I’ve been stuck behind and seen on the opposite carriageway police enforced rolling roadblocks, both directions on the M1. They’re usually between j28 and 32 and happen at various times from early evening throughout the night. I can’t see any reason for them and just assumed they’re a police training exercise.
Can anyone on here shed any light on them?
Cheers
Cavey
The ‘advantages’ of using motorways are getting less and less as time goes on.At worse stuck for hours between junctions in the aftermath of accidents or jams caused by roadworks.Or at best strictly enforced 56 mph mph max for trucks or 70 mph for cars more often less and numerous other ‘issues’ like this example.Realistically from the users point of view they are an expensive over regulated liability rather than an asset.
Carryfast:
The ‘advantages’ of using motorways are getting less and less as time goes on.At worse stuck for hours between junctions in the aftermath of accidents or jams caused by roadworks.Or at best strictly enforced 56 mph mph max for trucks or 70 mph for cars more often less and numerous other ‘issues’ like this example.Realistically from the users point of view they are an expensive over regulated liability rather than an asset.
I have to agree with this and now seldom do I use them, I am mostly alone on A and B roads, plus all the satnavs channel everyone onto the motorways, so they are hugely cluttered with drones.
Sometimes they put them in to create a sterile area if there’s a chase heading that way hoping the driver being chased will take to the hard shoulder and then get to an empty motorway where there’s less danger to the public. They also do this regularly as a training exercise at the top of the M23.
The other reason could also be to remove debris which you wouldn’t necessarily see from the opposite carriageway.
Although you say they’re random I don’t think they’d get away putting on a block without authorisation as its all too easy for the tailbacks to create crashes.
Carryfast:
The ‘advantages’ of using motorways are getting less and less as time goes on.At worse stuck for hours between junctions in the aftermath of accidents or jams caused by roadworks.Or at best strictly enforced 56 mph mph max for trucks or 70 mph for cars more often less and numerous other ‘issues’ like this example.Realistically from the users point of view they are an expensive over regulated liability rather than an asset.
Ah, you mean the the socialist, federalist, Titoist M1? 
Rjan:
Ah, you mean the the socialist, federalist, Titoist M1?
Ironically that combined with the big business rail interests in making the road option less attractive. 
Captain Caveman 76:
I’ve been stuck behind and seen on the opposite carriageway police enforced rolling roadblocks, both directions on the M1. They’re usually between j28 and 32 and happen at various times from early evening throughout the night. I can’t see any reason for them and just assumed they’re a police training exercise.
Can anyone on here shed any light on them?
Cheers
Cavey
There’s been roadworks on that section for so long they just don’t like to see traffic flowing freely so they think I know lets ■■■■ em up
What about people who start their own rolling roadblocks when they see an abnormal load and think it’s illegal to overtake the ■■■■■■ vehicle?
Carryfast:
The ‘advantages’ of using motorways are getting less and less as time goes on.At worse stuck for hours between junctions in the aftermath of accidents or jams caused by roadworks.Or at best strictly enforced 56 mph mph max for trucks or 70 mph for cars more often less and numerous other ‘issues’ like this example.Realistically from the users point of view they are an expensive over regulated liability rather than an asset.
+1
What about funeral corteges on dual carriageways, or more importantly people who wont overtake the hearse?
On an evening between J28 and the M18 they will have a rolling road block to assist the cone layers, as they no longer have a safe area to start from as in no hard shoulder, as soon as they have the start of the cones out in lane 1 the police disappear, then have another when they are clearing the last of the cones in the morning.
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Ah, you mean the the socialist, federalist, Titoist M1?Ironically that combined with the big business rail interests in making the road option less attractive.
Don’t forget when Beeching tore up the rails and sold off the trackbeds, to favour the big business road interests.
Rjan:
Carryfast:
Rjan:
Ah, you mean the the socialist, federalist, Titoist M1?Ironically that combined with the big business rail interests in making the road option less attractive.
Don’t forget when Beeching tore up the rails and sold off the trackbeds, to favour the big business road interests.
To be fair there’s a difference between having to tear up the rails because rail isn’t competitive.As opposed to road rationing to deliberately make road transport less competitive.While if we want to employ more people trucks employ more drivers than trains do. 
Although admittedly solidarity among the workforce has been abysmal by comparison.Although Europhile Thatcher’s removal of the right to secondary action on the EU’s watch obviously didn’t help in that regard anyway.
Usually started by either bogus or misinformation given to the ha. A confused motorist rings to say there’s a tyre in lane 3 clockwise on the M25, when it’s anti clockwise. Or they say after junction 3 when it’s before. I’ve known drivers make duff calls to the ha to bring on an artificial jam so they can blag a night out, by running out of time 20 mins from base 
Carryfast:
The ‘advantages’ of using motorways are getting less and less as time goes on.At worse stuck for hours between junctions in the aftermath of accidents or jams caused by roadworks.Or at best strictly enforced 56 mph mph max for trucks or 70 mph for cars more often less and numerous other ‘issues’ like this example.Realistically from the users point of view they are an expensive over regulated liability rather than an asset.
Yep, yesterday for example I was at Hereford with a box for Seaforth, leaving at 5pm I choose A49, A5, A483, A55, M53 (parked ar formula Ellesmere Port, very nice by the way), then tootled into Seaforth this morning. Satnav was screaming to go A4103, M5 etc
Parked up for 8pm.
Fully laden going steady a pleasure of a drive, slight snarl up round Shrewsbury but plenty of leg to look at, some ladies too.
Carryfast:
To be fair there’s a difference between having to tear up the rails because rail isn’t competitive.
There’s nothing uncompetitive about rail. Beeching moaned about the little-used branch lines, but by tearing up the tracks they permanently destroyed the Victorian legacy of railways that reached almost everywhere and impaired the principle that you could reach anywhere on a train. In the 60s of course, the car was seen as the future technology, and the railways as a dirty state monopoly.
Nowadays, they are talking about automating trucks on the motorway and allowing one driver to haul several trucks in convoy. What they really need is a railway, and automatic container cranes.
As opposed to road rationing to deliberately make road transport less competitive.While if we want to employ more people trucks employ more drivers than trains do.
Which makes it even more absurd that rail is uncompetitive, because labour is the main cost. The difference is that drivers are cheap cowboys whilst railwaymen have job security and final-salary pensions.
Although admittedly solidarity among the workforce has been abysmal by comparison.Although Europhile Thatcher’s removal of the right to secondary action on the EU’s watch obviously didn’t help in that regard anyway.
Thatcher was “Europhile” in the sense she was for market globalisation - not that she was for European worker’s rights or democratic control of the economy. That’s why old Labour are ambivalent about the EU.
Thats ■■■■■■ it
OMG you mentioned our Maggie in Carryfasts prescence. This is a forum taboo
Dipper_Dave:
Thats [zb] it
OMG you mentioned our Maggie in Carryfasts prescence. This is a forum taboo
Sshhhh! Maybe he won’t notice! 
Rjan:
Carryfast:
To be fair there’s a difference between having to tear up the rails because rail isn’t competitive.There’s nothing uncompetitive about rail. Beeching moaned about the little-used branch lines, but by tearing up the tracks they permanently destroyed the Victorian legacy of railways that reached almost everywhere and impaired the principle that you could reach anywhere on a train. In the 60s of course, the car was seen as the future technology, and the railways as a dirty state monopoly.
Nowadays, they are talking about automating trucks on the motorway and allowing one driver to haul several trucks in convoy. What they really need is a railway, and automatic container cranes.
As opposed to road rationing to deliberately make road transport less competitive.While if we want to employ more people trucks employ more drivers than trains do.
Which makes it even more absurd that rail is uncompetitive, because labour is the main cost. The difference is that drivers are cheap cowboys whilst railwaymen have job security and final-salary pensions.
Although admittedly solidarity among the workforce has been abysmal by comparison.Although Europhile Thatcher’s removal of the right to secondary action on the EU’s watch obviously didn’t help in that regard anyway.
Thatcher was “Europhile” in the sense she was for market globalisation - not that she was for European worker’s rights or democratic control of the economy. That’s why old Labour are ambivalent about the EU.
Great if rail is as competitive as it would like to think it is they’ll have no problem in allowing LHV’s and use of red diesel in trucks and get rid of all the artificial road rationing in the form of over regulated motorways.
If the unions are all for workers’ rights they obviously wouldn’t want to support the EU regime which allowed Thatcher’s secondary action ‘reforms’ and continues to maintain it.Nor would we have one sector of the transport Unions calling another cheap cowboys,while taking an opposite selective approach to the Europhile TUC position in general.Or is that only any sector of the road transport industry that they see as a threat to their interests.
On that note we obviously can’t get truck driver’s wages into line with train drivers,while we’ve got a playing field that’s not level in regards to fuel costs for one example and unions saying one thing about protecting rail jobs from immigrant competition and regards union solidarity ( ASLEF/RMT leave ).But the opposite in the case of road transport jobs ( UNITE remain ).In addition,as I’ve said,to train drivers obviously preferring to vote with their wallets regards the vagaries of the Social Security system v private income protection cover.
Captain Caveman 76:
Dipper_Dave:
Thats [zb] it
OMG you mentioned our Maggie in Carryfasts prescence. This is a forum tabooSshhhh! Maybe he won’t notice!
No need to worry I said it first.