The Thunderer has this letter today regarding the M25 accident
h************************.uk/article/0,,59-1369017,00.html
Does Mr De Neumann visit here I wonder?
|
Try that again...
A certain national newspaper has this letter today...
Sir, A tanker crashed between junctions 6 and 5 of the M25 at 11pm on Friday, November 12, a serious accident which killed the driver and spilt fuel on the M25, the tanker finally rolling off the motorway.
As a consequence, both carriageways were completely closed until late on Sunday night and indeed, one carriageway was still closed on Monday morning, more than 48 hours later (report, November 15).
I dread to think of the cost of this closure in terms of money, delays, pollution and indeed accidents as the weekend traffic was forced down the totally inadequate A25 or clogged up large parts of South East London, East Surrey and Kent.
Why do we have such an apparently casual attitude to the impact of such events? Could it be a combination of safety first at all costs (with no thought of the knock-on consequences elsewhere), incompetence, lethargy, fear of weekend work or protecting police overtime?
I urge a review of the priorities when such events occur, and new guidelines which encourage a sense of urgency in those involved.
|
I wondered if this thread would raise its head again after the problems on the A25.
Sadly a 29 year old tanker driver lost his life in this accident.
The two day delay in reopening was I believe caused first by risk of explosion and the clearing of 50, 000 litres of fuel, however also I believe all the road carriageways had to be re-surfaced due to the deleterious effect of petrol on the tarmac which would explain the delay.
The push of my original thread was not to criticise the police who are acting under orders but to highlight the cost , not just in human terms when someone is killed but the consequences and cost to others and I know that it polarised opinions.
May I suggest please Mods that there is nothing to be gained arguing round this subject again and that the thread is locked.
|
May I suggest please Mods that there is nothing to be gained arguing round this subject again and that the thread is locked.
>>
especially as another more recent thread exists
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=26960&...f
|
The necessity to close roads after accidents for what seems an inordinate length of time has been raised several times in the BR. Although a subjective view, it certainly appears that roads are now closed for considerable longer than a few years ago.
It has been stated in the BR - or at least implied - that it is now mandatory that accidents involving injury/death are treated as a crime scene.
Is this correct? If so it explains the longer delays for police investigations.
Also, if it is a crime scene, does anyone know(definitively) if this is happening as a result of new legislation or revised interpretation of existing legislation by the police hierarchy?
Lastly I hope the anti-police brigade will not contribute with their usual rhetoric.
|
|
Certainly a lot of serious/fatal road accidents are treated as a crime scene as such, as it is vital that the police gather all evidence that is available if they think that they may be able to make a successful prosecution against someone for it. This I suppose is fair enough, because they would look rather silly if they tried to take someone to court for say death by dangerous driving and then turned round and said that they didn't bother measuring up (the markings on the road, skid marks etc) because they wanted to get the traffic flowing again. I assume therefore it is probably down to some kind of 'backside' covering exercise.
|
|
|
From what I understand, and I await to be corrected, if someone has been killed, or injured, then it is a crime scene. Whilst it may be accidental, until the Police have investigated, what makes me using my car to kill someone any different from using a knife?
The Police aren't going to close a road for longer than necessary so it doesn't bother me too much because I know that when the cops are involved, it's usually for a good reason that I'm sat in traffic.
Anyone else of course....
--
Adam
|
Whilst it may be accidental, until the Police have investigated, what makes me using my car to kill someone any different from using a knife?
I'm sure that some folks won't thank me for saying this, but one of the big differences is the likely punishment. If you were nasty enough to want to kill someone (rather than the nice guy you really are), then I fear that a car would be a much better tool for the job -- much much less chance of a murder charge.
I know that nearly all car-related deaths are accidental, but some of those accidents are the result of carelesness or recklessness which does need investigation. And it would be unwise to rule out the remote possibility that some might not be at all accidental.
|
Cardew
Go to
www.tinyurl.com/me10
and open up Death Investigation Manual. You will need time to absorb.
Other factors that bring this about
Legal profession that want to know the far end of a f..t
Litigation
Modern protocols dictate that serios RTA's no longer dealt with by first Traffic Officer arriving at the scene he now merely holds fort and blocks the road while Crash Investigator, Scenes of Crime Officer (Photo/Video), Exhibits Officer, Log Officer etc etc are contacted and called to the scene.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Well FWIW I think accident scenes should be thoroughly examined but that more resources should be made available in order to reduce the closure time required.
Of course some people say things like "If it were me I wouldn't want anyone to close a road on my behalf." Well of course that's easy to say over a pint in a pub but I'm not sure all the loved ones and dependents left behind would necessarily agree and of course there may be other serious implications of such a stance such as the ability to claim compensation. All in all I think anyone who is killed deserves to have a proper investigation carried out into the circumstances but do feel more could probably be done to speed things up a little.
|
>>that more resources should be made available in order to reduce the closure time required.>>
This would be realistically and economically unviable - such resources have to be geared towards the average number of serious accidents in a particular force's area rather than the maximum.
