www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16346622
Should make a few here happy (or less grumpy maybe) - IF it works (another Govt IT scheme?)
|
The technology and system has been available for about 5 years.
"The average road closure after a serious crash is said to last for about six hours."
"the technology will benefit drivers "by reducing incident clear up times by 39 minutes on average".
Yeah. Great.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 29 Dec 11 at 09:52
|
Yes, I'm sure I've seen this technology before. It can certainly help with marking the positions of vehicles, but skidmarks and road surface grip coefficients etc will still need to be painstakingly measured as they are now.
I don't begrudge the investigators even one second of road closure time, if ever it were necessary for me or my loved ones I'd feel comforted that every possible effort has been made to determine exactly what took place and why.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Thu 29 Dec 11 at 12:48
|
|
I believe it's been in use for a few years, the difference now is that Courts will accept the evidence. I also believe that there may be some government spin - maybe some of the Police Officers on here will confirm.
|
I went to a fatal years ago.
Pulled up as usual, and wandered back to speak to the coppers only to be shouted at by one of them - I'd just trampled all over his crime scene.
Still, I was able to tell him where to find the injured party's watch.
|
The 3d stuff has been in use by the Yanks for years, they use it for all crime scenes, not just road deaths....a different application.
Cost has often been the decider here...and/or training.
The reason for the real long delays (as i've posted before)...can be...that:
- junior ranks make the decisions on an automatic basis when at times they shouldn't
(based on ACPO guidelines).
- the fear of criticism/complaint/litigation means some cases get included when they
shouldn't
- the immediate availability of specialist skills, when they've been cut back
- the civilianisation of specialist skills means you can have to wait until they are
available (e.g. police officer can be called out 24/7, you might have to wait until
0800 for a civvy..or..a police officer will stay there until the job is done, whereas a
civvy won't).
The above doesn't take in to account the need to replace barriers/road surface/structure e.g. the concrete bridge over the M1 after a fire in a scrap yard.
|
>> The above doesn't take in to account the need to replace barriers/road surface/structure e.g. the
>> concrete bridge over the M1 after a fire in a scrap yard.
Err that fire was UNDER the M1 so is rather an exception.
|
>> Err that fire was UNDER the M1 so is rather an exception.
>>
Yes, you are right.
What I meant was there's a road under it, (access to businesses and trade access to London Gateway services) as well as the M1 over it.
At times like that the infrastructure needs to be properly checked and/or repaired and it's churlish of us to moan too much about that.
|
|
We use laser scans at work - they scan the bit of the refinery we are working on, then the piping guys load it up and build the 3D model right onto it. It's awesome, you can use it to identify routes and bits of kit that would normally take a wander down to site to view, and the Pipers can take measurements direct off it for supports etc. If the proposed Gov scheme gives the functionality it will be worthwhile.
|
>> If the proposed Gov scheme gives the functionality it will be worthwhile.
>>
This will be politicians either... stumping up the cash for it, so that cash strapped police authorities can buy it..or..politicians leaning on Chief Constables to make sure they buy it oiut of existing budgets, so something else will be dropped.
There's no reason why the Old Bill couldn't have had it before, (as long as it was an approved product)...but cost would have come in to it....and for some years Roads Policing has not been much of a priority.
My guess is change of govt, change of priority.
|
It seems to me they are jumping to the wrong conclusions and not asking the fundamental questions.
If motorway crashes are crime scenes, then there must be criminals at large. If so then they should be apprehended, charged, punished, and prevented from committing further crimes.
Do these high-tec investigations achieve this?
Or is it simply the case that in an overcrowed road network, these things will happen?
Cars are powerful machines and require a level of concentration, skill and awareness that must be close to the limit that can be expected of ordinary people. Engine drivers, pilots, brain surgeons are selected and tested rigorously before being let loose with their machines, and an investigation rightly follows every lapse, even if no accident occured.
But in a culture of mass car use, perhaps it isn't worth trying to pretend that accidents are crimes, and the scenes should just be cleared up and the road reopened as soon as possible?
|
Nearly all accidents are caused by someone doing something dangerous or stupid, often criminally so. They don't "just happen". I don't think you can just sweep away the bodies and ruined lives of the victims along with the broken glass and twisted metal with a shrug of the shoulders and and tell their relatives it just one of those things.
In the case of a sudden death or accident their is always a need for relative to know exactly what happened. Do we effectively say to them as a society "we don't know, we can't be bothered to find out and we don't care".
|
I do sympathise with what you're saying CG, and at a moral level it's absolutely right. However, not a day goes by without major routes being closed for an extended period. Every time that happens literally millions of pounds are sucked out of the economy. Things don't get delivered, deals don't get done, children don't get collected on time etc etc. In the main, all so someone can be blamed for not indicating or something.
A harsh view maybe, but surely we need to encourage a compromise?
I think we can all report having seen standards of driving which would shock and astound. Maybe it's more about increasing the standards required to gain and indeed keep a driving licence rather than agonising over events which cannot be changed.
|
>>
>> In the case of a sudden death or accident their is always a need for
>> relative to know exactly what happened.
>>
That's true on an individual basis, and certainly in cases where one obvious criminal has assaulted one obvious victim.
But probably a motorway pile up has multiple causers, each culpable to an extent ranging from downright criminal through to just a bit dozy and momentarily losing concentration.
Some of these will also be victims of someone else along the chain.
In theory, if everyone followed the strict letter of the Highway code, a pile up would be impossible. I suddenly for no reason do an emergency stop at 80 mph. You are following me, but are awake and keeping the prescribed distance. So you come to a brisk but not emergency stop some yards behind me.
The lorry behind you likewise stops in time. So all along the chain, everyone stops smoothly and with no fuss, no skidding, no shunting, no damage, no injury.
But we all know that in practice it isn't like that. In the interests of making good progress we all compromise a bit, and every time we venture out onto a road, but especially a fast road, we implicitly accept a little bit of risk. Occasionally a coincidence of risks at the same time results in an accident. But I do question whether it is meaningful to say, afterwards, he was guilty of a crime, he was an innocent victim.
|
A generation or more ago people were used to having sudden death visited upon those around. The war and work in mines or factories saw to that.
Today somebody has to be 'held accountable'. There's simply no public support for the risk sharing approach Cliff suggests.
|
Indeed Bromptonaut, we seem to have allowed ourselves to become as fond of regulation as the Germans and as keen on litigation as the Americans. I'm glad I saw and lived in this country before that happened. The pendulum, as most pendulums will, has swung too far in my opinion. Over-regulation has the unwanted side effect of weakening the common sense approach.
Anyway, not my problem for all that much longer in the scheme of things. Let 'em get on with it. Perhaps in due course it'll become the fashion to carry around a little book with all the rules in it so you don't have to memorise them all at once.
Oh, hang on, that's been tried hasn't it?
:-)
|
>> Nearly all accidents are caused by someone doing something dangerous or stupid, often criminally so.
Not so. Most accidents are by someone doing something thoughless, a lack of attention, sometimes stupid, rarely with criminal intent.
However we must pursue and persecute these people as criminals, and punish them harshly as criminals because they are an easy target. After all we have an ever increasing death toll and something needs to be done. - Oh we dont - sorry never mind, lets hang them anyway.
>> They don't "just happen". I don't think you can just sweep away the bodies and
>> ruined lives of the victims along with the broken glass and twisted metal with a
>> shrug of the shoulders and and tell their relatives it just one of those things.
Why not, sometimes it is.
>> In the case of a sudden death or accident their is always a need for
>> relative to know exactly what happened. Do we effectively say to them as a society
>> "we don't know, we can't be bothered to find out and we don't care".
"It was a road accident, They are rare these days, but unfortunately your husband/lover/kith/kin/ was involved"
There problem sorted.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 30 Dec 11 at 16:00
|
"It was a road accident, They are rare these days, but unfortunately your husband/lover/kith/kin/ was involved"
"So what happened officer?"
"Well it looks like the driver who ran in the back of your wife's vehicle and wiped our your family was probably on the phone and might have been drinking but quite frankly we don't investigate these things any more. Just clear the wreckage as quickly as possible.
"Fair enough wouldn't want anyone inconvenienced."
|
>> "It was a road accident, They are rare these days, but unfortunately your husband/lover/kith/kin/ was
>> involved"
>>
>> "So what happened officer?"
"Do you really want to know? Well your husband fell asleep on his way back to you and killed 15 other people, we would have charged him with multiple charges of murder by dangerous driving, would have ended up inside for 10 years - good job he died really"
I think
"It was a road accident, They are rare these days, but unfortunately your husband/lover/kith/kin/ was involved"
is ok.
|
"I think
"It was a road accident, They are rare these days, but unfortunately your husband/lover/kith/kin/ was involved"
is ok."
I don't.
|
>> I don't.
I do. If we had a major problem with road deaths and it was getting worse then yes I can see a need for it.
We don't so I don't. Wasn't a need for it in the past when the death toll was far worse, so there isn't now.
I am not in the vengeance game.
|
>> I don't.
>>
...and neither do I.
We all see poor driving, every day of the year. Why should some clown who doesn't care less be allowed to get away with killing someone else, because they drive badly or don't maintain their vehicle like the rest of us do?
Are you really happy for the truly selfish, the underclass, the criminally negligent to get away with death just because you want the road opened quicker?
Having said the above..there needs to be a balance...and the balance isn't there at the moment, roads are often closed as an automatic reaction...and IMO the cogs of officialdom could be more efficient.
|
>> Are you really happy for the truly selfish, the underclass, the criminally negligent to get
>> away with death just because you want the road opened quicker?
If they were causing a massacre, a bloodbath, then Yes. But quite frankly the accident statistics just don't bear this out. I certainly don't want the one innocent mistake run of the mill Mr Ordinary thrown in the same basket but alas he does.
As it is the old bill have taken on a role they do not have the resources to carry out properly and in good time, for no good benefit.
|
How about an alternative take?
How many police manhours (inc civil) get used in the investigations that get nowhere? Add that to the additional funding that would become available from increased productivity of the population as a whole not spending hours stationary in traffic. That additional police time could be used to get involved in proactive road policing - actually catching "the truly selfish, the underclass, the criminally negligent" before they add to the fatality statistics.
|
or how about
"Well someone had a brief moment of inattention and made a slight mistake, unfortunately the results were out of all proportion as they can be on a motorway. Dont worry tho we will screw him to the wall, he will be made to suffer. It only took us 10 hours to scrape together enough flimsy evidence to do him"
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 19 Jan 12 at 00:41
|
or even
"We will investigate to the best of our abilities to find out exactly what happened and if there is evidence that an offence having been committed we will bring appropriate charges so that court can decide what punishment is appropriate"
|
Here we go - Punishment.
made my thoughts clear, they are unambiguous and I have consistently made them in the past, so I shall leave the field for others.
|
>>We will investigate to the best of our abilities to find out exactly what happened and if there is evidence that an offence having been committed we will bring appropriate charges so that court can decide what punishment is appropriate<<
This can go both ways, though.
"We have found the culprit. He was appropriately punished" Sorry but your relative/friend/whoever is still dead.
or,
We have found the culprit. it was your relative/friend/whoever. He/she caused the death of 15 people.
Difficult, isn't it?
|
Well now y'see my thoughts are ambiguous. I don't want to see anyone get away with behaviour which leads directly to the untimely death of others. But let's just ponder a moment on a couple of quotes from the BBC article which inspired the thread.
1/ "There were more than 18,000 full or partial motorway closures in 2010, lasting for more than 20,000 hours in total."
2 / "But even worse than that is the shocking £1bn cost of those lost hours for our economy. That is why we are determined to improve the clear-up of accidents so we can get our motorways reopened as quickly as possible."
Start doing the maths on that first one. Daily rate of closures for example. Does anyone, in all conscience believe that even a fraction of that number was really necessary? Or do you surmise as I do, that much of it was a form of "diaper management" ( covering backsides with pieces of paper ) ?
It's not just the financial implications, there are multiple social ones too.
|
I'd be interested to know how much of that time was caused by resurfacing and making safe of barriers etc.
There are always repairs to be done after accidents and contrary to popular belief, contractors arn't sitting up the sliproads just waiting for an accident to happen.
Whenever a lorry is involved in an accident, it is never long before someone sees fit to lay the blame at the drivers door. Any investigation, however long it takes and whoever it inconveniences, to lay the blame at the correct door, is fine by me.
Pat
|
|
Like I say, I have a split view. I want justice too, but I don't want jobsworth beaurocracy either. Too many times ( particularly when I was self-employed ) these delays cost me a lot more than just time and inconvenience. Some of them were no doubt necessary but I find it very hard to believe that more than a small percentage of them were. So no, the current system is not "fine" by me. It's badly flawed.
|
It is just too simplistic to assert that all the mayhem resulting from a multiple pileup is the fault of one person, and if only we could find this criminal and punish him all would be well.
It's easy when there is a train crash - there is only one driver, he may or may not have been negligent, drunk, on the phone, etc. That can be established by investigation, and if he is still alive he can be prosecuted.
But car crashes result from the inter-related actions of dozens of drivers. It is pointless in effect trying to rank them in order of culpability:
1) on the phone
2) driving too close
3) driving too close
4) eating a polo mint
5) homicidal maniac
6) driving too close
7) etc ....
Some of them might be dead. Some might be both minor contibutor and major victim. The role of some might be indeterminable.
|
...But car crashes result from the inter-related actions of dozens of drivers...
Some do - motorway pile-ups - but a lot don't.
I've covered several death by careless/death by dangerous court cases.
All the ones I can bring to mind were quite simple, driver A drives like an idiot, causes crash in which driver B dies.
Or even simpler, driver A drives like an idiot and causes crash in which cyclist or pedestrian dies.
|
The 18,000 figure will surely be for all closures not just accidents and partial closures may only be one lane. Average duration is a bit more than an hour.
Last I saw was on the M1 about 3 weeks ago between 20 & 21. Oversize HGV, the sort of thing that carries monster earthmovers, had sat down in the northbound slow lane. Any sort of safe working system for the techs trying to get it going again was going to close lane 2 so everything was having to slip by in 3. I was going south and it must have taken 5-6 minutes to see the end of the jam - and not at peak time.
Oddly we were cautioned about queue by the overheads and given an advisory 50. Saw nothing re-planned to exit at 20 and go Lutterworth > Gibbet Cross > A5. Perhaps just a heads up for the rubberneckers?
|
Motorway crash closures to be cut by 3D laser scan - Zero
