Safe Speed Forums

But what is that route?



Rubbernecking, frustration, tiredness and stop/start congestion cause accidents as well (and we can't change human nature much). So should we tell the coppers to get the roads clear quickly?



I'm happy when selfishness and safety coincide. That is the best of all worlds.

Well, I’ve been both the one involved in the accident and the one caught up for hours because of one. One thing I’ve learned in life is everyone else’s job always looks easy. But do they not use some kind of crack squad, (for want of a better term), which can get in, do the necessary investigation and finally clear the road with alacrity?

Like everyone else here, I am always being asked to get more out of my working day. If I can’t then it’s usually because I ‘need to manage my time more effectively’ or some such ball locks.

Does this not apply in the world of accident investigation? Is it like road works where you see cones, JCBs and building material galore but the only actual action you see is a couple of workers talking and havin’ a smoke?

I’m reminded of an accident a couple years ago where I was on my motorbike and was prevented from continuing by police because a car had veered into a tree. My side of the road was quite passable, (both sides were actually). I could see the vehicle and road ahead. But because, as I was told by an officer, "it's a crime scene” we all had to go an incredible amount of miles out of our way. Luckily, because I was on my bike, I could easily U-Turn and head back so I didn’t get caught up like the rest of the poor buggers in cars did. I can imagine what they were thinking that day.

As frustrating as it was though, I’m sure the police were doing a grand job. What other choice did they have but to block the road off?

I don’t think there is an answer unless the whole procedure can be made to be more efficient. The rest, as someone already said, is human nature.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

They don't have any "targets" for that, I expect.



Again, no targets, or penalties. They'd be reluctant if they got stung for using cones without doing work.



What a way to win hearts and minds. Who wants such a big fuss after an accident? They don't close the airport when someone falls down the steps or has a heart attack. So why do they close the road for a long time when someone hits a tree?

I take your point but I don't think that's quite like-for-like. A closer analogy may be if a fuel wagon crashed into the fuselage of a 747. Would you be happy to board it unless, and until, there was a 100% assurance that it is safe to fly and the area is secure?

I don't know what constitutes a crime scene, but if someone was killed in the car or drugs were found thrown from the car before the crash for instance, you wouldn't want the area to be 'contaminated' by other traffic passing by. If, however, the car ran off because the driver tried to avoid a fox and no-one was hurt, I don't see why it shouldn't be a quick and simple affair.

I don't think we should try and second guess what goes on in these cases because we are not there and don't have all the facts.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Who needs ALL the facts, certain elements only need the fact that it constitutes a minor inconvenience for them to be convinced that its wrong.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

If we were to analyse ALL the facts ALL the time, we wouldn't be able to leave our homes. We must keep the 80/20 principle in mind. I think it might be sufficient to analyse (say) 1 in 10 accidents, and leave the rest. That way, much data is retrieved from some wrecks. The cops would have the time to properly deal with that data (and effect change) without pissing all the commuters off all the time. We mustn't be shy of second guessing what the coppers are up to - the interests of motorists are being compromised because of irritating "safety first" attitudes by the "authorities".

But that's a rare, unusual event. On the other hand, it would be usual to have hundreds of serious car crashes each day. Crashes are normal and expected (hospitals "expect" so many victims each day), so why spend lots of time and money on them all? Surely we just need a representative sample?

This is all well and good, until the day it happens to you or a loved one. (Hopefully never). You're not a NIMBY sort of guy are you Abercrombie?

I must say that in all my travels through work over the years, which is considerable, it’s actually quite rare that I get a major hold up; the type where you switch the engine off and the radio on to find out what’s happened and why you haven’t moved in half an hour or more. (Maybe I'm lucky?) By enlarge, the bad jams I get stuck in are down to the sheer volume of traffic at peak times or road works – or both.

I agree with you Robin, that most drivers seem to care more about their journey than any carnage or casualties ahead, sadly. Actually, I’m sure I remember a thread from the past along these lines from last year; started following a terrible accident on the motorway I think. Here I go…

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

My memory is good. It’s relevant but possibly inappropriate to bring up here. If so, can a mod delete please and accept my apologies?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=14516&hilit=cleared

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Well quite! If we want to be strictly accurate then more tailbacks are caused by people following too closely than by lane closures after accidents, or indeed for any reason. Its almost certain that self-centred, impatient drivers are responsible for more £s worth of lost time than any other reason! Let's not kid ourselves that these abhorrent little individuals are in any way concerned about this though, only the impact on their own poorly-planned time.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

How do you know? We know he has posted similar crud before now

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Again, we are "blaming" human nature. If people follow too closely during accident lane closures, that is a fact of life. Pouring scorn on the "abhorrent little individuals" serves no purpose; they can't hear you. You can reduce the lane closures, or do nothing. You can't expect to change drivers.

No, you're wrong. Its not that those following too closely during lane closures are causing the delays, its that those following too closely on otherwise free-flowing motorways/dual-carriageways are causing more delays than lane-closures due to accidents.

Furthermore, those that complain about minor delays to their own journey, while singularly failing to integrate any sort of contingency into their ill-planned time, at the expense of potentially life-saving investigation are abhorrent, and seem to display a lack of empathy present only in sociopaths. These self-centred, incogitant individuals are the ones who always seem to be in a hurry, and are of course completely unaware that their own driving behaviours are the cause of many more delays than those they moan about.



Seems to sum up your attitude perfectly; "you can't change me, so just make my passage easier". Changing drivers is the only real way to road safety, and is of course possible, a huge numbers of factors are moulding the driving population's behaviours and attitudes daily, unfortunately largely for the worse at the moment. Increasing road safety, and thus reducing accidents, will do away with many of these lane closures you bemoan so vehemently, and a good way to start is for people to stop driving like impatient imbeciles.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You appear to be saying that more lane closures will result in less lane closures. Is that it?

PS: I have to ask, because it is not my experience that more lane closures result in less lane closures.
I think we just get more lane closures...

I notice that Abercrombie has pointedly avoided answering my question from my last post.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I'm intrigued about what you want because there was no question in your last post.

Its not the first time you have, be it through malice or ignorance, utterly failed to grasp/misrepresented what I have said.

What I am saying, and I shall try to dumb it down as much as possible for you, is that the study of the causes of accidents (carried out during lane closures, after accidents) will lead to a greater understanding that can be used to prevent further accidents (and the associated lane closures). I think that is clear enough to anyone with an inkling of wit.

Perhaps the part you were struggling with is that impatient prats, who at any time follow too close to the vehicle ahead (and no doubt moan about the effect someone dying has had on their own self-important time) are the cause of many, many, many more man-hours of delays on our motorway/dual-carriageway system than lane closures.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Don't be daft - they've been investigating car wrecks for a hundred years. If they don't know what causes them yet, they'll never know!



Well, I don't know about that, because I rarely drive faster than 55 mph. In any case, it's no good moaning about all that - they can't hear you, RobinXe.

PS: Look, I'm just highlighting a general problem with the British. They only know how to spend money and waste time. You can't investigate every crash - it's a waste. Coppers should be able to tell a plain crash from an "interesting" one, and act accordingly.

What has your speed got to do with following distance? You seem to be hearing me fine, its the understanding that seems to be the issue.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You said it yourself, bud - impatience.