Whether it's day or night would also impact on the resources which could be called upon.
It's the same with the NHS; for most of the time its resources can cope with the demand but, during certain periods in winter for instance, that demand may prove a huge burden on the facilities available.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
Stuartli - you could be right under the current setup but why couldn't say a national motorway accident investigation unit be created to either replace or supplement those of the local police? Delays like those on the M25 the other day cost ££££millions also - it's just a question of who pays and it all comes down to the taxpayer in the final analysis doesn't it.
|
|
ps - it'd be interesting to find out what proportion of the average time taken to reopen roads is down to actual investigation, repairs, clearing etc. and what is caused due to waiting for the required personnel to arrive on site.
|
|
|
national motorway accident investigation unit be created>>
What happens if this national motorway accident investigation unit is on the M62 (perhaps doing an investigation) and there's a serious accident on the M3?
It's up to the local police force to deal with accidents, serious or otherwise, in its area.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Well to be fair Stuartli, I wasn't suggesting a man and a bike operation. I meant a properly equipped and dedicated team with the resources to attend MORE than one major incident at a time. They'd be highly mobile and needn't be based in one place and need only be comrpised of the highly trained specialists normally required at the scenes of such incidents but whom individual police forces may not have the resources to properly fund. Major incidents happen on a frequent basis so I think whatever the cost of setting this up would be more than recouped in massive savings elsewhere in terms of reduced congestion etc. etc. The problem with it being a matter for individual forces is that some may place more emphasis than others on this issue resutling in very patchy coverage and critical manpower shortages.
As to what happens if the team is tied up at one location - well that would depend on the size of the team available wouldn't it. That's pretty much the same as the sitaution we have now isn't it? Presumably if the local force doesn't have the resources available for whatever reason (e.g. another major incident or personnel shortages) they either have to get them from elsewhere or close off the scene for even longer while we all wait for them to become available. That's why I suggested an organisation which could either replace (if it were big enough) or supplement existing resources,
|
The very simple answer is to restore traffic patrols to the level - or better even higher - than a year or so ago.
Incidentally, the Highways Agency is supposed to be setting up its own motorway patrols to do something very similar to what you have in mind in keeping traffic moving as much as possible.
A national police unit, like you suggest, would just cost too much as an operation to warrant the comparatively few really serious incidents to which it would be called.
Those caught up on the M25 the other day just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
DVD,
Thanks for this.
As you indicate there has been no new legislation, but new protocols introduced by the police hierarchy. I note that the study group that laid down the new procedures was headed by Richard Brunstrom the Chief Constable of N Wales - a great friend of Bogush! It states that many fatal accidents should be treated as homicide.
As these new procedures undoubtedly cause considerable additional delay on our already congested roads, I assume they must be approved by the politicians of the Home Office.
Although the province of the Transport Police, after the recent Berkshire rail crash, nothing could be touched for 3 days as it was declared a crime scene. The cause of the crash, witnessed by a policeman, was clearly a car on the railway line. I am aware that 7 people died and the reason why the car came to be on the line needs to be investigated thoroughly. However, unless I am missing something, it does seem an excessive time to prevent repairs starting on the line.
The protocols above apply to fatal accidents. However it does seem that this 'culture' of ever more detailed examination applies to all accidents - presumably as someone could die from their injuries?
One reason put forward for these detailed and time consuming investigations is the fear of litigation against the police. Yet nowhere has a greater culture of litigation than the USA and yet all accidents, including those with fatalities, are cleared extremely quickly and the same in most other Western countries.
I wonder if we have the balance right?
|
Although the province of the Transport Police, after the recent Berkshire rail crash, nothing could be touched for 3 days as it was declared a crime scene. The cause of the crash, witnessed by a policeman, was clearly a car on the railway line. I am aware that 7 people died and the reason why the car came to be on the line needs to be investigated thoroughly. However, unless I am missing something, it does seem an excessive time to prevent repairs starting on the line.
I think you're spot on with the comment about litigation on this one. The problem with the collision above is that normally (although not pleasant) the train will simply blast through any obstacles on the track and keep going until it can stop safely. What happened here then? Did the driver brake too hard, instead of continuing, causing the train to derail? Only detailed investigation could determine cause/fault, and although it wont bring the dead people back, people who missed work/lost belongings/were traumatised need someone to sue for damages.
|
>> Only detailed investigation could determine cause/fault, and although it wont bring the dead people back, people who missed work/lost belongings/were traumatised need someone to sue for damages.
That's the most saddening sentence I've read all day. It's perfectly correct mind you.
