Do road traffic investigations take too long?
Discussion
When someone gets something wrong on the road and there is a serious incident what priority should be allocated to the investigation to find out who did something wrong and who can be prosecuted and what priority should be given to clearing the damaged cars off the road and reopening it?
Does everybody think the most important thing is to fully investigate the incident to find out who was to blame so the police can do that person for a motoring offence (a potentially serious one) or is the most important thing getting the traffic flowing as quickly as possible?
Does everybody think the most important thing is to fully investigate the incident to find out who was to blame so the police can do that person for a motoring offence (a potentially serious one) or is the most important thing getting the traffic flowing as quickly as possible?
Pica-Pica said:
Hmm, yes... it seems to be a very similar topic. I guess I could read though that instead.
I don't get this whole "what if it was your little girl who just got a My Little Pony Happy Meal who had walked into the traffic" thing. I would never forget what had happened if it was my little girl. It would haunt me for the rest of my days. But I struggle to see the connection between it being a personal tragedy for me and having to keep the road shut for the whole day while the accident investigator looks for microbes in the tarmac.
ingenieur said:
But I struggle to see the connection between it being a personal tragedy for me and having to keep the road shut for the whole day while the accident investigator looks for microbes in the tarmac.
You're a charmer, aren't you.Read the other thread and add your "contributions" in there.
Teddy Lop said:
At risk of the wrath of the morally worthy, I do wonder the though process that leads to road = ~24hrs police taped off wheras tube = mop'n'bucket and running with delays before you know it. Is being marmalised by a train a less worthy death?
There's already a thread discussing this, as pointed out, and linked, above.ingenieur said:
Hmm, yes... it seems to be a very similar topic.
I guess I could read though that instead.
I wouldn't recommend it. There were (last time I looked) two helpful comments. The rest were people trying to out -sanctimonious the previous post.I guess I could read though that instead.
ingenieur said:
I don't get this whole "what if it was your little girl who just got a My Little Pony Happy Meal who had walked into the traffic" thing. I would never forget what had happened if it was my little girl. It would haunt me for the rest of my days. But I struggle to see the connection between it being a personal tragedy for me and having to keep the road shut for the whole day while the accident investigator looks for microbes in the tarmac.
That's exactly how the other thread started...I find if you treat people like adults, they are more likely to behave like adults. A decent explanation of what takes the time is a far better response that a load of "you heartless b
d, what if it was your child" etc Ultimately, you have asked a valid question in a sensible way. We have to assume the peoples whose job it is to prepare prosecutions are doing what they need in the time they need, and no more.
Of course, people got prosecuted for dangerous driving in the 70s, 80s, 90s etc but maybe a lot of prosecutions failed for lack of evidence? Who knows.
The other thread did highlight a shortage in trained investigators, which is entirely believable.
Ian
In my twenties i was a recovery driver, and unfortunatly often had to attend fatal rta's.
Very sad for all involved, but back then the priority was mainly to get traffic flowing, as my area did include mant major routes/motorways etc.
Often instead of compleatly closing a road, one lane would be closed.
Im sure evidence was often missed, but i do think that maybe things have gone abit far the other way. Where in reality most rta are fairly obviouse at a glance what has happened.
The bigest problem i think, abit like those compo clame adverts etc, it seems that having an accident is no longer acceptable, and there always has to be blame applied.
Its a good thing that things arent as relaxed as they once were, but i do fear its gone too far the other way.
And before anyone says, your loved one/ think of the children etc. I have myself been involved in a serious crash, and have at other times lost loved ones on the roads, So i do see things from both points of view.
Regarding the crash on the M3 in the other thread, yes it was a tradgic crash, but the knock on was horendous, winchester and surrounding areas were gridlocked long into the night, i wander how many emergencies were not responded to quickly enough because of this?
Awaits a slating
Very sad for all involved, but back then the priority was mainly to get traffic flowing, as my area did include mant major routes/motorways etc.
Often instead of compleatly closing a road, one lane would be closed.
Im sure evidence was often missed, but i do think that maybe things have gone abit far the other way. Where in reality most rta are fairly obviouse at a glance what has happened.
The bigest problem i think, abit like those compo clame adverts etc, it seems that having an accident is no longer acceptable, and there always has to be blame applied.
Its a good thing that things arent as relaxed as they once were, but i do fear its gone too far the other way.
And before anyone says, your loved one/ think of the children etc. I have myself been involved in a serious crash, and have at other times lost loved ones on the roads, So i do see things from both points of view.
Regarding the crash on the M3 in the other thread, yes it was a tradgic crash, but the knock on was horendous, winchester and surrounding areas were gridlocked long into the night, i wander how many emergencies were not responded to quickly enough because of this?
Awaits a slating
This thread is just going to go the same where as this one: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Suggest this is closed and diverted to that thread instead.
Suggest this is closed and diverted to that thread instead.
HantsRat said:
This thread is just going to go the same where as this one: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Suggest this is closed and diverted to that thread instead.
I suppose you could say as the morally superior have been called out early in this thread it has more potential? Suggest this is closed and diverted to that thread instead.
I'd say that balance between closing a road in honour of the dead and for the benefit of their grieving family is probably the occasion when the largest numbers of lives can be disrupted for the longest period in relative terms that I can think of outside a WWII style global conflict.
It has often been debated on the internet (and in professional debating chambers) over the years whether the concept of deterrence has any bearing on the likelihood of an offence being committed in the first instance.
