[Closed] Closing roads after accidents - is it worth it?

Depending on what has happened it takes time to repair barriers, surface and clean it up.

Every big accident is a potential unexplained death, so I understand that investigations need to be thorough, damaged road surfaces need fixing.

Not sure how investigation time compares to a fatal crash on the motorway to a fatal crash with a cyclist on an urban road.

Be interested to know how we compare with other similar countries.

The UK health and safety wombles will always close things down for far far far longer than its actually necessary. Regardless of the cause or type of accident.

I suppose you would prefer that the swept the road and filled in holes etc. With normal traffic going by?

This appeared on my timeline yesterday

https://dcarvsgt.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/a-diversion-from-my-day-to-day-life/

I get the impression we do the 'investigation' bit properly. We then just fail to do anything about it to take dangerous motorists off the roads and re-engineer the roads to make them safer for all road users

Only four posts until health and safety gone mad. New record?

I get the impression we do the 'investigation' bit properly. We then just fail to do anything about it to take dangerous motorists off the roads and re-engineer the roads to make them safer for all road users

It's a lot easier to assess something that's happened and is in front of you. Than to identify who is driving like a twunt today.

And I'm far from convinced that all people that drive dangerously are driving dangerously all the time. That said, some people do seem to get away lightly with some ridiculous driving after being caught.

[i]I suppose you would prefer that the swept the road and filled in holes etc. With normal traffic going by? [/i]

I wouldn't prefer anything, I genuinely have an open mind.

I get the impression that the Police won't 'clear' the scene for repairs until they've finished and that they'll want to do that in daylight. So it could, in the incident above be 5, 6 or 7 hours before anyone's allowed to start carrying out repairs etc?

I suppose you would prefer that the swept the road and filled in holes etc. With normal traffic going by?

I passed the scene of a recent accident in Edinburgh yesterday, at a big roundabout. It was two lanes so traffic progressing, in one lane a poor Police man had put two plastic boxes over what I can only assume were tire marks, and was guarding them. Always gives me the shivers, the marks on the bonnet or the car in front of the tire marks made it look like said driver had hit a pedestrian or cyclist as he entered the roundabout.

The police really don't want the road closed for any longer than absolutely necessary. And it is absolutely necessary to gather the evidence they need at the crash scene - of course there may be a chance that someone down the chain will fail to use that evidence correctly, but there's certainly no hope of successful prosecution if they don't take the time to investigate.

The last paragraph of that linked blog should sum it up for people who are cross because of relatively minor inconvenience.

So I ask you, to use that time in the queue to do one thing. Think about your family. Think how it may be if your loved one was trapped in that car with a severed spine, think if you were never going to see them again. Think that that appointment probably can be rearranged again, and think about the family liaison officer walking towards the house with the childrens toys on the garden path. Then when you get back home, hug your family.

They're more than likely not investigating to make the roads safer, rather investigating so the insurance companies involved can attribute blame and work out how much money they can make and from who.

I know what you are getting at OP. Happens near me and I'd always be interested in what causes were found and what lessons learnt as a result of the investigations but nothing is made public. You'd think that after 4-5 accidents at the same junction someone was using the information but nothing changes. So - why bother?

I don't want to sound like a hand-wringing yoghurt knitter, but it does sadden me slightly that we're so desensitised to RTAs that our collective reaction to someone potentially being killed these days is outrage that we've missed Coronation Street.

And if it has to be this way, we could at least be desensitised even further so that we don't all feel compelled to slow down to walking pace as we drive past to get a good look at a crumpled car which is broadly identical to every other crumpled car we've ever seen ever.

People, I tell you.

They're more than likely not investigating to make the roads safer, rather investigating so the insurance companies involved can attribute blame and work out how much money they can make and from who.

Now I'm no genius here but aren't the insurance companies betting on accidents NOT happening?

but nothing is made public. You'd think that after 4-5 accidents at the same junction someone was using the information but nothing changes. So - why bother?

No. I mean made public. Put into the public domain. Made available for the public to access. If there's a common cause of accidents at a location do you not think it would be in the publics interest to know and perhaps therefore improve things?

cougar, if the delays felt justified because;

1) time taken to treat injured at scene, free them etc
2) clear up any damage to road/roadside
3) recover vehicles

I don't think anyone would mind.

There seems to be this extra step of

4) spend hours gathering evidence for a prosecution that may or may not happen adn for which the sentence is likely to be trivial.

if it was

4) spend hour sgathering evidence with a view to establishing if changes ot raod layout/speed limits/signage would prevent another accident AND THEN MAKE THE CHANGES

maybe people not directly affected would feel less like a waste of everyone's time.

Clearly the victims need to be a priority, not just scooped off the road 'cos they're delaying the traffic but I think I was asking about proportionality.

Is the time spent establishign the cause of an accident proportional to the eventual outcome of any criminal charges?

Is it 'worth' causing so much disruption to others .... for the outcome to often be so trivial?

Now I'm no genius here but aren't the insurance companies betting on accidents NOT happening?

Now I'm no genius here but aren't the insurance companies betting on accidents NOT happening?

I think they're mainly focused on not paying for them. They need a few accidents to warrant your obligation to pay for something you're statistically unlikely to draw more from than pay into.

No. I mean made public. Put into the public domain. Made available for the public to access

Like this, you mean?

http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/article/25501/Road-safety---collision-information

I'm sure that many local authorities would publish similar reports.

If you don't gather the evidence how will you know if it was a simple accident or a criminal act that caused someone's death. So how will you know which cases to prosecute with your limited resources? Or should we just accept that everyone makes mistakes and not bother finding out whether someone's dad died because of a medical problem, a mistake he made, a mistake someone else made or a wilful act by someone else?

What.... Paying out makes for more profit? I hope your not an accountant...

No. I mean made public. Put into the public domain. Made available for the public to access

I was travelling next to a car that was rear-ended on the M4 a few years ago and I have to say the emergency services and the 'Wombles' were incredibly efficient with dealing with the mess and the investigation work. Closed the motorway for 3 1/2 hours through rush hour and everyone was swearing at them for closing the road despite there being the remains of a Clio scattered across 2 lanes and a very much shorter van in lane 3.
I was used as a witness for the prosecution against the van driver so had a good chat with the police about what was going on at the time and he said that if they miss one bit of info or record it wrong then the defendant's lawyer will jump on it to get the charges dropped so they are super-careful about following procedures. He did say that the 3D scanners they use have nade the job easier but it still takes time to check everything's done correctly.

The van driver got a ban for 12 months IIRC after they found his phone mid-text on the road somewhere. Without closing the road that would probably not have been found.

The last paragraph of that linked blog should sum it up for people who are cross because of relatively minor inconvenience.

Why exactly? It's sentimental twaddle.

It adds nothing to improving the situation. It's the equivalent of "our prayers are with..." bollocks.

If one wanted to do something constructive in a traffic jam, perhaps composing that letter lobbying for safer infrastructure or making plans to change your own journey needs to reduce congestion might have a more measurable positive impact than a little pithy whimsy.

[i]I'd rather we got the prosecuting/sentencing bit sorted out[/i]

[i]The van driver got a ban for 12 months IIRC after they found his phone mid-text on the road somewhere[/i]

quite.

Bobbies are quite keen to reopen roads in cases where there is minimal/no injury involved (inc whipcash, which gets recorded as minor injury only by our local boys in blue. However they will shut it all down to allow a proper investigation to take place if death, life threatening or life changing injuries have occurred. Which I think is kind of fair enough; regardless of how the incident is treated by the courts, I'm happy that police treat such incidents as seriously as they should.

If one wanted to do something constructive in a traffic jam, perhaps lobbying for safer infrastructure or making plans to change your own journey needs to reduce congestion might have a more measurable positive impact than a little pithy whimsy.

I saw it more as an coded instruction to stop whining about missing your tea.

A few years ago the Northbound M5 was completely closed for several hours, due to a "jumper" on Avonmouth bridge. It caused chaos.

I was speaking to an official from Bristol Council and he told me they would never do it again, as they reckoned it led directly to several deaths in Bristol when Emergency Services could not reach people due to the knock on grid lock in Bristol City Centre.

What.... Paying out makes for more profit? I hope your not an accountant...

Look, I heard it on Radio 4 so it [i]must[/i] be true... 😉

Sitting in traffic jam caused by such an incident gives me time to reflect on the years I've been given and the years that I hopefully have left.
But it is a valid point that all the investigations carried out are a waste of time if nothing changes.

And I'm far from convinced that all people that drive dangerously are driving dangerously all the time.

I'm absolutely convinced that most of them are. The idiots who drive up my street at 50+ do it every day at near enough the same time - I don't believe they're not speeding on every other road as well. The guy in the BMW 3 series on the A12 on Sunday afternoon undertaking and cutting in at high speed hadn't just had a momentary lapse of concentration. I don't suddenly think 'i've never updated facebook at the wheel before but i really must let everyone know what a good day i've had"

Yet when driver kill and end up in court the court always gives the benefit of the doubt and treats it as if it's the only time they've ever transgressed. [url= https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22otherwise+of+good+character%22+careless+driving ]"Otherwise of good character"[/url]

It's not even the defence - it's usually the bloody judges. "The judge said that although Jeffers was on bail at the time of the accident, it was only for a minor offence and he was otherwise of good character." Really? That was for "AN unqualified and speeding driver who killed a woman as she crossed the road has had his jail sentence cut."

There's a timeline of an accident/road closure [url= http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.uk/M5-crash-Police-explain-road-closure-timetable/story-20002836-detail/story.html ]here[/url] that explains what goes on.

Roads aren't closed routinely after an accident. You'd be amazed at how often they keep them open and let traffic pass slowly, we're also often asked to move quickly so it can opened. However if it's a fatal, potentially or serious injuries it's closed and the scene protected. Everything is marked up and photographed you get a right bollocking if you disturb a 'crime' scene without a good reason.

Yes it's worth a little inconvenience to protect those on the scene initially and those clearing it up.

martinhutch - Member

Only four posts until health and safety gone mad. New record?

Here you go...

https://dcarvsgt.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/a-diversion-from-my-day-to-day-life/

... a little long, but well worth the read. There's even a bit about two coppers just standing there, talking on mobiles. For those who see only that.

The derisory sentences are down to the courts, probably because our prisons are already full.

And I'm far from convinced that all people that drive dangerously are driving dangerously all the time

On my 25-mile commute I see the same stand-out characters every day. They don't seem to realise how noticeably bad their driving is whether it's intentional or not

I recall the chap who, every morning, used the right-turn lane as an overtaking lane and, at its end, carved his way back into the queue. I think 'social psychopath' probably explains it.

I once was stuck on one of those massive Autobhans in Germany, about 100k out of Vienna. And IIRC (was 10yrs ago) in the queue for about 1/2hr... couldn't see the accident as was too far ahead, then this massive Helicopter flew over with a massive grappling hook on it.. I could just see ahead it lower the hook and pick the car (s) up and dump them on the side of the road, then the sirens for the Ambulances and Police arrive on the hard shoulder.

Took about another 1/2hr to clear before we were all on our merry way again.

Not too sure if that still happens over there, but always thought "good idea"

I mean, if someones no longer alive, they're no longer alive are they...

Don't think it's just the blatant idiots see so many going slow but clueless or just not looking.

They don't seem to realise how noticeably bad their driving is whether it's intentional or not

The normalization of deviance is defined as: The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm

Right

I mean, if someones no longer alive, they're no longer alive are they..

Classy.

None of this applies if you're a cyclist, of course:

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35537472 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35537472[/url]

[i]Marc Dunk, 28, died in February 2010 when he was riding to work in Thanet.

In 2015, Kent Police admitted failing to fully investigate the crash following a case review. [/i]

Just cyclists then?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11727935/Car-crash-victim-and-injured-passenger-left-for-three-days-as-police-failed-to-investigate.html

I always find it a little saddening when road accidents are reported as delays rather than a life changing event for the victims.

Injury and the subsequent delays are just two of the costs we pay for whizzing around like demented chickens IMO, you could slow down a bit and have less of both.

The derisory sentences are down to the courts,

probably because our prisons are already full.

I suspect a combination of CPS going for a lesser offence, and the judge sentencing towards the bottom of the range.

I do remember a fuss when a researcher couldn't find a single maximum sentence, for burglary though...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7997092/Revealed-not-a-single-burglar-gets-maximum-jail-sentence.html

... so there wasn't a single worst case.

but there are so many other countries were they get the roads cleared with half of the hype and fuss we put into it.

How the hell did you work that out?

I had a bit of fairly quiet Autobahn on my commute in Germany, when I drove. In 6 months it was closed a couple of times for several hours. And that carried a fraction of the traffic that the M25 or M6 does. I'm sure I read somewhere that the M5/M6 through Brum is the busiest section of motorway in the whole world.

Is the time spent establishign the cause of an accident proportional to the eventual outcome of any criminal charges?

Sure, and I take your point. Thing is, most of us are viewing the situation with ignorant eyes. I don't doubt that a) they work as quickly as is practical and b) even if it's not followed up, an investigation of the scene has to take place. Just in case it's needed.

Because really what this boils down to I think is, you're asking the wrong question. Is the time spent disproportionate? Well, yes, it may well be if after all legwork is done the judicial system ultimate goes "ho hum, just another dead cyclist, he didn't have a helmet on so it's his own fault." A better question might be, [b]why [/b]is it disproportionate? The failure here isn't too much unnecessary investigation.

To the OP: be grateful that you live in one of the few countries in the world where the authorities actually CARE about how accidents were caused and make some effort to prosecute the person who caused them. In most other countries an accident is considered an act of God (religious fatalism and acceptance of disasters as God's will are the worst enemy of Africans) or is hushed up because it was caused by somebody related to somebody important or because the Police just can't be bothered or don't have the resources or the skills.

If your child or relative was killed by an idiot driver, you would want the accident investigated and the person responsible prosecuted, I'm sure.

To the OP: be grateful that you live in one of the few countries in the world where the authorities actually CARE about how accidents were caused and make some effort to prosecute the person who caused them.

Absolutely, very good point.

I'd also add the general dismissal of 'uneducated' or poor people by the middle classes in some countries.

4) spend hours gathering evidence for a prosecution that may or may not happen adn for which the sentence is likely to be trivial.

if it was

4) spend hour sgathering evidence with a view to establishing if changes ot raod layout/speed limits/signage would prevent another accident AND THEN MAKE THE CHANGES

If that really is what you're concerned about then you should be grumpy about, and directing your anger at, the lack of changes and sentencing, NOT at length investigation and delay.

I get what you're saying, but you seem to have got to the point where you've resigned yourself to the fact that it's pointless so we should just give up and clear up quicker, but that's backwards, we should be grumpy about the lack of action later on and MAKE the delay worthwhile, not give up because the system is wonky.

Is the time spent establishign the cause of an accident proportional to the eventual outcome of any criminal charges?

ie: the answer currently is probably no, it's not proportional, but that can be fixed one of two ways, reduce the time establishing cause etc. or INCREASE the sverity of the outcome, which would restore proportionality and balance.

I'm in favour of the latter, and not prepared to accept the former just because the latter is a bit too hard.

Britain has some of the best-designed and signed roads in the world, which is remarkable considering that most of our road network grew from bridleways and turnpike roads that were created centuries before cars were invented. I bet if you checked the accident statistics, you'd find that British roads are amongst the safest in the world despite being the most congested.

globalti - Member
Britain has some of the best-designed and signed roads in the world

You Jest.

Thats a joke right?

Thats a joke right?

not really...

