A34 Tragic crash

[silentbrown]

PurpleTurtle said:

Frankly I find the suggestion that these people could have in some way saved their lives by leaving a bigger gap, when you have a moron in an HGV behind them looking at his phone for 45 SECONDS before impact rather insensitive.

Agree entirely. Insensitive and probably wrong. HGV hits car A (which HAS hazards on) which hits B which hits C (with trailer) which then hits D. All fatalities in D. To suggest D should have left a bigger gap, or seen this in mirrors is absurd, particularly as you have no idea of the gap size in the first place.

[Nickyboy]

cptsideways said:

This 100% I always leave a substantial gap so should the traffic come to a stop I can slow gently & leave a getout gap. Always have done & always try to do so, its not difficult if your planning ahead. 99% of other car drivers don't, its also the same system for making the traffic flow in stop start traffic

If you look at the video its clear lane two is empty, the drivers of the following cars imho were not looking ahead & simply drove up to the back of slow/stationary trucks. Sad but true.

I would have been 100 yards further back & or aiming for lane two, laoking further ahead than whats just in front, it's obviously what way too many drivers do.

I agree, while you can't blame the car drivers for the tragic events, as said lane 2 was empty but as with a lot of drivers they look no further than the end of their bonnet, instead coming to a near stop behind slow moving vehicles at the top of the hill. The other night on the A34 was a tractor () trundling along at 20mph, traffic hurtling past at 60/70mph and 4 cars sat behind it, a good 2 miles to the next junction. Some people seem incapable of looking ahead and planning ahead.

We're taught to keep back and see it all at work and to always have an escape route, this rubs off in day to day driving when off work as well.

[Mandat]

PurpleTurtle said:

Mandat said:

It's also a great shame that none of the car drivers involved were driving sufficiently defensively, as that could have gone a long way to help mitigate the severity of the collision, and may have even turned the 4 x deaths into only injuries.

Frankly I find the suggestion that these people could have in some way saved their lives by leaving a bigger gap, when you have a moron in an HGV behind them looking at his phone for 45 SECONDS before impact rather insensitive.

Let's be clear: this was 100% the fault of the HGV driver, and completely avoidable if he, and he alone, was driving with sufficient care. The cowardly fk went 'No Comment' in two Police interviews and only admitted his guilt when presented with irrefutable evidence, and likely only did that to get a sentence reduction.

It might be perceived as insensitive, but in the full analysis of the circumstances around the collision and the deaths, the fact is that the outcome might very well have been different if a more defensive style of driving was in evidence that day.

No one here disputes that 100% of the blame lies with Tomasz, but despite that fact that the collision was a 100% certainty because of his inattention, that does not meant that the severity and outcome of the collision could not have been better mitigated by the other drivers involved.

If people choose to ignore this opportunity to analyse, discuss and learn from these unfortunate deaths, then similar collisions & deaths will continue to be repeated in the future.

Rather than claiming that discussion is insensitive, and refusing to talk about the relevant issues, I hope that this discussion can help to educate others about better planning & anticipation, and general defensive driving, and ultimately to prevent the needless death of others on the roads.

[///ajd]

That is truly awful. The TVP video really makes you think and it is tragic.

I often worry about queuing traffic on motorways and the risk of lorries doing what is in that video. I used to worry more when at the back of the queue and exposed, but this shows the real high risk is being behind a big immovable stationary lorry, even if you are not at the back of the queue.

Makes a strong case for a legal requirement for some sort of distronic for lorries. £500 a lorry? Peanuts in comparison to the horror in the video.

[Mandat]

silentbrown said:

PurpleTurtle said:

Frankly I find the suggestion that these people could have in some way saved their lives by leaving a bigger gap, when you have a moron in an HGV behind them looking at his phone for 45 SECONDS before impact rather insensitive.

Agree entirely. Insensitive and probably wrong. HGV hits car A (which HAS hazards on) which hits B which hits C (with trailer) which then hits D. All fatalities in D. To suggest D should have left a bigger gap, or seen this in mirrors is absurd, particularly as you have no idea of the gap size in the first place.

Looking at the video footage, it appears that none of the drivers left any sort of safety buffer zone on approaching the stationary traffic.

Also, none of the drivers appear to take any form of evasive action in the moments leading up to the collision, which suggests that none of the them had sufficient rear observation to realise that a 44t artic was bearing down on them, and was about to hit.

I appreciate that this might sound callous, but this is what an analysis of the events looks like in the cold hard light of day.

I am not surprised that most drivers don't consider such issues, or that they don't observe, anticipate and plan their driving appropriately. However, I don't think it is absurd to suggest that more drivers should start thinking about doing so. It might just save their life. Unfortunately, it's too late for 4 people who needlessly died in this collision.

[Bigends]

Mandat said:

silentbrown said:

PurpleTurtle said:

Frankly I find the suggestion that these people could have in some way saved their lives by leaving a bigger gap, when you have a moron in an HGV behind them looking at his phone for 45 SECONDS before impact rather insensitive.

Agree entirely. Insensitive and probably wrong. HGV hits car A (which HAS hazards on) which hits B which hits C (with trailer) which then hits D. All fatalities in D. To suggest D should have left a bigger gap, or seen this in mirrors is absurd, particularly as you have no idea of the gap size in the first place.

Looking at the video footage, it appears that none of the drivers left any sort of safety buffer zone on approaching the stationary traffic.

Also, none of the drivers appear to take any form of evasive action in the moments leading up to the collision, which suggests that none of the them had sufficient rear observation to realise that a 44t artic was bearing down on them, and was about to hit.

I appreciate that this might sound callous, but this is what an analysis of the events looks like in the cold hard light of day.

I am not surprised that most drivers don't consider such issues, or that they don't observe, anticipate and plan their driving appropriately. However, I don't think it is absurd to suggest that more drivers should start thinking about doing so. It might just save their life. Unfortunately, it's too late for 4 people who needlessly died in this collision.

So,,what does this safety buffer zone look like? What should the queue have done - five/ten car lengths between each car? and then each dodge out of the way just before the truck hits them. Only the rearmost car would have a clue what was about to happen.

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 1st November 22:18

[surveyor]

///ajd said:

That is truly awful. The TVP video really makes you think and it is tragic.

I often worry about queuing traffic on motorways and the risk of lorries doing what is in that video. I used to worry more when at the back of the queue and exposed, but this shows the real high risk is being behind a big immovable stationary lorry, even if you are not at the back of the queue.

Makes a strong case for a legal requirement for some sort of distronic for lorries. £500 a lorry? Peanuts in comparison to the horror in the video.

Emergency braking systems that would have avoided this crash are already available by all the major truck manufacturer. I suspect that they maybe optional extra's - but I think should be mandatory.

[silentbrown]

Bigends said:

So,,what does this safety buffer zone look like? What should the queue have done - five/ten car lengths between each car? and then each dodge out of the way just before the truck hits them. Only the rearmost car would have a clue what was about to happen.

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 1st November 22:18

Absolutely. And as mentioned on the other thread, you see the rearmost car tries to move left just before impact.

You'd have no time to do anything, even if you saw it. Braking distance from 50MPH (excluding reaction time) is 40ish metres. You'd only know for sure he wasn't going to be able to stop two seconds before impact. Time to choose an escape route, engage gear, release handbrake, release clutch, manoeuvre to safety?

Edited by silentbrown on Tuesday 1st November 22:54

[Mandat]

silentbrown said:

Absolutely. And as mentioned on the other thread, you see the rearmost car tries to move left just before impact.

You'd have no time to do anything, even if you saw it. Braking distance from 50MPH (excluding reaction time) is 40ish metres. You'd only know for sure he wasn't going to be able to stop two seconds before impact. Time to choose an escape route, engage gear, release handbrake, release clutch, manoeuvre to safety?

Edited by silentbrown on Tuesday 1st November 22:54

Based on my own driving experience, I would disagree with your assessment, but then your comments are quite telling of your lack of knowledge / experience, it would appear.

If you are using appropriate observation, then there is plenty of time to see and react to the developing situation behind.

The time to consider potential escape routes is as you are slowing / stopping in the queue of stationary traffic. It's too late to start thinking about escape when a collision is imminent.

Whilst in your buffer zone, you should be showing your brake lights to following traffic, and have the gear engaged in anticipation of having to make a quick getaway if necessary. Therefore, clutch, engage gear, release handbrake is totally irrelevant.

[davepoth]

And leave a gap. Leave a really big gap. Even if a truck driver doesn't notice you before he smashes into you at 50mph he certainly will afterwards. The hit from behind won't always kill you but getting sandwiched between two trucks usually will.

[King Herald]

316Mining said:

I don't agree. People 'drift off' into their own worlds when there is nothing to do and no other distractions. Almost mesmerised by the road, in a trance like state.
Driving for two hours on a monotonous road like the M4 with no distractions, nothing to do other than keep the pedal down and maintain 55mph mile after mile, is going send you into semi comatose state. I bet the brain function just shuts further down with every mile.

I always assumed it would be thus if ever I drove a 'cruise control' car, that I'd probably nod off pretty quickly with the monotony and lack of involvement, but I found just the opposite. I found I had more time to concentrate on other drivers, road conditions etc, without the continual glancing down at the speedo, making minute throttle adjustments.

[King Herald]

Nickyboy said:

......The other night on the A34 was a tractor () trundling along at 20mph, traffic hurtling past at 60/70mph and 4 cars sat behind it, a good 2 miles to the next junction. Some people seem incapable of looking ahead and planning ahead.

I used to hang our with a girl who would see this same situation, drive up to the back of the slow vehicle, then begin her requisite overtaking protocol. I tried several times to point out she should have begun making her moves long before she had to slow down, long before she had to re-accelerate hard up to passing traffic speed etc.

It was strange, she could not dance either, had absolutely no sense of beat or rhythm. Maybe a lack of coordination, anticipation?


It was even stranger, she was a psychiatric nurse.....

[silentbrown]

Mandat said:

Based on my own driving experience, I would disagree with your assessment, but then your comments are quite telling of your lack of knowledge / experience, it would appear.

Thanks so much. Handbrake: You'll have it on because that's a bloody steep hill.

[Nickyboy]

Mandat said:

Looking at the video footage, it appears that none of the drivers left any sort of safety buffer zone on approaching the stationary traffic.

Also, none of the drivers appear to take any form of evasive action in the moments leading up to the collision, which suggests that none of the them had sufficient rear observation to realise that a 44t artic was bearing down on them, and was about to hit.

If you look carefully at the video, the rearmost car moves to the left about a second before the truck hits it, if you pause it you can see his front wheels turned to the left, sadly little too late but likely saved his life as his car was thrown into the verge instead of being crushed.

[Mandat]

Nickyboy said:

If you look carefully at the video, the rearmost car moves to the left about a second before the truck hits it, if you pause it you can see his front wheels turned to the left, sadly little too late but likely saved his life as his car was thrown into the verge instead of being crushed.

Like you say, too little, too late but at least the little that he did do helped to save his own life.

On the flip side, if he had left a suitable buffer zone in front of him, it might also have gone a long way to help to save the lives of the 4 that died. Sobering thought.

[B'stard Child]

PurpleTurtle said:

Mandat said:

It's also a great shame that none of the car drivers involved were driving sufficiently defensively, as that could have gone a long way to help mitigate the severity of the collision, and may have even turned the 4 x deaths into only injuries.

Frankly I find the suggestion that these people could have in some way saved their lives by leaving a bigger gap, when you have a moron in an HGV behind them looking at his phone for 45 SECONDS before impact rather insensitive.

It's a motoring forum - people on here are enthusiasts about cars and driving - stop being a pillock and read what is being written - it may save you life one day if you adopt it - or recognise the mindset of driving with defense in mind and always having an escape route open to you

PurpleTurtle said:

Let's be clear: this was 100% the fault of the HGV driver, and completely avoidable if he, and he alone, was driving with sufficient care. The cowardly fk went 'No Comment' in two Police interviews and only admitted his guilt when presented with irrefutable evidence, and likely only did that to get a sentence reduction.

No one has said any different

[croyde]

Someone mentioned earlier that slowly driven cars on fast roads, tend to be badly driven cars.

I see this all the time as I do a lot of miles. The people going for it tend to drive well, even if they are illegally speeding.

Eg. I got caught at 89mph on the M11, ok that's over the limit but it was clear and I was concentrating like buggery yet that trip I had passed loads of badly driven cars whose drivers were on phones, slurping coffee, having animated conversations with their passengers or just looking comatose.

[so called]

silentbrown said:

Bigends said:

So,,what does this safety buffer zone look like? What should the queue have done - five/ten car lengths between each car? and then each dodge out of the way just before the truck hits them. Only the rearmost car would have a clue what was about to happen.

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 1st November 22:18

Absolutely. And as mentioned on the other thread, you see the rearmost car tries to move left just before impact.

You'd have no time to do anything, even if you saw it. Braking distance from 50MPH (excluding reaction time) is 40ish metres. You'd only know for sure he wasn't going to be able to stop two seconds before impact. Time to choose an escape route, engage gear, release handbrake, release clutch, manoeuvre to safety?

Edited by silentbrown on Tuesday 1st November 22:54

I don't know if its true or not but I once read that you can be prosecuted if you move out of the way, resulting in the car in front of you taking the hit.
It was years ago I read this and have always wondered.
If anyone would care to enlighten me I would be grateful.

Regarding the accident, yes, truly dreadful. I cant imagine the family pain.
And 10 years sound light to me.

[cptsideways]

Nickyboy said:

If you look carefully at the video, the rearmost car moves to the left about a second before the truck hits it, if you pause it you can see his front wheels turned to the left, sadly little too late but likely saved his life as his car was thrown into the verge instead of being crushed.

This "last second" of defensive driving saved this chaps life. Next time you pass an AA/RAC van on the hard shoulder behind a car their policy is to have the wheels locked left. If they get a rear hit the van is punted sideways dissipating the energy away from the stranded vehicle in front.

[Guybrush]

croyde said:

Someone mentioned earlier that slowly driven cars on fast roads, tend to be badly driven cars.

I see this all the time as I do a lot of miles. The people going for it tend to drive well, even if they are illegally speeding.

Eg. I got caught at 89mph on the M11, ok that's over the limit but it was clear and I was concentrating like buggery yet that trip I had passed loads of badly driven cars whose drivers were on phones, slurping coffee, having animated conversations with their passengers or just looking comatose.

Quite true. I've seen this for many years. Either the slow drivers are not concentrating because they aren't driving at the speed at which they are comfortable, which would probably mean they are obeying the stupidly low speed limit, or they are just bad drivers who won't get caught by 'safety' cameras. Still, the vested interests persist in trying to brainwash us into complying with stupidly low limits because they are either not very intelligent or have jobs dependent on it.