Could I have avoided or mitigated this collision
Discussion
4 car pile up today. Guess who was the meat in the sandwich.... 
70mph DC, car broken down in lane 1. Muppet with no forward vision comes to halt behind it and then pulls out and STOPS! in lane 2. White van in front of me hard on the brakes and stops. Me hard on the brakes and stops. Looks in rear view and as expected red van behind stands no chance of stopping and goes straight into the back of me. I, mildly, anticipate this and release some pressure of the brake to mitigate the impact but I'm still propelled into the back of the white van in front.
I really can't think of anything I could have done to lessen this accident but there's plenty of other more experienced drivers on here who know more than I.
And here's something I didn't know. Trafpol (who were jolly decent of course) who after taking all the details and breath testing us all asked me if recovery had been called as my car was wrecked. I said yes but didn't know when. I was then told I had 20mins to get it off the DC as it was a 70mph road and if not they would and costs would be charged to me. This is the first time I've ever heard of this 'rule'. Did my friendly traffic man make this up?
BTW.. of course the muppet who originally caused this carnage FO's up the road without a backward glance.....
70mph DC, car broken down in lane 1. Muppet with no forward vision comes to halt behind it and then pulls out and STOPS! in lane 2. White van in front of me hard on the brakes and stops. Me hard on the brakes and stops. Looks in rear view and as expected red van behind stands no chance of stopping and goes straight into the back of me. I, mildly, anticipate this and release some pressure of the brake to mitigate the impact but I'm still propelled into the back of the white van in front.
I really can't think of anything I could have done to lessen this accident but there's plenty of other more experienced drivers on here who know more than I.
And here's something I didn't know. Trafpol (who were jolly decent of course) who after taking all the details and breath testing us all asked me if recovery had been called as my car was wrecked. I said yes but didn't know when. I was then told I had 20mins to get it off the DC as it was a 70mph road and if not they would and costs would be charged to me. This is the first time I've ever heard of this 'rule'. Did my friendly traffic man make this up?
BTW.. of course the muppet who originally caused this carnage FO's up the road without a backward glance.....
Well, I suppose depending on the road layout you could have cast your vision further ahead, seen and anticipated the impending disaster and began to brake sooner and more smoothly to a halt, thus slowing the vehicle behind you and preventing him from hitting you.
But it sounds like you had left adequate braking distance, stopped without hitting the vehicle in front and the driver behind was either too close or not paying attention and ploughed into you. There's not a huge amount you can do in that situation.
Incidentally I believe you would have been better off keeping the brakes pinned (and handbrake on if you had time) as this would have slowed your acceleration on impact and this can reduce the chances of getting whiplash. It can also stop you from hititng the vehicle in front, which makes the insurance claim more difficult. I had a shunt from behind a year ago and suffered 6 weeks unable to work. Take it gentle and get yourself checked out - I was merely stiff for a couple of weeks, but then woke up one day unable to lift my head from the pillow.
But it sounds like you had left adequate braking distance, stopped without hitting the vehicle in front and the driver behind was either too close or not paying attention and ploughed into you. There's not a huge amount you can do in that situation.
Incidentally I believe you would have been better off keeping the brakes pinned (and handbrake on if you had time) as this would have slowed your acceleration on impact and this can reduce the chances of getting whiplash. It can also stop you from hititng the vehicle in front, which makes the insurance claim more difficult. I had a shunt from behind a year ago and suffered 6 weeks unable to work. Take it gentle and get yourself checked out - I was merely stiff for a couple of weeks, but then woke up one day unable to lift my head from the pillow.
Only thing you could have done is have left a greater distance between yourself and the car in front. Classic I know! and I expect you probably were leaving a reasonable distance, but got caught out by the random driving of those in front.
Did you spot the car that stopped before the car directly ahead started braking?
FWIW I think I have heard of the Police towing away rule on motorways and main roads - seems sensible to me in any case.
Did you spot the car that stopped before the car directly ahead started braking?
FWIW I think I have heard of the Police towing away rule on motorways and main roads - seems sensible to me in any case.
naetype said:
Looks in rear view and as expected red van behind stands no chance of stopping and goes straight into the back of me.
I have heard (in fact, it may be in Roadcraft) that you should leave a gap in front of you that allows you to stop and the car behind to stop. e.g. if you need 2 seconds to stop, and someone is tailgating you, then you need to leave a 4 seconds gap in front of you.Of course, sometimes when you do this you find Mr Tailgater undertakes you to pull into the safe gap you have left in front of you, but then it's better to have the idiot in front of you where you can leave a nice big gap between you and him!
not sure if this is applicable in the circs, but with a broken down car in L1, you could argue that one's speed should be enough to easily stop...anything could happen. The driver could get out and trip into L2 for example. So using the stop in the distance seen to be clear and reasonably remain clear idea one would be going up to and by the van pretty slowly as well as managing the car behind.
So possibly the car pulling out and stopping could be in the category above of "anything could happen" and not quite as unexpected as it would seem. Eady to say in retrospect!
I have no idea of any of that is applicable in the circs though!
Glad you are ok - bent cars are of no import, just bent people!
Bert
So possibly the car pulling out and stopping could be in the category above of "anything could happen" and not quite as unexpected as it would seem. Eady to say in retrospect!
I have no idea of any of that is applicable in the circs though!
Glad you are ok - bent cars are of no import, just bent people!
Bert
Unfortunately in cases like this everybody claims off the person that hits them directly, even though you were pushed into the guy in front, next time and lets hope there won't be next time, when you come to stop just watch your mirror and keep dabbing your brakes on and off thus causing your brake light to come on and off.
You could always try stopping at an angle of 45% like RAC vans do, then when someone hits you, you fire off left and the hitter fires off right into on coming traffic.
Oh no I can see a problem with that suggestion, forget that last bit.
You could always try stopping at an angle of 45% like RAC vans do, then when someone hits you, you fire off left and the hitter fires off right into on coming traffic.
Oh no I can see a problem with that suggestion, forget that last bit.
Not the case about claiming off the person that hits you directly. If you were pushed into the other van, the van insurers will be claiming from the guy that hit you (assuming you have their details).
With regards to advice about avoiding it, looking further ahead of you is really call that can be suggested, although easier said than done when behind a larger vehicle such as van.
With regards to advice about avoiding it, looking further ahead of you is really call that can be suggested, although easier said than done when behind a larger vehicle such as van.
Was moving into L1 an option or was that blocked by the broken down vehicle?
I suppose the other thing of note was that if hit by a van, they would have a worse stopping distance so you could have factored that in, but most days on most roads I would expect that to be impossible to practise.
I suppose the other thing of note was that if hit by a van, they would have a worse stopping distance so you could have factored that in, but most days on most roads I would expect that to be impossible to practise.
rgracin said:
Not the case about claiming off the person that hits you directly. If you were pushed into the other van, the van insurers will be claiming from the guy that hit you (assuming you have their details).
If I'm wrong on this one I'll hold my hand up but how would car 1 know whether car 2 3 4 5 or 6 was the one that is responsable in a multi-car pile up, as far as I understand it everybody claims off their hitter then the Insurance companies go down the line, counter claiming.Car 3 might hit car 2 then car 6 pushes everybody up the road, that doesn't mean car 3 can get out of their responsability.
The only thing you can do when a vehicle behind does not leave a sensible gap to you - is to slow down; either to give yourself a gap for both vehicles to stop, or slow to a speed that the vehicle behind you can stop in, given the distance that he has left for himself (depends on circumstances). If that slows you to a speed wehre you can get out of L2 to let him past, then do so - he can go and have his impact with someone else!
Routine checking (far distance, middle distance, close and then mirror) should mean that you are always aware of spaces around you.
Routine checking (far distance, middle distance, close and then mirror) should mean that you are always aware of spaces around you.
First off, I'm with Slowly Slowly on this one.
If you rear end me, I'll be claiming off you. You might in turn claim off the guy that pushed you into me, but that's your issue not mine. (The guy three cars back didn't hit me, you did!)
I nearly had a similar experience last week. M'way slip road leading to a traffic light controlled roundabout. Big queues. I slowed and stopped with a "safe" distance to the car in front, then saw the BMW in a 4 wheel lock up sliding towards me from behind. Obviously, I'd checked mirrors before braking myself and he wasn't even on the slip road. I happened to be in the middle lane (correct for my intended exist from roundabout) and nowhere to go either side. I pulled forward to use the "safe" space I'd left ahead (risky as if he had hit me, I'd be straight into the next vehicle). When he stopped, BMW driver waved a "thanks" to me, usng the hand that wasn't holding a phone to his ear!
Dave
If you rear end me, I'll be claiming off you. You might in turn claim off the guy that pushed you into me, but that's your issue not mine. (The guy three cars back didn't hit me, you did!)
