so called 'smart' motorways are anything but and should be scrapped along with the Highways Agency.

Look forward to more weasel words from Shapps.

[William51]

The scrapping of smart motorways should be done now and not given a five year grace. The Highways Agency displays incompetence of the highest degree, they are deaf to, or ignore, the facts that these roads are lethal.