The thinking is to gather enough evidence to get to the bottom of every accident and find out the if anyone is to be held responsible. The only way to gather enough evidence is to shut the carriageway.
Yes, that I can understand, but...both carriageways? Four hours - in broad daylight? Surely there should be an element of urgency in reopening as rapidly as possible. These accidents are not, on the whole, complex. And most resulting damage is a civil matter, not criminal. Surely a few photographs and details of witnessess are all that are required to establish whether there is a crininal case to answer - e.g.death by dangerous driving. Contemporary recordings using simple dictaphones perhaps?
Obviously it is in the interests of the police to magnify the job as far as possible. What controls are there to prevent this? Whatever, things need to improve - England is gridlocked enough as it is.
|
Perhaps the accident ended up on both carriageways?
As someone else as said this was done only a couple of weeks back, to exhaustion. Try using search, several policemen came on put there point of view and the thinking behind it, whether they will be prepared to revisit a thread again so soon how knows? If I remember right the last one ended up being closed, feelings ran rather high.
|
I think this situation of closing roads and paralysing a whole area for hours is complete madness. They say it could be a murder scene, but what about "the greater good"? The cost to the economy must be absolutely immense.
Compare it with the poor girl who died after being vaccinated. Health officials were on the news basically saying the odd death is hard luck, and vaccination must carry on. Let's have the same attitude on the roads.
Edited by Bill Payer on 29/09/2009 at 21:40
|
>> Compare it with the poor girl who died after being vaccinated. Health officials were on the news basically saying the odd death is hard luck and vaccination must carry on. Let's have the same attitude on the roads.
That used to be the thinking behind a lot of RTC, that no-one had set out to kill anyone when they got in their car now it's not. For better or worse.
|
|
|
|
Remember the case of the biker who got murdered driving down the motorway?
There is also a pending case in Scotland, road rage on M74 resulted in the death / murder of a van pasenger.
I would hold fire with your full criticism until you hear what the reason was.
|
|
|
|
Obviously it is in the interests of the police to magnify the job as far as possible. What controls are there to prevent this? Whatever, things need to improve - England is gridlocked enough as it is. >>
As said earlier, tons of posts on this subject. HJ even has a FAQ on it.
But really, the Police are only following their self-appointed law makers [known as the ACPO] who decide what they will do in our best interests.
( witness their decision www.ligali.org/article.php?id=1968 and as someone said " This move by ACPO should be seen in light of what ACPO actually is – a quango, and one which still supports the behaviour of the Metropolitan Police at the G20 protests. It is a private, for-profit advisory body, and not a constitutional arm of the police of the UK. Yet we are in an age where these extra-governmental bodies determine (and subvert) the rule of law ... ")
In the meantime, families such as the one in the news today are not classed important enough to attend to ["... despite receiving 33 desperate 999 calls in ten years, police dismissed Miss Pilkington as 'over-reacting' and classed her as 'low priority'. ... ].
Edited by jbif on 29/09/2009 at 21:50
|
I drove past a crash scene this evening. Car bashed in and already on a low loader as I passed. One minor injury (from what I could see) sitting up on an ambulance stretcher. Two police vehicles in attendance - one about half a mile back, flashing blue lights, policeman making sure traffic slowed down - which we did - and one adjacent to the tow truck and ambulance, acting as a shield to passing traffic. At this pinch point, there was theoretically only one lane open but we were all doing about 30 mph and drivers intelligently moved to the hard shoulder to make two lanes, with no indication from the police to do so; common sense just took over! Everyone continued past for a further 100 yards and then resumed normal motorway speed. I counted about half a dozen cones. My total delay over this 2 mile stretch was about 5 minutes and no cars had actually had to stop.
This was on the Santander to Bilbao motorway, northern Spain. I have passed half a dozen similar scenes in the last ten years or so since the motorway opened - one with four cars involved - and never added more than half an hour to my journey time.
|
|
Yeah, it's pretty much the same in France. Maybe it's down to the basics of the legal system. In my limited experience (ie acting as translator in the equivalent of the County Court for someone involved in quite a serious incident) in France the police seem quickly to make up their minds on the scene just who was to blame and there rarely appears to be much argument afterwards.
|
Three times recently have I been affected by accidents:-
1.On A1,people were actually speeding up and squeezing past the damaged cars,so that they could be past the scene before the road was closed.
