using hard shoulder in rush hours

[gina32]

do you think its a good idea or not and will it work?

[annie0000]

Not a good idea - what happens when someone has broken down on the hard shoulder and someone smashes into them at speed? It is a bad enough risk at the moment being on the hard shoulder when it is not being used as a lane.

[Myriad2112]

No it's a stupid as a bendy bus.

[funnygirl]

It will only just cause more congestion!

[gina32]

thats my thoughts as well, at least if someone breaks down on one of the lanes they can be moved across to the hard shoulder, where are they going to go if the hard shoulder is being used by heavy/fast traffic

[Quoi]

I think they have the technology to reduce speed and detect broken down vehicles with cameras etc - the trial they have been running had laybys every so often for broken down vehicles to keep the hard shoulder clear.

[Myriad2112]

so what are the chances of breaking down next to one of the few and far between laybys?

[annie0000]

They say that they will limit the speed to 50 - like that will work - if people dont stick to a 70 limit, they are hardly likely to stick to a 50 limit - present advice if you break down and are on the hard shoulder is to get out of your car and stand up on the embankment. It is not safe to be in a car on the hard shoulder as it is at the moment. I can just see some family being wiped out in a broken down car by some idiot flying down the road at 70mph.

[Quoi]

There was a bit on tv about this tonite - where there is a blockage on the hard shoulder (seen by cameras) the overhead gantry (on thehard shoulder) will have a big red cross instruction you to leave the lane immediately.

[annie0000]

Sorry to be a sceptic Quoi, but I can't see that happening in practice - there will end up being smashes as people try to rejoin the other lanes. I know that they have run trials, but personally, I would hate to be anywhere near a road that they were doing this on. I think parking on a level crossing at rush hour would be a safer bet.;0)

[Quoi]

I accept your argument but I have spent way too long in traffic & I always thought the hard shoulder would be a good compromise (increasing flow by 25%).
BTW I also agree with allowing cycles to use the pathways as they get so little use from pedestrians ( outside city's of course) - this just takes danger away from cyclists.

[Erdinger]

In response to the question and Annie's answer,- having used the M42 during the trials i really do feel that it worked, congestion was almost always non existant As for the concern that users wouldn't keep to the speed limit, well, operative speeed cameras were in position and that alone seemed good enough to deter drivers from exceeding the limit...

[annie0000]

I agree with you about the cyclists Quoi - I am lucky to have a cycle path - which is a double width pavement close to where I live, however the amount of cyclists who totally ignore it and continue to cycle two abreast up the road is unbelievable. It makes me want to wind down my window and shout at them!

As far as the motorways are concerned, I can understand your frustration, but the whole idea fills me with horror - luckily we don't really have major traffic problems up here, if I am in a queue of 20 cars, I think it is a jam! And my local motorway is the M9 which must be one of the quietest in the country. So I guess it is not really down to me to be affected by it.

We did have a family struck by a car whilst they were on the hard shoulder on the other road down to Glasgow last year and there were fatalities, the driver saw the car at the side and thought it was the sliproad and killed the mother and I am not sure who else when she had gotten out to help her little boy who was feeling sick. That kind of sticks in my mind.