lorry vs 211

[glojo]

Whew!!!
I've been doing a bit of Googling and it transpires the camera was in a News car that was filming traffic in the Melbourne Domain Tunnel. There had been a recent terrible fatal accident and this crew were after a story.

This is where it starts going 'grey' There are suggestions that this was a genuine accident, and there are other suggestions that this crew rigged the crash for an excellent story!

I will merrely say the chances of a TV crew being in the right place, at the right time must be extremely remote, but that does not rule out an accident.

Here is a link and here is an extract:

Tonight we speak to the Melbourne truck driver out to prove that it was a Channel Nine crew that caused a near fatal crash between his truck and a Mercedes in the Domain Tunnel.

Was the truck driver innocent? I cannot see how he can be as he actually changed lanes and tapped the Mercedes. If it was an accident then both parties must have had no prior knowledge, and the truck driver made a simple error. The car driver appears to be a stooge, so if they are then is it only fair to assume the truck driver was also involved?

I tried trawling through all the banal comments on the YouTube thread but thirty pages was enough torture for one day.

I am still not convinced either way, but I am also more confused

Regards
John the confused

 

[Dieselman]

I will merrely say the chances of a TV crew being in the right place, at the right time must be extremely remote, but that does not rule out an accident.

Here is a link and here is an extract:

Tonight we speak to the Melbourne truck driver out to prove that it was a Channel Nine crew that caused a near fatal crash between his truck and a Mercedes in the Domain Tunnel.

Was the truck driver innocent? I cannot see how he can be as he actually changed lanes and tapped the Mercedes.

The camera crew probably had been trawling for days and expected to gain some footage of speeding vehicles and near misses. They struck lucky.

As far as being a near fatal accident how do they work that out. It was a typical gentle sideswipe and not one was injusred or likely to be.
Even a lightweight car can sideswipe a heavier car as all it does is knock the rear out slightly, then the other car can't recover.

Both vehicles moved into the middle lane and it would be more correct for the lorry to move back into lane than the car who was moving to overtake.

I don't see anything to make me suspicious.
You mentioned the car driver maybe wearing a helmet. I can't see that and the wheels are just rotating under friction.

 

[television]

The first thing that I noticed was that the car wheels are still going round, now this could not happen in real life

 

[Dryce]

I will merrely say the chances of a TV crew being in the right place, at the right time must be extremely remote, but that does not rule out an accident.

Well I can recall a UK newperson doing an interview about contraflow safety and in the background - screech, bang, tinkle.

So it's unusual. Which is why it has drawn comment.

 

[television]

and the wheels are just rotating under friction.

Any one hit like that would have their foot on the brake I feel

 

[Dieselman]

Any one hit like that would have their foot on the brake I feel

I think they would be seriously shocked and even if they did the EBD wouldn't allow the wheels to lock.

Strangely it's the coming unstuck from the front of the lorry causes the damage as the car then ploughs into the central barrier and careers off.

 

[Dryce]

The first thing that I noticed was that the car wheels are still going round, now this could not happen in real life

I noticed it too and decided it was interesting rather than impossible.

 

[BlackC55]

The 211 has it's brake lights on.

 

[glojo]

I am not saying one thing or the other but I still have several points that need answering and yes it is possible that this news car was plain 'lucky' to record this event and something like that happens perhaps once per year. The previous occasion was what probably encouraged the crew to be there and that happened a year prior to this incident.

It has been suggested the truck driver did not know any incident had occurred, such was the power of his vehicle?

Okay I accept the possibility??? Why then did he indicated to change lanes, then when he hit the car he decided to return back to his original lane?

I have had numerous encounters with TV, radio and news journalists and to a person they are all dedicated to getting a story. If I was shot, then I would expect the camera to be rammed into my face to try to capture my life ebbing away, and whilst this was happening, I would expect an interviewer to try to get an exclusive, headline grabbing quote or story. Show me one cameras person or journalist that would drive away from any headline grabbing event and I will show you a liar. This camera car was from a local news station doing a feature story, they filmed this 'crash' and could quite safely have slowed at a safe speed and remained just in front of the truck getting great footage and of course if someone had been seriously injured they could have filmed them bleeding to death!!!!

Yes this m,ight be an unfortunate incident filmed by a TV crew but there are questions I need answering.

