Viola Beach

1246

Comments

  • butterworthbutterworth Posts: 17,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pete137 wrote: »
    Once the driver smashed through the first barrier and did'nt stop, then all theories of "mistake" or "misjudgement" arent really plausable. Its reported that the driver was the manager, no drink or drugs in his system, and by all accounts a normal, level headed guy. There is no way he would purposely smash through a crash barrier causing huge damage to a brand new rental car in his name and insurance (we assume) and then not stop.

    Unfortunately, I agree. The idea that he could have been knocked out by the first barrier is, I'm afraid, wishful nonsense. Barriers are designed specifically so that you know you've hit one, but they are not going to smash your windscreen and knock the driver out - They are much too lightweight for that.
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Whatever led them to drive through the first barrier, it's possible once they'd gone through it they believed they were on a bridge was was about to raise and needed to get over as soon as possible. In the dark and making a split second decision they may have mistakenly thought the 2nd barrier they could see ahead was the other side of the bridge.

    Ah yes, I see what you mean. That might explain it, assuming there was some other distraction leading up to that point.
  • solaresolare Posts: 11,579
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pete137 wrote: »
    Once the driver smashed through the first barrier and did'nt stop, then all theories of "mistake" or "misjudgement" arent really plausable.
    If he is unconscious from hitting the first barrier or the windscreen is completely shattered then it's highly plausible he would go through the second barrier without stopping.

    Even if the first barrier is lightweight, he still hit it at a high speed.

    Or it could be simply the shock of going through the first barrier prevented him from reacting quickly enough to the second. How far apart were the two barriers?
  • AnnieBakerAnnieBaker Posts: 4,266
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    solare wrote: »
    If he is unconscious from hitting the first barrier or the windscreen is completely shattered then it's highly plausible he would go through the second barrier without stopping.

    If you watch the CCTV footage, you see him slowing down as he moves towards the back of the queue. Then he decides to go past them to the left, again slowing down at one point while doing so. He then accelerates to smash through the barrier, which has a flashing light on it so must have been visible.

    The car then keeps on going at a high speed. If he was knocked out, wouldn't the car have veered sideways or slowed down, even slightly?
  • dylan99dylan99 Posts: 10,004
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    solare wrote: »
    If he is unconscious from hitting the first barrier or the windscreen is completely shattered then it's highly plausible he would go through the second barrier without stopping.
    johnny_t wrote: »
    Unfortunately, I agree. The idea that he could have been knocked out by the first barrier is, I'm afraid, wishful nonsense. Barriers are designed specifically so that you know you've hit one, but they are not going to smash your windscreen and knock the driver out - They are much too lightweight for that.

    Sorry solare, I have to agree with johnny on this. would maybe scratch the car, but not knock it's occupants unconscious.
  • butterworthbutterworth Posts: 17,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dylan99 wrote: »
    Sorry solare, I have to agree with johnny on this. would maybe scratch the car, but not knock it's occupants unconscious.

    Presumably these are the barriers in question...

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@59.1863873,17.6434602,3a,75y,179.64h,84.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD5kJmmn9xMn-gGbTIZg71w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

    I'm guessing (I know, I know) that the first set of barriers come down first, to hold the traffic, then the further down ones come down to show that they really mean it, before you get to the bridge. Either way, they have to be reasonably lightweight otherwise it would take too much torque to lift them. They are there to alert drivers, not to stop cars driven at them. Like traffic lights, with the added urgency of having something for you to hit.
  • stvn758stvn758 Posts: 19,656
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Anyone have the CCTV footage, looking at that Google Streetview I couldn't see any barriers, lights above the road which I assume turn red to warn cars.

    Bridge in Action

    Well now I am even more confused.
  • butterworthbutterworth Posts: 17,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stvn758 wrote: »
    Anyone have the CCTV footage, looking at that Google Streetview I couldn't see any barriers, lights above the road which I assume turn red to warn cars.

    Bridge in Action

    Well now I am even more confused.


    The bridge in question is not the one 'straight on' in that video - That is a more traditional lifting bridge (like Tower Bridge) that is on the minor road next to the motorway. The bridge where this accident happened is the one to the right of your video, where the whole roadway lifts up vertically, hence leaving a complete hole to fall down.
  • TobySTobyS Posts: 752
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    We'll never know what really happened, but I think the fact that he slowed down to manoeuvre onto the hard shoulder rules out a failure of the cruise control or that he was asleep at the wheel. It was, I suggest, a deliberate act to try to 'beat the bridge', (something that is apparently not uncommon in their home town).

