6 replies to this topic

[sid101]

Hey, first post, been a lurker for a few years.

Just been watching BBC news, seems they have it if for fireworks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...merset-15623499

I really can't see how a display that size's smoke could blind a whole motorway and cause such a loss of life?
The BBC seemed to harp on about how the firework industry is unregulated and suggested it was dangerous!

Anyone have any thoughts?

SiD

[Vic]

Hey, first post, been a lurker for a few years.Just been watching BBC news, seems they have it if for fireworks.http://www.bbc.co.uk...merset-15623499I really can't see how a display that size's smoke could blind a whole motorway and cause such a loss of life?The BBC seemed to harp on about how the firework industry is unregulated and suggested it was dangerous!Anyone have any thoughts?SiD

M5 crash: experts doubt fireworks smoke theory

[Mortartube]

On the radio news today, it said that the display had ended 10 minutes prior to the crash, but the bonfire smoke may be a factor.

[pjalchemist]

There is a law in regards to the distance of a bonfire distance to a motorway!

The company i work i for does not allow a display within 1 mile of a motorway

[crystal palace fireworks]

There is a law in regards to the distance of a bonfire distance to a motorway!

The company i work i for does not allow a display within 1 mile of a motorway

Section 161A of the Highways Act 1980; -
[F1161A Danger or annoyance caused by fires lit otherwise than on highways.E+W+S+N.I.
(1)If a person—

(a)lights a fire on any land not forming part of a highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway; or

(b)directs or permits a fire to be lit on any such land,

and in consequence a user of any highway which consists of or comprises a carriageway is injured, interrupted or endangered by, or by smoke from, that fire or any other fire caused by that fire, that person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(2)In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove—

(a)that at the time the fire was lit he was satisfied on reasonable grounds that it was unlikely that users of any highway consisting of or comprising a carriageway would be injured, interrupted or endangered by, or by smoke from, that fire or any other fire caused by that fire; and

(b)either—

(i)that both before and after the fire was lit he did all he reasonably could to prevent users of any such highway from being so injured, interrupted or endangered, or

(ii)that he had a reasonable excuse for not doing so.]

[whoof]

http://gu.com/p/3372c

Says there was no bonfire.
Saw one comment though where a co had refused to do a display a couple of years ago on safety grounds.
Best to wait for the police findings , the speed lobby are already getting in on the act.

I have driven through smoke from a vehicle fire on the M40 before and even a small amount can be very unnerving

Did the survivors smell smoke before the accident ?
Could have been a sudden bit of rolling fog.

Edited by whoof, 08 November 2011 - 01:11 PM.

[BrightStar]

Having often driven down this bit of the M5 it's a bit of an unpredictable road. I've encountered sudden rain squalls and localised dense fog that's scary enough on it's own.

The risk assesments in writing should have included the motorway and the weather. Hopefully the organisers have a good paper trail in place.

The witnesses though described 'black smoke' not white so I doubt it was the fireworks alone. Perhaps a combination of rare circumstances leading to a chain of events... Unfortunately that's the usual cause of a tragedy.

Edited by BrightStar, 09 November 2011 - 01:27 PM.