DISCO3.CO.UK - View topic - any body here?

twizzle

Member Since: 23 Feb 2006
Location: near, far where ever we are
Posts: 223

2005 Discovery 3 TDV6 S Manual Cairns Blue

any body here?

Man crashes car driving wrong way
A pensioner is in hospital with serious injuries after he drove the wrong way on a busy dual carriageway and collided with a car near Winchester.
Police said the man, from Salisbury, Wiltshire, had to be cut free in the crash on the southbound section of the A34 at Sutton Scotney.

The 74-year-old was driving a Peugeot when it collided with a Land Rover Discovery at 1940 GMT on Thursday.

The road was closed for five hours while police investigated the scene.

The 46-year-old male driver of the Discovery and his 49-year-old female passenger suffered minor injuries. i'm lovin it....

28th Mar 2008 1:49 pm

pko

Member Since: 06 Apr 2006
Location: usually in the pub
Posts: 398

Why close the road for 5 hours to investigate the scene? From your description it must be obvious what the cause was. Bring back the days when the Traffic Police priority was to re-open the road & keep traffic flowing where today the priority seems lets f

k up the motorist as much as possible. never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly

current motor RRsport hse

prev. cars TD5
3 Ford Explorers
2 Ford Mavericks
Sierra 4x4

28th Mar 2008 1:55 pm

Russell

Member Since: 24 Aug 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 10564

Unfortunatley when the crash is serious or life threatining the scene has to be treated as acrime scene. As such the road is closed, photographed and evidence gathered. This somtimes causes long delays. Hope this helps. MY17 D5 1st Edition Namib Orange
MY15 D4 HSE Kaikoura Stone
MY12 D4 HSE Nara Bronze Sold and gone
MY11 D4 HSE Stornaway Grey Sold and gone
D3 S spec Silver Sold and gone
Tow bar, full length roof bars, side steps, tow bar storage unit, surround camers.
D4 camera club

28th Mar 2008 2:01 pm

DG
Site Moderator

Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50977

Would you expect a murder scene to be dealt with so quickly? If a prosecution is to follow then proper investigation is critical. You have the option of following a diversion....have some consideration for those involved

21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021

28th Mar 2008 2:02 pm

NoDo$h

Member Since: 02 May 2006
Location: Finding new and exciting ways to milk badgers.
Posts: 19689

3 blokes witness a murder. A man walks up to his victim, pulls out a gun and with a single shot to the head kills him then sits next to the body, all the time retaining the gun. All three witnesses remain on the scene while the police turn up. They see the shooting is covered by multiple CCTV cameras, there's no exit wound on the body and clear evidence of only a single shot being fired. Pretty straightforward. It'll still take time to walk the scene, but will be a lot quicker than if the perp legs it, there are no witnesses and no cctv.

A driver is seen entering a dual carriageway the wrong way and slams into an oncoming car. Strikes me as pretty darn similar to the scenario above. You have the smoking gun and easily verifiable evidence.

5 hours? They are taking the pish. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.

28th Mar 2008 2:12 pm

DG
Site Moderator

Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50977

But everything is so simple in your world ND

21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021

28th Mar 2008 2:28 pm

NoDo$h

Member Since: 02 May 2006
Location: Finding new and exciting ways to milk badgers.
Posts: 19689

It's because I'm special. My mum says so.

Seriously Rich, this kind of road closure has become more frequent in recent years and it's all driven by the blame culture. Everyone wants to know the nth detail so they can dissect the case and apportion blame with the benefit of hindsight and hours and hours of forensics. I know plenty of Police officers who resent this every bit as much as I do but I can't recall one that sees any genuine benefit to this process.

Perhaps I am being simplistic, but I seriously can't see what's complicated about someone driving the wrong way on a dual carriageway. It won't make any injuries go away, it doesn't bring people back from the dead and short of putting up barriers on slip roads there aren't too many lessons you can learn that will stop this kind of incident occurring from time to time when a confused elderly person misreads any number of no-entry signs.

FWIW, the Sutton Scotney junction isn't the most straightforward one I've had the misfortune to use. Despite or perhaps because of this there's often a Battenburg parked on the junction ready to dispense 3 points and a firm ticking off to anyone speeding down the A34. Lots of random braking when the nose of their car appears in people's vision as they cane it past. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.

