Author Topic: Panorama - Smart Motorways  (Read 2013 times)

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: Panorama - Smart Motorways
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2020, 03:34:41 PM »
Yes, where does the 60 figure come from? Out the posters arse?

Zetetic

  • Burying isn't the same as killing.
Re: Panorama - Smart Motorways
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2020, 08:11:19 PM »
Seems to be.

Setting aside any discussion about the ethical relevance of modes of death and causal routes - What's the appropriate denominator here anyway?

Presumably smart motorways have enabled more people to do more car-miles, in the false belief that this is a Good Thing. If we've reduced deaths per car-mile is that good, even if turns out that we have seen a real increase in absolute deaths.

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: Panorama - Smart Motorways
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2020, 11:30:51 AM »
There's a lot of discussion over there about whether or not Hard Shoulders on unmanaged motorways are safe places. At all.

The consensus is that they're not.

I agree the number 60 might be an exaggeration - but the point stands with any number greater than the actual number.

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: Panorama - Smart Motorways
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2020, 12:29:39 PM »
There's a lot of discussion over there about whether or not Hard Shoulders on unmanaged motorways are safe places. At all.

The consensus is that they're not.

I agree the number 60 might be an exaggeration - but the point stands with any number greater than the actual number.

Yes, but chances are that it isn't.

It's going to take me a long while to work out how that 38 figure relates to deaths per mile, and then be able to compare to deaths per mile on normal motorway, which I ain't gonna do, but consider the following:

For a proper hard shoulder, it's long been the advice that you should get out of your car asap and get 'over the barrier' or at the least onto the grass verge/slope by the side of the hard shoulder. This is something that it is actually possible to do, reasonably safely. Secondly, a car on the hard shoulder is only going to be hit if another vehicle veers from the lane it's on and onto the hard shoulder.

For a smart motorway, one of the main complaints is that in order to get out of your car you are opening your door straight into the lane you are in, right in the traffic. This makes the act of getting out inherently dangerous unless you get a lull in traffic. Secondly, to avoid a collision another vehicle travelling in your lane is going to have to actively avoid you.

So I claim it stands up to argument that deaths on normal motorways dues to hard shoulder accidents are going to be less likely than on a smart motorway, and that your sabre poster has suggested a higher value for the one and only purpose of supporting an otherwise stupid proposition. Can't really believe we're still talking about it, TBH.

Quote from: sabre idiot
They are anonymous.

The whole post is a crock of shit.

gilbertharding

  • Not even the rudest man in the Beatles
Re: Panorama - Smart Motorways
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2020, 03:51:19 PM »
Don't imagine they're all arguing 'for' smart motorways over there, though.

Dunno - they're probably fine, except for the fact that:

a) Humans, who often drive too fast, who don't always pay enough attention, who don't know or care what a 'red x' means above their lane, are using them.
b) Humans also designed and operate the 'smart' safety systems which ought to make them sufficiently safe to use.
c) Sub-humans have decided that a workable idea won't make enough money so they skimp on the refuge laybys, 'smart' technology, signs, and operational staff.

Soon we'll have self driving cars though: let the robots cause all the crashes.

Tags: