400 more miles of the hard shoulder to be removed.
 

I have never been allowed to drive for medical reasons, but am intrigued as to what drivers think of this idea.

It will ease the congested roads, but what are people supposed to do in an emergency?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...oved-5d02t3bbj

The speed limit whilst going past roadworks is to also be increased.

The police are unhappy because they have nowhere to pull over dangerous drivers:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/8309...hard-shoulder/

It does rather seem that safety is being compromised in order to accommodate the amount of cars now on the road and could undermine the current efforts to cut car pollution.

What do those who do drive think to this idea?

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

Well considering the title of the article is

‘Unsafe’ hard shoulders to be removed

So its not just being removed for the sake of it, but due to safety concerns.

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

Another Richard "mountain out of a molehill" thread.

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

They are said to be dangerous because people end up getting shunted on them, which could be alleviated by clamping down on those stopping for non emergencies.

Even with the fact that some people can still end up being shunted, I think that this is the lesser of two evils. If someone is on the motorway and has e.g. a heart attack, a hard shoulder (despite there being a chance of being shuntered) is still safer than remaining on the motorway for everyone concerned.

If there had been incidents of the fire service dropping people whilst rescuing them from burning buildings, it would be like saying that they will no longer rescue them because it's unsafe!

I suspect that the use of terminology like 'dangerous' and 'digital motorway are spin to make it sound like an improvement that they are being taken away.

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

It's not, this has been going on for some time and the article concerns a further 400 miles of hard shoulder that is to be removed.

Are you a driver? If so, what do you think about this?

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

Not being a driver myself how is getting rid of the hard shoulder going to help emergency vehicles , etc , etc , etc?.

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

They have emergency lay-bys in the existing roads where this is in place already, and they will put more of these in.

From the OP’s Times link

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

Thanks for that Hugh as reading up a bit about it they also intend to shorten the distance between each emergency lay-bys in future from 1.5 miles to one mile which has to be a good thing.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...hire-1-8970286

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/mot...art-motorways/

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

I've always found these to be dangerous. One minute its an extra lane and then the next its closed again. Miss it and you could plough into a broken down car.


This will annoy those that want to save the envionment and all that but the truth is there are ten times more cars on the roads these days and for some roads, such as the M25 we should really have an extra few lanes.
Look at how many they have in the U.S. That seems to work.

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

Still isn't going to help emergency vehicles get to accidents quickly. I think less cars might be the answer....

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

H'mmm! And how do you propose that we can get to a position whereby we have fewer cars on the road, Mr K?

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

Well Mr K that ain't going to happen in a month of Sunday's unless you have some great idea which we have not heard of yet.

---------- Post added at 10:18 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

Especially on those motorways when it is basically bumper to bumper miles on end at busy times.

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

Oh I have great ideas Den , making all public transport free, tripling tax on private transport (with exceptions for the disabled), max of one car per household. No politician is brave enough to make the big decisions to tackle congestion/climate change.

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

Politicians are not going to make tough decisions that will lose them core voters Mr K are they...

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

No, so maybe us the 'core voters' are to blame.....

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

Most "core voters" will vote for whatever party protects their pocket.

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.

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

Agreed. Any real improvement to the railways is going to take a lot of money and cause potentially decades of disruption. Governments tend not to think beyond the next general election. Railways also aren't practical everywhere, but where they are, they have the advantage that trains can carry a lot more people. I've not done any research into this, so don't know for sure, but I would have thought the cheapest way to improve public transport would be to have more bus and coach routes.

There also needs to be more integration between the various transport systems. They have started doing this in London, but get public transport elsewhere in the country, and it feels as though they don't want you to change to a different mode of transport.

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

I think you've missed an additional point here and that is the price of public transport in general outside of major cities.

If i want to go to the office my commute is just outside Middlesbrough too York city center.

By car:-
Jump into car, drive down to outskirts of York, park car and get on a park and ride into the center of York.

Costs fuel approx £15 return. park and ride £3.50 return total 18:50 per day.

By motorbike
Jump into car, ride straight down to the office and park in the small secure car park

Costs fuel approx £15 unless i go for a blast on the way home :D

By public transport.
Any time return std class Middlesbrough to York £48 ish, (season ticket price is approx £650 per month if i were to go that route) turn bus fair from nearest stop to train station £6 + I'd have to get up an hour earlier to ensure i was at the office, and i'd get home an hour later.

it's a no brainer really!

