d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:29:41 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:57:06 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
See above. You cannot possibly *know* what is going on at an
accident scene from merely driving slowly past it.

All right then - from your years of experience tell me why they'd
close almost the entire road for a simple collision with the street
furniture.

I was not there and I was not dealing with it so I don't know - and
neither do you.

So much for your years of experience then if you can't even come up
with a few guesses.

I have given some guesses - but, of course, they are based upon your
description of the crash that I cannot rely on. For example - were you in
full view of the accident scene while you were waiting? If not then you
cannot assume that the truck was the only vehicle involved can you? It may
be that other vehicles were blocking the other lanes and you only began
moving once they had been removed.

--
Kev

--
Kev

On 12/11/2010 10:14, Ret. wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:29:41 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:57:06 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
See above. You cannot possibly *know* what is going on at an
accident scene from merely driving slowly past it.

All right then - from your years of experience tell me why they'd
close almost the entire road for a simple collision with the street
furniture.

I was not there and I was not dealing with it so I don't know - and
neither do you.

So much for your years of experience then if you can't even come up
with a few guesses.

I have given some guesses - but, of course, they are based upon your
description of the crash that I cannot rely on. For example - were you
in full view of the accident scene while you were waiting? If not then
you cannot assume that the truck was the only vehicle involved can you?
It may be that other vehicles were blocking the other lanes and you only
began moving once they had been removed.



Oooor! There was some kind of hazardous or dangerous material/chemical
inside the lorry?

Bod

d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:34:16 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
For all Boltar knew there may have been a pedestrian trying to run
across the motorway who caused the crash - and his body may still
have been under the vehicle.

No Kev, there was no body under the vehicle. I was 20 foot from it
when I drove past and its front was up on the barrier so there was a
clear view underneath.

It really annoys me when people spout off like this without knowing
the facts.

The facts were a 7.5 tonner stuck on some street furniture. End of.
So again - explain to me why they needed to close 4 lanes out of 5 for
something like this.

Were you in full view of the truck while you were waiting - or did you only
see it once the traffic began moving and you drove past? From your earlier
posts I suspect the latter - so you have no idea if other vehicles had been
involved and required removing to clear the lanes you were eventually
allowed to use.


It *is* the prime duty of traffic officers, after securing the
scene, and ensuring safety for other road users, to get the road
clear and get traffic moving normally again as soon as possible. To
suggest that traffic oficers just close roads for no good reason is
utter nonsense.

Oh please. Just how naive do you think we are? Next you'll be telling
us that police always do their level best to track down muggers and
burglars.

Indeed they do:


Most forces have been highly successful in significantly reducing burglaries
in recent years.

From the Cheshire Police web-site:

"Burglary has fallen by nearly 60% nationally since 1995. In Cheshire,
burglaries have dropped by 12.9% in the last five years, which means there
are now 592 fewer victims of burglary a year than in 2005."

This has been achieved via intelligence lead proactive policing targeting
known active burglars. The procedure has been highly successful.

--
Kev

bod wrote:
On 12/11/2010 10:14, Ret. wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:29:41 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
d wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 16:57:06 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
See above. You cannot possibly *know* what is going on at an
accident scene from merely driving slowly past it.

All right then - from your years of experience tell me why they'd
close almost the entire road for a simple collision with the
street furniture.

I was not there and I was not dealing with it so I don't know - and
neither do you.

So much for your years of experience then if you can't even come up
with a few guesses.

I have given some guesses - but, of course, they are based upon your
description of the crash that I cannot rely on. For example - were
you in full view of the accident scene while you were waiting? If
not then you cannot assume that the truck was the only vehicle
involved can you? It may be that other vehicles were blocking the
other lanes and you only began moving once they had been removed.



Oooor! There was some kind of hazardous or dangerous
material/chemical inside the lorry?

Indeed. For Boltar to pontificate based upon his assessment of an accident
scene having just driven past it long after it occurred is stupid.

--
Kev

In message , at 10:50:14 on Fri, 12
Nov 2010, Ret. remarked:

For Boltar to pontificate based upon his assessment of an accident
scene having just driven past it long after it occurred is stupid.

But I still have this uneasy question... if it was that long after the
accident, why were almost all the lanes still closed?

Note, this is a quite different question to "why did they need to close
lanes immediately after the accident".
--
Roland Perry

On 12/11/2010 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:14 on Fri, 12
Nov 2010, Ret. remarked:

For Boltar to pontificate based upon his assessment of an accident
scene having just driven past it long after it occurred is stupid.

But I still have this uneasy question... if it was that long after the
accident, why were almost all the lanes still closed?

Note, this is a quite different question to "why did they need to close
lanes immediately after the accident".



Was there any hazardous/dangerous cargo inside the lorry! How would one
know?

Bod

In message , at 12:50:11 on Fri, 12 Nov
2010, bod remarked:

Was there any hazardous/dangerous cargo inside the lorry! How would
one know?

Was the traffic flowing in the opposite direction also coned off?
--
Roland Perry

In message , bod
writes
On 12/11/2010 12:40, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:50:14 on Fri, 12
Nov 2010, Ret. remarked:

For Boltar to pontificate based upon his assessment of an accident
scene having just driven past it long after it occurred is stupid.

But I still have this uneasy question... if it was that long after the
accident, why were almost all the lanes still closed?

Note, this is a quite different question to "why did they need to close
lanes immediately after the accident".



Was there any hazardous/dangerous cargo inside the lorry! How would
one know?

Don't vehicles carrying hazardous materials have warning markings?
--
Ian

On 12/11/2010 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:50:11 on Fri, 12 Nov
2010, bod remarked:

Was there any hazardous/dangerous cargo inside the lorry! How would
one know?

Was the traffic flowing in the opposite direction also coned off?



I don't know, I wasn't there.

Bod

In message , at 13:28:01 on Fri, 12 Nov
2010, bod remarked:

Was there any hazardous/dangerous cargo inside the lorry! How would
one know?

Was the traffic flowing in the opposite direction also coned off?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

You asked "how would one know". I supplied an answer.
--
Roland Perry