Morris Minor Owners Club

Along with lots of my Minor owning friends, I've noticed the increasing number of incidents on our new 'smart' motorways, and tragically many have lost their lives in these incidents. I believe they are a mistake and should be withdrawn immediately as too dangerous for ALL users, but especially for those of us with potentially slower moving cars usually without hazard lights to let others know the vehicle is stopped, and I'd like the MMOC to actively come out against their implementation and campaign to have them removed. However, to do that I need to be able to tell the club that our members do genuinely support that idea, so I'm running this poll to get that feedback.

(please note though that I am running this poll as a MMOC member rather than site admin or committee member etc. - this is NOT club policy)

Voted for...

John ;-)

voted.as a hgv driver i've spotted a couple of stranded vehicles on a 'smart' m/way

NOT smart,bloody dangerous.Halt implmentation
re,john newton

Just voted 'yes'.

As a bit of an aside, I picked up from another thread on here that, in the event of emergency, i.e. breakdown/accident, it is possible to have a 'sort of' hazard flasher system as under:-
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/24LED-Amber- ... 2749.l2649

My '62 saloon is still fitted with the original red rear and white front indicators, so a conventional hazard warning system is a non-starter. I've just ordered one and also a power socket to connect it to...….just in case of emergency...….but hopefully, not .

I'd like to know the reasoning behind the two NO votes??

Please.

John ;-)

I think there should be a third option; scrapped totally. That's because I have no faith in some of the self opinionated, useless prawns, who will chair any inquiry. I have some first hand experience of such people.

Nowadays, 'smart' usually means the opposite

Just like 'eco' - both weasel words used by unscrupulous people with an agenda and/or something to sell.

This is something that concerns all car users, not just classic cars - from what I can discover, none of the fatalaties to date has involved a broken down classic, they have all been incidents in more modern vehicles.

It won't really matter how close together signal gantries are erected: Even at 100 yard intervals, if your car stops, then by the time it has been detected and the previous signal activated to close your lane, there will still be a very large number of vehicles potentially travelling towards you at 60+ mph that have already passed the gantry and will have difficulty avoiding your stationery vehicle.

At the time of writing this, there are three "no" votes. Like "Sleeper", I'd appreciate those people explaining their views - I'm not saying that they should not hold those views, I just want to understand them.

I think all "smart" motorways should go back to having a hard shoulder, they are simply too dangerous. In some places there is not even any way to get away up an embankment or anywhere away from a stranded vehicle which is the advice normally given when there is a breakdown.

As a recent member I have also voted 'Yes'.
I want the motorway hard shoulder reinstated as quickly as possible. Who ever dreamt up this policy, they need their heads examined.

Once apon a time we may have challenged this lunacy, by using the Health and Safety at work etc act 1972. Unfortunately this important legislation has been drastically watered down.

I believe that because of the impact on a companies profitability, this Act was, shall I say altered.
I have personally quoted the legislation successfully, before my employer before any changes were made. As a teaching assistant in a special needs school, my employer wanted me to continue driving school mini buses with an expired council permit.

After a few conversations with my employer, and with me threatening him with full personal liability, he backed down completely.

If one person's life is lost because of smart motorways, then it is still one too many. Keep safe everyone.

Flywheel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:01 pm As a recent member I have also voted 'Yes'.
I want the motorway hard shoulder reinstated as quickly as possible. Who ever dreamt up this policy, they need their heads examined.

Once apon a time we may have challenged this lunacy, by using the Health and Safety at work etc act 1972. Unfortunately this important legislation has been drastically watered down.

I believe that because of the impact on a companies profitability, this Act was, shall I say altered.
I have personally quoted the legislation successfully, before my employer before any changes were made.

Well I'll give you full marks for including the 'etc', but I'll have to dock marks for saying it was 1972.

You'd be hard pressed to use the Health & Safety AT WORK Act to govern the safety of motorway design.
I'd be most interested in your thoughts/reasons as to how and when the Act has been watered down.

I'd still like to know the reasoning behind the four NO votes??

Please.