We truly are living in a blame culture today.
|
|
Before we start condemning people with the same blame culture 'tag' we should remember that there are very many perfectly legitimate cases in which people have been forced to sue to obtain compensation due to them. People who've been badly injured and lost jobs as a result for example. Families who've lost loved one etc. My late wife was one such example and we had no option but to sue BR after she was involved in a major train crash. The system we live under doesn't help IMO - you have to prove negligence in order to secure compensation and this is not as easy as many people seem to think.
|
|
|
|
It has been stated ..... involving injury/death are treated as a crime scene.
>>
if only all causes of death were treated equally thoroughly, thousands of lives might be saved. but that would lead to hospitals being closed as crime scenes every time superbug infection killed someone ( 7000 people die each year , wich is about 20 a day due to superbug mrsa infections picked up in hospitals due to negligence by somebody ).
imho: the police do a really wonderful job overall; but need at least four times more money, staff, and equipment to cope with all the demands on them.
|
Referring back to why roads are closed for so long it may be simply that the road itself has been damaged and needs repair.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4018471.stm
|
|
|
imho: the police do a really wonderful job overall; but need at least four times more money, staff, and equipment to cope with all the demands on them.
I certainly agree with the first part of that statement; the demands on them is another matter.
We have more police now than at any time in our history. No matter how much in the way of manpower and resources the Police receive they will still need to prioritise their tasks.
The public, as taxpayers, have a legitimate interest in the areas where those resources are directed and should lobby politicians to achieve this aim.
It seems that considerable extra resources are being devoted to accident investigation on the initiative of the police themselves i.e. they have determined this additional demand. This has be done without any publicity or legislation and has only come to the attention of the public because of the longer delays at accident scenes.
|
|
Wouldn't some of the problems be solved by having a (semi) separate force, such as the Highway Patrol in the USA?
|
I have made my contributions to previous like minded threads before. The only difference this time is that I hope this is not prompted by the M25 tanker incident.
In that case it was an entirely valid option to close the road due the hazzardous nature of the incident involved. The police were probably not even the "in command" service involved
|
|
|
|
cardew -
should lobby politicians to achieve this aim.
>>
you can do so at
www.pm.gov.uk/output/page821.asp
... extra resources are being devoted to accident investigation on the initiative of the police themselves i.e. they have determined this additional demand.
>>
imho -
this is the result of a quango committee drawing up guidelines over which the lower ranks are then not considered smart enough to use their own common sense.
[ just as the new requirement as from today whereby every stop&search will have to be recorded and copy given to the "stopped suspect". once started, these types of time and money wasting fruitless exercises are very hard to stop. you need a new poitical leader with enough guts to come in and challenge the need for existing established procedures for any real chance of dropping bad habits ].
p.s. to renault family: nobody in their right minds will question need to repair and make-safe damaged roads.
|
Aren't most motoring offences technically criminal offences? So any infringement of traffic laws (other than local parking regulations) is technically a crime.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Ah I see - the mods have combined 2 threads, so the posts of 22nd Nov appear half way up this combined thread.
To comment on Helicopter's point. I agree there is no point in bring up specific accidents as we will never be in possession of all the facts. Bring up the M25 incident was completely counter productive as, on the face of it, it was not the decision of the police to keep the road closed for so long.
However unwise the author of the letter was in bring up that incident, I think his conclusion(below)in general terms is worthy of discussion:-
"Why do we have such an apparently casual attitude to the impact of such events? Could it be a combination of safety first at all costs (with no thought of the knock-on consequences elsewhere), incompetence, lethargy, fear of weekend work or protecting police overtime?
I urge a review of the priorities when such events occur, and new guidelines which encourage a sense of urgency in those involved."
Especially, as stated in posts above, it would appear that the police have introduced the new time consuming accident investigation procedures on their own initiative.
|
|
|
|
|
>> May I suggest please Mods that there is nothing to be gained >> arguing round this subject again and that the thread is >> locked. >>
Please. You know it's going to end up that way. Why go through all the pain, nastiness and mud-slinging yet again?
|
>> >> May I suggest please Mods that there is nothing to >> be gained >> >> arguing round this subject again and that the thread is locked. Please. You know it's going to end up that way. Why go through all the pain, nastiness and mud-slinging yet again?
Duchess,
Is it not possible(in a discussion forum) to discuss in a civilized manner a subject that has a considerable affect on all motorists?
The mods do a pretty good job if anyone gets out of line - and it is their job after all; also reading the thread is not mandatory!
C
|
>>if only all causes of death were treated equally thoroughly, >>thousands of lives might be saved. but that would lead to >>hospitals being closed as crime scenes every time superbug >>infection killed someone ( 7000 people die each year , wich >>is about 20 a day due to superbug mrsa infections picked up >>in hospitals due to negligence by somebody ).
Whilst it would be good to eradicate or reduce these infections, I would suggest it wise to take care not to interpret everything you read or hear on the news literally.
You might also ask whether there might be other factors giving rise to increased infection rates rather than just taking the easy line of blaming health care workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
