Sheppey crash

by **sussex2** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 1:46 pm

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/150-car-pile-d ... ml#iLCUB51

I'd be really interested to know how they managed to pick which drivers to send on the course?
Do members think a course rather than prosecution is the best way?

This it in a nutshell and good on plod for persevering. It's the technical issues I'm interested in:

"While a significant number of drivers did precisely the right thing by driving to the conditions, our investigation has provided overwhelming evidence that in some cases motorists were not driving with due care and attention and were travelling at speeds which prevented them being able to stop in the distances that they could see ahead''

by **martine** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:39 pm

I all in favour of courses and education rather than points. The NDAC course would seem to fit this bill as an alternative to prosecution...I would say that wouldn't I - as I'm one of the trainers.

I wonder if they used CCTV to identify tailgaters and those with no/wrong lights?

by **Horse** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:04 pm

martine wrote: I wonder if they used CCTV to identify tailgaters and those with no/wrong lights?

Potentially tracking individual vehicles through the last few miles approaching the scene in order to identify persistent behaviour?

by **Gareth** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:38 pm

sussex2 wrote:Do members think a course rather than prosecution is the best way?

I think it serves two purposes. Clearly it gives a chance to the crash participants to get an education, but it also sends a wider message that if you get involved in a serious incident it is possible to identify and prosecute.

by **trashbat** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 5:34 pm

Horse wrote:
martine wrote: I wonder if they used CCTV to identify tailgaters and those with no/wrong lights?

Potentially tracking individual vehicles through the last few miles approaching the scene in order to identify persistent behaviour?

Could be a bit of a blunt instrument, but 'more front damage than rear' might be a start in identifying those at fault?

by **zadocbrown** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:21 pm

A positive development I think. Not enough emphasis on individual good judgement and responsibilty these days.

by **martine** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:48 pm

Horse wrote:
martine wrote: I wonder if they used CCTV to identify tailgaters and those with no/wrong lights?

Potentially tracking individual vehicles through the last few miles approaching the scene in order to identify persistent behaviour?

I was thinking they did it retrospectively...I expect the bridge had lots of cameras.

by **martine** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:17 pm

martine wrote:I all in favour of courses and education rather than points. The NDAC course would seem to fit this bill as an alternative to prosecution...I would say that wouldn't I - as I'm one of the trainers.

Ta-ta!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-25808048
They Kent police obviously read this forum...it seems the numbers are a little different to the Sky News link on the OP...32 or 200 drivers being offered a course?

by **exportmanuk** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:40 am

200 injured
32 offered courses

by **martine** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 7:10 pm

exportmanuk wrote:200 injured
32 offered courses

Oh yeh...doh!

I shudder to think how many serious/fatal it would have been 30 years ago.

by **exportmanuk** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:42 pm

martine wrote:
I shudder to think how many serious/fatal it would have been 30 years ago.

Who knows, people were more used to driving in poor visibility despite the clean air act 30 years ago we still had some pretty bad fog/smog from time to time. Cars were not as quick no airbags so drivers more aware of their vulnerability, smaller cars so more room to escape could be it would not have happened. could also have been carnage

by **sussex2** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:35 am

Thanks for the replies but I would still be very interested in how the police came up with the evidence.
If they were to explain then people would understand how they can be held to account for their actions or lack of them.
As for what might have happened thirty years ago then given the figures there may well have been much more destruction; but I wonder if there would have been as much police investigation.

by **Gareth** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:38 am

sussex2 wrote:I would still be very interested in how the police came up with the evidence.

Traffic cameras.

sussex2 wrote:As for what might have happened thirty years ago [...] but I wonder if there would have been as much police investigation.

No or less good traffic cameras.

by **sussex2** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:51 am

I imagine cameras were a lot to do with it but a series of measurements must have been made so that time and a vehicles speed could be calculated.
That's more what I'm after.

by **Gareth** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:57 am

sussex2 wrote:I imagine cameras were a lot to do with it but a series of measurements must have been made so that time and a vehicles speed could be calculated.

I'm not sure I see why - the issue was not being able to stop. The trickiness would have been in finding evidence to distinguish those who did stop but were then pushed forward from those who were only stopped by colliding with another vehicle.

Sheppey crash

Who is online