Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
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?
|
What about dual carriage ways? Those don't have a hard shoulder and we cope on those roads.