Recurring concern

Unreliable public understanding of smart motorway safety arrangements

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 19 Jan 2021•Latest report 16 Sep 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in public-facing information and communication arrangements that explain smart motorway operation, distinguish it from traditional motorway operation, and tell road users how to respond to or report safety-critical problems on smart motorways.

Not included

  • Excludes physical smart-motorway design, emergency refuge provision, stationary-vehicle detection and monitoring failures where public understanding or information provision is not the unsafe condition.
  • Excludes general motorway safety information unrelated to smart-motorway operation or the actions required when a safety-critical problem occurs.
  • Excludes ambulance, police or highway-authority response failures after a road user has correctly reported a problem.
  • Excludes generic public communication deficiencies without a specific smart-motorway safety-information context.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
2

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2021–2022

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
7

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

National Highways2
Department for Transport1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Yorkshire (Eastern)

    AI-generated summary

    Nargis Begum · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 9 September 2018, Nargis Begum was fatally injured after a vehicle in which she was a passenger stopped in a live lane of the M1 motorway and was struck by another vehicle. The principal concerns were limited public understanding of the need to alert National Highways about stationary vehicles and insufficient emphasis and effectiveness of public information campaigns about this responsibility.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to effectively communicate to road users the need to alert authorities to problems on the motorway network

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The lack of public understanding regarding the need for them to call National Highways should they identify a problem on the motorway network such as a stationary vehicle. (2) Despite television, radio and social media campaigns regarding SMART motorways, the lack of emphasis on the importance of road users responsibility to alert the authorities to any such problems. (3) Despite public information referred to during the course of the evidence, the above message does not appear to have been a priority and does not appear to have effectively reached the public. ”

    Source location

    Nargis Begum · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Maintain road-safety campaign guidance, including specific advice for motorway breakdowns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have an ongoing programme of road safety campaign activity, intended to provide important guidance to drivers to make journeys safer, easier and more reliable. This ongoing campaign work includes a specific section on breakdown advice.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 June 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deliver eCall awareness campaigns explaining how drivers and people assisting others can summon emergency help.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We worked with stakeholders to launch England’s first major campaign, in 2021, to raise awareness of the eCall or ‘SOS’ button function, which increasing numbers of newer cars come with and which can be used to call for help by the driver or someone else needing help, if a situation requires emergency services. This was on digital channels, including a dedicated campaign page on our external website. The Highway Code, which was updated in September 2021, also now advises the use of eCall to contact police and communicate a location directly to a 999 operator under The Highway Code current rules 277, 279 and 283.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 June 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Work with relevant authorities to update The Highway Code with eCall emergency-contact guidance.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We worked with stakeholders to launch England’s first major campaign, in 2021, to raise awareness of the eCall or ‘SOS’ button function, which increasing numbers of newer cars come with and which can be used to call for help by the driver or someone else needing help, if a situation requires emergency services. This was on digital channels, including a dedicated campaign page on our external website. The Highway Code, which was updated in September 2021, also now advises the use of eCall to contact police and communicate a location directly to a 999 operator under The Highway Code current rules 277, 279 and 283.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 June 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct a cross-organisation study of further ways to increase public awareness of how to respond when someone is in difficulty on the roads.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- Secondly, the letter also confirmed a commitment to conduct a study to explore additional actions that could be taken to further increase awareness among the public of what they can do if they spot someone in difficulty on any road. This study, on which work started in September 2022, will, amongst the other actions stated in this response, cover the three areas of concern raised by the Coroner.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 June 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Update eCall communications through a further campaign, the Driving for Better Business programme and staff communications.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We will include an update on the eCall campaign and include that the function can be used to help both the driver of the vehicle which has that function, and to help others in difficulty. We will do this via a further campaign, ‘Driving for Better Business’ programme¹ and through our own staff.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 June 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The Department for Transport is responsible for deciding whether to update The Highway Code to improve public guidance on reporting motorway problems.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “- Firstly, as DfT has responsibility for The Highway Code, I shared the Coroner’s view that a further update to The Highway Code may be beneficial to help the public know what actions to take should they identify a problem when driving, such as a stationary vehicle. We understand DfT are currently giving this consideration.”

    Source location

    Response from National Highways
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 June 2025

    Open published response
  2. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    JASON LEE MERCER and ALEXANDRU MURGEANU · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 7 June 2019, Jason Lee Mercer and Alexandru Murgeanu were involved in a minor collision on the M1 Northbound and stopped in an active lane. About six minutes later, both were struck by a Mercedes goods vehicle and died at the scene. The report identifies concerns about the absence of a hard shoulder on smart motorways, driver awareness, detection of stationary vehicles, and the need for a wider review of smart motorways.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Motorist confusion caused by mixed smart and traditional motorways

    Wider context from the report

    “• The confusion caused to motorists posed by a mixture of smart motorways and traditional motorways ”

    Source location

    JASON LEE MERCER and ALEXANDRU MURGEANU · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Abolish dynamic hard shoulder motorways.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Moreover, I believe that a lack of consistency on different types of smart motorways might cause confusion and we have already committed to abolishing the "dynamic hard shoulder" (DHS) motorways, where the hard shoulder operates only part-time and is a live running lane the rest of the time. Highways England is converting all DHS smart motorways into all lane running to provide a less confusing environment for motorists.”

    Source location

    2021-0013-Response-from-DFT-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 January 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    End use of dynamic hard shoulders by converting them to permanent traffic lanes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Ending the use of dynamic hard shoulders by March 2025”

    Source location

    2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 January 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Highways England is responsible for addressing the points raised about smart motorway safety.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I understand that Highways England is addressing the points you raise in further detail.”

    Source location

    2021-0013-Response-from-DFT-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 January 2021

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026