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/death-on-the-roads/en/#deaths

only Kirbarti, micronesia and sweden have less road deaths per capita. And I don't even know where two of those are.

They're more than likely not investigating to make the roads safer, rather investigating so the insurance companies involved can attribute blame and work out how much money they can make and from who.

Yes, we often spend hours investigating fatal accidents just to make insurance companies more money 🙄

A few good points here, just to try and give some perspective. Lengthy reports are submitted after most RTC's and the stats do get collated. It might not seem like it on face value, but the information is used by local authorities to try and reduce road casualties where possible. Unfortunately at this moment in time the funds are rather low (none existent)so it happens less.
As to the question of whether it is worth the delay to fully investigate; a lot of accidents it is unclear initially how serious the injuries may be. Some casualties look as though they may have suffered fatal/life changing injuries, and are out of hospital in a week. Others seem ok and rapidly deteriorate later. So this is why each reasonably serious accident it treated as a 'scene' and the investigation is done.

Also understand the frustration in the low sentences often handed out, but this is pretty much prevalent for many types of offences police deal with, not just RTC's.

Lastly, just to clarify, exactly the same amount of time (ie, that is fundamentally necessary to thoroughly investigate), goes into a cycling fatality as any other. The road may or may not be closed as long due to debris etc, but the work is just the same. Drivers are arrested for 'death by dangerous', but ultimately the CPS decide the charge, and they have fairly strict guidelines/targets, and the courts make the decision. Not right in my opinion, just the way it is.

spend hour sgathering evidence with a view to establishing if changes ot raod layout/speed limits/signage would prevent another accident AND THEN MAKE THE CHANGES

Sorry - they are constantly making changes to the roads to improve safety. Lots of little things, and big expensive things too. You're moaning about what they haven't done and ignoring what they have.

Honestly, the level of ****ing whingeing on this thread is ridiculous. Talk about ****ing first world problems. You have no idea.

Try driving in that advanced well developed country known as the US for 200 miles of rammed 2 lane Interstate across the plains in the dark with sideways blowing rain with no cat's eyes and no crash barriers unable to see a thing, massive HGVS bombing past in either lane at 75mph. Then come back and moan about the M25.

Put a little more forcefully than me molgrips but spot on

My experience is similar to Drac's - the police and Highways generally want to reopen roads as soon as possible after an RTC, and if its possible to safely keep the traffic flowing, they will - I've attended incidents on trunk roads where we've been cutting a casualty out of the car a couple of metres from running traffic and we're always under pressure to make up kit quickly once we're done.

Generally if the road is closed, there is a good reason - sometimes scene preservation and investigation following a serious incident, but often it can be for repairs to the carriageway, clearing up contaminants / fuel spills etc.

To echo Drac and Cougar here, FFS I can not believe some of the attitudes on here. As a Cop I have been to my fair share of RTC's. I have also had to deal with the aftermath. If your loved one was killed or had lifechanging injuries as a result of an accident would you not want to know how/why? We try to minimise the disruption as best as possible, but an investigation will be needed, evidence will need to be gathered.
Think on, next time you are held up or you have had to be diverted and you are slightly put out. Your day probably isn't as bad as some other poor sods.

[quote=slowoldgit ]I suspect a combination of CPS going for a lesser offence, and the judge sentencing towards the bottom of the range.
I do remember a fuss when a researcher couldn't find a single maximum sentence, for burglary though...

I'd bet that there's not a single motorist who's got the maximum sentence for killing a cyclist through dangerous driving [b]ever[/b]. Of course that's a bit unfair, as the definition for the highest category is for behaviour which isn't the sort of thing which usually kills cyclists - however the issue then is with the sentencing guidelines effectively having a much lower "maximum" sentence than the headline one for the sort of driving which does kill cyclists. Nothing is seen to be wrong because there is a possible 14 year jail sentence, even though that doesn't in practice apply to the sort of incidents we're concerned about - texting while driving (over a long period) for example falls into level 2 with a maximum of 7 years. In reality of course typical sentences are right at the bottom of the range for the level of the offence, because all mitigation no matter how spurious is taken into account, and aggravating factors such as it being a vulnerable road user aren't (from what I can work out that actually ends up being mitigation through victim blaming more often than not).

