***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
==========================================================
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/26/several-die-crash-m1-involving-two-lorries-minibus/
Eight dead, all in a minibus involved in a collision with two large goods vehicles. One lorry driver suspected of drink driving.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 24 Mar 18 at 20:37
|
|
Tragic. Perhaps inappropriate to speculate and until the circumstances are much clearer it's difficult to discuss without speculation.
|
|
I agree, hence no comment. Road was closed for 10 hours, according to local news just now.
|
Tragically sad.
Appreciate that we don't know what happened. Probably won't for some time and whilst it is difficult for those caught up in the jams, I am sure they would want to know the reasons if it was their families.
|
Saw this on the news earlier. Front lorry only had minor damage to one of the rear doors by the looks of it. The mini bus looked like it had been completely run over. The rear lorry's cab was a twisted mangled wreck. It's a wonder anyone got out of that cab alive.
A tragic waste of several lives. Would hate to imagine what it would have been like if the road had been busier.
|
>>it's difficult to discuss without speculation.<,
I agree.
I've read so much speculation since it happened from fellow lorry drivers and I really don't want to be a part of that until we have more facts.
Pat
|
>>it's difficult to discuss without speculation.
>>
>> I've read so much speculation since it happened from fellow lorry drivers and I really
>> don't want to be a part of that until we have more facts.
>>
Some facts have now been published from the first court appearance.
From the limited details so far I suspect a lot of speculation has been binned.
|
>>Perhaps inappropriate to speculate
Why?
|
|
How come the minibus compressed like that? It looked like its body was made of cardboard.
|
>> How come the minibus compressed like that? It looked like its body was made of
>> cardboard.
>>
38 tons or so at whatever speed ...
|
Or may be the minibus was built on a mini truck chassis with thin panels. So unlike a monocoque construction, it has very little rigidity and simple crumpled under speed.
So possibly the truck on the rear hit the bus so hard that it compressed longitudinally.
|
>> >>Perhaps inappropriate to speculate
>>
>> Why?
>>
Eight deaths, countless lives ruined including the lorry drivers and their families so at the time I would not have wanted to speculate on the cause. A little more info has come to light since, one lorry driver was drunk and the have both been charged with causing death by dangerous driving though we don't yet know how their actions lead to the tragic accident involving the minibus other than that it seems that the minibus was squashed between the two lorries.
|
I cannot see what is wrong with speculation, nor do I see why dead people make it more or less correct.
Nothing wrong with speculating and being wrong. Seems silly to me to think that there is, but each to their own.
|
|
I'd rather not discuss possible causes or circumstances re the accident and maybe imply that an individual caused the death of eight others without having much more detail.
|
I am with FM2R on this. Speculation is exactly that.
I am also intrigued to understand exactly what happened with the result that both HGV drivers being prosecuted for causing d by DD.
|
The speculation is around what on earth could have happened, a weird one for sure, happened more or less at the quietest time of the night, motorway must have been very empty, yet two lorries contrive to come together with a minibus full of people.
Police were very quick to apportion blame and bring charges, not against one, but both drivers.
Speculation must conclude that clearly its not a tragic happen chance "accident"
|
I'm also intrigued.
When I made the comment "Perhaps inappropriate to speculate ..." that NoFM quoted it was early ish on Saturday and the accident was just being reported.
|
|
Pat obviously has access to professional speculation -pity she has stayed silent.
|
>> Pat obviously has access to professional speculation -pity she has stayed silent.
Speculate away www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=149238
|
>> >> Pat obviously has access to professional speculation -pity she has stayed silent.
>>
>> Speculate away www.trucknetuk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=149238
>>
From Trucknet
Re: M1 lorry & minibus crash
Postby Casual Observer » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:22 pm
supermatt wrote:
Don't post here much but I passed the scene around 10 minutes before it happened. Just want to let you guys know what i saw leading up to the accident.
Im not going to suggest blame, thats for the Police
The AIM logistics HGV was parked in lane 1 of the M1 S/B with parking brake on NO HAZARDS, NO BRAKE LIGHTS just before the bridge but after the slip road.
The first I saw of him stationary in the wrong lane was when I exited on the slip road at J14, I couldn't believe what I saw, It defied all logic. I didn't see him until the last moment but luckily was on the slip road.
Purely my opinion, but now with info the Police have released I can only assume he decided to take a break on the hard shoulder, but was so pis sed didn't realise he was in lane 1.
The way he was parked in a live lane was very disorientating because of the slip road as in he looked like he was on H/S.
RIP to all on minibus and sympathy to fedex driver as what I saw it could have easily been anyone of us who hit that bus.
This was posted early on Sun morning . I know some have said they have not read through all topic , but surely what is highlighted must have played some significance in this accident ."
"
Last edited by: madf on Tue 29 Aug 17 at 14:44
|
>>Purely my opinion, but now with info the Police have released I can only assume he decided to take a break on the hard shoulder, but was so pis sed didn't realise he was in lane 1.<<
...and that madf is exactly the sort of 'assumptions' I've tried very hard not to perpetuate.
Try at least to give a balanced view. Do you know Supermatt? His Trucknet history? I do.
Pat
|
The last time I speculated the post was removed as a court case was spending so I'm a bit at a loss in what I can and can't say.
I only know what I've heard and read but that may or may not be correct, I have no way of knowing anymore than anyone else.
For what it's worth the speculation is the following:
The foreign driver may have broken down in the carriageway (brakes can make it impossible to move) and have been trying to get it moving.
He was apparently living in his car after leaving his wife a couple of weeks before.
I have heard it reported by someone who saw it, that the lorry had no lights on, and he immediately reported it to the Police before the accident.
The 'other ' lorry is reported not to have braked at all and this would lead to an arrest and investigation as to why he didn't take avoiding action.
Could he have been on the phone or otherwise distracted?
The minibus would be speed limited at around 60mph, just a little faster than the lorries. Had the other lorry been trying to overtake for some time and then saw the lorry on the n/side lane ahead and though 'That'll slow him down'?
The minibus driver had less than 3 hours sleep the night before the accident, was he in any way the cause of the accident?
It's a conundrum and I wonder if we'll ever know exactly what happened.
From the pics it's a safe bet the minibus came upon the back of the stationary lorry and swerved very quickly into the other one that was overtaking, but why not swerve onto the hard shoulder if, as you should be, aware of what is in your right hand side lane?
The clue for me is why the other lorry didn't brake and I think that holds the key to why he was arrested.
All of the above are freely available via Google, Facebook and the Press.
Pat
|
I forgot to add that I'm not sure if FedEx use a telematics system at all, but I would expect they do have them fitted.
At the time of an accident our telematics automatically record speed, direction, accelerator position, braking, ABS status, gears, cruise control and clutch.
That information would lead to a far better insight than we have.
Pat
|
>>The speculation is around what on earth could have happened... two lorries contrive to come together with a minibus full of people.
Yes, I wasn't surprised both lorry drivers were arrested on suspicion, I think that might be more or less standard procedure in the event of fatalities so they they can be breath tested, evidence gathered, etc.
However now that they have both been, or are to be, charged it is hard to imagine circumstances in which two lorry drivers might both be to blame to the extent implied by the charges.
Clearly the one who was over the breath:alcohol limit is starting from a bad place.
|
|
I can only thinking of racing, playing chicken or road rage.
|
|
I'm prepared to speculate that because of the time of night, driver fatigue, by any or all of them involved, will feature heavily.
|
In the middle of the linked thread posted above there is an aerial photo allegedly showing skid marks from the 2nd HGV. Appears to be telling evidence when combined withe the supposed coroners court words.
There is also some suggestion of a mystery Ford Fiesta - one person has it driving off home and another has it spinning and hitting the central reservation!
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Tue 29 Aug 17 at 15:00
|
www.pressreader.com/uk/scottish-daily-mail/20170829/281719794716790
[prosecutor] Miss Mohamed said: ‘It is the case that the defendant’s vehicle is stationary in lane one of the motorway for approximately 12 minutes.
‘The Ford Transit minibus is driving in the same lane and attempted to get into the other lane to drive around the defendant’s vehicle which had stopped.
‘There is then a collision with a third vehicle and – I think everyone is aware of the consequences of that collision – the defendant is arrested.’
|
|
Am I missing something here - what has the non stationery lorry driver done wrong? This report seems to suggest minibus switched lane and collided with second lorry. What did that driver do wrong?
|
Weeeeellll If you were driving that second lorry, and you were boxing the minibus into a danger zone, would you move out to allow them a safety exit? or would you carry on corralling them into a collision?
Merely supposition of course. charges could be dropped, case could collapse in court.
|
Yeah I get that but wonder how they could come up with that so quickly to charge the driver?
As this is just after a junction I wonder if all captured on roadside camera? Or maybe lorry dashcam? I had assumed the minibus had been sandwiched between the two lorries nose to tail.
Unless other witnesses?
Lorry driver 1's alcohol limit, albeit he was over, but I wouldnt have thought that alone would have led to him to park up not realising where he was. Maybe combined with tiredness who knows?
|
>> This report seems to suggest minibus switched lane and collided with second lorry.
>> What did that driver do wrong?
>>
" The 'other ' lorry is reported not to have braked at all and this would lead to an arrest and investigation as to why he didn't take avoiding action."
|
Apologies if I've missed the obvious, but do we know that it was Lorry Driver 1 who was over the limit? Even then, surely he only played the part of "road block".
Was there some kind of previous interaction between the minibus and Lorry Driver II ?
As I said, I may have missed the obvious but I had kind of gathered that Lorry II was in the middle lane and Minibus in Lane I. Kind of suggesting that Lorry II was overtaking Minibus, despite having the lower restricted speed.
|
Yes Mark, we do know that lorry driver 1 was over the limit, but it's about the only thing we know at the moment.
As far as I'm concerned while that is unforgivable, we shouldn't assume it was the cause of the accident.
Pat
|
This is a link to the photo that I referred to above. You can speculate on the skid marks - but definitive proof will wait for the final police report.
i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article11063537.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/SWNS_M1_CRASH_001.jpg
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 07:29
|
|
I guess that could be skid marks from a vehicle trying to stop or from a stationary vehicle being shunted forwards.
|
>> I guess that could be skid marks from a vehicle trying to stop....
posted earlier...
"The 'other ' lorry is reported not to have braked at all and this would lead to an arrest and investigation as to why he didn't take avoiding action."
>> or from a stationary vehicle being shunted forwards.
Then this is more likely.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/26/several-die-crash-m1-involving-two-lorries-minibus/
shows the lorry that was " stationary" has moved ( been shunted?) from its reported position.
no problem with a clickable link
Last edited by: R.P. on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 10:07
|
|
If Lorry 1 had been stationary for a while, can he still be prosecuted for Dangerous Driving?
|
That's the fly in the ointment.
Perhaps someone can pick the bones from this link better than I'm able to do in regard to this accident
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/#a23
Broadly speaking regarding simple offences like using a phone/eating at the wheel, driving is defined by being in a vehicle which, even if stationary in traffic, still has the engine running.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 10:56
|
Those are "in charge" offences though, aren't they?
The link you gave doesn't really address the definition of driving, i.e. does "driving" extend to include "parked inappropriately."
Off on the school run now, I'll look more carefully later.
|
The dangerous driving he has been charged with could be the bit where he parked the lorry in lane 1 without hazard lights or calling it in (if that's what happened of course).
If that were the case he might still have been charged with DD even if had he not been on the scene when the collision happened.
Maybe. Technicalities are something else.
|
|
Are you actually driving when stopped? i a traffic jam, at lights for example? The law will say yes. So he was driving when it stopped, and he failed to put on lights/hazards etc. Ok he may have got out, but the offence was committed when he was.
|
I don't know.
But it seems to me that it depends on how much difference there is between "in charge" and "driving", specifically when talking of offences.
So I would guess you could not be charged with Dangerous Driving with a stationary vehicle.
Certainly given how quickly he was charged it seems unlikely. Seemingly there were several witnesses though, so perhaps there's more to it.
I can't help but think that there was some interaction between the players before the incident itself.
|
Sorry to labour the point, but the dangerous driving could have been parking it where he did. He was driving it when he did that.
Of course it isn't compulsory or even acceptable to drive into a vehicle just because it's parked illegally or stupidly; but we all know what is likely to happen if we stop in lane one of a motorway. I can never get over how many people (at least half) seem prepared to drive around on the premise that nothing unexpected will happen to them.
|
>> So I would guess you could not be charged with Dangerous Driving with a stationary
>> vehicle.
I'd be willing to bet that you could. Just as you can be charged with drink driving if you are sleeping it off in your car by the side of the road.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 13:57
|
>>you can be charged with drink driving if you are sleeping it off in your car
That is an offense of being in charge, isn't it? Not driving.
|
I'm speculating now and I haven't any reason to believe this could be right but driver A was 'stopped' just past the off slip road....could he have missed his exit and have been reversing back to make the slip road?
Pat
|
That'd certainly get him a Dangerous Driving, you'd think. Probably as good a suggestion as we'll get.
The other one has also been charged with Dangerous Driving. So I wonder what he did. Perhaps related to trapping the minibus into a space either on purpose or recklessly.
|
>> I'm speculating now and I haven't any reason to believe this could be right but
>> driver A was 'stopped' just past the off slip road....could he have missed his exit
>> and have been reversing back to make the slip road?
>>
It was reported as being said in court
"It is the case that the defendant's vehicle is stationary in lane one of the motorway, for approximately 12 minutes."
That is quite a long time to decide ( if the truck is functioning OK ), to reverse back.
It was also suggested that no lights were on.
This might tend to point to " I am parked in a safe position "
but it could also be because of an electrical failure.
His planned route will be soon identified.
Had he used that planned route and if not would the nearby exit have returned him onto
a logical route.
|
>>It was reported as being said in court
"It is the case that the defendant's vehicle is stationary in lane one of the motorway, for approximately 12 minutes."
That is quite a long time to decide ( if the truck is functioning OK ), to reverse back.<<
There are ways of moving a vehicle, very slowly, bit by bit, where it wouldn't show on the tachograph and would appear to be stationary Henry, but I won't elaborate on that.
Pat
|
Thanks Pat.
As a normal sort of car driver it is good to get an insight into what the heavies have to cope with and some of the happenings in the haulage industry.
We all depend on their 24/7 activities and I try to be helpful to the big guys..
|
We do really appreciate that henry, it's makes a drivers day when a car driver shows some consideration.
In this case I don't think he was reversing like that.
If it was me and I'd missed the junction I would carry on to the next one and flip flop BUT, if I was in that persons shoes and had chosen to do that I would have gone onto the hard shoulder and reversed as quickly as possible.
I really don't know what happened and feel that there is still a lot to come out yet.
I do think that probably the FedEx lorry had telematics in it which would either incriminate or clear him of anything as well.
Pat
|
|
Would the police charge a driver, in this case the Fedex guy, as an automatic matter of course and then decide if he was guilty or not further down the line?
|
Oh yes, they would.
But I bet he will be charged with something even though it may well be a reduced charge.
I suspect your theory of what happened is correct.
Pat
|
......the police don't (decide to) charge, the CPS do that.
The police arrest, and this is fairly normal practice as it opens the door to certain further powers that ease the further investigation.
The charge having subsequently been laid, it will normally (though charges can be withdrawn or no evidence offered) be up to the courts to decide guilt or otherwise.
Whilst we can all second-guess the events (and for some it appears to be a sport) there are numerous scenarios that could have ended up with both the accident, and the outcome, but I doubt if any of us is going to know what really happened before the court case.
As far as the "driving" issue is concerned, I'm not at all sure that the term is tightly defined in the Road Traffic Act (et. al.) but it is subject to a wealth of case law. I may be deluding myself but I would have thought that the CPS would be fairly well versed in the ins and outs of this issue (and thus that, at least prima facie, appropriate charges have been brought).
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 16:52
|
>>Whilst we can all second-guess the events (and for some it appears to be a sport)<<
Not a sport T&E, more a fear we could all end up in a similar situation without really trying.
That's something every driver (whatever the vehicle) faces every time they drive.
The CPS don't have a very good record when it comes to previous cases.
Pat
|
>>
>> The CPS don't have a very good record when it comes to previous cases.
>>
....I have no evidence to judge that statement one way or another.
They have an odd role - if they were to get every decision to prosecute correct, then we could probably do away with much of the courts - except, of course, for sentencing ;-)
(and then we'd probably be concerned about those cases they chose not to prosecute).
AIUI, their role is broadly to decide whether on the balance there is a case in law to answer, and whether or not it is in the public interest to proceed to the ultimate test (the Courts).
|
>> >>
>> >> The CPS don't have a very good record when it comes to previous cases.
