Latest Case Study
Fatal Accident Involving Car and Motorcycle
Published: 29th July 2008
Background
Whilst driving home Miss X lost control of her car and crashed into a motorcycle, killing the rider and passenger. Miss X was charged with two counts of “Causing Death by Dangerous Driving” and faced many years in prison. Miss X claimed that loose chippings on the road had caused her to lose control. The Crown Prosecution Service did not agree, claiming that Miss X should have driven to the conditions and that there were adequate signs to warn her of the hazard.
Hawkins was approached by Miss X’s legal team and asked to investigate. We quickly identified that the temporary traffic management signs and cones used to warn drivers appeared to be inadequate. We determined that the investigation should concentrate on three main areas; the condition of the road surface, the adequacy of the traffic management and the cause of any potential failure of the road surface.
The Surfacing of the Road
Contractors had undertaken works to surface dress the ‘A’ road earlier that day. Surface dressing involves applying a layer of adhesive binder to the existing road surface before loose chippings are spread onto the binder. The chippings are rolled onto the binder, and any chippings which do not adhere are removed by a road sweeper. After the surface dressing was complete, the main contractors had left a sub-contractor to erect warning signs. The intention was to allow traffic to disperse the loose chippings, before engaging a road sweeper the following day to remove any still unbound chippings.
The Circumstances of The Accident
Miss X was driving home along the ‘A’ road, and was travelling up a steep hill. This section of road is three lanes wide, including an overtaking lane. Miss X was behind someone who she believed was driving erratically. Knowing that the overtaking lane was approaching, Miss X intended to overtake the erratic driver.
Miss X claims not to have seen the signs warning her of the loose chippings and as she passed the erratic driver, she started to lose control of her vehicle. Now in the middle lane, and with a left hand bend approaching, Miss X was unable to turn, as her vehicle did not respond. She crossed over onto the opposite side of the road and collided with the motorcycle coming in the opposite direction.
Initial Investigations
Hawkins visited the scene to observe, photograph and video the location, and to take measurements. We worked closely with the local authority, examining contracts and instructions to the contractors involved in the surface dressing work. We found the main contractor was responsible for all aspects of the work, including the design and timing of the road surfacing and the temporary traffic management.
Detailed Investigations
Using witness statements, council and contractor’s records, weather data and post-accident photographs, Hawkins pieced together how the surface dressing works had been undertaken, and whether anything had been done incorrectly.
Whilst the correct surface dressing had been used, it involved spreading a second layer of smaller sized chippings, with the intention of removing any loose chippings soon after they were laid. Against the advice of national guidelines, the main contractor did not intend to remove the loose chippings until the next day, probably because of high temperatures experienced during the day, which prolonged the period for the surface dressing to set. This would have been acceptable if the main contractor had remained at the road side to monitor the road and taken extensive measures to warn traffic of the excessive amount of loose chippings.
We identified that the recommended system was to physically stop vehicles from overtaking on the loose chippings, by restricting the width of the road by use of cones and by erecting ‘No Overtaking’ signs. The sub-contractor did not erect a warning system which conformed to the national guidelines. We discovered that before the road was re-opened after the accident, the contractors were instructed by the local authority to remove loose chippings, and to install a warning system.
From Police reports, photographs and witness statements, we established there were far more loose chippings than would be expected. We concluded that the surface dressing had probably not set. From weather reports and the contractors’ account of the temperatures, we established that the surface dressing had been carried out at or very close to the recommended maximum temperature. This in turn had delayed the setting of the surface dressing and increased the need for extra precautions.
Using Police photographs, Hawkins was able to determine that the ‘loose chipping’ signs erected by the contractors were probably smaller than the recommended size for the type of road, possibly explaining Miss X’s claim that she did not see the warning signs. The section of road where the accident occurred had no street lighting and hence adequate visibility of the temporary warning signs was crucial.
Conclusions
We were able to reach five key conclusions.
- That the surface dressing may have failed to set prior to the accident.
- An excess of chippings was deliberately applied and that guidelines relating to removal of the unbound chippings were not adhered to.
- That guidelines relating to protecting traffic driving over loose chippings were not adhered to, in that drivers should have been physically prevented from overtaking.
- That drivers encountered a lot more loose chippings than they may have become accustom to on other surface dressed roads.
- That the signs erected to warn motorists of the loose chippings were probably too small.
The Verdict
The court accepted our account that the surfacing work had contributed to the accident, and found Miss X guilty of the lesser charge of “careless driving”. Miss X received a driving ban and a fine, and wrote a heart-felt letter to our investigator, thanking him for his help.