3 ms·
I don't think accepting that on face value is a big conciliation to the people who find themselves trapped in a live traffic lane with no refuge. Or indeed the
by VBprogrammer 5y ago
I don't think accepting that on face value is a big conciliation to the people who find themselves trapped in a live traffic lane with no refuge. Or indeed the people who are pottering along at 70mph for the car in front of them to move suddenly revealing a broken down vehicle in their path.
There isn't really a plausible scenario where removing the hard shoulder improves the safety of a motorway. The difference is most likely that smart motorways are bristling with automatic speed cameras and often have lover than normal speed limits applied during any busy period.
- zelos 5y agoReducing congestion and the kind of dangerous behaviour that produces presumably has some impact? You'd think that spread out cars all travelling at similar speeds are in general safer than more tightly packed cars with impatient drivers overtaking, switching lanes and so on.
- VBprogrammer 5y agoThe comparison I was making was with a road with the same number of live lanes with and without a hard shoulder. You may regard this as an unfair comparison because the cost to fully add a new lane is so much higher. However, I'd postulate that any improvement in safety due to a reduction in congestion is bound to suffer from the Jevons paradox in the fullness of time.