Had a chat with someone directly involved, and to put everyone's mind at rest, the Driver escaped with severe lacerations and bruising. He's now out of hospital. Although there is still no solid evidence available, it is now thought that the unit was travelling at nearer 70 than 90. The bridge is thought to have been lying square on to the unit at the point of impact, striking below solebar level, thereby pushing the solebar up, trapping the Driver against the back wall of the cab. It is also thought that, had the unit been travelling at higher speed (and with a good unit 90mph IS possible at that location, even with a stop at Loughboro) and had the main impact occurred above solebar level, then the outcome would almost certainly have been less fortunate.
I hasten to add that these are NOT, in anyway, official findings preliminary or otherwise, but reasoned speculation from a professional investigator.
Crumple zones are not presently fitted to units that travel below 100mph (so if you only get up to 90 you're deemed expendable!) and these crumple zones are placed in generally unoccupied areas, cycle/luggage storage areas for eg, not in the cab.
It's obvious to me that the incident could have been so much worse, and almost certainly would have been had it not been for one or two lucky breaks. We can go on until we're blue in the face about spending money on preventing accidents, but it's a fact that accidents always have, and always will occur from time to time. The factors involved are too random to guard against or legislate for. We would be far better spending our money on reducing the danger from accidents as far as is possible, and if this means replacing old stock, with entirely new stock, with better crash protection for crew and passengers, then so be it. We certainly waste enough money in other areas! All the photograpths i've seen are taken head on from the front of the unit, and show a twisted gangway. I'd be interested to see one taken from the side, that shows the depth of the impact, and gives a better idea of the confined area the Driver had to endure during those painful two and half hours. Not for ghoulish purposes you understand, remember, the Driver is a personal friend of mine, but to show people that the unit sustained more damage than can be seen from a frontal photo, and that a few more mph, or impact a little higher, and the outcome could've been different. I cannot, and will not, accept that the savings made from not replacing the entire fleet of older stock with more crashworthy new stock, are greater than the lives of innocent men and women, with loved ones and families. Remember, an accident could happen to any one of us tomorrow, and the cards may, or may not be stacked in our favour!
Thank you again though, to all you kind hearted people who have offered their very best wishes for my friends recovery. It means a lot, and i'm sure he'll appreciate them greatly!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just a thought.....
We almost entirely eliminated slam door stock, and fitted central locking to the remainder, in a relatively short space of time when you consider the logistics involved, and in accidents occurring due to slam door stock, the person leaning on, or opening the door, was almost always to blame for his or her own misfortune.
Why then could we not do the same again, especially when we consider that those who are injured, or worse, are entirely innocent and just going about their day to day business?
