House
(So are you linked with Tesco ? )
So then at this point the thought is
a layby (like in France perhaps)
or
barriers placed every so often as added protection in which to hide behind
However the way I see it is that :
there is insufficient evidence to actually warrant action even it is might be considered a good idea,
the stats around the internet
here (or
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147425)
states :
Highways Agency from link above: wrote:
Hard shoulder accidents claimed the lives of 67 people in the five years from 2000 ? 2004, and a further 950 people were injured. Even so, drivers still put themselves at risk by pulling over for non?emergencies such as phone calls, checking the map or even taking a toilet break.
and
5. A report 'Safety on hard shoulders on two and three lane motorways' (Summersgill et al 1998), produced for the Highways Agency, looked at the patterns of vehicles stopping on UK motorways and accidents on the hard shoulder. The main conclusions of relevance were:
? Most occupants did not follow the current Highway Code advice to leave the vehicle when stopped on the shoulder for any reason.
? There are many short duration (less than 2 minutes) 'non?essential' stops on the shoulder.
? 58% of hard shoulder accidents involved a parked vehicle being hit by a vehicle veering into the hard shoulder, 10% of hard shoulder accidents involved a pedestrian hit on the hard shoulder.
? Hard shoulder accidents are very high severity, 32% were fatal or serious, compared with 13% of all motorway accidents.
So if 10% of accidents involve a pedestrian, does this mean that those in their cars were in fact safer ?
Serious can mean an overnight hospital stay or broken leg for example.
On average then 13.4 people are killed each year on the Motorways, but what is, and isn't, included in these figures, for example, are workforce related figures / accidents included too ? I know previous figures for Road Stats included workforce injuries and KSI quite surprisingly really.
Are those pedestrians those that choose to walk on the motorways (i.e those that just 'take a walk', than a driver who is away from their broken down car ?)
Whilst I can sympathise that it can be utterly tragic for just one person to die, the reality is that people will no matter how 'safe' you might try to make things. You cannot just 'try' things because it 'seems' like a good idea.
Each time a new policy is introduced it can have worse consequences down the line.
When Police are required to 'Protect and Serve' I understand that this means when they pull one over for a chat too.
They do however need to do their job expediently and efficiently if it meant a 20 minute drive just to ask a simple question they might be even less inclined to stop people and ask. It might encourage them to wait in the Services and check cars as they enter.
I have seen several stops that end in the Services (looked like by choice) or off the motorway so it does happen already.
We have to decide if we are debating a policy or individual experiences and he two are very intertwined in some of the above posts.
There is nothing to stop you from driving you car gently and carefully to the next exit or services. If you acknowledge their initial pull notification (lights etc) it should not result in the entire local plod descending upon you from every direction inc the sir support units !
(as a non stop).
Plus when you have the Police in front or behind (greater effect) many people drive very self consciously and might make many more mistakes, plus all the other road users would also be effected by the long time the Police car had to follow / lead one off the Motorway too.
In fact I would estimate, that it is more likely to cause more accidents than the chance of one on the hard shoulder.
A static Police car can cause accidents as many try to rubberneck. (Another topic to discuss this but in principal a natural curiosity and checking for any potential hazards).
Road users drop their speed because of the potential hazards and to give more time to react, so traffic slows however the distraction can cause further accidents due to inattention.
I think that you missed Roger's point, that if they have to follow certain procedures, then those drivers competent to do so, will be able to always avoid the Police as a consequence (unintended effect), so, a growing number of drivers will never be stopped.
We have to look at all the facts and weigh up ALL the (well thought out and developed) consequences of a new rule or policy before it is considered a reality. You cannot just do something because it seems logically obvious. I totally appreciate that in this case we do NOT have enough figures yet to base a conclusion on.
For example if we did have crash barriers placed in many places at the edge of the hard shoulder, it would force many cars to be totally on the hard shoulder than perhaps partially off it and in fact be safer. Anyone (as they should) pointing their wheels to face the side of the kerb if they were hit would hit the barrier than go up the embankment 'freely'. Whilst some people up the bank might be safer it might be at the expense of a more developed accident on the road because the barrier prevented the crashing vehicles room to move onto the embankment out of the way of further incident.
We need to obtain more information on this interesting issue. Insurance Companies will have some data and I am sure the Police do if it is obtainable ? By looking at the Country Motorway network stats., will help to identify if there is a 'real world' problem.