Smart motorway death
Author
Discussion

Dixy

Original Poster:

3,455 posts

227 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r1k0d2nreo
Driver carries the blame for state failure.

Bill

57,097 posts

277 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
I get what you're saying, OTOH other people avoided the stopped car but he made no attempt to. And to compound matters he was exceeding the speed limit.

Mabbs9

1,547 posts

240 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
People who drive in a way that they can't stop for something hazardous in front of them are dangerous. I believe smart motorways are also dangerous.

Mr.Chips

1,198 posts

236 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Driver carries the blame for not paying attention. Other drivers safely managed to avoid the car that was broken down in the outside lane of the motorway. The driver of the vehicle that drove into the back of the stationary vehicle and caused the death of a passenger, was seen on CCTV to have not even attempted any emergency avoidance. He was also travelling at speeds of up to 77mph in the moments leading up to the collision.
Travelling too fast + not paying attention -> collision = conviction.
The fact the the “smart” motorway mechanisms were not working is immaterial. Everyone who drives on any road is expected to do so safely, this driver did not and someone died as a result.

Drumroll

4,358 posts

142 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
I don't see with it being a smart motorway, has to do with this particular accident. The car had stopped in the outside lane.

Signs fail, show false information all the time. Not just on smart motorways

kestral

2,122 posts

229 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Watch the video. He clearly was not even looking out through the windscreen.

markymarkthree

3,328 posts

193 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
I guess he wasn't on his phone but he was doing something wrong that was distracting him from seeing the stationary car.

E-bmw

12,121 posts

174 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Dixy said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r1k0d2nreo
Driver carries the blame for state failure.
Not really, watch the video rather than the headline.

Multiple other drivers were easily able to avoid the car.

He had what looks like around 6 seconds of clear unobstructed view from the lofty cab of a van.

Everyone else that avoided the car had much less & from just the viewpoint of a car height.

Try again.

Sheepshanks

39,083 posts

141 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Drumroll said:
I don't see with it being a smart motorway, has to do with this particular accident.
Absolutely nothing. I was gobsmacked when it became apparent they weren't talking about a lane 1 incident.

Super Sonic

11,953 posts

76 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Tho overhead gantry signs weren't working for five days before the accident. They were repaired hours after.

Dixy

Original Poster:

3,455 posts

227 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
E-bmw said:
watch the video rather than the headline.

n.
Will you post a link to the video please

butchstewie

63,793 posts

232 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Drumroll said:
I don't see with it being a smart motorway, has to do with this particular accident. The car had stopped in the outside lane.

Signs fail, show false information all the time. Not just on smart motorways
Unless I misunderstood that was my first thought too.

Presumably vehicles break down in dangerous places up and down the country on a daily basis and thankfully this kind of accident seems vanishingly rare.

Not sure I'm seeing this as being down to the Smart system issues as I'm sure there's a world where even with everything working the timelines might have meant the lanes weren't closed or marked off etc.

A terrible tragedy.

NowWatchThisDrive

1,219 posts

126 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Not to take anything away from his culpability, but you have to wonder what on earth they were thinking still sitting in a stationary car in lane four six minutes after it had failed.

ac.cobra

95 posts

48 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Precisely, why the occupants were still in the vehicle when broken down, its always advice to remove your self to safer place, ie, on to the embankment.

BlindedByTheLights

1,917 posts

119 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
ac.cobra said:
Precisely, why the occupants were still in the vehicle when broken down, its always advice to remove your self to safer place, ie, on to the embankment.
Not many safe places to go from the ‘fast lane’

bigmowley

2,476 posts

198 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Having watched what I understand to be the crash video the car was stopped on the inside lane not the outside lane?? Perhaps it’s a crap video.
However it was bloody busy and there wasn’t much opportunity to jump out and leg it to safety. Agree with the other posters quite a few other cars moved over and avoided the collision prior to our inattentive chappy driving straight into the back of it. I am surprised he survived given the severity of the hit.

Pica-Pica

15,947 posts

106 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
bigmowley said:
Having watched what I understand to be the crash video the car was stopped on the inside lane not the outside lane?? Perhaps it s a crap video.
However it was bloody busy and there wasn t much opportunity to jump out and leg it to safety. Agree with the other posters quite a few other cars moved over and avoided the collision prior to our inattentive chappy driving straight into the back of it. I am surprised he survived given the severity of the hit.
He wasn't wearing a seat belt either, his airbag helped it seems.
Always 'drive several cars ahead'.

Mr Tidy

29,215 posts

149 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
Drumroll said:
I don't see with it being a smart motorway, has to do with this particular accident.
Absolutely nothing. I was gobsmacked when it became apparent they weren't talking about a lane 1 incident.
I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the article in the media.



Getragdogleg

9,818 posts

205 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
E-bmw said:
Not really, watch the video rather than the headline.

Multiple other drivers were easily able to avoid the car.

He had what looks like around 6 seconds of clear unobstructed view from the lofty cab of a van.

Everyone else that avoided the car had much less & from just the viewpoint of a car height.

Try again.
A Transit connect does not have a "lofty view". In fact sitting in one is much like a car, its a car based van, not a traditional transit with a higher sitting position.

I don't like driving them for the exact reason that I feel like I'm very low down.

I am not arguing that he was not negligent for failing to see the stopped car but your view comments are simply wrong.

Randy Winkman

20,604 posts

211 months

Wednesday
quotequote all
Apparently he said there was "Nothing to warn him of the car". rolleyes It's a flippin' car! Why do you need something to "warn you"?