Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House has
considered smart motorways. As ever, it is a real pleasure to serve
under your guidance, Mr Betts. I know that, as the MP for a
neighbouring constituency, you are very aware of this topic, so
thank you. On the morning of 7 June 2019, Jason Mercer said goodbye
to his wife, Claire, and left for work. While travelling on the M1
near Rotherham, he was involved in a minor collision. Two years
prior to...Request free trial
(Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered smart motorways.
As ever, it is a real pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr
Betts. I know that, as the MP for a neighbouring constituency,
you are very aware of this topic, so thank you.
On the morning of 7 June 2019, Jason Mercer said goodbye to his
wife, Claire, and left for work. While travelling on the M1 near
Rotherham, he was involved in a minor collision. Two years prior
to the collision, the hard shoulder on that section of motorway
had been converted into a full-time running lane. Local
authorities, emergency services and local people had all objected
to that, but were ignored. With no emergency refuge nearby, and
with the hard shoulder removed, Mr Mercer and his fellow motorist
stopped on the inside lane of the motorway to exchange details.
Minutes later, both were dead. With a steep bank immediately
behind the safety barrier, Mr Mercer was unable to move out of
the live lane. Their vehicles were hit by a lorry, and both men
were killed instantly. The stationary vehicles were not detected
by the then Highways England for more than six minutes. The lane
in which they were stranded was closed only after both men had
been killed. Mr Mercer’s was one of 79 lives claimed on Britain’s
growing smart motorway network in the period up to July 2022.
Since their inception, the alarm has been raised repeatedly about
all-lane-running motorways. In 2016, the Select Committee on
Transport found that the attendant safety risks of
all-lane-running motorways had not been addressed. It
recommended:
“The Department should not proceed with a major motorway
programme on the basis of cost savings while major safety
concerns continue to exist.”
Five years later, in 2021, the Committee again criticised the
smart motorway programme, noting that
“the promised safety improvements were delivered neither
efficiently nor effectively.”
It argued that safety risks
“should have been addressed before those motorways were rolled
out.”
It is hard to escape the conclusion that had they been addressed,
Jason Mercer might still be alive. Multiple inquests into deaths
on smart motorways have said as much. In recording a verdict of
unlawful killing, the inquest into Mr Mercer’s death listed five
contributing factors, including the absence of a hard shoulder,
the lack of stationary vehicle detection technology, and
insufficient driver training on how smart motorways work. The
inquest into the death of Sheffield-based Nargis Begum, killed in
2018 on the same stretch of the M1 as Mr Mercer, found that the
lack of a hard shoulder contributed to her death. Yet National
Highways, inexplicably, continues to claim that smart motorways
are safer than conventional motorways. Data that it offers to
support that conclusion is misleading, to say the least.
The 2016 Select Committee report noted:
“The ‘smart’ in smart motorways does not come from the loss of
the hard shoulder…It could be seen as disingenuous to present
this change as part and parcel of ‘smart’ motorways. The
Department cannot use a reduction in risk in some hazards to
justify an increase in risk in others.”
The implementation of new safety features is of course welcome.
The installation of stopped vehicle detection technology in
particular is a much-needed safety feature. But it is far from a
magic bullet. Although SVD can reduce the time that it takes to
identify stopped vehicles, it is far from perfect.
The lack of a hard shoulder is inherently dangerous, particularly
without frequent emergency refuges to provide a place of safety.
The spacing of emergency refuges is one of the most concerning
aspects of design changes made as the all-lane-running programme
has developed. The initial pilot project saw refuges spaced at
400-to-800-metre intervals. In later designs, that was expanded
to a frankly staggering 2,500 metres between refuge areas. That
is more than 1.5 miles.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who brings to Westminster Hall and the
Chamber many issues that I support, and this is one of them. I
look forward to the Minister’s comments. There are conflicting
opinions on smart motorways and their safety. Northern Ireland
has seen the introduction of smart motorway techniques, which in
Northern Ireland are referred to as intelligent traffic systems.
We have that on the A12 Westlink. We cannot ignore the fact that
many fear smart motorways because of the arguments about no hard
shoulder. Does the hon. Lady agree that before smart motorways
are implemented, the Government must ensure that there is
sufficient signage to make drivers aware of that? They may be
driving on roads they have never been on before and not notice
the change. More signage is needed before any more people panic
or become involved in road traffic incidents.
