Mike Rawson continuing correspondence with Minsters on Smart Motorways:
Sir Charles Walker KBE MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
July 7th 2023
Response to Minister Holden’s July 1st letter
Thank you for sending the correspondence you have received from the Roads and Local Transport Minister in response to my continuing concerns about the government’s confused and dismissive approach to dangerous All Lane Running (ALR) smart motorways.
Why do I use the word ‘confused’? There is no ambiguity in the Prime Minister’s statement, ‘Smart Motorways are unpopular because they are unsafe’ but minsters, with responsibility for motorways, have chosen to deliberately ignore the Prime Minister.
By continue to construct current projects, although I accept the M6, junctions 21a – 26 project is now the only motorway being converted to ALR, without a hard shoulder, ministers have chosen to dismiss Rishi Sunak’s concerns about safety.
My letter of June 16th 2023, which you kindly forwarded to the minister, was intended to draw the government’s attention to the legal aspects of continuing with the current conversions of conventional motorways to All Lane Running (without hard shoulders) in the clear and certain knowledge they are UNSAFE.
I had hoped the prompting would lead to the minister seeking advice from the Government’s Law Officer as to liability in the event of deaths and serious injuries on newly constructed ALR motorways which were completed and opened following the PM’s assertion they are UNSAFE.
Clearly, my hopes were misplaced because the minister’s letter makes no mention whatsoever of legal implications in respect of these conversions.
The minister can, however, be certain that all correspondence relating to the dangers of ALR smart motorways and the legal liability in respect of deaths and serious injury, in which the absence of a hard shoulder was judged to be the major contributory cause, will be available to the courts and when the courts find in favour of the plaintiff it will be the taxpayers of this country who will pay the compensation and costs – no doubt amounting to several million pounds.
I will now take this opportunity to comment upon the content of the minister’s letter:-
‘We decided to cancel all plans for new smart motorways (announced on 16th April) recognising the lack of confidence felt by drivers and cost pressures.
Drivers have, understandably, never had confidence in motorways where the hard shoulder (the major safety feature in the event of a breakdown) has been removed.
When did the government become concerned about cost pressures – HS2 – the £32bn price tag for the High Speed Line in 2009 now likely to be in excess of £150bn if it ever gets built!
The cost of Euston Station is estimated to exceed £4.8bn (Public Accounts Committee figures – not mine!)
‘Initial estimates suggest constructing future smart motorway schemes would cost more than £1 billion and cancelling these schemes will allow more time to track public confidence in smart motorways over a longer period’.
That statement, Charles, is just b******t – the public will never have confidence in a motorway network which puts users in fear of death and injury should they experience problems with their vehicle and find themselves stationary in the path of high speed traffic.
If the minister really wants to track public confidence in smart motorways why not commission a company to carryout research – it should be complete within three to six months (although many of us already know the thoughts of the majority of those who use the motorways even if ministers refuse to accept reality!)
‘Restoring the hard shoulder while maintaining capacity would be hugely disruptive and come at enormous cost’.
Failing to reinstate hard shoulders will come at enormous cost to the families of those killed and seriously injured on ALR smart motorways – but what value does the government put on human life? Sadly, very little I am afraid.
When hundreds of lives were lost in two separate Boeing 737Max airliner crashes, due to a design fault in part of the aircraft’s cockpit instrumentation, Boeing grounded the world’s entire fleet until the fault was rectified and the planes were safe to fly.
The cost to Boeing amounted to many billions of dollars – but what price safety?
Perhaps the British government should take note?
‘Smart motorways continue to show that overall, in terms of serious or fatal casualties, smart motorways are the safest roads on the SRN (Strategic Road Network).
Every category of collision on ALR smart motorways has reduced BUT WITH ONE EXCEPTION – collisions involving STOPPED vehicles in LIVE LANES.
If the minister is serious in wanting to ‘do more to build public confidence’ his ambition should be to make the Motorway Network a CONTROLLED MOTORWAY SYSTEM which includes hard shoulders for emergency use and almost entirely removes the risk of live lane fatalities’.
‘We will continue to invest in safety – including progressing the construction of 150 extra emergency areas across the smart motorway network’.
Does the minister really believe that adding ONE Emergency Refuge Area to almost every three miles of smart motorway will improve safety?
With respect to Mr Holden, Charles, he really must try to understand that a broken down/ defective / won’t start vehicle CANNOT be driven to an ERA (Emergency Refuge Area) and represents a serious danger to the occupants and all users of the high speed motorway and, tragically, the statistics bear this out.
Kind regards
Mike
PDF copy here
4.5