Pedestrians on Motorways

[DanT97]

I was wondering what the big deal was about pedestrians on motorways? What is the point of banning them when there are crash barriers at the edge of the carriageways? I don’t see how walking down a motorway could be more dangerous than doing the same down a 70mph dual carriageway. Let us not forget that this is before we even consider the possibility of placing a good couple of metres between us and the edge of the carriageways. Also, doesn’t the existence of a hard shoulder also increase distance considerably. With a hard shoulder in place and the previous points of consideration, one could easily walk a good 5 metres away from the edge of the carriageways at all times, excepting of course the dreaded “smart” motorways and narrow bridges, where the hard shoulders may temporarily cease.

Also, if I were to walk down a motorway, what could they even charge me with? Is there some weird traffic code that I would be violating? Is this even enforceable? And if they did charge me with something, would I even be punished? Would I be expected to appear in court? Would I go to prison? How long would my sentence be in that case? Would I even be fined? How much would I then have to pay?

Also, why are pedestrians not allowed on the A282 or the Dartford Crossing? Seems an awfully stupid idea, considering the largeness of the deviation such people would then have to make.

I hope I don’t sound insane here. I’m just not keen on having dumb laws dictate where I can and can’t place my feet.

[JohnnyMo]

Pedestrians aren't banned from motorways, if fact nothing is banned as almost anyone here knows


They are just not permitted, well except for the M48 Severn Crossing.
As for the safety, the advise is if you breakdown and are lucky to have a hard shoulder you still need to get out of the car and sit on the verge as too many deaths are caused by stationary vehicles being rearer ended.

[Steven]

I don't know where to start with this, quite frankly. It's not the laws that are the dumb parts sometimes. Why the hell would anyone want to do this?

Yes, it's illegal to walk on a motorway. Yes, people can be prosecuted for it. Anyone doing so generally gets picked up in the first mile by the police, and their stupid actions endanger those officers unlucky enough to be the ones called.

Yes, it's stupidly dangerous. People are regularly killed whilst sat in cars on hard shoulders, pedestrians stand precisely zero chance.

And separating out the fact that the Dartford Crossing is the A282, why on earth would anyone want to walk through the tunnels? I can't imagine a more unpleasant environment to do that with. And I would have through that the reason the bridges aren't allowed would have been obvious to anyone who thought about it for more than a millisecond.

[B1040]

So, some bits of motorway, you probably could walk along safely, but a fair few (lots) of bits where walking would be unwise to say the least.
Urban motorways apart, they're not routes linking places pedestrians could walk between anyway.
I can't say I have any great longing to walk along a motorway.
Although yesterday, our walk did have a short spell alongside the B1043 service road for the A1(M). It wasn't the best bit of the walk.

[jervi]

Simply because motorways are only for motor vehicles capable of highspeed. I'd agree that motorways are some of the safest rural roads to traverse on foot, likewise they are likely the safest rural roads to cycle along. Quite often on my walks I end up walking along parts of NSL primary routes, or other classified roads and they are never what I'd call safe.

But just because they are potentially safer for NMUs doesn't mean it will not negativity effect other road users, especially those going at 70mph. Some motorists may slow down upon seeing a vulnerable user on the shoulder (fear that they may be in distress, or otherwise end up infront of their's or another bonnet), this is certainly a safety risk since other vehicles may not expect this.
Also most motorways did not follow existing rights of way upon creation, so there was no need to create a right of way for all modes of transport. M48 (the bridge) and Axx(M) are exceptions to this, where there is usually a NMU route outside, or on the highway boundary.

Some other roads as you mention ban pedestrians, again these either never historically allowed pedestrians or there is a dedicated safe route for pedestrians to take. In the case of the tunnels and bridge (A282) pedestrians and bicyclists can exercise their rights to cross and take the free shuttle upon request, walking through there is certainly not a good idea.

