Vocal Voices

At last - people are standing up and criticising one of (what I feel is) the most dangerous developments on Britain's road networks since the advent of the motor car.

They started off trialling the system on the M42 east side of Birmingham between the M6 interchange and the M40 interchange, basically past Birmingham Airport and Solihull, quite a few years back. The hard shoulder was converted as a running lane, but unlike the most recent schemes, the running lane was part-time and only used when conditions warranted it - and the refuge lay-bys were installed roughly every half mile. I drove it on many occasions and it wasn't easy, but that was mainly due to the variable speed limits also imposed, often quite randomly.

But once they started extending the scheme to the M6 through Birmingham where (because it's often on a viaduct) there was limited scope for lay-bys - and the ex-hard shoulder running lane was full-time - I really didn't like the thought of driving along it, and quite honestly got to prefer paying to use the M6 Toll road as an alternative.

There have been 38 deaths on smart motorways in 5 years, and there's some horrendous footage around of near misses with vehicles broken down on the inside lane. I find it hard to believe that in the overly H&S-conscious country we have become, eejits in the Highways Agency have happily sanctioned these schemes.

Anyone driven them, around the M25, for example? What's your view of them?

Yes, I drove on the M3 / M25 in the inside lane (old hard shoulder) and was quite surprised when my path was obstructed by the buttress of a bridge..
Smart motorways are quite obviously dangerous. The hard shoulder was put there for a reason, so you could pull over in relative safety.
They are a cheap fix. The motorways around here are congested, notably the M1 into Leeds and the M62 in many parts. This isn't surprising as the M62 was built in the early 70's and the M1 preceded that. They carry more traffic than they were ever designed to.
So the problem was eased by creating a fourth lane, the old hard shoulder.
Cheapness trumps safety. So far anyway; it's dawning among the great and good that these smart motorways are dangerous so we'll see what happens.

Then there are the bits, like the M1 past Wakefield into Leeds, where the slip road have traffic lights on them. A tailback is formed onto the surrounding roads till the lights go green then everyone races hell-for-leather to get on the motorway before the lights go red again. The motorway then goes from free-flowing, but at a slower speed, to become overloaded and almost at a standstill - rinse and repeat.

Another good one was the M62 J25, Brighouse. The gradient is uphill about 1 in 7 (14%) and because the slip road was to the rule book it meant HGVs trying to get on the motorway doing only a handful of miles per hour and into traffic going at a full pelt 70MPH as it came down from Ainley Top. There was an annual request for the slip road to be lengthened only to be met with a sharp intake of breath and mumbling about 'rules being rules'. It's now a smart motorway - rules eh?

IMO the Highways Agency is not fit for purpose and never has been.