M1 crash - can someone explain

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not convinced by the implication that in the absence of warnings a driver is somehow excused paying full attention. Obviously different if the matrix signs were manifestly wrong eg directing traffic to a particular lane to avoid an obstruction when, in reality, that's where there was the obstruction.

The only remotely relevant case I can remember (which is hardly definitive) was a civil case in Kirklees (Huddersfield/Dewsbury) West Yorks where a driver who had crashed claimed against the highway authority on the grounds that a SLOW sign painted on the road surface just before a blind summit had not been renewed after roadworks. The decision was that the driver should have been looking where they were going (my summary.)

That was absolutely not something I was seeking to imply.

I was saying it is someone's very specific job to watch for hazards on the Motorway, and yet this lorry was stopped adjacent to a Junction for 12 minutes on a running lane. I have seen no mention that that individual/those individuals have been brought to book in some way.

[reohn2]

It's often said the law is a blunt instrument,and that cuts both ways.

But not very well, presumably.

Due to it's present state ie; blunt,agreed.Both edges need honing IMO.

BTW,can I take this opportunity to say that I'm interested in the definition of dangerous driving,not sentencing.

[reohn2]

I'm not convinced by the implication that in the absence of warnings a driver is somehow excused paying full attention. Obviously different if the matrix signs were manifestly wrong eg directing traffic to a particular lane to avoid an obstruction when, in reality, that's where there was the obstruction.

The only remotely relevant case I can remember (which is hardly definitive) was a civil case in Kirklees (Huddersfield/Dewsbury) West Yorks where a driver who had crashed claimed against the highway authority on the grounds that a SLOW sign painted on the road surface just before a blind summit had not been renewed after roadworks. The decision was that the driver should have been looking where they were going (my summary.)

That was absolutely not something I was seeking to imply.

I was saying it is someone's very specific job to watch for hazards on the Motorway, and yet this lorry was stopped adjacent to a Junction for 12 minutes on a running lane. I have seen no mention that that individual/those individuals have been brought to book in some way.

That would primarily be the job of drivers using the motorway wouldn't it?
And if their attention to that job was below standard,that would be dangerous,wouldn't it?

[reohn2]

.....I don't care if I drop a glass on the floor of our kitchen because there's no risk to life and limb.
It's only a glass and it doesn't matter and it's only in our kitchen, and no-one other than me and Mrs Mick F is anywhere near.

To protect anyone in the path of such a potentially danger projectile would be your responsibility.
And I think I'm right in thinking that if you weren't in a fit physical or mental state to protect that vulnerable child that would be dangerous.

[Mark R]

Evidence shows that having a 'hands free' phone conversation whilst driving impairs reaction times even more than being over the drink drive limit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

This has been known for over a decade.....which begs the question: does the employment contract for a Fed-Ex HGV driver prohibit private phone calls whilst driving, and if not, why not?

Given the driver would have probably been able to react to the hazard had he not been nattering away like an idiot. Perhaps the transport company also has liability in this case?

[Bonefishblues]

I'm not convinced by the implication that in the absence of warnings a driver is somehow excused paying full attention. Obviously different if the matrix signs were manifestly wrong eg directing traffic to a particular lane to avoid an obstruction when, in reality, that's where there was the obstruction.

The only remotely relevant case I can remember (which is hardly definitive) was a civil case in Kirklees (Huddersfield/Dewsbury) West Yorks where a driver who had crashed claimed against the highway authority on the grounds that a SLOW sign painted on the road surface just before a blind summit had not been renewed after roadworks. The decision was that the driver should have been looking where they were going (my summary.)

That was absolutely not something I was seeking to imply.

I was saying it is someone's very specific job to watch for hazards on the Motorway, and yet this lorry was stopped adjacent to a Junction for 12 minutes on a running lane. I have seen no mention that that individual/those individuals have been brought to book in some way.

That would primarily be the job of drivers using the motorway wouldn't it?
And if their attention to that job was below standard,that would be dangerous,wouldn't it?

I may be being misunderstood.

It is the driver's responsibility to cope with any or all hazards they encounter. Nothing mitigates guilt or absolves the driver of blame. I really can't be plainer, I hope.

