Crash fatalities - motorways

[jwo]

Some may be aware of the crash on the M6 eastbound near the M1 this morning - i am assuming a fatality after seeing the van remains. What astounded me was the number of police vehicles in attendance - I counted at least 7 police cars (bear in mind i was going west bound at NSL - not rubber necking). Obviously these type of accidents will need surveys/forensics etc. but i was just quite surprised.

[Sgt Bilko]

Next time you drive past a murder scene, if possible, count the number of police in attendance. Collisions on the motorway are not always accidents. Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

[fish]

There was a death on the A52 on Friday which closed the road for 6hours. I drove through the scene before any attendance from the emergancy services and initaly was prepared to give help. However on seeing the dead gentlemen with a coat over his head and no other casualties I continued.

Obviously the police are asking for witnesses, there's surely no need to ring in is there as my sum of knowledge is what the scene looked like which they will have when they photoed it. I didn't actually see the incident itself as that happened a couple of minutes earlier.

[Dracoro]

Sgt Bilko said:

Next time you drive past a murder scene, if possible, count the number of police in attendance. Collisions on the motorway are not always accidents. Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

There are inconsistencies though. After all, what determines what a "murder scene" is? There has to be some suspicion surrounding the death. You don't get a large amount of police going round to someones house where a death of an old lady has been reported.
Why are motorway accidents always treated as suspicious? If they aren't why are they treated so?

[Deva Link]

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

[vonhosen]

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

Fatal road collisions are treated from the outset as a suspected unlawful killing, which means it will be treated similar to a murder scene & must be preserved. Once evidence is lost it's lost & because it's resulted in a death, everything reasonably possible must be done to establish the reason for that death & if someone is culpable for it.

The rules of evidence & the amount/integrity of it needed in order to secure convictions where offences are revealed, dictates that the course of action taken is necessary.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 11th February 18:00

[Chrispy Porker]

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

Blame the coroner.
They tend to want a bit more than 'it doesn't really matter why'
They can be funny like that.

[s2art]

Chrispy Porker said:

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

Blame the coroner.
They tend to want a bit more than 'it doesn't really matter why'
They can be funny like that.

When did this change? I seem to recall that it was different 20 or so years ago. Also how is it the Germans and French seem to get the traffic moving so much faster? What are we doing wrong?

[Dracoro]

vonhosen said:

Fatal road collisions are treated from the outset as a suspected unlawful killing, which means it will be treated similar to a murder scene & must be preserved.

Why?

Why is finding an old lady dead in her flat not treated as suspected unlawful killing?

Basically, what has given the police suspicion that unlawful killing has occurred?

[M5Dave]

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

A fatal road accident has the potential to see someone facing very serious charges that could see them sent to prison for 10 years or more.

For that reason, the police must ensure that these investigations are thorough, both to make sure the necessary evidence is gathered to support any charges if appropriate, but also to make sure people are not charged with serious offences when they have done nothing wrong, simply because assumptions were made after a cursory examination of the scene.

If that means the road has to stay closed for a few hours, then so be it.

[Deva Link]

vonhosen said:

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

Fatal road collisions are treated from the outset as a suspected unlawful killing, which means it will be treated similar to a murder scene & must be preserved. Once evidence is lost it's lost & because it's resulted in a death, everything reasonably possible must be done to establish the reason for that death & if someone is culpable for it.

The rules of evidence & the amount/integrity of it needed in order to secure convictions where offences are revealed, dictates that the course of action taken is necessary.

OK, and if a car tears through a built up area and mows down a pedestrian then that may well result in a causing death by dangerous driving charge.

However, in the flowing traffic of a major A road or a motorway, just how often does it happen that there is sufficient evidence to bring a serious charge?

[vonhosen]

Dracoro said:

vonhosen said:

Fatal road collisions are treated from the outset as a suspected unlawful killing, which means it will be treated similar to a murder scene & must be preserved.

Why?

Why is finding an old lady dead in her flat not treated as suspected unlawful killing?

Basically, what has given the police suspicion that unlawful killing has occurred?

Sudden deaths are attended, scenes are preserved from the outset. How quickly it is determined that foul play is not suspected varies & as a result how quickly those scenes are down graded.
You start at the top & downgrade from there if no offence is suspected.

Invariably there is blame with any collision & that means offences committed. If it's resulted in a death it will be fully investigated to determine to what extent & whether charges should/could be brought.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 11th February 18:18

[vonhosen]

Deva Link said:

vonhosen said:

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

Fatal road collisions are treated from the outset as a suspected unlawful killing, which means it will be treated similar to a murder scene & must be preserved. Once evidence is lost it's lost & because it's resulted in a death, everything reasonably possible must be done to establish the reason for that death & if someone is culpable for it.

The rules of evidence & the amount/integrity of it needed in order to secure convictions where offences are revealed, dictates that the course of action taken is necessary.

OK, and if a car tears through a built up area and mows down a pedestrian then that may well result in a causing death by dangerous driving charge.

However, in the flowing traffic of a major A road or a motorway, just how often does it happen that there is sufficient evidence to bring a serious charge?

As I said you have to start from the outset with the most serious & downgrade.
The Road Safety Act is giving us the new offence of death by careless driving.
Most fatality collisions will be sufficient to expect this & it's regarded serious enough to carry a substantial custodial sentence. The deceased, their families & the suspected/accused (who faces that custodial sentence) deserve that full attention is given to the details involved.

[BOF]

""When did this change? I seem to recall that it was different 20 or so years ago. Also how is it the Germans and French seem to get the traffic moving so much faster? What are we doing wrong?""

s2art,

I am not so sure that the French and Germans get the traffic moving faster..personal experience does not confirm that in either country...in 25 years of driving in both, frequently...and Belgium was even worse.

If you look at the KSI (Killed and Seriouly Injured stats) for the UK, France and Germany per head of population/miles driven...the UK is the envy of both...the French Transport Minister recently suggested a study of UK driving standards.

Despite this, TEN people have been killed on our roads TODAY (on average) and the Traffic Police do what they can to minimise this by analysing, as best they can, how to reduce this to maybe NINE per day next year?

We might be held up at times, but, regarding the system of accident analysis..."If it ain't broke...don't fix it"?

BOF.

PS - have a look here...http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-

UK is # 3 - Germany is # 8 - France is # 14

Edited by BOF on Monday 11th February 19:00

[jwo]

Sgt Bilko said:

Next time you drive past a murder scene, if possible, count the number of police in attendance. Collisions on the motorway are not always accidents. Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

would the first officers on the scene not determine the likely cause, ie rta, suspicious death, murder etc (i do of course assume that there was a fatality in this instance) and call for appropriate support.

your response seems abit abrupt for an innocent question! - especially considering it looked like an accident - a luton van running straight into the back of an aggregates truck at considerable speed.

i have never said accidents on between two or more vehicles on motorways are all accidents but certainly probably only one or two per year/5years are murder!!!

[vonhosen]

jwo said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Next time you drive past a murder scene, if possible, count the number of police in attendance. Collisions on the motorway are not always accidents. Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

would the first officers on the scene not determine the likely cause, ie rta, suspicious death, murder etc (i do of course assume that there was a fatality in this instance) and call for appropriate support.

your response seems abit abrupt for an innocent question! - especially considering it looked like an accident - a luton van running straight into the back of an aggregates truck at considerable speed.

i have never said accidents on between two or more vehicles on motorways are all accidents but certainly probably only one or two per year/5years are murder!!!

Was somebody to blame for the collision ?
If so did they commit an offence ?
What are they likely to use as a defence to that alleged offence ?
Is there physical evidence at the scene that may help to confirm or deny any statement that they or witnesses may later give ?

Any alleged offence resulting in death is going to be thoroughly investigated & quite rightly so IMHO.

[FishFace]

Chrispy Porker said:

Deva Link said:

Sgt Bilko said:

Sometimes they are murders and are treated the same way until otherwise determined.

Apart from the biker who was shot on the M40, how many apparent RTC have been determined to be murders?

The total closure of major arterial routes for hours on end is a complete nonsense. I wouldn't mind, but the results often seem either blindingly obvious in the first place (like someone smashes into the back of stationary traffic - does it really matter why, the fact is he did it) or there's no conclusive answer after much investigation.

Blame the coroner.
They tend to want a bit more than 'it doesn't really matter why'
They can be funny like that.

Dracoro said:

vonhosen said:

Fatal road collisions are treated from the outset as a suspected unlawful killing, which means it will be treated similar to a murder scene & must be preserved.

Why?

Why is finding an old lady dead in her flat not treated as suspected unlawful killing?

It is.

[Chrisgr31]

jwo said:

your response seems abit abrupt for an innocent question! - especially considering it looked like an accident - a luton van running straight into the back of an aggregates truck at considerable speed.

Well I am not a police office but I'd guess they need to answer the following questions: -

Why did the van run into the back of the lorry?
Did the lorry have its lights on?
Did it brake hard or was it at the back of a queue?
Were the brake lights working?
Was the driver of the van alive at time of impact?
Who was driving the van?
How many people were in the van?
Were all the people involved wearing seatbelts?
Did the van make any attempt to brake?
Did the brakes work?
Was the throttle working properly?
etc

All takes time before the vehicles are moved.

I was grateful that both the M6 and M25 were fully open when I wanted to come back down them!
What were the road conditions like at the time?

[Deva Link]

Chrisgr31 said:

Why did the van run into the back of the lorry?
Did the lorry have its lights on?
Did it brake hard or was it at the back of a queue?
Were the brake lights working?
Was the driver of the van alive at time of impact?
Who was driving the van?
How many people were in the van?
Were all the people involved wearing seatbelts?
Did the van make any attempt to brake?
Did the brakes work?
Was the throttle working properly?
etc

All takes time before the vehicles are moved.

Other than doing a drawing of the position of the vehicles and looking for skidmarks, the rest of those questions could (probably only) be answered by interviewing witnesses and by forensic examination at a later date.

[TPS]

Deva Link said:

Chrisgr31 said:

Why did the van run into the back of the lorry?
Did the lorry have its lights on?
Did it brake hard or was it at the back of a queue?
Were the brake lights working?
Was the driver of the van alive at time of impact?
Who was driving the van?
How many people were in the van?
Were all the people involved wearing seatbelts?
Did the van make any attempt to brake?
Did the brakes work?
Was the throttle working properly?
etc

All takes time before the vehicles are moved.

Other than doing a drawing of the position of the vehicles and looking for skidmarks, the rest of those questions could (probably only) be answered by interviewing witnesses and by forensic examination at a later date.

The thing is it will take an hour or two to photograph and mark the incident out using the gps equipment.
What you have to take into account is that the incident will be attended by the police and other services.Once its confirmed as a fatal or serious rtc then the investigation team are called to attend.This takes time for them to get there,lets say 20 minutes.So if they are there for 2 hours then that could be 3 hours gone already from the incident start.Then add an hour to recover and clean the incident scene and already you have 4 hours.