If you are caught walking on a motorway then you could probably get away with it, at least the first time. For example walking the wrong way down the slip road you usually never pass a sign saying no pedestrians or start of motorway regulations, since there is usually only a no entry sign applies to every mode vehicle, but not pedestrians. For this reason as I've mentioned in other threads is that exit slip roads from motorways (and other roads that ban NMUs) ought to have a no entry & no pedestrians sign.
But you do have to remember that motorways is one of the places that it is an offence to trespass, so I'd avoid it at all costs.

If anyone has seen "Hunted" on Channel 4, in the third series (I think) two of the fugitives walk onto a motorway and about 100m down the slip road to catch a hitchhike, I very much sent them an angry letter about that.

[Al__S]

the crazy bit in this country is that we'll legally allow pedestrians, cyclists etc on 70mph dual carriageways, often with rather narrow lanes and poor forward sightlines (some of the poorer bits of the A1, or the A505, for examples close to me). Yet with the same speed limit and a nice big hard shoulder we limit access

[Chris Bertram]

Not really that crazy. For the most part, roads such as those that your mention are upgrades, typically on-line, of historic routes, and extinguishing rights of way is a time-consuming and costly business, so is rarely done.

Motorways are (the clue is in the name) explicitly designed for motor vehicles, and even then the slowest types are excluded from use of them. Motorway users should not have to expect pedestrians and pedal cyclists, even on the hard shoulder; they create an extra hazard to avoid, and no-one wants to be the driver who killed one of them. This is why the police take a very dim view of having to be called to remove them from danger that they should never have put themselves in in the first place.

Tl;dr - as I said to solocle, who was speculating about the motorway being "safer" than a cross-country alternative, for Pete's sake, stay off the motorway unless you are actually permitted to be there

[Conekicker]

I was wondering what the big deal was about pedestrians on motorways? What is the point of banning them when there are crash barriers at the edge of the carriageways? I don’t see how walking down a motorway could be more dangerous than doing the same down a 70mph dual carriageway. Let us not forget that this is before we even consider the possibility of placing a good couple of metres between us and the edge of the carriageways. Also, doesn’t the existence of a hard shoulder also increase distance considerably. With a hard shoulder in place and the previous points of consideration, one could easily walk a good 5 metres away from the edge of the carriageways at all times, excepting of course the dreaded “smart” motorways and narrow bridges, where the hard shoulders may temporarily cease.

Also, if I were to walk down a motorway, what could they even charge me with? Is there some weird traffic code that I would be violating? Is this even enforceable? And if they did charge me with something, would I even be punished? Would I be expected to appear in court? Would I go to prison? How long would my sentence be in that case? Would I even be fined? How much would I then have to pay?

Also, why are pedestrians not allowed on the A282 or the Dartford Crossing? Seems an awfully stupid idea, considering the largeness of the deviation such people would then have to make.

I hope I don’t sound insane here. I’m just not keen on having dumb laws dictate where I can and can’t place my feet.

Ignoring the fact that it's illegal to walk on a motorway except in emergency situations...

You do realise these things deflect, often by a considerable amount, when hit. Hit them hard enough and a vehicle will break through them. You'd also be walking on the verge - good luck doing that for a mile or more in the dark and rain without at the very least spraining an ankle. Verges are NOT flat.

I've walked (too) many miles on motorways over the last 30-odd years, on the verge, hard shoulder and in (usually) closed traffic lanes. Not something I'd do if I wasn't being paid to do it frankly.

Oh, and in case you weren't aware, THIS is what happens when an HGV bursts through the barrier, you can see it laid on the ground.

[solocle]

Not really that crazy. For the most part, roads such as those that your mention are upgrades, typically on-line, of historic routes, and extinguishing rights of way is a time-consuming and costly business, so is rarely done.

Motorways are (the clue is in the name) explicitly designed for motor vehicles, and even then the slowest types are excluded from use of them. Motorway users should not have to expect pedestrians and pedal cyclists, even on the hard shoulder; they create an extra hazard to avoid, and no-one wants to be the driver who killed one of them. This is why the police take a very dim view of having to be called to remove them from danger that they should never have put themselves in in the first place.

Tl;dr - as I said to solocle, who was speculating about the motorway being "safer" than a cross-country alternative, for Pete's sake, stay off the motorway unless you are actually permitted to be there

From a legal standpoint, it makes perfect sense. But only in the context of cheaping out on "upgrades", which are anything but for the non-motorised users using them. Instead Highways England paint silly little cycle symbols in the gutter of the A34.

Now, I'm pretty confident on my bike. I have in fact used the A34 on 5! different occassions. Two of those, well, it was closed, so I was the only vehicle around. One was a 7am ride to a race, where the route I'd planned turned out to be unsuitable for a road bike, so I bailed onto the one route I knew worked. In another case, the A34 was simply the most convenient route, with any prospective detour adding several miles - and it was relatively quiet, 5pm on a Sunday evening.

The first time was when I was confronted with a navigation app that started recalculating when I reached my squiggly tiny country road turnings, and kept deciding to take me on to the A34. My local knowledge extended to two routes between Bicester and Oxford - the A34, or the M40, followed by the A40 cycle path.
Oh, and it was 5pm. On a Monday.

Legality aside, there is absolutely no way that it wouldn't have been safer to go down the hard shoulder of the M40, instead of tucking in at best to a 1m wide hard strip between the verge and lorries doing 55 mph, and at worst pressing against the edge of carrigeway line and hoping that the lorries would find enough space between the cars passing them and me. Not a chance that the sodding things were ever going to slow down as they should have. Effectively riding on a two lane smart motorway, but totally legal.

Now, I did go the legal route. But had I known just how horrendous this was going to be before I was committed, well, I'd have taken the train. But if there was no train and it was a choice between the motorway and the A34, in the same traffic conditions, I honestly can't say that I wouldn't go with the motorway. At the very least I'd likely get shown to a legal route in short order.

And a very related anecdote -

If the police find you on a pushbike on the motorway - and it's likely that you will be reported by a passing motorist - you will be escorted off pretty quickly with a flea in your ear, if not a NIP for disregarding the restrictions that apply. And we are often reminded on here how dangerous a place the hard shoulder of a motorway is in a car. If you are an even more vulnerable road user such as a cyclist, then I would politely speculate on how long you would last before earning your Darwin Award.

tl;dr - For Pete's sake, stay off the motorway.

I had a friend at Coventry University from the city who thought as a 13 year old taking a bike road from Coventry to Bedworth via the M6 was a good laugh. He was stopped half a mile from junction 2 by a police car and his bike was confiscated and no doubt probably received the hiding of a lifetime when he got home.

I posted this on botched road signs last year.

...Compared to that, this one would be excusable. If they closed the gate, that is. M40, Milton Common, looking North.

It's one thing in daytime, but at night, approaching from the A329 (to the left/west), I can tell you from personal experience that said sign is completely invisible with the gate open. No chopsticks, a direction sign with a non-reflective no-entry symbol, a fact further confounded by the presence of another gated entrance between said sign and the slip road, and a legitmate NMU turning (A40) <200 yds further on. Complete recipe for somebody to end up cycling on the motorway.

Let's just say that I know somebody who did make that mistake at that junction, and lived to tell the tale. Naturally, I went to investigate how such a thing could happen, and it was pretty shockingly bad.

Fortunately it's less than a mile up the mainline to the old end of the M40 and the A40 spur, which is effectively the next section of the A40, but with blue signs and a hard shoulder.

The friend who ended up on the motorway reckoned that it felt safer than riding along the (non-primary!) A507 approaching Shefford, ~6pm on a Saturday. Different times of day, of course. In stark contrast, one of the two cyclists die on the motorway network (as far as I can tell) between 2015 and 2020 died on the opposite carriageway there, at a similar time in the morning. (Un?)fortunately it's not really possible to collate reliable statistics an relative danger due to the number of motorway miles cycled being 0.00 bn.

[Conekicker]

To further illustrate how vulnerable pedestrians are on high speed unlit roads, there's a bridge in South Yorkshire that is renowned for suicides. I won't say where it is, in case anyone gets any silly ideas.

So the story that came to me was that someone jumped one day. Body landed in the carriageway and was promptly run over by several vehicles and severely mangled, as one would expect. Motorway closed for many hours as South Yorkshire's finest gathered up the body parts. Well, most of them. They never did find the head, the assumption was that either a fox had run off with it or it had got stuck under part of an HGV and then bounced off further along the motorway into vegetation.

Before my time thankfully. Now, who is up for a stroll down their nearest motorway?

[DanT97]

I have read your interesting points. I wish to note that walking on a verge would be laughably easy for me, since I go hillwalking sometimes. I also walk 10 miles for fun so, I’m pretty damn fit. Also I fail to see the logic in applying these rules to extremely rural motorways in Scotland, where there can be found miles of room. Obviously you guys are thinking of your English “smart” motorways with all their bells and whistles. I’m talking about the rural M74 with miles of hills and valleys.

Also, I feel that the A282 situation is wrong. It’s the English typically over-engineering their A roads and not giving much of a toss for foot traffic and cyclists. If it were up to me, I would stick at least 5 or 6 pedestrian crossings on the Thames in between Woolwich and Southend on Sea. I will admit though, the free shuttle service is quite neat.

Also, 99% of hard shoulders I have seen have been completely empty, save for the occasional breakdown. Also common sense says to not travel at night, my motorway walking ideas apply when the sun is up.

[solocle]

To further illustrate how vulnerable pedestrians are on high speed unlit roads, there's a bridge in South Yorkshire that is renowned for suicides. I won't say where it is, in case anyone gets any silly ideas.

So the story that came to me was that someone jumped one day. Body landed in the carriageway and was promptly run over by several vehicles and severely mangled, as one would expect. Motorway closed for many hours as South Yorkshire's finest gathered up the body parts. Well, most of them. They never did find the head, the assumption was that either a fox had run off with it or it had got stuck under part of an HGV and then bounced off further along the motorway into vegetation.

Before my time thankfully. Now, who is up for a stroll down their nearest motorway?

That's hardly relevant to the danger posed to a sane and sober person, though. For instance on Saturday I was driving along the A303, when I passed a pedestrian walking alongside the road. Dark clothing, no lights, I only recognised that they were there moments before I passed them. But they had every right to be there, and weren't breaking any laws (yes, some highway code advice). A couple of days ago a pedestrian was killed on the A303, if you're aware.

But the same person walking alongside a motorway hard shoulder, with a significant buffer from the traffic, and far less likely to give the passing traffic an "oh s t" moment? Illegal.

That's my issue. The discrepency between dangerous pseudo-motorways where it's legal to walk/cycle, and actual motorways which have a design standard that should actually improve matters for walkers/cyclists. My ideal solution wouldn't be allowing NMUs on motorways, but rather getting Highways England to cough up and provide high quality NMU routes on trunk road corridors. Could call it a "motorway scheme"

But, failing that, I've personally been in the situation where I was prevented from taking the safer route by the motorway regulations. So yeah, allow NMUs on motorways. People of sound mind will only take such a route when it's safer/more convenient, and those of unsound mind aren't going to be dettered by some blue signs.

Re the A282, I note that you can legally cycle along the A2, then turn onto the A282 without passing a "no cycling" sign, joining it just as the M25 ends.

[c2R]

I disagree that it's safer to walk or cycle somewhere that the fast moving heavy things aren't expecting you and where there are no facilities for you to cross sliproads safely. While I might expect a cyclist or a pedestrian on the A34, I certainly wouldn't on the M25.

A similar argument could be made for walking on railway lines if you're sober and the railway line gives you a shorter route to and from where you want to go - they're laid out on a nice level gradient, and you can get out of the way of trains easy enough - and yes, there might be some high speed junctions to negotiate, and some tunnels and bridges where you might have to have additional prohibitions, but why not - what could possibly go wrong?

[jervi]

A similar argument could be made for walking on railway lines if you're sober and the railway line gives you a shorter route to and from where you want to go - they're laid out on a nice level gradient, and you can get out of the way of trains easy enough - and yes, there might be some high speed junctions to negotiate, and some tunnels and bridges where you might have to have additional prohibitions, but why not - what could possibly go wrong?

The shortcut thou
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.99760 ... 312!8i6656

[Conekicker]

To further illustrate how vulnerable pedestrians are on high speed unlit roads, there's a bridge in South Yorkshire that is renowned for suicides. I won't say where it is, in case anyone gets any silly ideas.

So the story that came to me was that someone jumped one day. Body landed in the carriageway and was promptly run over by several vehicles and severely mangled, as one would expect. Motorway closed for many hours as South Yorkshire's finest gathered up the body parts. Well, most of them. They never did find the head, the assumption was that either a fox had run off with it or it had got stuck under part of an HGV and then bounced off further along the motorway into vegetation.

Before my time thankfully. Now, who is up for a stroll down their nearest motorway?

That's hardly relevant to the danger posed to a sane and sober person, though. For instance on Saturday I was driving along the A303, when I passed a pedestrian walking alongside the road. Dark clothing, no lights, I only recognised that they were there moments before I passed them. But they had every right to be there, and weren't breaking any laws (yes, some highway code advice). A couple of days ago a pedestrian was killed on the A303, if you're aware.

But the same person walking alongside a motorway hard shoulder, with a significant buffer from the traffic, and far less likely to give the passing traffic an "oh s t" moment? Illegal.

That's my issue. The discrepency between dangerous pseudo-motorways where it's legal to walk/cycle, and actual motorways which have a design standard that should actually improve matters for walkers/cyclists. My ideal solution wouldn't be allowing NMUs on motorways, but rather getting Highways England to cough up and provide high quality NMU routes on trunk road corridors. Could call it a "motorway scheme"

But, failing that, I've personally been in the situation where I was prevented from taking the safer route by the motorway regulations. So yeah, allow NMUs on motorways. People of sound mind will only take such a route when it's safer/more convenient, and those of unsound mind aren't going to be dettered by some blue signs.

Re the A282, I note that you can legally cycle along the A2, then turn onto the A282 without passing a "no cycling" sign, joining it just as the M25 ends.

All I can say to that is two things:

1) You've presumably never "enjoyed" walking alongside a busy motorway in the rain. If you did, you would find yourself soaked to the skin from both the rain and the spray from the HGVs passing mere metres away. Indeed, unless the rain was hammering down, the vehicle spray would make a far more significant contribution to the subsequent drowned rat look.

2) Motorway design standards do not include for a 2m footway alongside the hard shoulder. Usually it's a 1.2m verge then either and embankment or cutting, occasionally more (but not much) flat-ish ground. Within the verge, usually setback a minimum of 600mm (as I may incorrectly recall) there may a safety barrier, which itself is 250mm or so deep if you include the posts. So then placing a footway will mean lots of expensive earthworks, which will certainly cost more than the actual footway itself. You might even need a fence to prevent pedestrians tumbling down embankments. If it's also a cycleway, it would be how much wider and thus more expensive. Let's also not forget that many high-speed duals aren't HE roads these days either.

[Conekicker]

I have read your interesting points. I wish to note that walking on a verge would be laughably easy for me, since I go hillwalking sometimes. I also walk 10 miles for fun so, I’m pretty damn fit. Also I fail to see the logic in applying these rules to extremely rural motorways in Scotland, where there can be found miles of room. Obviously you guys are thinking of your English “smart” motorways with all their bells and whistles. I’m talking about the rural M74 with miles of hills and valleys.

