Horrifying pile up on the motorway
 

Just saw this report. Doesn't exactly help my fear of motorway travel...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/motorway-fi...041545586.html


What a fucking nightmare:

A black fog??

What in the world is that?

Sounds like Stephen King! good lord!!

Heard about it last night on the radio.
Awful. The worst I've heard of in a long time.

Maybe a really heavy fog suddenly descended on the M5, making it impossible for the drivers to see anything more than a foot away? England specializes in fog the way Eskimos specialize in snow.

The truly awful pile-up with burning cars and people trapped inside is certainly worthy of Stephen King. How terrible! :(

That's scary. I hate situations like that. You should never drive faster than conditions allow, but if the conditions dictate that you drive 15 mph on the highway, you are either going to get rear ended, or else cause the car behind you to panic brake, and then they get rear ended. I guess the best option is to slow down before entering the fog so the cars behind you can see that you're slowing and be ready to do the same. But if there's no time...

There's no good answer.

I have a morbid fear of motorway travel. I hate it. I do it as much as most, thouh as a passenger nto a driver, but I am always very glad when we come off the motorway and onto normal roads. There's just no room for human error, or mechanical failure on there. The slightest thing can become a tragedy. Tyre blows on a normal road, may well cause a crash. Motorway, you're probably talking a major pile up unless it happens at night, or the driver happens to be on the inside lane on a stretch with a hard shoulder.

The journey from Halifax to Bolton crosses the Pennines, and at one point is marked by a sign proclaiming it to be the highest motorway in England. It has its own little weather system up there. It can be sunny skies and calm breezes either side, but get up there and it's low visibilty, fog, sheet rain, snow flurries.

Of course the answer is don't drive faster than condition allow.

I don't know what a "black" fog is, but I've driven in fog, patchy fog, rapidly appearing fog, etc. It's frightening and dangerous. One situation that I've been in similar to this is driving on the highway and smoke from fires obscured the roadway quickly and almost completely. This is a very dangerous situation. If I can't drive more than 15 mph, I'd rather be parked on the shoulder, well off the roadway. Being unable to see should mean being unable to drive. You can't drive if you can't see. Terrible.

It doesn't say whether the "black fog" witness was at the front or the back of the pileup. I bet it was smoke from a burning vehicle that had already crashed ahead of them.

Black fog is not a known weather condition in this country.
It might have been in coal-burning times, but I doubt it's officially recognised by meteorologists now. That was a response by a member of the public.

The trouble with pile-ups is less about how far you are from the vehicle in front (although the further the better) than how close the vehicle behind is. You can still be able to stop in time and have someone behind unable to stop, plough into you and push you into the vehicle ahead.

Police suggest it was wet surface conditions, moving fog banks and (unlikely but possibly) a fireworks display taking place at a nearby rugby club which might have diverted drivers' attentions for the time it took to notice the problem ahead.

(Copyright for photo shown on picture - mods remove if I'm breaking any rules)

GOOD LORD the accident was so violent it spun every vehicle so it's pointing the wrong way on the road!

They play a mean game of bumper car (i.e. dodgems).

The report I read was suggesting that the rugby club display caused a problem with visibility, because the smoke from their bonfires blew across the motorway.

Sorry, I have to challenge this. When I'm behind the wheel, I'm responsible for how I drive. I can't control lots of other things around me, least of all the other drivers, just my own driving. The idea you describe about the following driver reminds me of what my teenagers said when I protested about their excessive speed, "But the guy behind me is so close!" as if they could outrun them, or stretch the distance between them and the following driver. Impossible.

What you say is true insofar as I might be rear ended if the driver behind me doesn't stop fast enough. But I have zero ability to control that, and that driver has his own responsibility, the same as I do.

The trouble with pile ups is driving too fast for conditions, be they visibility or sudden obstacles in the roadway.

But that's kind of Sundae's point. The only thing you can control there is how big a gap you leave between yourself and the car in front. You have no control over the gap behind you, that's someone else's responsibility.

You can increase the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to compensate for the increased braking distance incurred by the combined weight of your vehicle and a vehicle that's following too closely which may plow into you. The extended space ahead of you may also encourage drivers who follow too closely to go around you.

*sigh*

I heard her describe two problems:

1 -- The distance between me and the car ahead.

2 -- The distance between me and the car behind.

She said the first problem is less trouble than the second problem. I strongly disagree. It's not just semantics.

I've already described the truth that I can only control the first one and can't control the second one. But if you like, let's break it down.

Imagine one car only on a long straight road. No collisions, because no other cars, likewise no before and after car so no distance.

Now imagine two cars traveling together down the road. There's a collision. Who's at fault? How can the lead car be culpable at all (leaving aside deliberate actions like dynamiting the brakes and trying to cause a collision)? What if the car has a failure, like a blowout or some mechanical thing, stops very quickly, then what? Still up to the driver following. Who among those two drivers can have any chance at reducing the likelihood of a collision? ONLY the follower, not the leader. After all, the chance that some magical bad mojo causing a car to screeeeeeeech to a halt could happen to either car, with equal chance, no? If it happens to the following car, no problem. If it happens to the lead car, *maybe* problem. Maybe if the distance (read reaction time) is too small to respond safely. The responsibility is on the following car to maximize that distance / time to allow for whatever might happen.

Now expand that logic to three cars, or four or N cars. Each car has a driver, and a follower and a leader, save the front and rear cars of the string. The

All crashes of this kind propagate backward through the flow of traffic. There is the first collision. The next collision happens behind that one. Had that third vehicle allowed a safe distance, it would never have happend. No chain reaction. But, if the distance isn't enough, then there's a second collision and the decision tree moves to the fourth car. Is there enough distance in front of that car for the driver to evade the trouble? If yes, then the reaction stops. If no, then add another collision and repeat the question. In fact, these kinds of pile ups ONLY stop when one motorist DOES have enough space IN FRONT of them to avoid adding to the carnage.

The way I see it, there is no distance behind, only distance ahead. Each frame of reference is zeroed on the driver of that vehicle. Bothering to consider how close the asshole behind me is following is like letting him drive *my* car. And that's a bad idea, since we already know he's an idiot.

Sorry, V.
It might be lost in translation, but I really do think it's just semantics.

What I was saying was that the only thing I can control is how far I am behind the car in front.
Using the word "trouble" was obviously not advisable, it's just the way I see it when I am driving.
I know I can control the problem of being in a pile-up by staying a decent braking distance behind the vehicle in front and especially allowing for the conditions.
I cannot control the problem of how fast the person is driving behind me, or how close they are.
Even if I can stop a sensible distance behind the vehicle in front, I can still be shunted into it by a less sensible driver behind me.
Doesn't stop me driving carefully though.

When driving in Wales I often pulled over in lay-bys, bus stops etc to allow traffic past. Because I did not know the roads and wanted to drive at or below the speed limit.

I usually drive in the "slow lane" on the motorway and only pass where necessary because I am more concerned with my own speed than keeping up with the flow of traffic in the other two lanes (the vehicles I pass are usually those with trackers, like coaches and lorries, so they drive at 50 or 60).

And yes, I have had people pull in front of me or overtake me for no more reason than that I have left a large gap. I just hang back a bit more.

While you can't directly control the vehicle behind you without physical contact, there are multiple defensive driving techniques with which to influence the driver behind you to increase their following distance. The distance behind you should still figure prominently into your decisions since it, along with vehicle weight, factors into how much the vehicle behind you can be slowed before hitting yours which in turn affects your own safe following distance . As stated before:

Doesn't work in fog though.

The local weather conditions were appalling. Very heavy and prolonged rain caused a stone river bank to collapse at Bridgwater, just a few miles from the crash and the motorway was so wet as to cause some aquaplaning. In addition, it is in a valley so some degree of low cloud was likely and added to all of that the Rugby club had lit its bonfire which was causing dense cloud which might well have drifted into the roadway. I guess we'll never know how much of a factor that was.

Then comes poor judgement on the part of drivers, perhaps an inexperienced motorway driver or two and plenty of heavy traffic with it being Friday evening. Add speed and sudden loss of visibility...

One of the surviving drivers spoke of a car overtaking them at 50-60mph after the collisions had started and that car seemed to explode on impact with one of the burning trucks.

Locally there seems to be deep shock at the horrific details beginning to emerge and great sadness at such a terrible loss of life.

You can influence the vehicle behind you. There's the smoke screen button, and the system that sprays oil on the road behind you, and the rear-firing M203 grenade launcher, and all the other cool features of a modern automobile.

It doesn't work anywhere if you're driving too fast for conditions; or, shouldn't be driving at all. It works for drivers who break from the herd mentality.

Oh hell people drive with both feet if people follow too closely. Right foot on the gas and your left jussssssst barely touching the brake pedal enough so that your brake lights go on. They'll back off and/or go around you.

Option two is to drive a tank and slam on your brakes :eek:. After the resulting collision you may proceed without further stress.

I know this is not proper, but, if I think you are too close to my back bumper, I slow down. And if you don't back off, Ima slow down even more. I'm not talking about a couple miles per hour slowing down, I'm talking 10-15 miles per hour slowing down, the first time.

I know it's not right, in certain circumstances it may even be more dangerous, it's just what I like to do. It makes me feel better. Bonus: If it's a no pass zone, and I can see in my rearview that you're getting pissed...I feel even betterer.

I have actually heard Uncledigr say: "Goddammit, I wish I had a bulldozer that would run a hundred miles an hour."

:lol2:

If traffic is heavy, then it's not about you and the driver in back of you, it's about you and the entire stream of traffic behind you. You can actually cause an accident in heavy traffic just by braking suddenly. That accident may not include you, it may be 4 or 5 cars behind you as each car behind you brakes increasingly hard. Your responibility in heavy traffic is to do nothing that causes the people behind you to over react. That means you should leave enough space in front of you to gradually stop, and give the car behind you some warning.

I'd like to add to my previous post
**conditions permitting**

If I have someone following too close, I also slow down - not to irritate the other driver, but because now I need account for my stopping distance plus his stopping distance.

If there's only one car behind you, just toss a flash-bang out your sun roof.

ftfy

This and so many others have defined why safety of others is dependent on your actions. One thing everyone can do to increase all's safety is to seriously increase a distance in front when the fool behind tailgates. If necessary, everyone goes slower because of that tailgater.

Same applies to stopping at traffic lights. If you stop without seeing the entire vehicle in front, then you have seriously diminished safety of you, your passengers, the guy in front, and even pedestrians. It makes zero sense to pull up close to a vehicle stopped in front. If you cannot see where his tires touch the road, then you are seriously too close.

Obviously, don't watch only a vehicle before you. Safety means also watching at least two vehicles in front of that vehicle. Otherwise, all but expect to be rear ended.

And finally, red cannot be seen through inclement weather. Engineers put orange rear turn and emergency flashers on cars because red is not easily seen in fog, snow, sleet, heavy rain, and other adverse conditions. Orange cuts through bad weather. If adverse weather (or other conditions) causes serious speed reduction, then power those orange flashers. Red lights will be the last light seen in adverse weather by oncoming drivers. You should be able to hit that emergency flasher button without looking. Because an orange light is essential to your safety.

Only reason for crash discussions is to learn how not to be another victim. Unfortunately too many reporters are enthralled by their emotions. Forget what the purpose of their news report really is. How many reporters bother to discuss a major safety difference between red and orange lights?

Something that doesn't make sense to me is that the flasher/hazard switch on our Subaru does not light up (when off), and is very difficult to find when it's dark.

Same with my Nissan.... and my daughters Toyota.
Kinda weird that just about everything is illuminated except the really important button.

So, practice hitting the dark spot. :D

Fog is a bitch. You can be driving through wispy clouds with visibility of 100 metres, and then hit a fog bank with visibility of five metres, but it is almost impossible to see this coming until you're right on it. Add darkness, rain and maybe smoke too, and it is a really nasty mix.

Yet the real cause of the problem is the idiot that doesn't slow down.

And tailgaters. Hate'em. Under the right circumstances, I'll tap the brakes or slow down to let them pass. I like the Tank idea though. :D

Fog and smoke are fairly common causes of huge multicar pile ups.

Heck, there's even a made for TV movie.

Very common indeed. As soon as I saw the numbers I assumed it had been fog. And human stoopidity.

It only took Chevrolet 80-90 years to illuminate their headlight switch, don't give up hope.

Re: Affecting other drivers' safe driving distances


My friend applies the three second rule to anyone following him. If a person is 30 feet behind him, he slows down until he is driving at an appropriate speed for the distance he is being followed.

He has come to a complete stop on more than one occasion before the person finally passed him. I've seen cases where the tailgater refuses to pass.

The 3 second rule is a good one. It should keep you from ever rear ending the car in front of you, at any speed. That's because even if the car in front of you panic brakes to a dead stop, you still have 3 seconds to also panic brake and not hit them.

But if the car in front of you hits a deep pothole or debris in the road, you have even less time to stop before you hit that debris. That's because you can't count on the distance the car would continue traveling as it slowed down and stopped. That pothole isn't moving.

