Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

And before you even suggest it, approaching from the opposite direction on the opposite carriageway, stopping adjacent to the scene and hopping over the armco or concrete central reservation to the scene on foot is also another big no no....

Monday. Smart motorway. The M1 heading south. Serious accident 350 yards up from us.. Four lanes of stationary traffic.

No lane for emergency vehicles. The incident commander and someone from fire brigade came running between the vehicles. Smart motorways my 4rse.

That's not exclusively a smart motorway problem, but no hard shoulder really doesn't help matters.
One day, they'll figure out that you can approach the scene from the other direction at the next junction.

Rather a ridulous statement - the emergency services would NEVER approach the scene of accident by travelling against the direction of the traffic flow, even if 4 lanes were blocked due to collision. It is very rare that 4 lanes are actually totally blocked, and after the initial aftermath prior to the arrival of the emergency services, drivers that feel their presence at the scene to assist or give their details as a witness is no longer necessary, or a stricken vehicle is moved, they will manoeuvre past the scene and continue on their journey, only to be met by emergency vehicles travelling opposite direction? A big no no.
The other point that you haven't considered is any vehicles that may have previously stopped in an emergency refuge between the scene and the next junction for whatever reason who then continue on their journey only to be confronted by emergency service vehicles travelled towards them.
Travelling against the normal flow of traffic would only be considered once a police vehicle has travelled from the scene to the next junction to check for any potential.problems or previously stranded vehicles, and then and only then once they area is sterile, would any emergency or recovery vehicles be permitted access from the opposite direction, but that would only be as a last resort.
Use yer noddle.....

The other Michael Schumacher - a very good author who wrote Bigraphies of Francis For Coppola, Eric Clapto and several other people. Aged 75.

Monday. Smart motorway. The M1 heading south. Serious accident 350 yards up from us.. Four lanes of stationary traffic.

No lane for emergency vehicles. The incident commander and someone from fire brigade came running between the vehicles. Smart motorways my 4rse.

That's not exclusively a smart motorway problem, but no hard shoulder really doesn't help matters.
One day, they'll figure out that you can approach the scene from the other direction at the next junction.

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

Perhaps, but it's not exactly a new idea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_proposals_for_the_purchase_of_Greenland_by_the_United_States

Would a simple transfer of control really constitute a moral issue?

It would constitute a moral issue if the present occupants didn't want to transfer control. Ask any Ukrainian.
Transfer of control......funny way to describe an invasion.

It's only an invasion if someone invades. Wouldn't be any different if Denmark signed it over to France or Canada. And if you ask the locals, they'd be quite happy being independent. Ironically that would leave them incredibly vulnerable, especially as there's probably more US military personnel in Greenland than Danish.

If Ol' Sippy Cup or Obama had suggested any of the things Trump has said or done, the coverage would be "That's an interesting idea..."

Not saying I support some of the things going on, just that the coverage and spin is designed to anger and cause outrage just because Trump is POTUS.

And regardless of whether you or I agree with his policies or not, he has thus far done EVERYTHING he said he would... Not just in this term but also the previous one which constitutes some sort of a record in politics.

Monday. Smart motorway. The M1 heading south. Serious accident 350 yards up from us.. Four lanes of stationary traffic.

No lane for emergency vehicles. The incident commander and someone from fire brigade came running between the vehicles. Smart motorways my 4rse.

It is time Europe grew a pair and stood up to Trump over Greenland.

Problem is that really means the EU and they have a good track record of faffing about making decisions that they then all abide by. If Trump invades Greenland it is a done deal. Who exactly would make them leave?

We are at a critical point in the security of Europe path.  NATO would implode.

It would constitute a moral issue if the present occupants didn't want to transfer control. Ask any Ukrainian.
Transfer of control......funny way to describe an invasion.
[/quote]

There are plenty of Russian-speaking Ukrainians who would welcome a transfer of control. Especially those Orthodox Christians who have been banned from their Church or want to speak in their mother tongue and have their children likewise educated. Also relatives of the 16000 killed by the Ukrainian bombs, or who died when that building in Odessa was torched. Remember that Zelensky's presidential manifesto was good relations with Russia. Funny how he forgot that when he was elected.

As far as Trump is concerned, he seems to take fun in ignoring the US Constitution.

...and Greenland was discovered by Denmark before the US even existed!

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

Perhaps, but it's not exactly a new idea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_proposals_for_the_purchase_of_Greenland_by_the_United_States

Would a simple transfer of control really constitute a moral issue?

It would constitute a moral issue if the present occupants didn't want to transfer control. Ask any Ukrainian.
Transfer of control......funny way to describe an invasion.

But they werent invaded then conquered for keeps.
They were just very stupid wars started by very stupid men.
Thee couldnt be any possible moral justification for Trump annexing Greenland.
A strategic one, maybe. But not a moral one.
Even if it was purely a strategic one, it would be proof positive that he doesnt recognise Nato at all.

The man is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and not very nice.