Have not contributed to this thread to date but my feelings seem to be in line with most of the posters, the problem is too fast too close.
We all think we are very good drivers and we all think we have instant reactions, we may be right on an ideal day when we are fully alert and rested and there are no distractions.
Unfortunately the truth is different, many things distract us and yet we still think we are perfect. All it takes is one distraction in one of these nose to tail queues and AC's momentary lapse into impatience and you have another one of these collisions.
The sooner they have a camera that measures the gap between two cars and ticke3ts the second based on the shortness of the gap the better.
As for an 80mph limit - forget it. Just read Damon Hill's piece in the telegraph last week and you will undersand why. the safest motorways are almost certainly those with the variable speed limits and cameras.
BTW - lets do the same as the driver training people do and call them collisions, not accidents.
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 08:37
|
"We've noticed this time of year in the fens** a fairly small amount of smoke from an evening bonfire will travel in a concentrated corridor for a long way clinging just above ground level. "
You should see if from the hills, or in the air.
Ground smoke, unless it has sufficient heat (like a big hot fire) usually hugs to the ground, and your right it follows a pretty narrow thick trail. Bing foggy and damp would keep it close to the ground, AND it would coagulate with the water droplets in the fog to create a thick greasy emulsion.
My hypothesis is, it was the ground displays that created the dark thick blanket, a fairly narrow strip (in relative terms) possibly hidden in the lighter whiter mist and fog, driver hits unseen black fog, brake in panic, and whammo.
|
Smoke , fog, heavy rain, snow no matter what is in front of you you slow down and adjust your speed and alertness accordingly. But people will still think everything is okay to drive through at too high a speed and not take into account those that have adjusted their speed so we end up with collisions.
How many times do you see numpties whizzing past you in fog when they should be adhering to the warning speed limits.All it takes is for the traffic ahead to stop or slow enough for a rear end crunch to happen. Driving too close is a modern factor nowadays as well.
Watching the news footage the other night, I noticed a central reservation matrix sign showing on the opposite carriageway flashing with a 40 mph. Was this post collision or was it the reason why drivers dropped from maximum speed to 40.Maybe the same signal was on the carriageway that suffered. This would then create the scenario above. I also noted two cars at the very front of the pile up sustained damaged at the front. Did they rear end the intial slower vehicles that either drove away or were ,as mentioned before, the two cars further along on the hard shoulder.Someone slowed too quickley and the pack behind did not have enough time to adjust. On the M25 the other week the variable speed limits signs dropped from 70 to 40. This creates the potential for rear end shunts. The HA needs to gradually decrease the speed limit to allow drivers to adjust. Sometimes I feel that they can create the conditions for such tragedies.
No matter what the outcome, you will never stop this from occuring. Peoples mind set, differing speeds, not paying attention or sticking to limits. Unless every vehicle is fitted with the Volvo anti collision equipment, which would take years and cost billions. I'm afraid until this happens we will still from time to time have to witness and grieve over this type of incident.
|
>> Unless every vehicle is fitted with
>> the Volvo anti collision equipment, which would take years and cost billions. I'm afraid until
>> this happens we will still from time to time have to witness and grieve over
>> this type of incident.
Ah yes - www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaVLOF6sk0&feature=related
:)
|
>> Smoke , fog, heavy rain, snow no matter what is in front of you you
>> slow down and adjust your speed and alertness accordingly.
If you see it. Its sounds as tho it may not have been visible till the very last moment,
From all I can see and read, huge speeds seem not to have been a problem here. Not many of the cars seem to have been badly mangled, merely burned.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 11:13
|
>>>Not many of the cars seem to have been badly mangled, merely burned.
It doesn't help those that died or their relatives but in truth the death toll was quite limited given the images. It seems 3 or 4 of the deaths were in one car and another 2 in the lorries travelling together so the deaths outside of those vehicles were low given there were almost 40 vehicles involved.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 11:27
|
IMO too much attention is being put on the fireworks display.
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8874334/M5-crash-fog-unlikely-to-have-been-caused-by-fireworks-display-claim-pyrotechnics-experts.html
Transport minister suggests smoke from fireworks may not have been the cause
It has been said that the fireworks poduced white smoke. The black smoke was more likely to be caused by the lorry / car / road burning.
|
|
If the black smoke originated from burning vehicles it cannot have been the initial cause of the collisions. It is stated, by some sources, that there was no bonfire, minister suggests it wasn't fireworks, so where do the investigators look for causes now?
|
Maybe start with dark wet / foggy conditions plus vehicles joining from the slip road and maybe lorries tailgating in lane one so where is the gap to slot in ??
Perhaps a sprint up the nearside, dive in ( causing others to brake ) and disappear over the horizon leaving chaos behind and never knowing until later what had happened behind ??
All sorts of senarios.
|
|
Is there CCTV at the slip road/flyover ?
|
Ministers should keep their traps shut till they know any facts,.
I am sure it will all come out in the wash.
|
As I mentioned way up the thread, the accident happened in the precise spot where the motorway crosses the flood plain of the River Tone. Mist and fog, particularly on a wet November evening, is a fact of life there.
In fact, it occurs to me it isn't the flood plain any more - over-development has pushed that downstream towards Sedgemoor - but the river is still right there.
|
>> Mist and fog, particularly on a wet November evening, is a fact of life there.
Plenty of places like that on the Mway network; M1 15A - 16 is badly affected by its proximity to the Nene.
|
>>Transport minister suggests smoke from fireworks may not have been the cause
Where does it say that?
|
Somerset detectives try to establish whether smoke from rugby club fireworks display was to blame
It is obviously being considered (report from yesterday)
|
|
Possible smoke from fireworks or bonfires, like patches of fog, is a normal hazard at this time of year. It would be wrong - very unjust - to attribute responsibility for a motorway crash some distance away to a firework or Guy Fawkes party.
|
Depends on where you are on the Rugger Club Ground. At the East end you could climb up the embankment onto the M way ie a few yards. Fireworks would presumably have been much further away.
g.co/maps/rp49p
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 8 Nov 11 at 16:02
|
|
Fog warning lights not on? Oh dear.
|
Some coverage on the local news. Appears that the signs only get turned on by the highways agency if the CCTV operators (police force) notice Fog and tell them to activate them.
In this case nobody had requested that they be turned on
In some areas they have sensors that detect fog and activate the signs automatically
|
So much for my ideas!!!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-20012262
"A man has been charged with seven counts of manslaughter over a pile-up on the M5 in Somerset last year.
Geoffrey Counsell, from Somerset, was the provider of a nearby fireworks display at Taunton Rugby Club on 4 November, the night of the collision."
|
>> So much for my ideas!!!
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-20012262
>>
>> "A man has been charged with seven counts of manslaughter over a pile-up on the
>> M5 in Somerset last year.
>> Geoffrey Counsell, from Somerset, was the provider of a nearby fireworks display at Taunton Rugby
>> Club on 4 November, the night of the collision."
In a joint statement, Avon and Somerset Police and the Crown Prosecution Service said: "Today the Crown Prosecution Service has authorised Avon and Somerset Police to charge Geoffrey Counsell with seven counts of manslaughter.
"It was clear from the investigation carried out by Avon and Somerset Police that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error and therefore no action will be taken against any motorists.
"The CPS also considered the culpability of Taunton Rugby Club and reached the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."
I can see this one failing to get a conviction, seems to me the guy was third choice in a "someone must be blamed" contest.
|
>>seems to me the guy was third choice in a "someone must be blamed"
My thoughts as well on reading it.
|
|
Indeed, Poor fellow, I do hope common sense will prevail. A fine example of the "someone must be blamed" culture.
|
For years I have been involved with a local firework display, usually with the firing. One of the 'must dos' is to have a written risk assessment on file in case anything goes wrong. If you haven't evidence that you've done that, you are probably already in danger if being held to be negligent if anything goes wrong.
It's pretty close to saying you might have to prove your innocence.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 20 Oct 12 at 08:45
|
My thoughts too. Absolutely inexplicable. I think I'd put money on the outcome.
I'm glad I'm not on the newsdesk down there any more - I think there'd be some shouting matches with dense editors.
|
>> Exactly mine too.
>>
>> Pat
And mine.
OTOH the CPS must think there's a reasonable probability, better than 50%? that a properly directed jury will convict.
Trial is probably best part of another year away and the evidence then will tell. Presumably the allegation will be based on gross negligence in where the pyrotechnics were sited and/or the content used bearing in mind weather etc. Bearing in mind the unusual circs might be a day or two's legal argument absent the jury before it kicks off.
Or a plea bargain.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 20 Oct 12 at 13:08
|
>> I can see this one failing to get a conviction, seems to me the guy
>> was third choice in a "someone must be blamed" contest.
Seems the CPS had seconds thoughts too.
Manslaughter charges have been dropped against the organiser of a fireworks display held on the night of a crash on the M5 in which seven people died.
Mr Counsell will now face one charge, under health and safety laws, of failing to ensure the safety of others.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21024902
|
Hi,
I would Like to contribute on this theory
I was driving up the m5 from Exeter last night at around 8pm last night .
I was doing around the 70-80 mph bracket we was around the area where the big hotel is set on the hill , beFore clevedon.
I noticed a person swerve very dangerously in front of me in the middle lane,
I then noticed a large stag in a collapsed state in the centre lane ,
I then managed to swerve into the fast lane missing it by a matter of feet.
I bless my skills on driving and also my a b s and thank god nothing was hurtling down the fast lane as this would of caused a major accident.
So looking back at the terrible m5 crash the deer theory should not be discounted
|
Whether Weather, Smoke, Fog or Heeby Jeeby's walking across the Motorway doing the Jive, it is probably all down to Richard Heads travelling at a speed whereby they cannot stop in the distance which they can see. It really isn't rocket science.
Rocket science being aimed at the morons who, in their comfy armchairs on wheels, feel little obligation to be part of the affair.
Anyway. Back to washing muddy Dogs and attempting Dinner.
MD
|
>> Whether Weather, Smoke, Fog
Smoke or fog? like this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxwdxfDt4pY
|
|
Cripes ! Was that today ? It was like summer up here !
|
|
Yup, in the West Midlands. Some really thick patches up the M40, 30 yards at times.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 20 Oct 12 at 19:40
|
|
I prefurred that to the old girl @ Cheddington, I think a longer shot from the other side of the platform works better too.
|
|
The other platform at Cheddington was full of blokes with tripods, no room, it was heaving with gricers.
|
|
(Haha!) I did think that as it happens :)
|
|
Very nice write up. HS10 still?
|
Yup still the HS10, much as I would like to lash out on a Panasonic HC-V700 video camera, the HS10 is still doing a very good general purpose job in most circumstances
|
I think he will be found not guilty and I agree with that.
I aver that what he was doing could not directly cause the deaths, ie, it was not the effects of the smoke that killed people, rather the effects of the smoke caused a chain of events which with contributory factors caused the deaths of the victims.
For example, if you throw a rock off a cliff to the beach below which you cannot see and it hits someone on the head and kills them, then that is manslaughter, but if you throw a rock down at night and the beach is empty but the next day someone trips and bangs their head and dies, then you should not even be charged with manslaughter.
|
Update www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-21024902 - no manslaughter charge, just one charge "under health and safety laws, of failing to ensure the safety of others."
I'd say that's a good decision
|
|
Some of us have work to do :-)
|
|
I finished that faster than you as well!!!!
|
|
Wonder what it's cost to bring that case?
|
>> Wonder what it's cost to bring that case?
Multiple deaths on M-way = 'Something Must be Done'
|
|
It's already worked though...how many other people will think these things through more thoroughly now.
|
>> It's already worked though...how many other people will think these things through more thoroughly now.
Not really, will it fundamentally change the way people drive in poor visibility? you and I both know the answer to that one.
|
>> >> It's already worked though...how many other people will think these things through more thoroughly
>> now.
>>
>> Not really, will it fundamentally change the way people drive in poor visibility? you and
>> I both know the answer to that one.
>>
Agreed. I meant organisers of fireworks displays.
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 10 Dec 13 at 12:43
|
>> >> Wonder what it's cost to bring that case?
>>
>> Multiple deaths on M-way = 'Something Must be Done' 'Someone must be blamed'
>>
|
>> >> >> Wonder what it's cost to bring that case?
>> >>
>> >> Multiple deaths on M-way = 'Something Must be Done' 'Someone must be blamed'
I've just re-read the first volume where I made point that somebody must be 'held accountable'.
|
|
Looks they didn't do too well at that.
|
Of course, to do a proper H&S assessment you have to be able to exactly forecast the wind direction, the weather and the wind speed...
And assume many drivers will drive at speed into zero visibility..
|
>> Of course, to do a proper H&S assessment you have to be able to exactly
>> forecast the wind direction, the weather and the wind speed...
>>
I don't think you'd need to do that, but you ought to be asking yourself "what if?", especially bearing in mind the proximity of the motorway. It's not as though that evening was affected by a freak weather event for the time of year.
As Westpig commented above, you can bet (sensible) display operators will be thinking about this a bit more in future.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Tue 10 Dec 13 at 17:29
|
How likely is it to happen x how bad is it if it happens = level of planning and consideration to have in place.
And you need to consider "how likely" and "how bad" even if you then dismiss the risk.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Dec 13 at 17:54
|
As somebody who helps fire a public firework display every year, albeit non-professional, I'm quite interested in this.
Not many firing sites will be more than 200 metres from a road of some description.
We do a risk assessment but it is focused on fire risk and direct personal injury. This year with a strong wind we made a last minute call to change the placement of the fireworks and the audience. Within reason wind is good because the smoke disperses. In this case we were more concerned with falling debris.
We tell the police what we are doing and where (they are mainly interested in traffic, pedestrian safety and parking). We also We use Cat 3 fireworks which typically state minimum 25 metres separation from the audience. We use a minimum of 50 metres anyway which gives a better view than 25.
I'd guess we are usually firing about 100m from a country road. I have never seen smoke that I would describe as being anything like thick fog, even right among the fireworks lighting ground pieces.
What happened was very difficult to foresee. I imagine that is the major factor in the verdict. Basically there must have been very little wind at all for the smoke still to be thick 200m away.
|
|
He got let off. Must have cost tens of thousands...questions need to be asked about how this ever got this far.
|
>> He got let off.
I was avoiding that!
|
This case, and the manslaughter one previously, being dropped was the right decision for me.
From the Independent...
"Before a final decision to go ahead with the display was taken, the Highways Agency, the Taunton Deane Borough Council and the Avon and Somerset Constabulary were consulted.
"All were informed of the fact and nature of the display. No objection of any kind was raised. As matters transpired, the Taunton Deane Borough Council and Avon and Somerset Constabulary were to be the agencies which prosecuted in respect of that same display......
"It is perhaps relevant to note that there were around 1,000 people at the display, including serving police and fire officers. Not a single one of those people raised any concern at the time about the smoke or fog, whether during or after the display.
|
|
Poor bloke must have been through hell the last two years. Imagine having that weighing on you all that time.
|
>> Of course, to do a proper H&S assessment you have to be able to exactly
>> forecast the wind direction, the weather and the wind speed...
>>
No You Don't
A proper H&S assessment will show that you cannot forecast wind strength or direction and will also show what actions you are going to take if certain conditions apply, e.g. wind towards motorway means stop display. It might also say "display visible from motorway causes distraction to drivers so hold display somewhere else" - or alternately and opening some risk of proceeding "drivers should pay attention to the road so ignore risk".
It is an approach for assessing risks and setting out what you will do if those risks occur. Done beforehand in the cold light of day it means that you don't stand around for half an hour thinking what do we do now, you just do what the assessment says you should do.
edit : Seems that the display organisers did just what they should have done and asked the experts who said no problem forseen.
Last edited by: IJWS14 on Wed 11 Dec 13 at 08:39
|
M5 Motorway crash Volume 2. - Zero
