M5 Accident - they're blaming the firework display organiser
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-2001...
Sorry if this has been posted already, 'firework' isn't producing any userful results and M5 is too-short
I'm a bit amazed at this - apparently people who are driving too-fast for the conditions can't be prosecuted because there's insufficient proof they were driving badly but they can blame someone who organised an event which blew some smoke over a road??!
Next week, a 3-year-old will be blamed for the accident caused by his sweetie wrapper???
Sorry if this has been posted already, 'firework' isn't producing any userful results and M5 is too-short
I'm a bit amazed at this - apparently people who are driving too-fast for the conditions can't be prosecuted because there's insufficient proof they were driving badly but they can blame someone who organised an event which blew some smoke over a road??!
Next week, a 3-year-old will be blamed for the accident caused by his sweetie wrapper???
moribund said:
Laying thick concentrated black smoke over a wet busy motorway is a perfectly reasonable and safe thing to do. Who'd of thought there could be any comeback for that 
Assuming that's what happened - however there are a few issues with that view of things.You're supposed to drive a speed suitable for conditions and with space to slow and stop and I doubt this wall of impenetrable smoke just appeared instantly out of nowhere and I doubt it was 'impenetrable' (I've lit a few bonfires in my time - I've never seen one which produced more than 'heavy fog' even close-up and this was some distance away).
It was dark IIRC? - so it's possible cars simply ran into suddenly reduced visibility and that contributed to the accident - but the actual accident was undoubtedly caused by the same thing most motorway shunts are, people driving too close or too fast or simply not paying attention - the problem is that they have to point fingers at dead people.
Smoke didn't make all the cars and lorries stop - that was someone braking for some reason - was the traffic busy? was there a minor shunt which trigger the major one?? or are they just looking for the person who can't deny what they did...
The wording of that report is telling - to me it says "we can't really start blaming dead people for being s
t drivers and the living ones have all got their arses covered - wheras this guy can't deny he lit his bonfire and everything else is hearsay".I could be wrong but this is a bit like blaming rain or wind or fog or cloud covering the moon (if someone controller those they'd be in for it!!)
Edited by 405dogvan on Saturday 20th October 00:26
Is there a case of contributory negligence? Smoke over the motorway doesn't give you an excuse to drive at 70mph if the conditions don't allow it, and my experience of motorway driving suggests there are a lot of people who think you can do 70mpg regardless of the conditions.
While driving to work recently I encountered a car stopped on the hard shoulder of the M3 that appeared to suffering from a run away diesel engine and was covering the southbound carriageway in smoke. Granted it was 6:30 in the morning but even in the dark, with the quantity of smoke being produced, the few motorists around had all slowed to between 30-40mph and had moved to lane 3 to pass as far from the car as possible. How does firework smoke compare to burning oil fumes?
The CPS have said that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error", and with regard to Taunton Rugby Club they said "there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.", yet they believe the there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the 'provider' of the fireworks.
It's a tragedy that so many were killed and injured, but I look forward to seeing the evidence that the CPS believe can convict the firework organisers, but effectively absolve the Rugby club and the motorists of guilt.
While driving to work recently I encountered a car stopped on the hard shoulder of the M3 that appeared to suffering from a run away diesel engine and was covering the southbound carriageway in smoke. Granted it was 6:30 in the morning but even in the dark, with the quantity of smoke being produced, the few motorists around had all slowed to between 30-40mph and had moved to lane 3 to pass as far from the car as possible. How does firework smoke compare to burning oil fumes?
The CPS have said that there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute for driver error", and with regard to Taunton Rugby Club they said "there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction.", yet they believe the there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the 'provider' of the fireworks.
It's a tragedy that so many were killed and injured, but I look forward to seeing the evidence that the CPS believe can convict the firework organisers, but effectively absolve the Rugby club and the motorists of guilt.
Surprised that they've picked the organiser personally rather than corporate manslaughter against the ruby club directors/trustees, must have had a cast iron contract with the organiser to sort everything H&S / process wise.
I'd guess the CPS believe the risk assessments covering operation and placement of the display to be not in compliance with relevant directives/legislation/best practice for safe operation of the event next/near to a motorway. This will reduce the number of local organised events nationally and increase the costs of hosting such events as organisers become more risk adverse, or even stop putting on events due to the costs of having to hire professional organisers.
You can't prosecute the dead of course or ask them for witness statements so even if poor/inappropriate driving was a factor which I'd suspect it was. Something as simple as a phantom tailback caused by drivers not even involved in the accident overreacting to the smoke could have been major causal factor in the resulting crashes.
Will be interesting to see the final outcome of this and if a report will ever be published.
I'd guess the CPS believe the risk assessments covering operation and placement of the display to be not in compliance with relevant directives/legislation/best practice for safe operation of the event next/near to a motorway. This will reduce the number of local organised events nationally and increase the costs of hosting such events as organisers become more risk adverse, or even stop putting on events due to the costs of having to hire professional organisers.
You can't prosecute the dead of course or ask them for witness statements so even if poor/inappropriate driving was a factor which I'd suspect it was. Something as simple as a phantom tailback caused by drivers not even involved in the accident overreacting to the smoke could have been major causal factor in the resulting crashes.
Will be interesting to see the final outcome of this and if a report will ever be published.
b0rk said:
Surprised that they've picked the organiser personally rather than corporate manslaughter against the ruby club directors/trustees, must have had a cast iron contract with the organiser to sort everything H&S / process wise.
I'd guess the CPS believe the risk assessments covering operation and placement of the display to be not in compliance with relevant directives/legislation/best practice for safe operation of the event next/near to a motorway. This will reduce the number of local organised events nationally and increase the costs of hosting such events as organisers become more risk adverse, or even stop putting on events due to the costs of having to hire professional organisers.
Snip
Will be interesting to see the outcome of this and if report will ever be published.
I've been waiting to hear progress; prosecution of the Rugby Club Officers (let's not forget a club doesn't have legal personality) would have had enormous ramifications for volunteer organisations across the country. I'd guess the CPS believe the risk assessments covering operation and placement of the display to be not in compliance with relevant directives/legislation/best practice for safe operation of the event next/near to a motorway. This will reduce the number of local organised events nationally and increase the costs of hosting such events as organisers become more risk adverse, or even stop putting on events due to the costs of having to hire professional organisers.
Snip
Will be interesting to see the outcome of this and if report will ever be published.
As said presumably there was a decent contract in place - the firework co's website is clear that they handle health and safety for the events that they run. I wonder how much is a policy decision as well?
I wonder how much insurance cover might be in place for the firework Co? The ultimate claim for this is likely to be huge, presumably we may see the Rugby club brought in via their insurers in any civil claim but we may never see the detail.
The Taunton junction has a relatively short two lane slip road and, as it comes off Taunton's ring road and slow A roads, there is a tendency for people to pull out onto the motorway (I'm deliberately not using the word merge) at low speed, it would only have taken a couple of slow joiners and drivers distracted by fireworks for this type of incident to occur.
I have driven in a combination of dark, fog and firework type smoke and it's bloody difficult, we had a couple of years in Bristol where going home at firework time was really difficult, even on the lit ring road visibility was problematic.
Edited by Piglet on Saturday 20th October 07:32
PumpkinSteve said:
People saw smoke and continued on at great speed rather than slowing down to suit the terrible conditions
Yeah, that's what someone caught in the eastbound tailback that was doing that run five days a week said to me. He was in a truck so higher up and said you could see smoke ahead and people were still whizzing past on the outside 
After all we never see drivers driving inappropriately on Motorways in less than ideal conditions, and no drivers ever appear keener than usual to get home on Friday evenings do they?
The smoke could just have easily come from a burning factory near the road, or a truck on fire on the hard shoulder and the outcome could have been the same.
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 20th October 07:35
PumpkinSteve said:
People saw smoke and continued on at great speed rather than slowing down to suit the terrible conditions
Have you ever deiven into thick smoke at night? you don't see it, you just all of a sudden see nothing. You can then brake, and risk being rear ended, or not brake and risk rear ending someone who does. If you do brake, how hard do you brake and how muc do you slow down? The answer to both is different for the person next to you and behind you who has better or worse eyesight, and different risk assessment levels.Then if you get someone who happened to be in the middle of a lane change or something when the lights went out, well best of luck with that one.
Driving to the conditions is pretty difficult when the conditions were slightly limited night time vision and someone suddenly pulls a veil over your eyes. Heavy Fog and smoke from fires regularly causes motorway pileups because the change in conditions is too sudden for the average motorist to cope with in a consistent and predictable manner. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to suddenly start coping. The more attainable, and more effective, solution is to discourage activity that lays a smokescreen across the motorway. Undeed, I believe that the event organisers were even warned of this danger.
The police / HSE (if involved) were always going to look to blame someone for this, and generally it comes down to whoever has the weakest defence / hasn't followed Health & Safety guidelines as required.
As someone else has alluded to, I assume that the rugby club had contracted all of the organisation of the event to this guy, including the Health & Safety aspect of it.
I would imagine that he put very little thought or consideration (Risk Assessment) into the possibility of the display impacting onto the motorway, and I would suggest that is why they are going after him.
As someone else has alluded to, I assume that the rugby club had contracted all of the organisation of the event to this guy, including the Health & Safety aspect of it.
I would imagine that he put very little thought or consideration (Risk Assessment) into the possibility of the display impacting onto the motorway, and I would suggest that is why they are going after him.
Not seen any adverts for our longstanding local display this year, which also happens to be at a sports club, by a motorway
Is this the beginning of the end for firework displays?
So, if I crash having between distracted by a pretty lady, at the side of the road; can she expect to be prosecuted?
Is this the beginning of the end for firework displays?
So, if I crash having between distracted by a pretty lady, at the side of the road; can she expect to be prosecuted?
tleefox said:
The police / HSE (if involved) were always going to look to blame someone for this, and generally it comes down to whoever has the weakest defence / hasn't followed Health & Safety guidelines as required.
As someone else has alluded to, I assume that the rugby club had contracted all of the organisation of the event to this guy, including the Health & Safety aspect of it.
I would imagine that he put very little thought or consideration (Risk Assessment) into the possibility of the display impacting onto the motorway, and I would suggest that is why they are going after him.
This.As someone else has alluded to, I assume that the rugby club had contracted all of the organisation of the event to this guy, including the Health & Safety aspect of it.
I would imagine that he put very little thought or consideration (Risk Assessment) into the possibility of the display impacting onto the motorway, and I would suggest that is why they are going after him.
The week after this incident I was having my FLT training and the guy running it was a health and safety nut/serial bore. He said the same thing, they'll go for whoever has the weakest defence and that'll be whoever didn't do the appropriate risk assessment. And Taunton RFC is skint.....
Do the maths.
As with the M25 Kent/Surrey accident in 1984 I suspect this accident wasn't caused by people travelling at whatever speed they were going at, I would bet it's been caused by someone panicking and slowing or stopping suddenly leaving the traffic behind nowhere to go. Accidents are caused by change in speed direction not by travelling at speed and if people kept moving and didn't suddenly brake for no reason this type of accident wouldn't happen.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff