Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halcyon
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.
|
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.