Accident A64 York Ring Road
Discussion
Did anyone see this about 5.30pm-6.00pm today .
I have never seen so many Police cars involved, also two fire engines two ambulances and the air ambulance, the whole road was closed causing chaos, I stand to be corrected but it seemed that only a motor cycle was involved, and it was well clear of the road, ie, it appeared that there was no need to close the road completely.????????????/
I have never seen so many Police cars involved, also two fire engines two ambulances and the air ambulance, the whole road was closed causing chaos, I stand to be corrected but it seemed that only a motor cycle was involved, and it was well clear of the road, ie, it appeared that there was no need to close the road completely.????????????/
me2 said:
Did anyone see this about 5.30pm-6.00pm today .
I have never seen so many Police cars involved, also two fire engines two ambulances and the air ambulance, the whole road was closed causing chaos, I stand to be corrected but it seemed that only a motor cycle was involved, and it was well clear of the road, ie, it appeared that there was no need to close the road completely.????????????/
I have never seen so many Police cars involved, also two fire engines two ambulances and the air ambulance, the whole road was closed causing chaos, I stand to be corrected but it seemed that only a motor cycle was involved, and it was well clear of the road, ie, it appeared that there was no need to close the road completely.????????????/
Potentially fatal means potential crime scene & preservation of that scene for investigation is likely to mean a road closure.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 23 September 22:37
Perhaps VH you could enligthen me as to why US Police were able to get to a serious accident, close the road, allow a Medivac Helicopter to land, recover casualty, investigate and Partially re-open road to allow traffic to flow while investigating the accident all within 30 minutes???? Seen whilst on Holiday in Florida two years ago.
Edited by telecat on Saturday 23 September 22:46
percy flage said:
Perhaps the road was closed to allow the Air Ambulance to land?
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Perhaps you can point out to me, and all the others that you are addressing, where I stated that I was inconvienienced
telecat said:
Perhaps VH you could enligthen me as to why US Police were able to get to a serious accident, close the road, allow a Medivac Helicopter to land, recover casualty, investigate and Partially re-open road to allow traffic to flow while investigating the accident all within 30 minutes???? Seen whilst on Holiday in Florida two years ago.
Edited by telecat on Saturday 23 September 22:46
Perhaps their scene was confined to one lane. Not all scenes are the same & the same as you describe does happen in the UK too. The Police will do what is required to ensure that valueable evidence is not lost.
me2 said:
percy flage said:
Perhaps the road was closed to allow the Air Ambulance to land?
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Perhaps you can point out to me, and all the others that you are addressing, where I stated that I was inconvienienced
I think the guy rather foolishly thought that seeing as you said it "caused choas" and you put eleven question marks after mentioning "there was no need to close the road completely" he just assumed you had been inconvenienced, when all it was was, hang on a minute , It does sound like you where inconvenienced.
Where you not inconvenienced?
slowly slowly said:
me2 said:
percy flage said:
Perhaps the road was closed to allow the Air Ambulance to land?
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Perhaps you can point out to me, and all the others that you are addressing, where I stated that I was inconvienienced
I think the guy rather foolishly thought that seeing as you said it "caused choas" and you put eleven question marks after mentioning "there was no need to close the road completely" he just assumed you had been inconvenienced, when all it was was, hang on a minute , It does sound like you where inconvenienced.
Where you not inconvenienced?
No I was not inconvienienced, the accident was on the clockwise route I was going anti, my main point, perhaps not expressed very clearly, was the number of police cars in attendance [at least 10]
me2 said:
slowly slowly said:
me2 said:
percy flage said:
Perhaps the road was closed to allow the Air Ambulance to land?
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Perhaps you can point out to me, and all the others that you are addressing, where I stated that I was inconvienienced
I think the guy rather foolishly thought that seeing as you said it "caused choas" and you put eleven question marks after mentioning "there was no need to close the road completely" he just assumed you had been inconvenienced, when all it was was, hang on a minute , It does sound like you where inconvenienced.
Where you not inconvenienced?
No I was not inconvienienced, the accident was on the clockwise route I was going anti, my main point, perhaps not expressed very clearly, was the number of police cars in attendance [at least 10]
So no shortage of 'staff' then, yet according to the BBC report the road was closed for 7 hours.
Now if you consider a multi vehicle pile up in adverse conditions with damage to the road surface that might be a good result. But according to the reports linked above it was a single vehicle, driver fatal, passenger airlifted to hospital.
Is the report wrong? Is there something it it not telling us?
If not what procedures have to be followed that require 7 hours to complete and are they really necessary or just some results of H&SE or insurance company pressure?
LongQ said:
me2 said:
slowly slowly said:
me2 said:
percy flage said:
Perhaps the road was closed to allow the Air Ambulance to land?
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Assuming he or she survives, I'm sure the victim of this accident will write to you personally to apologise for the incovenience you've been put through.
Perhaps you can point out to me, and all the others that you are addressing, where I stated that I was inconvienienced
I think the guy rather foolishly thought that seeing as you said it "caused choas" and you put eleven question marks after mentioning "there was no need to close the road completely" he just assumed you had been inconvenienced, when all it was was, hang on a minute , It does sound like you where inconvenienced.
Where you not inconvenienced?
No I was not inconvienienced, the accident was on the clockwise route I was going anti, my main point, perhaps not expressed very clearly, was the number of police cars in attendance [at least 10]
So no shortage of 'staff' then, yet according to the BBC report the road was closed for 7 hours.
Now if you consider a multi vehicle pile up in adverse conditions with damage to the road surface that might be a good result. But according to the reports linked above it was a single vehicle, driver fatal, passenger airlifted to hospital.
Is the report wrong? Is there something it it not telling us?
If not what procedures have to be followed that require 7 hours to complete and are they really necessary or just some results of H&SE or insurance company pressure?
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life. The scene will be require a full AI & be photographed. It's the closest thing to a traffic murder scene (only murder scenes will typcally take far longer to clear). I don't think 7 hours is a particularly long time by the time you've managed to get the on call units required to the scene, get their work done & then get it cleared & open again.
vonhosen said:
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life. The scene will be require a full AI & be photographed. It's the closest thing to a traffic murder scene (only murder scenes will typcally take far longer to clear). I don't think 7 hours is a particularly long time by the time you've managed to get the on call units required to the scene, get their work done & then get it cleared & open again.
Ok, but these things never used to take so long, and with a completely closed road, as far as I recall. This seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. In the last decade I would say.
Just for a moment let's forget the issue about the loss of life and the comparison to murder - what are the knock-on effects of the closure and congestion and people diverting to unfamiliar roads or indeed routes unsuitable for the volume of traffic to be handled?
Has anyone ever attempted any analysis if subsidiary collison potential or secondary health problems for travellers trapped by the closures? (Probably more significant for motorway closures).
I'll skip the economic and ecological issues that might also be raised.
Is there no way that the processes required could be streamlined to reduce the effect? If not, why not?
LongQ said:
vonhosen said:
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life. The scene will be require a full AI & be photographed. It's the closest thing to a traffic murder scene (only murder scenes will typcally take far longer to clear). I don't think 7 hours is a particularly long time by the time you've managed to get the on call units required to the scene, get their work done & then get it cleared & open again.
Ok, but these things never used to take so long, and with a completely closed road, as far as I recall. This seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon. In the last decade I would say.
Just for a moment let's forget the issue about the loss of life and the comparison to murder - what are the knock-on effects of the closure and congestion and people diverting to unfamiliar roads or indeed routes unsuitable for the volume of traffic to be handled?
Has anyone ever attempted any analysis if subsidiary collison potential or secondary health problems for travellers trapped by the closures? (Probably more significant for motorway closures).
I'll skip the economic and ecological issues that might also be raised.
Is there no way that the processes required could be streamlined to reduce the effect? If not, why not?
Accountability, critical incidents, scene management decsisions, preservation of evidence & many more, are things that have changed a great deal in the last 20 years. Detailed investigation takes time, there is no getting around it.
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life.
...but since the prime/only suspect is dead there will be no-one to answer any charge.
Waste of limited resources.
How do you know that the prime only suspect is dead & what caused them to have the collision ?
That's what the investigation is for.
It will go to the coroners court & I don't think someone saying "Well there was only one car, no-ones going to get charged & we didn't want to close the road" will cut it.
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life.
...but since the prime/only suspect is dead there will be no-one to answer any charge.
Waste of limited resources.
How do you know that the prime only suspect is dead & what caused them to have the collision ?
That's what the investigation is for.
It will go to the coroners court & I don't think someone saying "Well there was only one car, no-ones going to get charged & we didn't want to close the road" will cut it.
Looking at this and you previous observation that much has changed in the last 20 years - I don't disagree but are the changes really important in all cases? If so, why?
Why would a coroner not accept the outline you mentioned above? What does he/she or the public gain from such a detailed investigation that it takes 7 hours and, presumably, at least 10 police officers to complete it?
Is this a 'just in case' sort of response?
We'd better do all this 'just in case' someone discovers some hidden information that leads us to think this was more than a basic and tragic accident?
Playing devil's advocate, how about we should re-open the road ASAP 'just in case' a diverted driver in unfamiliar terrority on an A or B road (a typical diversion road standard and frequently being touted these days as far too dangerous for anyone to use at greater than walking pace) has an accident that they would not otherwise have had if the road had been cleared sooner?
Where is the balance of risk?
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life.
...but since the prime/only suspect is dead there will be no-one to answer any charge.
Waste of limited resources.
How do you know that the prime only suspect is dead & what caused them to have the collision ?
Unless that the report that only one vehicle was involved is inaccurate, which could be quickly checked, or there is evidence that the vehicle hit debris in the roadway, which could be quickly checked, there is unlikely to be any significant physical evidence on the roadway.
No evidence of external culpability, no need to investigate further.
"The driver seems to have stuffed it bigtime"
"Misadventure, next"
Seems to have this case covered.
LongQ said:
vonhosen said:
fluffnik said:
vonhosen said:
It's a crime scene in which somebody lost their life.
...but since the prime/only suspect is dead there will be no-one to answer any charge.
Waste of limited resources.
How do you know that the prime only suspect is dead & what caused them to have the collision ?
That's what the investigation is for.
It will go to the coroners court & I don't think someone saying "Well there was only one car, no-ones going to get charged & we didn't want to close the road" will cut it.
Looking at this and you previous observation that much has changed in the last 20 years - I don't disagree but are the changes really important in all cases? If so, why?
Why would a coroner not accept the outline you mentioned above? What does he/she or the public gain from such a detailed investigation that it takes 7 hours and, presumably, at least 10 police officers to complete it?
Is this a 'just in case' sort of response?
We'd better do all this 'just in case' someone discovers some hidden information that leads us to think this was more than a basic and tragic accident?
Playing devil's advocate, how about we should re-open the road ASAP 'just in case' a diverted driver in unfamiliar terrority on an A or B road (a typical diversion road standard and frequently being touted these days as far too dangerous for anyone to use at greater than walking pace) has an accident that they would not otherwise have had if the road had been cleared sooner?
Where is the balance of risk?
It's not just in case.
Where anyone dies unexpectedly then the cause & circumstances leading to their death have to be investigated to ensure that no foul play or crime is involved. You've got to be able to tell the court in as much detail & with as much certainty as possible what happened. Not just say well when we arrived there was one car off the road the occupants dead, as there was only the one vehicle present we didn't bother finding out how they came to be where they were, we just assumed it must have been a tragic accident.
You've got provide all the evidence to establish if it was an accident or not & if so what led to it.
As for the other drivers, we are all expected to be able to drive safely down not only the roads we know, but also roads that are unfamiliar, you know stop within the distance you can see to be clear etc. I'm sure you've managed to drive down an unfamiliar road at some stage. If people can only drive on roads they have been down before, then perhaps they ought to think about giving up driving & letting somebody else do the driving for them.
The road will be opened ASAP, but that will be after everything that needs to be done is done. It serves no purpose keeping the road closed when there is no need. What makes you think it's the case that somebody would want to or is doing that ?
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 25th September 06:50
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff