As usual with safety, it's not as simple as that, the important metric is whether there has been a net improvement in safety, even if there are residual fatalities or other losses. 

National Highways (cautious) view of the evidence is that smart motorways are safer than their predecessors, here:

https://nationalhighways.co.uk/media/m0hjg0j0/before-vs-after-safety-analysis-for-all-smart-motorways-final.pdf

As ever, there are lobbies both ways, I'd slightly disagree with Jim in that many motoring organisations actively campaign against smart motorways, and equally construction companies would much rather the emphasis was on widening them or building relief roads. My instinct (which may be wrong) is that more people are campaigning against them than for them, however the Government don't (as they see it) have enough money to do anything else to relieve congestion at the moment. Obviously working in the rail industry personally I'd like them to work harder to solve the problem by moving more people onto public transport, but then I'm biased there!

Would I instinctively feel confident if I broke down on the inside lane of a smart motorway compared to the same on the hard shoulder of a conventional motorway? Absolutely not. But that doesn't necessarily mean that factually I would be at greater risk. To determine that needs greater insight into the statistics than just counting the casualties. 

And of course if we do assume that National Highways are correct, and that the introduction of smart motorways have reduced fatality rates, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find more to do to reduce them still further.

I am so glad I don't get involved with highways safety, whatever you do you're going to annoy someone. And whatever you do they're ridiculously dangerous places to be.

Thanks,

Andy

There are ways to improve the motorways Smart or standard.

They need to view the safety tech on the motorways as safety critical which currently they are not.

The infrastructure that is currently in place is poorly maintained/repaired and monitored

The documentary clearly states that the information they acquired had to be obtained by the Freedom Of Information Act

It states that on many occasions in many location the safety equipment was not working, this is backed up by the whistleblowers.  Days at a time.

Some suggestions of my own.
Local battery backup on all systems with a 12 hours run time if power failure or outage or Brownout.  There would also be an annual Inspection and Testing carried out

All camera to be pointing at the road/motorway rather than in the air/floor or at cows in a field.

Sufficient staff to work all the safety equipment 24 hours day 365 1/4 days a year.

Now I do understand that kit fails or in some case suffer damage from impact.  Max SLA for swap out/repair/replacement should be set at 8 hours max in a few years this I would suggest lowered to 4hr SLA.  If this is sub-contracted out then a penalty clauses needs to be introduced for failed repairs.

If it was up to me, motorways without a hard shoulder would be illegal,

As a side note, I would also make it a legal requirement that UK vehicles and vehicle entering from abroad  carry hi-viz reflective vests for the max occupancy of the vehicle.  This would be checked annually on the MOT for UK vehicles.  Hi Viz would need to rated to BS EN 471 class 1 as a minimum.  Commercial vehicles would need BSEN471 Class 2 as a minimum

Of course if the government doesn't have enough money to do anything else to relieve congestion, increasing fuel duty would both bring in more money and probably reduce the congestion as no-one would be able to afford to drive......

Just playing devil's advocate here as I don't really want this to happen.

I would agree with Andy on the feeling of safety breaking down on a smart motorway. I have been on the hard shoulder of the M25 (as section that may now be smart but wasn't then) and I did feel safe. If it had been a smart motorway at the time I would certainly not have felt the same. Mind you, the fact that it was about 05.30 am did help.

What worries me is the fact that unlike other industries, they don't seem to have built in an arrangement that it fails to a safe state so that if there is a fault they automatically set the inside lane as a hard shoulder. A simple risk assessment and appropriate mitigations would seem to lead you down that route.

Alasdair

Of course if the government doesn't have enough money to do anything else to relieve congestion, increasing fuel duty would both bring in more money and probably reduce the congestion as no-one would be able to afford to drive......

Just playing devil's advocate here as I don't really want this to happen.

I would agree with Andy on the feeling of safety breaking down on a smart motorway. I have been on the hard shoulder of the M25 (as section that may now be smart but wasn't then) and I did feel safe. If it had been a smart motorway at the time I would certainly not have felt the same. Mind you, the fact that it was about 05.30 am did help.

What worries me is the fact that unlike other industries, they don't seem to have built in an arrangement that it fails to a safe state so that if there is a fault they automatically set the inside lane as a hard shoulder. A simple risk assessment and appropriate mitigations would seem to lead you down that route.

Alasdair