I nearly had a similar experience last week. M'way slip road leading to a traffic light controlled roundabout. Big queues. I slowed and stopped with a "safe" distance to the car in front, then saw the BMW in a 4 wheel lock up sliding towards me from behind. Obviously, I'd checked mirrors before braking myself and he wasn't even on the slip road. I happened to be in the middle lane (correct for my intended exist from roundabout) and nowhere to go either side. I pulled forward to use the "safe" space I'd left ahead (risky as if he had hit me, I'd be straight into the next vehicle). When he stopped, BMW driver waved a "thanks" to me, usng the hand that wasn't holding a phone to his ear!
Dave
Ouch. Sorry to hear of collision. I'd agree with the the 4s sentiment -- if someone is too close behind, leave more space in front until you can get them past you. There might also be something about braking harder earlier - as soon as you see there is an incident arising so that you have more options. Most people brake too gently at first, and then (as it becomes more obviously pear shaped) use all the braking force available.
Was there an option to drive off the road to either side? Some DCs do have grass verges (no braking available there), or run offs either side. Others have armco at the carriageway edge.
As for the choice of hitting the one in front or the one behind. Whichever isn't the artic is the first choice and after that, miss the one in front.
Was there an option to drive off the road to either side? Some DCs do have grass verges (no braking available there), or run offs either side. Others have armco at the carriageway edge.
As for the choice of hitting the one in front or the one behind. Whichever isn't the artic is the first choice and after that, miss the one in front.
it sounds to me that if the white van in front of you had time to come to a stop,.... and then you had time to come to a stop then look in mirror.... looks like you use forward thinking . you had time to give more imformation hazzard light's .. you did see the inciedent before he did
Edited by cerebral on Saturday 21st July 21:03
Edited by cerebral on Saturday 21st July 21:06
As for claiming; the way it works is: intitially Van 1 claims off me, my insurers pass it on to the person that hit me and so on down the line until Joe Last who caused it all ends up with a bill for a min' of £10k or so in my case as it's a write off and I've had a rental for the last 3 weeks.
The trafpol determine the blame by how many crashes/bumps you felt and they start this off by talking to the first in the chain, so.... If van driver felt 1 bump then it was just me who hit him, if he felt 2 then I hit him then someone hit me and so on....
The trafpol determine the blame by how many crashes/bumps you felt and they start this off by talking to the first in the chain, so.... If van driver felt 1 bump then it was just me who hit him, if he felt 2 then I hit him then someone hit me and so on....
You need to consider if you were travelling in what is termed "The follow position" behind the white van.
The follow position is approximately 1 yard per mile per hour behind the vehicle in front. It afords you 4 advantages.
Advantage 1. you have a good view of the road ahead which you can increase with slight changes of your position.
(were you looking far enough ahead and around the white van to establish if there were any hazards ahead)
Advantage 2. you can stop safely should the vehicle in front brake without warning.
(you had to go hard on the brakes to stop behind the white van .)
Advantage 3. you can increase your braking distance to allow the vehicle behind more time to react
(The fact that you look in the rear view mirror to see the red van has no time to stop would indicate that he was travelling to close to you, but you could have slowed down over a longer distance to give him that extra time to also stop.)
Advantage 4. (is for another discussion)
In summary you could have probably avoided this collision if you were travelling in "The follow position" and considering the advantages of it.
I'm sure you have heard of the 2 second rule and the old saying, "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule" or as i like to say "only a *unt hits the car in front".
Don't forget to always take note of the vehicle following you, it offers more information than you might think.
"Old red van takes alot longer to stop than brand new TVR". Give yourself that extra room to stop, it saves in the long run.
Drive safe
The follow position is approximately 1 yard per mile per hour behind the vehicle in front. It afords you 4 advantages.
Advantage 1. you have a good view of the road ahead which you can increase with slight changes of your position.
(were you looking far enough ahead and around the white van to establish if there were any hazards ahead)
Advantage 2. you can stop safely should the vehicle in front brake without warning.
(you had to go hard on the brakes to stop behind the white van .)
Advantage 3. you can increase your braking distance to allow the vehicle behind more time to react
(The fact that you look in the rear view mirror to see the red van has no time to stop would indicate that he was travelling to close to you, but you could have slowed down over a longer distance to give him that extra time to also stop.)
Advantage 4. (is for another discussion)
In summary you could have probably avoided this collision if you were travelling in "The follow position" and considering the advantages of it.
I'm sure you have heard of the 2 second rule and the old saying, "only a fool breaks the 2 second rule" or as i like to say "only a *unt hits the car in front".
Don't forget to always take note of the vehicle following you, it offers more information than you might think.
"Old red van takes alot longer to stop than brand new TVR". Give yourself that extra room to stop, it saves in the long run.
Drive safe I appreciate the intentions but:
I WAS able to stop on my own side of the road in the distance I could see to be clear.
I DID have a sufficient gap to the car in front as I was able to stop in time. Given it was on a major DC going into Glasgow at 8am on a Friday morning, trust me that's not easy to maintain.
I was hit from 2 cars BEHIND (2nd in a 4 car pile-up).
A vehicle pulled out from a standstill, without warning, from the nearside lane and stopped in the outside lane. That, in my book, is NOT a reasonably forseeable circumstance.
I was seeking opinions, beyond the obvious, really on what I could have done to mitigate the impact. I thought to ease off the pressure on my footbrake. Was that the right thing to do? I thought so but is it? What would others have done to lessen or avoid what was/seemed to be the inevitable impact?
Silver lining: The Mazda's a write off and a new mondeo is coming. Which apparently has lots of safety goodies
I WAS able to stop on my own side of the road in the distance I could see to be clear.
I DID have a sufficient gap to the car in front as I was able to stop in time. Given it was on a major DC going into Glasgow at 8am on a Friday morning, trust me that's not easy to maintain.
I was hit from 2 cars BEHIND (2nd in a 4 car pile-up).
A vehicle pulled out from a standstill, without warning, from the nearside lane and stopped in the outside lane. That, in my book, is NOT a reasonably forseeable circumstance.
I was seeking opinions, beyond the obvious, really on what I could have done to mitigate the impact. I thought to ease off the pressure on my footbrake. Was that the right thing to do? I thought so but is it? What would others have done to lessen or avoid what was/seemed to be the inevitable impact?
Silver lining: The Mazda's a write off and a new mondeo is coming. Which apparently has lots of safety goodies
Edited by naetype on Wednesday 8th August 19:20
naetype said:
The trafpol determine the blame by how many crashes/bumps you felt and they start this off by talking to the first in the chain, so.... If van driver felt 1 bump then it was just me who hit him, if he felt 2 then I hit him then someone hit me and so on....
That can't possibly right. If you stopped in time to not hit the guy in front, then the one behind you runs into you pushing you into the guy in front, he only feels one bump, but you're not to blame.Anyway, as for releasing the brake to lessen the impact, I think that's wrong. If you have time, foot hard on the brake, pull on the handbrake, lean back in to your headrest (your headrest is on the right position isn't it ?!?) and take you hands off the steering wheel. This was what my instructor told me some time ago. Not sure if still applies.
I would agree. foot hard on the brake, Brace for impact.
You don't want to be the meat in the sandwich. Better to be only smacked on the back than smacked on the back and punched in the face aswell. As for reducing the impact, thats what crumple zones are there for.
The only thing i would say is, you still could have avoided the collison in the first place.
You Mention muppett in lane one with no forward vision stops in lane one due to brokendown vehicle then pulls out into lane two without warning. The warning was the broken down vehicle in lane one, the only place he is going to go is into lane two.
Take into account the following.
What i can see. (stationary vehicle in lane one)
What i can't see. ( potential hazards. why has stationary vehicle stopped, I.E cattle, sheep etc on road)
What i can reasonable expect to happen. ( vehicle in lane one pulling out into lane two. maybe without even looking in mirror.)
What hazzard represents the greatest danger. (Muppett pulling out into lane two).
what do i do should things not turn out as expected. (slow down let it all happen before you enter the area of danger. )
Drive safe
You don't want to be the meat in the sandwich. Better to be only smacked on the back than smacked on the back and punched in the face aswell. As for reducing the impact, thats what crumple zones are there for.
The only thing i would say is, you still could have avoided the collison in the first place.
You Mention muppett in lane one with no forward vision stops in lane one due to brokendown vehicle then pulls out into lane two without warning. The warning was the broken down vehicle in lane one, the only place he is going to go is into lane two.
Take into account the following.
What i can see. (stationary vehicle in lane one)
What i can't see. ( potential hazards. why has stationary vehicle stopped, I.E cattle, sheep etc on road)
What i can reasonable expect to happen. ( vehicle in lane one pulling out into lane two. maybe without even looking in mirror.)
What hazzard represents the greatest danger. (Muppett pulling out into lane two).
what do i do should things not turn out as expected. (slow down let it all happen before you enter the area of danger. )
Drive safeGassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff