Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7335361.stm

Much has been made of the row of flashing lights on the back of the towing vehicle cab.
However, according to the broadcast version, only ONE other driver recalled seeing them.
Whilst I dont think that a row of flashing lights is necessary to warn other drivers - they should be more aware of the road ahead - I do think that if a safety feature is utilised, it should be in a location on the vehicle where it can be seen, not masked by the vehicle which is being towed.
In this case, it MIGHT have alerted the driver whose attention was clearly not on the task in hand.
It was also said that the guilty driver had set the cruise control in his vehicle to 56 mph, and the impact occurred at 50 mph.
This was confirmed by the tachograph, which also showed NO breaking or slowing down had taken place prior to the impact - yet this is not reported here.

The impact sheered the cab, brakelines and gearbox from the IVECO vehicle's chassis, and it then veered into the Shogun.
No doubt at all in my mind that the driver was guilty as charged - and the Mitsubishi was in lane 3, which would have allowed the lorry space to pull out past the towed vehicle - so that driver cannot be said to have misread the possibility of the offending vehicle pulling out.

A sad outcome, and one or two points which deserve comment - cruise control should not abdicate the drivers responsibility to pay attention. In fact it could be said that it might allow MORE attention to be devoted, given that one aspect of control is being taken care of.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Sounds as though it might have been possible he'd dozed off with the cruise control being on.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I couldnt say that - but I was thinking it.
That or reading something in the cab.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Sounds like it to me too. THB unless the breakdown truck was travelling sub-30mph he should have had ample time to realise there was a problem and shed at least some speed.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Well either that, or some other medical reason why his senses or response were turned off.

I find myself slowing down without knowing it when coming close to other vehicles, and have to think to keep the speed on longer before overtaking.

This is the section of M6 just south of Penrith, where the M6 climbs over Shap.
The north and southbound lanes are separated by a hundred yards or more.

I suspect any medical condition would have been introduced in court.
It seems to me that what is needed is a sort of electronic "dead man's handle" as found in train cabs, to ensure drivers with cruise control do not lapse into sleep or trance.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The word earnest uses, "trance", I think is far more likely than dozing off. If he'd dozed off he'd probably sideswipe someone, but a kinda trance-like state of monotomy from approaching lorries at sub 1mph differentials, perhaps the slow speed of the recovery vehicle simply didn't register.

and, earnest, I don't see that a dead mans handle would help in such a condition.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

I was thinking of an electronic device, which monitored signs of attentiveness - it cant be an impossibility in this day and age.
Essential when cruise control is engaged I would have thought!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Possibly something which monitors eye position, and if the eye hasn't moved in, say, 30s, sounds a warning?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Its the speed limiter set too low that does it.

It was a device introduced to make motorways more safer and has supposedly increased incidents of drivers loosing concentration and drivers falling asleep at the wheel.

I drive arctics and mainly these days just do multidrop in central scotland, but about a month ago i got hit with a night run from Glasgow to Haydock (m6 jct 24) in a MAN TGA 440. MANS are notorious for coming out the factory with speed limiters set at 52-53mph compared to the legal 57mph. Everyone and their dog went past me, it was really draining don't think i left lane 1. Had to stop for an extra break for a sleep coming up the road.

Last week got hit with the Haydock run again this time took a Volvo FH12 440 which was limited to 57mph. A huge difference enjoyed the run, was overtaking other trucks had much more stimulus, felt as if it was getting somewhere.

There was an arcticle about HGV's and the government trying to figure out why their accident record was the opposite of other vehicles. For most vehicles the motorway has less accidents than A-roads but for HGV's its the opposite. An HGV on a twisty A-road seems less likely to crash then on a straight motorway.

Its seems a non-brainer to me, but no doubt will come up with the idea that HGV's travel too fast on motorways at 56mph and need reduced

that sounds like a better option. but would require a fairly smart OS to work properly and avoid being of no use or a constant irritation, and probably not cheap. Remember this is an industry that can't be bothered to fit comparitivley cheap blind spot monitors to avoid the countless sideswipes on our roads.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

it said that his tacho showed he was doing 56 and the impact was at 50. Does that mean that the towed vehicle was doing 50? If so that was only a 6 mph impact. Arnt cars supposed to survive a 30mph impact?

No, the towed vehicle was another lorry - he hit it so hard he sheared the cab, gearbox and brakelines from the chassis, then swerved out into lane three (from lane one) and swiped the Shogun which was passing.
I believe it was crushed against the central barrier.
His cruise control was set at 56 - but the tacho recorded 50 at point of impact.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

And there's no way an impact speed of 6mph would cause that much damage...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Pulse rate monitor perhaps. (I would expect somebodys pulse rate to slow if they are "relaxing" and about to nod off.)

Would it be possible to monitor brainwaves without being too intrusive i wonder?

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

The M6 at that point is climbing to 1500 feet above sea level - it's a long hill.
I suspect that a reasonable sized tow truck towing an HGV is not going to be breaking the sound barrier... or the speed limit.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Makes sense...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

It is often the case when trucks kill that many wish to see action taken/technology introduced etc specifically aimed at trucks. Why not aimed at all road users, after all the car is more deserving if the measure of rear end shunts is anything to go by.

I find it hard to understand that the cruise control is set at 56 and impact was 50 and yet it is suggested no action by the driver was taken. How did it lose 6 mph before impact? Not a defensive point but simply pointing out how easy it is to get to grips with misleading info.

Cruise control is not a significant issue unless it can be proved that it takes away driver awareness. The only thing I know that takes away driver awareness for sure, is the driver! This incident is nothing more than lack of attention to the job of driving, leading to a rear end shunt. (sadly in this case resulting in someones death) It will happen again and again regardless of ideas and technology simply because the culture of drivers in this country is to drive too close in the first place and even closer before doing anything, such as overtaking! Once you get into the habbit of reacting late to everything (an example of which is indicated by the frequency you see brake lights come on on MWs) you then become a future candidate for a crash/shunt or panic reaction. Then add to that the mob phone user/the i-pod user/the sat nav fidler/the map reader and the food muncher to mention just a few and you can be sure this sort of thing will happen again.People are too selfish to change the way they drive for the benefit of others or because of the HC or the Law and certainly not because things they do are proved to be hazardous or dangerous.So you can be sure it will happen again no matter what.

i wholeheartedly agree with your point however in this case it would be quite easy to lose 6MPH. rigids only need to sniff a gradient and they lose speed. most artics are the same with a decent load on them. only a light artic will maintain its top speed uphill unless its a top spec truck with a higher than average power.

personally i rarely use cruise control in a truck. i prefer having more control over the vehicle (hence i hate autos) which includes accelerating/decelerating using the accelerator pedal whether its applying pressure or releasing pressure. cruise control uses more diesel anyway. when it hits a hill it automatically tries to maintain speed by applying full power. a driver need not do that. its going to slow down so why bother flooring it and wasting fuel? far better to let it slow down using gravity and regaining the lost speed by using gravity on the other side too

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

There is no indication that the truck ever achieved 56mph, cruise control can't make a vehicle go faster than the engine can pull it, if he was climbing a long gradient then it is possible the cruise control was set higher than the top speed of the vehicle for that point.

Clearly for what ever reason he failed to react. There are systems which may have prevented the collision (adaptive cruise control as fitted to some high end cars for instance). Some have suggested the industry wouldn't pay, but someone paid for cruise control.

Perhaps all cruise control systems should be of the adaptive or intelligent type, which reads the road ahead and won't allow you to drive closer than a certain distance from the car in front. Too much of a step toward speed limiters? Maybe, but you have the choice to turn the system on or not.

No doubt someone will sue a vehicle manufacturer for fitting a "dumb" cruise control system and then we won't need legislation.