New 'major concern' raised with smart motorways by the AA
Another 'major concern' with smart motorways has been identified by the AA as the motoring organisation continues to rally for them to be axed by the Government.
Smart motorways have a vehicle breakdown rate nearly three times higher than conventional motorways, according to new figures released by National Highways - the Government-owned company responsible for 'M' roads in Britain - in response to a Freedom of Information request by the AA.
With 13 per cent of the nation's 1,900 miles of motorway network 'smart' stretches without a hard shoulder at any time, motorists risk being stranded without a safe place to pull off the road if their car suffers a mechanical issue.
The statistics show 56 per cent of breakdowns logged on England's motorways last year happened on smart sections.
That is despite the roads only making up a fifth of the nation's total motorway network and there being no new installations in the last two years after the Government cancelled construction of new stretches on safety fears.
The 141,149 smart motorway breakdown incidents recorded in 2024 was an average of 387 per day, the data revealed.
National Highways said the advanced technology installed on smart motorways means breakdowns on these roads are more likely to be detected.
However, the most recent smart motorway stocktake published in March highlighted a number of reported software outages that limited the capacity to identify drivers at risk.
Following analysis of 12 smart motorways section over a one-year period, the Office of Rail and Road - the independent watchdog monitoring National Highway - found that four failed to meet the target for detection rates, one didn't meet the target for false discovery rates, and two did not meet the target for average detection times.
The volume of breakdowns recorded on smart motorways has intensified the AA's long-standing concerns about their safety to the public after a number of fatal incidents occurred when vehicles stopped in live lanes were hit from behind.
Former prime minister Rishi Sunak cancelled all planned smart motorway projects in April 2023, citing financial pressures and a lack of public confidence in the roads.
Some smart motorway stretches are controlled schemes, which use variable speed limits and retain a hard shoulder. However, these cover just 7.3 per cent of the network, according to analysis by road safety charity, IAM RoadSmart.
Sections considered most dangerous are All-Lane Running smart motorways (13 per cent of the network) that have no hard shoulder whatsoever.
This is because motorists who are unfortunate enough to be involved in collisions, encounter vehicle issues or suffer punctures are required to pull into short emergency refuge areas that are spaced a maximum of 1.5 miles apart. If a car is rendered undrivable, it is often impossible to reach one off these safe pull-off areas.
Dynamic Hard Shoulder sections - which cover 3.3 per cent of the motorway network - do have a hard shoulders but these can be turned into live lanes in periods of heavy congestion.
AA president Edmund King told the PA news agency: 'For many drivers, fear of a collision on a smart motorway would be reinforced by witnessing a breakdown in a live lane, or frequently seeing vehicles in refuge areas.
'These new figures suggest that the chance of that happening is increasing – approaching 400 a day along 396 miles of smart motorway, even when including controlled stretches.
'Equivalent to one a mile each day, that inspires more motorists to stay out of lane one, thus increasing the chance of congestion.'
For the first time, figures published by National Highways show 251,448 breakdowns on England's motorways were logged last year.
That is an increase of 3 per cent from the previous year and a monumental 47 per cent jump compared with 2014.
The AA said free breakdown recovery in roadwork areas and monitoring of smart motorways have increased the number of incidents recorded by National Highways.
It believe the length of the motorway network can be ruled out as a major factor as it has only increased by 65 miles in the past decade.
Mr King said: 'It is a major concern that we are witnessing more than a quarter of a million breakdowns a year on the motorway network – and those are just the officially recorded ones.
'The situation does not appear to be getting any better.'
He added that drivers can reduce the likelihood of breaking down by taking measures such as having their vehicle regularly serviced, checking tyre conditions and pressure, and ensuring they have adequate fuel or charge.
The AA has long been campaigning for ministers to take further action by scrapping existing smart motorways.
King told the BBC in 2023 that the government needed to go further and restore a permanent hard shoulder to the hundreds of miles of existing smart motorway without one.
'Basically drivers don't trust them, the technology is not fool proof, and 37 per cent of breakdowns on smart motorways happen in live lanes. And basically those drivers are sitting ducks,' he said.
A National Highways spokesman said: 'Our latest analysis continues to show that overall, smart motorways remain our safest roads.
'We have upgraded the technology to detect stopped vehicles, improved response times to live lane breakdowns and installed more than 150 additional emergency areas giving people a place to pull over if they break down.
'Unlike other roads, smart motorways have technology in place to identify stopped vehicles, including breakdowns.
'This means more breakdowns are identified on smart motorways compared to other road types, and as a result these stats are not a reliable indicator of actual safety.'
In a poll of 13,500 UK drivers conducted by the AA earlier this year, a third said they feel 'a lot less safe' on smart motorways than they did three years ago.
In contrast, just two per cent of the panel said they feel more at risk on conventional motorways than they did in 2022.
A third responded saying they are more anxious driving on sections of smart motorway with dynamic hard shoulders and drivers generally felt more unsafe on any stretch of smart motorway where there is no hard shoulder, the study found.
As such, three in five of the nation's motorists said they want smart motorways scrapped entirely.
'It is time to accept so-called 'smart' motorways has failed and side with the majority of drivers who want the reinstatement of the hard shoulder,' the AA President said back in March.
What are the three types of 'smart' motorways and how do they work?
ALL LANE RUNNING (ALR)
All lane running schemes permanently remove the hard shoulder and convert it into a running lane.
On these types of motorway, lane one (formerly the hard shoulder) is only closed to traffic in the event of an incident.
In this case a lane closure will be signalled by a red X on the gantry above, meaning you must exit the lane as soon as possible.
All running lane motorways also have overhead gantry signs that display the mandatory speed limit.
Should drivers break down or be involved in an accident there are emergency refuge areas at the side of the carriageway for them to use.
Miles in total: 249.5 miles
Percentage of smart motorways in England: 55.1%
Percentage of all motorways in England: 13%
CONTROLLED MOTORWAY
Controlled motorways have three or more lanes with variable speed limits, but retains a hard shoulder. The hard shoulder should only be used in a genuine emergency.
These variable speed limits are displayed on overhead gantry signs - if no speed limit is displayed the national speed limit is in place. Speed cameras are used to enforce these.
Miles in total: 140.2 miles
Percentage of smart motorways in England: 31.0%
Percentage of all motorways in England: 7.3%
DYNAMIC HARD SHOULDER (DHS)
Originally referred to as Hard Shoulder Running smart motorways, dynamic hard shoulder running involves open the hard shoulder as a running lane to traffic at busy periods to ease congestion.
On these stretches a solid white line differentiates the hard shoulder from the normal carriageway. Overhead signs on gantries indicate whether or not the hard shoulder is open to traffic.
The hard shoulder must not be used if the signs over it are blank or display a red X, except in the case of an emergency.
A red X on the gantry above means you must exit the lane as soon as possible.
Overhead gantries on these types of motorway also display the mandatory speed limit which varies depending on the traffic conditions. Speed cameras are used to enforce these - no speed limit displayed indicates the national speed limit is in place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
Lionesses may have found a new star ahead of Euro 2025
England defeated Portugal 6-0 in a confidence-boosting home performance, with Aggie Beever-Jones scoring a first-half hat-trick on her first Wembley start. Beever-Jones, the Women's PFA Young Player of the Year, seized her opportunity, displaying the hunger to secure her place for Euro 2025, following Sarina Wiegman 's instructions to "destroy them." Young players like Beever-Jones (21), Grace Clinton (22), and Jess Park (23) are set to play important roles in the upcoming Euros, with Hannah Hampton (24) already England's No. 1. Lauren Hemp made her first appearance of the year after recovering from a knee injury, while Lucy Bronze contributed with a goal and an assist; Leah Williamson marshalled the defence effectively. Despite Portugal's poor performance, England's dominant display, marked by ruthless attacking and a fresh energy, has given Sarina Wiegman selection headaches ahead of the Euros, with potential forward options including Alessia Russo, Lauren James, and Chloe Kelly.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘British families, not recent arrivals': Farage's strategy to win the next election
Shortly before the 2024 election, two of my opinion research team returned shocked from a trip to Portsmouth, where they had been speaking to working-class swing voters. Local people were planning to vote Labour and the Tories were dismissed out of hand. So far, so predictable. But the researchers heard something new and surprising: people were explicitly saying this was their last throw of the dice for mainstream politics. If Keir Starmer walked into Downing Street off the back of big promises to change the country for the better – and then failed to deliver – they vowed they would defect to Nigel Farage. Back then, there was a giant mismatch between focus groups and national polling. While every poll suggested Labour had irresistible momentum, talking to people in detail revealed the opposite: that there was no enthusiasm at all for Starmer or his team. Any enthusiasm seemed to be with Reform. Yet Reform too had a problem at the ballot box in 2024, which was that voters just wanted the Conservatives out. Putting a cross next to Reform risked complicating matters, while choosing Labour would do the job, so Reform won fewer seats that they otherwise might have. Given that Labour were set to inherit the same problems that the Conservatives had struggled with, Reform's true victory seemed likely to emerge after the election. A high-wire act And so it has turned out. Polls move all the time, but Reform are now polling in the high 20 per cent mark, with Labour polling in the low 20s and the Tories a little lower. This combination of perceived Labour failings on issues like immigration, growth and the NHS, and continued Reform popularity, has propelled Farage for the first time into position as the country's potential next prime minister. It is unfamiliar territory. Successfully evolving from a party of protest to a credible party of power will be a titanic job. And while the prize is enormous, the risks involved in building and sustaining a broad and often contradictory electoral coalition are also huge. It was a conundrum that Farage appeared to address this week, when he made what was essentially his first speech as a possible future prime minister. Ostensibly, Farage was announcing a mini-policy package. But what the speech most clearly revealed was the high-wire act Farage must now embark upon as he appeals to a broader public rather than a minority – even a significant minority – of voters. As a political strategist who has pored over electoral data for 25 years, I have seen how Farage's primary following has been made up of 'upwardly-mobile', lower-middle-class, ex-Tories who revere Margaret Thatcher. But for the last few years, they have been joined by a mass of poorer, working-class voters who have expectations of state support that simply are not shared by Farage's first followers. So while most of his prospective voters are provincial and on lower incomes, they increasingly pull in different directions. This week showed Reform will struggle to please both sides. In truth, the policy package Farage announced was a dog's breakfast. It will confirm to many in Westminster that they are miles away from being ready for government. Breezily reassuring everyone that cutting waste will pay all the bills is already attracting ridicule. For the scale of the proposals was vast. On the one hand, Farage pledged to protect winter fuel payments for older voters and to scrap the two-child benefit cap. On the other hand, they pledged to raise the personal allowance for income tax. Concerns raised about Reform's credibility on the public finances will not yet have seriously registered among the party's supporters – and most will be enthused at the prospect of Reform channelling Elon Musk and taking a chainsaw to public spending. And on the substance, none of these policies will have alienated any part of their coalition. Accusations of nativism However, their more affluent, Thatcherite voters will have raised an eyebrow at least at their pledge to remove the two-child benefit cap. A year ago, polls showed voters backed the cap by two-to-one as people tired of seeing neighbours using welfare to sustain lifestyles that full-time workers are struggling to match. Farage says removing this cap will boost the domestic workforce and reduce firms' reliance on migrant labour. The policy, he said, 'is aimed at British families. It's not aimed at those that come into the country and suddenly decide to have a lot of children.' This