'Smart' Motorways.

[sgtkate]

Subsidise public transport (even as someone who drives more than catches the train I`m quite happy to subsidise the trains).

If they must have "smart motorways" they should be like the M42 with a 50mph limit if the hard shoulder is out of use.

Introduce more police patrols on the roads and more cameras to catch dangerous drivers. Ideally, and it will happen sooner or later, have cars with GPS linked throttles which cannot break the speed limit.

 

Incidentally, how come there was a speed camera enforced 50mph limit whilst they were building the (not so) "smart motorway" because there was no hard shoulder (amongst other reasons), yet once they open it the limit has gone up to 80mph with no hard shoulder and no speed camera enforcement !

INCONSISTENT ! !

 

You aren't going to catch DANGEROUS drivers with cameras, only speeding ones who may or may not be dangerous.

[Justin Smith]

Drivers of cars and lorries have a metal box around them. They also have the ability to swerve, brake and accelerate their way out of trouble. They also have to concentrate on their driving and their surroundings.

 

The workforce has to concentrate on getting the job done. They shouldn't have to keep one eye out for the traffic. There will also be health and safety at work rules.

There is a big difference. I doubt you can see that. You are very blinkered about speed.

 

That`s a very tendentious and inaccurate and also rather personal comment.

I don`t argee with it but can`t be bothered to argue with someone making such a statement.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2016 at 11:14 ----------

 

You aren't going to catch DANGEROUS drivers with cameras, only speeding ones who may or may not be dangerous.

 

I agree speed cameras are a blunt weapon, but in my experience aggressive and/or impatient drivers (i.e. the most dangerous drivers) tend to also be those most likely to speed. There isn`t a 100% correlation but it`s pretty strong.

But anyway, the formula for kinetic energy would objectively contradict anyone who says that more speed does not equate to more danger.

[RonJeremy]

That`s a very tendentious and inaccurate and also rather personal comment.

I don`t argee with it but can`t be bothered to argue with someone making such a statement.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2016 at 11:14 ----------

 

 

I agree speed cameras are a blunt weapon, but in my experience aggressive and/or impatient drivers (i.e. the most dangerous drivers) tend to also be those most likely to speed. There isn`t a 100% correlation but it`s pretty strong.

But anyway, the formula for kinetic energy would objectively contradict anyone who says that more speed does not equate to more danger.

 

The truth obviously hurts you. You are obsessed with speed and claim virtually any other contribution to vehicle and driver safety is irrelevant. My point stands. Sorry if I have offended you by pointing out that you are tendentious about speed.

 

---------- Post added 06-01-2016 at 11:44 ----------

 

And even if you no longer to address my points, I shall continue to address yours, so they don't stand unchallenged. Not that it will make an enormous difference as on the few occasions you do reply to a difficult point, it takes so long, some have lost interest in the subject. Delaying tactics are a useful tool I guess.

[Justin Smith]

You aren't going to catch DANGEROUS drivers with cameras, only speeding ones who may or may not be dangerous.

 

On the subject of which, I think the fact the police are now using dash cam footage to prosecute dangerous drivers could possibly become biggest advance in road safety in a generation. Not only are there relatively few police cars to see (and video) the dangerous driving in the first place, the dangerous drivers are more likely to be driving more sensibly if the see a car with dayglo markings and blue lights on top. I think the police should make it as easy as possible for the public to send in footage of dangerous drivers, what have they got to lose other than having to watch it ? It cuts the cost of catching dangerous drivers hugely, in theory as more cars have dash cams (it may even become a standard feature) if it was easy enough to pass on the footage it could potentially eliminate dangerous drivers from the roads completely.

[sgtkate]

On the subject of which, I think the fact the police are now using dash cam footage to prosecute dangerous drivers could possibly become biggest advance in road safety in a generation. Not only are there relatively few police cars to see (and video) the dangerous driving in the first place, the dangerous drivers are more likely to be driving more sensibly if the see a car with dayglo markings and blue lights on top. I think the police should make it as easy as possible for the public to send in footage of dangerous drivers, what have they got to lose other than having to watch it ? It cuts the cost of catching dangerous drivers hugely, in theory as more cars have dash cams (it may even become a standard feature) if it was easy enough to pass on the footage it could potentially eliminate dangerous drivers from the roads completely.

 

Yes me too. I would much prefer a system with no mandatory speed limits as I actually think they encourage people to drive faster, and have far more prosecutions for dangerous or careless driving. Number of times you see someone not speeding doing something absolutely shocking on the roads is appalling, yet we have almost no convictions unless they hit someone.

[Justin Smith]

Yet more proof that ditching the hard shoulder is a bad idea :

 

A report in The Times (15 Feb 16) reporting that the Central Emergency Police Group say :

 

All lane running should be scrapped in its current form because it was unsafe for drivers who break down. A broken down vehicle is far more likely to result in a serious injury or fatality.

Absence of the hard shoulder also makes routine stopping of vehicles too dangerous in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The emergency refuge areas are increasingly being misused by drivers of foreign trucks who mistake them for rest lay-bys

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As an aside, on this and other forums, I have noticed that generally it`s the same people who :

 

Have no problem with getting rid of the hard shoulder.

Dislike middle laners with a passion (even if they`re driving the speed limit).

Dislike speed cameras.

Think drivers should be able to break the speed limit if they want.

 

The theme here is they`re more bothered about getting to their destination a bit quicker and/or enjoying themselves doing it, than they are about safety. The problem being that it isn`t just their own safety is it ? That`s what the Motoring Mafia will never comprehend........

Edited February 17, 2016 by Justin Smith

[truman]

Yet more proof that ditching the hard shoulder is a bad idea :

 

A report in The Times (15 Feb 16) reporting that the Central Emergency Police Group say :

 

All lane running should be scrapped in its current form because it was unsafe for drivers who break down. A broken down vehicle is far more likely to result in a serious injury or fatality.

Absence of the hard shoulder also makes routine stopping of vehicles too dangerous in all but the most extreme circumstances.

The emergency refuge areas are increasingly being misused by drivers of foreign trucks who mistake them for rest lay-bys

 

As

 

Can you provide any figures for broken down cars on a m/w with no hardshoulder being hit by other vehicles..could you compare it to the number of cars hit whilst parked on the hard shoulder? Genuine question..

[Obelix]

Have we had hard shoulder running long enough for that data to be available and meaningful though?

[Cyclone]

Isn't it all monitored by CCTV? In the event of a breakdown the lane (hopefully the inside one) is immediately closed by the overhead signs.

 

Out of interest, the new section of 4 lane, managed motorway close to Leeds still has a hard shoulder doesn't it?

[Justin Smith]

Can you provide any figures for broken down cars on a m/w with no hardshoulder being hit by other vehicles..could you compare it to the number of cars hit whilst parked on the hard shoulder? Genuine question..

 

Sorry, aren`t we getting side tracked here, these are senior police officers saying this. Are we saying they`re just saying all this for no reason at all ? It doesn`t compute does it ?