Which leads me onto the supplementary - has a motorist ever got the maximum sentence for killing a cyclist through careless driving? An offence where I'd expect most cases to be the highest level (I mean how far short of dangerous driving can it possibly be to kill somebody?) Or another supplementary, given a lifetime ban is within the sentencing range for either of these offences, has that ever been given?

Apologies for the huge diversion, I'm afraid I was dealing with death by dangerous driving.

Yesterday evening I was eating pancakes with my PC neighbour who is applying for a job in whatever department it is that advises PCs on IT and The Law. He showed me some of the rules that a PC has to know and follow when they enter a property, for example to investigate a sudden death, and find laptops, phones etc. open and switched on. All of that is designed to ensure that a Defence lawyer can't demolish a prosecution because the PCs on the scene didn't follow the Law. I'm certain that the same requirements exist for traffic officers investigating an accident that has possibly been caused by criminality; there must be very clear rules on what they can and cannot do as part of the investigation.

All part of the wonderful adversarial justice system we have - which I do sometimes wonder if it really leads to justice being served. I'm certainly not in favour of convicting innocent people, but it seems that principle is used an excuse by lawyers to get off people who are clearly guilty.

Two weeks on Jury Duty recently confirmed to me what a late friend, a solicitor, always said: that the British justice system may not be perfect but it works most of the time for most people.

people who are clearly guilty

Motor insurers are pretty bad at making money:

http://www.ey.com/UK/en/Newsroom/News-releases/15-06-25---Motor-insurance-market-reports-2014-is-second-consecutive-year-of-profit-since-the-90s

Motor insurance market profits will be short-lived according to EY’s annual UK motor insurance results seminar today, which predicts the industry will drop back into the red in 2015 after just two years in the black. Insurers have not been able to maintain more than two consecutive years of profit-making in the last 30 years 1, and before 2013, had not made a profit since 1994.

To clarify:

I'm not complaining about the impact on me personally my question is does the way the criminal justice system works justify the effort put into the scene of an 'accident' - it's been pointed out above, there's lots of good work done at the scene but the CPS/Judicial system that then kicks in does not reflect the time and direct/indirect cost of the initial investigation.

It's not whining, it's not trying to denigrate the work that's done.

It's asking if, in the light of the outcomes it's justified?

molgrips - Member
Honestly, the level of * whingeing on this thread is ridiculous. Talk about * first world problems. You have no idea.

And clearly you do..

Enlighten us o'holy one.

Because from a ground up level we think the road network in this country is not only a joke, but a joke thats been in place for 30+ years. It's not only a boring joke, but a joke you could tell to a mirror for all the good it does.

A3 - two lanes.
A1 - two lanes.

Thats a joke in the 21st century.

M25 - 3 lanes then 4, but then 3 again, but hey 4 again, oh, no 3 again..
M11 - 2 lanes, nope now 3, nope back to 2 again.. oh look a hill.. oh look a queue of trucks trying to overtake each other doing 55.5mph and a queue of traffic for 6miles behind them, and then turns onto the A1 with 50mph limits on it..
M1 - 3 lanes, oop's no, theres the hard shoulder you can/can not use only when the invisiable traffic Gods think it's fine for about 11mins on a Sunday when you can use all 4.. but hang on the signs on one section say you can then on another say you can't then the next say you can...
M27 - 3 lanes, nope two, nope 3 again..
A27 - single lane, nope 2 lanes, nope single for the most part then ooop's hey look another lane...

Joke.

I could go on, but it's just too boring.

I could go on, but it's just too boring.

As you've conveniently ignored. we have some of the safest roads in the world.

granted they are far from perfect but they are pretty good.

I could go on, but it's just too boring.

It's also wrong.

I didn't say it was perfect, so yes you could quite easily list lots of faults. However OVERALL it's much better than many countries. The list of stupid things could be long in any country.