>>
>> They have an odd role - if they were to get every decision to prosecute
>> correct, then we could probably do away with much of the courts - except, of
>> course, for sentencing ;-)
Most forces of law and order around the world have some form of prosecuting layer above that and independent of the police.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 30 Aug 17 at 18:17
|
|
I don't know about sport, but its interesting, isn't it?
|
>......the police don't (decide to) charge, the CPS do that.
Not exclusively. I think the police can charge you with a crime. Though I think that's smaller crimes and I don't know where the line, if there is one, lies.
|
>> Not exclusively. I think the police can charge you with a crime. Though I think
>> that's smaller crimes and I don't know where the line, if there is one, lies.
>>
...indeed, but in the context of this case........
|
|
They don't charge automatically, why should they ? That would limit future questioning opportunities - CPS would have been involved very early on in cases like this. CPS would have had a hand in deciding if there was enough evidence and directing what other evidence was required. There are "threshold" tests to pass before a charge is made. Police could have released the driver on bail at any point and he could continue on bail for months. They have the evidence and the decision made to charge would have been based on that alone.
|
>>They don't charge automatically, why should they ?
No idea really, probably mislead because someone in my position (internationally mobile) tends to get charged/arrested at the slightest hint of difficulty to prevent travel.
Though your point about further questioning is obvious now I think about it.
|
|
Driving is defined in the Road Traffic Act - there's around 32 tonnes of case-;aw around it. This fool was most certainly riving within the meaning of the Act.
|
Well that answers that then.
It appears from the police statements that there were witnesses so I guess it will eventually come out.
|
|
Yes. Same as a driver can be prosecuted for using a phone whilst at traffic lights.
|
|
It would seem fairly clear to me that one could be prosecuted for parking a vehicle, any vehicle, in an operational lane of a motorway, whether it was parked 30 secs or 30 mins the driver who parked it would be responsible. The only excuse perhaps being that the vehicle had broken down though even then the driver would be required to use hazard warning lights, warning triangle(s) etc and report it immediately, and perhaps back track up the h/s on foot to provide an additional warning until help arrives.
|
That's the point I have trouble getting across to my lads RP, they seem to think it's ok if they are on the M25 crawling, or stationary, in a traffic jam.
Pat
|
As RP alludes to above. In serious cases the CPS make a decision to charge based on the Threshold Test, in other words is there sufficient evidence for a realistic chance of a prosecution.
There is also the Public Interest Test which is self explanatory. Clearly in this case it is in the public interest to prosecute.
Police Decision Makers can now make the decision to charge in low level offences.
As regards being 'In Charge' this only relates to drinking and drug driving offences - Driving, Attempting to Drive, In Charge of a motor vehicle/mechanically propelled vehicle whilst OPL, Unfit to Drive etc etc.
The Vehicle Excise Act includes 'Keeping' in reference to vehicles on a road.
Insurance offences term 'Using' as also being parked unattended on a road/public place.
Someone has referred to the wealth of Case Law around the term 'Driving'. Even when temporarily stopped is held to be Driving.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 31 Aug 17 at 00:22
|
|
Isn't the RTA a great piece of legislation Fullchat ? - a great mix of well written statute and thoroughly tested case law. Law as it should be.
|
"Isn't the RTA a great piece of legislation Fullchat ? - a great mix of well written statute and thoroughly tested case law. Law as it should be. "
Indeed it is Rob. Always something new to get your head round. Love to see the loopholes. Recently spotted that 'Power to Stop' (163) only applies to a Road. So actually Police have no power to stop in a Public Place. But Collisions and Drink Drive can occur in a Public Place. Now that could be a good little get out in the right circumstances :)
Anyone asleep yet? :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 21:28
|
Still wonder if the location, just after a slip road, has a bearing on things.
Wonder if the whole lot was caught on the motorway cameras?
|
>> Yes, I wasn't surprised both lorry drivers were arrested on suspicion, I think that might
>> be more or less standard procedure in the event of fatalities so they they can
>> be breath tested, evidence gathered, etc.
>>
Pretty much so, after any incident which involves the police. Few years ago I hit a car which cut across me on a roundabout (she was in wrong lane, first thing I knew was the impact, thankfully nobody hurt) and I was breathalysed as a matter of course.
Comes with the territory; many bigger companies also operate random drink/drugs tests on their own account, and the latter is standard practice on the railways.
|
Well I guessed that wrong.
We now understand why the Fed Ex driver is facing charges.
|
Mr Masierak of Barnards Close, Evesham, Worcestershire, is accused of four counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and eight counts of causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed limit.
Huh whats the rational behind the fact the injuries were caused by dangerous driving, but those who died were only caused by careless driving?
|
>> Huh whats the rational behind the fact the injuries were caused by dangerous driving, but
>> those who died were only caused by careless driving?
Confusing, and contradicted by the preceding paragraph anyway. Both paragraphs -
A Polish lorry driver, Ryszard Masierak, aged 31, has been remanded in custody charged with causing the death of the 8 people by dangerous driving. He was in the lorry that had stopped.
In addition, Mr Masierak of Barnards Close, Evesham, Worcestershire, is accused of four counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and eight counts of causing death by careless driving while over the prescribed limit. He allegedly gave a reading of 55 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of breath - the legal limit for driving is 35.
The second driver would seem to me to be at least as culpable if the circs are as described, leaving aside the intoxication of the first (who was stationary). His charges are 'dangerous'.
The other lorry driver David Wagstaff, aged 53, of Derwent Street, Stoke-on-Trent, has been charged with eight counts of causing death by dangerous driving and four counts causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He has been bailed to appear at Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court on Monday, September 11.
In a later, updated, report Mr. Wagstaff appeared in MK magistrates court on Monday and was also bailed to appear at Aylesbury Crown Court.
|
an articulated lorry was stationary in lane one, the minibus slowed and stopped and a second lorry pushed into the rear of the minibus. Four people were taken to hospital and the remaining eight in the minibus died.
First Lorry [stopped on lane 1] <- Minibus [managed to stop] <- Second Lorry, hit minibus from behind
In my mind, the 1st lorry driver contributed to the accident, but 2nd lorry driver caused the deaths. What is not clear to me, why both lorry drivers are charged for causing death.
Sadly, the minibus did nothing wrong but it suffered the worst.
Last edited by: movilogo on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 10:21
|
>>Sadly, the minibus did nothing wrong but it suffered the worst.
>>
If there was nothing wrong with the minibus then why did it stop rather than just overtake ?
|
>>Sadly, the minibus did nothing wrong but it suffered the worst.
>>
If there was nothing wrong with the minibus then why did it stop rather than just overtake ?
|
May be minibus driver thought lorry in front stopped because of traffic. It is not possible to see what's in front of lorry. I still can't see what minibus driver could have done otherwise.
|
>>> I still can't see what minibus driver could have done otherwise.
As far as I understand this was a 3 lane road with the stopped lorry in lane 1. At 3am I doubt there was so much traffic that the minibus could not have checked his speed and pulled round into lane 2. However if he was late in realising the lorry was static he might have judged with a minibus full of folks it was less risky to do a hard stop than braking hard and swinging into lane 2 at the same time.
It is something I'm red hot on and have taught my daughters... if an unexpected event brings you to a halt or well below the expected speed for a given road then look hard in the mirror and consider options to stop you being the crumple zone.
|
|
My SiL saved his and my daughter's life by being aware of what was going on behind him when stopped behind a lorry at the back of a queue at a roundabout. The car approaching from behind at NSL speed did not brake. He had stopped a little short of the lorry and had time to put full right lock on and move slightly. They were shunted past the lorry and onto the roundabout, the car was a write off. They sustained sore necks for a few weeks. If they had gone under the lorry decapitation was likely.
|
>> My SiL saved his and my daughter's life
You don't know that.
>> If they had gone under the lorry decapitation was likely.
>>
Hmm. How would you know that?
|
>> Hmm. How would you know that?
>>
Common sense, It was a high speed impact and I saw the remains of their car. The driver of the other car was lucky their car slowed her down as she did go under the lorry but survived.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 14:51
|
Good advice fenlander.
The other thing which is puzzling me, simply because I know just how busy that stretch of road is even at 3am, how come it was 12 minutes before anyone else collided with the stopped lorry? Or at the very least reported that it was there.
Pat
|
|
During an advanced driving course with my old company, it was stressed to 'always be mindful of an escape-route'.
|
>> During an advanced driving course with my old company, it was stressed to 'always be
>> mindful of an escape-route'.
Cycle training makes same point.
|
>>how come it was 12 minutes before anyone
>> else collided with the stopped lorry?
It is telling that you even ask that question Pat, and a sad commentary on driving standards; and maybe the high proportion of people who are happy to assume that nothing unexpected will ever occur in front of them. Clearly nobody paying attention and driving at an appropriate speed should collide with a large stationary object such as a lorry. Even if it was unlit, they usually have adequate reflectors.
>>Or at the very least reported that it was
>> there.
How many of us would? I might - but I'm not sure. There is a tendency to assume, unless one has just seen something happen, that 'somebody' (and perhaps the professional driver, in this case) has taken appropriate action.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 14 Sep 17 at 14:47
|
|
The Polish HGV driver had his HGV licence revoked so he was not even allowed to drive HGVs.
|
Yes, I have read that but the reports differ depending on which broadsheet you read!
What is absolutely clear is that AIM Transport will have their O Licence removed for not doing regular licence checks.....and rightly so.
We do 3 monthly checks on employed drivers and an every shift check on agency drivers, along with a digi tacho card check to see that the agency drivers have had sufficient rest before leaving another firm and doing a shift for us.
Once the Traffic Commissioner starts to look into the firm they will find dig up more problems.
Licence checks are a basic requirement of good repute.
Pat
|
|
Would you even contemplate stopping your minibus full of people behind a stationary lorry on a live motorway? What was the thought processes going on there?
|
|
Have you never stopped behind traffic on a motorway? You must have been last in the line at some stage and possibly in lane three.
|
|
Was traffic in lanes two and three stationery too?
|
there was no traffic in lanes two and three, it was the early hours of the morning on a near empty motorway
|
>> there was no traffic in lanes two and three, it was the early hours of
>> the morning on a near empty motorway
>>
>
Cheers, very strange behaviour. I couldn't think I've a single reason why I'd stop in a minibus or anything else in that circumstance. I guess we'll never now why.
|
>>Was traffic in lanes two and three stationery too?
I have not seen a lot of info re traffic flow. I got the impression it was very light
But Pat's comment...
>>The other thing which is puzzling me, simply because I know just how busy that stretch of road is even at 3am, how come it was 12 minutes before anyone else collided with the stopped lorry? Or at the very least reported that it was there.
At that time I suspect the most info would come from lorry drivers etc
|
>> Have you never stopped behind traffic on a motorway? You must have been last in
>> the line at some stage and possibly in lane three.
when the other lanes are empty? No never stopped behind a lorry in lane one at 3:00am in the morning
|
I certainly wouldn't Z
Self preservation means that I would get the hell out of there as quickly as possible.
If the minibus driver had been on the ball I would have expected him to realise the lorry was stopped and pull round him early enough to avoid a collision with any other vehicle in the middle lane......But I would also have expected the FedEx driver to do this too.
Is it a relevant fact that the minibus driver had only less than 3 hours sleep the night before?
Pat
|
|
I think I would be planning to pass a stopped lorry before I realised that it was stopped, you should be aware that you were catching up on it from way back. Forward planning seems to be lacking.
|
|
Who knows, the dynamics of the Mini Bus driver's actions and the reasons for them will never, ever be known, no point speculating.
|
>> Would you even contemplate stopping your minibus full of people behind a stationary lorry on
>> a live motorway? What was the thought processes going on there?
I've come across a stationary vehicle in lane three of a three lane motorway. My first reaction was to hit the brakes hard and it's only then I realised I'd be stationary behind it. I carved up a car in lane two something rotten, but quickly returned to lane three to accelerate back to cruising speed (the lane was empty because of the stationary car).
Looking in my mirror I saw a car cartwheeling end over end!
|
>> Looking in my mirror I saw a car cartwheeling end over end!
The car in lane two you carved up something rotten?
|
>>
>> >> Looking in my mirror I saw a car cartwheeling end over end!
>>
>> The car in lane two you carved up something rotten?
There are people who have never had an accident...they are just catalysts:)
|
I remember as a teenager (driving my fathers Austin 1100, probably 1965) probably flat out in the dark on the M4 coming across a stationary car, no lights, and partially 'hidden' under a a bridge. That was a brown trouser moment!
I can even remember the road layout - dipping down gradient with a gentle right hand curve, hence limited visibilty. But not where!
If it had been wet I suspect it would have been curtains for 4 of us.
|
>> >> Looking in my mirror I saw a car cartwheeling end over end!
>> The car in lane two you carved up something rotten?
No, it was the VW Beetle that had been slipstreaming me earlier. It didn't have enough power to cruise at the NSL, so was using me and I was uncomfortable with it so close behind me. I'd slowed a couple of times to let it pass, but it wouldn't. I accelerated away from it and that was when I met the stationary car in lane three. The Beetle hit the stationary car when the next person they were slipstreaming dodged out of the way of the stationary car, but the Beetle was too close behind to see the obstruction and hit it.
|
This thread has convinced me that Forward Collision Warning and/or Automatic Emergency Braking is a must have feature in my next car.
I think by 2020, most cars are likely to offer this anyway.
Is this feature available in HGVs too? If not then somewhat defeats the purpose.
|
>> This thread has convinced me that Forward Collision Warning and/or Automatic Emergency Braking is a
>> must have feature in my next car.
Why?
|
|
I think that the majority of these systems only work for low speed impacts. The VW system is designed to cope with speeds up to 19 mph. I guess the radar would have to be looking much further ahead to cope with a potential 70 mph collision
|
In many cars lately AEB works at motorway speeds. AEB + ACC is a good combination.
>> Why?
A radar would have detected that lorry in front is stationary i.e. distance is diminishing very fast over time.
|
The system in my Volvo will stop you at up to 18mph if you are approaching something stationary apparently. It will then mitigate as best it can at higher speeds. I take that to mean it will brake a damn sight harder than I will in an emergency. Certainly when it fired in anger once, as a cyclist shot across the bows, all was well other than a loud beep, flashing red light, a very sudden stop I had no control over and some mild squeaking on my part.
I'm always slightly taken aback, I don't know why, that other manufacturers seem to be taking so long to get this stuff into their cars. Mine has all sorts of collision prevention, pedestrian alerts, checks for anything taller than a cat crossing in front of you, adaptive cruise, blind spot indicators and so on. Mine was physically built in 2010, so Volvo have had this stuff on the road for at least seven years now, and must have had the designs working before that. And it's all advanced since mine.
Anyway, this video shows the much slated Tesla systems doing their thing. Not always perfect, but pretty impressive at stopping or steering away from danger, especially the one that kicks when the car in front of the car in front of the driver stops. It uses the radar to look underneath the car in front to watch the one ahead of that. Also the ones where it sees an accident waiting to happen on the other side of the road.
I may have posted this before, actually, not sure, so sorry if you've seen it before.
youtu.be/1MC033dZzKw
Last edited by: Crankcase on Mon 18 Sep 17 at 10:59
|
>> This thread has convinced me that Forward Collision Warning and/or Automatic Emergency Braking is a
>> must have feature in my next car.
How would it help in this sort of scenario?
The mini bus stopped OK but was hit from behind by a truck.
|
>>
How would it help in this sort of scenario?
1. If the lorry behind had same features fitted as well (hence I asked whether AEB is available to HGVs too)
2. It would have generated collision warning earlier where minibus driver could have decided to change lanes (speculation but possibility).
|
|
When I clicked that link Crankcase I thought it would be this one... www.youtube.com/watch?v=jClxcSBNwcw
|
Nah, the standard "isn't Volvo great" obligatory link is this one. I don't actually know if this is standard in their lorries now, though. Someone here will. It ought to be, you'd think.
youtu.be/ridS396W2BY
|
I've no doubt it's a great bit of kit; with the added caveat, only if it works and in the right conditions. Straight line, dry-ish private track,brand new unit and trailer with a test load, nothing coming t'other way, fine; anything outside that and its efficacy has to be less.
Switched-on lorries are no substitute for switched-on drivers, though; and it has to be said that neither are completely fail-safe no matter what the manufacturers or drivers may claim. Furthermore, like any other bit of techno, if drivers use it for long enough they become dependent upon it (see sat-nav) and if placed in a position without the benefit (in this case an older vehicle not fitted with the kit) there's serious potential for disaster.
On balance, I daresay a plus; be a while before it's universal though and only then will we see any benefit if it exists.
|
>> This thread has convinced me that Forward Collision Warning and/or Automatic Emergency Braking is a
>> must have feature in my next car.
Excellent, in this case this system would have made you stop behind the lorry in lane 1 so the lorry behind could crush you into a fag paper.
|
This thread has convinced me that Forward Collision Warning and/or Automatic Emergency Braking is a must have feature in my next car.
Excellent Volvo system in my old T5. That and the active cruise control are two things I miss.
|
I've found looking where I'm going has served me pretty well so far.
;-)
|
The VAG group radar based auto braking system only works at lower speeds. The same radar system is used for active cruise control but that needs to 'lock' on to the vehicle in front for it to brake the car at higher speeds.
If you have a VAG car with DSG and ACC then it can stop the car and then move again when the traffic starts to move.
I'd not trust ACC to stop the car mind. I'd be ready to use the brakes myself, watching what is happening way up ahead on the road.
|
Trial commenced. One drunk the other on the phone, albeit hands free.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43158630
|
Minibus driver Cyriac Joseph was waiting with his hazard lights on to go around the lorry
Why? why on earth was he stopped behind the stopped lorry?
Amazing on a deserted motorway to find three idiots all there at the same place and the same time.
|
"Amazing on a deserted motorway to find three idiots all there at the same place and the same time."
Yes. And the fact that the two accused are pleading not guilty to all charges will certainly endear them to the judge when the time comes for sentencing.
Now, before someone says I am guilty of prejudging the case, one lorry-driver was allegedly twice the drink-drive limit (pretty easy to prove, I would think) and the other was sufficiently unaware of his surroundings to plough into the back of the minibus without braking while the vehicle was on cruise-control (again, presumably provable by automatic records). In addition, the incident was caught on CCTV, according to reports - or does it mean dashcams?
However, someone thinks it's a good idea for them to plead not guilty.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Thu 22 Feb 18 at 20:15
|
>> However, someone thinks it's a good idea for them to plead not guilty.
They are being poorly advised. Their sentences will be custodial and longer than if they pleaded guilty. Drink driving - proof already taken so stupid to deny. Ploughing into the back of the minibus - they know he was on the phone and no evidence of braking or going around the stopped vehicles.
They are guilty of causing the deaths and stupid for thinking denying it will help them. At least they will both be off the road for a while for the benefit of everyone else.
|
>>However, someone thinks it's a good idea for them to plead not guilty.
Strange, isn't it.
I can only assume that the BBC's statement of " both deny all charges against them" was inaccurate.
Surely Drunk in Charge is irrefutable when you're drunk an in the driver's seat of your vehicle on a Motorway.
Difficult to see how the other driver could deny driving into the back of the minibus.
Perhaps they feel that they are able to deny some of the charges, surely not all.
|
The charges are: causing death by dangerous driving; causing serious injury by dangerous driving; drink-driving.
For the first two, the accused will have to prove their actions were not responsible for the deaths and injuries caused. Best of luck with that.
But denying being over the limit while in charge of a vehicle, when the medical evidence proves it? Someone's having a giraffe.
|
>> For the first two, the accused will have to prove their actions were not responsible
>> for the deaths and injuries caused. Best of luck with that.
No, the accused don't have to prove anything. It is for the Prosecution to prove to the Jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the actions of the accused constituted the offence alleged. We seem to have forgotten this central tenent of British Justice in most motoring cases, e.g admit you were speeding, or we'll prosecute you for failing to tell us you were speeding!
Don't take this as me condoning the actions of anyone.
|
"No, the accused don't have to prove anything."
You are correct, of course. I was uneasy as I put that, but in the end left it as a clumsy shorthand for the fact that the accused, as they are pleading not guilty, will have to dispute the prosecution's assertion that they are guilty of the offences as charged.
And presumably they will put forward some kind of evidence to support that, or at least be able to refute the charges - though I cannot imagine what, or how.
|
>> Why? why on earth was he stopped behind the stopped lorry?
The other two sound like they are guilty and the accident could have been avoided. But I can't see why the mini bus stopped behind the first lorry either. At 2:57am the road would have been quiet and they could have gone around the stopped lorry.
Goes to show stopping at all on a motorway unless you can avoid it is dangerous. Admittedly this was in lane 1 and not the hard shoulder but then again it was 3am (near enough).
|
|
May be a Good Samaritan and stopped to help, or provide rear cover if the lorry lights were out. Not sure we have that info do we?
|
>> May be a Good Samaritan and stopped to help, or provide rear cover if the
>> lorry lights were out. Not sure we have that info do we?
We can assume that anyone who does that with a minibus full of people is an idiot.
|
The lorry lights were on, it's been stated the top trailer lights could be seen above the minibus when it was parked behind it.
Pat
|
Three drivers who all made serious errors in different ways.
One driver was drunk.
One driver wasn't concentrating - on cruise, on his phone.
One driver made a serious error of judgement in stopping behind the stationary lorry. too tired?
Remove any one component and the accident wouldn't have happened, or at least not as serious as it turned out to be.
|
>>One driver wasn't concentrating - on cruise, on his phone.<,
Neither of which, in itself, is illegal.
In fact on cruise is the recommended way to drive whenever possible and at most firms will incur a terse meeting and a disciplinary if you fail to use it.
Having said that, I hate it.
Pat
|
>> In fact on cruise is the recommended way to drive whenever possible and at most
>> firms will incur a terse meeting and a disciplinary if you fail to use it.
Pat, just out of interest is the cruise control on modern trucks adaptive in any way? Does it slow down when traffic in front slows down like many modern car systems?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 16:46
|
Yes, but only in the very latest ones and it largely depends upon the specs too.
Pat
|
|
Do you ever use the cruise in your car? I’m not a fan of it. In fact in my latest car I’ve barely used itat all.Just tested it to make sure it works. To me it seems to complicate driving rather than simplifying it.
|
I think cruise control has limited usefulness. I use mine only when traffic is light and I have good visibility of the road ahead. Otherwise, it's too much faff to keep adjusting it, or switching it on and off.
When I do use it (usually on a long journey) it's nice to get my right foot off the accelerator pedal and do a few exercises.
|
|
I agree with that. The only time is have really found it at all useful is on an empty French Autoroute.
|
I have used cruise controls for the last 15 years or so.
They have always been easy to pause/resume if traffic conditions change and I have always found them a useful aid to smooth, relaxed driving, if you are looking far enough ahead and keep a sensible distance in front of you.
My current radar controlled one on the Golf is excellent and I use it on most journeys varying from short spells of urban/suburban journeys to longer motorway stretches. It rarely happens that you get a whole journey done without pausing or adjusting the speed but it is still a preferred gadget for me on any car.
|
|
Strange isn’t it. I have a Golf too with the radar controlled cruise and as I say I never even think of using it. One man’s meat is another man’s poison as they say.
|
>> Strange isn’t it. I have a Golf too with the radar controlled cruise and as
>> I say I never even think of using it. One man’s meat is another man’s
>> poison as they say.
>>
Absolutely, I use it regularly, my wife and daughter use the car and previous ones and never use the CC, Both my sons have used it on this and my previous cars and have it and use it on their own cars.
|
>> I think cruise control has limited usefulness. I use mine only when traffic is light
>> and I have good visibility of the road ahead. Otherwise, it's too much faff to
>> keep adjusting it, or switching it on and off.
Use mine lots. Yesterday it was Home to Kelvedon in Essex. M25, A127 there, at 09:00 in the morning, Kelvedon to home A12 /M25 at lunchtime. Must have done about 40 minutes of that combined journey on cruise.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 12:48
|
I use it whenever possible. When I hit 30, I flick it on.
The more the car does for me, the happier I am.
|
|
Some people will use automated safety aids sensibly, retain their concentration and be alert as to when they need to retake control themselves. Unfortunately there are others who think they need to do nothing as the car will do the driving for them so they can happily text or read the paper while the car drives them along.
|
I use cruise control almost all the time, and minor speed adjustments have become as automatic as doing it with the accelerator pedal.
I imagine it would be very inconvenient for a 'reactive' driver who doesn't look far enough ahead and is always dabbing the brakes. I often end up smoothing out much of the speed fluctuation of the driver ahead if they are of that type.
The original trigger for using cruise so much was keeping to speed limits. I now have two cars with speed limiters, which I thought might be a better solution, but I don't like it.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43308574
One driver found guilty, the jury is still out on the other driver.
|
>> One driver found guilty,
Yeah, that was the easy one,
>>the jury is still out on the other driver.
Was always going to be the tougher call.
Wonder if the Minibus driver would have been on trial had he lived.
|
>> Wonder if the Minibus driver would have been on trial had he lived.
Almost certainly. The two lorries would have still collided but no innocents in a mini bus in between.
|
>> Almost certainly. The two lorries would have still collided but no innocents in a mini
>> bus in between.
For reason xyz he stopped behind first lorry. He might have been, as was case, concerned /cautious. OTOH he might have collided with stopped lorry or he/one of its passengers was giving first aid to it's incapacitated driver.
Now you or Zero (or me) being attentive and advanced drivers would have been looking ahead enough to see that, whatever caused the drunk driver's lorry to be stopped in lane one lanes two and three were clear. Would we also have known that stopped truck's driver was not ill or injured?
At best minibus driver was over cautious. If he'd been stopped behind drunk's truck with nowhere to go would his passengers have lived?
If driver of truck 2 had been paying attention he'd have seen issue and either stopped or moved out.
|
>> If driver of truck 2 had been paying attention he'd have seen issue and either
>> stopped or moved out.
>>
My guess. Obviously it's only a guess and we are not very likely to get the truth from anybody now is that the drivers were drunk or over tired.
Driving whilst tired is a very dangerous business. At least as dangerous as driving under the influence. I have done both and I frightened myself more when driving whilst tired.
|
>> My guess. Obviously it's only a guess and we are not very likely to get
>> the truth from anybody now is that the drivers were drunk or over tired.
If the minibus driver were over the limit then post-mortem calculations would confirm that and we'd know by now.
Driving while tired OTOH is entirely possible. Like you I've done that - press on itis. You're quite right, its bloomin dangerous.
|
Just heard the Fedex driver has been cleared of causing death by dangerous driving, but I don't think that will be the end of it.
Pat
|
>> Just heard the Fedex driver has been cleared of causing death by dangerous driving, but
>> I don't think that will be the end of it.
>>
>> Pat
He'd pleaded guilty to charges of death by careless driving so will be sentenced for that. I'd imagine he'll get a custodial sentence but as max is 5 years and there'll be a discount for guilty plea he won't be in for long.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43320649
|
>> He'd pleaded guilty to charges of death by careless driving so will be sentenced for
>> that. I'd imagine he'll get a custodial sentence but as max is 5 years and
>> there'll be a discount for guilty plea he won't be in for long.
Maximum discount of one third, it seems.
Tinyurl
tinyurl.com/lmga4kz
|
M1 fatal accident, J14/J15 - Hard Cheese