will be enough to reassure Reform's coalition that he was not in the process of selling out. He will not mind that such policies will inevitably bring accusations of a 'Britain-first' nativism, reflecting his closeness to President Trump's Maga movement in America. Farage knows exactly how to walk that fine line between hard-edged rhetoric and offensive speech; he will be able to justify his comments as reflecting public concern about migrant workers. Reform wants to replace the Tories initially, and they are on track to do so. Instinctively, they know their approach speaks to the mass of lower-income white voters. It would be absurd to suggest that Reform is trying anything more electorally sophisticated than that. However, Farage knows more about Trump's campaigning than even most American politicians. He will be aware that Trump's second campaign managed to attract many ethnic minority voters whose parents and grandparents moved to the US. Trump did so by appealing to these communities' American patriotism and their belief that citizenship and prosperity is hard-earned and hard-won. Just as these communities were hostile to illegal and 'non-conventional' immigration, because it provided short-cuts their families never enjoyed, so Farage might, in time, find that his rhetoric on work, welfare and citizenship plays well with some minority groups too. After all, many ethnic minority voters have chosen the Tories in recent elections, for similar reasons – above all, the party's (previous) emphasis on lower taxes for workers. In any case, Farage will also be able to point to Labour's recent form here. Last week, The Telegraph reported on a memo sent by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, in which she suggested restricting benefits to recent migrants. Above all, what unites the two sides of Reform's coalition is anger with the status quo. Farage came of age, politically, 20 years ago, just when working-class anger was building. He knows better than anyone how to tap into it. Tapping into extreme discontent I got my first taste of this anger in 2004, working on the successful 'North East Says No' campaign against a regional assembly. Our brutal anti-politician message ran like a hot knife through butter. 'Politicians talk, we pay' was our slogan. We were no geniuses; we merely tapped into extreme discontent that was building. Farage's Ukip played a supporting role in this victory. The mainstream parties have never understood Farage because they have never understood the scale of working-class rage. Because the main parties kept winning general elections, they told themselves that the increasingly-common voter revolts were never serious. But these mainstream politicians were not listening to what voters were really saying across England. I ran an in-depth study of the most disaffected voters in the late 2000s – people who said they were openly tempted to junk the main parties or not vote at all. I remember listening to completely furious voters in Stoke, convinced that the country was run by an elite that neither listened to nor cared about them. Moderate political leaders at the time never knew it, but they were effectively running a country made of revolutionary voters who had simply calculated that the mainstream parties offered the best opportunity for actual change in the short-term – above all, from 2010, on immigration. This is something Farage always understood, and which Labour is now slowly realising (hence Rayner's suggestion to restrict migrant benefits). Political failure on immigration Immigration has never been the only driver of working-class discontent. In 2024, the state of the NHS and the legacy of the cost-of-living crisis loomed large. But opposition to large-scale immigration has always been the issue where political failure and hypocrisy have been starkest and most consistently felt. It was the Tories' pledge in 2010 to cut immigration to the low tens of thousands that secured them so many working-class votes and ultimately a chance to run government. Later, it was Boris Johnson's proposed 'Australian-style' points system which helped give them an 80-seat majority in 2019. It is hard to appreciate the popularity of the points policy. It remains the joint-most popular policy I have tested in 25 years (alongside making new arrivals pay for NHS care). Partly explained by reality TV shows they had seen about Australian border police, people thought it offered the perfect solution: a system to allow useful workers in, keeping out those that could not or would not work. When immigration rose dramatically after the 2019 election, working-class voters who backed the Tories for more than a decade felt sick with betrayal. It was this broken promise that led directly to the rise of Reform. Starmer's continued failure on immigration explains why Reform tops all the polling charts. Recent polling by Ipsos showed Reform is more trusted than either the Conservatives or Labour on immigration policy. All this takes us back to Farage's speech this week and his position as a prime minister in waiting. How likely is it that Reform will form a government? Thatcherite history To answer this, we should first consider how 'sticky' their voters are likely to be. It is one thing to tell a pollster you will vote Reform – or vote for Reform in the local elections – but another thing to put a cross next to a Reform candidate in a general election. But Reform's provincial electoral base has lost all trust in the main parties. While Starmer might be able to bring immigration down significantly, and reduce the flow of small boats, it is unlikely that he will manage to do so on the scale required to soothe Reform voters. Hopes that economic growth will return or that the NHS will see a step-change in performance also seem unlikely. You must still doubt whether Reform can sustain their poll lead in the face of a massive establishment backlash. As I wrote in these