Coach Crash

[D306]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6976710.stm

Coach overturns in motorway crash

The coach crashed at a service station on the southbound M1

A coach has overturned at an M1 service area in Buckinghamshire leaving at least five people seriously injured.
The National Express bus, going from Birmingham to Stansted, clipped a kerb and rolled entering Newport Pagnell services at 1600 BST, police said.

At least 36 people have suffered less serious injuries, a spokeswoman for the South Central Ambulance service said. The driver was cut from the wreckage.

Thames Valley Police said the area is being treated as a major crime scene.



A Highways Agency Spokesman said there were no plans to close the M1.



The coach hit a lamppost and a tree as it overturned, a spokesman for Welcome Break, who operate the motorway service area, said.

Initial first aid had been given to casualties by staff members, he added.

A spokesman for Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, who have been working to release the driver, said the coach appeared to have been the only vehicle involved in the crash.

Road and air ambulances are on the scene and casualties are being taken to two hospitals, Milton Keynes and John Radcliffe in Oxford.

An air ambulance has transported one casualty to hospital.

In a statement, National Express said the coach was the 777 service travelling from Birmingham to Stansted, with 33 passengers on board.

The coach left Birmingham at 1400BST to Luton Airport and was to arrive at Stansted Airport at 1755 BST and had recently stopped at Coventry.

Satellite image of the site.

 

[westcoaster]

787/777 does not stop there, so why was it going in there?
is the mkcoachway closed for the redevelopment is all i can think off.

 

[Mojo]

The driver was arrested for drink driving. A woman on the radio said that the driver was swerving over the road shortly before the accident. He might have gone in the services because of this.

Investigations continue.

 

[Jim]

Not another one

 

[Lewisham2221]

Depending on situations regarding driving hours, NatEx services may make otherwise unscheduled stops for driver breaks.

Whilst it is possible that the driver was drink driving, one must remember that it is all too easy to blame (and in some peoples eyes almost the only thing to blame) the driver for such incidents. It is equally as possible that the coach developed a fault and was entering the services in order to investigate/rectify the situation when the accident occured - given reports of the coach swerving over the road shortly before the accident, a puncture could be such a fault that would have similar consequences.

Given that this is another NatEx accident receiving fairly prominent media coverage (featuring at least on BBC News UK front page) and being treated by police as a major crime scene, it just shows that (IMO) roads receive pretty equal media coverage as rail when it comes to accidents given the potential disruption and number of casualties attributed to the accident (coach crashes and major multi vehicle pile-ups causing wider disruption and having higher casualty numbers than a single idiotic driver and his [often] equally idiotic passenger(s) who flip a car whilst driving dangerously, causing little disruption and having a much lower number of casualties).

 

[VTDan]

I hope they don't employ drivers like that when they take over the east coast!
Was the first crash due to drink driving? I can't remember.

 

[djw1981]

I assume they will take over the current GNEr drives, few of whom seem to swerve all over the place, and most of whom seem to have nice smooth driving acceleration and braking, which is more than can be said for unit drivers up here in Scotland - especially the Diesels...

 

[VTDan]

Yeah they sure will. I think GNER beat any other TOC by far in most aspects of the company such as customer service, reliability, punctuality etc. I know looking at the figures they probably arent, however i have had no problems with them.

Are you referring to ScotRail? and/or Virgin?

 

[djw1981]

Both... there does seem to be a traction issue though, with electric units and GNER 91's and Pendo's being smoother IMHO than diesel units. Admittedly the GNER HST's are quite smooth, as are most 170's. The 156's, 158's and Voyagers are more jerky, but this could be due to the traction and motors as much as the driver training.

 

[Mojo]

I don't think it's recieved as much media attention. It's been about the second or third story on radio news and has only made a few front pages.

Other passenger train derailments or accidents have been highlighted much more.

 

[VTDan]

Both... there does seem to be a traction issue though, with electric units and GNER 91's and Pendo's being smoother IMHO than diesel units. Admittedly the GNER HST's are quite smooth, as are most 170's. The 156's, 158's and Voyagers are more jerky, but this could be due to the traction and motors as much as the driver training.

Although when the 91's are going they are very smooth, however if the 91 is pushing it can be very jerky, even more so than the 220's. The 220s are dreadful they just have a quick motion rock from side to side. The 221s are smoother even where there isn't tilt but still you can hear the clanging of the wheels etc. unlike a 390 and 91.

>>>The NatEx coaches are probably smoother than the 156s<<<There we go, keeping on topic.

 

[djw1981]

In most rail accidents, people die. no one died in this case. Just think of teh natEx coach crash at Heathrow/M4 at new year. It received lots of coverage but didn;t block a major transport artery, as the Grayrigg crash did. The M4 crash also was not an infrastructure or organisational failure.

 

[mbonwick]

All I'm going to say is: 2 crashes in 3 months gives IMHO a reason for avoiding NatEx coaches, regardless of the cause of the accident.

 

[VTDan]

Mate! I couldn't agree more. 1 maybe...but 2, starts to get worrying.

 

[westcoaster]

wasn't the first one in jan!

 

[VTDan]

Whenever it was, there were fatalities and i think even two in a year is enough!

 

[westcoaster]

i agree but that is a tad execive, how many spads have there been but ppl still use the railway's , how many car crash's but ppl still drive.

 

[Max]

i agree but that is a tad execive, how many spads have there been but ppl still use the railway's, how many car crash's but ppl still drive.

Mod cap on - Can we please cut out all the text speak, and attempt to spell words correctly please? It's starting to get a tad annoying.

Mod cap off

 

[Mojo]

I also suggest this is looked at

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

 

[VTDan]

i agree but that is a tad execive, how many spads have there been but ppl still use the railway's , how many car crash's but ppl still drive.

There is not that many train crashes and when they are they're rarely down to the driver. The last thing you expect when you board public transport is for you driver to have been drinking. You would not get away with it in Train Driving. There shouldn't be any but the obvious differences.

 

[ChrisCooper]

You would get away with it in train driving, just as easily, it's a matter of being caught. There have even been airline pilots who have flown or tried to fly planes whilst drunk. You can't breath test all drivers, and you can't stop them having a drink after being tested. I'm very sure that the vast majority of drivers would not dream of drinking before or whilst at work, infact whilst I don't personally know any train drivers, all bus drivers I know are either none drinkers or very light drinkers (very moderate alcohol consumption when there is enough time for it to be out of their system before driving). Transport companies in general tend to have a zero tollerance approach to alcohol, not even accepting levels below the legal limit.

 

[VTDan]

Mate, obviously it's all about getting caught and its a very very high chance you will if you have had anything whilst in a Virgin Trains uniform.

I was trying to say if you had been drinking and the 'littlest' thing goes/went wrong you are immediately investigated. So apart from the obvious if anything keeps kicking in and a member of staff notice 'abnormal' driving or behaviour they report you. They're told to. On coaches this doesn't happen.

There i'll say it again, around 98% of the time, you would NOT get away with it in train operating.
People have tried, miserably failed and lost their job. Everyone is different you'd be incredibly surprised i think at how different all train drivers are. However this does not mean any of them would try it as the risks are way too high.

 

[D306]

Todays paper (MK News) has 6 pages about the coach crash. The Citizen (Thursday) should have an in depth report, and I can read it, while i'm delivering papers.

 

[VTDan]

Oh aren't you the lucky paper boy!

 

[nutter]

I hope they don't employ drivers like that when they take over the east coast!
Was the first crash due to drink driving? I can't remember.

The first crash was due to faulty maintenance and exessive speed on a tight corner (it was a double decker, much easier to topple over). Nice to see my employers acted promptly (welcome break).

It looks like the driver did need a break, i think the drivers need a break every 2hrs 30 mins, and he was upto 2hrs, and if the tachometer gets ckecked (it always does) and it's found the driver is over their time limit (minus serious congestion where the driver must stop at the ealiest oppurtunity) then the company/driver could face a serious fine, and i think the drivers are un-insured after this time limit too, so thats having uninsured drivers too, not good for a company like NEx

 

[westcoaster]

The first crash was due to faulty maintenance and exessive speed on a tight corner (it was a double decker, much easier to topple over). Nice to see my employers acted promptly (welcome break).

It looks like the driver did need a break, i think the drivers need a break every 2hrs 30 mins, and he was upto 2hrs, and if the tachometer gets ckecked (it always does) and it's found the driver is over their time limit (minus serious congestion where the driver must stop at the ealiest oppurtunity) then the company/driver could face a serious fine, and i think the drivers are un-insured after this time limit too, so thats having uninsured drivers too, not good for a company like NEx

mk coachway it next stop was only three miles away, and this is also a rest point for them, as there was a cafe and is natex offices there. so as i said before its strange he went in the services.

 

[Jim]

One thing I hate the most is drivers that drive double deckers TOO fast

 

[Guinness]

Oh aren't you the lucky paper boy!

I delivered the Daily Sport daily, so I'm more lucky, when I did my paper round years ago.

 

[Tom B]

PSV drivers should do a maximum of 4h 30m driving then a 45m break.

I would be more concerned about the maintenance of local buses - a large company like National Express is going to take better care of their vehicles than Dave's Independent, yet both carry passengers and can be dangerous if not looked after.

 

[66526]

Whilst on the issue of train drivers. Apparently one of my Dads mates went on holiday and when he was there had a splif. Got back home and got randomly medi screened 3 months later. Traces of marojhana were discovered and he lost his job. TBH I have had a couple of problkems with bus drivers, couple on the ped where I have been forced right over to the curb and I have to put MY brakes on to avoid being crushed by a bus being driven by an asshloe driver who obviously doesn't see the value of any human life other than his own. Spose thats what happens when you get cocky due to driving a thing bigger than you all the time. Don't think he'd behave the same way to a lorry though...