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

Don't get me wrong, although I mentioned London, I am well aware that London's transport, while it has faults and is in need of massive upgrades, is probably the best in the country.

I was referring to the whole country. I'd like to see what is currently offered in London to be the baseline standard for public transport all over the country, and I'd like to see prices reduced massively, with a lot more journeys actually being free. This *will* require subsidising, and I remember watching an interview years ago, where they talked to the transport minister of another country that had tried our current system of companies owning various parts of the transport network, and gone back to Nationalisation because they couldn't make it work and keep the fares low enough to encourage people to use it rather than cars. They concluded it was impossible to operate a public transport system at a profit. Sadly, this was well before the internet, and I cannot remember the name of the country.

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

Currently, London buses need a subsidy of 722 million pounds per year. What chance has the rest of the country got for anything like this kind of subsidy?

---------- Post added at 10:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 ----------

Link for London bus subsidy:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-a4096581.html

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

Not a lot as around Devon and Cornwall they have cut a lot of the bus subsidy's thus some of the bus routes have now disappeared or been reduced,

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

In Scotland, Wales and England (EXCEPT for London), the majority of bus services are provided commercially with no cost to the rate of tax payers. Local authorities have an obligation to pay for 'socially necessary' services not provided by commercial operators. Unfortunately, in recent years such services have been drastically reduced. Some councils do not subsidise any bus services.

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

Our council owned our local bus service until they sold it lock stock and barrel to a national commercial operator who were full of promises in the first few months but now they have cut back on some routes while reducing the volume of buses in other routes throughout the day.

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

I'm well aware of that, and that is why I said the public transport network needs to be subsidised. The trouble is, Austerity has pretty much put any chances of this kind of subsidy happening out of the window. Even Labour have never funded transport properly, preferring to put the money in the hands of companies, who have shareholders, than put it into services.

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

Exactly as both major political parties are just as bad as each other and unless there is a great sea change then nothing will change sadly.

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

Well, austerity is now being cast aside, and with the reduction in public spending that we have experienced as a result of that austerity, we now need to re-build our public services in a more beneficial way. We must not bring back the waste, and we need to do a line-by-line national budget approach, stop doing what we don't have to do and re-direct that money into where it needs to go.

Putting in a comprehensive bus and coach system with frequent services and fare reductions will cost an absolute fortune, but I do think we need to look at that, given the benefits that would result. It should always be much cheaper to use public transport than the private car.

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Yes, ask the general public about foreign aid and most will say it needs to be reduced significantly. Not many would object to the UK contributing to disaster relief, but most believe a lot of the foreign aid budget is being wasted.

The problem is, any government that tries to reduce the budget would have to field questions from charities, the UN and the bleeding heart liberals in this country who like that nice warm feeling they get when they see hard working populations being deprived of money that could be better used on their own needs.

What we need is a strong government that is not suffocated by the nonsense being spouted by the extreme left and extreme right, and just make sensible decisions for the overall benefit of the British people.

Surely, that starts with the health of the nation, and reducing pollution that a vastly improved public transport system would bring will also reduce NHS costs.

Fat chance, though.

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

You sure about that? as many councils are still cutting their services severely.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...rity-hits-hard

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ease-pain-cuts

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-come-on-cuts

---------- Post added at 12:37 ---------- Previous post was at 12:34 ----------

l certainly agree with much of your statement here OB.:tu:

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

Only after the introduction of motorway speed limits in the late 1960's - before then you could go as fast as your car (or bike) would allow!!

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

I know, but that's all based on previous budgets. Now that we are in the new financial year, the government has already announced increased funding to many areas and this will now continue. It takes time to turn things around.

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

Public transport in South Yorkshire in the late 70's/early 80's used to be under local authority control and the fares were kept very low (I remember reading somewhere adult fares were capped at 2p/mile on busses - cheapest in the country??).