I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman says.
Just imagine that someone is having a heart attack, their car is
breaking down or they have been in an accident, and they then
have to drive a mile and a half to get to a safe space of refuge.
It is difficult to fathom. The only explanation that I can come
up with is that a decision has been made on cost grounds, and
that is hard to reconcile with the repeated claims of National
Highways that its overriding priority is the safety of
motorists.
The 2021 Select Committee report recommended that the roll-out be
paused pending the collation and analysis of five years of safety
data. The Government’s acceptance of that recommendation was
welcome, but misleading. Not only do all-lane-running motorways
continue to operate but, as the hon. Gentleman said, new schemes
are being built and brought online. By spring of this year, four
new sections of all-lane-running motorways will begin operation.
While the Government dither, constituencies like mine continue to
host death-trap roads. Make no mistake, all-lane-running
motorways are death traps.
In 2014, with the road operating as a conventional motorway, an
average of 14 vehicles became stranded in live lanes each month
between junctions 32 and 35A of the M1. In 2018, the first year
of all-lane running for the same stretch of motorway, a
staggering 81 vehicles per month were stranded in live lanes.
Each of those incidents represents a potential tragedy. Each saw
a motorist stationary in high-speed traffic, hoping and praying
that other motorists would see them in time—staring in terror at
their rear-view mirror as vehicles hurtled towards them. And what
is National Highways advice to motorists stranded in live lanes?
Hon. Members will not believe this, but it is: “Keep your
seatbelts on, turn on your hazard lights and call 999”. No place
of refuge is available. Motorists are forced to wait and
hope.
We are told that technology mitigates the risks—that stranded
vehicles will be spotted quickly, that lanes will be closed and
we will be safe—but even with stopped vehicle detection
technology, it can still take several minutes to detect a
stationary vehicle. Almost 10% of vehicles stopped in live lanes
on smart motorways are not detected within a minute. Almost 2%
are not detected within five minutes. Still worse, SVD does not
even work properly. The Office of Rail and Road has disclosed
that SVD has failed to meet key performance requirements on
detection rates, speed of detection or even the number of false
alerts. That is simply not good enough, and it makes the claim
that all-lane-running motorways are safer than conventional
motorways difficult to comprehend.
The hon. Lady is illustrating the issue well. I was sitting here
and thinking about when someone is stuck on the hard shoulder and
vehicles are going by at a speed in excess of 70 miles an hour.
Does she agree that the speed factor contributes to how quickly
they can stop, and that compounds the panic and fear?
If we have to stop on the hard shoulder, having those cars racing
by is terrifying. If there is no hard shoulder and we are stuck
in a live lane, we can see them coming, but we have no control
other than to hope that our seatbelt works.
The claim that smart motorways—all-lane-running motorways—are
safer than conventional ones is ridiculous. It is based largely
on offsetting the safety risk that is introduced by removing the
hard shoulder against the safety improvements that a managed
environment delivers, but those two things are not mutually
dependent. As a 2016 Select Committee pointed out, it is
perfectly possible to introduce a managed environment while
retaining the hard shoulder. National Highways should not
continue to offset the safety improvements delivered by
technology against the risk of removing the hard shoulder in an
ever desperate effort to justify what it does.
Roads with safety features in place that retain the hard shoulder
do exist, and they are called controlled motorways. It would seem
logical to use them as a realistic point of comparison when
determining relative safety, but that is a comparison that
National Highways seems hugely reluctant to make. I have
repeatedly questioned it about this and have requested a direct
comparison between the rates of fatal incidents involving
stationary vehicles in live lanes on controlled motorways and on
all-lane-running motorways. It was with much kicking and
screaming that the data was eventually published in the second
year progress report. The comparison is truly shocking. The rate
of incidents involving stopped vehicles in which someone was
killed or seriously injured on controlled motorways was 0.06 per
100 million vehicle miles travelled. For all-lane-running
motorways it was a staggering 0.19 per 100 million vehicle miles
travelled.
