Motorway accidents and closing junctions
Discussion
I have twice recently been stuck on a motorway behind an accident where it seems that the congestion was made much worse by the weight of traffic joining at a junction. In both cases, traffic was still moving, and I was on my own, so trying to plot an alternative route avoiding the motorway was not possible, and I'm not sure whether there were reasonably practicable alternatives anyway.
My question is: why not routinely close junctions to incoming traffic? This would help traffic on the motorway to move faster and clear quicker, and arguably people who hadn't yet joined the motorway would be in a better position to stop, plot an alternative route, or possibly even abandon the journey if that was a possibility.
Posting on this forum in the hope any of the BiBs can shed any light on the judgments to be made when managing motorway accidents.
My question is: why not routinely close junctions to incoming traffic? This would help traffic on the motorway to move faster and clear quicker, and arguably people who hadn't yet joined the motorway would be in a better position to stop, plot an alternative route, or possibly even abandon the journey if that was a possibility.
Posting on this forum in the hope any of the BiBs can shed any light on the judgments to be made when managing motorway accidents.
First priority is to attend to the accident, treat victims, then reopen the road asap. Only if that is obviously going to take ages, would you consider closure of access. What is the attending cop going to say? "You just sit there mate, I have to pop off down the road to make sure that nobody gets held up while you bleed to death."
Closure doesn't just happen - you need either a car and officer at each ramp (and how many ramps downstream do you cover?) or a shedload of signs which take longer to put out, than the closure is likely to last.
Most people understand that accidents happen and that if you're caught behind, then you're caught behind. You might be a few mites late. It's a pain, yes, but just be grateful you weren't a couple of hundred yards up the road, and maybe caught in the middle.
Closure doesn't just happen - you need either a car and officer at each ramp (and how many ramps downstream do you cover?) or a shedload of signs which take longer to put out, than the closure is likely to last.
Most people understand that accidents happen and that if you're caught behind, then you're caught behind. You might be a few mites late. It's a pain, yes, but just be grateful you weren't a couple of hundred yards up the road, and maybe caught in the middle.
tvrgit said:
First priority is to attend to the accident, treat victims, then reopen the road asap. Only if that is obviously going to take ages, would you consider closure of access. What is the attending cop going to say? "You just sit there mate, I have to pop off down the road to make sure that nobody gets held up while you bleed to death."
Closure doesn't just happen - you need either a car and officer at each ramp (and how many ramps downstream do you cover?) or a shedload of signs which take longer to put out, than the closure is likely to last.
Most people understand that accidents happen and that if you're caught behind, then you're caught behind. You might be a few mites late. It's a pain, yes, but just be grateful you weren't a couple of hundred yards up the road, and maybe caught in the middle.
Closure doesn't just happen - you need either a car and officer at each ramp (and how many ramps downstream do you cover?) or a shedload of signs which take longer to put out, than the closure is likely to last.
Most people understand that accidents happen and that if you're caught behind, then you're caught behind. You might be a few mites late. It's a pain, yes, but just be grateful you weren't a couple of hundred yards up the road, and maybe caught in the middle.
My understanding is that Britain, a small land mass, has something like 130,000 police officers.
No one for an instant would suggest that any resources that the victims need should be diverted to traffic management.
On the other hand, it never ceases to amaze me how very, VERY little interest the police forces appear to have in keeping traffic moving (except when it's to benefit some worthless "diplomat" whose limo might have to endure the same traffic and redlights as the rest of us do - you should see the police snap-to on those occasions).
It is truly hard to believe that when, say, a motorway is closed and looks to remain closed for several hours, there is not a single officer within a hour's drive who could be spared to help sort out the nightmare queues.
We're preached to about the expense to the British economy of traffic congestion - this being the Government's justification for road-charging.
If congestion is so expensive, why isn't more effort made to keep traffic flowing?
Which reminds me - does anyone know whether some of the biggest causers of congestion - the football and rugby matches, concerts, etc. - ever have to compensate the LA for the chaos that they cause?
flemke said:
It is truly hard to believe that when, say, a motorway is closed and looks to remain closed for several hours, there is not a single officer within a hour's drive who could be spared to help sort out the nightmare queues.
I know, it os hard to believe. I have no police involvement so can't say for sure, but it seems to me, from various comments on this forum, that those 113,000 police officers aren't all on duty at the same time and that, even of those who are on duty at any one time, many are tied up in paperwork, procedures or court appearances so that the number on the street at any one time is only a small fraction of that total. It's hard to believe, it's not right, but I wouldn't be surprised.
flemke said:
We're preached to about the expense to the British economy of traffic congestion - this being the Government's justification for road-charging.
If congestion is so expensive, why isn't more effort made to keep traffic flowing?
If congestion is so expensive, why isn't more effort made to keep traffic flowing?
That is a very good question, and possibly related to a completely different concept: the belief that building more roads, or widening or improving existing roads, only leads to more traffic, which is A BAD THING.
tvrgit said:
flemke said:
It is truly hard to believe that when, say, a motorway is closed and looks to remain closed for several hours, there is not a single officer within a hour's drive who could be spared to help sort out the nightmare queues.
I know, it os hard to believe. I have no police involvement so can't say for sure, but it seems to me, from various comments on this forum, that those 113,000 police officers aren't all on duty at the same time and that, even of those who are on duty at any one time, many are tied up in paperwork, procedures or court appearances so that the number on the street at any one time is only a small fraction of that total. It's hard to believe, it's not right, but I wouldn't be surprised.
They aren't enough Police to deal with all the other jobs, let alone set up diversions for all the traffic following collisions. Most police aren't interested in or tasked to deal with traffic matters, they'll avoid it like the plague & they've too much else on their plate.
Why does it have to be police who try to keep traffic flowing when there's an accident? I'm sure some form of civilian highways agency staff could do the job, under police direction where necessary. Paid for from our VED and petrol duty.
I use the M4 quite a lot, and often encounter delays around Cardiff for the Millennium Stadium. Why are people allowed to impose costs on other people in this way? Surely everyone who builds an 80,000 seater stadium should be required to provide a plan from getting everyone to and from the stadium without imposing congestion on other people.
I use the M4 quite a lot, and often encounter delays around Cardiff for the Millennium Stadium. Why are people allowed to impose costs on other people in this way? Surely everyone who builds an 80,000 seater stadium should be required to provide a plan from getting everyone to and from the stadium without imposing congestion on other people.
saxmund said:
My question is: why not routinely close junctions to incoming traffic? This would help traffic on the motorway to move faster and clear quicker, and arguably people who hadn't yet joined the motorway would be in a better position to stop, plot an alternative route, or possibly even abandon the journey if that was a possibility.
I guess 'cos it would cause chaos in the locality if the m'way traffic couldn't join the m'way. Perhaps they regard it best if the m'way traffic gets parked on the m'way, and the local area can go about their business as usual.
vonhosen said:
They aren't enough Police to deal with all the other jobs, let alone set up diversions for all the traffic following collisions. Most police aren't interested in or tasked to deal with traffic matters, they'll avoid it like the plague & they've too much else on their plate.
Er, sorry if this seems impertinent, but since when is it the job of public sector employees to set priorities based on what they are "interested in"?
Jeeeeesus, man, are you serious?
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They aren't enough Police to deal with all the other jobs, let alone set up diversions for all the traffic following collisions. Most police aren't interested in or tasked to deal with traffic matters, they'll avoid it like the plague & they've too much else on their plate.
Er, sorry if this seems impertinent, but since when is it the job of public sector employees to set priorities based on what they are "interested in"?
Jeeeeesus, man, are you serious?
I'm sorry to say this, but a mate of mine lives in the sticks, and he and his neighbours are being plagued by crime. There's been ever such a lot of theft in the area.
So my mate was having a drink with friends, one of whom is a copper. Copper advised mate that to really get anything done, he'll try to have to find a policeman who "is interested in" tackling rural crime.
Your phrase struck a chord.
I think we are blaming the wrong people, It wasn't the police that crashed!
Get a Sat Nav, no need to get someone else to plan for you, just drive the wrong way and it will re-route you, and my TomTom one has traffic so you need never get in that situation, On my way back from the Toca meeting at Silverstone I was about to get on the M40 but just as I did it did an update and told me not to get on it, As I passed over the M40 further down it was stationary, £200 well spent!
Get a Sat Nav, no need to get someone else to plan for you, just drive the wrong way and it will re-route you, and my TomTom one has traffic so you need never get in that situation, On my way back from the Toca meeting at Silverstone I was about to get on the M40 but just as I did it did an update and told me not to get on it, As I passed over the M40 further down it was stationary, £200 well spent!
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
They aren't enough Police to deal with all the other jobs, let alone set up diversions for all the traffic following collisions. Most police aren't interested in or tasked to deal with traffic matters, they'll avoid it like the plague & they've too much else on their plate.
Er, sorry if this seems impertinent, but since when is it the job of public sector employees to set priorities based on what they are "interested in"?
Jeeeeesus, man, are you serious?
crispy porker said:
people specialise in what they are interested in, Trafpol is a specialisation, as is CID, Horses for courses really. The trouble is there aren't enough horses.
That they do.
The priorities of the Police are set by government & local communities.
Chiefs allocate numbers to specialist departments just like they do to divisional response teams in line with those priorities. We all know what has happened to trafpol numbers over the years.
Officers choose to follow a personal career path in their areas of interest & they busy theselves in their areas of interest. That means they aren't available for other things. You aren't going to get the flying squad offices emptied on a Friday evening because traffic is suddenly snarled up. They are already busy with other things.
All departments are stretched as it is. There are no more boxes of Police officers to break open.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 9th November 19:10
LOL vonhosen said:
All departments are stretched as it is. There are no more boxes of Police officers to break open.
Is that because we live in a crime ridden country (hence the recently reported figure of 1 in 38 crimes being 'solved')?
Or is it too much admin work? (hence the recently reported figure of 1 in 38 crimes being 'solved')
A combination of both?
Or that the 130,000 or so mentioned previously as the manning establishment is simply not enough to police 60 million people even when the majority of that 60million are, other than some technical crimes for which governments are very fond of punishing people, law abiding?
If we do indeed have one police person for every 462 people, young and old, just how is it that we seem unable to cope?
vonhosen said:
The priorities of the Police are set by government & local communities.
Chiefs allocate numbers to specialist departments just like they do to divisional response teams in line with those priorities. We all know what has happened to trafpol numbers over the years.
Officers choose to follow a personal career path in their areas of interest & they busy theselves in their areas of interest. That means they aren't available for other things. You aren't going to get the flying squad offices emptied on a Friday evening because traffic is suddenly snarled up. They are already busy with other things.
All departments are stretched as it is. There are no more boxes of Police officers to break open.
Chiefs allocate numbers to specialist departments just like they do to divisional response teams in line with those priorities. We all know what has happened to trafpol numbers over the years.
Officers choose to follow a personal career path in their areas of interest & they busy theselves in their areas of interest. That means they aren't available for other things. You aren't going to get the flying squad offices emptied on a Friday evening because traffic is suddenly snarled up. They are already busy with other things.
All departments are stretched as it is. There are no more boxes of Police officers to break open.
Right. Priorities are set by gov't and LAs.
What has that to do with what individual officers are "interested in"?
Are you saying that if the Gov't says that there should be X% of the constabulary allocated to admin and Y% allocated to the flying squad, or whatever, the Chief Constable might say, "No can do. My officers aren't interested in the flying squad - but they are willing to do admin."
When you say that "officers choose to follow a personal career path", surely you're not saying that, when joining the force, the would-be BIB gets to pick a speciality once and for all, and changing priorities of the force and the nation do not matter?
Do the government and the Chief Constable literally have no control over what the officers do - they just do whatever happens to interest them at the moment?
This cannot be.
The officers who attend RTAs - what do they do when they're not attending RTAs? They must do something else, don't they?
If so, they have some spare time capacity, such that, if the situation is serious enough, they can be re-deployed. What do the bike outriders do when they're not clearing the way for a corrupt dictator in a limo?
There are some traffic problems in Britain that cause major problems to thousands of people. As said above, the Government's mealy-mouth excuse to justify road-charging is the supposely enormous cost of traffic congestion. Therefore, in the Gov't's own words, it is a major problem.
If it is a major problem, surely there must be some occasions, at some moments, when an officer somewhere in the land could be spared to lend a hand.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
The priorities of the Police are set by government & local communities.
Chiefs allocate numbers to specialist departments just like they do to divisional response teams in line with those priorities. We all know what has happened to trafpol numbers over the years.
Officers choose to follow a personal career path in their areas of interest & they busy theselves in their areas of interest. That means they aren't available for other things. You aren't going to get the flying squad offices emptied on a Friday evening because traffic is suddenly snarled up. They are already busy with other things.
All departments are stretched as it is. There are no more boxes of Police officers to break open.
Chiefs allocate numbers to specialist departments just like they do to divisional response teams in line with those priorities. We all know what has happened to trafpol numbers over the years.
Officers choose to follow a personal career path in their areas of interest & they busy theselves in their areas of interest. That means they aren't available for other things. You aren't going to get the flying squad offices emptied on a Friday evening because traffic is suddenly snarled up. They are already busy with other things.
All departments are stretched as it is. There are no more boxes of Police officers to break open.
Right. Priorities are set by gov't and LAs.
What has that to do with what individual officers are "interested in"?
Are you saying that if the Gov't says that there should be X% of the constabulary allocated to admin and Y% allocated to the flying squad, or whatever, the Chief Constable might say, "No can do. My officers aren't interested in the flying squad - but they are willing to do admin."
When you say that "officers choose to follow a personal career path", surely you're not saying that, when joining the force, the would-be BIB gets to pick a speciality once and for all, and changing priorities of the force and the nation do not matter?
Do the government and the Chief Constable literally have no control over what the officers do - they just do whatever happens to interest them at the moment?
This cannot be.
The officers who attend RTAs - what do they do when they're not attending RTAs? They must do something else, don't they?
If so, they have some spare time capacity, such that, if the situation is serious enough, they can be re-deployed. What do the bike outriders do when they're not clearing the way for a corrupt dictator in a limo?
There are some traffic problems in Britain that cause major problems to thousands of people. As said above, the Government's mealy-mouth excuse to justify road-charging is the supposely enormous cost of traffic congestion. Therefore, in the Gov't's own words, it is a major problem.
If it is a major problem, surely there must be some occasions, at some moments, when an officer somewhere in the land could be spared to lend a hand.
Look up your local force's priorities as set by the government & local community, to see how low a priority traffic matters are.
The numbers in trafpol reflect that level of importance.
The other tasks are considered higher priority & when a snarl up occurs, that doesn't change.
Those doing the higher priority tasks are already busy in their tasks so can't be spared, for something which in truth once the snarl up has happened, they will be ineffectual. Where there are shortfalls, officers will be taken from lower priority jobs to deal with higher priority (traffic officer taken off traffic duty to help with robbery) but where a lower priority suffers shortfall the same won't happen in reverse (robbery officer won't be taken off robbery duty to deal with the short term traffic problem).
When I say Police officers "interested in", they'll naturally keep themselves busy with tasks within their field, i.e. the flying squad officer will always be keeping themselves busy with robbers, you won't find them actively dealing with DWDCA. They'll be too busy to deal with that & them doing so would detract from their ability to do their primary task & focus.
To have more officers for traffic duty, requires a change of priorities because they have to be taken from elsewhere. The priorities as set do not show traffic as high & it diminishes further for the Police with more responsibility going to HATOs , VOSA etc.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 10th November 06:56
Trafficmaster is normally quite good at warning of bad delays 2-3 junctions in advance (I have the 'Freeway' talking box version which are cheap to obtain and license). The one time it didn't work was on the M25 when I was stuck behind an accident that just happened half a mile or so in front.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff