Bonfire night

[GROWLER]

Notwithstanding the actual tragedy, the daft reporting is irritating.
"More than 34 vehicles involved"
I assume that means 35.
If they are unsure of the number, why not just say "at least 35".

As for it being caused by the bonfire, I seem to recall it is illegal to have a fire where smoke is likely to blow across a main road.

Health and safety will have a feast with the rugby club.

...and rightly so.
I'm no H&S fan at all, quite the opposite in fact,  but basic common sense procedures are a must where folks lives are possibly being put in great danger.

DS is correct in the fact that a fire with its inherent smoke, started deliberately for whatever reason near a motorway is both grossly irresponsible and  illegal...iirc.
Absolute friggin' madness, and it doesn't take a nuclear rocket scientist to work it out either ffs!

I was reading on Sky News earlier that some local firework supplier has refused to organise and run a display at that very same club in the past, simply because of his concerns with regard to its close proximity to the motorway.
Says it all really imo.

[apc2010]

Oban community fireworks fiasco

A technical hitch saw all the fireworks at Oban Community Firework display on November 4 2011 released with in a minute. Should have been over half an hours worth 

Have witnessed the same ..........best 2 minutes of fireworks ever .........

[Nick]

Scottish ginger mongs 

[GROWLER]

Notwithstanding the actual tragedy, the daft reporting is irritating.
"More than 34 vehicles involved"
I assume that means 35.
If they are unsure of the number, why not just say "at least 35".

As for it being caused by the bonfire, I seem to recall it is illegal to have a fire where smoke is likely to blow across a main road.

Health and safety will have a feast with the rugby club.

IIRC, the Act use to say within 70' of the centre of the highway, so it's highly likely they wouldn't be contravening that particular law

Nor aware or privvy to the exact distances involved regarding the law.
Just shouldn't be within 5 miles imo.

Is that a mere 70 FEET that you are quoting there btw JOM?

[Miss Demeanour]

Notwithstanding the actual tragedy, the daft reporting is irritating.
"More than 34 vehicles involved"
I assume that means 35.
If they are unsure of the number, why not just say "at least 35".

As for it being caused by the bonfire, I seem to recall it is illegal to have a fire where smoke is likely to blow across a main road.

Health and safety will have a feast with the rugby club.

...and rightly so.
I'm no H&S fan at all, quite the opposite in fact,  but basic common sense procedures are a must where folks lives are possibly being put in great danger.

DS is correct in the fact that a fire with its inherent smoke, started deliberately for whatever reason near a motorway is both grossly irresponsible and  illegal...iirc.
Absolute friggin' madness, and it doesn't take a nuclear rocket scientist to work it out either ffs!

I was reading on Sky News earlier that some local firework supplier has refused to organise and run a display at that very same club in the past, simply because of his concerns with regard to its close proximity to the motorway.
Says it all really imo.

It may well have been a contributing factor but no one really knows yet and it may be that we may never know. The need to find a scape goat quickly in these situations is typical.

The weather had been appalling - I spoke to my brother on the night who gets off at that junction and had left it about half an hour prior to the accident and he said the conditions on the road were atrocious.

It could have been some distractions from the fireworks , smoke from bonfire , weather , idiotic driving in poor conditions, who knows yet. Lets not jump to conclusions.

[Pirate]

Or a deer...

[GROWLER]

I'm sure it was a contributing factor as there was 'a localised fog/whatever' in that area.
Bit of a strange coincidence, but as you rightly hint, we are not judge and jury.

The rest will be down to the ususal human element unfortunately.
BAD driving, ie, driving too close to the vehicle in front.

[bodiam]

No matter whether smoke, fog, rain or snow, people don't drive to the conditions. As Growler said, too fast, too close to the car in front, foreign drivers who just pull out to overtake a vehicle going 1mph faster( i am not bitter).
Witnesses have said there was bad weather in the area and cars were still doing crazy speeds....it's not rocket science.

[bodiam]

just noticed my posts were up to double Nelson. Best get off that number 

[Just One More]

Notwithstanding the actual tragedy, the daft reporting is irritating.
"More than 34 vehicles involved"
I assume that means 35.
If they are unsure of the number, why not just say "at least 35".

As for it being caused by the bonfire, I seem to recall it is illegal to have a fire where smoke is likely to blow across a main road.

Health and safety will have a feast with the rugby club.

IIRC, the Act use to say within 70' of the centre of the highway, so it's highly likely they wouldn't be contravening that particular law

You are bound to be right. I knew there was something about it.

Nothing there about 70', however Section 161a says

[F1161A Danger or annoyance caused by fires lit otherwise than on highways.

(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.]

I suspect the 70' distance is hidden somewhere in case law

[Grumpmeister]

Scottish ginger mongs 

So you've never had an accident with fireworks before? 

[Nick]

I did set fire to a lawn once 

[GROWLER]

I did set fire to a lawn once 

Funnily enough, so did I, but it was a bbq that caused it, and I was actually pissed out of me crust at the time, not that that had any bearing on it like.

[Grumpmeister]

I did set fire to a lawn once 

Your's or is it another in the long list of places you are banned from going near again.