time, the risks would have been reduced. i think the scandal here is that, basically, motorways have been expanded on the cheap and safety considerations have not always been at the top of the agenda. the transport select committee said these new smart waterways allow 1600 vehicles every hour to travel, and it s vital on busy days. this was vital to ease congestion, to allow people to get around faster and more easily. is there a better way to do this? ., , easily. is there a better way to do this? . , ., , ., this? certainly we would question whether smart this? certainly we would question whether smart motorways - this? certainly we would question i whether smart motorways worked this? certainly we would question i whether smart motorways worked in terms of congestion. all our surveys show almost 40% of drivers do not use the inside lane which would have been the hard shoulder on smart motorways because they are petrified that there may be a broken down vehicle ahead so y
use the inside lane which would have been the hard shoulder on smart motorways because they are petrified that there may be a broken down vehicle ahead so you are not getting that extra 25% capacity. and also when there is an incident on a smart motorway, because there is no hard shoulder have to close at least one lane, often two lanes which causes massive delays, not only to drivers but also to the emergency services getting through to an incident or a crash because there is no hard shoulder for crash because there is no hard shoulderfor the crash because there is no hard shoulder for the emergency services to go down and that again has its own safety implications. what we said in our letter to the prime minister last week is that they should also look at existing smart motorways, reinstate the hard shoulder but alongside it, run a hard hitting lane discipline campaign. there are too many drivers who hog the middle lane on the