130 vehicles involved in pile-ups on one stretch!

130 vehicles involved in pile-ups on one stretch!

21 posts
5 Sep 2013
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
130 vehicles involved in pile-ups on one short stretch of road! I reckon the insurance companies will have a great time apportioning blame for all those collisions. 

Isn't it amazing how many appalling drivers there are on the road at any one time!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047
Posted 5 Sep 2013
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
Is it not always the other 129, who are s***e drivers?

Posted 5 Sep 2013
Edited by magpie1 5 Sep 2013
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
magpie1

Is it not always the other 129, who are s***e drivers?


Certainly not all those who were involved in collisions will have been at fault and would avoided any collision if it wasn't for the idiots behind -  suicidal driving into fog - should they even be on the road?
Posted 5 Sep 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
magpie1
Is it not always the other 129, who are s***e drivers?
+1 I once witnessed a 7/8 car pileup at the end of a dual carriageway during rush hour as it turned back to single lane when the car in front decided to emergency stop for some reason. Regardless of what anyone says about stopping distances etc. what sort of complete fucking moron would do such a thing?
Posted 5 Sep 2013
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
RedChecker

+1 I once witnessed a 7/8 car pileup at the end of a dual carriageway during rush hour as it turned back to single lane when the car in front decided to emergency stop for some reason. Regardless of what anyone says about stopping distances etc. what sort of complete fucking moron would do such a thing?


Isn't the idea of leaving sufficient gap to allow for idiots in front as well as behind?

Posted 5 Sep 2013
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
RedChecker

+1 I once witnessed a 7/8 car pileup at the end of a dual carriageway during rush hour as it turned back to single lane when the car in front decided to emergency stop for some reason. Regardless of what anyone says about stopping distances etc. what sort of complete fucking moron would do such a thing?


Isn't the idea of leaving sufficient gap to allow for idiots in front as well as behind?

Posted 5 Sep 2013
carshaltonkev
Photographer
carshaltonke..
RedChecker

+1 I once witnessed a 7/8 car pileup at the end of a dual carriageway during rush hour as it turned back to single lane when the car in front decided to emergency stop for some reason. Regardless of what anyone says about stopping distances etc. what sort of complete fucking moron would do such a thing?


Snap! I was once the fourth car in a serious six car nose to tail pile up on the A3 on a stretch that was (at the time) still single carriageway. Caused by somebody hitting the brakes hard, having decided at the last second to try to turn right into a pub. On a downhill slope in slippery wet conditions, I stood no chance of stopping, despite being quite a distance behind the car in front. I doubt if the idiot who stopped took any of the blame. So I can see how it happened today, but on that kind of scale?! I have seen photos from today where cars have ended up in a pile three cars high! You must be driving far too fast to end up on the third tier!


I have been driving at 50 mph in very limited visibility in fog on a motorway and seen plenty of cars overtake me in the outside lane doing 80- 85 mph. Some without any lights on. Mostly BMWs. I bet they could see 20 yards max in front. Complete idiots. Should not be allowed to drive on the roads.   
Posted 5 Sep 2013
Kiboko
Photographer
Kiboko
The only comments I'm not entirely in agreement with is the suggestion that a motorist who comes to a sudden halt is necessarily blameworthy. If the act was done deliberately with the intention to force the following driver to hit the brakes, or the driver came to a sudden halt for no reason, (such as they realised they'd missed the turning or similar, the driver was drunk, drugged or in some other way driving inconsistently, they would be, ... although in the case of the three latter examples surely the manner of their driving would be apparent, thus a warning to others to stay well back. However if the sudden braking was for a genuine reason, I don't see how they could be so judged. The driver behind is not necessarily to know until after the event WHY the vehicle in front came to a sudden stop, - in a sense it's irrelevant because the effect is likely to be the same regardless. A driver hits the brakes when a child runs out from behind a parked car; owing to his quick reactions he avoids a collision with the child but the car behind runs into the back of him. The same occurs because the driver of the car in front realises he's left something at home, - the first driver is praiseworthy, the second blameworthy - but the outcome is the same because the driver of the car behind was travelling at a speed and distance behind the leading car too fast and too close for them to be able to stop should such an event occur.

Posted 5 Sep 2013
Edited by Kiboko 5 Sep 2013
carshaltonkev
Photographer
carshaltonke..
In my crash I thought I was travelling far enough behind the car in front. There was apparently plenty of gap. What I did not expect or anticipate was the car in front of me to be brought to a very abrupt halt by smashing into the stationery car in front. Fortunately this does not happen very often. But such a scenerio happened today.

By the time I had reacted I was a lot closer to the car in front. I hit the brakes with full force and hence skidded in the wet (before ABS) down the slope and it did not help that the tarmac had been worn smooth by traffic. I nearly stopped in time, but lightly skidded into the car in front. I skidded for an amazing distance. I was just thinking "Oh dear" when I was hit with enormous force by the car behind me.

In retrospect I don't think I did much wrong, though of course, as the police told me- I was driving too close and too fast (40 mph) for the conditions.

So I assume that many drivers today were driving at say 60 mph and following another car doing 60 mph at what appears a safe distance, but could not stop in time when the car in front decelerates to 0 mph in less than a second as it hits a truck. No doubt all the drivers will be labelled as driving too fast and too close for the conditions? Even if they stopped in time and the car behind rammed them into the car in front?!

Posted 5 Sep 2013
mph
Photographer
mph
The only people not responsible in such a crash are those who do stop - but then get tail-ended into the cars in front.

Posted 6 Sep 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
The worst thing is when riding my motorbike (in a group). We often ride at sensible speeds in poor weather (rain, fog) but it's amazing how often people are shitting themselves to overtake the dozen or so of us. The scariest one was like carshaltonkev's experience where we had some woman get past us in a built up area (who'd beeen trying for the last 5 minutes) only to emergency stop to pull into a garage as soon as she'd got past - really fucking dangerous.

At the very least my car's now video equipped so hopefully should it be needed I can hopefully prove that their driving is eratic/wreckless.

Posted 6 Sep 2013
twentytwenty
Photographer
twentytwenty
Makes the case for cars fitted with sensors that take the control off the driver to avoid collisions like this.

Posted 6 Sep 2013
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
twentytwenty
Makes the case for cars fitted with sensors that take the control off the driver to avoid collisions like this.
Sensors aren't foolproof. My car isn't fitted with it but there is the option of lane assist and collision detection via a radar of sorts that's placed on the front of the car. There's about a dozen pages in the manual covering safe use of the system and how not to use it, more agro than it's worth IMO. I personally think video is the way forward, simply to cover your own arse legally, accidents can and will always happen.
Posted 6 Sep 2013
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
carshaltonkev

. In retrospect I don't think I did much wrong, though of course, as the police told me- I was driving too close and too fast (40 mph) for the conditions. !


The only thing you did that was wrong was to leave insuifficient room between you and the vehicle in front!

If you were driving downhill on a slippy wet road surface then your 'safe' gap between you and the vehicle in front should have been doubled - it would have allowed you to stop more gradually and without colliding with the vehicle in front and most likely have allowed time for the following driver to also brake without rear-ending your car even if he was following too closely.

You can't do anything about idiot drivers who choose to stop or change direction suddenly and without warning but, you can protect yourself from them by leaving a safe gap from the vehicle in front which makes allowances for them!






Posted 6 Sep 2013
modjo30
Photographer
modjo30
I have a gopro fitted to my car to record my journey's in case of an accident or witnessing an accident.

It was amazing watching it back yesterday and counting how many morons were driving with no lights on or the ones who did have lights on, just had side lights and no fog lights on.

Posted 6 Sep 2013
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join