28th Mar 2008 3:00 pm

NoDo$h

Member Since: 02 May 2006
Location: Finding new and exciting ways to milk badgers.
Posts: 19689

Dug out a summary of RDIM (Road Deaths Investigation Manual)

Quote:
Road Death Investigation Manual
In December 2001, ACPO published the â€œRoad Deaths Investigation Manualâ€ which is designed to standardise the investigation of fatal road collisions in line with the quality of investigations of murder or homicide. This underlines the importance attributed to a road death. When a fatal crash has occurred, an investigation will take place following the guidance in the Road Death Investigation Manual (RDIM). Some crashes resulting in serious injury will also be investigated in this way.

The RDIM gives comprehensive advice to officers about how to effectively investigate a road death to a national standard. A senior investigating officer is then responsible for deciding if the evidence merits prosecution of anyone involved in the collision. The information produced can also useful to local authorities by indicating the need for road engineering manager measures or to car manufacturers so the model can be checked for a general defect.

When evidence is collected of a series of similar types of collision this can demonstrate a problem that needs to be addressed locally and perhaps highlighted to the public in a publicity campaign. This may be undertaken by the police, the local authority road safety unit or both.

I also found some minutes of a council meeting with Devon & Cornwall Police that shed some light on how RDIM came about:

Quote:
The need for a RDIM was identified following the implementation of the Human Rights
Act, where â€˜right to lifeâ€™ is law. This means that investigations can be subject to public
scrutiny (and possible judicial reviews and/or litigation) and therefore all evidence has to
be secured. In addition, detailed records are kept on what lines of enquiry were/were not
pursued and the reasons why.

It was stressed that the closure of a road is a crime scene. The RDIM stresses that an
investigation should take precedence over the need to re-open roads, although the far
ranging effects on local communities and the economy are well known and any available
measures to minimise disruption are implemented.

There has been previous criticism of the length of time take to re-open a road following
closure, particularly following an accident. Suggestions of suing the police had even been
made. However, there is a clear need to balance investigation integrity with the economic
disruption that inevitably ensues. Once a road has been re-opened, the senior
investigating officer must be satisfied that all relevant evidence has been collected.

So it appears that Hampshire's Road Policing Unit decided to apply RDIM to this accident. The council minutes are quite telling, as they confirm that this policy has been introduced through the usual suspect, mission creep of the Human Rights Act. Fear of litigation, not natural justice, would seem to be the driving force here. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.

28th Mar 2008 3:42 pm

DG
Site Moderator

Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50977

They aren't doing it for the benefit of their health though ...yes it's fine to say with hindsight 'this is how it happened' but the real issue is proving it in a court of law. If they fail to carry out a thorough investigation the case may be thrown out . How would you feel if for example you were the discovery driver in this case and a/ the case against the other chap was rejected and b/ your resultant disabilities were not compensated appropriately ...all because the evidence was not gathered correctly. Methinks you'd be right royally p issed off TBH

21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021

28th Mar 2008 3:43 pm

NoDo$h

Member Since: 02 May 2006
Location: Finding new and exciting ways to milk badgers.
Posts: 19689

Aye, I would.

I'm thinking my cry for the cause is about 10 years too late. The courts no longer seem happy to apply common sense in matters of liability and we see the inexorable rise in the number of cases overturned on technicalities (and I'm not talking the kind of technicalities that led to some of the miscarriages of justice of the late 70s and early 80s).

It's the lack of proportionality that gets me. These processes appear to be so binary, with no option to say "yup, we've got enough here boys, open the road". Every element has to be deconstructed in case some smart-alec legal beagle spots that the discovery's tyre pressures weren't checked and gets the case thrown out, despite this having no bearing on the fact that if the poor old devil in the other car hadn't gone the wrong way, no collision would have occurred. There's no measure of reasonabless applied, no investigation commensurate with the amount of clear, robust and decisive evidence that isn't subjective in nature.

That's why I consider the application of RDIM and a 5 hour closure is excessive in this case. It's not so much a rant at the Police as an impotent anger that they (the police) feel they have to protect themselves against the the way our courts work now, with common sense being thrown out in favour of the bloody human rights act. Have you noticed how since that particular piece of legislation came into play our freedoms and rights have become more curtailed and constrained than ever? It's like the nation is taking Soma every morning as we sleepwalk into a brave new world where nobody takes responsibility for their actions because they can't be bothered to actually take any action. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.

28th Mar 2008 3:58 pm

DG
Site Moderator

Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50977

I understand what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. I'd just like to think that if it happened to me or mine then we would be afforded a similar level of investigatory work ....regardless of what in comparison is just an irritating detour to some.

21 year LR veteran > D2 GS 2003 > D3 S 2006 > D3 HSE 2009 > D4 HSE 2013 > D4 HSE 2015 > D5 HSE 2018 > DS HSE R-Dynamic P300e 2021

28th Mar 2008 5:14 pm

buzz

Member Since: 19 May 2006
Location: lancashire
Posts: 585

i was on the working group and contributed to this manual when it was introduced. from a detective perspective it became apparent that the investigation of traffic collisions involving death or serious injury fell short of that of a traditional crime scene. there is a fundimental need to be able to prove a case at court 'beyond all reasonable doubt' no matter how obvious the initial circumstances may seem. people do not play by the rules and often try to get off on any technicality especially when faced with going to prison, so being able to prove a case by thorough investigation is a step forward (in my opinion). if a delay to your schedule is the consequence then please consider that if it was your family that had suffered loss you would expect nothing less. Gone.......but not forgotten

06 Zermatt 7 seat auto with PDC and privacy

Club £400 V.E.D.

28th Mar 2008 6:12 pm

WOODY179

Member Since: 01 Jun 2005
Location: Chesterfield
Posts: 3651

buzz wrote:
if a delay to your schedule is the consequence then please consider that if it was your family that had suffered loss you would expect nothing less.

1996 Discovery 1 300TDI ES Biarritz Blue, sold
1999 Discovery 2 TD5 ES Rioja Red, sold
2002 Discovery 2 TD5 ES Buckingham Blue, sold
2005 Discovery 3 TDV6 HSE Adriatic Blue, sold
2006 Discovery 3 TDV6 HSE Zambezi Silver, sold
2011 Discovery 4 SDV6 HSE Nara Bronze, sold
2016 Volvo XC60 D5 AWD Lux Nav Twilight Bronze, sold
2020 Range Rover Evoque P250 First Edition, Nolita grey, sold
2023 Range Rover Evoque P300e Autobiography, Carpathian grey

28th Mar 2008 6:32 pm

discocuzzy

Member Since: 02 Feb 2008
Location: surrey
Posts: 2752

2010 Discovery 4 3.0 SDV6 HSE Auto Stornoway Grey

WFH today ND?

"you cannot teach stupid people to do clever things"
--------------------------------------------------------
05 plate D3 HSE in Zermat- Gone
11 Plate D4 Landmark in Fuji white- Gone
08 Plate D3 Hse in Buckingham Blue- Gone
58 plate D3 HSE Silver- Gone
10 Plate D4 HSE Stornaway Grey

28th Mar 2008 7:23 pm

NoDo$h

Member Since: 02 May 2006
Location: Finding new and exciting ways to milk badgers.
Posts: 19689

No, just NDMWITO

Playing devils advocate here. To me, the term "crime" suggests intent. I know that from a legal perspective ignorance of a law is no defense and hasn't been one pretty much since Magna Carta, so intent doesn't have to be proved for a crime to have been committed. Notwithstanding this, it strikes me as excessive to treat many motoring incidents, often caused by a momentary lapse of attention, as a crime. Note I say many, not all. Just a thought.

As mentioned above, my incredulity stems from a legal system that allows, no, encourages people to "get off" on technicalities, leading to what can often appear to be an excessive and disproportionate investigation. It's this approach that has led to a feeling amongst the general public that police effort is aimed at low impact, unintentional crime that is easily proved while those that "know the system" stick two fingers up and carry on their nefarious ways.

As mentioned, I've many friends in the police, family too. They quietly acknowledge that the focus on targets rather than quality measures have been wholly detrimental to moral in the force and the public's view of policing. Without exception, they have little good to say about the creation of the Traffic Wombles and PCSOs, feeling that the effort put into creating these roles would have been better spent on streamlining paperwork and recruiting more officers with powers of investigation and arrest. The police have a huge PR mountain to climb with the public, so a process that appears as unfriendly and excessive as RDIM is never going to be popular.

I can't stress enough that my criticism here is of the system that made RDIM necessary, the legal system that kicks common decency in the balls while the w@nkers out there laugh all the way home from their acquittal. I know it's not considered "kind" to say no these days, but no. Just no, ok? And if it's not ok, still no.

28th Mar 2008 8:09 pm