That's what the morally superior would go to as a reason why the road must be closed until every square millimetre of the scene has been sifted for evidence. i.e. "well, if you didn't prosecute somebody for the offence then there'd be no consequences for offending"
I often think of the Croydon Tramlink crash in this context as the driver could have been prosecuted in revenge for taking the lives of all the poor soles he exchanged for a bit of a nap at the controls. But they didn't. Unsurprisingly this has not resulted with an epidemic of tram drivers sleeping in the cab and overturning tramcars.
The point here being that the usefulness of a vengeful prosecution of the most likely suspect is debatable.
When I say it's debatable that means you could make an argument as to why securing a sound prosecution against an individual in the wake of a major incident has a higher value than the lives of all the people disrupted for that purpose. Maybe I could be convinced if the argument is good.
And it's a side note, but I think it's worth echoing the comment regarding the follow-on impacts such as the ability of the emergency services to help other people if an entire area becomes totally gridlocked. It makes it more complicated to have to admit those thoughts but it's the same moral debate of what a life is worth. Just you have equally strong moral reason on both sides so which victim should get priority? That is usually when the name calling begins.
ingenieur said:
HantsRat said:
This thread is just going to go the same where as this one: https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Suggest this is closed and diverted to that thread instead.
I suppose you could say as the morally superior have been called out early in this thread it has more potential? Suggest this is closed and diverted to that thread instead.
I'd say that balance between closing a road in honour of the dead and for the benefit of their grieving family is probably the occasion when the largest numbers of lives can be disrupted for the longest period in relative terms that I can think of outside a WWII style global conflict.
It has often been debated on the internet (and in professional debating chambers) over the years whether the concept of deterrence has any bearing on the likelihood of an offence being committed in the first instance.
That's what the morally superior would go to as a reason why the road must be closed until every square millimetre of the scene has been sifted for evidence. i.e. "well, if you didn't prosecute somebody for the offence then there'd be no consequences for offending"
I often think of the Croydon Tramlink crash in this context as the driver could have been prosecuted in revenge for taking the lives of all the poor soles he exchanged for a bit of a nap at the controls. But they didn't. Unsurprisingly this has not resulted with an epidemic of tram drivers sleeping in the cab and overturning tramcars.
The point here being that the usefulness of a vengeful prosecution of the most likely suspect is debatable.
When I say it's debatable that means you could make an argument as to why securing a sound prosecution against an individual in the wake of a major incident has a higher value than the lives of all the people disrupted for that purpose. Maybe I could be convinced if the argument is good.
And it's a side note, but I think it's worth echoing the comment regarding the follow-on impacts such as the ability of the emergency services to help other people if an entire area becomes totally gridlocked. It makes it more complicated to have to admit those thoughts but it's the same moral debate of what a life is worth. Just you have equally strong moral reason on both sides so which victim should get priority? That is usually when the name calling begins.
ingenieur said:
I often think of the Croydon Tramlink crash in this context as the driver could have been prosecuted in revenge for taking the lives of all the poor soles he exchanged for a bit of a nap at the controls. But they didn't. Unsurprisingly this has not resulted with an epidemic of tram drivers sleeping in the cab and overturning tramcars.
He is literally in court at the moment for his alleged actions over the tram crash.Grumps. said:
So if, God forbid, anyone close to you was involved in a fatal accident, you’d be happy for them to just sweep everything to the side of the road to let people get on their way and not be inconvenienced?
God forbid that a major road is closed causing gridlock for hours and your pregnant wife has complications and you lose a child that could have been saved if they had made it to hospital?We can all make s
t up mate.Let’s put a penny on VAT and recruit more people so investigation, clearance and repair doesn’t take so long.
Where else do things happen too slowly for you, let’s do the same in those areas - another few pence on VAT.
BUT - the public services are good at swallowing money and not delivering improved services and wait for the Daily Wail articles about accident investigators sitting around all day drinking tea because there are not enough accidents to investigate unless it is a BH weekend.
You have to be careful what you wish for, you might just get it - and have to pay for it.
Where else do things happen too slowly for you, let’s do the same in those areas - another few pence on VAT.
BUT - the public services are good at swallowing money and not delivering improved services and wait for the Daily Wail articles about accident investigators sitting around all day drinking tea because there are not enough accidents to investigate unless it is a BH weekend.
You have to be careful what you wish for, you might just get it - and have to pay for it.
s p a c e m a n said:
Grumps. said:
So if, God forbid, anyone close to you was involved in a fatal accident, you’d be happy for them to just sweep everything to the side of the road to let people get on their way and not be inconvenienced?
God forbid that a major road is closed causing gridlock for hours and your pregnant wife has complications and you lose a child that could have been saved if they had made it to hospital?We can all make s
t up mate.t and are inconvenienced by it, are similar to those that don’t give a st you are inconvenienced by it whilst investigations are carried out.For clarification I spend most of my life in London so sitting in hours of traffic for no reason doesn't really bother me, I just think that saying what if it was someone you knew is a poor argument.
Whatever the system/procedure/equipment/staff they use for these things is it's clearly not good enough.
What if a major road is closed for hours and the gridlock stops a fire engine getting to a nursery and 37 infants and the pet hamster all burn. Then the investigation into accident finds that a lunatic in a Prius caused it all whilst touching their phone and doing 80mph so gives them a 6 month ban and a suspended sentence.
Whatever the system/procedure/equipment/staff they use for these things is it's clearly not good enough.
What if a major road is closed for hours and the gridlock stops a fire engine getting to a nursery and 37 infants and the pet hamster all burn. Then the investigation into accident finds that a lunatic in a Prius caused it all whilst touching their phone and doing 80mph so gives them a 6 month ban and a suspended sentence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff