m1 accident

[AoWW]

It's not a 150 mph impact. It's a 70-80 mph impact. The speed of the oncoming vehicle adds no extra force to the impact - it would be the same as driving into a stationary object.

 

I'd still rather not be on the receiving end.

[Bellend Sebastian]

A couple of years ago but a valid question...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24204489

[Collymore]

It's not a 150 mph impact. It's a 70-80 mph impact. The speed of the oncoming vehicle adds no extra force to the impact - it would be the same as driving into a stationary object.

The van should of actually been better off. but........

 

I would have imagined the old bloke probably thought "why are loads of people driving the wrong way down the motorway?" and thought he was pulling into the hard shoulder when really he was in the fast lane.

The van driver, just pulling into the fast lane to overtake and not expecting it would have seen the car in split seconds and the driver of the van would have instinctively tried to find space near the barrier on the outside (as inwards would have been blocked off as he's overtaking + instinct to survive would have told him to turn right ) causing the collision to focus on the passenger side of the van and the driver's side of the car killing the men.

 

If they'd impacted completely head on then there's a chance they might have all survived, even at motorway speeds, especially the van passenger. I wonder if he was wearing a seat-belt?

[Carl the Llama]

It's not a 150 mph impact. It's a 70-80 mph impact. The speed of the oncoming vehicle adds no extra force to the impact - it would be the same as driving into a stationary object.

To be even more finicky, it is a 150mph impact in energy terms(as in the amount of energy created by the two cars each driving into each other is equivalent to the energy released when one car hits a wall at 150mph), but the force is shared evenly across two cars for the equivalent of a 70-80mph impact on each individual vehicle. 

But of course that does nothing to change the tragic nature of the situation.

[DB11]

M1 has been fully reopened now

[Thracian]

I can't believe you can't tell the difference between a minor annoyance like lane-hogging, and driving the f***ing wrong way up a motorway. It's almost a miracle that he only killed himself and 1 other, think what a 150mph combined impact could cause - the wrong time of day he would have caused a pileup, which could have killed dozens. He was clearly not in a fit state to drive, and driving dangerously (by which I mean clearly haven't got a clue what is happening around them) is something I've encountered many times by people of a certain age. People of all ages drive carelessly, speed, have other bad habits I'm not disputing that, but the amount of times I've seen someone appearing to drive drunk and then just realised they're well old and completely oblivious to other road users - it's pretty frightening.

 

I can't believe you can't tell the difference between a minor annoyance like lane-hogging, and driving the f***ing wrong way up a motorway. It's almost a miracle that he only killed himself and 1 other, think what a 150mph combined impact could cause - the wrong time of day he would have caused a pileup, which could have killed dozens. He was clearly not in a fit state to drive, and driving dangerously (by which I mean clearly haven't got a clue what is happening around them) is something I've encountered many times by people of a certain age. People of all ages drive carelessly, speed, have other bad habits I'm not disputing that, but the amount of times I've seen someone appearing to drive drunk and then just realised they're well old and completely oblivious to other road users - it's pretty frightening.

 

 

You clearly either drive with your eyes closed or, much more likely, you refuse to acknowledge anything other than what you wish to see. Rather like you highlight "minor annoyances" while ignoring the consequences of things I mentioned which cost people their lives just like the incident which prompted this topic.

It's insulting to suggest I don't acknowledge the potential for additional consequences of today's incident, appalling as they were as it is.

But plenty of people who've driven the wrong way on a motorway were not old. Were their actions any less defensible?

I've given examples why lots of people might not be fit to drive. How pointedly you chose to ignore those while preferring to use the today's incident as a stick to beat an entire group, many of whom would have been driving on the roads today - as usual - with no adverse consequences whatsoever.                     

[Wymsey]

If there were additional tests for the OAPs, some will think that it's age discrimination and moan that the youngsters haven't had much awareness training themselves.

[Thracian]

I can only think the old duffer joined at junction 23a.  Not sure how it's even possible to join the M1 there the wrong way.  I'm not even sure you could, even if you wanted to.

 

My father-in-law, well into his 70's & driving regulalrly with a serious cataract problem.  He can't watch telly properly, has his nose about 2" from the computer screen & I reckon I could walk past him on the same pavement & he'd have no idea it was me.  There's no way he should be on the road.  Everyone is pleading with him to go get his eyes lasered, but he's frit shit & won't go.

 

I've never been in his car with him anyway, but I've told the rest of the family to refuse getting in the car with him driving........or even grass him up to the DVLA.  I feel obliged to do it myself but it's awkward for me & feel it would better if it came from someone closer "because they care".

 

 

 

Interesting you should say that. I've seen lots of women driving like that - particularly at weekends. And a good many of them foreigners too. Either they've got very poor eyesight or they're struggling to read or understand the signs.

Almost all of them drive slowly along the middle lane of the three-lane carriageway. Just drive down the M69 on a Sunday morning if anyone disbelieves me. It's frightening.

They're a perpetual menace. Some are elderly but most seem to be younger - more like 35-55. There's young men too and they're completely oblivious to everyone around them. I've wondered aloud to my wife on many occasions whether they even have a licence.          

[Carl the Llama]

You clearly either drive with your eyes closed or, much more likely, you refuse to acknowledge anything other than what you wish to see. Rather like you highlight "minor annoyances" while ignoring the consequences of things I mentioned which cost people their lives just like the incident which prompted this topic.

It's insulting to suggest I don't acknowledge the potential for additional consequences of today's incident, appalling as they were as it is.

But plenty of people who've driven the wrong way on a motorway were not old. Were their actions any less defensible?

I've given examples why lots of people might not be fit to drive. How pointedly you chose to ignore those while preferring to use the today's incident as a stick to beat an entire group, many of whom would have been driving on the roads today - as usual - with no adverse consequences whatsoever.                     

I don't know what your problem is.  Do you agree with the following statement?

 

As you age, your sight, reactions, and motor skills all experience a gradual decline and you become more susceptible to forms of dementia ie. Alzheimer's.

 

If you do, good, you understand why it makes sense to provide regularly scheduled testing (once every few years or so) to people above a certain age to ensure that they have retained their ability to drive safely.

 

If you do not agree, please destroy that painting in the attic.

[maxwelld_]

Don't know why you don't just ship anyone over 60 who doesn't meet up to your stringent ideals into a care home.

I drive 500 miles a week and see lots of examples of bad driving. 

People hogging the centre lane; people driving much more slowly than the rest of the traffic prompting lots of unnecessary overtaking; people cutting in and out of the lanes like dodgem drivers, people tailgating others or just looking every but at the road while searching for a parking place or the the turn they think they might have missed. And so much more.

But when I look, I don't notice anymore elderly people driving like idiots, than young or middle-aged people.

In fact there's a good argument - judging by insurers' attitudes - for suggesting that younger drivers who clearly lack time and experience behind the wheel, are the greatest risk on the roads and are almost by definition in need of improved awareness compared to older drivers.

But, why stop at checking vision and awareness through doctors already complaining that they've so much to do they can't cope.

Why not test for reaction time, for every type of substance abuse, a calmness/anger factor, whether the culprit has had a bust-up with their partner, whether they've been sacked, whether they're escaping from the police or the scene of a crime they've committed or worrying about an illness, whether they're late for work or their holiday flight to the South of France etc, etc, etc.

What amazes me considering how many vehicles are travelling on the roads today - and far too quickly in many situations - is how few accidents there are.

Especially given the contrived problems of extensive and irritating road works, traffic jams, the ridiculous amount of roadside furniture taking our eyes off the road, however momentarily, the constant hazards placed in the roads by government agencies such as traffic lights, traffic islands, traffic slowing chicanes, road-humps etc and even the way authorities now obscure the view on the approach to traffic islands for all that "anticipation" of the road ahead is supposedly important.

What about dealing with all this and testing the decision-makers for their fitness?        

I am sick of people trying to reduce the elderly to some kind of second class citizen status whereby they cannot do this or that for no good reason.

Quite a lot of aircraft pilots have died at the controls of their planes, a report said recently. All had been subject to stringent health tests as are PSV drivers who themselves are still not immune from dying or being taken ill at the wheel - at any age. Why victimise people just because they're this age or that?   

You remind me of George Orwell's 1984 where everyone's equal but some are more equal than others.

Why stop with penalising elderly drivers?

Let's bar every experienced doctor who makes a mistaken diagnosis for whatever reason or even every experienced politician who makes bad decisions and get thousands of innocent men, women and children killed as a consequence - cos that'd sure put a mistake on the roads into context and question a whole lot of things in relation to the decision maker, including his awareness of the consequences of his actions.

Sod me, why piss about?

Why not offer all over 60's a suicide pill to save them being told how systematically restricted their life would be made for them in the future...just in case they made a mistake that could just possibly be attributed to their age rather than inexperience, a desire to test the speed of their new vehicle,  their recklessness, the party or football piss-up they'd just enjoyed, their anger at being made redundant or a thousand other things that affect younger drivers?

And breath....................

[Thracian]

I don't know what your problem is.  Do you agree with the following statement?

 

As you age, your sight, reactions, and motor skills all experience a gradual decline and you become more susceptible to forms of dementia ie. Alzheimer's.

 

If you do, good, you understand why it makes sense to provide regularly scheduled testing (once every few years or so) to people above a certain age to ensure that they have retained their ability to drive safely.

 

If you do not agree, please destroy that painting in the attic.

 

I don't know what your problem is.  Do you agree with the following statement?

 

As you age, your sight, reactions, and motor skills all experience a gradual decline and you become more susceptible to forms of dementia ie. Alzheimer's.

 

If you do, good, you understand why it makes sense to provide regularly scheduled testing (once every few years or so) to people above a certain age to ensure that they have retained their ability to drive safely.

 

If you do not agree, please destroy that painting in the attic.

 

 

I don't agree with anything of the sort. The next thing will be using doctors to reduce the numbers on drivers on the roads according to set targets or insurance risks. And I bet it won't be the doctors losing their right to drive.

 

The whole concept is open to corruption (including bribery) quite apart from the additional cost, work burden and lost quality of life it would cause.

 

And, as I've said, who's to decide what other reasons people should be banned from the roads for?.

Because anyone in a state of anger is a potential menace and so many young people end up in that state for various reasons and even become maniacal at times.

 

Look at the incident where the policeman got killed trying to stop a suspect only a few days back. How much worse could that have been as if it wasn't bad enough?

 

If anyone on here was suggesting victimising immigrants because so many of them seemingly struggle to read the road signs, there'd be uproar but the elderly seem to be fair game as far as you and others are concerned.           

[Mike Oxlong]

I'm not that old but tonight I'm experiencing intermittent double vision.

[Guest]

I'm not that old but tonight I'm experiencing intermittent double vision.

Only happens with posters over a certain age

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

You clearly either drive with your eyes closed or, much more likely, you refuse to acknowledge anything other than what you wish to see. Rather like you highlight "minor annoyances" while ignoring the consequences of things I mentioned which cost people their lives just like the incident which prompted this topic.

It's insulting to suggest I don't acknowledge the potential for additional consequences of today's incident, appalling as they were as it is.

But plenty of people who've driven the wrong way on a motorway were not old. Were their actions any less defensible?

I've given examples why lots of people might not be fit to drive. How pointedly you chose to ignore those while preferring to use the today's incident as a stick to beat an entire group, many of whom would have been driving on the roads today - as usual - with no adverse consequences whatsoever.

The only other times I've seen or heard about it was either on police chase shows where someone is fleeing for their life or pilled up to the eyeballs. I've also seen a woman (must have been about 80) trying to join the sliproad for the A46 at Wanlip the wrong way. I screamed at her, honked my horn, she carried on oblivious at about 10mph (despite the NO ENTRY signs either side of the road) and after she saw a car nearly slam into her she then decided it was a good idea to stop. Hopefully she made her way home safely, put her license in the toaster and her car on Auto Trader. There's the point when you should definitely not even consider driving again. Imagine she made it onto the A46, early afternoon time? She'd have been dead within seconds and no doubt taken innocent people down with her.

[SystonFox]

I was stuck northbound this morning between 23a and 25. Took around 45 mins to travel 5 miles northbound due to the transit van being on the central reservation.

As you approached the accident you could not make out car it was as it was in that bad a state. Absolutely horrific looking accident.

RIP to all those involved and condolences to families. I recently lost a friend in a RTA on a motorway. I will never actively moan about being stuck in the traffic caused by it because at the end of the day people lost their lives today and I was half an hour late to where I needed to be. Half an hour is nothing. A life is everything

[Carl the Llama]

 

I don't agree with anything of the sort. The next thing will be using doctors to reduce the numbers on drivers on the roads according to set targets or insurance risks. And I bet it won't be the doctors losing their right to drive.

 

The whole concept is open to corruption (including bribery) quite apart from the additional cost, work burden and lost quality of life it would cause.

 

And, as I've said, who's to decide what other reasons people should be banned from the roads for?.

Because anyone in a state of anger is a potential menace and so many young people end up in that state for various reasons and even become maniacal at times.

 

Look at the incident where the policeman got killed trying to stop a suspect only a few days back. How much worse could that have been as if it wasn't bad enough?

 

If anyone on here was suggesting victimising immigrants because so many of them seemingly struggle to read the road signs, there'd be uproar but the elderly seem to be fair game as far as you and others are concerned.           

I hope your family are as strong minded as you are because you're going to be a bloody nightmare when you lose your faculties and they need to broach the subject of turning your licence in.  

 

I'm victimising nobody.  I saw how much it hurt my Grandad to have the car taken away from him.  He relied on using it to go down the shops or to visit his Alzheimer's suffering wife in the home 15 minutes away, but still it had to be done for the safety of anyone else driving in the Coalville area during those precious few minutes each week.  He was in the early stages of dementia so he was still perfectly conscious most of the time, he could do maths better than most 30 year-olds, but he had trouble walking and looking after himself, he could barely hear (and he refused to wear his hearing aid), his vision had dropped off, and he was incredibly shaky at the wheel.  Fortunately his freedom was unaffected as there's a taxi service which caters specifically to the infirm which runs in that area, I can't remember their name but I can found out if you want me to, you know, for future purpose. 

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

It's not a 150 mph impact. It's a 70-80 mph impact. The speed of the oncoming vehicle adds no extra force to the impact - it would be the same as driving into a stationary object.

I'm not too up on my physics, but I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that a car travelling at 70mph receives the same force from hitting a stationery car as it does hitting an oncoming car travelling at 70mph? What about an oncoming car travelling at 250mph?

[tom_lcfc86]

What a tragedy

R.I.P

[Carl the Llama]

 

I'm not too up on my physics, but I don't understand your logic. Are you saying that a car travelling at 70mph receives the same force from hitting a stationery car as it does hitting an oncoming car travelling at 70mph? What about an oncoming car travelling at 250mph?

 

To be even more finicky, it is a 150mph impact in energy terms(as in the amount of energy created by the two cars each driving into each other is equivalent to the energy released when one car hits a wall at 150mph), but the force is shared evenly across two cars for the equivalent of a 70-80mph impact on each individual vehicle. 

But of course that does nothing to change the tragic nature of the situation.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/

[Vardinhio]

Thrac I don't think people are suggesting age discrimination, they are merely pointing out that it is logical to suggest your driving needs more monitoring as you get older just as your health does too. It is well documented that elderly people generally struggle more in areas of high traffic density with main through routes as they can not react as quickly as young people....this means motorways and roundabouts!

 

At the moment every three years people have to declare they are fit to drive when over the age of 70. I personally think that retests should apply to everyone, perhaps every 5 years. I'm not saying they should then be carried out with the same exact standards as an exam where you pass at 17 but there should at least be some kind of scrutiny of your driving to make sure you are safe and driving to a certain "standard".

 

People will be saying "that poor old bloke who drive the wrong way". I'm sorry but in my opinion such a mistake is impossible to make unless you are driving dangerously and completely unfit to be driving a vehicle.

[Thracian]

 

 

I hope your family are as strong minded as you are because you're going to be a bloody nightmare when you lose your faculties and they need to broach the subject of turning your licence in.  

 

I'm victimising nobody.  I saw how much it hurt my Grandad to have the car taken away from him.  He relied on using it to go down the shops or to visit his Alzheimer's suffering wife in the home 15 minutes away, but still it had to be done for the safety of anyone else driving in the Coalville area during those precious few minutes each week.  He was in the early stages of dementia so he was still perfectly conscious most of the time, he could do maths better than most 30 year-olds, but he had trouble walking and looking after himself, he could barely hear (and he refused to wear his hearing aid), his vision had dropped off, and he was incredibly shaky at the wheel.  Fortunately his freedom was unaffected as there's a taxi service which caters specifically to the infirm which runs in that area, I can't remember their name but I can found out if you want me to, you know, for future purpose. 

 

 

 

Thanks Carl but the taxi can wait. I still drive to Newark in under a week and my wife makes absolutely no comment other than to wear dark glasses and a bag over her head.

[Thracian]

Thrac I don't think people are suggesting age discrimination, they are merely pointing out that it is logical to suggest your driving needs more monitoring as you get older just as your health does too. It is well documented that elderly people generally struggle more in areas of high traffic density with main through routes as they can not react as quickly as young people....this means motorways and roundabouts!

 

At the moment every three years people have to declare they are fit to drive when over the age of 70. I personally think that retests should apply to everyone, perhaps every 5 years. I'm not saying they should then be carried out with the same exact standards as an exam where you pass at 17 but there should at least be some kind of scrutiny of your driving to make sure you are safe and driving to a certain "standard".

 

People will be saying "that poor old bloke who drive the wrong way". I'm sorry but in my opinion such a mistake is impossible to make unless you are driving dangerously and completely unfit to be driving a vehicle.

 

 

I've not defended the bloke you mention at all. But if you're going to make the roads safer why hammer the most experienced drivers in reaction instead of the people who hog the middle lanes and drive with their faces near resting on their windscreens cos they seem to have no idea where they are and can't read the bloody road signs anyway?.        

[Rincewind]

My optician once told me that as a person reaches their forties they are likely to need reading glasses. I could not understand  why as I am short sighted yet need separate  glasses for reading. Everyon;es  eyesight deteriorates as they grow older especially in the elderly. I see no discrimination for eyetests  to be taken on a regular basis after a certain age for everybody.

My mother has glaucoma so my tests were free of charge until I retired and I receive them now because of my age.I only have to go every 12-18 months. Is this such  a sacrifice to make when lives  may be at risk?

I do not drive and would not consider it now because of slower reaction times. Something that also slows down with age.

[Carl the Llama]

Thanks Carl but the taxi can wait. I still drive to Newark in under a week and my wife makes absolutely no comment other than to wear dark glasses and a bag over her head.

The point I'm trying to make is:  If you live long enough, there will inevitably come a time when you are no longer of sound enough body and mind to safely operate a vehicle.  This is scientific fact barring any medical breakthroughs.

 

Most people notice when they start struggling to drive safely but obviously not everyone realises or wants to admit it when they reach that stage. You can't rely on their family or friends to intervene because it is a very difficult subject to approach.

 

I'm not suggesting there are senile old people out driving around and running people over, in fact very few accidents are directly caused by old drivers largely because, as previously stated, most people do stop of their own volition and hopefully family and friends are stepping in where they don't.  So no, it's not an epidemic, but it makes perfect sense to have a system in place that can prevent needless losses of life like this.  After all, it's not like they're some new driver flying way above the limit or zooming around corners with their smartphones held up in their face while they send a text, things that they would obviously refrain from during a test.  No, the sort of limitations that creep in with age would normally be apparent to the tester in a driving test.  This is why I'm suggesting tests for the elderly, not out of ageism, but because it's pragmatic to do so whereas it would achieve nothing with younger drivers.  It may not be a terrible idea to re-test them after one year just to make sure they've retained (or at least remembered) the right habits though.

 

I would suggest mandatory tests getting more frequent as a person gets older and becomes more susceptible to the passage of time.  Some people go downhill very quickly.  Perhaps at 70, 80. 85, 88, 90, 92, 94, and then yearly.  

[Hollism]

When you say tests, do you mean a full driving test? I agree that the elderly should prove that they are still capable of being safe to drive, but I can't see how a full driving test even every five years for those of retirement age can be realistic.

It ought to be somewhere between that and a medical examination imo.

The I hope the dvla are seriously considering something but in fairness, I don't know where they can start. If they take it upon themselves, they'll soon buckle. The alternative puts even more stress on the NHS.