| Smart Motorways 11:51 - Jan 28 with 1702 views | PinnerPaul |
This could just be me but here goes...…….
75 deaths on smart motorways in last 5 years - Panorama programme , loads of media coverage, much shaking of heads ' 'something MUST be done' quotes etc etc etc
All road deaths last 5 years = over 1,700 EVERY year, making that over 8,500 in the same 5 year period.
AND believe it or not, those figures are pretty good compared to the 5 before that.
Shouldn't we be thinking about how dangerous our roads are in general rather than concentrating on the relatively tiny number of deaths on the smart motorways? |  | | |  |
| Smart Motorways on 12:04 - Jan 28 with 1658 views | RangersDave |
isnt this a 'Spackmann' of my 'Spackmann'? lol |  |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 12:37 - Jan 28 with 1602 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
I guess it’s different because most road deaths are caused by bad driving or bad weather conditions, etc, whereas these deaths are being caused by policy. [Post edited 28 Jan 2020 12:37]
|  |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 12:48 - Jan 28 with 1545 views | plasmahoop |
I think the problem is those deaths are an addition, and unnecessary. Just not having a hard shoulder makes no sense. They are supposed to recover the vehicles quickly, but I don't see how it's possible. Plus it's costing a load of money 'upgrading' the m20 and m23 to smart motorways. | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 13:07 - Jan 28 with 1490 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Smart Motorways on 12:48 - Jan 28 by plasmahoop |
I think the problem is those deaths are an addition, and unnecessary. Just not having a hard shoulder makes no sense. They are supposed to recover the vehicles quickly, but I don't see how it's possible. Plus it's costing a load of money 'upgrading' the m20 and m23 to smart motorways. |
Arguably all road deaths are unnecessary. For instance Sweden has a zero tolerance policy to any road deaths and as a result has incredibly safe roads but we’re not Sweden and I know what you mean.
I think it’s telling that there are no plans to expand the Smart motorway network which suggests it isn’t going very well. | |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 14:58 - Jan 28 with 1385 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
The UK has less road deaths per million persons than Sweden. Norway and Switzerland are marginally the safest on that particular measure but we have one of the best safety records in Europe. Short of everyone crawling around at 20mph it won't be improved much.
One of the interesting aspects of the smart motorways/hardshoulders debate is the difficulty of finding any comparable stats on deaths with motorway hard shoulders. That's the UK in 2020, all emotion and no facts. We will probably find that there is little difference despite the perceptions. | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 15:12 - Jan 28 with 1369 views | Rog |
From what I read the most recent ones have a "lay-by" every 2500m rather than the every 800m that the first one, M42, had and which was used to test the idea. That to me looks like a cost saving that is potentially costing lives.
Given the choice would you like your son/daughter to breakdown on a smart motorway or a traditional one?
They should be reverted to standard configuration and poor lane discipline should be targetted by the cameras as much as speeding is. | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 15:23 - Jan 28 with 1344 views | PinnerPaul |
| Smart Motorways on 14:58 - Jan 28 by Spaghetti_Hoops |
The UK has less road deaths per million persons than Sweden. Norway and Switzerland are marginally the safest on that particular measure but we have one of the best safety records in Europe. Short of everyone crawling around at 20mph it won't be improved much.
One of the interesting aspects of the smart motorways/hardshoulders debate is the difficulty of finding any comparable stats on deaths with motorway hard shoulders. That's the UK in 2020, all emotion and no facts. We will probably find that there is little difference despite the perceptions. |
That's my point, we don't even know if all 75 deaths occurred on the hard shoulder do we?
Just seems odd to me to 'accept' 8,500 plus and target the 75? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Smart Motorways on 15:40 - Jan 28 with 1312 views | Harbour |
| Smart Motorways on 15:23 - Jan 28 by PinnerPaul |
That's my point, we don't even know if all 75 deaths occurred on the hard shoulder do we?
Just seems odd to me to 'accept' 8,500 plus and target the 75? |
75 deaths that would not have happened if a hard shoulder was in place. A terrifying experience if you break down in the red x lane get out of the car as fast as you can but do not open your door and exit onto the inside lane. There appears to be nothing smart about these motorways. | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 15:54 - Jan 28 with 1286 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| Smart Motorways on 15:12 - Jan 28 by Rog |
From what I read the most recent ones have a "lay-by" every 2500m rather than the every 800m that the first one, M42, had and which was used to test the idea. That to me looks like a cost saving that is potentially costing lives.
Given the choice would you like your son/daughter to breakdown on a smart motorway or a traditional one?
They should be reverted to standard configuration and poor lane discipline should be targetted by the cameras as much as speeding is. |
Knowing people who were killed broken down on a hard shoulder and hit by a lorry my advice to my daughter would be the same. Get out, walk up motorway 50yds+ and get behind a barrier if you can. Hard shoulders are also dangerous places. | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 16:12 - Jan 28 with 1265 views | PinnerPaul |
| Smart Motorways on 15:40 - Jan 28 by Harbour |
75 deaths that would not have happened if a hard shoulder was in place. A terrifying experience if you break down in the red x lane get out of the car as fast as you can but do not open your door and exit onto the inside lane. There appears to be nothing smart about these motorways. |
We don't know that though do we?
Given the number of deaths on 'normal' motorways, it would be extraordinary if ALL deaths on smart motorways were just down to the hard should shoulder issues.
