Safe Speed Forums

Ban the dangerous police procedure of using the hard shoulder?
(only for non-emergency minor offences, such as speeding)


Please click below to sign the government petition if you agree that this police practice should be banned (and please pass it on to your friends and family!):

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PoliceHdShoulder/



More info:

http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147446



The dangers of stopping a vehicle on the hard shoulder of a motorway are well known. There have been numerous injuries and deaths resulting from collisions involving fast moving vehicles with those that are stationary on the hard shoulder. At least 250 people in the UK are injured every year on the hard shoulder after a breakdown.

Motoring organisations and the police state that the hard shoulder should be used only in emergencies and that, in the event of a breakdown, the vehicle occupants should vacate their vehicle and await assistance in a safe place, away from the traffic, behind the crash barrier.

Quotes from the RAC:
http://www.rac.co.uk/know-how/accidents ... idents.htm





Despite the known and obvious dangers, it is commonplace for police officers to request that drivers pull over onto the hard shoulder following minor road traffic offences, such as speeding. Once on the hard shoulder, police procedure usually entails inviting the driver of the vehicle to sit in the police vehicle, while passengers, who may include children, remain seated in their vehicle. Trucks and fast moving traffic continue to pass the two vehicles while the police officer(s) discuss the alleged offence(s) with the driver. Discussions may take several minutes, putting the lives of the driver, the police officer(s) and any passengers at risk throughout.

I propose that this dangerous procedure be banned. Police officers should not be allowed to request that vehicles pull over onto the hard shoulder except in emergencies or when there is a real and imminent danger that can only be averted by stopping a vehicle immediately. In all other instances, if it is necessary for a police officer to stop a vehicle, the vehicle should first be escorted off the motorway to a safe location.





Comments welcome!

Interesting that in that video the hard shoulder is alongside the central reservation!

Ok, fair comment

The video was just to remind people of the danger. The side of the road is irrelevant. In fact, I would argue that the hard shoulder is always on the most dangerous side of the road since heavy goods vehicles travel along side of it.

Anyway, here's a couple more videos clips of accidents that are on the hard shoulder, though I think the dangers are fairly obvious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plC-HjTOzHg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N5GptFodjc

Sorry (and by the way), I wasn't trying to make a point as such, it just seems like odd practice is all.

I have often wondered if it would be possible to separate the shoulder from the running lanes with a low kerb. Low enough to drive over, with a bump, if done deliberately but high enough to prevent drifting over it inadvertently . Probablt not possible to design one to cope with different weights of vehicle

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

A good idea in principle, but unless it was a full crash barrier, I think that a kerb would probably only serve to 'launch' vehicles that hit it hard. So instead of just having the risk of being hit from behind or the side while stopped on the hard shoulder, you would also have the risk of being hit from above!


Thanks for the welcome Johnnytheboy!

Do you have any ksi figures for police stops? If it is as dangerous as you claim then there should be plenty.

250 injuries isn't that much when you consider over 600 people a year are injured by sewing or knitting equipment, and almost 34,000 are injured by clothing or footwear. (source).

The figure comes from Safer Motoring:
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/SafetyOn ... ulder.html

.... With all due respect though, I think you may be missing the point. The figure itself is unimportant really, and the dangers should be obvious. Even if it was only one person killed each year, that's one person killed unnecessarily. What if that one person was you or a loved one? Would you rather wait until it happened?


The point here is that pulling people over onto the hard shoulder is dangerous and unnecessary. People are frequently reminded of the dangers of staying in their vehicles following a breakdown on the hard shoulder. Allowing police officers to park on the hard shoulder while they sit in their vehicles chatting with drivers in non-emergency situations about minor offences is at the very least inconsistent with the safety advice and at worst has questionable human rights issues. Why should police officers be allowed to put these people's lives at risk when there are much safer alternatives?


Also, comparing this with other 'dangers' is kind of missing the point too. We all take calculated risks every day, such as crossing the road. The main differences are that when we take such risks we choose to take those risks either because we want to or because there is no better or reasonable alternative. When there are alternatives, such as taking a footbridge instead of crossing a very busy/fast road, you would be a fool to take the riskier option. People don't usually choose to put themselves in danger by sitting in vehicles parked on the hard shoulder, yet the police often make that choice for them. Now that can't be right, can it?

Why are people being pulled over?
If a lot of the time it is because of minor technical "offences" which the police make easy money from, why not get rid of those "offences"? That would remove the incentive for the police to stop us.
If peopel are being pulled over because allowing them to continue could be dangerous then that seems more fair.

_________________
Andrew.

As one who drives on a motorway every day I would say that police need to stop more drivers not fewer. Driving standards during peek hours are getting worse a fact bourne out by the number of accidents some little more than bent metal others requiring parra medic attendance.

I am not saying more fixed penalties but words of advice from In Gear and Co and the offer of Driver Improvement Courses may go a long way towards halting the trend. As for where the stops take place perhaps a designated pull off area every few miles nothing fancy just a firm level surface set back from the hard shoulder.

True. Even with that idea, I prefer to introduce mandatory motorway tuition (perhaps with the licence further graduated to show this), instead of continuing our current policy of banning learners from gaining hands-on instruction (and feedback) on how to use them. This would go a long way to eliminate the need for such police tugs; prevention ... cure ... and all that.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You assert that police stops on the hard shoulder are dangerous, if it really was dangerous then there would be regular deaths, or at least serious injuries. It's not enough to say "it's obvious", often, when the statistics are examined, the obvious turns out to be far from reality.

There may be an element of danger, but there is danger in many everyday activities, what else would you like to ban? How about crossing the road?



What if one of the people not stopped goes on to kill one of your loved ones? I'm sure one of our resident plod can confirm that often a stop for a minor offence turns up something more sinister. I'm also sure our traffic police already take the greatest care in selecting the safest spots to make a stop.

You seem to have missed the point of this site, it is not about making kneejerk reactions it is about examining the evidence and making policy on sound judgement. Your kind of thinking is exactly the kind of thinking which got us speed cameras.

You don't consider being stationary on a motorway right next to fast moving traffic, with no intermediate crash barrier, to be an obvious danger!?

Stats don't provide a measure of danger, they simply show how many times the danger has been escaped or realised.






Absolutely not, but like I said previously, such things are necessary and/or risks that we choose to take. Stopping vehicles on the hard shoulder for minor offences is neither of those things. And since there is a perfectly good alternative such as escorting the vehicle to the next motorway exit, why impose such unnecessary risks on people against their will?






So by that logic you propose we should just kill every motorist (including their passengers, and the police officers themselves!?) that any police officer decides to pull over, just in case they're really a master criminal?

I'm sorry, but that's a bizarre opinion to say the very least!







Since they usually pick the hard shoulder rather than an exit a short distance away, I'm sure they don't.






I fail to see how this could be considered a 'kneejerk' reaction or how it has anything to do with speed cameras. This suggestion makes sound sense (if you really think about it), and I would consider opposition to it, purely on the basis of 'stats', to be much more like a 'kneejerk' reaction.

(And for the record, I'm as much opposed to the use of speed cameras to promote road safety as anyone else.)



The facts are simple:

1) Standing next to a motorway, without the protection of a crash barrier, is not a safe place to be.

Forget the stats, it's simple probability: Sure, you may be ok for 5 mins, 10 mins, maybe even several hours or even days, but eventually something's gonna hit you. While an individual police car may only pull someone over for a few mins each time, all those times add up. If you include all of the police officers patrolling every motorway, it probably adds up to many hours of people sitting in vehicles on the hard shoulder each and every day.

2) It is not a risk that they (the drivers and passengers who are pulled over) choose to take.

The decision is made for them by the police officer(s).

3) There is a much safer alternative that will, on average, take no more than a few minutes longer.

i.e Escort the vehicle to the next exit! Simple!





There really is no reason for police to pull people over on to the hard shoulder, except in emergency situations!

I'm sure we've all seen plenty of motorway truckers and drivers drift over the rumble strips onto the hard shoulder (I shout 'wakey wakey' each time I see this - dunno why!).

So there is a risk, but I don't know how significant it is.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Agreed!

.. and the significance of the risk could probably be determined with stats and probabilty studies, but since it's an avoidable risk, and one that the people who are pulled over onto the that shoulder usually do not consent to, I think the level of significance becomes unimportant.


Imagine this scenario:
You are pulled over onto the hard-shoulder accused of speeding or some other relatively minor offence (and remember, it's possible that you were completely innocent and that the officer was mistaken). Your wife and children remain sat in your car while the officer has a 'chat' with you back in the police car. During the chat, the driver of a passing truck dozes off for a moment and the truck veers onto the hard shoulder, slamming into the back of the police car.

The immense force of the impact means that you are almost certainly killed since you were sat in the back of the police car and the officer sat in the front will, at best, be fighting for his life. As the truck (now complete with police-car grille ornament) hits your car parked in front some of the energy of the initial impact has now been absorbed, so your wife and children may survive, albeit slightly maimed .... unless of course the angle of impact is such that it pushes your vehicle into the main carriageway ..... right into the path of the next passing truck.



.... all because the police officer decided (for you) that it was better to risk his and your lives by chatting on the hard shoulder rather than continuing to the next junction.


I hope it this never happens to anyone, but 'hope' is no substitute for prevention!


The point here is that whatever the stats say, this is a very real possibility, and accidents like this do happen. This scenario is also completely avoidable, so why wait until people are killed before accepting that it is dangerous?

Hi House


My wife. Wildy Wildcat is really the person to reply. She once attacked a police officer who boasted of 105 mph on hard shoulder. She asked him direct questions, He claimed "secret business", It became the long running well intentioned and convivial banter of the "mystery of the unexploded jam doughnut" between them

We know the Hard shoulder is the most dangerous place to be. My wife alluded to this in her summary of Motorway Cops the other week .. The Midlands plod were keen to escort to safety here. We thus question certain posters to the PH site on this basis It does not add up

I think most will escort to next safest exit to be very fair to our real life plods on the hard face of the mountain. We know there are some "raw green shoots" who make mistakes .. such as the M6 ANPR fiasco of Easter 2008 I will try to stress that I do believe these to be genuine misjudgements due to "inexperience and desire to follow a prescribed rule book" perhaps. I think a chap like IanH.. Stephen . IG .. The Man and the kindred spirits sharing the same "nous and nose" will seek to educate the youngsters and lead by their tried/tested/true examples oi pure professionalism


I understand you 100%, I know some 5% are I am thankful they are "outnumbered" and I do not disagree with you ., but will point out that this is the exception... and agree it has to be resolved and corrected all the same

I cannot be fairer here.,. surely

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Thanks for a most entertaining post Mad Moggie!


I think there's an element of 'The Emperors New Clothes' on PH - which is something that you see a lot on the net, and in real life too .... People that either can't be bothered to check out the facts properly themselves, or simply prefer to go along with the crowd because they are too afraid to stand out.


I would hope that you're right and that most police officers would have the common sense to escort people to the next exit instead of using the hard shoulder, but I'm not convinced that is the case. On a recent 300 mile journey, I saw at least 15 cases of police officers sat on the hard shoulder chatting to drivers, and in a few of those cases there were also children sat in the vehicle parked in front of the police car.

In this particular case I think there was probably some national police speeding clampdown campaign in progress that day, since the frequency of occurrences did seem a little higher than usual. Even so, I find that on average I can rarely travel more than 100 miles or so down a motorway without seeing somebody pulled over on the hard shoulder by the police.

No, I am saying that if it was a real danger then the stats would bear this out and we should be vary wary of making policy based on a perception of danger.

As I see it, the danger is much less than walking alongside a road with a 60mph limit, would you seek to ban that practice also?

If I had any confidence in the Number 10 petition system I would make a counter petition, but as we have seen in the past even petitions with millions of signatures get ignored.

Stats can be useful to a degree, but often common sense works much better.

For example; I suspect that the number of people killed each year in this country by lions is pretty low, but would you get into a cage with one?

If you prefer to see stats however, you should have a read of this HA document:
http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressre ... eid=147446




How many people is an acceptable number to be killed or injured before something's done? Personally, I think that if the danger is an avoidable one, the answer is none!







I don't think it is more dangerous, but regardless, the big difference here is that would be a calculated risk that the person walking chooses to take themselves. I don't propose banning anything that involves personal choice.

When someone is exposed to danger while sat in the back of a police car, and their wife and/or children are sat in the vehicle in front, none of those people chose to be in that danger.

The other big difference is that there's a simple safer alternative. If you had a choice of "walking alongside a road with a 60mph limit" or taking a much safer public footpath further away, would you still choose to walk alongside the road?








Well I would agree there. Getting the government to listen and make a change is notoriously difficult. They seem to prefer to see people needlessly die too before doing anything, rather than making preventative changes.

However, it's like playing the lottery; despite the slim the chances of winning, your chances increase significantly if you actually buy a ticket! Likewise, a petition has a much greater chance of getting things changed than no petition at all.

In principle, since therer are no junctions between "pull point" and the next motorway exit, there should be a way of differentiating between "stop ASAP" on the shoulder or "leave at next exit - we're behind you and want a word". One minor problem with that is of course that, having exchanged signals with the (minor offending) miscreant, something in the next 5 - 10 minutes may require Plod to shoot off elsewhere. Also, the errant driver may VERY easily go on past the next junction, concentrating on all sorts of things and having completely forgotten of the pull.

I don't see what other options there are, other than having regular (perhaps every half mile) lay-bys even further to the left of the shoulder. For emergency breakdowns/immediate pulls, the shoulder is needed, for emergencies where cars can limp safely or less urgent pulls, the shoulder is deceleration/acceleration zone, and the lay-by is a pull off point.

What would be the cost of this country-wide, or even just on the 25?