John ;-)

I remember well the day the last bit of the M25 opened. I had been to Brands Hatch (Seen Nigel Mansell take his first GP win) and after the race, the weather turned bad. On the way to Brands, the M25 had a gap near Leatherhead, with no signage to tell people how to get to the next bit . I didn't know it was to be opened later that day. Anyway, post GP traffic, especially at Brands, was always manic (I later learned how to avoid it) and in pouring rain and darkness (It was October), the road seemed full of total lunatics, all racing into a wall of spray. I kept to the inside lane, expecting to see a pile up at any moment. At 40 mph, in a Mini, I felt I could probably swerve up the embankment and stop, should the need arise (Much of the road seemed to be in a cutting). I just sat tight and wondered how this lot would cope with the gap near Leatherhead. I was surprised and relieved to see the sign for the M4. I can't recall whether I saw any broken down cars that night but the conditions were such that you might have expected it. With visibility so poor, I was concerned that had there been a pile up, people would have just ploughed into it or anyone, who had stopped short of it. The same would have applied had there been no hard shoulder and had someone had to stop. My memory of that drive on the M25 is clearer than any part of the day.....yes I remember Nigel Mansell winning (As I was out the back of the circuit, I thought Rosberg was leading for a good while; I hadn't noticed he had lost a lap but by God did he go making it back up to 3rd) and I recall Alboreto's Ferrari passing me in the early stages of his conflagration.......and now I think of it, Prost came in 4th and since Alboreto got no points, Prost became World Champion for the first time. For the drive on the M25 to eclipse that says something about it.

geoberni wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:41 pm

Flywheel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:01 pm As a recent member I have also voted 'Yes'.
I want the motorway hard shoulder reinstated as quickly as possible. Who ever dreamt up this policy, they need their heads examined.

Once apon a time we may have challenged this lunacy, by using the Health and Safety at work etc act 1972. Unfortunately this important legislation has been drastically watered down.

I believe that because of the impact on a companies profitability, this Act was, shall I say altered.
I have personally quoted the legislation successfully, before my employer before any changes were made.

Well I'll give you full marks for including the 'etc', but I'll have to dock marks for saying it was 1972.

You'd be hard pressed to use the Health & Safety AT WORK Act to govern the safety of motorway design.
I'd be most interested in your thoughts/reasons as to how and when the Act has been watered down.

Apologies it was 1974. ( why did i think it came out in 72)
https://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm

Good point raised. However i found this under section 15 of the act: paragraph 3. A, B and C.
(3)Health and safety regulations.
(a)may repeal or modify any of the existing statutory provisions;
(b)may exclude or modify in relation to any specified class of case any of the provisions of sections 2 to 9 or any of the existing statutory provisions;
(c)may [F5 , subject to subsection (3A), ]make a specified authority or class of authorities responsible, to such extent as may be specified, for the enforcement of any of the relevant statutory provisions.
With regard to existing statutory law, surely that must mean that the Act permitting the creation and implementation of 'smart motorways ' can be overturned.

With regard to your last question, i did think that H&S had been watered down by Deregulation Acts subsequently passed by Parliament, because of the impact on economic growth.

I'll certainly stand corrected, i've been looking through the legislation. It certainly is a mine field.

Cheers Jonnie.

Hi Jonnie
I won't bore everyone with too much detail, but S 15 is basically to enable Regulations to be issued.

The HSAW is an 'Enabling Act', aside from all the details about Powers of Inspectors etc, the key thing is that Regulations pertaining to 'health & safety' can be issued very easily.
An 'Act' has to go back and forward from Commons to Lords being debated and can take years to get through. Regulations are literally signed off by the Sec of State, and copies placed out for MPs to review. If no relevant complaints are received, then after 30 days they are law.

And that's really the purpose of S15.

As to 'deregulation' in 2010, the Coalition Government made a big deal about the 'Red Tape Challenge', but after 2 separate reviews, The government's 2010 Lord Young, "Common Sense, Common Safety" and the 2011 Independent Report "Reclaiming health and safety for all (Löfstedt report)", it was clear that there wasn't the problem they imagined, but there was a problem in some sectors.

The hundreds of Regulations they removed and consolidated were dross that should have already been sorted out.

For example, just some of the Regulations relating to mines:

Coal and Other Mines (Fire and Rescue) Order 1956
Coal and Other Mines (Fire and Rescue) (Amendment) Regulations 1980
Coal and Other Mines (General Duties and Conduct) Order 1956
Coal and Other Mines (Locomotives) Order 1956
Coal and Other Mines (Metrication) Regulations 1978
Coal and Other Mines (Safety-Lamps and Lighting) Order 1956
Coal and Other Mines (Sanitary Conveniences) Order 1956
Coal and Other Mines (Shafts, Outlets and Roads) (Amendment) Regulations 1968
Coal and Other Mines (Shafts, Outlets and Roads) Regulations 1960
Coal and Other Mines (Sidings) Order 1956
Coal and Other Mines (Ventilation) (Variation) Regulations 1966
Coal and Other Mines (Ventilation) Order 1956
The Coal and Other Safety-Lamp Mines (Explosives) Regulations 1993
Coal Mines (Cardrox and Hydrox) Regulations 1956
Coal Mines (Clearances in Transport Roads) Regulations 1959
The Coal Mines (Control of Inhalable Dust) Regulations 2007
Coal Mines (Firedamp Drainage) Regulations 1960
The Coal Mines (Owner’s Operating Rules) Regulations 1993
Coal Mines (Precautions against Inflammable Dust) (Second Amendment) Regulations 1974
Coal Mines (Precautions against Inflammable Dust) Amendment Regulations 1977
Coal Mines (Precautions against Inflammable Dust) (Variation) Regulations 1960
Coal Mines (Precautions against Inflammable Dust) Order 1956
Escape and Rescue from Mines Regulations 1995
Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993
Mines (Control of Ground Movement) Regulations 1999
Mines (Manner of Search for Smoking Materials) Order 1956
Mines (Medical Examinations) Regulations 1964
Mines (Precautions Against Inrushes) Regulations 1979
Mines (Safety of Exit) Regulations 1988
Mines (Shafts and Winding) Regulations 1993
Mines and Quarries (Metrication) Regulations 1976
Mines and Quarries (Tipping Plans) Rules 1971
Mines and Quarries (Tips) Regulations 1971
Mines and Quarries Acts 1954 to 1971 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1974
Mines and Quarries Acts 1954 to 1971 (Repeals and Modifications) Regulations 1975
Mines Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations 1995
Miscellaneous Mines (Explosives) Regulations 1959
Miscellaneous Mines (Metrication) Regulations 1983
Miscellaneous Mines (General) Order 1956
Stratified Ironstone, Shale and Fireclay Mines (Explosives) Regulations 1956
Classification and Labelling of Explosives Regulations 1983

And that's before we even get into the realm of all the other explosive regulations....

The level of safety regulation in the UK is probably the best in the world. In many places it is down to States or Regional Governments, not a national set of regulations at all.
When people have moaned about 'EU' H&S restrictions they have usually been originated by the UK.

Why do I know all this trivia?
I'm a chartered H&S practitioner, and I make it my job to make it simple for my clients, who are usually small business, local charities and the like.

Hi geoberni, many thanks for your information, and as for 'trivia' and small details I look at that a great deal especially with regard to my local council, and that is another story.

I used to travel regularly between Huntingdon and Reading in a morris traveller via the M25 and the M4 and its wasn't unusual to have to stop on the hard shoulder.
Here are some reasons:
Flat tyre
Faulty ignition coil (a new one).
Faulty voltage regulator
Loose wire.
Weak bladder (!)
If I had been on a smart motorway I am not sure that I would still be here to tell the tale.
Also when you have to stop on the hard shoulder you can get back onto the motorway by getting your speed up in the hard shoulder and then moving into a gap in the traffic on the main carriageway. This is not possible if you have stopped in a refuge.
I think they should be scrapped.

About thirty years ago Michael Heseltine (I think it was him) came up with the idea that you could turn a three lane motorway into a four lane motorway by making all the lanes narrower. This idea was thrown out and I am surprised that the idea of smart motorways wasn't thrown out as well.