Like in Germany sliproads that are waay too short, or two lanes of crap road surface and winding around hillsides with short lines of sight where AMG Mercedes drivers can blast along at 150mph as they please, but the trucks are still doing 56mph cos it's an EU law, so you look in your mirror and see 1/4 mile of clear road, and you wonder if it's enough, so you hold your breath and pull out, flogging your poor little car for all it's worth and some git still comes flying up behind you flashing his lights and gesticulating.

Or in Sweden where they turned off-ramps into on-ramps when they moved from driving on the left to the right, and they are far too short and the sight lines are wrong.

Or in the USA where they don't have cat's eyes at all. Coming back home and onto the M4 is sheer joy after that. And they don't have roundabouts, instead endless traffic lights or the bizarre four-way stop. And no road markings in junctions. Or windy roads that have constant radius bends separated by straights, rather than roads that actually flow. Or broken crazy-paving concrete road surfaces. Or the aforementioned HGVs doing 75mph legally, in all lanes. Or in Maryland where they put service stations *in between the carriageways* so you have to pull straight out into the fast lane! And non-reflective signs.

Or Paris, where the roundabouts on the Peripherique are just massive stock-car style ovals where for the traffic lights all you get is a single white line to stop at alongside about 7 other cars all of whom floor it as soon as they go green. Or those lovely clear autoroutes where it costs you about £100 for a day's driving.

Honestly - it really pisses me off when a lot of people put a lot of effort and money into huge improvements over the years, and all the grumpy bastard public can do is continue to whinge.

Some years ago I knew a Road Traffic Officer who attended the scene of an RTC, it was seemingly fairly minor and the motorist was clearly at fault, so after a few photos and then clearing up the scene reopened the road as it was on a fairly major junction they reopened the road.
Two days later the motorist rather unexpectedly died from complications.
That changed things dramatically and the investigation took on a whole different focus.
There were some rather red faces as potential evidence hadn't been gathered, then when the dececde's family's legal people got involved a class 1 s**t storm blew up!
If the unfortunate happened to some one we knew we would want a proper job done no matter how long it took?

"Safe" is a relative term, on a scale of what?

Other European Countries?

Greece perhaps, or Italy, possibly France oh no, Belgium.

As is always the case with statistics, you can pick whichever stinking pile of numbers from any location, compare them to eating Pickled Onions steeped in Chilli and assess the output effects of them whilst dressed in Womens tights, whilst sitting on a stool, in a Bar in Moldova with a Vodka in your hand.

You are right though, Motorway/Dual Carriageway/Major Roads run off/filter off/on are way too short here, [i]way too short[/i].

Most of the time you're sat in traffic is just due to the volume of traffic. Minor accidents they just shift the cars and clear up the pumpftinkle but the wave effect means if you're a couple of miles back you'll be there for an hour. If someones been seriously hurt then you just need to MTFU and piss in your hard hat/try to survive off the bits of mcdonalds/greggs pasty trapped between your seat and the handbrake.

The obvious thing is to publish the reports from the investigations, put them on a website with a google maps type interface and everyone can then see the accidents and understand what is happening

the only delay should be in the case of criminal action against someone

so when you are sat in the queue you can think about reading the report and being glad it wasn't you

"Safe" is a relative term, on a scale of what?

err. the rest of the world.

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/death-on-the-roads/en/#deaths <

Or in Maryland where they put service stations *in between the carriageways* so you have to pull straight out into the fast lane!

Whilst I hate to ruin a post I fundamentally agree with...

*cough*M8 J15*cough*

😉

But yeah, our roads might not be perfect but they are a lot better than most.

The obvious thing is to publish the reports from the investigations, put them on a website with a google maps type interface and everyone can then see the accidents and understand what is happening

You mean like this?

http://www.crashmap.co.uk/

You mean like this?

http://www.crashmap.co.uk/

which would be good if someone wasnt trying to make a fast buck by making you pay for the accident reports.