More criticism of smart motorways as another truck driver goes down for killing 2 people. The driver bleats that if there had been a hard shoulder he would of been able to avoid them, as does his defence in court. Conveniently forgetting the fact that the driver was tailgating the vehicle in front, and when that vehicle pulled out, he had no chance.
The death toll is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that a professional driver thinks its okay to either tailgate, or to pull in front of another truck with feet to spare, and then seeing something smartly pulls out again…leaving the following truck with no chance to avoid it. Both drivers should be in court. If it is dangerous driving to tailgate, then it is equally dangerous to return to a lane dangerously close to the slower vehicle.
The onus on the slower vehicle to slow down every time this happens further encourages the vehicles behind him to overtake, and the pathetic cycle continues. This creates congestion and creates these dangerous scenarios where people can get killed.
It is so prevalent that even on an empty motorway you get some trucks trying to shave a layer of paint off your corner post as they cut in. Is it contempt, complacency or just the current crop of cretins who seem to be the majority of truck drivers these days? Who only see accidents in their mirrors?
There dangerous , it was a lot safer with hard shoulders that’s for sure
If that’s saying that his vision, seperation distance and space to react was removed by a vehicle returning to ‘lane 1’ when it shouldn’t have ? how does that fit the definition of tail gating ?. 
‘Smart motorways’ meaning vehicles stopped in what is now a live lane which the original motorway designers decided needed to be a hard shoulder to minimise the foreseeable risks.How do you explain the difference in design thinking when those risks obviously didn’t just disappear.
Janos:
More criticism of smart motorways as another truck driver goes down for killing 2 people. The driver bleats that if there had been a hard shoulder he would of been able to avoid them, as does his defence in court. Conveniently forgetting the fact that the driver was tailgating the vehicle in front, and when that vehicle pulled out, he had no chance.
The death toll is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is that a professional driver thinks its okay to either tailgate, or to pull in front of another truck with feet to spare, and then seeing something smartly pulls out again…leaving the following truck with no chance to avoid it. Both drivers should be in court. If it is dangerous driving to tailgate, then it is equally dangerous to return to a lane dangerously close to the slower vehicle.
The onus on the slower vehicle to slow down every time this happens further encourages the vehicles behind him to overtake, and the pathetic cycle continues. This creates congestion and creates these dangerous scenarios where people can get killed.
It is so prevalent that even on an empty motorway you get some trucks trying to shave a layer of paint off your corner post as they cut in. Is it contempt, complacency or just the current crop of cretins who seem to be the majority of truck drivers these days? Who only see accidents in their mirrors?
Unless you have some evidence to support your theory that the lead truck had just overtaken and pulled in too early, why should both drivers be in court? If the lead truck was there all along and pulled out when he saw the hazard, why is it his fault that the truck behind had chosen to tailgate him?
It really doesn’t matter who was where or who did what, it’s your responsibility to drive at a speed in which you can safely stop should you be faced with a sudden obstacle or hazard. If that means having to back off because some trumpet has just cut in, so be it. Arguing with the judge that Eddie Stobart behind you would have then overtaken you and caused you to miss your noon delivery of baked beans at Tesco Thurrock RDC is unlikely to end well for you.
I wonder what his excuse would have been if the lead truck had pulled out to overtake a broken down vehicle on the A1 in Lincs/Notts and he’d gone into the back of it?
dozy:
There dangerous , it was a lot safer with hard shoulders that’s for sure
So are vehicles with internal combustion engines. Horse n cart was way safer.
ETS:
dozy:
There dangerous , it was a lot safer with hard shoulders that’s for sureSo are vehicles with internal combustion engines. Horse n cart was way safer.
Really?
If truck 2 the overtaker had pulled in close and blocked his view, it begs the question that he wasn’t looking where he was going anyway as he should have seen the hazard up-ahead
We’ve all seen evidence that smart motorways can be dangerous thing is does anyone think that they improve their journey time if they don’t then what’s the point of them
Well well well one of our EE friends why am I not surprised.
And before you all start defending them saying how wonderful they are and we’ve as many homegrown idiots on the road,I’ve heard it all before, you only have to read about all these accidents and the majority are these imbeciles with their Mickey Mouse licences that are causing the carnage and ruining our reputation which is already in tatters,we’re all tarred with the same brush now, irreversible damage has been done to the industry and our reputations and we wonder why we’re hated and despised on the roads there’s the main reason right there, regardless of the road
Who in their right mind stands in a live lane to exchange details after a minor collision
robthedog:
Well well well one of our EE friends why am I not surprised.
