MetroQuintoSegundo

Calling out nonsense and cutting through propaganda. Here to challenge, provoke, and connect. Follow for real talk.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

@Crux3Sirrah @herqles_es Si yo tambien pienso lo mismo de lo que acuden a las plazas de toros a ver como se maltrata hasta la muerte a un animal

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

@herqles_es Dice el que ha hecho el video que eso no se puede hacer, pero el mismo aplaude cuando se maltrata hasta la muerte a los toros, que pasa que los toros tienen menos derechos que los delfines?

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

@Jaramillo234 @herqles_es Lo dices por el video del Delfín?

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

@fgarcia1986 Cuando vienen a Europa les pedimos aue respeten nuestras costumbres, pues cuando vamos nosotros allí tambien tenemos que respetar las suya, asi de claro!

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

Isn’t it ironic that you talk about violence and criticise other people’s way of life while displaying the USA flag next to your name? A country where widespread access to firearms has contributed to repeated school shootings and other mass shootings.
A country that proudly says, “In God We Trust,” and whose politicians so often end speeches with “God bless America,” should perhaps remember what Jesus taught about hypocrisy: before pointing out the speck in your neighbour’s eye, look at the plank in your own.
Every society has its problems. It is very easy to condemn another culture while ignoring serious problems within your own.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

No, my friend, no. A depraved or dishonest man can have one wife and several lovers, cheating on his wife while enjoying multiple relationships without taking responsibility for any of them or even recognising or supporting children if a pregnancy results.

That is very different from a man openly having more than one wife. In that situation, the relationships are acknowledged rather than hidden, and marriage brings responsibilities and obligations towards each wife and their children.

What I find incredible is the hypocrisy of people who will look the other way when married men cheat, have multiple lovers, or even celebrate open relationships as an expression of sexual freedom, yet become outraged when a man openly marries more than one woman and accepts responsibility for those relationships.

Marriage is not simply about sex; it is also a legal and social contract. Depending on the country's laws, marriage can establish rights concerning inheritance, property, financial support and children. If a man has one legal wife and several mistresses, the wife will generally have legal protections that the mistresses do not.

You can disagree with polygamy, of course, but portraying an openly acknowledged marriage as inherently more "depraved" than secretly cheating on your wife with multiple partners makes very little sense.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

I don't think anyone claimed to be qualified in collision investigation or suggested that it should be rushed. You keep arguing against a position none have taked. Members of the public do not need College of Policing qualifications to ask how a major incident was managed. Our criticism concerns National Highways’ decisions, particularly allowing planned maintenance to close three lanes beyond J16 while diverted traffic was rejoining there. If you can explain why those works could not have been postponed, please address that point. Sarcasm about BBC documentaries is not an answer.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

We must aim higher. Was keeping a major motorway closed for more than 24 hours really the best that could be done?

Let’s compare it with a remarkably similar incident where motorway authorities showed genuine urgency in minimising disruption to people’s lives and work.

A17, Netherlands, July 2026:

On 28 July, three lorries collided near Moerdijk. One driver died, two people were trapped and injured, and one lorry caught fire. Police investigated the collision before the vehicles could be recovered, after which the road required cleaning and repairs.

The collision happened at approximately 4:15pm. The motorway was open again by 6:48am the following morning, within about 14½ hours.

A fatal collision, trapped casualties, a lorry fire, a police investigation, vehicle recovery, cleaning and repairs, yet the road reopened considerably faster. This demonstrates why we should question whether more could have been done on the M6. We must learn from better examples, aim for continuous improvement and stop treating more than 24 hours of disruption as something the public should simply accept.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

Of course not. A complete collision investigation must take whatever time is necessary, and I don't think anyone is suggested otherwise. Presenting this as a choice between justice and reopening the road is a false dilemma. A thorough police investigation and effective traffic management can and should happen together. For example my concerns relate to decisions outside the police investigation and within National Highways’ control, such as whether recovery and repair resources were mobilised promptly, what safe alternatives were considered, and why planned maintenance closing three lanes beyond J16 continued while diverted traffic was rejoining there. Invoking the death of a loved one does not answer any of those legitimate operational questions.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

We must aim higher. Was keeping a major motorway closed for more than 24 hours really the best that could be done?

Let’s compare it with a remarkably similar incident where motorway authorities showed genuine urgency in minimising disruption to people’s lives and work.

A17, Netherlands, July 2026:

On 28 July, three lorries collided near Moerdijk. One driver died, two people were trapped and injured, and one lorry caught fire. Police investigated the collision before the vehicles could be recovered, after which the road required cleaning and repairs.

The collision happened at approximately 4:15pm. The motorway was open again by 6:48am the following morning, within about 14½ hours.

A fatal collision, trapped casualties, a lorry fire, a police investigation, vehicle recovery, cleaning and repairs, yet the road reopened considerably faster. This demonstrates why we should question whether more could have been done on the M6. We must learn from better examples, aim for continuous improvement and stop treating more than 24 hours of disruption as something the public should simply accept.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

Thank you, that clarifies what “ahead of schedule” referred to. However, reopening before the latest 06:00 estimate does not prove that the overall incident was managed as efficiently as possible.

However, 24 hours is exceptional. National Highways should provide a clear timeline explaining:
When police released the scene.
When recovery and repairs began.
Why no lanes could reopen earlier.
Which alternative traffic measures were considered.
Why the planned three lane closure after J16 was not suspended.
The closure may have been operationally necessary, but its duration and management have not yet been properly justified publicly. Saying it reopened “ahead of schedule” only means it beat the latest estimate. It does not prove the incident was managed as efficiently as possible.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

I accept that the police investigation was not National Highways’ fault. However, I still believe the overall incident could have been managed better. Describing the reopening as “ahead of schedule” after the motorway had been closed for nearly an entire day is meaningless unless we know what that schedule was and when it was established. (Initially panels on the M6 stated expected closure untill 6pm)

It feels like Ryanair celebrating an early arrival after allowing generous time in the published timetable. If you set a sufficiently generous deadline, beating it does not necessarily prove that the response was efficient.

Keeping three lanes closed for planned maintenance immediately after J16, where diverted northbound traffic was being sent back onto the M6, was a decision within National Highways’ control. Unless reopening those lanes was unsafe, the work should have been postponed until the following night. That is basic incident management and would have avoided turning a major disruption into an even bigger one.

I believe criticism and complaints should be treated as opportunities to review operational procedures and encourage quicker, more creative responses when the next incident occurs. National Highways, and especially its managers, should welcome legitimate concerns rather than minimise or dismiss them.

Any organisation or country genuinely striving for excellence must ask after a major incident: What could we have done better? How can we reduce disruption to people’s lives next time? Forgive me if I’m wrong, but from the public communication so far, I see more effort being made to defend the response than a willingness to question what happened, learn from it and consider how similar incidents could be handled better in future.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

😂 I’ll take that as a compliment! But honestly and forgive me if I’m wrong, I increasingly get the impression that too many managers responsible for services intended to serve the public simply don’t care enough. Some appear content to collect their salary while doing as little as possible, and that attitude is helping to run this country into the ground.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

@standingtraffic @myattsd @HighwaysWMIDS Some people appear more interested in shielding National Highways from public criticism than discussing whether its incident management could improve.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

The “a month?” remark was clearly sarcasm, not a request for a debrief on X. Dismissing every concern while offering speculative explanations for National Highways feels unnecessarily defensive. After a near-24-hour closure, asking whether the impact could have been reduced is entirely reasonable.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

I’ve acknowledged the practical difficulties and that safety must come first. This isn’t about “nothing ever being good enough”; it’s about asking whether the impact of a 24-hour closure could have been managed better. If every legitimate question is dismissed as moaning, nothing will ever improve.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

That is a fair point, and I accept that my earlier comments were written out of considerable frustration. I have been badly affected by similar motorway closures in different parts of the country, and sometimes it feels as though the impact on motorists is treated as an afterthought.

I certainly do not expect repair crews to sit beside every motorway waiting for an accident. However, emergency-response arrangements do exist, and it is reasonable to expect effective contingency planning. When a closure is expected to last 19 hours, the first question should be: how can we safely minimise the impact on drivers?

For example, where the road layout allowed it, could a controlled contraflow using one southbound lane have been considered to move northbound traffic past the incident? Could nearby planned maintenance requiring further lane closures have been temporarily suspended? Such measures may not always be possible, but they should at least be properly considered and explained.

Safety must always come first, but highly paid network managers are there to think beyond simply closing the road and directing everyone onto an inadequate diversion. Motorists have every right to expect proactive management that reduces disruption as much as safely possible.

[MetroQuintoSegundo @QuintoMetr67940]

You clearly haven’t a clue what the complaint is actually about. Nobody objected to the maintenance itself, the issue was keeping three planned lane closures in place exactly where thousands of vehicles were rejoining after a major emergency closure. But you’re obviously a fully paid-up member of the “they can’t win” brigade: no matter how badly something is managed, anyone who questions it must simply be “moaning.” How convenient.