M5 fireworks

Not sure where I stand on this one?

Absolutely tragic but surely a genuine “accident”? Or should he of went to prison? Tricky one.

Responsible in law, clearly not.

Should he feel responsible? How can he not.

Reads to me like he had a fair trial.

Or should he of went to prison?

I’m not sure he’s the one who should be going to prison?

50/50 him and the drivers IMO..
If you can’t see slow down

Or should he have gone to prison?

FTFY.

Not sure what you mean by “genuine accident”. Did he deliberately make smoke drift over the motoroway with the intention of causing the crash? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean he can’t be at fault or responsible.

But then the drivers who ploughed into the back of other vehicles should have slowed down when they saw the smoke up ahead. To have found the organiser guilty could have had the effect of saying “If you can’t see where you’re going then just put your foot down because it’s not your fault if you hit something”.

I’m not sure he’s the one who should be going to prison?

Not sure who you mean Al?

If you can’t see slow down

I thought that it happened almost instantaneously? Described as paint been thrown across the windscreen.

Sounds like a fair trial. I suspect that Risk Assessment forms for his fireworks displays will now include likelihood of fog, but as the judge said – the case was based on hindsight not negligence.

Not nice that its happened but lots of people could learn from it to prevent it happening again – even when theres not fireworks.

natural selection at work really.

bit like the fog on the bridge down south as well ….

if you cant see slow the **** down.

infact – just slow the **** down could be applied to most folk most of the time….

50/50 him and the drivers IMO..
If you can’t see slow down

they ran into a ‘wall of smoke’ – they had no opportunity to slow down and no warning.

wwaswas – if that was the case – id be asking “do your lights and eyes and windscreen work?” it didnt just appear – yes it was infront of them – beyond their bonnets at a guess .. but given most people only look where their bonnet ends im not at all surprised they were shocked when it appeared like a wall at their bonnet.

I thought that it happened almost instantaneously? Described as paint been thrown across the windscreen.

Hmm, surely it was almost instantaneous once they drove into the fog, but they should have been looking up the road and slowed down based on the big cloud of fog they were approaching. Like slowing down before a red light rather than getting level with it and then slamming the brakes on.

As for ‘natural selection’, it’s more like survival of the biggest. You’re in your fiesta and you slow down. The HGV keeps going at 60mph. Who’s going to survive when he crushes you?

they ran into a ‘wall of smoke

A wall of smoke is a bit of a warning

it was very foggy that day, so they couldn’t see clearly and realistically he couldn’t have know the smoke would have mixed with the fog.

Ultimately tragic accident, but if you can’t see you should really slow down.

how did they know it wasnt actually an entire truck that was onfire infront of them causing the smoke ?

fair point though bails.

I’m walking away from this.

There’s been enough evidence from the court case, and before, that the drivers had insufficient time to react to the conditions they were faced with.

If people on here want to blame them for dying I’m not going to be able to change that with pages of ‘he said/she said/but what about/no but you said’ arguing.

Hmm – ISTM an awful lot of cases rely on hindsight.

It’s not a great article tbh. It first describes it as a ‘fog’- which is caused by the weather, then ‘smog’ which is smoke and fog mixed together. I’m assuming it means smoke from the fireworks.

I remember seeing a couple of reports on the news from people who had slowed and pulled over because of the fog. they said vehicles just kept on going past them without slowing.

tragic, but not sure you can pin it on one man.

which they didnt.

If there was fog on that night as well it might be the reason why the fireworks organiser wasn’t held responsible for the pile up.

Apparently both the police and council had been consulted prior to the event, and raised no concerns over the risk of smoke affecting the motorway.

Why he was found not guilty:

He said the prosecution’s case was “heavily weighted” on “hindsight” and there was not sufficient evidence to show that Mr Counsell ought to have foreseen that smoke from the display could have drifted and mixed with fog to create thick smog.

The right result IMHO.

I’m doing dispersion modeling for a chemicals plants flue gasses at the moment, even throwing £10k’s at it we’re still doing little more than a best guess, it’ll still get enveloped in a fog, on a still day, with high pressure, whilst firing on high (but within the limit) sulphur fuel, and someone will ask why we didn’t model for it.

However if it happens again now the risk is widely known and can be assessed, then it would be guilty.

to be fair thou, he is only half way, the civil case(s) will follow.

The reporting on the case from the beginning has been inaccurate and contradictory.
Fog was reported in the area prior to the accident, did the fireworks have an impact or where they just a useful scapegoat for what was a tragic accident?
The actions of the police have come in to question with the statement by the legal team of a searches on the home and also failure to return seized items, and a witch hunt ensued.

It will roll and roll, but based on what I have read and heard the right decision was reached in court