Ouch! A1 Newark... Hire Motorhome destroyed. (Nobody seriously hurt as far as I know).

[Jev88]

Not my photos.....

 

[Ivory55]

Wonder what happened, I heard that the road was shut. Now know why.

 

[Geo]

Must'v reversed extremely hard into that lorry

 

[FIDGET]

 

[Phil 748]

Hi looks like just before the turn off for Brownhills at the A46/A17, All ways getting tail backs there getting off the A1

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[WillH]

Looks like a hired van, "Just Go".

 

[DuxDeluxe]

Looks like it was well and truly smacked up the backside Looking at the back of it and the smashed HGV windscreen. Hope no serious injuries

 

[Spawn_e_git]

Concerning how much the rear chassis has moved looking at the angle of the rear wheels

 

[Ivory55]

Hi looks like just before the turn off for Brownhills at the A46/A17, All ways getting tail backs there getting off the A1

That’s a short slip road which you have to brake for the sharp turn up hill. The volume of traffic now to when it was built is a lot more.

 

[DerryW]

Good news no injuries. Hope they took out the insurance waiver when hiring

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[cmcardle75]

That’s a short slip road which you have to brake for the sharp turn up hill. The volume of traffic now to when it was built is a lot more.

Sounds like the A303/A34 interchange. They should reduce the throughline on the A303 to one lane to give joining traffic a fighting chance. Entry is a very tight bend, steeply uphill, with little more than 50m merge zone with A303 traffic bombing through at 80mph.

 

[cmcardle75]

Concerning how much the rear chassis has moved looking at the angle of the rear wheels

Not sure I'd described it as "moved", the rear of the chassis has completely snapped off. This accident could have been so much worse. If it had been a car, it would likely been fatal, I'd think.

 

[dryad]

Good news no injuries. Hope they took out the insurance waiver when hiring

how the heck no injuries! they had a guardian angel travelling with them then, so very lucky in that respect..

.

 

[g3cwi]

Blimey. It could be a few hours late for the next hirer while they fix it!

 

[2x2camper]

Sounds like the A303/A34 interchange. They should reduce the throughline on the A303 to one lane to give joining traffic a fighting chance. Entry is a very tight bend, steeply uphill, with little more than 50m merge zone with A303 traffic bombing through at 80mph.

In which case they should do something about the speed on the A303

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coastal Cruiser.]

Don’t think that’s going to buff out

Hopefully no injuries.

 

[Boringfrog]

Rear of the van has acted like a huge crumple zone, very lucky to walk away without injury.

 

[cmcardle75]

In which case they should do something about the speed on the A303

It's better to engineer the road to handle speed safely. This could be easily done by dropping a lane on entry to the junction and gaining one as the traffic merges. This also has the benefit of allowing a much longer decelleration for leaving traffic. Unfortunately, widening to allow more room would require lots of bridge engineering, whilst the other solution involves a pot of paint and some signs.

The are actually two on-ramps westbound at this junction. The second one isn't nearly so tight and is not space constrained by the bridge, so that can continue to merge on as normal. The eastbound on-ramp is even shorter than the west, but the turn is less tight and downhill, so you've got a better chance of getting some speed.

 

[snailtrailer]

That must have been terrifying!

 

[bigwood]

The A1 is notorious for short slip roads causing rear shunts and side swipes come onto the A1.
I have seen people trying to exit at 70 like you would on a motorway and running out of slip road . If you brake early you run the risk of being shunted. This may not be the case with this accident and I hope every one is ok.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2x2camper]

It's better to engineer the road to handle speed safely. This could be easily done by dropping a lane on entry to the junction and gaining one as the traffic merges. This also has the benefit of allowing a much longer decelleration for leaving traffic. Unfortunately, widening to allow more room would require lots of bridge engineering, whilst the other solution involves a pot of paint and some signs.

The are actually two on-ramps westbound at this junction. The second one isn't nearly so tight and is not space constrained by the bridge, so that can continue to merge on as normal. The eastbound on-ramp is even shorter than the west, but the turn is less tight and downhill, so you've got a better chance of getting some speed.

Whats wrong with just reducing the speed limit if the current one is dangerous?

 

[glenn2926]

Whats wrong with just reducing the speed limit if the current one is dangerous?

What you’re suggesting then is because one vehicle/driver cannot use the road correctly then every other vehicle that managed to use that section of road correctly has to suffer reduced speed limits therefore longer journey times. I would rather just see the problem driver dealt with appropriately than everyone else having to change.

 

[cmcardle75]

Whats wrong with just reducing the speed limit if the current one is dangerous?

The problem is unintended consequences. Some possible ones of this solution would be

* longer journeys with less stimulation, leading to fatigue and further accidents (the A1 can already take all day to drive along, sticking a 50mph on it would make it very long and boring, leading to people falling asleep at the wheel who are otherwise well rested)

* increasing the spread of different speeds mixing lower speed traffic with speeding vehicles now at a greater delta. The speeders will stay at 90mph, making it more dangerous mixing with 50mph traffic than 70mph traffic

* displacement of traffic onto even less well engineered roads with a higher speed limit. If the A1 is slower than 'A' or 'B' single carriageway roads which have a much worse safety record, this could increase the death count overall.

In general, the country has instead opted for improving engineering standards, both of vehicles and roads, which is why the death count is such a small fraction of what it used to be, despite massively more traffic. However, there are still some unimproved D2 roads with poor at-grade or tight junction designs left to be upgraded. We notice them far more as we have got used to improved design. There are very few centre turnings left on these types of roads that turn across multiple lanes of traffic. There are exceptionally few A3 roads with non-priority centre lanes (I can only think of one, just west of Minehead). Both of these dangerous designs used to be commonplace.

 

[CWH]

Whats wrong with just reducing the speed limit if the current one is dangerous?

Cos nobody would take any notice.

 

[TheBig1]

When you see that amount of damage, you immediately think somebody must of died. I know from bitter experience that even a 30mph collision could be deadly. I was hit behind in a small car derived pickup, hit by an old ford fiesta, which failed to brake going round a bend outside a school. I was helped out with what appeared minor injuries, but was three fractures in my spine

This has not made me a nervous driver, but I am always alert, watching the road ahead and my mirrors. Out today driving up a dual carriageway and witnessed a car nearly crushed when the idiot driving an hgv in the inside lane just hit his indicator and immediately pulled out. If the woman in the car had not been alert and braked hard, she would have been squashed into the central steel barrier

Life is precious and can be wiped out in an instant by bad driving

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Silver-Fox]

A303 traffic bombing through at 80mph.

on a dual carriageway?

 

[gus-lopez]

This could be easily done by dropping a lane on entry to the junction and gaining one as the traffic merges.

But they had that on the M25 & at every exit losing a lane traffic came to a complete stop then back up to 80mph then another complete stop. That only works if you have multiple lanes in each direction far in excess of existing traffic capacity.

on a dual carriageway?

Unless signed lower 70 is the limit which in reality would be 80

 

[cmcardle75]

But they had that on the M25 & at every exit losing a lane traffic came to a complete stop then back up to 80mph then another complete stop. That only works if you have multiple lanes in each direction far in excess of existing traffic capacity.

However, they've done exactly this quite successfully on the A329(M). The mainline is D2M, but drops to D1M after the M4 slips and picks them up again 750m down the line. The aim wasn't to improve merging safety (although it has this side effect), but to reduce backing up of the M4 to A329(M) traffic onto L1 of M4.

It does seem to have worked. (I was very sceptical and I'm sure there will be differing opinions even now!)

The key is the traffic volumes and what they do. Sometimes, removing the lane at a junction actually improves flow, especially at major divergent junctions, as the flow within the junction is much lower and the subsequent merge much easier without all the weaving. My worry with the A303/A34 is that some of the divergence happens earlier at the M3/A303 interchange, so there is a greater than would be expected mainline traffic volume at the A303/A34.

 

[Vipar]

Don’t argue with a 40 ton lorry they always win. Hope all were ok

 

[Silver-Fox]

Unless signed lower 70 is the limit which in reality would be 80

Yes I know the speed limit for a non restricted vehicle so they shouldn’t be doing 80

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}