tommytwotanks

M5 crash deaths: Geoffrey Counsell trial to start Monday




Seven people died and 51 were injured in the pile-up involving 34 vehicles
The organiser of a fireworks display held on the night of a fatal pile-up on the M5 motorway will go on trial on Monday.
Geoffrey Counsell, 51, from Ashill, Somerset, was operating the display in a field close to the motorway, at Taunton Rugby Club.
Seven people died in the pile-up on 4 November 2011.
Mr Counsell, who denies failing to ensure the safety of others, will face a jury at Bristol Crown Court.
Lorry drivers Terry Brice, from Patchway, South Gloucestershire, and Kye Thomas, from Gunnislake, Cornwall, died in the crash.
Father and daughter Michael and Maggie Barton, from Windsor, Berkshire; grandparents Anthony and Pamela Adams, from Newport, south Wales; and battle re-enactor Malcolm Beacham, from Woolavington, near Bridgwater, also died.

Karl 3dr

iTrader: (9)

Pretty harsh to be putting him on trial imo, the standard of peoples driving on the motorways is shocking at the best of times, I'd be more inclined to be looking at the truck drivers myself, wasn't the weather really bad as well that night?

mercury grey minter

Yes I agree.If he started the display and the wind changed would that not be an act of god,same as a tree falling on you when driving down the road.
If the conditions on the motorway were affected by the display then the drivers should of reacted( slowed down).
Can't see him being found guilty,although in this country nothing surprises me.

I read somewhere that when there is a shuttle launch in America ,there are numerous accidents with people driving past and looking up but nasa don't get prosecuted.

rog

iTrader: (2)

Glad to see there are others on here with the same viewpoint as me. Obviously if I had a friend or family member involved I'd most likely feel differently.
I know it wasn't fog that cause the accident, but surely the circumstances dictated that the drivers should've slowed down as would've been the case in bad weather conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets sent down.

Karl 3dr

iTrader: (9)

Exactly mate, sounds like they're trying to make a scapegoat out of him to me.

Karl 3dr

iTrader: (9)

Was it the smoke from the display that they are saying was to blame or that the fireworks distracted people?

Either way, I'm sure it was an organized event which had been known about for months previously so if anyone thought it was going to be a problem they would have had plenty of time to act on it? Very harsh imo

rog

iTrader: (2)

Apparently reduced visibility was the cause of the crash and pile up, caused by the smoke. I guess we'll never really know the real facts.

mercury grey minter

It was the smoke from the bonfire drifting across the carriageway.
If was fog causing the same accident they wouldn't be blaming anyone.
Deaths on roads are sad but you can't blame the bloke in charge of the fire.

rhinopower

You've only got to look at the massive accident on the sheppey bridge caused by the fog the other month. If there was a similar level of smoke which is entirely possible to be the cause.

Not that the cause is in question, that is one bit they are certain of, its wether Geoffrey Counsell is at fault or not.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

typical scape goat who will probably go down and get a harsh sentance to "set an example"

The highway code says plenty about slowing down in poor visibility.

I blame the drivers who if they had driven in accordance with the road traffic act and highway code would have been able to stop in the distance they could see to be clear.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

So who do they put on trial when it gets foggy?

Ridiculous waste of public money, this trial. But of course, that doesn't surprise me with this country.....

rog

iTrader: (2)

Exactly.
I think the scale of the accident was the driving (no pun intended) force. Had it been a couple of cars nothing would've been in the media and likely no trial. It's sad but it's not like he had the flippin' display in the motorway.

xr2wishy

iTrader: (2)

it's a bit of a scape goat thing, but equally there was a big bonfire set next to a motorway and lots of fireworks. it is a shame, but at the same time none of his actions helped the situation either.
what is expected to be the punishment if found guilty? what ever it is won;t bring any one back and i'm bloody certain he has been suffering mentally since the event and possible responsibility for reducing safety for the drivers on the road.
as said, if it was your sister or brother in the accident, who would you be blaming?

Karl 3dr

iTrader: (9)

Sometimes shit happens and no one is to blame though, as tragic as the outcome of it was.

Glenn_

iTrader: (1)

Why didnt the drivers slow down when they drove into the smoke.

The Youth.

iTrader: (1)

They did Glenn that why they crashed!
Some slowed down more than others!

Drive down a road at 60 mph then close your eyes until you come to a halt that's what it would have been like for them..
Go on try it and you will understand why driving into a bit of smoke suddenly became zero visibility!

Steve

PAUL S

iTrader: (8)

Obviously the guy did not do it on purpose.

Whether it was sensible to have a big bonfire close to a busy motorway is another matter though, regardless of whether fog was also a factor.

