Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-30474952

Hopefully those seriously injured make a quick and full recovery   :(

The bus replacement for the 0030 OXF-DID rear-ended by a DHL lorry....while it was stationery.

I hope the lorry driver loses his licence.

http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/11666461.Serious_collision_involving_a_lorry_and_bus_at_Drayton_closes_A34/?ref=rss

To be fair to the lorry driver, its a bit early to point the finger of blame.  Passengers on the bus report the bus lost power.  If this affected the rear lights then its possible the lorry driver had little or no sighting of the bus.  Nothing the driver could have done.

Except drive at a speed allowing him to stop in time - the regular advice for all drivers.

But what speed would that be on a dark unlit road for a 40t HGV... or even a car?  We don't know the road layout or road conditions at the time.  I'm sure the police will be looking at the drivers tachograph to determine if speed was an issue. 

Indeed, I'm sure they will.

A pretty straight, no sharp corners, dual lane dual carriageway. No sign in the photos of the lorry even trying to take avoiding action, with it stationary beyond the bus which has simply been tail-ended & shunted off the road.

The whole point of dual carriageways & motorways is that you don't have to expect stationary vehicles, pedestrians, farm animals, vehicles turning etc., which is why there is a raised speed limit and in some cases restrictions on what vehicles are permitted on these roads.

Ah like I said, I'm not familiar with the road.  The bus hasn't taken a full rear end impact though, its took an impact to the rear corner which I think looks like the driver tried to take avoiding action.  The actual rear structure of the bus isn't that deformed. 

More photos on the Witney Gazette page link above

(http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/resources/images/3433094/)

Seems to show a collision point towards one corner, I agree.

But the damage to the cab of the lorry can be seen is this shot, indicating a collision at some speed, with the cab on the verge, not in the middle of the road (which you would expect if catching the bus a glancing blow)

(http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/resources/images/3433096/)
(http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/resources/images/3433097/)

Dual carriageway but no hard shoulder, the A34 takes motorway levels of traffic and speeds but is only dual carriageway, minimal central reservation and at this point no hard shoulder. If the bus pulled onto the verge it would still be at least partially on the inner carriageway.

The Newsquest article referred to above has been updated further in the last few minutes, with some personal experiences. The coach coasted to a halt without power and some people had got out for a smoke from this and 'got clipped'.

According to BBC Oxford the coach now has been recovered and that of the lorry is in progress. Projected time for the road to reopen is now 2pm. Traffic queues down to an hour.

A very common event unfortunately and even more so where there is no hard shoulder.  It can be difficult with tail lights at night to tell whether they are moving or stationary, and traffic has a tendency to follow the lights in front.  Our accident prevention training many years ago told us to extinguish our tail lights quickly when stopped on a hard shoulder to stop people rear-ending you - thinking you were simply the vehicle in front.  That and evacuate the vehicle immediately.

I was surprised that the driver didn't (try &) clear the coach having stopped on the carriageway. Would guess that might become a neccesary requirement going forward?

Road has reopened, albeit one lane only for the time being.

Although it is advisable to get out of the coach it seems those that did were not situated far away enough to avoid injury.

Expect more of the same with the coming "smart" motorways planned by DfT, where the hard shoulder is used for traffic.

Doesn't it make us all appreciate those red "home" signals, track circuits, axle counters and absolute block working.

OTC

ooh, I'm not sure I'd be tempting fate.... :-(

It's only a matter of time. Up until now managed motorways have only had the hard shoulder open when the speed limit is reduced, and during periods of congestion. And the hard shoulder is still marked as such.  The new ones, which started to come on stream at the same time as the rebrand to smart motorways, have done away with the hard shoulder altogether, and all lane running is 24 x 7, with no need for a speed restriction. The police have been vehemently opposed to them on safety grounds.

It will also be much more difficult to get emergency vehicles to the scene of an accident as all lanes will be full. Under the original scheme, most of the day the hard shoulder would still be clear, and the frequency of overhead gantry signs meant that the hard shoulder could be closed quickly in the event of an accident to permit emergency vehicles unimpeded access.

My biggest concern from the article is this - and I was going to raise this as a question until I saw the eyewitness quote.


Am I right in saying that this is a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt whilst travelling on a coach?

I always wear my seatbelt on a coach or bus if they are available and I have done since as long as I can remember.

In secondary school I used to get bullied for it as I was the only student on the coach that would wear one. Eventually things got so bad over the seatbelt "issue" that senior trouts complained to the coach operator who's owner (who was also a driver) said the following:

"I know your son, he's the only one who puts his seatbelt on"

So is it fair of me to comment that could some of these issues COULD been alleviated by wearing a seatbelt? Of course that is heading for speculation so I will stop there.

But anyone who complains to me about getting  injured on a coach when they were NOT wear a seatbelt and there WAS one available will have limited sympathy from me.

So those admitting not wearing a seat belt are effectively publically announcing they were breaking the law, not the wisest move.

As the coach was stationary, there was no legal requirement to wear a seatbelt at that time, sensible precaution though that might have been. Also possibly some people were in the process of getting off.

indeed, if the coach had been rear-ended while still moving, very little compensation would be claimable by those not wearing, but as soon as the coach had stopped, especially known breakdown, all bets & belts were off for comp claims, as pax would remove them for comfort/in order to get possessions from overhead/get air off the bus etc etc