Discussion
Can anybody explain why, when a lorry parks itself right up a cutting, not even on the hard shoulder, it is necessary to close two lanes of the motorway for an entire day? How long can it take to remove a truck? They'd move it fast enough if it was on double yellows.
Take some photos, take your measurements, then bring in a bloody great bulldozer and sweep up the bits. Recover at leisure, at the weekend, please.
Thanks. (very tired, very pi55ed off, after five hours without a break on the motorway)
Take some photos, take your measurements, then bring in a bloody great bulldozer and sweep up the bits. Recover at leisure, at the weekend, please.
Thanks. (very tired, very pi55ed off, after five hours without a break on the motorway)
If a fatality was involved, then you were lucky the whole road wasn't shut. Maybe there was evidence on the road in te two closed lanes that needed careful examination, even forensic which is done at serious RTAs.
Being mid way along a 6 mile queue between two junctions when the road is shut is even more aggravating as there is no hope of going anywhere until the incident is concluded.
Just think that although you may have lost 5 hours,
someone may have lost their life!
Being mid way along a 6 mile queue between two junctions when the road is shut is even more aggravating as there is no hope of going anywhere until the incident is concluded.
Just think that although you may have lost 5 hours,
someone may have lost their life!
madcop said: If a fatality was involved, then you were lucky the whole road wasn't shut. Maybe there was evidence on the road in te two closed lanes that needed careful examination, even forensic which is done at serious RTAs.
Being mid way along a 6 mile queue between two junctions when the road is shut is even more aggravating as there is no hope of going anywhere until the incident is concluded.
Just think that although you may have lost 5 hours,
someone may have lost their life!
Surely the emphasis must be on keeping the nation moving. Seems to me the Police bring the whole lot to a standstill at the slightest opportunity. Sorry, but that's the way it looks. Are we being taught some kind of lesson? No, because as soon as we're past the obstruction or off the motorway everyone (except me of course) drives like nutters to try and get home, or wherever.
In line with my new policy of recycling old threads, we've had this debate before.. www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=9267
The delays that seem to be the hardest ot justify are those caused by crash investigations, while any delay in dealing with hazardous loads, spillages or structural damage to roads and bridges or most importantly securing and treating the injured as well as properly dealing with any bodies. It is the crash investigations that appear to the general public (including me) to take way too long and demand closure of the road and (correct me if I am wrong), the advent of daylight for them to be completed. Why are thorough investigations needed - I assume to apportion blame especially if death or injury have been caused. However, given the parlous state of the criminal justice system in this country and the increasing blame culture, these investigations should be balanced against the misery and even the safety concerns of having several thousand cars stuck in huge queues - affecting thousands of people for the sake of the hope of some ineffective justice, settling insurance claims and procedure seems to be an example of how the everyday law-abiding person is completely ignored in any consideration.
sadoksevoli said: The delays that seem to be the hardest ot justify are those caused by crash investigations, while any delay in dealing with hazardous loads, spillages or structural damage to roads and bridges or most importantly securing and treating the injured as well as properly dealing with any bodies. It is the crash investigations that appear to the general public (including me) to take way too long and demand closure of the road and (correct me if I am wrong), the advent of daylight for them to be completed. Why are thorough investigations needed - I assume to apportion blame especially if death or injury have been caused. However, given the parlous state of the criminal justice system in this country and the increasing blame culture, these investigations should be balanced against the misery and even the safety concerns of having several thousand cars stuck in huge queues - affecting thousands of people for the sake of the hope of some ineffective justice, settling insurance claims and procedure seems to be an example of how the everyday law-abiding person is completely ignored in any consideration.
Consider that it was your wife (if you have a wife) or partner, killed by a tragic accident with all the evidence pointing (on the face of it to a tragic accident)
Would you be happy that the Police took some photos, did a few measurements and then swept the debris of her destruction into a council truck for onwards transportaion to the council tip?
Whether you like it or not, death by unatural causes is a serious issue which can be the circumstances of tragic events, the negligence of others or at worst a deliberate act by some for reasons of spite or money.
Because a death occurs and it happens to be within the environment of a road, should the circumstances not be fully investigated?