I was driving down the M4 a few days ago and a house backing onto it was having a small bonfire in the garden, it started to rain and the smoke as a result from even that small fire was distracting as it wafted across as you tend to have tunnel vision on motorways and things like that catch your eye.

Very sad event for all concerned.

xr2wishy

iTrader: (2)

pretty much spot on, the smoke drifted over quite quickly and very thick.
even though we live in a health and safety environment, sometimes people really don't think of possible dangers of their actions.
it's daft in a way, but makes people stop and check. it's not as if it was well lit and could be seen before the danger hit, he has some responsibility at the end of the day, what that amounts to is anyones guess.
if he was to set a massive rocket off and go off target and take out a lorry driver causing a pile up, would he be guilt free, or responsible for picking a location near to potential hazard.

i'm on the fence as to his punishment.

the mk1 kid

In an interview one of the drivers involved in the accident said, and this is as close to the words as I can remember:

''We were driving along and the car in front vanished, as if into a black hole. I said to my husband - that car just vanished, and a moment later we hit it/ other vehicles''.

I don't think it was responsible to have a large display and bonfire so close to the motorway and in my mind it was a plain and simple visibility issue at a time when the motorway was already busy, and conditions unfavourable.

It probably cost millions, and ruined many, many lives - so shouldn't someone get prosecuted?

Tom

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

And that is exactly what happens with very early morning fog when you descend down a hill into a valley, you just hit a bank of fog with zero visibility. Sure it may have been too late for that driver to brake suddenly as people ahead had already crashed due to someone doing the right thing and slowing, yet the mongaloid behind them didnt slow hence bang and the first collision occured.

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

Its a little different though, as in the fog scenario you would kind of expect it, weather conditions being what they are, and you would see it around and take the necessary action.
I think where you are right in these cases, the accidents happen and the people involved are stupid, because all the signs were there and they did not take the correct action which could have avoided it.

Being on a motorway on a clear night, in good weather, cars would be travelling at speed, you certainly wouldnt expect visability to just suddenly dissapear, so nobody would have taken the necessary driving action, IE slow down, fog lights on, apply far more braking distance.

I think in this case nobody expected the smoke,as you wouldnt, so nobody could have avoided it. and lets be honest, Having a firework display and bonfire right on a motorway is just plain stupid!

the mk1 kid

I agree with some of what you've said Warren, but the M5 is flat as a pancake on that stretch, and although there was some light fog about, the witness report (to me) suggests the smoke created a complete black out.

As said above, it shouldn't of been there.

Tom

rog

iTrader: (2)

I still can't comprehend how smoke can just "appear" on a motorway though, it's not like there are blind corners, so surely you would've seen it well in advance? I guess we can speculate about this all day.

Not to be taken in bad taste, but I think it's easy for people involved and relatives of the deceased to try and blame the smoke rather than accept they should've adjusted their speed. I would probably be siding with them if I was in the same boat admittedly.
Moral dilemma here, but if you killed/injured someone in that accident by not slowing down an you knew you colud've, would you admit it or go with the smoke theory and hope you don't get found out? Not saying it's like that for all, but I have seen the way some dicks drive down there.

the mk1 kid

When driving at night you can only see objects illuminated by your lights (obviously), or other street lighting.

In this case, there were no street/motorway lamps, so the cars were following the tail lights of the vehicles ahead, and when these vanished, the witness said, probably at 60 mph+, 'that car just vanished', and moments later hit it! The drivers wouldn't have seen the smoke ahead - certainly not at night.

It isn't at all uncommon to be travelling along a B road around here and come across a stream of bonfire smoke across the road. These small domestic fires make the car stink, but don't do much to effect your visibility too much, but this can't be said for a massive commercial display. They smoke they generate is something else!

Tom

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

At night smoke is not clearly visable though.
Even if they did see it, there would be no real option but to head into it, once in there its really only a matter of time untill the inevitable happened. I bet the drivers couldnt even see the road markings to guide them through, horible thought really

the mk1 kid

Exactly. You wouldn't see an animal (let along smoke, which absorbs light) on the road beyond the reach of your dipped beam, which is what..?

Tom

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

fog isnt clearly visible at night either. And as said fog was around so drivers should have had raised attention.

The fact that several motorists DID slow says it all. Some people choose to be sensible but those immediately behind did not, causing the initial crash, with others piling in behind.

Karl 3dr

iTrader: (9)

But as I said above, it would have taken some organizing so surely if anyone thought it was going to be a problem, i.e Highways agency, police etc, they wouldn't have allowed it to go ahead. There are lots of things at the side of motorways that potentially shouldn't be there, old truck trailers with advertising on the side of them in a field for instance, or these new electronic billboards that car dealers have started using which are properly distracting because they're so bright and constantly changing, if there was a crash near one of them, should the people who put it there go on trial? Different scale I know but a similar thing really.

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

yeah i dont know if they took the correct action, maybe they didnt, and thats maybe why they are being charged for it.

I think you are right though, certainly should have had the go ahead from a few people, and if that is the case and all agreed it was ok, then they should be blaming themselves really.

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

The drivers got it spot on though didnt they? there was no fog? so the judgement they all made about the weather conditions was spot on.
They could have had Micheal Fish in the car with them and even he couldnt predict someone having a fire on the hard shoulder

The ones that did slow down had probably hit the smoke, as i said once your in there its only a matter of time untill an accident happens. For all we know the first crash may have been a driver hitting the crash barrier because he couldnt see, sadly we will never know.

xr2wishy

iTrader: (2)

remember it wasn't the fire as much as the smoke from the fireworks held at a rugby club staged event.
all bad news which ever way you look at it.

zetecbeast

It was smoke from the display. I remember seeing video of it minutes before the crash (that someone had recorded) and it was literally like a motorway blackout... Solid smoke cloud across the M5. There was no chance to avoid crashing for many involved although if they had all slowed down significantly well before entering the cloud some lives may have been saved.

Karl 3dr

iTrader: (9)

Then again, we don't know the facts, maybe he had been advised to do this and that but then chose not to, in which case it changes things and the finger of blame does point at him if that's the case, I suppose it'll come out in the trial

rog

iTrader: (2)

Not trying to simplify things here, or maybe I am, but people saying they were following tail lights is just odd to me. I drive looking at the road and my own surroundings, not solely based on where joe public in front is going or how fast he is going. If I can't see I slow down. General rule of common sense applies, can't see, slow down, obviously some didn't. The very fact he's in court is that it was man made hazard rather than fog.

I would say to sum this up that smoke was a factor, not the cause, which was poor driving. But then you can't have one without the other, so who's right?

STAFFY OWNER

I'm fairly sure that it came out that he had got permission from all of the relevant authorities so surely if he is facing prosecution then so should they. If anyone thought the location was going to cause problems then permission would have been denied.
IMO he shouldn't be facing prosecution, it was just an accident caused by various things that couldn't have been controlled by 1 individual.

the mk1 kid

We follow 'tail lights' on a dark motorway whether we like it or not - there isn't much else visible beside a bit or tarmac and a barrier.

I'm not suggesting that is the only think we pay attention to, but when they get brighter we lift off/brake or at least cover the pedal.

What other factor is more important than the rear of the vehicle in front - oncoming traffic isn't; there are no traffic lights or crossing; there are no 'sharp bends' on a motorway....??

Weather and traffic are 'factors' - a man-made smoke screen shouldn't be classed as one in my humble opinion.


You're right, and if it is determined the smoke caused the accident I also agree the authorities which granted permission for the display should share blame.

Tom

rog

iTrader: (2)

Respectfully I don't agree, but I can see your point.
Its more the wording of the quote I was having a go at, to me it implied they were just relying on the car in front, then did feck all when it "disappeared". If you take that in the literal sense then they are clearly at fault.

The problem is you have to class smoke as a factor, if you don't class it as anything then it won't count, and it obviously does. Good point above regarding the appropriate approvals. I hope this is correct.

the mk1 kid

When someone pulls out in front of you, or stamps on the brakes you don't have to think, you just react - it comes naturally and it instinctive.

When the witness described their impact into the back of the pile up she left me with the impression that the moment the lights vanished she said 'that car just disappeared...' then 'bang' just a brief moment later.

Cars don't normally vanish, and although in their case she perhaps could of avoided the accident by braking immediately, she was at the back, and vehicles had already hit the barrier/each other, or stopped when they couldn't see road ahead.

The first vehicles into the smoke screen must of reacted differently to each other, and it only takes one to brake hard and others behind, perhaps conscious of those travelling behind them, not to and the pile-up begins.

It will be interesting to hear the outcome, and I hope whatever it is the friends and families of those killed or injured get some closure.

Tom

opposite lock

iTrader: (3)

Thats how I see it , The first few entered the smoke suddenly and with not wanting to slam the brakes on for traffic behind , then the others coming did the same ( and not seeing anything in front due to smoke didnt think intially about vehicles in front even knowing they must be somewhere in front then BANG.
The thought of it makes me cringe its just nasty thing to happen RIP to the 7 people.

the mk1 kid

Updates every half hour or so from the court for those interested in the trial:

http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.u...l_Crown_Court/

Tom