So far I have found a couple of posts that claim the station is under investigation and are accused of rigging this event, but so far I have failed to get any confirmation.

Ollie has commented about the 211's brake lights being on, and it does look like it but the wheels are definitely rotating, but our brakes are perfectly capable of locking the wheels. ALL vehicles should have their lights on whilst travelling through this tunnel, and those rear lights MIGHT be the standard lights, but are the front lights switched on?? I have seen better quality footage and cannot make up my mind. The truck does not appear to have any lights on which is a no, no, but not the end of the World.

PLEASE do not think I am being argumentative, I am NOT. I do have an open mind, I do accept this might be an accident and it is just a remarkable coincidence that at the exact time, at the exact spot, this news vehicle and crew were in the right place at the right time, with their camera rolling. The truck driver might have indicated to change lanes, did not realise he had hit anything and just decided to nip back into the offside lane because he felt like it.

I have known news crews to do all sorts of illegal, crazy things just to get a story and their not stopping is extremely strange and I doubt anyone here will convince me otherwise. How many photographers drove by Princess Diana as she was dying? How many photographers offered first aid, comfort, or even phoned for an ambulance? Their behaviour was typical and certainly not out of character for their profession.

Quitting before rant mode cuts in



John the doubter

 

[television]

PLEASE do not think I am being argumentative, I am NOT. I do have an open mind, I do accept this might be

John the doubter

I do not think that, and niether do many others here, a lot of factual points have been raised by the jury, and it is starting to get interesting once the digging starts. I do not take part in many of this type of threads as I am scared of being told that I post too much again, carry on the good work

 

[glojo]

Well I can recall a UK newperson doing an interview about contraflow safety and in the background - screech, bang, tinkle.

So it's unusual. Which is why it has drawn comment.

I accept your very valid point, but what your describing is quite a common event, It is called rubber necking. Drivers looking at an incident instead of looking where they are going. If you look at any of the fly on the wall documentaries you will regularly see this type of incident and yes we will sometimes see a car being involved in an accident, but if we said to you, 'Patrol the Dartmouth Tunnel and film a truck crashing into a car!" How long do you think it would take to record such an event? We only have a short tunnel down here and this type of incident has never happened and to deploy a full crew to film this non event might be extremely expensive and not the best use of resources. I say this because the news company claim the car was deployed to do just that.

This was a car being in exactly the right spot, and exactly in front of the right vehicle. This tunnel is an extremely busy road and what would the chances be of your car being exactly in front of a lorry that had an accident? Not three or four cars in front, or one car behind; but exactly in front of both the lorry and of course the Mercedes?

John

 

[Dave Lewis]

As an ex-HGV owner driver, I agree with BIGjoe's appraisal of this. I've seen many bizarre accidents, brought about by bizarre combinations of circumstance. I reckon the truck driver was looking in his mirror too much, making sure he's cleared the car behind him in the middle lane, and the merc has simultaneously moved into his blind spot. Frankly, even if he had seen the merc, he is already committed to the manoevre, and yanking the steering wheel on a fully-loaded artic in a tunnel to take evasive action is not a smart thing to do.
My verdict: genuine accident (both drivers should have double checked though), and a lucky film crew.

 

[glojo]

My verdict: genuine accident (both drivers should have double checked though), and a lucky film crew.

Hi Dave,
I am an ex class 1 HGV driver but I have never collected a car in that manner and have no idea how much effort would be needed to move such an object.

As an aside as an ex tug of war type person, in my youth I would be quite confident about pulling along a tractor unit, but my cocky grin would quickly disappear if I were tasked to pull sideways a Smart car. I am not convinced that truck driver did not know he was pushing that car and surely the truck would require more energy to maintain its momentum? The screeching tyres were more than extremely loud, they were frightening.

I have read numerous posts regarding this incident and have not found a post that describes the truck, its size or load. I have found a couple of posts that claim it was a flat-bed (not an artic) but nothing definite nor can I find out if it were loaded or unloaded although numerous posts make some startling claims about its weight, but nothing definite, yet we constanatly read outlandish claims about its weight.

What baffles me is the truck driver indicates their intention to leave the offside lane, they then pull across, collect the car and then pull back into the offside lane. Yet the driver claims they never saw, nor knew the car was there, they did not know the car was there even though we could all hear the tyres screeching and most important the truck pulled back into that offside lane! Why? Why pull back if it had no reason to?

Regarding the news crew being lucky then lets put that into perspective.

It is not unknown for trucks to shed tyres when travelling along our motorways, although it is suggested this event is not as common now, as it was, But......... compared to a truck collecting a car in the manner we witnessed, then shedding tyres is still very common....... How many of us have been directly behind a lorry as it sheds a tyre? Not on the opposite carriageway, but directly behind the lorry as it sheds this tyre? Then to put this in perspective, how many of us have filmed this disaster which is far more common than what this news crew filmed? But yes it is a possibility. Has anyone ever witnessed a similar event such as that shown on that video? It is not an event confined to the Melbourne Tunnel. This could have happened anywhere, at anytime, but by crikey it would take some doing.

Finally there is still the issue of the news crew leaving the story half told. This is indeed something well within my experience (I have suffered by being harrassed by vultures) and there is no way I have ever known a journalist to walk away from a headline grabbing story without a fight. This crew were evidently charged with recording a 'similar' incident yet when they accidentally film the very act, they drive away without getting the ending. Not only did they fail to get the ending they also failed to contact the emergency services, (which I would not expect this type to do anyway) they simply saw this dreadful event, heard the horrendous screeching of tyres, and then just drove away from the headline grabbing story they were tasked to record? Is this the actions of investigative journalists?

Sorry to ramble on but it just does not add up. Two plus two should always be an easy sum to add up.

Regards
John the curious

 

[Dave Lewis]

Sorry to ramble on but it just does not add up. Two plus two should always be an easy sum to add up.

Regards
John the curious

A lot of the peripheral stuff doesn't add up John, I agree, but the incident itself would be impossible to stage spontaneously on an open road, surely?

 

[timskemp]

Just an observation - the E class didn't have its lights on - bit silly really.

 

[nick mercedes]

I have read numerous posts regarding this incident and have not found a post that describes the truck, its size or load. I have found a couple of posts that claim it was a flat-bed (not an artic) but nothing definite nor can I find out if it were loaded or unloaded although numerous posts make some startling claims about its weight, but nothing definite, yet we constanatly read outlandish claims about its weight.

It's one of these:

http://www.hankstruckpictures.com/pix/trucks/martin_phippard/truck_trailers/file0067.jpg

http://image60.webshots.com/460/1/53/27/2243153270042438436QlAzdl_fs.jpg

Possibly more than enough momentum to pick up errent 211s and not even realise...

(Freightliner a brand of Mercedes, so big Merc vs smaller Merc)

 

[glojo]

A lot of the peripheral stuff doesn't add up John, I agree, but the incident itself would be impossible to stage spontaneously on an open road, surely?

Hi Dave,
I totally 100% agree and to add to that, what kind of car driver would volunteer to expose themselves to such a huge risk? I genuinely have doubts about this saga but my questions will not go away.

I was also thinking about the spontaneity and this is purely speculation on my part, it has not been suggested by anyone, not here, not on any of the sites I have visited, it is just something I am throwing into the pot.

The truck driver puts on his nearside indicator which will be seen by the E-class. My theory is that indication then alerts the car driver that the truck is about to commence this 'alleged manoeuvre' If you look at he footage the truck only gives the car a gentle nudge and then the truck alters course back to its original lane. Why??? My personal thought is that the truck indication signalled to both the E-class and the film crew that the manoeuvre was about to commence. Neither the truck, nor the car had the required lighting but this would make the flashing indicator even more visible!

I note that Nick has nominated a freight train type combination as being responsible and yes it might have been, it might have been just about anything. It might even have been fully loaded. BUT....... are freight trains allowed in City Centres and are they allowed to travel at 80kph?

I have watched triple axled trailers being turned in their own space and the stress put on the road surface is horrendous. It is not unknown for an empty trailer to rip the tarmac surface from a road, such is the friction of the tyres being dragged sideways. If you put an artic tractor unit broadside with its front bumper resting against the wheels of just a tandem axled trailer, then put it into its highest gear that is capable of allowing the unit to move, then I would very respectfully suggest the truck would stall! Of course the unit could easily pull, or push the trailer. If we connected the unit, it would easily turn this trailer, but to put the vehicle up against the side of the trailer against the two axles and then try to push it sideways will take tremendous effort.

