Bank Holiday Horror

LoadsaMoney · 26 Aug 2017 at 19:05

Terrible, RIP to all

GTiPUG · 26 Aug 2017 at 19:37

builder22 said:
The minibus must have been broken down on the hard shoulder or junction or something. Straight road at 3:15 in the morning so not like it was going to be busy

I don't see any other way this could occur, and more specifically, kill 8 people. There must have been a hell of a thump involved, which you wouldn't get if both vehicles were moving.

Automated lorries here we come!

Sliver · 26 Aug 2017 at 20:06

BBC reporting that the 31 year old lorry driver is being held on suspicion of driving while under the influence. He's in deep trouble now. I hope they throw the book at him.

antijoke · 26 Aug 2017 at 20:43

Jesus H Christ, that video on the BBC site of the lorries.

That must have been a hell of a smash.

RIP to those that lost their lives.

Jokester · 26 Aug 2017 at 20:44

Dis86 said:
The minibus wasn't flattened. That's the roof that was cut off by the fire and rescue workers.

There's not much left of it other than cab part of it.

Craig1981 · 26 Aug 2017 at 22:09

Its hard to imagine how anyone could have survived that smash. I think there was only something like 12 people on the minibus, so looks like nearly everyone died

radar19 · 26 Aug 2017 at 22:26

Abraxaz1 said:
The sooner we have fully automated lorries on the road and take these lorries out of human hands the better.

No, I like driving my lorry thank you.

Jean-F · 26 Aug 2017 at 22:27

Sliver said:
BBC reporting that the 31 year old lorry driver is being held on suspicion of driving while under the influence. He's in deep trouble now. I hope they throw the book at him.

As you say, he's being held under SUSPICION, any chance of holding back with the book throwing until it's maybe PROVED that he was under the influence?

Sliver · 26 Aug 2017 at 23:41

Jean-F said:
As you say, he's being held under SUSPICION, any chance of holding back with the book throwing until it's maybe PROVED that he was under the influence?

They'll have carried out a breath test at the station. He's screwed.

FloppyPoppy · 27 Aug 2017 at 00:05

Sliver said:
They'll have carried out a breath test at the station. He's screwed.

To be honest at the station and with so many dead there would have been likely breath/urine and In some cases even a blood sample taken.

dowie · 27 Aug 2017 at 00:55

radar19 said:
No, I like driving my lorry thank you.

well tough, because as soon as the means to replace you becomes readily available then your employer probably won't

Sliver · 27 Aug 2017 at 05:06

harry5522 said:
To be honest at the station and with so many dead there would have been likely breath/urine and In some cases even a blood sample taken.

Yeah you're probably right. The police must have had good reason at the scene to arrest him on suspicion of drink driving. My guess is he was asked to take a breath test and refused it, so they arrested him. That's what usually happens with DUI's.

FloppyPoppy · 27 Aug 2017 at 06:51

Sliver said:
Yeah you're probably right. The police must have had good reason at the scene to arrest him on suspicion of drink driving. My guess is he was asked to take a breath test and refused it, so they arrested him. That's what usually happens with DUI's.

Is it not mandatory procedure in a rtc to test drivers and passengers?

Sliver · 27 Aug 2017 at 07:11

harry5522 said:
Is it not mandatory procedure in a rtc to test drivers and passengers?

Not sure but it does sound reasonable.

EddScott · 27 Aug 2017 at 07:48

dowie said:
well tough, because as soon as the means to replace you becomes readily available then your employer probably won't

Computer driven vehicles will replace one issue with anther imo. It won't fall asleep and kill a family broken down at the side of the road. What it can't do is make human decisions which might actually save lives in an accident.

Insurers will probably insist someone is actually in charge of the vehicle even if they aren't actually driving it. If the vehicle crashes, who is to blame?

AndyCr15 · 27 Aug 2017 at 07:54

radar19 said:
No, I like driving my lorry thank you.

So... let's let people die, so you can enjoy driving? Is that what you're saying?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that this is a pretty poor reason when 8 people have just died by what will almost certainly be a 'driver error' shall we say.

Jokester · 27 Aug 2017 at 07:56

The company operating it.

Pretty much all taxi drivers/bus drivers/lorry drivers will be out of work in the next 20-30 years, maybe sooner.

train drivers will probably still exist purely due to their unions, as technically they should have been the first to go!

Abraxaz1 · 27 Aug 2017 at 08:07

EddScott said:
Computer driven vehicles will replace one issue with anther imo. It won't fall asleep and kill a family broken down at the side of the road. What it can't do is make human decisions which might actually save lives in an accident.

Insurers will probably insist someone is actually in charge of the vehicle even if they aren't actually driving it. If the vehicle crashes, who is to blame?

That's a big if...

Automated cars and lorries have been tested over 1000s of miles with a much lower accident rate attributed to them than say a car driven by a human.
Plus insurance companies will love automated cars and lorries, pay a small premium but never claim that sounds likes great odds for them.

Also every car/lorry is covered in cameras and data logging do you think a insurance company will have issues with that sort of information for fault or they go 50/50 like they do in mist cases these days that aren't rear enders.

End of the day of you offer a company a option of only being able to drive 8 hours a day vs 24/7 and a lower risk of accident, they are going to pick the one that saved them the most money.

Ocean Breeze · 27 Aug 2017 at 08:28

HGV's shouldn't be on motorways.

EddScott · 27 Aug 2017 at 08:43

Abraxaz1 said:
End of the day of you offer a company a option of only being able to drive 8 hours a day vs 24/7 and a lower risk of accident, they are going to pick the one that saved them the most money.

That's a good point.

Still think it won't be straight forward to introduce driver less vehicles. A computer can't anticipate what human being will do. Humans make mistakes on the road so how will the computer deal with it.

They had a BBC article on driver less cars and the computer had to make a decision. Quad bike overtaking a car, quad bike most vulnerable. Computer makes decision, quad bike rider gets decapitated. It didn't try to avoid and it chose the most vulnerable road user.

I also think it's not clear cut for insurers. The computer makes a mistake which isn't impossible or misinterprets what is happening. Is the owner the one the insurers claim against or the devs that designed the software?