Riding on the hard shoulder

[Cyril Haearn]

It's something like thirty years since I had to do some work which involved looking at this in West Yorkshire, in those days busy lengths of the M62 and M1. Even busier now, of course.

Some simple things lead to death or injury eg HGV driver climbs offside of lorry to adjust load straps, hit by mirror of passing HGV...

I've spoken to several traffic PC's with plenty of motorway experience and they shared a theory that there was something about a vehicle on the hard shoulder that somehow attracted drivers eg perhaps confusing them into believing that the hard shoulder was the first lane. I've no idea if proper research has been done: Highways England seem determined to convert them into running lanes to increase capacity.

To increase capacity still further, what happens if a vehicle breaks down? Best to reduce the speeds further so vehicles can travel closer together, 40 mph or less. Motoring is still so attractive and is still increasing.

But we CAN stop this madness!

[thirdcrank]

... what happens if a vehicle breaks down? ...

When this began, most of the hard shoulder was still hard shoulder in what might be called default mode, although the last few hundred yards before an exit slip is permanently signed as for use by traffic leaving at that exit. At certain levels of congestion, the gantries display a mandatory 50mph limit and the hard shoulder is signed as a running lane, unless it's obstructed, eg by a breakdown. There are refuges at intervals for breakdowns although I presume the driver of a vehicle which cuts out and stops dead will have no way of reaching one of them.

A later version is no hard shoulder and all lanes are running lanes unless closed by the signals. In this version, instead of gantries, some signalling is by nearside variable signs. Again, there are refuges at intervals for breakdowns.

[Bmblbzzz]

Some years ago I met a group of blokes who rode down the A38 from mansfield to bristol. Mostly 70mph with no hard shoulder and lots of traffic. Now that really must take balls, and we are supposed to think it's perfectly legal.

I don't know it further north, but south of Worcester it's fine. Virtually all single carriageway but wide, used to be three lanes but now two lanes with a (fairly decent width) cycle lane each side. A flat, wide, mostly straight road, good visibility - and not that busy, due to being paralleled by the M5. You see lots of people riding along it - time triallers, tourists, families... South of Bristol it can get quite nasty; much busier and a not so wide, as well as hillier.

[MikeF]

The A23 here just becomes the M23. You don't actually "join" the motorway, and there's no indication that non motorway users shouldn't proceed past the junction. Of course it's perfectly legal to cycle the A23, but not the M23. I was driving along it when traffic was particularly light and found one brave cyclist who had been riding along the A23 had not realised this and had stopped where the hard shoulder had started and was looking rather bewildered.

[The utility cyclist]

Hi,

http://www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/
“Current statistics indicate that …. more than 1,500 people are killed or injured each year on the hard shoulder.”

"Road users pay £32 billion a year in tax but only £8billion of that is spent on improving and maintaining the system."

"25 years after the first seatbelt law came into action, around 370 people a year are still being killed in road crashes because they do not wear a seatbelt." We all know them who think it will never happen!
Two of my four neighbour's drive away from home without clicking and they have children......................both ride bikes now and again at weekend...............lots of poseing on new bikes and not much effort..............

Green Flag statistics clearly conflict as they say more than 800 on the hard shoulder AND lay-bys https://www.greenflag.com/contact-us/me ... isuse-0522 I suspect this 2013 stat is after what looks like the not very up to date page you linked to.

The actual death toll on UK motorways as a whole (not just hard shoulder) in 2014 incl 'A' designated roads that are considered to be motorways was 96. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... 3.pdf.html

Given there are what, almost a million minor injuries plus 22,500 approx serious injuries and approx 1700 deaths on the UK roads every year, that figure is statistically fairly small would you not say?
Seatbelts, yes, saved the driver but as per the Lords discussion at the time of the introduction of the seatbelt law, passenger, pedestrian and cyclist deaths went up...

As for cycling on fast roads, I cycled on the A1 just South of Letchworth a few years back to go to Biggleswade (because I could and it was an early Sunday morning), honestly, it felt safer than going along the A505 which undulates, has turns and cambers not to mention lots of greenary and hidden exits, vehicles tend to drive faster on that than they do on the A1 now and it's much more 'scary'

[Pete Owens]

Hi,

http://www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/
“Current statistics indicate that …. more than 1,500 people are killed or injured each year on the hard shoulder.”

Quoting a random number like that is completely and utterly meaningless. Compared to what exactly?
Quoting a figure for DEATH and injury is intended to mislead - since slight injuries vastly outnumber serious injuries and serious injuries vastly outnumber deaths. What they are actually quoting is the number of slight injuries - but what they wany you to hear is LOTS OF DEATH

IF they really think that hard shoulders are Sooooo dangerous then they would be campaigning for them to be removed from motorways.

The last time I broke down on a motorway the lady on the phone advised us to get out of the car to wait because of how dangerous the hard shoulder was. Since the weather was horizontal sleet I was understandably reluctant - I only just stopped myself from replying "Oh thats OK Ill push the car back onto the main carriageway in that case"

"Road users pay £32 billion a year in tax but only £8billion of that is spent on improving and maintaining the system."

Ah the usual hard-pressed-motorist special pleading.

"25 years after the first seatbelt law came into action, around 370 people a year are still being killed in road crashes because they do not wear a seatbelt." We all know them who think it will never happen!

Which is such an utterly implausible figure that casts doubt on anything from the same source.

