So, the UK government has decided to scrap smart motorways.
This is a very simple story. There were a number of smart motorways of different types rolled out across the UK motorway network. The accident, injury and fatality rates were measured. The data showed the smart motorways were safer. So they were scrapped.
Wait, What?
Let’s look at the data.
It is conveniently sumarised in this table.
The table taken from the Highways England study shows all the deaths and injuries that occured on the different types of smart motorways. Oh my god, the humanity! Stop this murder now.
But hang on, is there something missing?
When conducting a trial a control group is often employed, because what we are really after is the difference in incidents on the smart motorways, not the total incidents.
So tucked under the above table is the following text
Conventional motorways PIC per hmvm is 6.12; FWI per hmvm is 0.37; KSI per hmvm is 1.45.
So there appear to be a greater number of collisons on smart motorways, but fewer serious injuries and deaths, for every type deployed. This blog is not making the claim that one type is better than the other, but deaths are down if that’s what you are after.
So why are they being scrapped?
It depends on your objective.
If the government’s objective was to save lives and prevent injury (ha ha) then it would go ahead with smart motorways.
If the government’s objective was some combination of saving money and becoming popular then it will scrap the smart motorways to bow to public pressure.
So why is there public pressure to stop a potentially safer mode of transport?
This is simpy because the deaths that rack up on conventional motorways every year are an accepted norm and often go unreported in the national media, unless they cause a big traffic jam.
Deaths on Smart Motorways on the other hand are much more sensational, the thought that you might be stuck in your car, a lorry bearing down on you from behind…. Much more cinematic than merely touching another vehicle while changing lane and losing control.
Subsequently smart motorway deaths have been covered like this and this and this. The 103 people (2021) who died having a conventional accident more like this.
Channel 4 News also managed to get hold of a “snuff” audio of a broken down driver calling the emergency services (from the car) and captured the moment they were hit. Channel 4 delighted with the shocking nature of this played it twice on consecutive news broadcasters including a full interview with the victims.
The “dramatic” rise in deaths on smart motorways was also covered here, by someone not well versed with legitimate sample sizes.
In summary, safer road systems have been scrapped because deaths on smart motorways have more clickbait appeal and we have become entirely tolerant of the hundred or so boring deaths on conventional motorways.
If you enjoy the media causing death by misreporting, then you are in luck, you have the whole of climate change to look forward to.