M5 crash

[dollywobbler]

I don't see how you can avoid trucks crashing into an accident. Cars have a reasonable chance of stopping in time, but trucks don't. That's not the fault of the trucks - that's what trying to stop 38 tons is like!

[504GL]

I don't see how you can avoid trucks crashing into an accident. Cars have a reasonable chance of stopping in time, but trucks don't. That's not the fault of the trucks - that's what trying to stop 38 tons is like!

 

I think a big problem these days is that people just continue on regardless. Sometimes because they're mongs and sometimes because they're worried that a mong won't be as sensible as they are and will plough into the back of them.

[retrogeezer]

I don't see how you can avoid trucks crashing into an accident. Cars have a reasonable chance of stopping in time, but trucks don't. That's not the fault of the trucks - that's what trying to stop 38 tons is like!

 

By them not travelling 20 feet behind the one in front and driving to the conditions like a professional driver should do....but we are going around in circles here...

[504GL]

I don't see how you can avoid trucks crashing into an accident. Cars have a reasonable chance of stopping in time, but trucks don't. That's not the fault of the trucks - that's what trying to stop 38 tons is like!

 

By them not travelling 20 feet behind the one in front and driving to the conditions like a professional driver should do....but we are going around in circles here...

 

But how often do people just jump into that gap which a professional driver leaves?

[dollywobbler]

We're going around in circles because I think some people still have overly idealistic ideas about how truck drivers behave, with an element of tar-brushing.

 

When you're in a truck and you want to overtake another truck, when do you do so? As soon as you see the slower truck on the horizon, so you end up in the middle lane for miles before even getting near the back of it, or when you're close enough to feel the slip-stream? The correct answer is somewhere between the two but realistically is never going to be hundreds of feet.

 

For all we know, several of the car drivers could have been texting, or fiddling with their radio. Let's blame them for the accident instead. Or are car drivers never in the wrong?

[Volksy]

Humans react in different ways to a 'panic' situation, it's generally in three different ways. 1) Irrational Escape - avoid the accident if possible, get to safety, stay away. 2) Cope - as no 1, but then rationally deal with the situation and assist where possible. 3) Freeze - Completey freeze up, even for a second whilst you process the information.

 

Sadly No 3 type wouldn't stand a chance in a high risk situation, especially when contained, i.e. in a car where other types cannot for example pull you to safety. As their natural reaction is to do nothing, or act retrospectively after the incident.

 

Most major disasters have a high degree of people (No 3's) standing open mouthed in the face of incoming danger. Not their fault, just their natural reaction to risk/danger.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

The most amazing thing is that all vehicles are on the actual carriageway. The crash barriers may have done more harm than good in this situation!

 

As for truck drivers, irrespective of who is to blame for this particular accident, it's a PHACT that a lot of them don't keep their distance. The "if they kept it someone would dive in" argument isn't that coherent- the twats in their A4s and 3-series are unlikely to ever use the outside lane, even when the motorway is completely empty.

[Volksy]

The crash barriers may have done more harm than good in this situation!

 

I don't see how, as they have done their job and contained the accident, rather than allowing it to spread into the oncoming lanes, where closing speeds - and subsequent collision damage is far greater.

[retrogeezer]

For all we know, several of the car drivers could have been texting, or fiddling with their radio. Let's blame them for the accident instead. Or are car drivers never in the wrong?

 

I haven't said car drivers are not/never in the wrong either, quite the opposite in fact.

 

HGV's are limited to the same speed, I said earlier that the overtaking is pointless because one 5 minute toilet break 30 miles down the road at the services totally negates any slight advantage made.

 

IMHO the pressures put on truck drivers for deliveries needs to be looked at.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

The crash barriers may have done more harm than good in this situation!

 

I don't see how, as they have done their job and contained the accident, rather than allowing it to spread into the oncoming lanes, where closing speeds - and subsequent collision damage is far greater.

 

They have 'protected' cars from crashing into trees while sentencing them to getting crushed under the oncoming HGV.

[fiatdaft]

Do you think hitting a tree at motorway speeds would have been the safer option?

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

Do you think hitting a tree at motorway speeds would have been the safer option?

 

In a modern car with 4397923479 airbags, it was bound to be. The collision wouldn't have happened at 70mph...the terrain would slow things down a bit, too...let's say 40mph. Much higher chances of survival than having a lorry on top of your head!

[Craig the Princess]

Do you think hitting a tree at motorway speeds would have been the safer option?

 

In a modern car with 4397923479 airbags, it was bound to be. The collision wouldn't have happened at 70mph...the terrain would slow things down a bit, too...let's say 40mph. Much higher chances of survival than having a lorry on top of your head!

 

That is a fantasic piece of hindsight, however we don't know how many times cars have thudded into the Armco doing little harm to the occupants rather than having cars hit the tree on the strech of road. It could well have contributed here, but saved 10/20/50 lives in the past 25 years.

[Cavcraft]

Shirley there's no just trees to contend with if you span off the road? I'd imagine there's embankments and more to encounter and these are the kind of things that flip you onto your roof and into fenceposts etc.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

True that!

[504GL]

Do you think hitting a tree at motorway speeds would have been the safer option?

 

I would always take the barrier if it were an option!

[Mr_Bo11ox]

This thread is chock-full of utter bollocks, even the most hardcore AS internet-waffle-apologists have got to admit that. We’re having a debate about whether its better to wang into a tree or get crushed by a lorry!!! I can’t decide which I’d prefer, it’s a tricky one alright.

 

Next up – Accidentally driving over a ravine whilst listening to Ant & Dec’s smash hit ‘Psyche’, Vs. getting washed away by a massive tidal wave whilst fixing a puncture on the roadside.

[504GL]

This thread is chock-full of utter bollocks, even the most hardcore AS internet-waffle-apologists have got to admit that. We’re having a debate about whether its better to wang into a tree or get crushed by a lorry!!! I can’t decide which I’d prefer, it’s a tricky one alright.

 

Next up – Accidentally driving over a ravine whilst listening to Ant & Dec’s smash hit ‘Psyche’, Vs. getting washed away by a massive tidal wave whilst fixing a puncture on the roadside.

 

Completely agree. You simply can't say for sure whether one is better than the other...... I'm sure there are probably a few cases where people have been killed by airbags or seatbels when they would have survived without them. Doesn't mean you want to get rid of the seatbelts and any airbags in your car......

[trigger]

Well said Bo1, I was just thinking about writing something similar, This and the "Crazy dopey selfish ignorant stupid moron thread " are two of the most shittiest theads I've seen on here lately.

 

You lot moan about lack of car content and then post shit like this!

[504GL]

Well said Bo1, I was just thinking about writing something similar, This and the "Crazy dopey selfish ignorant stupid moron thread " are two of the most shittiest theads I've seen on here lately.

 

I dind't think the other thread was that bad?

[trigger]

It's just drivel, It's the kind of thing the GOM thread was put in place for, to move negative threads from the rest of the forum, The title of the thread alone is just utter crap.

[504GL]

It's just drivel, It's the kind of thing the GOM thread was put in place for, to move negative threads from the rest of the forum, The title of the thread alone is just utter crap.

 

OK I get the idea

[retrogeezer]

Can only agree with Bol really but at least I kept my posts about the actual crash mainly.

 

My thread containing old police chod.....12 replies.

[CreepingJesus]

Been busy all weekend, erm, driving trucks, so just catching up now. What I want to write would run to pages, but I haven't the time atm, and no-one needs that; so I'll just say this...

 

Most importantly, my sincere condolences to the families of the victims, and my best wishes to those (and their families) who are left with 'life changing' injuries. The mind boggles at the possible incapacities and disfigurements people will have to live the rest of their lives with.

Sadly, this includes the drivers of said trucks and they are the ones with better visibility of what is happening further ahead

There's been a lot said on these pages that doesn't ring true, or has been born of misinformation or assumptions, but this one's glaringly obviously wrong: it doesn't matter a jot if your eyeline is from a tarmac scraping Lotus Elise point of view, or from 7' up in a truck cab, if you drive into thick fog, 'zero visibility' is just that. Normally, I can see much more from my cab, than I can from the car or bike, but not under fog or whiteout conditions.

I'll leave it there; any points arising...well you know where the PM button is. Unless there's room for a professional drivers' Q+A thread? Get some of the misinformation/bollocks/pertinent questions out of the way in a self contained thread? Just a thought... Feel free to express your horror at the thought of it!

[retrogeezer]

You are taking my quote completely out of context there CJ, that was from a post on the 2nd page before there was any information on fog/smoke being involved.

 

In any case, there is no official confirmation of thick fog or smoke being the cause, hence my comment above in 'normal' conditions.

[barefoot]

I have nothing to contribute but am impressed with some of the theories on here.

I'm surprised that the Police are bothering to investigate it themselves,

surely it would be more cost efficient to post a load of pictures on AS & let us sort it all out for them.

[retrogeezer]

Oh come on, people speculate on everything thats in the news, politics, the weather, car crashes, x factor...etc

 

This is a car forum, it's hardly a surprise to see speculation on a motorway accident is it?

 

And I haven't had any theory on the CAUSE of the accident or who was at fault, just that the lorries crashing into the back of each other/other cars has more than likely caused a lot of the deaths.

[DSdriver]

I seems that on the M56 today the hazard with trucks is them falling out of the sky onto your bonnet. BBC isn't giving much info. I hope no-one got hurt. It is strange though how these things happen in time clusters.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

BTW, I never tried to make any generalisations regarding crash barriers. I just said that IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE it looks like it may have hindered more than helped.

 

Reading comprehension FTW.

[Lankytim]

The accident happened just past a bridge for a river or something, so there has to be crash barriers along side it either side for xx number for yards to stop vehicles going round the back of the bridge barrier and dropping off the edge. Or something like that.