A1 HGV crash – What could have been done differently?
Discussion
How about a hazard beeper? Motorway use only, so when you breakdown on the hard shoulder, the beeping should hopefully cause the sleepy/internetting lorry driver glance up. Like hazard lights it could also be used at the back of a motorway queue.
In lieu of this, how about when you see someone on the hard shoulder, or you come to the back of a mway queue, you beep eg. five times. All the beeping should hopefully alert those that may not be alert or concentrating.
In lieu of this, how about when you see someone on the hard shoulder, or you come to the back of a mway queue, you beep eg. five times. All the beeping should hopefully alert those that may not be alert or concentrating.
Super Sonic said:
How about a hazard beeper? Motorway use only, so when you breakdown on the hard shoulder, the beeping should hopefully cause the sleepy/internetting lorry driver glance up
You'll need something which gives 5-7 seconds warning. At 60mph that's 150 - 180 yards. So it's going to need to be loud...so a non-starter but a reasonable idea.Some of the technology in place in modern vehicles might help, some more thought on where to stop from drivers approaching the back of the queue might help. But in this case I think the only thing which would have stopped the crash - this was no accident - would have been the HGV driver not f
king about on his phone for 45 minutes while driving.And @fmmt - I did look up the Smith System and thought it was a good start but it seems to me a little too general. RoadCraft gives the driver a process to consider hazards and decide on a plan on action for each and every one. And I get your point about Joe Public not understanding the needs of HGV drivers on the road - TBF they don't generally understand the needs of other classes of drivers either.
To the OP's point. I agree. Being a little defensive on the roads, being aware of your surroundings and leaving space to move, should you have to, is all common sense. I can think of at least two instances where it has saved me from a rear end.
In practical terms though, it's very difficult, and your average driver who plans ahead no further than the end of the bonnet is never going to appreciate the advice.
The ultimate solution to all of this? Unfortunately, it's to dramatically raise driving standards across the board. Remove the licence of those that cannot and generally remind people that having a licence is a privilege, not a right and that passing your test is the start of, not the pinnacle of your driving career.
You shouldn't have to police people into not using a mobile phone whilst driving, they should be sufficiently intelligent enough to see that it's a bad idea and not want to use a phone whilst driving in the first place.
In practical terms though, it's very difficult, and your average driver who plans ahead no further than the end of the bonnet is never going to appreciate the advice.
The ultimate solution to all of this? Unfortunately, it's to dramatically raise driving standards across the board. Remove the licence of those that cannot and generally remind people that having a licence is a privilege, not a right and that passing your test is the start of, not the pinnacle of your driving career.
You shouldn't have to police people into not using a mobile phone whilst driving, they should be sufficiently intelligent enough to see that it's a bad idea and not want to use a phone whilst driving in the first place.
Maybe 3 tries at passing maximum.
People who take their test countless times should really consider that they might not be up for the job.
As I said earlier. Anyone who wants to drive must do a motorcycle test prior as it gives one a very good idea of what it's like to be vulnerable and keeps you alerts.
Apart from the food delivery lot who are now considered by myself the biggest danger to me on my bike as they are absolutely clueless.
I suspect non of them have licences or insurance.
People who take their test countless times should really consider that they might not be up for the job.
As I said earlier. Anyone who wants to drive must do a motorcycle test prior as it gives one a very good idea of what it's like to be vulnerable and keeps you alerts.
Apart from the food delivery lot who are now considered by myself the biggest danger to me on my bike as they are absolutely clueless.
I suspect non of them have licences or insurance.
DodgyGeezer said:
I'll agree with the point the OP is making. There are some issues to be honest - 50 metres, initially, sounds like a heck of a lot and that in itself could cause some issues. There is no doubt however that trying to ensure your own 'safety bubble' is of paramount importance. There is a similar idea that if you are parked (either on a street or in a traffic jam) your front wheels should be angled to the side so if you do get hit you're pushed towards empty space
Or onto the pavement and hurt someone there!Shaw Tarse said:
So what happens to all the others in queue?
If when approaching stationary traffic and all drivers took the approach of stopping with a 50m gap to the car in front.. what will the impact be say 50 cars back?The answer is that the stationary traffic line approaches the incoming traffic very quickly.
About 25m/s, instead of the 10m/s it would if cars closed to a normal stop with appropriate braking.
Stopping too soon presents a risk to those behind and it just might impact the early stoppers, who have behaved unexpectedly.
Closing the gap the the stoppage gently, leaving an option to close quicker is on thing, but stopping 50m early could have severe consequences.
Edited by 911hope on Thursday 4th August 23:58
Mandat said:
Google says that the average stopping distance for a loaded HGV travelling at 60 mph is 60 metres.
If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
I can't believe that stopping distance. That is too short for even a car.If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
Try ~130m on dry roads. Add 50% for wet roads.
911hope said:
Mandat said:
Google says that the average stopping distance for a loaded HGV travelling at 60 mph is 60 metres.
If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
I can't believe that stopping distance. That is too short for even a car.If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
Try ~130m on dry roads. Add 50% for wet roads.
SpeckledJim said:
911hope said:
Mandat said:
Google says that the average stopping distance for a loaded HGV travelling at 60 mph is 60 metres.
If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
I can't believe that stopping distance. That is too short for even a car.If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
Try ~130m on dry roads. Add 50% for wet roads.
https://youtu.be/vI9EIjUx20I
https://youtu.be/ridS396W2BY
SpeckledJim said:
911hope said:
Mandat said:
Google says that the average stopping distance for a loaded HGV travelling at 60 mph is 60 metres.
If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
I can't believe that stopping distance. That is too short for even a car.If I were stopped at the back of a queue of traffic, I would be keeping an eye on the approaching traffic from the rear, to ensure that they are also slowing down to a stop.
It ought to be fairly obvious if a HGV was bearing down on you at 56mph without slowing, which should give you a warning that a crash is going to occur.
Even at 100m away, at full speed of the HGV, you will still have at least 4 seconds in which to put your escape plan into action.
Try ~130m on dry roads. Add 50% for wet roads.
https://mocktheorytest.com/resources/lorry-braking...
Or compare to the highway code for braking distances, for cars.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/559...
It gives 73m for a car, including reaction time. It is easily plausible that a lorry would be 100% longer than car, to stop.
To me the big problem with "keeping an eye on the rear view mirror when you are last in a queue, and watching for HGV's" - is actually judging when a HGV is going to stop or not. I've tried this a few times and found your brain can trick you, you will see a HGV barrelling up the road at such a speed that it could never stop, but then it'll stop just fine.
I've been sat there in a queue a few times convinced the HGV will hit me, and it stopped. By the time it is actually close enough to you that you can be sure it won't stop in time / the driver is distracted, chances are you won't have enough time to react.
And what if you do make a false move? Say you are in the queue and you see a HGV barreling up behind you and you are convinced it won't stop. Do you just dart out into lane 1 / lane 2 of the live carriageway ? What happens if you darted out into lane 1 of the live carriageway and caused an accident from someone swerving to avoid you, and when the CCTV is replayed, it's obvious the HGV had stopped fine? It won't look too good for you in this case.
As usual on PH someone posts an "obvious" idea that everyone should be doing, but of course it never turns out to be that simple in reality...
I've been sat there in a queue a few times convinced the HGV will hit me, and it stopped. By the time it is actually close enough to you that you can be sure it won't stop in time / the driver is distracted, chances are you won't have enough time to react.
And what if you do make a false move? Say you are in the queue and you see a HGV barreling up behind you and you are convinced it won't stop. Do you just dart out into lane 1 / lane 2 of the live carriageway ? What happens if you darted out into lane 1 of the live carriageway and caused an accident from someone swerving to avoid you, and when the CCTV is replayed, it's obvious the HGV had stopped fine? It won't look too good for you in this case.
As usual on PH someone posts an "obvious" idea that everyone should be doing, but of course it never turns out to be that simple in reality...
Rat Park Refugee said:
To me the big problem with "keeping an eye on the rear view mirror when you are last in a queue, and watching for HGV's" - is actually judging when a HGV is going to stop or not. I've tried this a few times and found your brain can trick you, you will see a HGV barrelling up the road at such a speed that it could never stop, but then it'll stop just fine.
I've been sat there in a queue a few times convinced the HGV will hit me, and it stopped. By the time it is actually close enough to you that you can be sure it won't stop in time / the driver is distracted, chances are you won't have enough time to react.
And what if you do make a false move? Say you are in the queue and you see a HGV barreling up behind you and you are convinced it won't stop. Do you just dart out into lane 1 / lane 2 of the live carriageway ? What happens if you darted out into lane 1 of the live carriageway and caused an accident from someone swerving to avoid you, and when the CCTV is replayed, it's obvious the HGV had stopped fine? It won't look too good for you in this case.
As usual on PH someone posts an "obvious" idea that everyone should be doing, but of course it never turns out to be that simple in reality...
“ I've been sat there in a queue a few times convinced the HGV will hit me”I've been sat there in a queue a few times convinced the HGV will hit me, and it stopped. By the time it is actually close enough to you that you can be sure it won't stop in time / the driver is distracted, chances are you won't have enough time to react.
And what if you do make a false move? Say you are in the queue and you see a HGV barreling up behind you and you are convinced it won't stop. Do you just dart out into lane 1 / lane 2 of the live carriageway ? What happens if you darted out into lane 1 of the live carriageway and caused an accident from someone swerving to avoid you, and when the CCTV is replayed, it's obvious the HGV had stopped fine? It won't look too good for you in this case.
