'Smart' motorways

[Sleeper]

You can change your vote, I just tried it , scroll to he top and hit your choice of button...

John ;-)

[ndevans]

Smart motorways are not the problem, dumb drivers are.

[daveejhitchins]

Smart motorways are not the problem, dumb drivers are.

Hmmm ! Can't agree with that, however, we all think differently . . .

Dave H.

[KeithL]

Smart motorways are not the problem, dumb drivers are.

Absolutely right. I knew someone who worked in the Highways Agency control room. The stories he used to tell about the stupidity they witnessed in any given day were frightening.

[ndevans]

Smart motorways are not the problem, dumb drivers are.

I think I could put it a bit more eloquently.

The main problem being addressed is the capacity & ability of the road network to carry traffic.

Smart motorways are a part of the solution to that problem, but only a part. Smart drivers are also an important part of the solution, as without driver education and a general raising of driving standards, there is a limit to how effective any road improvement scheme can be. Smart motorways in themselves are not dangerous. People, drivers, driver behaviour, are the cause of accidents.

There are other solutions that need to be considered as well, such as improvements in public transport, lessening the need for travel etc., and we don't do enough of that, so I'd agree that smart motorways look like a cheap shortcut to a partial solution. Maybe we should consider charging road tolls for motorways, perhaps that is another piece of the jigsaw.

Let's have an enquiry by all means, but if we are serious about reducing congestion, improving traffic handling, and improvements in road safety, we should consider the whole picture, not just scream "smart motorways are bad, let's scrap them".

Edit:-we might also want to be mindful of the fact that as classic car owners we are not liable for road fund duty, yet we still contribute to the demand for the infrastructure that we use. We are therefore asking for changes to that infrastructure, whilst not being contributors to the costs in the same way that users of more modern vehicles are. This is a different argument, and it gets complicated because I am aware that the costs of the road infrastructure are not fully met by the road fund alone, some of it comes from general taxation, some from fuel tax etc.

[MorrisJohn]

What is dangerous about “smart” motorways is the removal of the passive safety feature, the hard shoulder. What is controversial is the removal of that important safety feature.

Humans can, and will, act stupidly from time to time. No amount of education will ever stop that.

Elements of “smart” motorways are useful. Variable speed limits with average speed cameras do help to improve traffic flow. If capacity is an issue then road widening or alternative public transport options need looked at, but safety measures like hard shoulders must be retained.

The “edit” about us demanding a say in how roads are designed whilst not paying road tax is, I think, null and void. I’d wager close to 100% of historic vehicle users also drive modern vehicles, which are subject to “road tax”.We all contribute to the funding. Should views of EV drivers be ignored as they pay zero tax? They’re probably more likely to break down than a well maintained historic vehicle after all…43% of Tesla owners report faults with their cars within one year of ownership (as of 2022) .