pages recently, if public sector unions, the civil service, the legal profession and even the police all line up to suggest that life in Britain will grind to an unpleasant halt with Farage as prime minister, you must assume that many voters will not have the stomach for such a fight. That said, Reform are still heading to secure many dozens of MPs at the next election. At the heart of a much-needed perfectly-run campaign must be a manifesto which emphasises their strength on key issues of immigration and crime, and which reassures voters they are not about to mess everything else up (above all, the NHS). If you were creating a populist party from scratch, polls and focus groups would dictate the design of your manifesto. You would start with the absolute non-negotiables for the public and work from there. But Reform's manifesto cannot be purely determined by opinion research. Farage entirely defines Reform and he has a clear ideological history as a Right-wing Thatcherite. Reform cannot therefore just say whatever voters want to hear. As we saw this week, the nature of Reform's coalition makes policy design hard. Their immigration policies only need refinement and defensive lines, mainly to reassure voters that NHS and care workers will still be able to move to Britain. The same is true of their policies on crime and justice, which pledge a shift of policing towards serious offences and an expansion of prison capacity. Winning over Right- and Left-leaning voters Three things should inform their approach to the rest of their manifesto. Firstly, they should ramp up those micro-policies that they know the public care about deeply, but which tend to be written off by other parties as parochial. For example, Reform could pledge to make driving 'like it used to be'. Filling in potholes is already a Reform priority. They could also scrap most 20mph zones and reduce the number of cycle lanes and low-traffic neighbourhoods. Elsewhere, they could scrap demands for people to have multiple bins. They could force public-facing public bodies like HMRC or the DVLA to start taking phone calls again properly. They could elaborate on their pledges to cut government waste – which appear to be a crucial element of their financial plans – and force all public sector bodies to conduct and publish reviews into the management of their services. These sorts of small-time policies attract derision from commentators but they are exactly the sorts of things that voters bring up unprompted in focus groups. Critically, they would carry no ideological baggage and irritate neither Left- nor Right-leaning voters. They would also provide simple talking points for Reform candidates on the door step. Secondly, and the mess of their policy package this week confirms a need for this, Reform should study the Conservative Party manifesto of 2019 and unashamedly rip off a series of policies from this document – particularly on those areas where a huge amount of technical knowledge is required, which Reform cannot easily access having never been in Government. On education, the Tories said they would back Ofsted inspections, expand the free schools and academy programme and increase the number of 'alternative provision' institutions for those excluded from schools. On transport, the Tories said they would invest in railways in the Midlands and North of England, re-open lines that had been closed in the past, and expand contactless payments across the transport network. On the workforce, the Tories committed to training up hundreds of thousands more apprentices and creating a National Skills Fund to enable individuals and small businesses to undertake skills training. Reform should adapt and market these policies as their own. There is no point Reform re-inventing the wheel on a lot of areas, when the hard work has been done already. Thirdly, Reform should say they are going to trust the experts. The party is already committed to a Royal Commission to look at the future of social care. Reform should take the same approach to the wider NHS and commit to a serious review – led by clinicians – on the future of the NHS, while promising that it will always be free at the point of use and held in public hands. Voters will not care that there have been other recent reviews; Reform's review can make a virtue of being led by those that deliver the services on the ground. Embracing the free market The NHS is the area where Reform are most vulnerable. In the past, Farage has said that Britain should move to an insurance-based system. Given the US has an insurance-based system, it is easy to see why opposition politicians suggest the NHS is not safe in Reform hands. If the NHS is Reform's greatest vulnerability, their greatest choice comes on the economy. Here, their best bet is to embrace the free market in its purest form. This means, for example, bolstering consumer rights against big businesses, encouraging the creation of new businesses by cutting taxes on small firms and their founders, and easing planning restrictions for businesses. This is serious free-market economics, but for ordinary voters. While the public have little sympathy for big businesses, even their working-class base loves small businesses and holds respect for entrepreneurs and the self-employed. No party has yet articulated an economic policy primarily through the prism of these sorts of risk-takers, preferring to talk about abstract macro-economics. Reform should do things differently. Whether Reform can form a government or not, nobody should be under any doubt that voters are in the mood to tear things up. Those people that suggest the British electorate somehow turned in a different direction to Right-moving voters in the US and Europe are not listening. The public did not vote for technocratic competence under Starmer; they voted to guarantee idiotic Tories got the boot. For the foreseeable future, rage will determine British politics.
Sky News
27 minutes ago
- Sky News
Elon Musk told how he got black eye and was asked about alleged drug use - but obvious question never came
It was billed by the president as a press conference. But that was accurate only to the extent that there were a few select reporters asking questions in the Oval Office. They were part of the "pool", a chosen group of journalists on a rota to cover the president's movements each day. The rota used to be drawn up by the White House Correspondents Association on a rotating basis. The Trump administration has changed that. They now compile the pool. And on Friday, as it happens, the media seemed particularly compliant. The questions were soft. Painfully so. There was one on whether the president had any marital advice for his French counterpart - who appeared to be shoved by his wife the other day. Another was about whether Musk thought it was harder to colonise to Mars or reform government. There were one or two about the pressing issues of the day, like Gaza, but nothing that could be described as probing or doing what we are supposed to be there to do - hold power to account. And Musk, under Trump, has without question wielded immense power over the past few months; unprecedented for an unelected official. He upended the workings of federal government, slashing thousands of jobs. He forced the closure of whole departments like USAID, changing America's global footprint. He did it all with a sense of enjoyment. The literal chainsaw to bureaucracy was memorable. 0:53 There is little debate in America about the need to cut government bureaucracy or cut the debt. America, more than any country I have lived in, is a place full of bloat and waste. Yet it was Musk's methods which caused so much unease among his many critics. They argued that where a scalpel was definitely needed, Musk instead deployed a sledgehammer. At times, his flamboyant style was a neat distraction from the substance of Trump's sweeping policy changes. But none of that was interrogated in this "press conference". Instead, the inane questions went on. Trump was asked if he would pardon Sean "Diddy" Combs should he be convicted - he didn't say "no", but there was no follow up to examine why. He was asked if he wished he'd become a judge given that they are blocking so much of his legislation. He laughed. There was a moment when irony appeared to have died altogether. In the same breath as trumpeting his success in cutting government waste - when he has, in fact, achieved a fraction of the $2trn savings he promised - Musk congratulated Trump for deploying so much gold around the Oval Office. The presidential office has had an extensive, gaudy gold makeover costing undisclosed sums. One reporter did ask about Musk's alleged drug use. But by attributing the story to the New York Times - who have made the allegations - Musk had an easy out. "Why believe that fake news," he essentially said. Surely the obvious question was "Mr Musk, when was the last time you took ketamine or ecstasy?" It never came. We did get the answer to one burning question, trivial though it was, given what's going on in the world. But it took 41 minutes for any of the reporters to ask it: Why was Elon Musk sporting a shiner on his right eye? His five-year-old son, X, whacked him, he said. Maybe young X has some sympathy for the thousands of federal workers - ordinary Americans - who Musk fired at his president's pleasure.