Also, I feel that the A282 situation is wrong. It’s the English typically over-engineering their A roads and not giving much of a toss for foot traffic and cyclists. If it were up to me, I would stick at least 5 or 6 pedestrian crossings on the Thames in between Woolwich and Southend on Sea. I will admit though, the free shuttle service is quite neat.

Also, 99% of hard shoulders I have seen have been completely empty, save for the occasional breakdown. Also common sense says to not travel at night, my motorway walking ideas apply when the sun is up.

I suggest you may wish to consider getting yourself a job with whoever maintains the M74 these days and then, once suitably inducted, go for a stroll on there in both sun and rain. I would be very surprised if your opinion didn't rapidly change.

Extremely rural (non-smart) motorways exist in England as well. None of which anyone with common sense would walk alongside, legal restrictions, age (I think you are around 24) and level of fitness notwithstanding. Motorways in any part of the country are a dirty, noisy, dangerous environment, far better to stick to the hills I'd suggest.

[KeithW]

Simply because motorways are only for motor vehicles capable of highspeed. I'd agree that motorways are some of the safest rural roads to traverse on foot, likewise they are likely the safest rural roads to cycle along. Quite often on my walks I end up walking along parts of NSL primary routes, or other classified roads and they are never what I'd call safe.

I emphatically disagree that motorways are safe to walk or cycle along. They may be less dangerous than an A road with no hard shoulder but they are extremely dangerous places to be on foot or on a bicycle. Even without the risk of actual collision the draught from a passing truck can pull pedestrians let alone cyclists under the vehicle. Emergency workers are killed every year on motorways and they try and work in pairs with one at the stranded vehicle and another acting as a lookout. I would no more walk or cycle down a motorway than I would down the centre of the main runway at Heathrow.

[Debaser]

From a legal standpoint, it makes perfect sense. But only in the context of cheaping out on "upgrades", which are anything but for the non-motorised users using them. Instead Highways England paint silly little cycle symbols in the gutter of the A34.

TBH, if we had reasonable laws, someone would be in the dock for designs like the one you show and this. They are beyond incompetent and seem to actively seek to place vulnerable road users - cyclists in this case - in places of danger.

[solocle]

From a legal standpoint, it makes perfect sense. But only in the context of cheaping out on "upgrades", which are anything but for the non-motorised users using them. Instead Highways England paint silly little cycle symbols in the gutter of the A34.

TBH, if we had reasonable laws, someone would be in the dock for designs like the one you show and this. They are beyond incompetent and seem to actively seek to place vulnerable road users - cyclists in this case - in places of danger.

Again, in isolation those kind of make sense. It's the big picture that's mad. The most dangerous point on a road for cyclists, even an expressway class dual carriageway, is junctions.

I recall seeing stats from Cornwall. Unfortunately I can't find a link to the document, but do have a screenshot.

"Trunk" being the A30 and A38.

[Debaser]

From a legal standpoint, it makes perfect sense. But only in the context of cheaping out on "upgrades", which are anything but for the non-motorised users using them. Instead Highways England paint silly little cycle symbols in the gutter of the A34.

TBH, if we had reasonable laws, someone would be in the dock for designs like the one you show and this. They are beyond incompetent and seem to actively seek to place vulnerable road users - cyclists in this case - in places of danger.

Again, in isolation those kind of make sense. It's the big picture that's mad. The most dangerous point on a road for cyclists, even an expressway class dual carriageway, is junctions.

But who is it catering for? Surely anyone who has cycled that far on a dual carriageway is unlikely to need their hand holding to get across the slip road? And are they the sort of person who would suddenly retreat to the 1m wide hardstrip, half of which is taken up with a gully grate?