    He, and the rest of the band were on a high from the gig and he was perhaps spurred on by the lads to 'live a little' and 'break the rules once in a while' and he made a spilt second decision to jump the queue. When he broke through the first barrier, (committing a criminal offence in a foreign country - and having a plane to catch a few hours later) he knew there was no going back and accelerated to clear the bridge, not realising the danger that awaited him. A stupid, stupid error of judgement.
  • BellaRosaBellaRosa Posts: 36,512
    Forum Member
    johnny_t wrote: »
    I believe it is because the airbags work off impacts around the bumpers, sides, etc., whereas this just sliced the roof off, in the first instance....

    :( I thought they just opened on impact.
  • BellaRosaBellaRosa Posts: 36,512
    Forum Member
    Electra wrote: »
    I don't think airbags would have made any difference, sadly.

    Reading through .. you are right.
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    In case anyone is still confused, the bridge is a vertical-lift bridge, explained here with some examples.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical-lift_bridge

    Quite possibly they assumed it was a bascule or swing bridge.
  • pete137pete137 Posts: 18,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    As the bridge was only raised a few feet when they hit it, the impact would be like driving at high speed straight into a concrete wall. With none of them wearing seat belts you can only imagine how bad it must have been. A few feet higher up and they would have missed the bridge completely and just driven straight off the edge and into the river. Obviously, still very bad but it might have given them a slim chance of survival, however remote. As it was, they died on impact.
  • asyousayasyousay Posts: 38,838
    Forum Member
    pete137 wrote: »
    As the bridge was only raised a few feet when they hit it, the impact would be like driving at high speed straight into a concrete wall. With none of them wearing seat belts you can only imagine how bad it must have been. A few feet higher up and they would have missed the bridge completely and just driven straight off the edge and into the river. Obviously, still very bad but it might have given them a slim chance of survival, however remote. As it was, they died on impact.

    One of the men in the back didn't die on impact and was thrown around and died of internal injuries because he was bending forward so the barrier didn't him full force.
  • pete137pete137 Posts: 18,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    TobyS wrote: »
    We'll never know what really happened, but I think the fact that he slowed down to manoeuvre onto the hard shoulder rules out a failure of the cruise control or that he was asleep at the wheel. It was, I suggest, a deliberate act to try to 'beat the bridge', (something that is apparently not uncommon in their home town).

    He, and the rest of the band were on a high from the gig and he was perhaps spurred on by the lads to 'live a little' and 'break the rules once in a while' and he made a spilt second decision to jump the queue. When he broke through the first barrier, (committing a criminal offence in a foreign country - and having a plane to catch a few hours later) he knew there was no going back and accelerated to clear the bridge, not realising the danger that awaited him. A stupid, stupid error of judgement.



    I just cant see that theory at all. The manager who was, apparently, driving was in a brand new, expensive rented car in his name which he was due to return to the hire company just a few hours later. I just cant see him smashing through a crash barrier causing a lot of damage to the car, just as an act of "bravado". As you say, this is a criminal act which would have to be explained to both police and the hire company, and you would know you wouldnt get away with it as you would assume cameras catching your number plate. You also knew you had just passed many other vehicles who were queuing up to cross and who would be witnesses.

    The barrier was already down before they got there, so there was never any notion that they would ever "beat the bridge". I just cannot believe someone of sound mind, would purposely smash through a crash barrier, and then just carry on and smash through a second one just because they were egged on. No one is that stupid.
  • pete137pete137 Posts: 18,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    asyousay wrote: »
    One of the men in the back didn't die on impact and was thrown around and died of internal injuries because he was bending toward so the barrier didn't him full force.

    Well that might mean he literally lived a few seconds before he died, but either way it was the impact which killed him as the impact lead to the internal bleeding, which is basically what I meant by saying they died "instantly". We may never know though.
  • asyousayasyousay Posts: 38,838
    Forum Member
    pete137 wrote: »
    I just cant see that theory at all. The manager who was, apparently, driving was in a brand new, expensive rented car in his name which he was due to return to the hire company just a few hours later. I just cant see him smashing through a crash barrier causing a lot of damage to the car, just as an act of "bravado". As you say, this is a criminal act which would have to be explained to both police and the hire company, and you would know you wouldnt get away with it as you would assume cameras catching your number plate. You also knew you had just passed many other vehicles who were queuing up to cross and who would be witnesses.

    The barrier was already down before they got there, so there was never any notion that they would ever "beat the bridge". I just cannot believe someone of sound mind, would purposely smash through a crash barrier, and then just carry on and smash through a second one just because they were egged on. No one is that stupid.


    Not only that the band was just starting to do well for themselves so surely they would not risk getting arrested or anything stupid on the first tour away from the UK?!
  • pete137pete137 Posts: 18,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    asyousay wrote: »
    Not only that the band was just starting to do well for themselves so surely they would not risk getting arrested or anything stupid on the first tour away from the UK?!

    Yes I agree. It just doesnt ring true that anyone would do that.
  • AnnieBakerAnnieBaker Posts: 4,266
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    pete137 wrote: »
    Yes I agree. It just doesnt ring true that anyone would do that.

    Nothing else fits though. It is clear from the CCTV that he meant to drive through the barrier.
  • SaddlerSteveSaddlerSteve Posts: 4,325
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    solare wrote: »
    If he is unconscious from hitting the first barrier or the windscreen is completely shattered then it's highly plausible he would go through the second barrier without stopping.

    Even if the first barrier is lightweight, he still hit it at a high speed.

    Or it could be simply the shock of going through the first barrier prevented him from reacting quickly enough to the second. How far apart were the two barriers?

    From one of the newspaper reports it said the 1st barrier is 130m from the raised section and the 2nd barrier 30m so it's 100m between the barriers.

    That's why I think that going through the first barrier has happened by accident for some reason and then the driver has mistakenly thought they are already on the section which is about to raise so has carried on thinking the 2nd barrier is the opposite side and safety. Remember this was 2am in the morning.

    The raised section doesn't look like it has any lights on that would be seen in the dark, probably because they think the 2 barriers before it should stop cars getting that far.
  • pete137pete137 Posts: 18,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AnnieBaker wrote: »
    Nothing else fits though. It is clear from the CCTV that he meant to drive through the barrier.

    Hard as it is to believe, the driver committing suicide is just as plausable as the notion that someone of sound mind would smash through crash barriers and not stop.
  • evie71evie71 Posts: 1,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    pete137 wrote: »
    Hard as it is to believe, the driver committing suicide is just as plausable as the notion that someone of sound mind would smash through crash barriers and not stop.

    Yes. It is crystal clear that he did crash through those barriers purposely, there was no hesitation and that's the sticking point.
  • bri160356bri160356 Posts: 5,147
    Forum Member
    In case anyone is still confused, the bridge is a vertical-lift bridge, explained here with some examples.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical-lift_bridge

    Quite possibly they assumed it was a bascule or swing bridge.

    It’s actually a ‘Table Bridge’ as opposed to a ‘Vertical Lift Bridge’; i.e. it’s pushed upwards from beneath with hydraulic pillars as opposed to being pulled upwards from above. Not that this technicality has much bearing on the tragic incident though.

    The bridge was still on its way up when they went through the 4 or 5 foot gap and sliced the roof off the car.

    A few minutes later, when the bridge was at its full height, they would have probably just hurtled out into space and either landed straight in the canal or possibly hit the deck of transiting oil tanker;….either scenario would no doubt have proved fatal from that height.

    The red & yellow safety barriers look 'reasonably' substantial;…the 1st barrier is approx 130m from the bridge,…the 2nd barrier is approx 30m from the bridge.

    I guess it’s not inconceivable that the driver was stunned/incapacitated by the first barrier impact and the cars’ momentum carried them through the second barrier and thence into the canal.

    The eye-witness lorry driver said the first barrier was cracked in two by the impact and the car simply carried on, unabated.

    Maybe the car driver, believing the queue to be very much longer than it actually was, had accelerated quickly along the narrow inside lane in a severely misguided attempt to ‘jump the queue’ but was unaware of the close proximity of the first barrier which took him completely by surprise;

    …who knows. :(
  • LaVieEnRoseLaVieEnRose Posts: 12,836
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bri160356 wrote: »
    It’s actually a ‘Table Bridge’ as opposed to a ‘Vertical Lift Bridge’; i.e. it’s pushed upwards from beneath with hydraulic pillars as opposed to being pulled upwards from above. Not that this technicality has much bearing on the tragic incident though.

    Ah yes, I see you're right.
    Wikipedia wrongly includes this bridge in the examples of vertical lift bridges, but as you say the distinction doesn't make any difference here.
  • RandomSallyRandomSally Posts: 7,068
    Forum Member
    From one of the newspaper reports it said the 1st barrier is 130m from the raised section and the 2nd barrier 30m so it's 100m between the barriers.

    That's why I think that going through the first barrier has happened by accident for some reason and then the driver has mistakenly thought they are already on the section which is about to raise so has carried on thinking the 2nd barrier is the opposite side and safety. Remember this was 2am in the morning.

    The raised section doesn't look like it has any lights on that would be seen in the dark, probably because they think the 2 barriers before it should stop cars getting that far.
    I think this is the most logical possibility.
    Unfortunately I doubt we'll ever know for sure and the driver will be labelled by a lot of people as having done it deliberately.
Sign In or Register to comment.