The DEATH of the hard shoulder

daveyjp

Dual carriageways have never had hard shoulders.
AFAIK there has never been a campaign to have them installed.

AdrianC

AdrianC said:

There were 38 deaths on smart motorways between 2014 and 2019. There were 107 deaths on the motorway network in 2018, and 99 in 2017. That's from all causes, not just stationary vehicles being hit... So let's call smart motorway deaths about 7.5% of all motorway deaths, if we assume 500 over that 5yr period.

Yet smart motorways are now up to about 15% of the motorway network - and they're the busiest stretches, the ones you'd expect to have more serious collisions...

Just found some clearer figures...

In 2018, ALR and DHS motorways carried 13.8 per cent of the traffic on the motorway network. They accounted for 12.8 per cent of the fatalities.
In 2017, ALR and DHS motorways carried 11.7 per cent of the traffic on the motorway network. They accounted for 12.8 per cent of the fatalities.
In 2016, ALR and DHS motorways carried 9.6 per cent of the traffic on the motorway network. They accounted for 3.9 per cent of the fatalities.
In 2015, ALR and DHS motorways carried 7.6 per cent of the traffic on the motorway network. They accounted for 5.4 per cent of the fatalities.
ALR = All Lane Running
DHS = Dynamic Hard Shoulder

Source? Government stats
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936811/smart-motorway-safety-evidence-stocktake-and-action-plan.pdf

The two guys who died on the M1, whose inquest brought this latest round into play?
They were not in their cars. This is true. They had got out, following a minor impact just after a junction...
They were standing BETWEEN two vehicles... The truck hit one, and they got squished between them.
They could easily have got behind the barriers.


And before anybody says "but look at that bend", there's some serious foreshortening in that photo. The blue sign in the foreground is this one...
https://goo.gl/maps/gYmv3Zo9pHhKUijj9

Biggus_Dickus

AdrianC said:

NottinghamKnight said:

The advice is to get out of the car and stay over the barrier even where there is a hard shoulder of course. 

This bit ^^^
HC275 - leave the vehicle by the left-hand door and ensure your passengers do the same... return and wait near your vehicle (well away from the carriageway and hard shoulder)

If somebody is killed while sitting in a broken-down car on a smart motorway, they've failed to do the single most basic thing to protect themselves.

There were 38 deaths on smart motorways between 2014 and 2019. There were 107 deaths on the motorway network in 2018, and 99 in 2017. That's from all causes, not just stationary vehicles being hit... So let's call smart motorway deaths about 7.5% of all motorway deaths, if we assume 500 over that 5yr period.

Yet smart motorways are now up to about 15% of the motorway network - and they're the busiest stretches, the ones you'd expect to have more serious collisions...

Smart motorways have one job, and one job only - to increase traffic flow. They do that by increasing the number of lanes. There is rarely an option to widen the carriageway - because it's usually already been done to the maximum available width. Perhaps if people actually used motorway lanes properly, we'd get more traffic down the current lanes?

Evacuation is paramount but it depends how quickly and safely they can exit the vehicle. I have no evidence to back this up but I assume the first minute or so after breaking down in a ‘live’ lane is probably the most dangerous period.

For someone who is elderly or infirm, or has passengers who are not able to be quickly evacuated it’s a daunting prospect. For someone who has young children or a babe-in-arms it’s a nightmare scenario.

Hard shoulders are, and always have been dangerous places but they do provide a refuge of sorts;...the prospect of being stationary in a ‘live’ lane with a 38-ton HGV barrelling toward me at 60mph ain’t my idea of fun.

However, notwithstanding the hard-shoulder debate, I think ‘smart’ motorways when operating properly do control congestion/speed et al very well,...and in certain sections are much safer than they previously were. M62 between the M1 and Manchester being one example;...it’s not Smart for the entire length though.

 

Car_54

daveyjp said:

Dual carriageways have never had hard shoulders.
AFAIK there has never been a campaign to have them installed.

Some have.

But dual carriageways vary widely, from the A3, which is motorway standard with hard shoulder and grade-separated junctions, to short sections in town with a 30 limit, and all sorts in between.

AdrianC

Biggus_Dickus said:

Depends how quickly and safely they can exit the vehicle. I have no evidence to back this up but I assume the first minute or so after breaking down in a ‘live’ lane is probably the most dangerous period.

The guys in the case that provoked this debate had plenty of time to get out. They then choose to stand between the vehicles, rather than the other side of the barrier.

Marvel1

Ectophile said:

If you break down on the inside lane of a "smart" motorway, then you should get everybody out of the car and over the crash barrier as quickly as possible.

What about if there is no crash barrier?

Bigphil1474

Not sure that is relevant though AdrianC. Yes, on this occasion they may have had time to get over the barrier, but the accident could have easily been the same outcome had the colliding vehicle approached 1 minute earlier. At least with a hard shoulder, they would only have been hit if the colliding vehicle wasn't in lane correctly. Hard shoulders are not safe, but they are a lot safer than a live running lane, especially at night. Would be interesting to see if the fatality figures were similar types of incidents on each road type, or different types of incident depending on the road type.

AdrianC

Bigphil1474 said:

Not sure that is relevant though AdrianC. Yes, on this occasion they may have had time to get over the barrier, but the accident could have easily been the same outcome had the colliding vehicle approached 1 minute earlier.

And if they'd taken the most basic precaution...

Three people were involved in that crash. Any one of them could have saved two lives by engaging braincells.
The only survivor has been convicted of death by careless driving. I strongly suspect he pleaded guilty to that rather than be charged with death by dangerous driving.

Would be interesting to see if the fatality figures were similar types of incidents on each road type, or different types of incident depending on the road type.

<points up> For ALL collisions, smart motorways are slightly safer in most years than non-smart ones.

I don't think there's stats on collisions with vehicles that are or would be on the hard shoulder to do any sensible numbers, probably because they're so few and far between. They just make a lot of headlines when they do happen...

Then, of course, how do you take account of cases like the M1 minibus crash, where eight people died because a drunk truck driver was stationary and asleep in L1 despite there being a hard shoulder available?

Let's put it all into proportion. About 100 people a year die on the motorway network. 38 died in five years on smart motorways - and that's all causes, not just "hard shoulder" incidents... Yet there are 1,800 or so deaths per year on the roads of this country... and this country has about the safest roads in the world...

burlingtonfl6

Are you surprised? These organisations are run by clowns, hire muppets and are paid to think of ways to create problems and spend money.

Ganga

Marvel1 said:

Ectophile said:

If you break down on the inside lane of a "smart" motorway, then you should get everybody out of the car and over the crash barrier as quickly as possible.

What about if there is no crash barrier?

Get out of the vehicle and up the bank or as far away from the carriageway as possible .