Many children killed in another ski trip coach crash
Discussion
Digga said:
I think you will find Phers to be, on average, more mobile than the rest of the population. We like driving you see, that was (originally) the opint of this bit of the internet.
But the vast majority of us still all live a long way from any long tunnels.I can't help thinking that the design of the tunnel in this case has done it's job.
Degner said:
I can't help thinking that the design of the tunnel in this case has done it's job.
You are kidding ...right?There were no barriers preventing the coach crashing head on into the side tunnel .
With something to deflect the coach / absorb the impact / lessen the deceleration there would likely be many more survivors.
The shape of the exit tunnel is akin to placing massive concrete walls on motorway hard shoulders , perpendicular to he traffic flow !! - which would neither meet UK safety regs nor be safe for anyone veering onto the hard shoulder .
Degner said:
Digga said:
I think you will find Phers to be, on average, more mobile than the rest of the population. We like driving you see, that was (originally) the opint of this bit of the internet.
But the vast majority of us still all live a long way from any long tunnels.I can't help thinking that the design of the tunnel in this case has done it's job.
alfaman said:
You are kidding ...right?
There were no barriers preventing the coach crashing head on into the side tunnel .
With something to deflect the coach / absorb the impact / lessen the deceleration there would likely be many more survivors.
The shape of the exit tunnel is akin to placing massive concrete walls on motorway hard shoulders , perpendicular to he traffic flow !! - which would neither meet UK safety regs nor be safe for anyone veering onto the hard shoulder .
I can see the theory quite easily.There were no barriers preventing the coach crashing head on into the side tunnel .
With something to deflect the coach / absorb the impact / lessen the deceleration there would likely be many more survivors.
The shape of the exit tunnel is akin to placing massive concrete walls on motorway hard shoulders , perpendicular to he traffic flow !! - which would neither meet UK safety regs nor be safe for anyone veering onto the hard shoulder .
Lets say the coach had been deflected. It'd then collided with other cars on the road which otherwise would not have crashed, and blocked the tunnel. Then one of them catches fire, setting fire to those around it.
Now on a UK motorway. The smoke escapes in one direction leaving plenty of places for people to stand out of it. People in other cars stopped further back are in no danger, and the emergency services can get down the opposite carriageway as well as the hard shoulder.
In a tunnel. Everybody in the tunnel is in danger from the smoke, and may have no escape route. And the emergency services would be unable to attend easily due to a tunnel full of smoke. It would be better if the tunnel remained clear to through traffic so that only the crashed vehicle is stuck in the tunnel. It may still be on fire with people trapped. But it's only one vehicle on fire not 10 or so, and everybody else can escape if they need to save themselves.
The crash on the M5 this winter was pretty nasty. The last thing you want is that happening in a tunnel, by deflecting a vehicle back into the carriageway.
The question is was the design supposed to be this way, or not as far as the safety authorities in Switzerland are concerned.
Munter said:
I can see the theory quite easily.
Lets say the coach had been deflected. It'd then collided with other cars on the road which otherwise would not have crashed, and blocked the tunnel. Then one of them catches fire, setting fire to those around it.
Now on a UK motorway. The smoke escapes in one direction leaving plenty of places for people to stand out of it. People in other cars stopped further back are in no danger, and the emergency services can get down the opposite carriageway as well as the hard shoulder.
In a tunnel. Everybody in the tunnel is in danger from the smoke, and may have no escape route. And the emergency services would be unable to attend easily due to a tunnel full of smoke. It would be better if the tunnel remained clear to through traffic so that only the crashed vehicle is stuck in the tunnel. It may still be on fire with people trapped. But it's only one vehicle on fire not 10 or so, and everybody else can escape if they need to save themselves.
The crash on the M5 this winter was pretty nasty. The last thing you want is that happening in a tunnel, by deflecting a vehicle back into the carriageway.
The question is was the design supposed to be this way, or not as far as the safety authorities in Switzerland are concerned.
This.Lets say the coach had been deflected. It'd then collided with other cars on the road which otherwise would not have crashed, and blocked the tunnel. Then one of them catches fire, setting fire to those around it.
Now on a UK motorway. The smoke escapes in one direction leaving plenty of places for people to stand out of it. People in other cars stopped further back are in no danger, and the emergency services can get down the opposite carriageway as well as the hard shoulder.
In a tunnel. Everybody in the tunnel is in danger from the smoke, and may have no escape route. And the emergency services would be unable to attend easily due to a tunnel full of smoke. It would be better if the tunnel remained clear to through traffic so that only the crashed vehicle is stuck in the tunnel. It may still be on fire with people trapped. But it's only one vehicle on fire not 10 or so, and everybody else can escape if they need to save themselves.
The crash on the M5 this winter was pretty nasty. The last thing you want is that happening in a tunnel, by deflecting a vehicle back into the carriageway.
The question is was the design supposed to be this way, or not as far as the safety authorities in Switzerland are concerned.
I'm pretty sure that the thinking behind the placing of a solid wall in line with tunnel traffic was not to stop crashing coaches being deflected into oncoming or surrounding traffic.
If this accident had happened a few seconds later then the coach would have bounced into and off the emergency exit, where there is no run off between it and the road. The occupants may have fared better but at the expense of anyone nearby traveling in their own vehicles.
I said in an earlier post that I was pretty surprised at the shock and jolting I got when I accidentally drove into a solid, immovable brick wall at around 3 miles an hour and it's a reminder to all of us how dangerous colliding with something is. Just take it easy out there.
Whatever way you look at it, this is an awful accident that has made a small community a very sad place to be for a very long time.
If this accident had happened a few seconds later then the coach would have bounced into and off the emergency exit, where there is no run off between it and the road. The occupants may have fared better but at the expense of anyone nearby traveling in their own vehicles.
I said in an earlier post that I was pretty surprised at the shock and jolting I got when I accidentally drove into a solid, immovable brick wall at around 3 miles an hour and it's a reminder to all of us how dangerous colliding with something is. Just take it easy out there.
Whatever way you look at it, this is an awful accident that has made a small community a very sad place to be for a very long time.
Nickyboy said:
Puggit said:
Theory that the driver was trying to start a DVD! Telegraph link
Find this one hard to believe as the 2nd driver was also apparently killed at the front of the coach.
I doubt that, the DVD players aren't anywhere near the reach of the driver and would be operated by someone like a stewardess or teacher.Find this one hard to believe as the 2nd driver was also apparently killed at the front of the coach.
When I used to drive coaches the DVD could be anywhere from an overhead locker halfway down the coach to under the stereo right next to the driver.
Munter said:
I can see the theory quite easily.
Lets say the coach had been deflected. It'd then collided with other cars on the road which otherwise would not have crashed, and blocked the tunnel. Then one of them catches fire, setting fire to those around it.
Now on a UK motorway. The smoke escapes in one direction leaving plenty of places for people to stand out of it. People in other cars stopped further back are in no danger, and the emergency services can get down the opposite carriageway as well as the hard shoulder.
In a tunnel. Everybody in the tunnel is in danger from the smoke, and may have no escape route. And the emergency services would be unable to attend easily due to a tunnel full of smoke. It would be better if the tunnel remained clear to through traffic so that only the crashed vehicle is stuck in the tunnel. It may still be on fire with people trapped. But it's only one vehicle on fire not 10 or so, and everybody else can escape if they need to save themselves.
The crash on the M5 this winter was pretty nasty. The last thing you want is that happening in a tunnel, by deflecting a vehicle back into the carriageway.
The question is was the design supposed to be this way, or not as far as the safety authorities in Switzerland are concerned.
This would seem very logical. But what would be the reasons for not building a crumple zone to front the concrete so that when a vehicle did hit it the zone would collapse and absorb a great amount of the shock before the vehicle met the immoveable concrete?Lets say the coach had been deflected. It'd then collided with other cars on the road which otherwise would not have crashed, and blocked the tunnel. Then one of them catches fire, setting fire to those around it.
Now on a UK motorway. The smoke escapes in one direction leaving plenty of places for people to stand out of it. People in other cars stopped further back are in no danger, and the emergency services can get down the opposite carriageway as well as the hard shoulder.
In a tunnel. Everybody in the tunnel is in danger from the smoke, and may have no escape route. And the emergency services would be unable to attend easily due to a tunnel full of smoke. It would be better if the tunnel remained clear to through traffic so that only the crashed vehicle is stuck in the tunnel. It may still be on fire with people trapped. But it's only one vehicle on fire not 10 or so, and everybody else can escape if they need to save themselves.
The crash on the M5 this winter was pretty nasty. The last thing you want is that happening in a tunnel, by deflecting a vehicle back into the carriageway.
The question is was the design supposed to be this way, or not as far as the safety authorities in Switzerland are concerned.
Something well designed and bolted onto the concrete face should reduce the terminal impact considerably and possible reduce further the risk of the vehicle involving others?
Also, are the faces of these obstacle highlighted in any way, such as painted to make them stand out more from the bland concrete?
DonkeyApple said:
This would seem very logical. But what would be the reasons for not building a crumple zone to front the concrete so that when a vehicle did hit it the zone would collapse and absorb a great amount of the shock before the vehicle met the immoveable concrete?
Something well designed and bolted onto the concrete face should reduce the terminal impact considerably and possible reduce further the risk of the vehicle involving others?
Also, are the faces of these obstacle highlighted in any way, such as painted to make them stand out more from the bland concrete?
It does appear to be painted green. Interesting choice of colour.Something well designed and bolted onto the concrete face should reduce the terminal impact considerably and possible reduce further the risk of the vehicle involving others?
Also, are the faces of these obstacle highlighted in any way, such as painted to make them stand out more from the bland concrete?
But I'm with you on putting something deformable as the face. Even those tubs of water you see on US tv might be a good idea?
Munter said:
t does appear to be painted green. Interesting choice of colour.
But I'm with you on putting something deformable as the face. Even those tubs of water you see on US tv might be a good idea?
the other obvious option is to have a soft sand bed runoff area - *beyond* the normal emergency lane (maybe behind a Frangible barrier)- with the perpendicular wall recessed back more But I'm with you on putting something deformable as the face. Even those tubs of water you see on US tv might be a good idea?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff