Smart Motorways

[drdel]

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.

But in fairness to 4Lex these incidents are a very low percentage of read end shunts.

 

[Billysboots]

But in fairness to 4Lex these incidents are a very low percentage of read end shunts.

Not strictly true. My last point was slightly tongue in cheek, but if you really drill down into a lot of rear end shunts there will be blame on both sides.

Take motorways and dual carriageways for example. At busy periods there are lots of so called concertina collisions on these roads, where one vehicle slows or stops, and there then follows a number of vehicles running into the one in front. Now I don’t dispute for one moment if you collide with a vehicle in front there is likely to be an element of carelessness on your part. But what about the very front vehicle? Is that driver blameless, because that is what 4Lex suggests? In an awful lot of cases I would say not. If a driver has to slam the brakes on whilst driving on a motorway or dual carriageway I would argue their attention has been every bit as lacking as the drivers behind - they merely haven’t collided with anything in front of them. That is how an awful lot of these collisions start. Had their anticipation been better, then the likelihood is their braking could have been more progressive, and the carnage behind might even have been avoided entirely.

What 4Lex is referring to is, I suspect, the stance adopted by insurance companies. You need to bear in mind that, unless there is an injury involved, the police will rarely go to the extent of investigating straightforward rear end shunts. They will advise all involved to refer to their insurers, who will then resolve it. Invariably those companies will adopt the stance that the following driver is to blame. Whilst the following driver, by failing to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, doubtless is blameworthy to an extent, it just seems too problematic for insurers to pursue the leading driver, even though legally they may also be culpable.

So to argue that 100% of following drivers are liable in law is not really correct. In insurance company terms, possibly, but legally it is nowhere near that simple.

 

[Swango1980]

Not strictly true. My last point was slightly tongue in cheek, but if you really drill down into a lot of rear end shunts there will be blame on both sides.

Take motorways and dual carriageways for example. At busy periods there are lots of so called concertina collisions on these roads, where one vehicle slows or stops, and there then follows a number of vehicles running into the one in front. Now I don’t dispute for one moment if you collide with a vehicle in front there is likely to be an element of carelessness on your part. But what about the very front vehicle? Is that driver blameless, because that is what 4Lex suggests? In an awful lot of cases I would say not. If a driver has to slam the brakes on whilst driving on a motorway or dual carriageway I would argue their attention has been every bit as lacking as the drivers behind - they merely haven’t collided with anything in front of them. That is how an awful lot of these collisions start. Had their anticipation been better, then the likelihood is their braking could have been more progressive, and the carnage behind might even have been avoided entirely.

What 4Lex is referring to is, I suspect, the stance adopted by insurance companies. You need to bear in mind that, unless there is an injury involved, the police will rarely go to the extent of investigating straightforward rear end shunts. They will advise all involved to refer to their insurers, who will then resolve it. Invariably those companies will adopt the stance that the following driver is to blame. Whilst the following driver, by failing to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, doubtless is blameworthy to an extent, it just seems too problematic for insurers to pursue the leading driver, even though legally they may also be culpable.

So to argue that 100% of following drivers are liable in law is not really correct. In insurance company terms, possibly, but legally it is nowhere near that simple.

Also, on motorways, drivers are often switching lanes. So, I could have left plenty of room between me and the car in front for me to react if I need to. However, another driver suddenly pulls into my lane in front of me. In that instant, I am now closer to car in front. If they had to suddenly slam the breaks just as they pulled into my lane, I would say there is 0% blame on me for slamming into the back of them?

I also hear of people who like to brake test people behind them. In that case, a lot of blame likely to go to the leading driver for doing such a thing?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Also, on motorways, drivers are often switching lanes. So, I could have left plenty of room between me and the car in front for me to react if I need to. However, another driver suddenly pulls into my lane in front of me. In that instant, I am now closer to car in front. If they had to suddenly slam the breaks just as they pulled into my lane, I would say there is 0% blame on me for slamming into the back of them?

I also hear of people who like to brake test people behind them. In that case, a lot of blame likely to go to the leading driver for doing such a thing?

In the standard of driving that Billy & I would have been held accountable to, the moment that car starts to move across into your lane, or indicates that it is going to move and take away your braking distance is the moment you should be doing something about it; easing off the throttle, light braking or even changing lanes if that is appropriate.

If that vehicle has changed lanes because of something happening ahead that they have seen & reacted to but which you've failed to notice, why should you get a free pass?

 

[Swango1980]

In the standard of driving that Billy & I would have been held accountable to, the moment that car starts to move across into your lane, or indicates that it is going to move and take away your braking distance is the moment you should be doing something about it; easing off the throttle, light braking or even changing lanes if that is appropriate.

If that vehicle has changed lanes because of something happening ahead that they have seen & reacted to but which you've failed to notice, why should you get a free pass?

Absolutely. However, the scenario I am talking about is when a car suddenly decides to change lanes. Often they do not indicate, or pull across and almost pointlessly start to indicate as they make the move. Often, it is to quickly overtake a car in wearside lane and they decide they can nip out in front of you. Or, they overtake me but pull in very close in front of me instead of going a bit further and pulling across. It is also why I added that if they had to brake suddenly as soon as they switched lanes. Because obviously I would / should adjust my speed to make that gap safe asap.

 

[Tashyboy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59956911

it comes as no great suprise.

 

[PJ87]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59956911

it comes as no great suprise.

I would say it's being hidden behind safety ... I'd say it's more the cost whilst the economy recovers

 

[Billysboots]

I would say it's being hidden behind safety ... I'd say it's more the cost whilst the economy recovers

Probably true to an extent, but the cost to the economy of having motorways shut for hours on end whilst serious collisions are dealt with is absolutely astronomical.

