M5 coach crash - more pisspoor Sky reporting

[Tim Richards]

http://news.sky.com/home

"The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
lorry"

Eh? What's a slow lane?

[Tim Richards]

On Mar 24, 2:51 pm, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
> while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
> description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing traffic.

My first-hand experiences last weekend beg to differ.

I genuinely lost count of the number of cars sat gaily pottering along
in the middle lane that I passed whilst (correctly) using the inside
lane.

A couple of them flashed their lights (for some reason) but continued
driving in the middle lane, which puzzled me.

I assumed they were just frustrated circle-jerkers.

[Roger]

I'd say it was any lane with a broken down coach in it.

[Tim Richards]

On Mar 24, 4:54 pm, "Anthony R. Gold" <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> There has been an arrest in connection with this incident in which is has
> been reported that a lorry hit the rear of a disabled coach. They say it was
> the coach driver wot dun it.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17500107

Well unless he suffered a major engine seizure that stopped him almost
instantaneously, stopping in the inside lane (not slow lane Sky you
dumb fucks) was always going to end in tears.

His, it seems.

[Rob]

The left-most lane. On a 3 lane motorway from left to right it's slow lane,
driving lane, then fast lane.

HTH

--
Rob

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:51:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
><tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>

>It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
>while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
>description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing traffic.

No.

No lanes have speeds.

There is the left hand lane, which is for normal traveling, and one or
more overtaking lanes.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
That's inches away from being millimeter perfect.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

I hope you were being ironic, as anybody who knows anything about
driving knows that to be absolutely false.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Hard work has a future payoff. Laziness pays off now.

[Ophelia]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:vgesm71fgtnsjuc05...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:51:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
>><tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/home
>>>
>>> "The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
>>> had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
>>> lorry"
>>>
>>> Eh? What's a slow lane?
>>
>>It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
>>while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
>>description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing
>>traffic.
>
> No.
>
> No lanes have speeds.
>
> There is the left hand lane, which is for normal traveling, and one or
> more overtaking lanes.

Agreed! I notice nobody here has mentioned the fact that there was thick
fog at the time. It seems from reports that the bus couldn't be seen by any
lights until they were right up behind it. There were fog warnings on that
road in the early weather forecast on Radio4.

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Tim Jackson]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards wrote...

> I genuinely lost count of the number of cars sat gaily pottering along
> in the middle lane that I passed whilst (correctly) using the inside
> lane.

Under normal conditions, passing other cars is not a correct use of the
inside lane.

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Ophelia]

"Tim Jackson" <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.29d84b83b...@text.usenet.plus.net...

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards wrote...
>
>> I genuinely lost count of the number of cars sat gaily pottering along
>> in the middle lane that I passed whilst (correctly) using the inside
>> lane.
>
> Under normal conditions, passing other cars is not a correct use of the
> inside lane.

Scary manoeuvre 'undertaking'!!! Hell many people don't bother to check
their nearside mirror before pulling in, because they don't expect to see
someone speeding up on their left. Especially hairy around these
parts, where the slip road joins the 'outside/fast' lane!

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[fred]

In article
<a963d295-1a0f-44d5...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, Tim
Richards <tricha...@googlemail.com> writes

Let's not guess.

Did you notice there doesn't appear to be a complete hard shoulder at
the site of the collision?

See pic here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17497711
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

[Michael Swift]

In article
<db26567f-94c4-49c2...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Tim
Richards <tricha...@googlemail.com> writes

>"The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands had
>broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a lorry"
>
>Eh? What's a slow lane?

More important it's reported the coach driver has been arrested, it's
also reported that people were ringing the police to warn it had broken
down, why the fuck was the driver arrested, is it now an offence to
break down on a motorway?

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Phi]

The police were told 12 minutes before the crash, but I expect they were
changing shifts.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"fred" <n...@for.mail> wrote in message news:tOdL$rK4ykbPFwb7@y.z...