As usual on PH someone posts an "obvious" idea that everyone should be doing, but of course it never turns out to be that simple in reality...
.. and that is the issue, being stationary when cars are still approaching behind you. Do not stop, maintain a gap in front by slowing until you are sure they are aware and that they are slowing adequately for the situation.
SpeckledJim said:
Yes 100%. But if the cars at the back of the queue had had 50 clear yards in front of them, and had their hazards on, and been flashing their brake lights, then the outcomes could potentially have been less awful.
Blame and outcome being separate.
Actually they would have been hit 50 years further up the road. Had they somehow darted out of the way, the lorry would have hit the next car with the same outcome.Blame and outcome being separate.
Suggesting that everyone stops 50 yards behind the stationary car in front seems madness. You are taking space away from the car behind and putting both of you at risk.
Perhaps some of you IAM experts will be able to reference something from your guiding document, that supports this madness. I doubt it somehow.
Now if you were to brake early and gradually, giving the car maximum chance to see that you are braking and stop, you would be acting sensibly and would have a better chance of succeeding with an escape, since you would actually me moving.
You might find some supporting guidance for this type of approach.
911hope said:
Looks like there is no supporting theory or texts for the madcap mitigation methods.
Stop 50m early? Really?
Discussion over?
Hopefully they've realised how dumb they sound lol. Honestly reading PH sometimes it makes me wonder if half of the posters aren't 14 year old kids who have only driven daddies car a few times round the caravan site.Stop 50m early? Really?
Discussion over?
Especially stopping 50m away from the car in front or somehow not coming to a stop behind it. If I'm taking a left off of the motorway or a dual carriageway, and there is a queue snaking back, stopping 50m behind the car in front is ludicrous, could leave me actually in lane 1, and I'm sure the police wouldn't be happy if they saw it. Same with magically not coming to a stop somehow, am I supposed to brake hard in lane 1, then go onto the exit slip and slowly roll up to the car in the queue? Sometimes it can take 30 seconds or more for a HGV to come into view in the rear mirror especially if traffic is light. After all I am likely to have overtaken it on the dual carriageway and left it a fair bit behind before I take the exit.
Truth is you can't mitigate every accident that may happen on the roads flawlessly, there'll be risk and reward to every maneuver and blasting into the live carraigeway to get out of the way of a HGV that "looks fast" in the rear mirror, well you have to factor in risk and reward...
911hope said:
Looks like there is no supporting theory or texts for the madcap mitigation methods.
Stop 50m early? Really?
Discussion over?
How kind of you to define the responses, and manage the discussion Stop 50m early? Really?
Discussion over?
There is some very good discussion above, good ideas, and while stopping 50m early is not necessarily the practical thing to do, managing what is happening behind you, such as choosing a longer period over which to slow down / using hazards / flicking the brakes on / off before the braking zone to grab attention behind, and then slowly moving into the queue once you are comfortable with the behaviour of traffic behind - all standard actions for those who do more than glue their eyes to the satnav and ignore all traffic around them
when you are driving, and esp. in the scenario here, you will find that most motorists are looking out of the front, and totally unaware of what is behind - yet you control how you interact with the scene ahead of you and you can avoid it by simply not driving into that space - you have very much less control over what is happening behind you - which may or may not drive into your space. So increasing awareness of what is behind and using techniques to manage that traffic as you slow down, all makes sense and can minimise risk.
And while the unimaginative scoff, I have a friend who did manage the traffic behind / did leave a space / did anticipate a non-stopping lorry / did move his car out of the way, and his two small children in the back were not squashed and killed when the lorry embedded itself into the back of the car that had been in front of him... so feel free to believe that you can do nothing but die
others of us will continue to apply a little more creative intelligence to how we interact with others on the road, hopefully increasing our chances of survival!911hope said:
SpeckledJim said:
Yes 100%. But if the cars at the back of the queue had had 50 clear yards in front of them, and had their hazards on, and been flashing their brake lights, then the outcomes could potentially have been less awful.
Blame and outcome being separate.
Actually they would have been hit 50 years further up the road. Had they somehow darted out of the way, the lorry would have hit the next car with the same outcome.Blame and outcome being separate.
Suggesting that everyone stops 50 yards behind the stationary car in front seems madness. You are taking space away from the car behind and putting both of you at risk.
Perhaps some of you IAM experts will be able to reference something from your guiding document, that supports this madness. I doubt it somehow.
Now if you were to brake early and gradually, giving the car maximum chance to see that you are braking and stop, you would be acting sensibly and would have a better chance of succeeding with an escape, since you would actually me moving.
You might find some supporting guidance for this type of approach.
