The strength of feeling against smart motorways is so strong members of the public have been letting the government & Highways England know, the following is an except form a letter sent years ago.
“However, many of those recommendations and concerns have not been accepted, or the Government has countered with palliative comments. This provides an opportunity for litigation in the event that someone is killed or seriously injured by being in an ERA or by having to stop in a live lane and unable to reach an ERA.
It is likely that surviving relatives could initiate legal proceedings against Highways England on the grounds of negligence. Counsel’s opinion on this matter suggests that the range of evidence from witnesses and the meticulous analysis of the issues by the Committee would provide a rich source of material, unfavourable to the Government, to support litigation or even encourage a private prosecution to be brought against Highways England. In effect, the Committee’s findings could be considered to be negative expert opinion, which may be quite damaging to any defence posture the Government chose to adopt.”
Another is in the comment section of the Telegraphs recent article
“1 Sep 2019 9:31AM
So, Highways England insist that “the fatality rate has decreased by 28%” on “All Lane Running” motorways. This is a clear mis-use of risk assessment and I hope the HSE UK takes action. Highways England is obliged to ensure that when they initiate any change, the risks arising are reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable” (Evans vs National Coal Board, the ALARP Principle). This requires that any potential risk reduction feature MUST be implemented unless it is shown that the cost of the feature is inordinate compared to the risk benefit obtained.
This is more complicated because they are removing a safety feature. Where they are removing a safety feature (i.e. the hard shoulder) and thereby introducing new risks, they must demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate those risks and that overall there is a significant risk benefit. If they cannot demonstrate that, then they are obliged to leave the original safety feature in place!
They have failed in their duty of care if they have removed a safety feature and their efforts at mitigating the risk that they have introduced is not at least as effective as the feature that was removed.”
And lets not forget the former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire had this to say in 2014
“At some point we believe these arrangements… will be a contributory factor in a serious accident or even someone dying”
4.5
I predicted back in 2012 by writing to a forum Pistonheads that the all lane running or rather getting rid of the hard shoulder refuge will result in deaths.
This was so obvious for that prediction to happen that the perpetrators should be sacked immediately for gross professional misconduct. I wrote to
Mr Wilson at Highways England who stood by the stupid idea that all lane running was as safe as having a hard shoulder refuge. That was before the AA
found that it is 200% more dangerous to have no hard shoulder……… with 57 years NCDs and I’m certain that thousands of similar drivers as I are appalled that the stupidity at Highways England continues to this day.
Before the idiocy began using the hard shoulder as a lane was illegal but it is not now……. and it’s safe as quoted by Highways England……. I really do wish either of those two madheads breakdown on the live lane of a motorway and the sooner the better.