This truck was travelling at 80kph when it collected the car so it did not require that initial push to get it moving, BUT this truck will be in the highest gear possible for the conditions and the instant that Mercedes rested broadside against the front bumper there will definitely be enormous forces coming into play. Look at how the wheels of the car are bending! Listen to the horrendous screeching noise! To suggest the truck driver never heard this is simply unacceptable. The news car is travelling away from the scene, it is some distance from the truck but even though all the car windows are closed we can still hear that horrible noise. To be in that tunnel and have the Mercedes directly underneath us will be deafening. The noise will re vertebrate throughout that tunnel, yet folks ask me to accept the lorry driver knew nothing. That burning rubber smoke is a horrible acrid pong and surely the truck will suck in copious amounts of this thick tyre smoke?

Does anyone have any idea how the Mercedes braking systems, stability systems and traction control systems will react to this trauma? I accept it would be unlikely for any air bags to detonate, but how do we explain the rotating wheels? Obviously friction will rotate them, but an innocent driver who is looking directly at squashed flies on the front of a blooming great big truck will surely do something?

Enough of my waffle and please accept this post as me airing my thoughts and NOT being argumentative. I accept the truck might have trailers, I even accept it still might be an artic. I even accept it might be fully laden, but equally I accept it might be an unladen, flat bed.

certainly an interesting topic.

How many of our members commute daily on a busy motorway? How many have seen this exact type incident happen in their rear view mirror?

Regards to one and all
John the very curious

 

[Dieselman]

The news car is travelling away from the scene, it is some distance from the truck but even though all the car windows are closed we can still hear that horrible noise. To be in that tunnel and have the Mercedes directly underneath us will be deafening. The noise will re vertebrate throughout that tunnel, yet folks ask me to accept the lorry driver knew nothing. That burning rubber smoke is a horrible acrid pong and surely the truck will suck in copious amounts of this thick tyre smoke?

Does anyone have any idea how the Mercedes braking systems, stability systems and traction control systems will react to this trauma? I accept it would be unlikely for any air bags to detonate, but how do we explain the rotating wheels?

The screeching tyres would make a real noise but it can be hard to tell where that is coming from in an enclosed tunnel and the smoke is going behind the moving lorry so probably can't be smelt at all by the driver.

The EBD will stop the wheels locking if any one wheel is still rotating. The rear wheels do actually stop for a while but the fronts keep going so the rears release again.

I know someone who collected a car on the front of an artic and he only felt a slight nudge and had to look down over the front of the lorry to see it at all.
When he braked the car came unstuck and ploughed into the central reservation barrier then back across the carriageway and up the pavement due to the wheels continuing to rotate whilst stuck on.

The car had performed an undertake manouver whilst the lorry was drawing in from an outside lane where lanes merged.

The nudge manouver is commonly used by US police to stop cars and 4x4. It really doesn't take much.

Is this one a setup.? It says not, just investigating other reportings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLUqZC_B7Q&feature=related

 

[glojo]

The nudge manoeuvre is commonly used by US police to stop cars and 4x4. It really doesn't take much.

I agree about that nudge manoeuvre but by crikey I have yet to see one where the vehicle gets very skilfully balanced across the front of the 'nudger' that would indeed take skill. What usually\always happens is exactly what you have kindly described; the sliding car goes anywhere, or everywhere.

John

 

[glojo]

The screeching tyres would make a real noise but it can be hard to tell where that is coming from in an enclosed tunnel and the smoke is going behind the moving lorry so probably can't be smelt at all by the driver.

The EBD will stop the wheels locking if any one wheel is still rotating. The rear wheels do actually stop for a while but the fronts keep going so the rears release again.

I know someone who collected a car on the front of an artic and he only felt a slight nudge and had to look down over the front of the lorry to see it at all.
When he braked the car came unstuck and ploughed into the central reservation barrier then back across the carriageway and up the pavement due to the wheels continuing to rotate whilst stuck on.

The car had performed an undertake manouver whilst the lorry was drawing in from an outside lane where lanes merged.

The nudge manouver is commonly used by US police to stop cars and 4x4. It really doesn't take much.

Is this one a setup.? It says not, just investigating other reportings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLUqZC_B7Q&feature=related

This one was not set-up either

(Keeping it Mercedes themed)