In the name of increasing capacity on the cheap, National
Highways has more than tripled the likelihood of serious
incidents involving stationary vehicles. Given those risks, it is
hard to overstate just how important the proper functioning of
the managed environment is, and yet the technology is far from
reliable. For the month of September 2022, the national
availability of stopped vehicle detection technology was recorded
at 98%, and for warning signs 90%. That might sound reassuring,
but for crucial safety equipment, a failure rate of 2% and 10% is
shocking. Would we trust a seatbelt that worked 90% of the time?
It is not unreasonable to ask that those features work reliably
before placing our lives in their hands.
Last month, technology across the network was down for several
hours during planned maintenance on National Highways’ DYNAC
system. No advance warning was provided to motorists. This was
the latest in a series of outages that whistleblowers have
reported and that have deeply alarmed National Highways staff.
Those whistle- blowers have said that the technology is out
today, but I am unable to verify that. It is hardly surprising
that the public lack confidence in these roads.
E-petitions calling for smart motorways to be scrapped and hard
shoulders restored have received more than 10,000 signatures.
Research conducted by the RAC has shown that 85% of motorists
believe that safety is compromised by the removal of a hard
shoulder. Worse still, just 46% of respondents felt confident
that they knew what to do in the event of a breakdown in a live
lane. The consequences of that lack of public awareness were
shockingly exposed during the inquest into the death of Nargis
Begum. The inquest heard that 153 vehicles passed the stranded
vehicle, but no one reported it to the authorities. Why? Because
they believed the vehicle would be detected by CCTV. That is not
unreasonable in the face of National Highways’ repeated claims
about the efficiency of its technology, and yet National Highways
testified to the inquest that detecting a stopped vehicle using
CCTV was not “practicable”.
National Highways belatedly recognised the importance of public
education in ensuring that smart motorways can operate safely.
The result was a public information campaign in which actors
dressed as insects smeared on windscreens sang to the tune of the
Pet Shop Boys’ “Go West”. Understandably, this staggeringly
misjudged campaign was condemned by those who had lost family
members on smart motorways.
During the recent Conservative leadership campaign, it was a
relief that both the former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member
for South West Norfolk ()—and the current Prime
Minister expressed concern about these roads. The current Prime
Minister branded them “unsafe” and committed to banning all new
smart motorways. Campaigners and bereaved families were left
bitterly disappointed when, just weeks later, he U-turned, with
the Secretary of State for Transport reverting to the familiar
refrain of waiting for evidence.
How much evidence do the Government need? How many more people
have to die? How many more families will be left to grieve for
their loved ones? We cannot continue to gamble with the lives of
motorists. Removing the hard shoulder greatly increases the risks
for motorists. The technology that is meant to secure their
safety is unreliable, incomplete and ineffective. Tinkering
around the edges, tweaking designs and rolling out flawed
technology will not remove the inherent risk that the Government
have chosen to introduce to our motorways. People are dying and
yet the Government continue to delay, searching for an answer
that is staring them in the face.
Had Jason Mercer been able to pull on to a hard shoulder, he
would still be alive and Claire Mercer would still have a
husband. The Government can prevent further loss of life, but to
do so they need to recognise something that even the right hon.
Member for Hemel Hempstead ( ), the former Minister who
commissioned these smart motorways, has admitted, namely that
they were a mistake. Nothing will bring back Jason Mercer, but
the Government can at least put right their mistake and restore
the hard shoulder across the motorway network. I plead with the
Minister to do so right now, before more lives are needlessly
lost.
11.16am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport ( )
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts.
Because your constituency neighbours that of the hon. Member for
Rotherham (), I know you also have an
interest in this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for
securing this debate about smart motorways. I will make some
general points before I address the ones that she and the hon.
Member for Strangford () made.
The strategic road network—our major motorways and A roads—is the
safest part of the country’s road network. Data shows that there
are far fewer incidents and casualties per mile on the strategic
road network than on the rest of the network. However, that does
not detract from the fact that every death on our roads is a
tragedy and one death too many.
The M1 is a route that I use regularly to go to and from my
constituency of North West Durham. Recently, I visited junction
28 to see the issue with traffic backing on to the motorway,
which hon. Members from the region raised recently in Westminster
Hall. I have every sympathy for those who have lost loved ones in
road accidents and particularly Jason’s widow, Claire, who is
here today. I promise to listen as they and others continue to
press for greater improvements in road safety.