However, to quote myself - I was saying it is someone's very specific job to watch for hazards on the Motorway, and yet this lorry was stopped adjacent to a Junction for 12 minutes on a running lane. I have seen no mention that that individual/those individuals have been brought to book in some way.

It is almost certainly the case that if this had been noticed in time, then this incident wouldn't have happened, as this inattentive (let's steer clear of the C or D words...) driver would have received the extra help he required, as evidenced by what happened after 13 minutes.

[reohn2]

I may be being misunderstood.

It is the driver's responsibility to come with any or all hazards they encounter. Nothing mitigates guilt or absolves the driver of blame. I really can't be plainer, I hope.

No,you're not being misunderstood.
My point is that primarily it's the responsibility of the driver to ensue that s/he drives safely,and IMO the bigger the vehicle the more responsibility they hold,because of the potential for bigger vehicles such as HGV's to cause more damage in a collision.

However, to quote myself - I was saying it is someone's very specific job to watch for hazards on the Motorway, and yet this lorry was stopped adjacent to a Junction for 12 minutes on a running lane. I have seen no mention that that individual/those individuals have been brought to book in some way.

It is almost certainly the case that if this had been noticed in time, then this incident wouldn't have happened, as this inattentive (let's steer clear of the C or D words...) driver would have received the extra help he required, as evidenced by what happened after 13 minutes.

Were back to who's primary responsibility it is for the safety of others,and whilst I agree if there were cameras covering the area with lane warning gantry lights,such operative(s) should've given account in court as to why they weren't put into operation.

Sorry for my continual use of the word 'primary'.

[Bonefishblues]

I may be being misunderstood.

It is the driver's responsibility to cope with any or all hazards they encounter. Nothing mitigates guilt or absolves the driver of blame. I really can't be plainer, I hope.

No,you're not being misunderstood.
My point is that primarily it's the responsibility of the driver to ensue that s/he drives safely,and IMO the bigger the vehicle the more responsibility they hold,because of the potential for bigger vehicles such as HGV's to cause more damage in a collision.

However, to quote myself - I was saying it is someone's very specific job to watch for hazards on the Motorway, and yet this lorry was stopped adjacent to a Junction for 12 minutes on a running lane. I have seen no mention that that individual/those individuals have been brought to book in some way.

It is almost certainly the case that if this had been noticed in time, then this incident wouldn't have happened, as this inattentive (let's steer clear of the C or D words...) driver would have received the extra help he required, as evidenced by what happened after 13 minutes.

Were back to who's primary responsibility it is for the safety of others,and whilst I agree if there were cameras covering the area with lane warning gantry lights,such operative(s) should've given account in court as to why they weren't put into operation.

Sorry for my continual use of the word 'primary'.

We appear to be in violent agreement, or would you disagree?

The person behind the camera and/or automated system is there to supplement the driver. We are dealing with a scenario where 8 people died, including both parents of a 4 year old girl. If "the system" had worked, then 8 people would likely not be dead, and yet this aspect only merited a bare mention in reports.

[PDQ Mobile]

...Well character references are (AFAIK) used in court cases?
So an otherwise good driving record would also seem to be relevant?...

I'm not suggesting it's not relevant, just that it needs clear thinking about what significance is attached to it. I'm not sure I can clarify further what I wrote earlier.

Another point I didn't make is that when we trust experts rather than cowboys with important duties, we expect the highest standards. I don't think anybody would say that a train driver or an airline pilot with a lot of safe miles covered was entitled to the occasional lapse, although we'd treat them with more respect than a cowboy.

... But there but for the grace etc.....

That's rather lost on me, but if it means you're a hitherto accident-free driver who might well have been driving the second truck, I can understand why you would be uncomfortable about this case. Nobody should be depending on divine protection or anything else as a substitute for meticulous driving.

Hmm.
Clear thinking by whom?
====================
What I am saying is that we can all be fallible.
(Even the odd police driver, who are very very good and highly trained.)

I have had situations in my long career on the roads of Europe where I have made mistakes.
I have also had situations where (IMHO) I performed exceptionally well, saved a life even.

