We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Anothr slant on the M5 incident


SparkyJack

Likes # 0

The mention of impaired visibilty raises all all sorts of issue- this was in an area known for fog.

The allegation of drifting smoke is being looked into.

Which is why STUBBLE BURNING -a common practice many years ago was Banned.

Any intentional activity the can impair visibility on a motorway would be considered in appropriate

Like this post
bremner

Likes # 0

spuds

It could have been much worse as the lorry went from the A56 onto the M56 M56 Crash

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

fm

Thank you for your constructive, and entirely reasonable, postulation.

I hadn't thought of that aspect of it.

Like this post
Admiral Allstar

Likes # 0

mmm

All this talk of pinning the blame on a person or people suggests that there is no such thing as an accident these days. As sad as the loss of life is (and I make no lightness of that) it may be that, yes there is blame, but the person should not be prosecuted as it is unreasonable to do so. You cannot go through life too scared to do anything simply because an accident might happen.

This constant search to blame someone for all life's ills is a depressing state and simply whips up a fervour (in some instances) leading to a whitch hunt.

IF someone is to blame then we should see if they feel sympathy for the relatives of those who died and try to make things as right as possible before making judgements. This is true of all accidents related instances.

just my tuppence worth.

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

Sadly that seems to be a fact of modern life whether in public or private.

When something goes wrong it's not "What went wrong? What can we learn? How do we prevent a repetition?" but "Who can we blame?"

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"This constant search to blame someone for all life's ills is a depressing state"

It may be a depressing state from your point of view, but if a loved one was killed in a traffic accident you might take a rather different view. You may want to find out who was responsible for causing the accident in the first place - because, contrary to what some people might think - all road traffic accidents are the result of human error of some kind, be it ever so convoluted. You surely can't seriously expect grieving relatives to say 'Ah well, I've lost my husband/wife/partner/son/daughter/parent in appalling circumstances, but I suppose it's just one of those things.'

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

Have I missed something? I thought that there was only a firework display at the Rugby Club. No bonfire, just fireworks.

Like this post
Admiral Allstar

Likes # 0

FE - I never said that there was no blame to be attached, rather that it seems the raison detre of many people is to apportion blame and (these days) more often than not claim financial recompense when a tragedy happens.

I was not inferring that an investigation should not be conducted and deliberately pointed out that the loss of life (or serious injury etc.) is in itself a serious matter which isn’t to be taken lightly.

My point is that an investigation needs to be conducted and IF blame is found to be attached then let’s hear from the accused. As I said before, just because someone is to blame doesn’t mean that the act was deliberate or should result in financial recompense.

As an aside it may be that an investigation does highlight that the correct response is along the lines of (but not as harshly worded as)

'Ah well, I've lost my husband/wife/partner/son/daughter/parent in appalling circumstances, but I suppose it's just one of those things.'

But until the investigation has run its course no-one knows and talk of liability insurance pre-supposes that there is blame already with a big fat cheque waiting. Whether all road traffic accidents are caused by human error or not is not the main point as the person who caused it may be the person who died. I can reel off (as can many people – yourself included I suspect) many a young person’s name who has died through driving excessively fast. A sad situation but ultimately their death was caused by their own hand so to speak.

In the case of the M5 tragedy I have heard that some drivers were driving too fast for the conditions. If true, then surely they are partly to blame even if they lost their lives? I don’t know and await the conclusions of the investigation.

Like this post
Quickbeam

Likes # 0

"and talk of liability insurance pre-supposes that there is blame already"

I asked that question in this 'Another slant' thread as opposed to the original 'M5 Pile-up' thread simply out of curiosity as to whether public liability insurance bought for a specific event, i.e. a firework display with paying public in attendance, extended to events outside the expected arena, if the catastrophe was found to be the root cause. Not for who the liability rests with for apportioning blame, or whether it'll be alright for the victims families as they'll get a hefty payout to live on.

I still don't know the answer to that.

Would that public liability insurance policy be the one to claim from ultimately, if this was the case?

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

"Would that public liability insurance policy be the one to claim from ultimately, if this was the case?".

And the answer to that would be yes, providing the evidence pointed to that.

After the investigations have taken place, and a coroner's report as been completed, then the verdict of that would bring into the arena, any compensation claims that are deemed 'correct and proper' under public liability. If an individual is found to be at blame, then that would possibly be a very different matter?.

Like this post
spuds

Likes # 0

One thing that I have noticed from this incident, is the 'experts' stating once again that speed was one of the main contributing factors. Yet the people on the scene at the time of the event, was stating that there was no warning as to what would follow, because "it was a sudden sheet of darkness".

I recall many years ago, when some colleagues and I were travelling down a motorway here in the UK, on a dark, damp, cold, slightly misty morning in the very early hours, with hardly much other traffic about. We were travelling 'within' visibility range' doing approximately 50/60 mph, when suddenly we hit a 'fog bank' of possibly much less than a quarter mile long (near a river) with no really foreseeable warnings. When we came out of the 'fog bank' there was a rather large articulated lorry in front of us, with no rear lights visible. Fortunately there was no incident that took place, but it could have easily well ended up as another four or possibly more dead?.

Another incident was watching a lorry tyre coming down the road on its own, and no one was able to take evasive action. Luckily the lorry tyre came to a rest and people just carried on with their journey. Perhaps just another simple day occurance for some!.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

Chromebooks: ready for the prime time (but not for everybody)

IDG UK Sites

Hands-on with Sony's latest smartglasses

IDG UK Sites

Apple TV setup advice: Apple TV hacks to help you create the ultimate Apple TV hub in your home