Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Public transport doesn't work (well) outside the major population centres and no one is going to run a service that isn't used and people aren't going to use a service that doesn't run when wanted. The bus servicing our estate stops at 1730 so no for evening out.

Back to the motorways - I don't like the loss of hard shoulder. If my car or myself need to stop I should just do that not wait that upto 2km to the next layby.

Using the hard shoulder near junctions as exit lane may be OK.

Also it's not just number of cars causing issues but bad driving, not leaving a good following distance and not slowing down in advance of problems (obey matrix signs) leading to traffic compressing and slowing even more.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

That's a good point. Maybe some of these accidents where cars are ploughing into broken down cars is being caused by drivers getting confused as to whether the stretch is a hard shoulder or has been designated as an extra lane.

If a hard shoulder was thought to be necessary when there were much less cars on the road, it doesn't make sense that they are no longer needed.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Vehicle numbers increasing, so more capacity is needed. Build an extra lane? No, just use the hard shoulder. Political economics.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

This is the way this country is going. No brain cells whatsoever in planning for the future of transport.
Look at the railways too. We have tracks that are falling to pieces and many lines still not electrified yet.
Money needs to be ploughed into all these. Spend money building more lanes, don't cut corners.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

This country has always cut corners when it comes to future proofing its transport infrastructure sadly.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

The government is saying it's safe, but it's hard to see how it is. Yes, by having emergency laybys, you *do* remove the broken down car from the motorway totally, but even then you have to *get* the car to a safe place. Something that may be a lot easier if that safe place is a few meters to your left, than it is is that safe place is a layby a mile or two up the road.

Neither solution is perfect, and even getting the car to the hard shoulder can be dangerous, is it more dangerous than having to push a broken down car a mile, or having to leave it in the middle of the lane until the rescue vehicle comes?

On the plus side, it's probably cheaper to do things this way.

That's just it. Giving people more roads actually seems to make traffic worse. I realise that seems backward, but there have been studies that show if you give people more roads, they just buy more cars.

The best solution is to give people a cheap alternative to using their own cars, such as a well thought-out, quick, reliable and cheap public transport system. That won't happen though. Too many of the government's donors will lose money.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

What about dual carriage ways? Those don't have a hard shoulder and we cope on those roads.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Exactly what I was thinking.
We dont have "hard shoulders" on any other roads, so why is removing them from motorways such a big issue. They are basically a wasted lane.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Good point. The speed limit is the same as well.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Traffic on motorways are often faster than other roads.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Easier said than done. Not only do the railways need improving, but we also need a well thought out, comprehensive bus and coach route system, controlled by local authorities with tenders offered for the various routes with the frequency of services set by the relevant councils.

It would also require much lower fares, so the whole thing would cost a small fortune. I can't see any government doing what is required because all political parties seem to be hell bent on giving away the money that could be used for a project like this in foreign aid.

In the meantime, fumes and congestion continue to increase, requiring more roads and motorways to be improved or built....

We need a root and branch review of how we spend our money, in my opinion.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

And the volume of traffic is much greater on motorways.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

I don't have statistics to hand so I am open to correction, but I was under the impression that accidents were much lower on motorways than on other 'fast' roads, possibly because of the hard shoulders.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

I guess that they thought they'd put them on motorways because of the greater risks involved with the higher speeds.

Re: 400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

Plenty of dual carriageways are 70mph.

---------- Post added at 08:38 ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 ----------

Depends on what day and time you are talking.

---------- Post added at 08:39 ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 ----------

70mph is the highest you can go on both roads.

---------- Post added at 08:42 ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 ----------

Couldn't tell you but in my opinion, the biggest problem we have on UK roads is people don't know how to drive properly.