2.Next two times on A12.Traffic came to a halt on a Saturday afternoon-I missed my appointment but their were brides missing their weddings etc..Two hours later,we began
to move,I was expecting to see remains of horrific accident-minor three car nose to tail!!And then also on A12,more serious accident,lots of police but many were not actually doing anything but what annoyed me in this case was that all the A12 traffic(including large numbers of HGV) was being diverted thro' the next village several miles away when the police could have diverted the traffic back onto the A12 about a quarter mile past the scene!
In France(and Germany)I have seen police running at an accident scene.
|
In France(and Germany)I have seen police running at an accident scene.
These posts from experienced international drivers seem to confirm that, as is so often the case, the UK has much to learn from the rest of the EU. The past two weekends we have used the M11/M25 clockwise to Gatwick and back - and witnessed two huge jams owing to what appeared to be run-of-the-mill shunts. These are clearly the result of the 'speed/slow concertina' effect when the motorways are at or near capacity which is happening more and more frequently.
Accidents are usually due to multifactorial causes - and one of the biggest factors here is inadequate road provision. It's a shame all those thousands held up cannot in some way mount a class action against HMG for negligence when they miss flights/weddings etc - and employers and the self-employed might sue for the tens of thousands of wasted hours for those driving in 'working time'. When does this mobile 'kettling' amount to false imprisonment? And the relatives of those who die and those who are injured might consider suing for partial damages according to the relevance of this factor.
A few multimillion pound lawsuits might produce some action!
Perhaps HJ might start a site for motorway crash delay victims?
|
One of the biggest factors here is inadequate road provision ...
Don't be ridiculous - try to calculate the volume of road building or expansion needed to have even a marginal effect on this problem. And as we should all realise by now, traffic increases to fill any new space pretty quickly.
But the 'crunch' certainly made a noticeable improvement during the last year or so.
|
But the 'crunch' certainly made a noticeable improvement during the last year or so.
So if the crunch has made a difference, it wouldn't need *that* much extra road building, then?
|
JohnF and others: the Police actions are certainly NOT driven by ACPO. It is HM Coroner that must be satisfied as to cause of death and whether there was any criminal action. The Police have no choice but to investigate to satisfy the coroner. Why so many contributors on here cannot, or should I say, will not, grasp this principle, is beyond me. I can only conclude they simply don't want to hear. When the nation is prepared to step back from the blame and litigation culture and simply accept 'accident', then perhaps we will be able to move away from present investigatory procedures. I've yet to meet the family of a deceased person that would readily accept 'accident' as closure for the loss of their loved one. Would you? Really? It's human nature to want a proper explanation and punishment if someone's driving fell below the required standard or was plain criminal. John, you said:
These accidents are not, on the whole, complex. And most resulting damage is a civil matter, not criminal. Surely a few photographs and details of witnessess are all that are required to establish whether there is a crininal case to answer - e.g.death by dangerous driving. Contemporary recordings using simple dictaphones perhaps?
Obviously it is in the interests of the police to magnify the job as far as possible. What controls are there to prevent this? Whatever, things need to improve - England is gridlocked enough as it is.
Your first paragraph is incredibly simplistic. Breaches of the relevant law are not civil. A few photos and contemp notes are wholly insufficient in todays criminal proceedings. Without wishing to insult you, what knowledge do you have of criminal proceedings and the standard of evidence required? remember that the evidence is there to serve not only the prosecution case but also to serve the defendant and their defence team. An aspect usually forgotten in these arguments.
How is it in the interests of the Police to 'magnify' these incidents. Exactly what are you suggesting is achieved??
I look forward to your reply, but please don't forget the basic premise that the Police are answerable to HM coroner in cases of death.
|
I've yet to meet the family of a deceased person that would readily accept 'accident' as closure for the loss of their loved one. Would you? Really? It's human nature to want a proper explanation and punishment if someone's driving fell below the required standard or was plain criminal.
Hallelujah. Thank you, woodster. I speak from that position and agree. I wonder if anyone who wants the roads open at all times in all circumstances has similar experience. Somehow I doubt it. Just the usual lack of humanity and understanding we are all getting so used to.
|
I have had cause to be very annoned /inconvienced here in NI
due to RTA's
HGV's diverted down very very minor roads, and preforce meeting each other?
No follow up diversion signs no sign of urgency whatsoever
Plus on the local main road here a couple of winters ago
A wide straight stretch with wide grass verges
a single veh accident
ie a gulpin driving too fast, went way in off the road
they directed a man in his 60's coming to work on a BICYCLE
up hill round the diversion
Now why plod had not the common sense to say
just proceed sir
The idea that a bicycle wheel would disturb non existent evidence
ie skid marks
scheesh
Edited by dieseldogg on 30/09/2009 at 15:43
|
Woodster, I am not disputing the need for the police to satisfy the coroner [latest info on this pile-up; no deaths, according to local paper].