You're going 60MPH, that's 88fps. You see the car in front of you hit a deep pothole and get taken out. You might be able to swerve to avoid it, but if you can't, that pothole is three seconds, or 264 feet away. It takes you 1 second (typical driver reaction time) to hit the brakes. That's if you are paying attention. You're now 176 feet away from the pothole as you start braking. Typical stopping distance is about 130 feet, unless you have a sweet sports car. So you've got a 46 foot buffer. If you are tuning the radio, and let a second go by before you notice the car in front of you hit that pothole, you're hosed.

Nice chart.

You're friend's a menace.

The main reason we have troubles like these is because of drivers taking unexpected actions. In the OP, the unexpected action (by someone) was hard braking followed by being rear ended (repeat). Imagine someone running a red light, or changing lanes, or pulling out into traffic, etc. Those unexpected actions have a much higher likelihood of causing an accident than situations where drivers act in expected ways.

Having the driver ahead of me slow down, more and more and eventually stopping on the roadway (I'm presuming this is what you spoke of since if he'd pulled over to the shoulder passing him would have been the obvious choice and you said sometimes that didn't happen) is very unexpected behavior. Indeed the very act of slowing would at first exacerbate the very problem he is seeking to relieve.

Show him the chart and the suggestions to move over and let pass. Much more expected, much safer, and it completely solves his problem. Well, his tailgater problem. He's still a menace for stopping on the roadway for this kind of reason. But that's a different problem.

When I went on my whirlwind trip, I got caught in a sudden blinding rainstorm. I couldn't see in front or behind. I couldn't pull off because, knowing no one else could see, I might have been rear-ended. As it was, I could have been anyway. I was white knuckled until it cleared, which seemed forever but wasn't.

You can't pull off somewhere if you can't see, either. If the conditions (fog, rain, blizzard, etc) are other than "patchy" you're really in the hands of fate and luck. Kiss your ass goodbye and hope for the best. Hope for patchy.

The best drivers can get beat by nature.

I'd almost rather deal with the asshats in bumper to bumper construction zones at rush hour. Oh, yeah. I do.

I was caught in a freak hailstorm once.
I was on a dual carriageway with a hard shoulder, and was able to pull over under a flyover.
At that point I had no confidence in my own driving skills whatsoever, and even less in other people's, simply because of the lack of visibility.

I felt safe under my bridge but appalled at the speed of the cars that went by me. Probably close to the speed limit (70mph).
You can't fucking SEE!
I even remember what song was playing (Macy Gray, I Try). I happily wailed along as my car steamed up and the hail turned the world into a grey television screen in front of me.

In less than five minutes I was able to move on, and luckily passed no accidents.

I hate Denver drivers. They are homicidal. My worst driving experience was coming down from the mountains outside Denver on I 70 at night and in a pouring rain. Everyone seemed determined to drive 80mph, despite the conditions and the sharp curves. Visibility was so poor, I was afraid someone would rear end me if I drove at a safer, slower speed. Plus, every time I managed to create a safe driving distance from the car in front of me, someone would cut into it. I finally just got off at the nearest exit and waited for the rain to stop before I ventured out onto the Interstate again.

Here we take two seconds as a reasonable (minimum) distance. I don't think nine would ever be reasonable. If conditions are that bad, slow the #### down. Or do as Sundae did and pull over and wait.

He lives in Vermont. There isn't a shoulder. He slows down gradually and puts on his 4 ways. He knows he is being an asshole. He's a Bluegrass Mandolin player. 'Nuff said? ;)

'nuff said.

:)

Yes, but you're on the metric system.

And we drive on the other side, and the steering wheel works the opposite way. Fortunately those two things cancel each other out.

We're a schizophrenic mix of Imperial and metric.
And we drive on the right side.
Which is to say the left hand side.

Keeps our sword arm free.

Ftfy

Rummy?

Shitmen are responsible for any horrifying pile-up.

If you drive on the wrong side of the road, do you suddenly become left handed?

Bill Bryson wrote that living in England was like coming home, as things are far easier for southpaws here.

Having only lived here and not being left-handed I can't speak from personal experience. Just thought it worth noting.

Noted in Japan:

Any dwellar care to deconstruct (nyuk nyuk nyuk) this story?

It was the Prius' fault.

Heehee, I've seen a few details, but they vary.

General picture is those chaps were out for a "car club rally", I don't know the legal status of this, but they were reportedly cruising at about 150kph (90 mph). Close together.
Guy at the front goofed up, and it was like an accordian.
No one seriusly injured, but a lot of rich boys broke their toys. Meh.
Some sources estimate the $3,000,000 for the total cost.

Again, though, the excellent crash-resistance of modern cars shines through. Crumple zones and passenger cages, thank you engineers!