My point is that of those THOUSANDS of other road deaths - a large number wouldn't have happened if alcohol wasn't involved, if drugs wasn't involved, if speed wasn't involved - surely makes more sense to tackle the bigger issues.
Not saying the safety of smart motorways shouldn't be looked at but to just 'accept' thousands of road deaths with 'Ah well its always been like that' is disgraceful. | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 16:13 - Jan 28 with 1261 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Smart Motorways on 15:40 - Jan 28 by Harbour |
75 deaths that would not have happened if a hard shoulder was in place. A terrifying experience if you break down in the red x lane get out of the car as fast as you can but do not open your door and exit onto the inside lane. There appears to be nothing smart about these motorways. |
Like most Smart technology then. Great when working properly but rubbish and often dangerous when broken down! | |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 16:17 - Jan 28 with 1252 views | PinnerPaul |
If we're going to start quoting 'incidents' I give you OVER 160,000 road injuries in 2018 alone - that's about 800,000 'incidents' involving injuries on our roads in 5 years.
Its not something to ignore but surely has to be looked at along with road safety in general? | | | |
| Smart Motorways on 18:49 - Jan 28 with 1191 views | PlanetHonneywood |
In 1896 the first recorded death by car accident took place in Croydon, when Bridget Driscoll got hit by a car going at 4mph!
Since then RTAs keep rising and while everyone blames ‘speed’, what people don’t delve further into, is why people feel the need to drive so fast in the first place.
A person hit by a car travelling at 20mph has a 5% chance of dying; 30mph it’s 45%; and at 40mph, it jumps to 85%. Most times when speeding excessively the end result doesn’t result in arriving at your destination any quicker. For example: you’re in a 40mph zone and you’re pushing on at 60mph when you come to the lights, you’re merely waiting longer and a car or do ahead of where you would have been if you’d driven within the limit, and at a safer pace.
What is it about our lives that requires us to drive over the speed limits to achieve precious little in terms of time advantage, while increasing the risk to ourselves and others?
‘Sir, take your time and drive safely, because Atlanta ain’t going anywhere, and it’d be a shame if you died speeding to get there!’ As I was once cautioned by a traffic officer after being pulled over for speeding. |  |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 14:23 - Jan 29 with 1019 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Smart Motorways on 18:49 - Jan 28 by PlanetHonneywood |
In 1896 the first recorded death by car accident took place in Croydon, when Bridget Driscoll got hit by a car going at 4mph!
Since then RTAs keep rising and while everyone blames ‘speed’, what people don’t delve further into, is why people feel the need to drive so fast in the first place.
A person hit by a car travelling at 20mph has a 5% chance of dying; 30mph it’s 45%; and at 40mph, it jumps to 85%. Most times when speeding excessively the end result doesn’t result in arriving at your destination any quicker. For example: you’re in a 40mph zone and you’re pushing on at 60mph when you come to the lights, you’re merely waiting longer and a car or do ahead of where you would have been if you’d driven within the limit, and at a safer pace.
What is it about our lives that requires us to drive over the speed limits to achieve precious little in terms of time advantage, while increasing the risk to ourselves and others?
‘Sir, take your time and drive safely, because Atlanta ain’t going anywhere, and it’d be a shame if you died speeding to get there!’ As I was once cautioned by a traffic officer after being pulled over for speeding. |
I agree that generally speaking in built up areas driving faster doesn't necessarily get you to your destination quicker but on long motorway journeys it will. Motorways are different to A and B roads in that there are no pedestrians and speed limits are higher. The issue therefore is not speeding per se but the dangers of smart motorways. With the UK population growing at half a million per year and driving ever more accessible, we need genuinely wider roads not half baked ideas such as using hard shoulders as an extra lane at peak times. Technology should never be adopted where there is an obvious cost to human life. |  | | |
| Smart Motorways on 14:26 - Jan 29 with 1005 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Smart Motorways on 14:23 - Jan 29 by Benny_the_Ball |
I agree that generally speaking in built up areas driving faster doesn't necessarily get you to your destination quicker but on long motorway journeys it will. Motorways are different to A and B roads in that there are no pedestrians and speed limits are higher. The issue therefore is not speeding per se but the dangers of smart motorways. With the UK population growing at half a million per year and driving ever more accessible, we need genuinely wider roads not half baked ideas such as using hard shoulders as an extra lane at peak times. Technology should never be adopted where there is an obvious cost to human life. |
...or better public transport! | |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 15:11 - Jan 29 with 956 views | kensalriser |
What do you do if you break down on a hard-shouldered motorway and can't get over to the left? In that circumstance the hard-shoulder is irrelevant. |  |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 15:17 - Jan 29 with 954 views | CliveWilsonSaid |
| Smart Motorways on 15:11 - Jan 29 by kensalriser |
What do you do if you break down on a hard-shouldered motorway and can't get over to the left? In that circumstance the hard-shoulder is irrelevant. |
I guess the same rules apply to all motorways really. In the event of a breakdown you pull over in the safest place you can which is generally on the left. If you can’t do that put on your seatbelt, call 999 and pray. [Post edited 29 Jan 2020 15:18]
| |
| |
| Smart Motorways on 01:07 - Jan 30 with 853 views | Benny_the_Ball |
| Smart Motorways on 14:26 - Jan 29 by PlanetHonneywood |
...or better public transport! |
Or both! [Post edited 30 Jan 2020 1:08]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