And before you all start defending them saying how wonderful they are and we’ve as many homegrown idiots on the road,I’ve heard it all before, you only have to read about all these accidents and the majority are these imbeciles with their Mickey Mouse licences that are causing the carnage and ruining our reputation which is already in tatters,we’re all tarred with the same brush now, irreversible damage has been done to the industry and our reputations and we wonder why we’re hated and despised on the roads there’s the main reason right there, regardless of the road
I was going to put all the links from newspaper reports in my post, but I guessed some would work it out for themselves.
The jails must be full of muslims and eastern-european truck drivers.
Mick Bracewell:
Unless you have some evidence to support your theory that the lead truck had just overtaken and pulled in too early, why should both drivers be in court? If the lead truck was there all along and pulled out when he saw the hazard, why is it his fault that the truck behind had chosen to tailgate him?
My whole point is that the truck behind does not get a choice when somebody pulls sharply in front of him. He is forced into trying to keep away from the truck in front, whilst looking in his mirrors at the truck behind who is now also braking.
Maybe it is just me…it certainly seems that it is, but if was suddenly faced with a stationary car on a motorway, and there was the usual ■■■■■■■■ a metre away from my back end, then I would either gently brake, or put hazards on rather than swerve out and condemn the ■■■■■■■■ behind me and the ■■■■-wits exchanging details in the road to certain death.
Some are drivers, and others are just bums on seats. Literally and figuratively.
Roads need to be designed with the numptiest of drivers in mind
Or we need a common sense test as part of the driving test
ROG:
Roads need to be designed with the numptiest of drivers in mind
Or we need a common sense test as part of the driving test
The concept of a smart motorway is sound. The problem is as usual, that rather than follow the rules, some drivers choose to interpret them for their own ends.
If everybody followed the variable speed limit and stopped braking harshly, there would be less tailbacks. The thick as mince drivers who ignore the red signs closing a lane until they themselves can see the obstacle should face the courts rather than a slap on the wrist.
This is local to me and the wife of the deceased has said she doesn’t blame the driver, she is trying to get "smart motorways abolished, whoever decided that removing a hard shoulder without suitable refuge should be in court, not the driver who has already admitted his guilt for the driving offence
ETS:
dozy:
There dangerous , it was a lot safer with hard shoulders that’s for sureSo are vehicles with internal combustion engines. Horse n cart was way safer.
Motorways weren’t designed for use by horse and cart but they were designed with a non live lane for use in the event of breakdowns.So what changed.
Why would/should adding another overtaking lane trump what the orginal designers left as a safety margin.
Surely it would be better to apply a minimum speed limit in lane 1.
ROG:
Roads need to be designed with the numptiest of drivers in mind
Or we need a common sense test as part of the driving test
Providing a hard shoulder for safety, also bearing in mind a design premise based on getting somewhere fast including no speed limit, was all about common sense not the numptiest drivers.
No one ever said that doesn’t mean you’ll never expect a broken down or crashed vehicle stopped in a live lane.But a hard shoulder at least reduces the risk of it happening. 
Everyone complaining about smart motorways with no hard shoulders again yet not one peep about dual carriageways which are exactly the same.
So dual carriageways which are also 70MPH and have no hard shoulder are fine, even though it’s legal for things like tractors doing 20MPH to use them, but apparently smart motorways which are the same with the exception of far more overhead information signs and an extra lane or two aren’t?
Conor:
Everyone complaining about smart motorways with no hard shoulders again yet not one peep about dual carriageways which are exactly the same.
So why didn’t the original old school motorway designers go by the same logic.
Why pay all that extra money to provide the shoulder on motorways.
Motorways ‘were’ the safest roads on the road network …even without a speed limit.
Providing a shoulder for emergency use obviously contributed to that record. 
Conor:
Everyone complaining about smart motorways with no hard shoulders again yet not one peep about dual carriageways which are exactly the same.So dual carriageways which are also 70MPH and have no hard shoulder are fine, even though it’s legal for things like tractors doing 20MPH to use them, but apparently smart motorways which are the same with the exception of far more overhead information signs and an extra lane or two aren’t?
Exactly, its the steering wheel attendants that aren’t smart