When I was at school in the early 80's I used to get a bus to see a friend in Sheffield and it cost the grand total of 25p each way (child fares)!! The fare was 15p to the West Yorkshire / South Yorkshire boarder (4 miles). 2p from the boarder to Barnsley Bus Station (4 miles). 6p from Barnsley Bus Station to Sheffield Bus Station (16 miles). 2p from Sheffield Bus Station to friends house (5 miles). So it worked out at nearly 4p/mile in West Yorkshire and 0.4p/mile in South Yorkshire. It used to take an age but once across the boarder in South Yorkshire the buses were rammed!!!

Public Transport was a very successful 'socialist' policy that I'm sure was one of the many reasons the Government of the day went out of its way to get rid of the GLC and the six Metropolitan County Councils.

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

Regarding Austerity being cast aside, that would be good, but I prefer to see what the government do, rather than what they say. They are politicians, after all, and, in my experience, most politicians would greet you warmly, while vigoursly shaking your hand with one of theirs, while manoeuvring the other so they can stab you in the back with the knife it is holding.

I do agree that we need to go through expenditure line by line, and eliminate waste.

It should. How else are people going to be persuaded to get out of their cars? Even the best public transport system will never have the convenience of a car. If you own a car and can drive, you can get in it at a moments notice and just drive off to wherever you want. Public Transport is never going to be able to offer that conveniance. Most public transport operates to a timetable (even if they only advertise that the next train or bus is in a given number of minutes, that's still a timetable) and requires the passenger to go to a certain stop or station, then get off at another stop or station, and the journey time to get to the stop or station may be significant as it may not be near.

Black Cabs and taxis don't have that restriction as such, but good luck finding one of them unless you are in a busy area.

There are also mini cabs and these upcoming driverless car systems (Uber, Tesla etc), but these may require the user to have a working mobile phone, which is something you can't necessarily guarantee.

Cars go from wherever you are to wherever you want to go, at whatever time you are willing to drive them, and not only do they not require a mobile phone, they can often charge yours if you have one.

Public transport needs to be a lot cheaper (and ideally free) to compete with that convenience.

I do realise I am asking for Unicorns though.
Encourage enough people to get out of their vehicles (whatever vehicle) and walk, and you also potentially save the NHS money.

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

Many of the bus companies in England and Wales (but not London) were government run under the auspices of the National Bus Company between 1969 and 1988.. Despite car ownership being very much lower in those days so far more people were dependent on buses, very very few of those companies made a profit, hampered by the cost of the bureaucracy.
These days, most bus services outside London are run at a profit by Stagecoach, First, Arriva, Go Ahead and lots of well run smaller companies, despite the added costs associated with EU driving regulations, adaptions for the disabled, clean exhaust laws, higher expectations of passengers etc etc. Gone are the days of the boneshaker belching out black smoke that many of us travelled on to school.
The billions of annual subsidy required in London is an indication of what might happen if offices are set up full of people with the intention of regulating the bus services. This is already proposed for the larger conurbations.

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

Non paywall linkI suspect that the widow of a man who is to sue Highways England for corporate manslaughter, who lost her husband since you made this comment, would disagree with you:

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/drivers-...torway-deaths/

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

Hard shoulders don't make much of a difference.
Link
After a minor collision, there was no pressing need to stop on a live lane of any sort. Would you do it on any other busy road?
From your link

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

On a smart motorway with no hard shoulder, there is supposed to be real-time monitoring of traffic movement so assistance can be dispatched rapidly if a running lane becomes blocked by an accident. I’m curious whether there’s a target response time and how often it is missed. I’m also curious as to what vehicle occupants should do; the current advice is to leave a car on the hard shoulder and get a comfortable distance from it, the other side of a crash barrier if there is one, or up the embankment. So what do you do if you break down or are in a collision in a live running lane on a smart motorway?

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

No doubt she will but I will await the result of the courts decision before commenting further.

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

Well, as PIP says, let's wait until the courts make a decision as to who or what was at fault.

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

Most of the M1 around here has been without a hard shoulder for years now - without any fuss, or the world ending.

As they say "much ado about nothing"

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

This made the news last night. They said that there had been four deaths on this stretch of road thus far since the hard shoulder was removed and showed a historic interview with the chief of police for this area, who predicted accidents/fatalities.

They also showed where the latest death took place. Next to what was the hard shoulder, there is a grass verge, I think it would have been sensible for them to move onto this rather than exchange details in a live motorway lane.