Three Irish Army trucks involved in crash on M50

Run_to_da_hills

Just got word that the the Irish Army was involved in crash on North Bound M50 which is closed at the Balymun Junction. Apparently 3 trucks were involved with some injuries. I think it is rediculous to have all the Irish army travelling together in one convoy and Im sure travelling in the back of these trucks are anything but safe in a collision. North bound M50 is closed while Gardai investigate.

6th

How does it make a difference if there is some relation between several vehicals travelling in a row? I presume they we regular trucks and not armored, so whats the problem? No more dangerous than alot of others on the orad.

Niall1234

You don't think that having them not travel in convoy would reduce the possibility of a pileup involving a lot of the trucks ?

I'm guessing that these trucks don't have seat belts or anything of the sort ?

Run_to_da_hills

6th wrote: »

How does it make a difference if there is some relation between several vehicals travelling in a row? I presume they we regular trucks and not armored, so whats the problem? No more dangerous than alot of others on the orad.

The seating positions in these trucks are anything but safe, they are not like sitting in a coach. ie you are sitting on benches each side of the truck with no proper neck or back protection in sudden impact. I am not sure if they even have safety belts.

Gregor Samsa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think it is rediculous to have all the Irish army travelling together in one convoy

Hilarious :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Im sure travelling in the back of these trucks are anything but safe in a collision.

Wasn't there a similar incident last year where soldiers were injured while travelling in the back of a truck? I remember hearing that they were exempt from seat belt laws, and that after that incident they were going to review how troops were transported.

bazz26

Here is the story:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhojmhgbeyey/

yop

how much will the compo claims be out of this

prendy

how much will the compo claims be out of this

probably huge!:rolleyes:

it would be funny if it wasnt so stupid...they always travel way to close together anyway.ejjits!

Wertz

Well if they can't negotiate the M50 without incident, it's just as well we won't be going to a real warzone anytime soon...

King Ludvig

There no problem with military vechicals travelling in convoy IMO, it just means they're travelling one behind the other as is every car on the roads. The distance in with they travell behind eachother however is important.

Just to point out, drivers of Army vechicals hold a military driving liecence, which they must complete course to aquire. Mightent be relevant but just wanted to share.

Taken from [url]www.military.ie:[/url]

At approx. 10.50 am this morning two military trucks in a convoy of nine military vehicles were involved in a traffic accident, involving at least one civilian vehicle, on the northbound carriageway of the M50 near the Ballymun exit. Initial reports indicate 30 members of the Defence Forces are injured (19 with minor cuts and bruises, 1 with suspected broken leg, 1 with suspected broken collar bone and 9 with suspected spinal/neck injuries). Emergency services are at the scene and the injured are being taken to Beaumont Hospital by ambulances and military vehicles.

The troops were part of a nine vehicle convoy that departed Cathal Brugha Barracks this morning with 75 personnel for an exercise in the Cooley Mountains, Co Louth. The troops are part of a Potential Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) course from the 2 Eastern Brigade Training Centre, Cathal Brugha Barracks.

Niall1234

While travelling in convoy doesn't raise the risk of an accident, wouldn't it mean greater risk of people dying if there was an accident as an accident would likely involve a number of trucks ?

rednik

For security and practical reasons (breakdowns etc) is why the army travel in convoy. How many accidents can you recall ionvolving military convoys. The army/military drivers are excellent,safe and competent drivers. Accidents happen and as regards the closeness of the vehicles, they do not travel too close together just like any other group travelling together.

colm_mcm

braking distances for trucks are very long, I've seen many army convoys where they all travel closely together. closer than a car should be to another car.

6th

Niall1234 wrote: »

While travelling in convoy doesn't raise the risk of an accident, wouldn't it mean greater risk of people dying if there was an accident as an accident would likely involve a number of trucks ?

So how do we police a policy of x amount of trucks per mile of road?

peasant

colm_mcm wrote: »

braking distances for trucks are very long,

Incorrect.

An empty truck can brake to standstill in a shorter distance than most ordinary cars and even a fully loaded one has a similar braking distance to a car.

Run_to_da_hills

Why cant the army use busses? Busses are specifically designed for carrying passengers while trucks are not. Having a gang of lads in the back of a truck may look good in a WW2 movie but it is not safe on a public road in 2008. Surely CIE could donate some of their old busses.

Niall1234

Willie O'Dea has come out saying that a knee jerk reaction regarding soldier transport would be over the top and called todays happening "An Act of God"

How come the transport minister never says this when we unfortunately have a bad weekend when it comes to road deaths.

Rowley Birkin QC

Whats to say some idiot private motorist didn't cause the pileup? Very quick to rush to conclusions here.

I almost joined the cadets in 2002 and from what I say of the army they are highly professional. The service depot in the Collins Barracks in Cork is a sight to behold for any mechanic or weekend warrior. Also the sports facilities there rival anything I've seen in this country.

So let's wait and see whose fault it was before jumping the gun.

Niall1234

bigkev49 wrote: »

Whats to say some idiot private motorist didn't cause the pileup? Very quick to rush to conclusions here.

I almost joined the cadets in 2002 and from what I say of the army they are highly professional. The service depot in the Collins Barracks in Cork is a sight to behold for any mechanic or weekend warrior. Also the sports facilities there rival anything I've seen in this country.

So let's wait and see whose fault it was before jumping the gun.

I don't think anyone is blaming the army drivers yet for the accident. Merely pointing out operational and safety follies with those trucks.

astraboy

I've travelled in these trucks in RDF training in the Glen and on camp many times. Trucks are used as the large merc trucks are best for carrying troops and equipment as well as going on rough terrain or on rough roads. Busses simply cannot negotiate the same roads and are too unweildy for the usage the army puts its trucks through. There are no seatbelts in the back though, which is an issue in a crash. Plus you are sitting sideways, not forwards.

boomer_ie

peasant wrote: »

Incorrect.

An empty truck can brake to standstill in a shorter distance than most ordinary cars and even a fully loaded one has a similar braking distance to a car.

Can they heck!

I would like to see your evidence for this considering trucks are HEAVIER!

I can remember someone saying to me once (a truck driver) "I wish people would realise that just because we have bigger tyres does not mean we can stop faster than a car"

peasant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWwK0eClp6Y

sorry, in German ...but I think you get the message

boomer_ie

peasant wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWwK0eClp6Y

sorry, in German ...but I think you get the message

Im actually stunned, that flies in the face of all physics that a heavier object can stop in the same distance as a lighter object? and what I can remember seeing in some publication ones (ROTR I think) illustrating stopping distances.

E92

Trucks would presumably have much bigger brakes(than cars).

Bigger cars do, so that way they can pull up as fast as a smaller car.

No contradiction of the laws of physics there:)!

boomer_ie

E92 wrote: »

Trucks would presumably have much bigger brakes(than cars).

Bigger cars do, so that way they can pull up as fast as a smaller car.

No contradiction of the laws of physics there:)!

Bigger brakes means nothing, I suspect in that video that the small van was not being braked as hard as it could be, my source for stopping distances is:

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/truck_braking.htm

Scroll down to the end.

peasant

Heavy weight + bigger tyres = more friction.

More friction + bigger brakes = small breaking distance

Voodu Child

peasant wrote: »

Heavy weight + bigger tyres = more friction.

More friction + bigger brakes = small breaking distance

You're completely incorrect in your assertion that a trucks stopping distance is the same as that of a car.

wet-paint

Plus at least two more breaking wheels than the van, counting the trailer wheels.

D_murph

Wertz wrote: »

Well if they can't negotiate the M50 without incident, it's just as well we won't be going to a real warzone anytime soon...

peasant

voodoo_child wrote: »

You're completely incorrect in your assertion that a trucks stopping distance is the same as that of a car.

Not only is it (roughly) the same as a car, it still is so, when the truck is fully loaded.

That is a new truck with good brakes though ...watch the video.

Neilw

The van has 4 tyres with fairly small contact area's.

The truck has 12 tyres with large contact area's, abs and in that clip was prob unladen so it should stop fairly quickly....it would be very different carrying 40tonnes in the back, much longer stopping distance.

Neil.