How many dead people until the balance of that trade is unacceptable?

Smart motorways are a scandal - as WC said, they have deviated so far from the original (successful) pilot that what is being built now, is nothing like what was promised; even the Tory transport minister of the time has said that he was, effectively, duped.

I've actually been stranded in the fast lane after a multi-car collision fairly recently - with no hard shoulder available - and I can tell you with certainty that getting out of your car in that situation is a genuinely terrifying experience; and an AA man told me recently that they are no longer allowed to attend in circumstances like that, without a police escort. Madness.

It's strange how the value of "a few lives" can be measured by saving a few minutes journey time.
One of the issues with the "smart" system, just as it was with the old style warnings, is that the advice doesn't seem to change quickly enough, meaning that you tend not to believe what is being shown on the overhead signal and so many motorists still ignore the lane closed signal and try to save those few extra seconds.
As you say, extremely dangerous and it is costing lives, something which NOBODY is denying - madness

What? Their core support? I don't think so sunshine!

No they'll hit all their new voters in the 'Red Wall' - after all, that's what they voted for so they're gonna have to suck it up aren't they?

There were 1800 people killed in traffic accidents in 2018 - there were 38 killed on smart motorways in 5 years - so if we take your point then stop all cars because if 38 in 5 years is too many then 1800 in a single year is surely beyond your acceptable level.

Surely if you get out of the passenger side and go over the barrier then things are not that terrifying? So you would rather increased congestion - the idea that public transport will increase capacity is a nonsense. Perhaps if freight was only allowed between 7pm and 7am that might help

Compared to people who die due trying new clinical techniques its miniscule - progress has negative externalities. About 100 cyclists are killed every year so do we ban cycles, significant numbers get killed in police chases so do we stop police chases. As I said its a trade off - the world can never be a perfectly safe place - we have to accept life will always have risks and for a benefit of the majority a tiny minority will pay the price.

Although I agree with your post, up to a point.
The issue here is that the smart motorways aren't as safe as the system that preceded them and more lives are being lost as a result of the change, changes that were made based on a flawed study.
I know that you post about the deaths being at lower levels than other road users (or medical "guinea pigs"icon_wink.gif but, those comparisons are just irrelevant.
You will also be aware thet the roll out of smart motorways has now been halted, which would suggest that mistakes have indeed been made and at the very least, further studies need to take place until the situation can be improved.
There is risk in everything that we do in life but, to knowingly increase the risk, for little or no benefit is just plain daft but, I'm sure that you know this.
Moving on, I think you may need to make some changes to your pension arrangements, as Mr Johnsons new Chancellor 2ill be coming after you sometime soon.

Not sure you are correct on the roll out - there are currently 6 projects on going and a similar number planned. I agreed if we can minimise the fatalities that has to be a good thing. Congestion costs billions and the idea that this should be increased because of a very few fatalities - some of which may well have happened anyway - there are deaths on hard shoulders on non-smart motorways - seems unjustified to me. I know I come across as an uncaring individual but I am a very practical individual who accepts the world isn't perfect. As I have said all these things is understanding the risk and setting a level you are prepared to accept.

If I had to rely on my pension for my long term prosperity I would be shafted - far more creative ways of developing financial longevity - I hope he does reduce to 20% - seems fairer to me.

Interesting that you take revenue above life as your priority. I would suggest that you have your priorities the wrong way round.
You'll be advocating putting kids to work and doing away with health and safety legislation next.
You cant choose faster flowing traffic, something that is questionable anyway, over human life, that is just bloody stupid.

You bring to life the lyrics from an Elvis Costello track, Tramp the Dirt Dowm, which was penned about Thatcher. "I never thought for a moment, that human life could be so cheap", it goes on "try telling that to the desperate father who's just squeezed the life from his only son".

As I say, written about Thatcher but, equally as appropriate about the Austere government that has heaped so much misery on the poor.

Thankfully our views differ significantly but, you cant put a value on human life, although some seem to view certain failings as collateral damage.

Using your theory about speeding up the traffic, we could get rid of zebra/pelican crossings and increase the speed limit in built up areas.
As I suggested in a previous post, we should make our rail system more efficient and encourage greater use of public transport AND have the best transport infrastructure that we can afford and generally travel less than we do currently.

If we take your view we would have somebody walking in front of cars with red flags - appropriate given you political leanings!!

I employ c300 people they are the most important element of my business keeping them safe is my number one priority - but I also have a responsibility to ensure they have a job and they can feed their family. Every time I send a driver out there is a potential that they will not come back - what do you suggest I reduce the risk by closing the firm? Delays on motorways upsets customers, increases costs and potentially put jobs at risk. As I have said its a trade off.

Even you will agree something needed to be done given what the coalition inherited from Labour - if you want to balance the books i.e. only spend what you raise then their policies were appropriate. Like you I think it went on too long and I actually think Hammond enjoyed that in a sadistic way. How else would you have dealt with it - don't say make Google pay more tax please!!.

It's interesting that you mention trade off and the employment of drivers etc and adhering to health and safety law etc.
The point here is that the change to smart motorways has been made with flawed evidence and the model being rolled out isn't the same as the model used in the trials.
It's like illustrating an aeroplane with two engines and then building them with just one - it's just fecking wrong. The smart motorways are a flawed "quick fix".
It's easy to be glib if situations dont affect you personally but, equally, it's easy to see when something is wrong and to demand a change.

As usual you don’t answer the question - I have <120 trucks and over 200 trailers on road so don’t try and tell me you know more about road transport than I do - issues on motorways have greater significance on my employees than you can ever understand-unlike you I need to keep 300 people in work - perhaps if walked in my shoes you might actually understand - in the public sector it’s so easy as long as I keep paying my 2m+ of taxes keeps the likes of you in a job

NEXT time he’s up North? What’s he going to go up North for?
He won your votes so he’s no need to go up North. Well, not until a couple of weeks before the next election, after he’s crashed the economy following a Hard Brexit and he still needs you mugs to vote for him again! Which you probably will - even though after 10 years of Tory austerity the life expectancy in the New Tory areas is dropping!
You couldn’t make it up!

The question is how did he get an increased majority if the 10 years of austerity were so bad? Surely it should have been a slam dunk for Corbyn and labour?

Brexit and voters replacing logic with in many cases prejudice.

Surely if they had voted Labour for years how can they suddenly have a prejudice to the same party?

I think the prejudice was more against the perceived threat posed by immigration which the Conservatives with the help of the Brexit party fostered. This was also coupled with the misunderstanding of the modern world by believing we could be a power once more on our own.
The media must also take some responsibility by calling it the Brexit election it was not, this was only one item the rest was how the country would be run over the next five years.

Agree on the first part but, I think that it was the "Brexit election".
I voted remain but, had I voted the other way, I would have been mad as hell that it hadn't been sorted, hence the reason why Labour took a bath.
Cummings got that part right .However, it was how Labour had been in the preceding 10 years that cost them.
We had a government in complete disarray and yet Labour were still miles behind in the polls and with the Tories trying to occupy the centre ground, Labour will have a bloody long wait for their next shot at running the country- unless of course, the wheels come off for Johnson, which could certainly happen.

Why does the chancellor walk like Norman Wisdom, maybe one of Wisdom’s songs may be a clue.

Boris has surrounded himself with "yes men" (and women) and to have the best government, even for the Tories, means having people brave enough to question some of their ideas and policies and in the absence of any decent opposition (Labour is still a bloody mess), it's more important than ever that questions are asked from within the ruling party.
We've already seen the direction that Johnson and Cummings are trying to take us and left to their own devices, who knows just how that will finish.

"Please dont laugh at me 'cos I'm a fool"

Well done

Early indications are that fuel duty is set to rise as the first move to fill the hole in the Tory spending plans.
Probably the least sensitive area for voters but, a huge hit for the transport industry, many of whom are already struggling.

That's what fuel escalators are for - simple solution pass the cost on - everybody is in the same boat. There will be a lag month one but after that no issue.

Eh ?
An increase in fuel duty is just another tax, an increase in cost for all of us and especially transport companies, where fuel costs are a significant slice of their day to day costs.
It may be a one off hit on inflation figures but, it's an increased cost for anyone who consumes fuel or, where fuel is part of the cost of any product or service, which is pretty much anything and everything.

The government has left very little wiggle room to generate extra tax revenues, especially if the ecconomy continues to cough and splutter, which looks absolutely nailed on for a little while.

We were pretty much "flat lining" as things were but, the Coronavirus looks certain to put our ecconomy in reverse, if only for a limited time.
Now where was that strong ecconomy that we kept hearing so much about during the election.

Full employment in crap jobs seems to sum things up reasonably well.

Do let me know where I can pass the cost on for when my monthly fill at the petrol station goes up, my weekly shop goes up because of increased logistics costs, and my public transport tickets increase.