 

[PJ87]

Probably true to an extent, but the cost to the economy of having motorways shut for hours on end whilst serious collisions are dealt with is absolutely astronomical.

however thats not planned for, tragic as it sounds you cant plan or budget for it.

 

[Swango1980]

however thats not planned for, tragic as it sounds you cant plan or budget for it.

You can. You can make roads safer. Health and safety plays a big part in highway / junction design.

That doesn't mean safety standards are 100% perfect in every area, and this particular thread highlights an area where the safety aspect of Smart Motorways is highly questionable. So, why where they introduced? Well, motorways carry the largest number of vehicles during peak periods. From an economical point of view, it was probably decided that the economic saving to generally improving capacity (and without having to get the diggers out) was more of a benefit, than the potential cost of having to close the motorway when there is an horrific accident (and I'm sure they assumed this would hopefully be infrequent). I'm guessing it was also justified that, the hard shoulder would only be open during busy periods, when they'd assume traffic would be moving more slowly anyway? To be fair, the above is just an assumption from me, I've not read all the reports into giving Smart Motorways the green light to begin with. But, there is no doubt that Smart Motorways were only ever brought about to solve an economic problem, not a safety one.

However, now that they've been in existence for a while, the number of tragic accidents that have been caused as a direct impact there being no hard shoulder cannot be ignored.

 

[PJ87]

You can. You can make roads safer. Health and safety plays a big part in highway / junction design.

That doesn't mean safety standards are 100% perfect in every area, and this particular thread highlights an area where the safety aspect of Smart Motorways is highly questionable. So, why where they introduced? Well, motorways carry the largest number of vehicles during peak periods. From an economical point of view, it was probably decided that the economic saving to generally improving capacity (and without having to get the diggers out) was more of a benefit, than the potential cost of having to close the motorway when there is an horrific accident (and I'm sure they assumed this would hopefully be infrequent). I'm guessing it was also justified that, the hard shoulder would only be open during busy periods, when they'd assume traffic would be moving more slowly anyway? To be fair, the above is just an assumption from me, I've not read all the reports into giving Smart Motorways the green light to begin with. But, there is no doubt that Smart Motorways were only ever brought about to solve an economic problem, not a safety one.

However, now that they've been in existence for a while, the number of tragic accidents that have been caused as a direct impact there being no hard shoulder cannot be ignored.

That is not the point I said at all.

I said it can't be budgeted for

For example network rail had to bring in train stops at all signals on their network after moorgate rail disaster

Legal requirement

The costs were deemed too high.. so instead if they have an accident and it involves a signal without a train stop they will compo the families instead

So they have not spent the cash (like smart motorways) but not budgeted for the hit for death etc

I'm not saying they can't plan better I'm saying they won't be saying right it costs this much every day it's closed for an accident

 

[Blue in Munich]

...

I'm not saying they can't plan better I'm saying they won't be saying right it costs this much every day it's closed for an accident

Highways Economic Note 1

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/courses/EPIB654/Summer2010/CBA/UK Economic Note Value for a life.pdf

I believe it can come under either Lost Output or Human Costs, but there is a calculation as to how much it costs having a road closed for an accident. It is used as part of a Cost Benefit Analysis when deciding if an accident prevention scheme is economically justified.

Apologies to @Billysboots for any flashbacks caused as a result of this post

 

[PJ87]

Highways Economic Note 1

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/courses/EPIB654/Summer2010/CBA/UK Economic Note Value for a life.pdf

I believe it can come under either Lost Output or Human Costs, but there is a calculation as to how much it costs having a road closed for an accident. It is used as part of a Cost Benefit Analysis when deciding if an accident prevention scheme is economically justified.

Apologies to @Billysboots for any flashbacks caused as a result of this post

fair enough, wasnt aware of that .

I doubt that the safety of them is behind this decision at all and I stand by that.

we are skint and everything is being scaled back

 

[Blue in Munich]

fair enough, wasnt aware of that .

I doubt that the safety of them is behind this decision at all and I stand by that.

we are skint and everything is being scaled back

They are not in a good place with these. As far as I am aware they were well warned of the dangers before they put them in; despite that they continued to install them, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. They may finally be realising the error of their ways.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...charges-over-smart-motorway-death-05-01-2021/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mpaign-abolished-hard-shoulders-b1831591.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/22/are-smart-motorways-safe

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/smart-motorway-jr/

 

[clubchamp98]

I would say it's being hidden behind safety ... I'd say it's more the cost whilst the economy recovers

I think it’s a mixture of safety and cost.
What’s next HS2.

 

[Imurg]

They've either finished the groundwork at 3 sites around here and moved on or they've been halted.
Work still going on at the 4th local one for now....
Not heard either way from local news.....

 

[SocketRocket]

They are not in a good place with these. As far as I am aware they were well warned of the dangers before they put them in; despite that they continued to install them, and the chickens are now coming home to roost. They may finally be realising the error of their ways.

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...charges-over-smart-motorway-death-05-01-2021/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mpaign-abolished-hard-shoulders-b1831591.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/22/are-smart-motorways-safe

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/smart-motorway-jr/

I thought the way they would be operated was to close the inside lane most of the time as a hard shoulder and only open it on times of high volume slow moving traffic but they are keeping it open all the time.

They've just converted the M4 from Reading to Heathrow which is a potential deathtrap.

 

[Billysboots]

Apologies to @Billysboots for any flashbacks caused as a result of this post

Forgiven.