Smart Motorways

[SaintHacker]

My point was that it's not acceptable not to provide a safe place for vehicles too pull off a carrageway where the permitted speeds are fast. Just because this may be the case on a dual carriageway isn't a defence for there being no hard shoulder on a motorway. Does anyone actually think it's safe to pull up on the inside lane on a motorway with no hard shoulder, really!

Ok, I'll ask my earlier question again as no one answered it last time and this thread is going round in circles. If you had a choice would you prefer to break down on a hard shoulder with traffic thundering past at 70+ mph, or would you prefer a live,but closed, lane or emergency refuge with the adjacent lanes slowed to 30? I know which one I'd choose,and it doesnt involve hard shoulders.

 

[4LEX]

He wants protection, so the family that rear ends him gets wiped out by a lorry driver watching YouTube on his phone rather than him!!Seriously one of the strangest things I have read on here.

It was used to highlight the ridiculous nature of smart motorways and selfish mentality of some drivers. Of course in reality I'd never intentionally cause a crash but they'll be many drivers that would do exactly that. I apologise if it came across badly. But as a caveat, anyone that rear ends someone is at fault for not giving space or not paying attention, via the law. It's why insurance scams are so tough to prove and why insurance is so high.

I almost died in a high speed RTA years ago and have seen first hand the carnage it brings. Seeing your friend with half his arm missing changes your outlook.

Those responsible for these smart motorways should be held accountable for corporate manslaughter IMO.

 

[4LEX]

Reading some of his other posts I'm not sure he's at an age yet that he can a licence in the first place...

Ouch. I've had a licence for 15 years and have 15 years no claims with only 3 points for driving at 33 in a 30

 

[Swango1980]

Ok, I'll ask my earlier question again as no one answered it last time and this thread is going round in circles. If you had a choice would you prefer to break down on a hard shoulder with traffic thundering past at 70+ mph, or would you prefer a live,but closed, lane or emergency refuge with the adjacent lanes slowed to 30? I know which one I'd choose,and it doesnt involve hard shoulders.

Hard shoulder, easy. Especially as in the alternative option, the lane will not be closed to traffic immediately behind me.

 

[Foxholer]

... But as a caveat, anyone that gets rear ended is 100% at fault for not giving space or not paying attention, via the law...

Eh! What?!
Please explain, as I think you have that the wrong way around!

FWIW, I'm not a fan of 'smart' motorways/use of hard shoulder for traffic. I believe safety is compromised far too much for the marginal benefit.

 

[BiMGuy]

Eh! What?!
Please explain, as I think you have that the wrong way around!

FWIW, I'm not a fan of 'smart' motorways/use of hard shoulder for traffic. I believe safety is compromised far too much for the marginal benefit.

This is similar to the golfers making up rules thread. We now have drivers making up laws.

 

[Billysboots]

But as a caveat, anyone that gets rear ended is 100% at fault for not giving space or not paying attention, via the law.

Codswallop.

 

[4LEX]

Eh! What?!
Please explain, as I think you have that the wrong way around!

FWIW, I'm not a fan of 'smart' motorways/use of hard shoulder for traffic. I believe safety is compromised far too much for the marginal benefit.

I did have it the wrong way round!

 

[4LEX]

Codswallop.

I meant anyone that rear ends someone.

 

[Billysboots]

I meant anyone that rear ends someone.

Even then they’re not responsible 100% of the time. The law is not quite that simple.

 

[4LEX]

Even then they’re not responsible 100% of the time. The law is not quite that simple.

I was taught to give the correct distance from the car infront if they hit the brakes, to have enough space to stop. But it all feeds into the too many cars on roads debate, in many occasions it's not possible. Some motorways have chevrons for distance and literally no one sticks to it due to volume of traffic. The only time it's not 100% is when it's an insurance scam with enough evidence to prove it.

Anyways, smart motorways are crap and I'm a good driver OK

 

[Billysboots]

Sorry. I’ll bow to your experience of traffic law. The 20+ years I spent enforcing it and investigating fatal collisions was clearly wasted.

?

 

[4LEX]

Sorry. I’ll bow to your experience of traffic law. The 20+ years I spent enforcing it and investigating fatal collisions was clearly wasted.