Hon. Members will be aware that in 2021 the Transport Committee
conducted an inquiry into the roll-out and safety of smart
motorways. We have agreed to take forward all the Committee’s
recommendations. Most significantly, we have paused all new
schemes that are yet to start construction until we have built up
further safety and economic data. That pause continues and the
data continues to be gathered.
I am listening acutely to what the Minister is saying. He must be
aware that the pause is not impacting the schemes that have
already left the drawing board, so smart motorways continue
apace. If the Government are concerned enough to pause the new
ones, why are they not pausing all of them?
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady is right that several schemes are well under
construction. National Highways felt that it would be more
detrimental to stop construction, because doing so would perhaps
cause more incidents than continuing with construction as
planned.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and
I thank the Minister for giving way. I also thank the hon. Member
for Rotherham () for securing this
debate.
On that point, Baroness Vere, the roads Minister from the
Department for Transport, came to the Transport Committee—I am a
member of that Committee and was involved in both its reports on
smart motorways, in 2016 and 2021—and said that all schemes would
be paused. Why has National Highways changed the remit?
Mr Holden
My understanding of the commitment made is that any new scheme
would be paused. To stop an ongoing scheme would potentially be
more detrimental than to finish it.
I want to address the statistic that the hon. Member for
Rotherham raised about deaths on smart motorways. The 78
fatalities she mentioned are across all smart motorways—that is
all-lane running, dynamic hard shoulder and controlled. Removing
the controlled element, that figure is 47; even on controlled
motorways, there will be issues. However, the motorway network
per mile is far safer than dual carriageway or A road options, or
anything that is not a controlled environment. I just wanted to
put that on the record as a clarification.
The hon. Lady made important points about breaking down on the
motorway and stopped vehicle collisions. Although collisions
involving a stopped vehicle are rare, I recognise that they are a
major concern for drivers, and that there is a higher number of
such collisions on smart motorways without a permanent hard
shoulder. We have therefore committed £900 million to bolster
safety features across smart motorways, including rolling out
additional technology to help to spot stopped vehicles— I have
been at the control centres and seen that in action myself—and
putting in an additional 150 emergency location stops. In 2020,
we changed the design stats on spacing to a maximum of 1 mile,
and three quarters of a mile where feasible. In our response to
the Transport Committee’s 2021 report, the Government committed
in January 2022 to an extra 150 emergency areas by March 2025, on
which work has already started.
I will turn to a few of the hon. Lady’s questions. Road users
expect high standards for response times on the motorway network.
It is worth remembering that the interrelated system of features
on smart motorways are not present on conventional motorways,
such as stopped vehicle detection radar technology. This new
feature has been rolled out across the entire all-lane-running
network to improve the detection of stopped vehicles and reduce
the duration of live lane stops. As the hon. Lady said, National
Highways detects around two thirds of stopped vehicles within 20
seconds, and almost 90% within 60 seconds, allowing it to quickly
set signs and signals, such as the red X, to keep drivers safe.
That feature is not available on conventional motorways.
National Highways does recognise that stopped vehicle detection
can perform better, which is something I have been pushing it on,
and it is working hard to deliver further improvements by the end
of June this year. Right now, I can report that we have made
further strides in attendance: the time it takes a traffic
officer to attend has fallen from an average of 17 minutes to
under 10 minutes in December 2022. As with any technology, there
are occasions when something does not work as expected or
improvements need to be made. National Highways is fully aware of
that. It is investing £105 million over the next two years to
improve CCTV and other technology, not only enhancing the
management of the network, but improving drivers’ day-to-day
experience with other issues on the motorway network. However,
when the availability of technology on smart motorways is
reduced, we need to find the root cause and plan ahead.
National Highways has well-rehearsed mitigation measures to deal
with operational challenges, including those relating to
technology, whether that is increasing the number of traffic
officers on the network or reducing speed limits on certain
sections and enhanced monitoring of CCTV. We will continue to
expedite every effort to ensure that technology on the network is
as reliable as possible. I recognise that drivers need to feel
confident on smart motorways, and we are using all the evidence
we can to act to ensure that those concerns are addressed. We
have listened and will continue to listen to concerns. We will
make as many mitigations as possible. We are hugely enhancing
stopped vehicle technology and the pull-in areas. We are
absolutely committed to making our busy motorways as safe as
possible for everyone who uses them across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
|
