'Smart' Motorways.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Go back a bit. In the 1950s, before the first motorways opened, they were designed with hard shoulders.

Other than increased traffic, has anything changed since then such that hard shoulders are now unnecessary?

[A: No.]

[tinfoilhat 11]

4 hours ago, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Go back a bit. In the 1950s, before the first motorways opened, they were designed with hard shoulders.

Other than increased traffic, has anything changed since then such that hard shoulders are now unnecessary?

[A: No.]

Vehicles are more reliable, Motorways are often lit for starters. Cameras - which should always be manned and working - can observe breakdowns. Gantries showing lane closures - ones that stretch across the entire carriageway and are placed within short distances of each other. If you drive on a lane with a red Cross over it, you should be fined.

 

But it's not like that. Cameras don't always work, aren't always staffed (HA would beg to differ) and the gantries at the side of the road aren't always visible if you find yourself next to a lorry at the wrong angle . 

 

Compare the smart motorway between 30-28 on the M1 and the busier bits of the M42. Count the signs. Big difference.

Edited November 3, 2021 by tinfoilhat

[Jim117 72]

Smart motorways are clearly death traps to be avoided wherever possible. The only time I have ever had a breakdown on the motorway was caused by a catastrophic engine failure. (Snapped timing belt tensioner) I didn’t have the luxury of driving another couple of miles to a refuge point, I was doing 70 in the outside lane and considered myself fortunate to be able to steer to the hard shoulder. Even then I instantly got everyone out of the car and up the banking. Motorways were originally designed with a hard shoulder for a damn good reason.

[alchresearch 215]

14 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

 the gantries at the side of the road aren't always visible if you find yourself next to a lorry at the wrong angle . 

The gantries are above the entire width of the motorway and above every lane aren't they?

 

[Anna B 1,417]

15 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Vehicles are more reliable, Motorways are often lit for starters. Cameras - which should always be manned and working - can observe breakdowns. Gantries showing lane closures - ones that stretch across the entire carriageway and are placed within short distances of each other. If you drive on a lane with a red Cross over it, you should be fined.

 

But it's not like that. Cameras don't always work, aren't always staffed (HA would beg to differ) and the gantries at the side of the road aren't always visible if you find yourself next to a lorry at the wrong angle . 

 

Compare the smart motorway between 30-28 on the M1 and the busier bits of the M42. Count the signs. Big difference.

Vehicles may be more reliable, but they still break down, and it only takes one to cause an accident.

 

The hard shoulder is there for a reason, and that reason hasn't changed. I find the smart motorway sections extremely worrying / terrifying in heavy traffic. IMO Smart motorways need to be reversed and the hard shoulder reinstated.

[cuttsie 1,091]

Smart  motorways are the stupidest idea ever to go through Parliament, thought up by stupid bureaucrats who sit in high places and some how think they are fit to rule .

[geared 319]

18 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

If you drive on a lane with a red Cross over it, you should be fined.

 

You will be if caught, it's illegal.

 

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

Vehicles may be more reliable, but they still break down, and it only takes one to cause an accident.

 

Saw a traffic officer broken down on an M1 sliproad this morning, if that isn't a sign that it can happen to anyone then I don't know what is.