?

That's what I was taught, always happy to be corrected and educated by someone with more knowledge

 

[Billysboots]

If someone rear ends the vehicle in front because their own vehicle has suffered from a mechanical failure they’re very unlikely to be legally responsible for the collision via a manner of driving offence, although there may be offences in relation to vehicle condition.

If they suffer a medical episode at the wheel, the same will apply. Very unlikely to be guilty of any offence or in any way responsible for the collision, unless it was a medical condition they were aware of, or in some way responsible for initiating.

If someone suffers an unexpected bout of sneezing, for example, there is a defence in law known as automatism.

And then, of course, you have the actions of other drivers. Like, for example, the person who, in the process of breaking down on a motorway, decides to deliberately cause the driver behind to collide with their vehicle. Yes, the following driver may possibly be guilty of careless driving. But the driver who deliberately caused it is more than likely guilty of the more serious offence of dangerous driving.

Just a few examples of where the following driver may not be 100% liable for a rear end shunt, if at all. There are others, but I hope you get the gist.

 

[4LEX]

If someone rear ends the vehicle in front because their own vehicle has suffered from a mechanical failure they’re very unlikely to be legally responsible for the collision via a manner of driving offence, although there may be offences in relation to vehicle condition.

If they suffer a medical episode at the wheel, the same will apply. Very unlikely to be guilty of any offence or in any way responsible for the collision, unless it was a medical condition they were aware of, or in some way responsible for initiating.

If someone suffers an unexpected bout of sneezing, for example, there is a defence in law known as automatism.

And then, of course, you have the actions of other drivers. Like, for example, the person who, in the process of breaking down on a motorway, decides to deliberately cause the driver behind to collide with their vehicle. Yes, the following driver may possibly be guilty of careless driving. But the driver who deliberately caused it is more than likely guilty of the more serious offence of dangerous driving.

Just a few examples of where the following driver may not be 100% liable for a rear end shunt, if at all. There are others, but I hope you get the gist.

I do get the gist but never considered medical emergencies in my comments as that's obviously an accident. I was talking general driving.

Intrigued about the sneezing episode though, how would that be proven/unproven in a court if there was no evidence? If someone caused a crash and had a good lawyer who used that as a defence, is that a way some people get off?

 

[Billysboots]

Intrigued about the sneezing episode though, how would that be proven/unproven in a court if there was no evidence? If someone caused a crash and had a good lawyer who used that as a defence, is that a way some people get off?

Very difficult in the absence of independent witness evidence. But it’s not for a defence lawyer to prove their client’s innocence - it’s for the prosecution to prove guilt. All the defence needs to introduce is an element of reasonable doubt.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Ok, I'll ask my earlier question again as no one answered it last time and this thread is going round in circles. If you had a choice would you prefer to break down on a hard shoulder with traffic thundering past at 70+ mph, or would you prefer a live,but closed, lane or emergency refuge with the adjacent lanes slowed to 30? I know which one I'd choose,and it doesnt involve hard shoulders.

Great in theory. But, in truth, one is a reality, it is there as a physical refuge for you to pull on to.
The other is only going to happen if a lot of people hit the right switch in time, and obey the signals and do what they tell you.
Knowing drivers, I know which I would rely on most.?

 

[SocketRocket]

Ok, I'll ask my earlier question again as no one answered it last time and this thread is going round in circles. If you had a choice would you prefer to break down on a hard shoulder with traffic thundering past at 70+ mph, or would you prefer a live,but closed, lane or emergency refuge with the adjacent lanes slowed to 30? I know which one I'd choose,and it doesnt involve hard shoulders.

The hard shoulder every time. You can pull up and get out of the car without traffic thundering up behind you at 70+ mph. The absolute danger on a smart motorway is the moment you pull up when your car packs in, there will be no lane closure and humping great trucks driving behind you. How many have to die before this gets changed.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Very difficult in the absence of independent witness evidence. But it’s not for a defence lawyer to prove their client’s innocence - it’s for the prosecution to prove guilt. All the defence needs to introduce is an element of reasonable doubt.

Unreasonable doubt will suffice if it is a jury trial.

 

[Billysboots]

Unreasonable doubt will suffice if it is a jury trial.

Indeed ?