“Smart motorways keep the country moving.” So begins the very first line in the government’s “Smart Motorway Safety Evidence Stocktake and Action Plan” released last week by the Department of Transport.
The line opens the foreword by Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps. It is proof positive that the government “review” is a massive con and a whitewash of these death traps.
On its face, the assertion is stupid and takes the public to be likewise. Smart motorways do NOT keep the country moving. The country was “moving” long before smart motorways came into existence. As it stands, smart motorways account for just 400 or so miles of the strategic road network and, on the document’s own statistics, they carried less than 14 percent of traffic on the motorway network. Based on size and volume, it would be more correct to say that CONVENTIONAL motorways keep the country moving.
That doesn’t stop this statement being repeated throughout. The second paragraph of the Introduction asks, “Why do we have smart motorways?” And it goes on, “The number of miles driven on motorways in England has increased by 23% since 2000. Smart motorways are needed to keep the country moving…”
This is a lie. There are so many aspects to take apart but consider this. It states, “As the report shows, the risk of a collision between a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle is higher on non-hard-shoulder motorways. But the risk of a collision between two or more moving vehicles is lower. Because when the hard shoulder is removed technology is installed to smooth traffic flow with variable speed limits, enforced by cameras. Messages warning motorists of incidents ahead are displayed on electronic signs. This means less speeding, less tailgating and fewer rapid changes of speed….”
So, it’s not the removal of the hard shoulder that has supposedly contributed to lower the risk of collision between moving vehicles. It is speed limits, etc. Which begs the question, given that the removal of the hard shoulder has led to an increase in collisions between moving and stationary vehicles, why not keep the hard shoulder AND the variable speed limits, etc? Wouldn’t that be safer all round? Why does an apparent slight decline in moving collisions meant that more people can be allowed to die on former hard shoulders?
Later the review states that the hard shoulder is not a safe place to stop. That’s true. But it is the only immediately accessible place to stop in an emergency. Moreover, the hard shoulder was NOT removed because it was considered a safety risk. It was removed because the government and Highways England wanted to push more vehicles through on the cheap. In doing so, they removed virtually the ONLY safety feature on a motorway.
So, what was meant to be an impartial review, from the off start with the premise that smart motorways are essential and that the country cannot function without them. The “evidence” is then juggled to fit this conclusion.
We will have more to say on the review but it should also be noted that the statistics cited are almost entirely taken from Highways England. That’s the same body which is responsible for constructing and maintaining smart motorways—on behalf of the government and the Transport Secretary it should be noted—and which has seen an explosion in the number of executives earning £100,000 plus per annum thanks to public funds. The same executives who told the parliamentary committee in September that they didn’t have the figures. Hardly disinterested parties.
5
5