From the pictures, it seems the road goes under a bridge at that point, the
bridge that most of the photos seem to have been taken from. Looks like the
hard shoulder reduces and then "disappears" for a distance either side of
(and under) the bridge, then appears again a few metres after the bridge.
Plus, there's roadworks all over the place too.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/59285000/jpg/_59285105_jex_1360452_de27-1.jpg


Point of impact:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/03/24/article-2119618-124FF7D1000005DC-414_306x462.jpg

the impact site shows that the hard shoulder is narrowing into nothing as it
approaches the bridge, along with a metal barrier preventing anyone from
pulling *right* off the Mway, so it's difficult to see how the coach driver
could have got more than about a third of his coach off the nearside lane if
it did completely break down at that spot.

Looks from the pictures, that the coach driver did indeed get as far "left"
as possible, and in foggy conditions the lorry driver didn't see it. Maybe
the coach had no lights, but it just goes to show how small margins make all
the difference - if the coach had stopped 20 metres either side of where he
did, he'd have had a complete hard shoulder all to himself.

[Cynic]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:03:45 +0100, Michael Swift
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:

>More important it's reported the coach driver has been arrested, it's
>also reported that people were ringing the police to warn it had broken
>down, why the fuck was the driver arrested, is it now an offence to
>break down on a motorway?

We will no doubt hear why he was arrested in due course. I would
imagine it will be to do with either stopping in a place that was far
more dangerous than where he *could* have stopped, or not taking
obvious steps to warn other traffic of the presence of the vehicle.

--
Cynic

[johs...@gmail.com]

So you're the one who criss crosses over all the lanes just to show off
your idea that everyone else are "muppets"?

But they're not. Motorway lanes are best used according to traffic speeds;
hence inner lane for lorries, middle lane for middle lane flow and outer
lane for those for whom 70mph isn't fast enough. That's the optimal use of
motorway capacity, and also avoids many fish tailing accidents when those
rightious criss-crossers gets their bearings wrong.

[The Todal]

If your coach breaks down on a motorway and you can't get it onto a hard
shoulder, is it recommended to get everyone off the coach and to the side of
the road? I am sure I have seen more than one programme about traffic cops
that emphasises the great danger of collisions even if you are stopped on
the hard shoulder.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:9t8isa...@mid.individual.net...

> Cynic wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 02:03:45 +0100, Michael Swift
>> <mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> More important it's reported the coach driver has been arrested, it's
>>> also reported that people were ringing the police to warn it had
>>> broken down, why the fuck was the driver arrested, is it now an
>>> offence to break down on a motorway?
>>
>> We will no doubt hear why he was arrested in due course. I would
>> imagine it will be to do with either stopping in a place that was far
>> more dangerous than where he *could* have stopped, or not taking
>> obvious steps to warn other traffic of the presence of the vehicle.
>
> If your coach breaks down on a motorway and you can't get it onto a hard
> shoulder, is it recommended to get everyone off the coach and to the side
> of the road?

You'd think so... There's a crash-proof barrier under the bridge in the
photos, and there's usually more along "normal" hard shoulders for people to
safely stand behind.

Apparently 12 minutes went by between someone reporting the coach breakdown
and the actual crash, plenty of time to have funnelled all the passengers
out of the coach door and to safety. I would think that is what he should
have done even if he'd been fully on the hard shoulder, never mind stopped
half across the nearside lane.

[johannes]

On Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:19:24 PM UTC, Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:51:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
> ><tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://news.sky.com/home
> >>
> >> "The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
> >> had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
> >> lorry"
> >>
> >> Eh? What's a slow lane?
> >
> >It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
> >while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
> >description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing traffic.
>
> No.
>
> No lanes have speeds.
>
> There is the left hand lane, which is for normal traveling, and one or
> more overtaking lanes.

So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?
I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.

And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
overtaking lanes?

Your theory falls flat!

[Mentalguy2k8]

"johannes" <johs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9517101.97.1332681942784.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbgu10...

> On Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:19:24 PM UTC, Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:51:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
>> ><tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://news.sky.com/home
>> >>
>> >> "The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
>> >> had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
>> >> lorry"
>> >>
>> >> Eh? What's a slow lane?
>> >
>> >It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
>> >while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
>> >description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing
>> >traffic.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> No lanes have speeds.
>>
>> There is the left hand lane, which is for normal traveling, and one or
>> more overtaking lanes.
>
> So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?
> I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.

Eh?

"Lane discipline 264
You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear.
If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return
to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past. "

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069862?CID=TAT&PLA=url_mon&CRE=highwaycode_motorways

[aaa]

Just out of curiosity, when is it correct to under-take?

[tim....]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:9t8isa...@mid.individual.net...

Perhaps it is, but I can't for the life of me see how failing to do so
passes the "test" of dangerous driving.

tim

>
>

[Ophelia]

"aaa" <an...@aol.com> wrote in message news:zQFbr.26252$Rz7....@fx16.am4...

imo when a another car is waiting to turn right!


--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Ophelia]

"Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message
news:9t8o6s...@mid.individual.net...

sorry it went too fast... also when the queue of traffic on your right is
moving more slowly than the queue in your lane


--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Rob]

That's not 'undertaking', that's just passing. 'Undertaking' is overtaking
on the left. 'Overtaking' is what you do to get ahead of something in front
of you that you can't physically pass through.

--
Rob

[Ophelia]

"Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5f6dnbCtzKWN3_LS...@bt.com...

Which as I have said, is very dangerous! I included 'passing' on the left to
make the distinction.

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Alasdair]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:54:40 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

>There has been an arrest in connection with this incident in which is has
>been reported that a lorry hit the rear of a disabled coach. They say it was
>the coach driver wot dun it.

The general rule, according to the insurance industry, is that anyone
running into the back of a stationary vehicle is automatically to
blame. Why, then, did they arrest the coach driver? The lorry driver
should have been driving at a speed commensurate with his visibility
and if his visibility was zero, he should have pulled on to the hard
shoulder and waited for the fog to clear.

[Ophelia]

"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:59mum7tc66k60a3rt...@4ax.com...

Exactly! My understanding also!

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[Turk182]

On Mar 24, 2:13 pm, Tim Richards <trichards...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> http://news.sky.com/home
>
> "The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
> had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
> lorry"
>
> Eh? What's a slow lane?

The standard of TV News reporting is extremely poor. I have given up
counting the infantile assumptions, half-truths and absurd corruptions
of reality from both Sky and the BBC.

Have you noticed how the voices and are becoming more moronic too!
It's like a special manner of inflection, developed just for news
people. They talk in a form of chanting poetry, always ending the
sentence on the same pitch irresepective of the content. It's a kind
of singing that would sound completely out of place in an other
setting.

The other point which drives me to distraction is when John Humpries
(or others) is talking to their own correspondent. A kind of fake
interview evolves where Humpries (or whoever) make a number of pre-
agreed assertions or asks questions throughout the correspondents
report.

The answer to Humphries interjections is always:

"you're absolutely right John" ... or
"that's exactly it John" ..... or
"you've hit the nail on the head John".

It's a kind of fake interview in which the questioner can never be
wrong. It masquerades as an insightful probing, though it is clearly
a pre-organised 'let's say this' session. The broadcasters are
getting lazy. They are so stuck in their routines that they don't
even try to hide their obvious 'devices'.

Turk182

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:59mum7tc66k60a3rt...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:54:40 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>There has been an arrest in connection with this incident in which is has
>>been reported that a lorry hit the rear of a disabled coach. They say it
>>was
>>the coach driver wot dun it.
>
> The general rule, according to the insurance industry, is that anyone
> running into the back of a stationary vehicle is automatically to
> blame. Why, then, did they arrest the coach driver?

It doesn't always follow that the driver of the stationary vehicle *hasn't*
committed any offence(s).

Maybe he was arrested just so that he could be interviewed under caution,
possibly standard procedure when there's a serious accident.

[steve robinson]

Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

>
> "Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
> news:59mum7tc66k60a3rt...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:54:40 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
> ><not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > There has been an arrest in connection with this incident in
> > > which is has been reported that a lorry hit the rear of a
> > > disabled coach. They say it was the coach driver wot dun it.
> >
> > The general rule, according to the insurance industry, is that
> > anyone running into the back of a stationary vehicle is
> > automatically to blame. Why, then, did they arrest the coach
> > driver?
>
> It doesn't always follow that the driver of the stationary vehicle

> hasn't committed any offence(s).

>
> Maybe he was arrested just so that he could be interviewed under
> caution, possibly standard procedure when there's a serious
> accident.

Possibly because he stopped the vehicle in the nearside lane of the
motorway and apparently no lights were visable or barely visable
which given the weather could be viewed as dangerous driving .

Until a full investigation has been performed then we are unlikely to
know what really happened

[Alasdair]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:44:22 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Maybe he was arrested just so that he could be interviewed under caution,
>possibly standard procedure when there's a serious accident.

But if he now wants to go to the USA, he will have to apply for a visa
and cannot take advantage of the visa waiver scheme since they seem to
regard an arrest as seriously as we regard a conviction.

[steve robinson]

Correct

[johannes]

On Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:03:53 PM UTC+1, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT), johannes <johs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?
> > I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.
> >
> > And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
> > overtaking lanes?
>

> In an 8 lane highway in the USA means four in each direction.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane



On Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:03:53 PM UTC+1, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT), johannes <johs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?
> > I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.
> >
> > And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
> > overtaking lanes?
>

> In an 8 lane highway in the USA means four in each direction.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane



On Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:03:53 PM UTC+1, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT), johannes <johs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?
> > I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.
> >
> > And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
> > overtaking lanes?
>

> In an 8 lane highway in the USA means four in each direction.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane



On Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:03:53 PM UTC+1, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT), johannes <johs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?
> > I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.
> >
> > And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
> > overtaking lanes?
>

> In an 8 lane highway in the USA means four in each direction.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane

But the wiki picture illustrates nicely that the lanes are used for
enabling the capacity of the highway. The concept of overtaking is
not nearly as cleacut as for a single lane road. In fact it's better
to drive in speed-specific lanes rather than criss-crossing all over
the place.

[JohnR]

In other words doing exactly what they're supposed to, dictating the
narrative, not just reporting the news but teaching everyone their world
view, steering the sheep, telling everyone what happened and what they
should be thinking and doing about it.

The solution is to switch them off.

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:41:05 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:19:24 +0000, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:51:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards

>>> <tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.sky.com/home
>>>>
>>>> "The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
>>>> had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
>>>> lorry"
>>>>
>>>> Eh? What's a slow lane?
>>>

>>> It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
>>> while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
>>> description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing traffic.
>>

>> No.
>>
>> No lanes have speeds.
>>
>> There is the left hand lane, which is for normal traveling, and one or
>> more overtaking lanes.
>

>You are asserting that the cars in the inside lane that are being overtaken
>are not moving slower?

Please learn to read before responding.

There is no possibility that anybody who had read and understood what
I wrote could possibly come to the conclusion I might be "asserting"
any such thing.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The fecal material has hit the air circulating device.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT), johannes
<johs...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 24, 2012 9:19:24 PM UTC, Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:51:50 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim Richards
>> ><tricha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> http://news.sky.com/home
>> >>
>> >> "The coach involved in a fatal crash on the M5 in the West Midlands
>> >> had broken down in the slow lane of the motorway when it was hit by a
>> >> lorry"
>> >>
>> >> Eh? What's a slow lane?
>> >
>> >It must be the one used by lorry drivers when they want to keep driving
>> >while they rest their eyes. If not slow, would you accept slowest as a
>> >description of the innermost lane? It will be that in free flowing traffic.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> No lanes have speeds.
>>
>> There is the left hand lane, which is for normal traveling, and one or
>> more overtaking lanes.
>
>So in a 4-lane motorway, there are 3 overtaking lanes?

Correct.

>I thought that you were not supposed to overtake an overtaking car.
>

Where on earth did you get *that* idea from?

Certainly nothing in the highway code or the advanced driving manual
or any laws.

There is no (valid) in the third and subsequent lanes on any UK
motorway other than to overtake vehicles who are themselves making
overtaking manoeuvre.

>And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
>overtaking lanes?

The USA have different traffic laws to the UK, and in many places
overtaking on either side is normal.

>
>Your theory falls flat!
>

It isn't a "theory", it is simple fact.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

"Apple" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT), johannes

<johs...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:03:53 PM UTC+1, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:25:42 -0700 (PDT), johannes <johs...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>> >
>> > And what about 8-lane motorways in the US? Do they really need seven
>> > overtaking lanes?
>>
>> In an 8 lane highway in the USA means four in each direction.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane
>
>But the wiki picture illustrates nicely that the lanes are used for
>enabling the capacity of the highway. The concept of overtaking is
>not nearly as cleacut as for a single lane road. In fact it's better
>to drive in speed-specific lanes rather than criss-crossing all over
>the place.
>
>

If any such thing existed, it might be.

But they don't.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

The ultimate reason is "because."

[Alex Heney]

No it wasn't.

It is only arrests for "crimes of moral turpitude" which have that
effect. Driving crimes don't normally count as such.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Does killing time damage eternity?

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:46:35 +0100, Alasdair <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk>
wrote:

I'm sure the truck driver would also have been arrested if he had
lived.

Just because one driver is always at fault, that does not mean the
other driver wasn't *also* at fault.

From reports, it was several minutes after the breakdown before the
collision, so he could have been arrested for failing to get the
passengers off the coach which was stopped in a dangerous position.

And also possibly for not putting out a warning triangle (I may be
wrong, but I believe PSVs must carry those).

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

STUPIDITY is NOT a HANDICAP! Park elsewhere!

[Alex Heney]

Was there any indication that was what he was arrested for?

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

This country needs more unemployed politicians.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5q1vm7960guu6pqo9...@4ax.com...

I'm sure I've read that warning triangles are illegal on UK motorways but
I'm assuming that's just for the safety of the person placing it.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:g12vm7hmkg099r01v...@4ax.com...

That's what is being reported on most news sites.

[Michael Swift]

In article <xn0hw0w1...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, steve
robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes

>Possibly because he stopped the vehicle in the nearside lane of the
>motorway and apparently no lights were visable or barely visable which
>given the weather could be viewed as dangerous driving .
>
>Until a full investigation has been performed then we are unlikely to know
>what really happened

Possibly true but my brother had a total electrical loss while in the
centre lane, he was lucky and managed to coast to the hard shoulder, as
you say until we know more we shouldn't comment, it still begs the
question why the coach drive was arrested other than the police needed
more DNA for their database.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Michael Swift]

In article <3o1vm7pgabpnqm2fc...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
<m...@privacy.net> writes

>>> But if he now wants to go to the USA, he will have to apply for a
>>> visa and cannot take advantage of the visa waiver scheme since they
>>> seem to regard an arrest as seriously as we regard a conviction.
>>
>>Correct
>
>No it wasn't.
>
>It is only arrests for "crimes of moral turpitude" which have that effect.
>Driving crimes don't normally count as such.

Yes it was, he was arrested, visa waiver not allowed.

[Michael Swift]

In article <1otum7td8rcoq9chd...@4ax.com>, Alasdair
<ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> writes

>>Maybe he was arrested just so that he could be interviewed under caution,
>>possibly standard procedure when there's a serious accident.
>
>But if he now wants to go to the USA, he will have to apply for a visa and
>cannot take advantage of the visa waiver scheme since they seem to regard
>an arrest as seriously as we regard a conviction.

And of course there's one more person on the DNA database.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk (Alasdair)
came up to me and whispered:

>
> The general rule, according to the insurance industry, is that
> anyone
> running into the back of a stationary vehicle is automatically
> to
> blame.

I once got a NIP for "Driving without due care" by having the audacity to
let a taxi driver run into my back end at a set of lights.

Never came of anything, becase whem my insurers examined the car, they
said there was no evidence that my vehicle had been involved, and the
police concurred.

The Taxi was written off. I didn't even need a new tow-bar where it had
gone through the taxi Rad and crankcase.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk
(Rob) came up to me and whispered:

>
> The left-most lane. On a 3 lane motorway from left to right
> it's slow lane, driving lane, then fast lane.

Where's that in Statute? Or even in the Highway Code?

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:39:44 +0100, Michael Swift
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <3o1vm7pgabpnqm2fc...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>> But if he now wants to go to the USA, he will have to apply for a
>>>> visa and cannot take advantage of the visa waiver scheme since they
>>>> seem to regard an arrest as seriously as we regard a conviction.
>>>
>>>Correct
>>
>>No it wasn't.
>>
>>It is only arrests for "crimes of moral turpitude" which have that effect.
>>Driving crimes don't normally count as such.
>
>Yes it was, he was arrested, visa waiver not allowed.

Wrong.

The official requirement is that you don't fall into the "ineligible"
categories under S212(a) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/WebHelp/ESTA_Screen-Level_Online_Help_1.htm#WP5

And that says (only the part relating to criminality quoted):
=====================================================
(2) Criminal and related grounds.-

(A) Conviction of certain crimes.-

(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien
convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing
acts which constitute the essential elements of-

(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political
offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or

(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law
or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country
relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who
committed only one crime if-


(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age,
and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any
confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the
crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or
other documentation and the date of application for admission to the
United States, or

(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien
was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which
the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the
essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if
the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to
a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent
to which the sentence was ultimately executed).

(B) Multiple criminal convictions.-Any alien convicted of 2 or more
offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether
the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose
from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the
offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences
to confinement 2/ were 5 years or more is inadmissible.



(C) 2a/ CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TRAFFICKERS- Any alien who the
consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to
believe--

(i) is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance
or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), or is or has been a knowing aider,
abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit
trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or
endeavored to do so; or


(ii) is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under
clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial
or other benefit from the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or
reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was
the product of such illicit activity, is inadmissaible.
==============================================

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

"Freedom defined is freedom denied." -The Illuminatus

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:25:10 -0400, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:04:10 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:22:12 +0100, "tim...."
>> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>>
>>> Perhaps it is, but I can't for the life of me see how failing to do so
>>> passes the "test" of dangerous driving.
>>>
>>
>> Was there any indication that was what he was arrested for?
>

>"West Midlands Police arrested and bailed the 49-year-old coach driver
>following the collision in thick fog.
>
>Detectives said the man, from Birmingham, had been questioned on suspicion
>of causing death by dangerous driving."
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17504353

Thanks.

Then I also can't see how it was that unless they think he
*deliberately* chose to stop in the nearside lane rather than the hard
shoulder.

Which seems unlikely if he actually came to a stop where the isn't a
hard shoulder.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Death is 99 per cent fatal to laboratory rats.

[Cynic]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:02:01 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>Then I also can't see how it was that unless they think he
>*deliberately* chose to stop in the nearside lane rather than the hard
>shoulder.
>
>Which seems unlikely if he actually came to a stop where the isn't a
>hard shoulder.

His degree of culpability regarding his final stopping place will
depend upon what choices he had available to him. Perhaps the
impending breakdown was apparent long before he reached the place with
no hard shoulder, and so he should have stopped earlier when it was
safe. Perhaps the coach was not so broken that it was impossible to
carry on to the next hard shoulder and so that is what he should have
done.

Perhaps it is to do with whether he deployed his warning triangles as
he was supposed to do, and if he did not, why he did not do so.

There is also the question of whether he should have evacuated the
coach immediately after stopping, and his culpability there will
depend on whether or not he should have known that that is the correct
thing to do and if so, whether he had a good reason not to do so.

If the matter is not dropped by the police or CPS in due course, we
will no doubt eventually find out the basis of the prosecution.

--
Cynic

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk (Anthony R.
Gold) came up to me and whispered:

> I wonder why some people claim that the go-faster peddle is to
> the right of the go-slower one.

It's not. the Go Slower pedal is the one under my right foot. The go
faster twist is the one under my right hand, and the stoppy handle is
also under the right hand.

What sort of bike do YOU ride?