I really don't get the huge fuss the Mail etc. seem to make about smart motorways. Everyone knows our roads are a compromise between convenience and safety. Making the motorway speed limit 20mph would stop all casualties. But it’s obviously not a deal we are willing to make. Every death is clearly horrific and tragic. But reducing the capacity of motorways by 1/4-1/6th for 0.01-0.05 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles seems like a very poor swap, in the same way that cutting the speed limit by 5-10 mph would be. Am I wrong?
No. But I would much rather that smart motorways were used to monitor safe driving, rather than strict speed limits (not that there isn’t a place for speed limits). I’d much rather see aggressive undertaking and tail gating stamped down upon using smart tech. I consider that far more dangerous than a driver doing 100, observing lane courtesy, on a sparsely populated motorway.
Break down on a smart motorway and you'll discover what the issue with them is. Iirc the scheme has been halted.
I think it’s telling that you didn’t ask if it is worth it for the 78 deaths attributed so far, instead of presenting it as a tiny fraction. There is a lack of confidence in smart motorways from both the public and motoring groups. Doesn’t seem unreasonable for it to have its way. There is a smart solution to motorway congestion. Most of us have phones with Google maps that can tell us when it is busy or predicted to be busy. Don’t make non-essential journeys at busy times.
I've had a breakdown on the motorway before. Standing on the hard shoulder wearing one of my wife's dresses and sobbing was no fun I can tell you
Chief Highway Engineer Mike Wilson's comments (after the Panorama programme) are interesting and that the 'smart' sections are located at the busiest areas of the network: As someone who frequently drives up & down the M1 that section after J7 to J10 is frequently terrifying as very, very few people will obey/follow/even know about these simple rules and I would add to that list "...know what the hard shoulder is for...". I would love to see a demographic breakdown of those fatality figures.
Haven't those deaths taken place on smart motorways, not attributed to them being a smart motorway? We'd need to know the counterfactual to know the impact. I've seen a number of videos of fatal accidents on smart motorways which happened due to people on phones or being too old to drive and not paying attention. As Bwood states, they're often on the busiest parts of the motorway, where it has been deemed most necessary to increase capacity. The hard shoulder is also paradoxically one of the most dangerous places on any motorway. Initial pilots with regular escape lay bys were actually found to be safer in pilots than before they turned smart (although lay by frequency was then cut for cost purposes). But my overarching concern isn't whether smart motorways are more dangerous or not than before. All lane versions in their current form are very likely to have led to excess deaths. It's more that the motorway is a balance between convenience and safety. And to me, the very small increase in danger is worth is probably worth the convenience to millions. As I think the current speed limit is. But I don't really understand the hypocrisy e.g. of being opposed to lowering the motorway speed limit to 60 but being anti-smart motorway, as the former would save far more lives than the latter. Ideally, every motorway would be smart, with the speed limit being increased when roads are quiet to incentivise off peak journeys. If you could drive up to 90 on an empty motorway, people would then be a lot happier to have more speed cameras to catch driving which is actually dangerous.
Agree that the comparison would need to be like for like. However, smart motorways do present a new danger for those motorways that formerly had a hard shoulder. Agree that the hard shoulder is an unsafe place in itself. If I ever breakdown, I’ll be up the embankment and over the fence. Motorways have been well designed and are much nicer than most dual carriageway A roads, some of which are a white knuckle ride to get onto or leave. Seems reasonable to be very careful about any changes.
You’re spot on. I think it’s just the usual mix of an idea which works slightly better in theory than in practice (mainly because humans are stupid), a government trying to skimp on costs thereby undermining the project, campaign groups that favour other options (eg. No motorway expansions at all or full scale expansions) using the perfect as the enemy of good and a failure from all involved to effectively communicate to general public the concept that 0 deaths is completely unachievable. Also doesn’t help that in a small minority of the fatalities it’s turned out system failures have contributed, giving fuel to the fire. Trouble is as always in this country once the media get on a bandwagon it’s almost impossible to turn the tide of public opinion. Too many people think they’re deathtraps and their ears and eyes are closed now to any evidence that contradicts that conclusion. And while I know Rishi ran his first leadership campaign with a promise to stop further smart motorways, the fact this saves £1bn is clearly the motivation. The government is ditching lots of major road building projects because the country’s skint. They’re not going to spend many times that adding extra lanes to motorways. They’re just going to do nothing and leave the decision on what to do next for after the next election/Labour to sort out.
Personally I quite like the variable speed limit regime of smart motorways. Not so convinced about having a boundary lane that is sometimes available to traffic and other times not. But as said above that’s probably perception, and the thought of the unknown if your vehicle had to pullover for whatever reason. However motorway fatalities have occurred following incidents on traditionally configured dual carriageways. Including incidents when vehicles were stationary on the hard shoulder. Making vehicles safer in years to come will no doubt involve some relationship between onboard automation and inbuilt roadside technology, that may make the smart motorway look positively Stone Age.