What I, and I suspect thousands of others, feel is that the police make an unnecessary meal of things in these pile-up situations. In any field of expertise one can always magnify a task to almost ridiculous proportions under the guise of 'satisfying' certain criteria. We are arguing about the degree and intensity of both satisfaction and investigation.
As it happens I do know a bit about the function of the coroner. They merely have to ascertain who died, and whether the death was natural, suicide, homicide or accidental. In most RTAs it is barn door obvious which of the four it was. And when there are no deaths there is absolutely no excuse to close a major dual carriageway for the best part of five hours.
You ask if I would accept 'accident' - roughly the same as the officer asked on the A14, which leads me to suspect you have a police background. Yes, I would.
It seems that there is little chance of any constructive debate on how to improve things with a response such as yours, Woodster.
|
|
So why is this a peculiarly British problem, according to our well -travelled posters? Are not the police just working to procedure to cover themselves in the face of our "blame and litigation culture"?
|
Not this topic again.
It's been done to death recently, with the same arguments going around in circles. The same posters with the same niggles and advice and cheesing off others who continuely bang their heads against the wall in justifying such moves.
Any chance in locking this tedious subject!
|
Not this topic again. It's been done to death recently with the same arguments going around in circles. The same posters with the same niggles and advice and cheesing off others who continuely bang their heads against the wall in justifying such moves.
which indicates its a problem then doesent it.
|
|
could this thread not be merged with the most recent one....i posted stuff on the last one that I hope was helpful and was pertinent to the debate...i can't face firing myself up again
|
|
I'll post a link if I can summon up the energy to look for it.:-(
|
This link takes you straight to WP's posting in respect of this very subject.
If the OP was minded to read it and then comment on it. The thread ran to a 165 postings.....you may feel the need to close a road whilst you do it. We may convert these threads into volumised threads so that you can read all the arguments for and against without having to recycle them continuously.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=77...3
Edited by Pugugly on 30/09/2009 at 21:20
|
PU
Unless you're yanking the OP's chain the link is wrong - points to a thread in tech about Audis
|
Oh, I move a that posting to Tech and forgot. - thanks.
Corrected it now.
Edited by Pugugly on 30/09/2009 at 21:23
|
Many thanks Mr P for your link to 'motorway cops' - I didn't read this thread. Looks as though this is a big topic causing much dissatisfaction. Not many suggestions for improving the situation, though. Just lots of defensive arguments for the status quo.
We are hampered by our costly adverserial legal system. I think we would be better served by the inquisitorial legal system which pertains in more enlightened countries - but it is in the interest of the lawyers and legislators to maintain the status quo. There seems to be no push for 'continual quality improvement' that applies to most other fields of service and enterprise.
My question remains unanswered - where is the control of checks and balances to prevent the road police making an unnecessary mountain out of a small pile of scrap metal?
And where are the ideas for speeding things along? e.g. a 'slippery road' sign indicating temporary poor road surface if there has been a fire......or the swift application of a speed-limited contraflow if one side of a dual carriageway needs to be closed for more than an hour?
Such matters of risk should be debated and decided democratically rather than the current overcautious impositions of 'authority' frightened of being called to account for some unfortunate unintended consequence.
|
|
cheers PU....particularly as my lethargy has caused you more work
|
"which indicates its a problem then doesent it."
No AE. As WP says many of us, up to 165 posts had opinions, solutions and arguments recently on this very subject. It might be a problem to you, so I suggest you read the thread and digest. It might solve the problem for you.
Edited by spood on 30/09/2009 at 22:43
|
It wouldn't need *that* much extra road building, then?
Come on, Bill - you know what I am saying. We all know that when a road is at 90% capacity, any small problem things grind to a halt. But if that road drops to 80 or 70% (because of the 'crunch'), all hunky-dory.
Anyway I am in favour of some sporadic congestion now and again - it may provide a small incentive for some to drive less, and remind us that we are part of the problem, not just that everyone else is.
:-)
Edited by Andrew-T on 30/09/2009 at 22:24
|
I know there has been a lot said about this topic before so I'll make a brief point.
Woodster said that the handling of accidents, particularly those which are fatal, wasn't driven by ACPO.
www.acpo.police.uk/policies.asp
The link goes to the policy bit of the ACPO site where you can see policy on all sorts of matters including road policing. Now it may be that ACPO are passing on what they appreciate the coroner wants but have a read.
|
It's interesting that police no longer refer to accidents, only to 'incidents'.
