The article on the tanker fire on the M25 (NCE 15 June) highlighted the fact that many vehicles were stuck for several hours because there were no crossover facilities to allow them to leave the scene of the accident.
It seems obvious that a temporary crossover could have been cut through the barrier.
Given the overall cost of the accident, clearance and associated disruption, the 'additional cost' of destroying the integrity of the barrier may have been preferential to the cost of disruption from the impact on business of having its people and goods quarantined on the M25.
Presumably there were other commercial and engineering reasons for not breaching the barrier - if so what were they?
David Hadden, (AM), 11A Main Road, Castlehead, Paisley