These are the things that have to be considered.
Hypothetical I know but
Had your wife been involved in something that you did not know about?
Was she involved in a plot to blackmail her over work issues for large sums of money from her company and failed to deliver?
Was she involved in an affair?
Was she killed by someone who was involved in something other than driving?
There are many questions that have to be asked and answered to make sure that the whole picture is gathered before the evidence will be acceptable to a coroner.
The Police have to consider that if they fail to act to investigate the incident thoroughly, they are liable under E.C.H.R. to the relatives. The Police are a public authority and as such have a duty of care under Human rights, to do so.
The death of a person on the road is mostly a tragic accident.
The majority are down to human error or negligence of either the driver or a third party.
Occasionally there are more sinister forces at work.
The lives of dependants may hugely depend on all the evidence that is available at the time the incident occurs. This will be reflected in the amount of compensation that is payable so that a decimated, devasted family, can at least in part regain something of the shattered lives they have to somehow rebuild through the death of a loved one and more importantly, the main bread winner.
To fail to investigate properly for the benefit of a few disgruntled motorists having to sit in a queue for a few hours would be unforgivable and contravene E.C.H.R.
Remember that this may (I hope not) be a situation in which any one of us may sadly become a victim in one sense or another.
Would you be happy to try and rebuild your lives with a reduced payment of compenstaion from someones negligence, to appease the rest of the small percentage of the motoring population, who had been oh so badly inconvenienced at that moment?
I think not.
Fatal and very serious road incidents are no longer investigated by a Traffic Constable.
A detective Superintendant now oversees the investigation with the traffic department responsible for the gathering of the physical evidence and C.I.D expertise in the interview side of the evidence (much the same as in a murder investigation).
Those that are left behind as the result of a death on the road deserve no less.
I do not enjoy sitting for long periods on motorways without going anywhere.
I did so on the M40 2 weeks ago on a Sunday night between Gaydon and Banbury (over 1 1/2 hours to travel 4 miles). I was annoyed but what could I do other than wind the window down, listen to the radio and perhaps think that at least I was only wasting time? Not ebbing my life away on a motorway carriageway.
If you do not want to run the risk of being caught up in a major Police investigation on the roads, then catch the train.
In reality though, how often does this actually happen?
I read lots of posts telling me that speed should be increased on motorways as they are the safest roads in the country. If they are so, then incidents such as this are rare.
When you are stuck for an unreasonably long period, on a motorway with no where to go but fowards very slowly.
At least reflect that it is not you that the Police are having to delay everyone else for.
ONE DAY IT COULD BE
I read lots of posts telling me that speed should be increased on motorways as they are the safest roads in the country. If they are so, then incidents such as this are rare.
Madcop.
Do you think that the Motorways are the safe places that people think they are, and do you support a raising of the speed limit? Not meant in any way to be a trick or clever question, just interested in a serving officers veiw.
>> Edited by Simonelite501 on Sunday 10th November 14:37
Simonelite501 said:
I read lots of posts telling me that speed should be increased on motorways as they are the safest roads in the country. If they are so, then incidents such as this are rare.
Madcop.
Do you think that the Motorways are the safe places that people think they are, and do you support a raising of the speed limit? Not meant in any way to be a trick or clever question, just interested in a serving officers veiw.
>> Edited by Simonelite501 on Sunday 10th November 14:37
If you look at the numbers of vehicles travelling per mile without incident, then yes they are.
There is a flip side to that though. Because of the high speed involved, when incidents occur, they are generally big incidents (unless they are lucky or the incident occurs at lower speeds because of traffic volume).
Personally, I think until the standard of training is improved generally across the board, in particular to that of increased observation, then 70 mph is quite fast enough as a statutory limit.
It may do a lot of people some good to stop on the hard shoulder of a busy, fast flowing motorway and see just how fast things do actually move when they are stationary and without the protection of a tin sound proof box to protect them.
Cars have developed a huge amount in the last 20 years.
Yes they are capable of very high speed and of stopping more quickly, but to rely on the technology alone would be nothing more than suicidal.
The majority of drivers are not capable of driving at high speed. Those that take a real interest and take extra time to learn, such as tuition on track days or advanced lessons, may have some of or indeed all of the requirements. Comparitively (to the 30 million drivers on UK roads) few of the general motoring public will have the need or the desire to improve their personal standard. They do have the need and the desire to travel faster though
To allow the rest of the motoring public another 20 mph on their maximum speed would cause many more incidents of the subject of tis post. Generally, the speed on unpoliced motorways averages about 85mph to 90mph. To increase the statutory limit to this would see the same percentage increase over the limit.
I certainly would not be happy to see the average speed creep up to over 100mph as it surely would.
It is very easy to increase the speed of a vehicle but when things happen that have not been catered for through improved observation, then it is very difficult to lose that speed. This is exacerbated further if there are other vehicles in close proximity, the drivers of which have also failed to observe or cannot do so due to the positions they take in relation to trying to pass traffic that is hindering progress (tailgaters). Tailgating would not reduce in the slightest if the limit was raised.
I am capable of driving at high speed in busy traffic conditions. This is because I have had the benefit of expert tuition and years of practice. I only do so when I have the extra equipment needed to assist me in doing so. I certainly don't do it in my own vehicle, or hire vehicles as it is not safe to make progress through the other traffic without resorting to an aggressive and intimdating driving style. I also do not need the embarrasment of receiving an NIP or being stopped for breaking the law.
Until the human body develops at somewhere near the progress of the development of motor vehicle technology (in relation to impact absorbtion) , and the roads become less crowded, then for me 70 is not far off the mark.
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 10th November 15:31
>> Edited by madcop on Sunday 10th November 15:40
Thanks for the reply, on the whole I agree with your sentiments, although while Technology should not, as you say, be relied on, and the standards of driving need to be increased, technology has moved on at a pace and vehicles (if not drivers) are now more able to travel at higher speeds in relative safety. The problem I have with the 70mph limit is that it is perfectly acceptable to travel at that speed in a 1960 Austin A35 with drum brakes and crossply tyres (stopping distance simiar to the Queen Mary), and yet my daily driver, a Volvo 940 turbo which is equipt with ABS controled Discs all round, and 195 radial tyres, is also restricted to the same limit. I realise that speed limits based on vehicle type would be a ridiculous state of affairs, but I do think that the 70 limit needs to be increased. BTW, Congratulations oin your award, it was a good speech, a pity you couldn't make it yourself, but I imagine your stand in was better looking. Best wishes, Simon.
Simonelite501 said: I realise that speed limits based on vehicle type would be a ridiculous state of affairs, but I do think that the 70 limit needs to be increased.
Good point well made Simon. Speed limits based on vehicle type would surely be the ideal scenario though wouldn't it, provided you needed a "rating" (like pilots have to have for different types of aircraft) to drive them. Ie, someone with Madcops driving skills (if not inclination) would be allowed to drive their Lambo faster than someone like me, relegated to a 2CV again. Lots of liberty issues there of course.
:waitsforCarzeetoprovideURLwherethiswaspreviouslydiscussed:
There is a flip side to that though. Because of the high speed involved, when incidents occur, they are generally big incidents (unless they are lucky or the incident occurs at lower speeds because of traffic volume).
Fair point.
Personally, I think until the standard of training is improved generally across the board, in particular to that of increased observation, then 70 mph is quite fast enough as a statutory limit.
Most British drivers seem to disagree. Lot of folks seem
to travel at over 90 mph, and nearly every car capable
of over 80 mph, is travelling at over 80 mph.
Even my pensioner Dad used to take his Lada to 85 mph.
So while the limit is 70 mph, it is widely ignored.
Cars have developed a huge amount in the last 20 years.
Yes they are capable of very high speed and of stopping more quickly, but to rely on the technology alone would be nothing more than suicidal.
I fail to understand your point. I rely on airplanes to get
me about, they have technology in them. I rely on
nuclear power stations not blowing up, they have technology
in them.
What's wrong with technology ?
The majority of drivers are not capable of driving at high speed.
How about giving them a chance to do so ?
They do have the need and the desire to travel faster though
Exactly. Everyone wants to get someplace quickly.
I note with interest that millions, if not billions,
of pounds are being spent on Mr Branson's new trains,
when all that would be required would be a few changes in
the rules on the M6, ie recognise the current situation.
Generally, the speed on unpoliced motorways averages about 85mph to 90mph. To increase the statutory limit to this would see the same percentage increase over the limit.
Good point. I see nothing wrong with this.
I certainly would not be happy to see the average speed creep up to over 100mph as it surely would.
It is very easy to increase the speed of a vehicle but when things happen that have not been catered for through improved observation, then it is very difficult to lose that speed.
Nonsense. All cars have smaller stopping times than
acceleration times ie 60-0 is always less than 0-60 times.
This is exacerbated further if there are other vehicles in close proximity, the drivers of which have also failed to observe or cannot do so due to the positions they take in relation to trying to pass traffic that is hindering progress (tailgaters). Tailgating would not reduce in the slightest if the limit was raised.
I think you are ignoring human nature in this.
It's only basic hazard perception, that if you are travelling,
let's say 30 mph faster, than traffic in other lanes, you
tend to watch out more than lazing along at a paint drying
65 mph.
Certainly, above 120 mph, I watch much more what I am
doing. Below 90 mph, I don't concentrate very much on my driving. Listen to the radio instead.
Until the human body develops at somewhere near the progress of the development of motor vehicle technology (in relation to impact absorbtion) , and the roads become less crowded, then for me 70 is not far off the mark.
Heavens above. Come to Britain, live life as it was in 1965.
I can just imagine the tourist adverts.
Don't post much here but thought i'd contribute to this one as i sat in that queue on the m4 for two hours earlier in the day, I don't know for sure whether or not there was a fatality in the accident but when i passed the accident the lanes seemed to be closed becuase of the bloody big crane in the middle of the road, and when i passed the other way later that day, the whole road was blocked off so they could get the lorry off the bank, now accident investigation is fair enough, but 8 hours of it!? I do many miles all across the county and a couple of times now i have passed accidents involving lorrys on the hard shoulder, both times i have returned later that day to see the lorrys still in position, why not spend an hour or two doing the investigation, clear the debris ON the carrigeway and then come back later to clear thew lorry. it was'nt on the carrigeway and traffic could move freely past it so why was it nessacary to cause 16 miles of tailbacks, do the people responisble not realise the kind of cost this causes, in my case i have to charge an extra three hours to our customer, and since i was working for a rail company that day, mr and mrs rail traveller will pick up the tab for that. It just seems a bit idiotic to me. I also had a digital camera that day so i got some shots of the accident site, i'll get them off it tommrow and post them.
I'll get me coat.
I'll get me coat.
The Police are fully aware of the costs involved in slowing down or closing major arterial routes.
There is a chain of command that has to be accessed before the decision is made to take such drastic action.These decisions are not made lightly. The police do not close off roads for fun or to piss off the public that travel on them. They do close them if there are reasons of safety to protect other road users or to safeguard and collect evidence.
I do not know what the problem was on the M4 but I can assure you that if 2 lanes were closed for as long as you say they were, then there would have been a reason for doing so.
There is a chain of command that has to be accessed before the decision is made to take such drastic action.These decisions are not made lightly. The police do not close off roads for fun or to piss off the public that travel on them. They do close them if there are reasons of safety to protect other road users or to safeguard and collect evidence.
I do not know what the problem was on the M4 but I can assure you that if 2 lanes were closed for as long as you say they were, then there would have been a reason for doing so.
madcop said: The Police are fully aware of the costs involved in slowing down or closing major arterial routes.
There is a chain of command that has to be accessed before the decision is made to take such drastic action.These decisions are not made lightly. The police do not close off roads for fun or to piss off the public that travel on them. They do close them if there are reasons of safety to protect other road users or to safeguard and collect evidence.
I do not know what the problem was on the M4 but I can assure you that if 2 lanes were closed for as long as you say they were, then there would have been a reason for doing so.
I would argue that unless the truck was carrying toxic substances it should have been left where it was (ie out of the way) and recovered on a less busy day of the week.
Nice to see the authorities retained their sense of humour though, with their big flashy sign ordering us to "SLOW DOWN - ACCIDENT" just before J17.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff