Monday 7 November 2011

M5 Crash

The horrific scenes of the pile up on the M5 motorway are truly shocking. Of course we need to understand how the accident happened, but probably more important we need to be clear as to why fires started. Cars generally don't catch fire in accidents, but if petrol is leaking and either a metal on metal spark, or the electrics of a car ignites it, then there is little that can be done. But I think that hydraulic fluids are to blame too often.

I am absolutely sure I read some years ago, that the standard for such fluids was changed and a more flammable fluid was brought into use. The brake master cylinder on many cars of course, is near the exhaust manifold. I cannot find anything to substantiate this though at present.

Currently, the police are concentrating on the theory that a firework display a few hundred yards away from the motorway caused a cloud of smoke so dense that it obscured the view of the drivers and caused the accident. Presumably, the dense cloud was fairly localised as the other carriageway didn't have a similar accident at the same time, 'caused by the smoke'. I have never seen a 'firework display' cause enveloping clouds of smoke even at a big show and in the immediate vicinity, let alone some distance away, over some trees and then down an embankment.

I realise the police tend to be steered by the sensation seeking media, which includes the BBC very much in the advance guard these days, but it might be nice if they phrased it that they were considering and investigating the possibility, rather than help the press ramp up half-witted ideas.

Talking of half-wits, it is truly disgusting to see the usual crowd pop up and try to get accidents such as this to support their political ideas. This crash we are assured,. would have been worse had the 80 mph limit been in force. Naturally, there is no explanation as to why this would be the case. It is like the complete non story a few weeks ago showing a Ford Focus crashing into a wall at 120mph. The car was absolutely demolished and the point made that many ordinary cars of capable of close to such speeds these days.

Thing is, very few people drive cars of any description at such speeds except the odd lunatic and criminals trying to avoid taking responsibility for their crimes. And I don't think any of these also drive into very solid objects at 120mph. Even they are tempted to reduce their speed by braking, even if they do ultimately crash.

This is the same type of cant that underwrites the 'speed kills' twaddle. We are shown pictures of kids mown down by drivers doing 40 where the 'limit' is 30. At 40 mph we are told the child will die, at 30 she could have lived. Back in the real world drivers brake, so the speed isn't 40 at impact and no reference is made to why the child is in the road. Children do unexpected things, so we should be ready for the unexpected, they say.

Whilst true, you do need to base that on something. If you are near a school, only a moron doesn't watch out for kids (though still a moron, some of course will be watching their speedometer rather than the road, so as not to break mandatory speed limits). Personally, I try to drive to the prevailing conditions rather than slavishly match the constant exhortations on sign posts, this however involves thinking for yourself, which I believe may have been outlawed recently.

Speed doesn't kill, disparity of speed does. Quite often accidents are caused by drivers panic braking when they enter a patch of fog, for instance. The car behind is not so challenged by the appearance of fog and may slow down but not drastically. This is where he meets the much slower, panicked driver. If these two don't crash, the wave of progressive braking behind them probably will result in a crash. But as we don't appear to teach people to drive any more, just obey rules, this sort of thing is more likely to occur.

The loss of life on the M5 is what is important. To try to minimise the likelihood of it happening again should be our goal. But with the prospect of cameras attracting some ambitious policeman's attention and a need for  drama heightened, we are more likely to get guesswork and supposition. Any dedicated professional trying to properly understand what happened is likely to be told he is taking too long and costing too much money. A result is needed while Sky News are still focussed on the story.

No comments:

Post a Comment