If you're going to become the last car in a queue, and you don't know whether the next person to arrive behind you is concentrating or not, then it is self-evidently safer to leave yourself some space in front of you.
If you're three feet behind the truck in front when the truck behind arrives at 55mph then you are dead. End of story.
Not your fault exactly, no, but you could have prevented your own death and chose not to. Not very clever.
911hope said:
Actually they would have been hit 50 years further up the road. Had they somehow darted out of the way, the lorry would have hit the next car with the same outcome.
Suggesting that everyone stops 50 yards behind the stationary car in front seems madness. You are taking space away from the car behind and putting both of you at risk.
Perhaps some of you IAM experts will be able to reference something from your guiding document, that supports this madness. I doubt it somehow.
Now if you were to brake early and gradually, giving the car maximum chance to see that you are braking and stop, you would be acting sensibly and would have a better chance of succeeding with an escape, since you would actually me moving.
You might find some supporting guidance for this type of approach.
It's been a long time since I did the IAM and Rospa tests, therefore I don't know the full content of the current teaching materials.Suggesting that everyone stops 50 yards behind the stationary car in front seems madness. You are taking space away from the car behind and putting both of you at risk.
Perhaps some of you IAM experts will be able to reference something from your guiding document, that supports this madness. I doubt it somehow.
Now if you were to brake early and gradually, giving the car maximum chance to see that you are braking and stop, you would be acting sensibly and would have a better chance of succeeding with an escape, since you would actually me moving.
You might find some supporting guidance for this type of approach.
However, I don't recall this technique being specifically taught by wither IAM or Rospa, and me taking active measures to try to avoid being rear ended is something that I have always tried to include in my driving plan. I don't remember how this came to me in the first place.
It seems from the many positive replies that I am not alone in using such techniques (or similar variations), which are all simply common sense once you understand the reasoning and purpose of using them in the first place.
Out of interest, do any HGVs have collision avoidance systems these days? Or those driver inattention warnings?
The original question is reasonable, but at the same time you can only plan for what you reasonably expect to happen (things like drivers changing lanes without checking mirrors, or pulling out from junctions, or doing some dodgy lane change at a roundabout). I'm not sure how much you can do to avoid such an extreme occurrence (yes, HGVs are dangerous if they go into you!) If you dived into the hard shoulder every time you saw a heavy approaching from behind and got worried they might not be braking early enough, you'd end up scared of your own shadow and making some rather bizarre manoeuvres.
Great video btw, and kudos to everyone who agreed to take part, some fascinating and sobering insights
The original question is reasonable, but at the same time you can only plan for what you reasonably expect to happen (things like drivers changing lanes without checking mirrors, or pulling out from junctions, or doing some dodgy lane change at a roundabout). I'm not sure how much you can do to avoid such an extreme occurrence (yes, HGVs are dangerous if they go into you!) If you dived into the hard shoulder every time you saw a heavy approaching from behind and got worried they might not be braking early enough, you'd end up scared of your own shadow and making some rather bizarre manoeuvres.
Great video btw, and kudos to everyone who agreed to take part, some fascinating and sobering insights
whimsical ninja said:
Out of interest, do any HGVs have collision avoidance systems these days? Or those driver inattention warnings?
The original question is reasonable, but at the same time you can only plan for what you reasonably expect to happen (things like drivers changing lanes without checking mirrors, or pulling out from junctions, or doing some dodgy lane change at a roundabout). I'm not sure how much you can do to avoid such an extreme occurrence (yes, HGVs are dangerous if they go into you!) If you dived into the hard shoulder every time you saw a heavy approaching from behind and got worried they might not be braking early enough, you'd end up scared of your own shadow and making some rather bizarre manoeuvres.
Great video btw, and kudos to everyone who agreed to take part, some fascinating and sobering insights
Whether you take avoiding action or not, you're still a lot safer with space in front of you to get punted into, should it come to it.The original question is reasonable, but at the same time you can only plan for what you reasonably expect to happen (things like drivers changing lanes without checking mirrors, or pulling out from junctions, or doing some dodgy lane change at a roundabout). I'm not sure how much you can do to avoid such an extreme occurrence (yes, HGVs are dangerous if they go into you!) If you dived into the hard shoulder every time you saw a heavy approaching from behind and got worried they might not be braking early enough, you'd end up scared of your own shadow and making some rather bizarre manoeuvres.
Great video btw, and kudos to everyone who agreed to take part, some fascinating and sobering insights
Truck driver looks up from Truckr on his phone, hits you, hits the brakes, stops at or around the back of the queue. You're in trouble, but nowhere near as much trouble as if you'd been the filling in a 55mph instant truck sandwich.
Or once you can see he's not going to stop, you can accelerate. He hits you at a 30mph delta, instead of a 55mph delta. Massive difference in likely outcomes.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff