Although I agree with your post, up to a point.
The issue here is that the smart motorways aren't as safe as the system that preceded them and more lives are being lost as a result of the change, changes that were made based on a flawed study.
I know that you post about the deaths being at lower levels than other road users (or medical "guinea pigs") but, those comparisons are just irrelevant.
You will also be aware thet the roll out of smart motorways has now been halted, which would suggest that mistakes have indeed been made and at the very least, further studies need to take place until the situation can be improved.
There is risk in everything that we do in life but, to knowingly increase the risk, for little or no benefit is just plain daft but, I'm sure that you know this.
Moving on, I think you may need to make some changes to your pension arrangements, as Mr Johnsons new Chancellor 2ill be coming after you sometime soon.

Not sure you are correct on the roll out - there are currently 6 projects on going and a similar number planned. I agreed if we can minimise the fatalities that has to be a good thing. Congestion costs billions and the idea that this should be increased because of a very few fatalities - some of which may well have happened anyway - there are deaths on hard shoulders on non-smart motorways - seems unjustified to me. I know I come across as an uncaring individual but I am a very practical individual who accepts the world isn't perfect. As I have said all these things is understanding the risk and setting a level you are prepared to accept.

If I had to rely on my pension for my long term prosperity I would be shafted - far more creative ways of developing financial longevity - I hope he does reduce to 20% - seems fairer to me.

Interesting that you take revenue above life as your priority. I would suggest that you have your priorities the wrong way round.
You'll be advocating putting kids to work and doing away with health and safety legislation next.
You cant choose faster flowing traffic, something that is questionable anyway, over human life, that is just bloody stupid.

You bring to life the lyrics from an Elvis Costello track, Tramp the Dirt Dowm, which was penned about Thatcher. "I never thought for a moment, that human life could be so cheap", it goes on "try telling that to the desperate father who's just squeezed the life from his only son".

As I say, written about Thatcher but, equally as appropriate about the Austere government that has heaped so much misery on the poor.

Thankfully our views differ significantly but, you cant put a value on human life, although some seem to view certain failings as collateral damage.

Using your theory about speeding up the traffic, we could get rid of zebra/pelican crossings and increase the speed limit in built up areas.
As I suggested in a previous post, we should make our rail system more efficient and encourage greater use of public transport AND have the best transport infrastructure that we can afford and generally travel less than we do currently.

If we take your view we would have somebody walking in front of cars with red flags - appropriate given you political leanings!!

I employ c300 people they are the most important element of my business keeping them safe is my number one priority - but I also have a responsibility to ensure they have a job and they can feed their family. Every time I send a driver out there is a potential that they will not come back - what do you suggest I reduce the risk by closing the firm? Delays on motorways upsets customers, increases costs and potentially put jobs at risk. As I have said its a trade off.

Even you will agree something needed to be done given what the coalition inherited from Labour - if you want to balance the books i.e. only spend what you raise then their policies were appropriate. Like you I think it went on too long and I actually think Hammond enjoyed that in a sadistic way. How else would you have dealt with it - don't say make Google pay more tax please!!.

It's interesting that you mention trade off and the employment of drivers etc and adhering to health and safety law etc.
The point here is that the change to smart motorways has been made with flawed evidence and the model being rolled out isn't the same as the model used in the trials.
It's like illustrating an aeroplane with two engines and then building them with just one - it's just fecking wrong. The smart motorways are a flawed "quick fix".
It's easy to be glib if situations dont affect you personally but, equally, it's easy to see when something is wrong and to demand a change.

As usual you don’t answer the question - I have <120 trucks and over 200 trailers on road so don’t try and tell me you know more about road transport than I do - issues on motorways have greater significance on my employees than you can ever understand-unlike you I need to keep 300 people in work - perhaps if walked in my shoes you might actually understand - in the public sector it’s so easy as long as I keep paying my 2m+ of taxes keeps the likes of you in a job

NEXT time he’s up North? What’s he going to go up North for?
He won your votes so he’s no need to go up North. Well, not until a couple of weeks before the next election, after he’s crashed the economy following a Hard Brexit and he still needs you mugs to vote for him again! Which you probably will - even though after 10 years of Tory austerity the life expectancy in the New Tory areas is dropping!
You couldn’t make it up!

The question is how did he get an increased majority if the 10 years of austerity were so bad? Surely it should have been a slam dunk for Corbyn and labour?

Brexit and voters replacing logic with in many cases prejudice.

Surely if they had voted Labour for years how can they suddenly have a prejudice to the same party?