The reason is of course that accidents can be, well, accidental, with no-one to blame - just normal human error. Labelling something as an 'incident' means there's always someone to blame, hence the long investigation times as they have to find someone responsible.
|
Ravenger - they are often not 'accidents', which is the point. If someone is killed or seriously injured as a result of another's law breaking then what's the difference between the occurrence on the road and the GBH??. Perhaps we should put all the domestic injuries and Friday night assaults down to 'poor behavioural judgement' or some similar tag that excuses the conduct in question?
John:
If you feel the task is being magnified then complain to the Chief Constable and if you're dissatisfied with the response petition your MP to look into it. I can't disagree that road closure causes no end of problems for people and there's nothing wrong whatsoever with reviewing the actions taken in these incidents and opening up a debate. But nothing said on here will make any difference. A lack of alternative routes and the volume of traffic on our roads is not the fault of the Police, by the way.
To say that the coroner 'merely' has to determine cause of death and that it's obvious in an accident is once again crudely simplistic. If you've been to an inquest you'll know that the coroner WILL NOT record 'accident' without having the full facts. Those facts can help to protect the innocent as well as point to an accused.
When you mention that we now know there were no deaths in this particular accident I'm tempted to ask if you drive the hindsight bus? Having that knowledge after the event is irrelevant. How could the investigating officers know whether those involved MAY die? Even if they don't, their injuries can be so serious as to justify the criminal investigation. Once again I ask: what's the difference between road accident and GBH? Would you disagree with the closure of a pub to allow recovery of forensic evidence if your son was stabbed?
|
|
I'd have thought that a "pure" accident is very rare on our roads... offhand I can only think of a couple of ones that would fall into that catagory, surely the vast majority fall into the "someone at fault" catagory... the question is more whether we have no gone from the extreme of very little investigation to the opposite of too much?
|
"The reason is of course that accidents can be, well, accidental, with no-one to blame - just normal human error."
An accident is something unexpected that causes injury or damage. OED.
|
"The reason is of course that accidents can be well accidental with no-one to blame - just normal human error."
Surely that's a contradiction in terms. If a human has made an error, then that error is caused by them, so there is someone to blame. It may not be a malicious or intended, but it is a human error and will have a consequence.
|
Ravenger - they are often not 'accidents'
"Often"?
|
Once again I ask: what's the difference between road accident and GBH? Would you disagree with the closure of a pub to allow recovery of forensic evidence if your son was stabbed?
Woodster, I would have thought the difference was obvious......malice aforethought, of course. And no length of closure will reveal the workings of a mind which governs a deliberate acceleration into the back of a vehicle [rare] or the deliberate harsh application of brakes [increasingly common insurance scam - has anyone ever found a concealed switch to isolate the brake lights?].
Your accusations of simplicity I regard as a compliment. Have you not noticed that the most senior and intelligent persons in any political or business organisation use the simplest language? Obfuscation and unnecessary complexity are barriers to progress.
And your pub analogy is very poor for a number of reasons.
|
There's a world of difference between simple thought and considered use of the language. I think you've demonstrated where you are!! And no, I hear few people using simple language these days, just a world full of meaningless phrases, sayings and 'mission statements'. I might refer you to John Humphry's excellent last two books ('Lost for words' and 'Beyond words') as an easily digestible and amusing starter or perhaps Gower's 'Complete plain words'. Enjoy, should you be bothered.
Why is the GBH analogy poor? You invite reasoned debate but don't respond in kind. You've ignored the invitation to give some evidence for your assertion that the Police 'magnify' the task (pun intended?). The queue of traffic is the outcome of closing the road but arguably the task is not magnified beyond any other similar level of forensic investigation. I use 'forensic' in it's now more widely accepted meaning.
|
I'm sure these books are amusing, Woodster, but my preferred language entertainment is my weekly quest for a prize crossword pen...the second best reason for my Sat Telegraph purchase after HJ's section. [chance of an entry being picked now far more remote with the advent of online xword help....].
OK - here's a response....name at least three differences between a pub and a motorway......compare and contrast stabbing a young man with losing control of a motor car. Your answers will hopefully illustrate the unsatisfactory nature of your analogy.
I delight in reasoned debate. My assertion cannot be supported by any provable observation that will 'stand up in court' but it seems to be echoed by a large number of often highly inconvenienced people. The more I learn about our national legal service the more I am shocked by its appalling inefficiency and frequent injustice. [in stark contrast to our NHS mentioned in the 'm'way cops' thread which achieves so much with so little by international comparison].
