REUBEN 123 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 When motorways were built the hard shoulder was put there as a safety zone.Over the years they have been used by many motorists in emergency situations. Also the police ,ambulances and fire brigade use them to get to anyone in need quicker. Why do :the powers that be: now decide we don,t need this safety zone any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Because they're nuts ! When you think of the vehicles most likely to use the lane, HGV's, it's quite scary. I can foresee a tragedy or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Because they're nuts ! When you think of the vehicles most likely to use the lane, HGV's, it's quite scary. I can foresee a tragedy or two. Not sure how you come to the conclusion it's HGV's that are most likely to use the lane? From experience....these lanes are opened for drivers requiring the next exit, to help alleviate congestion. Are we to assume every HGV needs the next exit? To answer the OP..... It's seen as a cheap option to reduce congestion. Good idea? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 There are stretches on the m1 and the m6 (I think) plus others I'm sure. Have there been any more incidents of accidents on hard shoulders before people were allowed to use them as lane 1? In my experience, they only open it up when traffic is slow and heavy. I bet they aren't a deal more dangerous than an unused hard shoulder. Do you think a FOI request would reveal anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not sure how you come to the conclusion it's HGV's that are most likely to use the lane? From experience....these lanes are opened for drivers requiring the next exit, to help alleviate congestion. Are we to assume every HGV needs the next exit? To answer the OP..... It's seen as a cheap option to reduce congestion. Good idea? I don't think so. Which part isn't a good idea? Do you know if it works? I don't actually Allen, so I'll just answer the bold... If it's cheap AND it reduces congestion, then do you not think that it's a good idea 'as a cheap option to reduce congestion?' (if only temporary) - Or do you mean you don't like the safety option? With a roll-off area every 1/4mile or so, I think it's a good idea (as the cheap option) If you are travelling fast in it and break down, you could normally coast this far. If you aren't travelling fast (or crawling) then breaking down wouldn't be a danger. It would just mean some pushing and a tail-back. I think the next cheap option should be [quite slow] speed limits and more run off areas. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Ash..... I'm sure we all agree the preferred option would be to build a fourth carriageway...but that costs money. I'm worried about the safety option. It's not a case of "coasting" to a safe refuge incase of breakdown .....it's access for the emergency services if anyone should be in life threatening circumstances. We seem to have millions of spare cash for foreign aid, yet can't find the cash to ensure our motorways are safe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Ash..... I'm sure we all agree the preferred option would be to build a fourth carriageway...but that costs money. I'm worried about the safety option. It's not a case of "coasting" to a safe refuge incase of breakdown .....it's access for the emergency services if anyone should be in life threatening circumstances. We seem to have millions of spare cash for foreign aid, yet can't find the cash to ensure our motorways are safe! With our prices you could probably save an entire country from dying for the cost of 1 metre of motorway expansion! Perhaps our priorities would be right in that case? But yeah, I now understand your safety / emergency response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Not sure how you come to the conclusion it's HGV's that are most likely to use the lane? From experience....these lanes are opened for drivers requiring the next exit, to help alleviate congestion. Are we to assume every HGV needs the next exit? To answer the OP..... It's seen as a cheap option to reduce congestion. Good idea? I don't think so. Can you not see a conflict with HGV's and broken down vehicles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchcoll Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I thought that hard shoulders are only used as a fourth lane if they are part of the official "managed motorways" that they have been building for years? Therefore if someone breaks down in that lane there'd be a big red cross above it until after the breakdown? Thus returning the lane to a hard shoulder/emergency acces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloom Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 There is a lot of food for thought in this article, and especially some of the comments: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2107.html Personally, I think it stinks. It's ok for MPs claiming travel expenses using trains to get up and down the country. They'll benefit nicely from HS2 that no one else wants us to waste the money on too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.