only if you believe the statistics they are feeding us. Common sense and years of driving up and down them tell you that if you have instant egress then you are safer than waiting for somebody to turn a Red Cross on.
0.09 serious injuries or deaths per billion journeys on a standard motorway rising sharply to 0.19 per billion on smart motorways with no hard shoulder. 0.18 per billion journeys on a standard motorway result in an accident causing minor injuries but again rising to 0.33 per billion for a smart motorway with no hard shoulder. This means you're twice as likely to die on a smart motorway with no hard shoulder than you are on a standard one and are actually more likely to die on a smart motorway than you are likely to have a minor accident on a standard one too.
Thats what I thought too so where did the stats come from that I've seen saying that they are twice as safe - was that just from a Tory Minister in which case we can be certain they are false
I could be wrong but I think it's because "smart motorway" is a term that includes many different types of motorways. Everything from the M1 through Rotherham and Sheffield where it's 4 lanes and no hard shoulders down to a stand 3 lane motorway with hard shoulder and variable speed limits. Some of them are safer, some are much more dangerous. They mix them all together to give a low average.