Even the police complain about the bureaucracy and nit-picking procedures they have to put up with.
The main problem seems to be the police labouring under the assumption that a crime has or may have been committed every time there is a motorway accident/incident whereas most of the rest of us assume it probably hasn't unless it is blatantly obvious e.g. shooting hell's angels. There can hardly be any doubt that their 'forensic' approach to every pile-up is becoming intolerable.
|
How long is a piece of string?
I haven't got a clue and without answers to many questions, including these, I couldn't say...
Did they close it?(!)
Did he admit to being at fault at the scene or only much later?
How much of the road was blocked?
etc, etc
I'm sure others can think of other questions...
|
John, perhaps we're not so different, my Saturday mornings are spent with the same crossword.
Of course a pub floor and a motorway are vastly different, but dangerous driving and GBH are both crimes. I have to accept that you have an opinion; mine is that both are worthy of investigation to properly serve the victim. Of course many people are inconvenienced by the disruption. To balance the debate perhaps we should canvass the views of some injured people or families of the deceased?
Our roads are not a free for all and I think we should expect the state to provide some measure of protection. Some aspects of that protection are that the law imposes a standard of driving and there are consequences if you choose to ignore it. Without these laws and punishments then the roads would perhaps be a more dangerous place.
It often seems that criticism is levelled at the police when they are merely the most obvious part of a far larger 'system'. I was serious when I suggested that you complain and then petition your MP. Public opinion can bring change to laws. Witness the fox hunting laws.
Assuming that an accident doesn't involve something more sinister or plain careless is excatly that -assumption. Hardly an informed viewpoint. Can you honestly say that if you end up in a wheelchair at the hands of someone else's driving you'll accept no investigation by the Police?
I note your comment about appalling injustice in the criminal justice system. Most officers note this injustice too! But they are not responsible for CPS decisions or subsequent court decisions. British Police successes are rarely newsworthy. That they have one of the best success rates against terrorism and murder, with investigative standards and techniques taught the world over is not likely to attract positive comment here. Of course there will be failures - every large organisation has them. You hail the NHS yet they are beset with negligence claims for their failures. Does it mean they're all bad? I don't think so.
Yes there is bureaucracy and nit picking procedures in the Police service. But once again, don't blame the officers - they're moaning because it's foisted upon them from outside!
I respect your views, and they make me reconsider my stance and question whether my view is right, which is a healthy thing to do.
Safe driving John.
|
Nice to feel we are converging rather than polarising, Woodster.....of course I agree that tragedies caused by dangerous driving should be investigated. However, I doubt if the views of injured people would 'balance the debate'. Of all people they would probably be most likely to have an axe to grind! [although when I was knocked off my bicycle 2yrs ago I wasn't too bothered whether the driver was prosecuted or not - I obtained satisfactory compensation via my solicitor and ended up feeling rather sorry for the pebble-glassed octogenarian whose driving career I probably brought to a close}.
Which brings me to your comment about the NHS...I think you will find that the jobbing GP's and provincial specialist's annual insurance premium for 'mistakes' is somewhat less than that of a solicitor.
It is good to be reassured about our police successes in 'terrorism and murder'.....but that's not what affects most people. It is a disgrace that so much low-level crime makes life so miserable for so many thousands of people up and down the country. It is a disgrace that so many of us now feel that the police and the legal system work against us rather than for us and that the roads, which indeed used to be a 'free-for-all', are now a vast tax-raising network designed to trap as many unwary motorists as possible. [e.g. my son photographed on an unfamiliar London bus lane briefly to avoid a 'turning right' hold-up...ker-ching!]
And no, I don't blame the officers on the ground. After all, they are only obeying orders..........
|
|
As I mentioned elsewhere I have just returned from the USA and on the local breakfast TV programmes they have traffic updates every 15 minutes. Maps, accident locations and estimated delays, road works, lane closures, estimated journey times, all in great detail and in real time. An incentive for the authorities to keep things moving?
|
As I mentioned elsewhere I have just returned from the USA >>
and they also have about 15 roads going to the same place
|
|
Not where I was, maybe 2 or 3.
|
When we were in a Florida villa we kept getting automated local crime pattern updates for burglary and car crime on the telephone.
Edited by Fullchat on 04/10/2009 at 00:12
|
|
Good for re-assurance that ! :-)
|
|
|
|
|