The driver in question made a mistake.
But was as, far as I can tell, a good competent driver
He admitted he was guilty. He was remorseful for his mistake.
It was a lapse for a few seconds, with terrible consequences. Another time and place it would have all been so different.

On that basis I think the court got it about right.

[Cyril Haearn]

In a million miles there might have been near misses
On the motorway one often sees trucks drifting onto the hard-shoulder at high speed

[leftpoole]

Being drunk on a Motorway in charge of a HGV or in a mobile is disgusting. They both deserve locking up! End of....,,.



I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[leftpoole]

Is twice the limit completely intoxicated? I don't know but would have thought if the limit is where it's deemed 'safe' to drive, then twice that might not be all that drunk, too drunk to drive safely but not completely incapacitated so much that you park on the motorway for 10 minutes. How driving a truck, or anything, without looking where you are going can be considered anything other than dangerous is ludicrous.

Were both drivers prosecuted in the same trial? So the jury had a choice of whether it was both drivers at fault or one more than the other, rather than just considering the actions of one driver. I wonder whether one being Polish and drunk versus British and sober had anything to do with it. Maybe being over the limit makes it an easier choice for the jury to decide it was dangerous rather than careless.

If the stopped truck had broken down, or was a fallen tree. The same accident wouldn't result in the driver of the broken down truck being prosecuted for dangerous driving. Nor the tree!

The conversation regarding this matter is completely inane.


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my wobbly bog brush using hovercraft full of eels

[Stevek76]

If "the system" had worked, then 8 people would likely not be dead, and yet this aspect only merited a bare mention in reports.

Would they really? That's quite a leap. If the driver wasn't paying sufficient attention to plough straight into a stationary vehicle then there's far from any guarantee that he'd paid any attention to a sign with a warning of stationary vehicle or queue ahead.

It was a lapse for a few seconds, with terrible consequences. Another time and place it would have all been so different.

On that basis I think the court got it about right.

You need an awful lot more than 'a few seconds' given the sight lines on a motorway.

I cannot see how running into the back of someome with sufficient speed to cause injury and death is anything other than dangerous.

To flip the competent driver was unlucky argument baround, he might have been a pretty bad driver who simply got lucky up to this point!

[reohn2]

We appear to be in violent agreement, or would you disagree?

I would agree, that we are in agreement

The person behind the camera and/or automated system is there to supplement the driver. We are dealing with a scenario where 8 people died, including both parents of a 4 year old girl. If "the system" had worked, then 8 people would likely not be dead, and yet this aspect only merited a bare mention in reports.

Though I take your point that more safety signs may have changed theoutcome,there's a possibility Wagstaff may not have seen them due to being otherwise engaged.

[Bonefishblues]

If "the system" had worked, then 8 people would likely not be dead, and yet this aspect only merited a bare mention in reports.

Would they really? That's quite a leap. If the driver wasn't paying sufficient attention to plough straight into a stationary vehicle then there's far from any guarantee that he'd paid any attention to a sign with a warning of stationary vehicle or queue ahead.

It was a lapse for a few seconds, with terrible consequences. Another time and place it would have all been so different.

On that basis I think the court got it about right.

You need an awful lot more than 'a few seconds' given the sight lines on a motorway.

I cannot see how running into the back of someome with sufficient speed to cause injury and death is anything other than dangerous.

To flip the competent driver was unlucky argument baround, he might have been a pretty bad driver who simply got lucky up to this point!

It's 3am. Big flashing gantries switched on overhead with a closed lane sign are rather visible. We know the driver wasn't asleep as he was carrying on a conversation with a friend in another truck. Yes, I think it highly likely he would have noticed at least one of the several gantries he passed that would have been lit up for some miles behind the stopped lorry, initially controlling speed, and then enforcing a lane closure.

On your other point, remember that this took immediately beyond an exit to Newport Pagnell. It's more than possible that (his) L1 would have been populated with traffic leaving the motorway. The driver's sight lines may not have been as lengthy as you might expect.

ETA
See here for the maximum sight line in unobstructed form:

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/loc ... -m1-392767