[Cyril Haearn]

Apart from anything else, one of the obvious risks is drivers "rubber necking." When that happens, the sometimes catastrophic results are the fault of the drivers who become distracted but the injuries and damage affect others.

As a more general bit of safety advice, I'd recommend to anybody who is stationary on the hard shoulder eg in a broken down vehicle, to get as far away from the motorway as they reasonably can. The top of an embankment is best if there is one.

Rubber necking, curiosity, is apparently engrained in human nature. No excuse. Best to concentrate, discipline oneself and ignore the "accident". Use hazard lights and slow down if necessary, anything that reduces speed is good

[Cyril Haearn]

Hi,

http://www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/
“Current statistics indicate that …. more than 1,500 people are killed or injured each year on the hard shoulder.”

"Road users pay £32 billion a year in tax but only £8billion of that is spent on improving and maintaining the system."

"25 years after the first seatbelt law came into action, around 370 people a year are still being killed in road crashes because they do not wear a seatbelt." We all know them who think it will never happen!
Two of my four neighbour's drive away from home without clicking and they have children
...
...

I do not give a ***** if others do not wear belts [how stupid can one be?!] but I do care if they go to fast or to close to me, reverse without looking, etc

I also care when they belt up when moving, that is a dangerous acrobatic manoeuvre

[thirdcrank]

... Rubber necking, curiosity, is apparently engrained in human nature. No excuse. Best to concentrate, discipline oneself and ignore the "accident". Use hazard lights and slow down if necessary, anything that reduces speed is good

I think most rubbernecking happens when there's a crash or similar in the other carriageway but there's a difference between being alert to what's happening and concentrating on something to the detriment of safety. There are reports of drivers using mobiles to film crashes they pass. It seems clear that an incident of some sort in one carriageway often leads to problems in the other. I was just suggesting that this misplaced curiosity can apply to things happening on the hard shoulder.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I will stick with the advise that hard shoulders are VERY dangerous, my opinion too.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Riding on the hard shoulder is, of course, expected practice on roads in the US which have them - including a lot of single-carriageway roads.

That even applies to most interstate highways (=motorways) in the west, outside urban areas at least. In the more rural areas, the interstate can be the only way to get somewhere unless you fancy miles of unmaintained, service-less, remote dirt roads. Several of the Adventure Cycling Association's long-distance routes include some hard shoulder riding.

[The utility cyclist]

Hi,
I will stick with the advise that hard shoulders are VERY dangerous, my opinion too.

VERY dangerous?, so how many actual deaths on the hard shoulder are there, or serious injuries say compared to deaths/SI ON the motorway?
As I said your linked to 'stats' are not only inaccurate but quote for all injuries of all levels including deaths. That when compared to all injuries of all levels on all roads the figure is fairly insignificant.
I just looked it up, reported minor injuries to STATS19 is 162,315, I suspect that is rather higher in reality but still. 800 death/SI/Slight injury on hard shoulders AND lay-bys is insignificant compared to 186,189 total KSI and slight injuries is it not? By deinition I would say that the hard shoulder is not a dangerous place to be, only the perception of it is.

[IanW]

The A23 here just becomes the M23. You don't actually "join" the motorway, and there's no indication that non motorway users shouldn't proceed past the junction

I'm afraid that there is an indication that non-motorway users should not proceed past the junction.
Just follow Google Maps the wrong way back up the A23 and look at the bottom of the road sign here

[Cyril Haearn]

Hi,

http://www.safermotorways.co.uk/statistics/
“Current statistics indicate that …. more than 1,500 people are killed or injured each year on the hard shoulder.”

Quoting a random number like that is completely and utterly meaningless. Compared to what exactly?
Quoting a figure for DEATH and injury is intended to mislead - since slight injuries vastly outnumber serious injuries and serious injuries vastly outnumber deaths. What they are actually quoting is the number of slight injuries - but what they wany you to hear is LOTS OF DEATH

IF they really think that hard shoulders are Sooooo dangerous then they would be campaigning for them to be removed from motorways.

The last time I broke down on a motorway the lady on the phone advised us to get out of the car to wait because of how dangerous the hard shoulder was. Since the weather was horizontal sleet I was understandably reluctant - I only just stopped myself from replying "Oh thats OK Ill push the car back onto the main carriageway in that case"

"Road users pay £32 billion a year in tax but only £8billion of that is spent on improving and maintaining the system."

Ah the usual hard-pressed-motorist special pleading.

"25 years after the first seatbelt law came into action, around 370 people a year are still being killed in road crashes because they do not wear a seatbelt." We all know them who think it will never happen!

Which is such an utterly implausible figure that casts doubt on anything from the same source.

Clunk-click, every trip!

K+SI: totals are very misleading. Some of the SI die later but are not counted as killed if they die after more than 30 days! Some of the SI recover fully. Some more or less recover after weeks or months or years. Some are permanently disabled

[thirdcrank]

I'm not sure that those stats are for KSI

Unless it's changed (and they have a habit of doing that ) all "injury accidents" are supposed to be recorded (ie included in the stats) but only KSI are fully investigated. There has been research (eg by BRAKE IIRC) which has revealed a mismatch between police records of traffic accident casualties and hospital records; the obvious conclusion was a tendency to under record casualties to avoid the need for an investigation. Going purely on anecdotal stuff, I think that it's often only the certainty (ie in a "fatal") or likelihood (ie in a potentially "fatal") of a coroner's inquest that the accident books come out.

Having said that, the type of thing that in other circumstances might result in relatively minor injuries tends to have much more serious consequences at motorway speeds.