As a headline figure in a country where alcohol kills 10,000 plus , and cigarettes 70,000 per annum, we could probably make a dispassionate argument that we should be divert some money away from motorway safety - as that is already pretty good, towards something where far more lives could be extended  per pound invested, kill one  driver but rescue ten drinkers, that sort of thing... Of course there is a puritanical view that smokers and drinkers do not deserve help as they are responsible for correcting their own weakness of character, and any case most are over 50, but I'm not sure that is a humane way to run a society either.

Risk is a funny thing - the figures tell us that the really dangerous roads in the UK are not the motorways, either in terms of total accidents or accidents per mile. However, they are the ones that feel dangerous as you hammer along at full legal and then get overtaken by someone weaving in and out. As a driver, I don't like smart motorways either, but I'm yet to have an accident on one, and I suspect most of us are the same.

My comment above is slightly tongue in cheek, but we need to be very careful what we wish for as there is scope for mis-directing to much time and effort away from things that need it more.

There may also be more effective low-cost measures, like actually teaching drivers how to drive safely at speed on a motorway, which currently we don't really.

I agree more generally that relying on clever automatic systems as the sole means to make things safe for a broken down car, really  needs a level of engineering rather better than is described in terms of reliability. The fact it is not well known and needs to be extracted by FOI is worrying and suggests a bit of a cover up.

The really  good thing about a hard shoulder that we can all see, is that it does not stop working due to a  loss of network connection.

Mike.

I've had a near miss on a "smart" section of the M25.  It was probably on one of the sections where the Highways Agency hadn't installed any of the safety features that were promised when they started rolling out smart motorways.

I was pootling along in lane 2, about to overtake a car in lane 1.  Suddenly the car in lane 1 swerved across right in front of me.  I only had a split second to check my mirrors before swerving across in front of the car in lane 3.

There was a car broken down in lane 1.  There were no warning signs.  No red "X" over lane 1.  Nothing at all to indicate there was a hazard ahead.

I've had a near miss on a "smart" section of the M25.  It was probably on one of the sections where the Highways Agency hadn't installed any of the safety features that were promised when they started rolling out smart motorways.

I was pootling along in lane 2, about to overtake a car in lane 1.  Suddenly the car in lane 1 swerved across right in front of me.  I only had a split second to check my mirrors before swerving across in front of the car in lane 3.

There was a car broken down in lane 1.  There were no warning signs.  No red "X" over lane 1.  Nothing at all to indicate there was a hazard ahead.

I’ve had a similar experience Simon (see my comment on this E+T article) Not something I’d want to repeat in a hurry! 

Yes, what needs to happen is MOT to watch google traffic and within minutes of an accident flash up the warning  ACCICENT AHEAD SLOW DOWN NO TAILGATEING. 

No speed restriction is needed only increase the distance between you and the car ahead.   There is usually a sign on M4  saying 50mph deer spotted on the road or something similar.  The speed limit is nonsense but it does make drivers increase their distance to the vehicle in front which is great.

Another possibility is to limit the speed on the breakdown lane to say 50 mph only with speed cameras to ensure it is kept to.  Outer lanes 70, 80, 90 maximum BUT 6 point penalties for any tailgateing photographed on the speed cameras.