Should accident details be publicised?
Discussion
Something about road safety that puzzles me is why the details of an accident are almost never relayed to the public. News articles usually feature vague references to factors such as "speeding" or "drunk driving", but other than when famous people are involved I don't recall seeing any level of analysis.
Wouldn't it be beneficial for road safety if we were told more detail about the causes of an accident? Not necessarily the gory details, but something as simple as: "car X was driving so close to car Y, that when car Y had to brake suddenly after a child ran into the road, car X couldn't react in time and collided."
Hearing about cars colliding due to driving too close time and time again would make people consider it when out on the road?
Also, it would satisfy that inner detective that tries to figure out the causes of an accident you may have driven past. We all do that, don't we?
Wouldn't it be beneficial for road safety if we were told more detail about the causes of an accident? Not necessarily the gory details, but something as simple as: "car X was driving so close to car Y, that when car Y had to brake suddenly after a child ran into the road, car X couldn't react in time and collided."
Hearing about cars colliding due to driving too close time and time again would make people consider it when out on the road?
Also, it would satisfy that inner detective that tries to figure out the causes of an accident you may have driven past. We all do that, don't we?
Perhaps because there are over 100 serious car accidents in the UK every day. Who would publish them, where would they be published and to be honest if there are that many reports who is going to pay for the information to be collated and disseminated.
Also, who the hell is going to read them?
Also, who the hell is going to read them?
R11ysf said:
Perhaps because there are over 100 serious car accidents in the UK every day. Who would publish them, where would they be published and to be honest if there are that many reports who is going to pay for the information to be collated and disseminated.
Also, who the hell is going to read them?
They're often reported, at least on local news. Just today my local news website has stories about two car accidents in the area but no description of what happened in either.Also, who the hell is going to read them?
The recent M5 accident reminded me of this. I haven't seen a single newspaper or TV article about the crash that suggested that drivers being too close to each other contributed to making the accident worse, when it surely must be a factor.
Speculation on the cause has ranged from rain, fog and the nearby fireworks party, and even the potential speed limit raise has been discussed, but I am yet to see a single word suggesting that cars driving too close to one another helped turn an accident into a catastrophe, and that must have been a contributing factor.
Surely that would make people think about it when driving down the motorway this week.
Speculation on the cause has ranged from rain, fog and the nearby fireworks party, and even the potential speed limit raise has been discussed, but I am yet to see a single word suggesting that cars driving too close to one another helped turn an accident into a catastrophe, and that must have been a contributing factor.
Surely that would make people think about it when driving down the motorway this week.
durbster said:
I am yet to see a single word suggesting that cars driving too close to one another helped turn an accident into a catastrophe, and that must have been a contributing factor.
Why must it?Consider this:
Cars spaced far apart. Car's doing the speed limit as it is clear and dry, albeit dark.
Now imagine THICK white smoke from a fire or fireworks drifts and hangs over the carriageway. When you approach it it will not become misty gradually as with normal fog created by atmospheric conditions, it will go from clear to massively reduced visibility almost instantly.
In daylight you'd expect a competent driver to spot the cloud of fog from a distance, but at night time the cloud itself would not be visible until you were almost upon it. Even if you hit the brakes HARD as soon as you see the dense fog (i.e. before you're in it) you'd still be travelling at a fair pace as you enter it purely because the smoke was not visible until you were very close.
As soon as there's any kind of an incident other cars will pile in because the crash is hidden by the smoke, and the smoke was not visible until you were upon it because it was dark.
We must remember that if there was dense 'man made' smoke it would be very different from natural fog, in that there would be no warnings that it was approaching, whereas normal fog you can tell when and where it will occur and take extra care and slow down as appropriate.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't be sure that driving too close was a factor in this crash. Nor can you be sure that speeding was. The actual cause will be made public once it's been determined.
mrmr96 said:
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you can't be sure that driving too close was a factor in this crash. Nor can you be sure that speeding was. The actual cause will be made public once it's been determined.
Fair point but what annoys me is that it wasn't discussed, even before the smoke cause was established. It was the first thing that came to my mind and looking at the thread here on PH, I wasn't alone in thinking that. If it really was down to the thick smoke then I've no doubt there would still have been an accident, but my point is that if drivers generally left more space then surely less vehicles would have been involved.
durbster said:
Fair point but what annoys me is that it wasn't discussed, even before the smoke cause was established. It was the first thing that came to my mind and looking at the thread here on PH, I wasn't alone in thinking that.
If it really was down to the thick smoke then I've no doubt there would still have been an accident, but my point is that if drivers generally left more space then surely less vehicles would have been involved.
I would agree - Seems odd that there's a rush to blame the produces of the smoke, rather than those travelling too close/fast. Having a fire that then causes black smoke to drift onto the motorway is unfortunate, but to try and blame the orgainsers for 7 deaths and many injuries sounds harsh to me.If it really was down to the thick smoke then I've no doubt there would still have been an accident, but my point is that if drivers generally left more space then surely less vehicles would have been involved.
What if it had've been simply fog? Who would be to blame then?
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Monday 7th November 15:43
marcosgt said:
durbster said:
Fair point but what annoys me is that it wasn't discussed, even before the smoke cause was established. It was the first thing that came to my mind and looking at the thread here on PH, I wasn't alone in thinking that.
If it really was down to the thick smoke then I've no doubt there would still have been an accident, but my point is that if drivers generally left more space then surely less vehicles would have been involved.
I would agree - Seems odd that there's a rush to blame the produces of the smoke, rather than those travelling too close/fast.If it really was down to the thick smoke then I've no doubt there would still have been an accident, but my point is that if drivers generally left more space then surely less vehicles would have been involved.
What if it had've been simply fog...?
M.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff