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.

green123

prendy wrote: »

probably huge!:rolleyes:

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

King Ludvig wrote: »

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]

colm_mcm wrote: »

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.

tailgating almost certainly caused this accident

Wertz

Neilw wrote: »

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.

The van is a Vito...nuff said...:pac:

Watch the whole video, they do the test with the truck carrying no weight and fully laden...the difference in distance is about 3/4s the length of the Vito. I don't speak German but I got the impression that the size of the actual brake pads and discs had an awful lot to do with it.

Voodu Child

peasant wrote: »

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.

One video of a truck stopping faster than a van is meaningless, im sure i can find a youtube video of a pig flying, doesnt prove a thing.

Im telling you categorically that an 'average' truck has a significantly longer stopping distance than an 'average' car. I really can't fathom how anyone would argue otherwise - im an engineer by profession and I don't even NEED to go into the physics of it, it's common sense and i'd have thought even children know that a truck takes longer to stop than a car.

peasant

voodoo_child wrote: »

One video of a truck stopping faster than a van is meaningless, im sure i can find a youtube video of a pig flying, doesnt prove a thing.

Im telling you categorically that an 'average' truck has a significantly longer stopping distance than an 'average' car. I really can't fathom how anyone would argue otherwise - im an engineer by profession and I don't even NEED to go into the physics of it, it's common sense and i'd have thought even children know that a truck takes longer to stop than a car.

Well ..I have driven trucks and all I can say is that I'd advise you to keep your distance from the truck in front, or else you might be unpleasantly surprised to find out how categorically, significantly, physically and childishly (did i forget one?) WRONG you are


I'd suspect this to be the reason for the colission ...not enough distance between the vehicles in the convoy. Drivers have a tendency to "bunch up" when driving in convoy ...I know I had.

Wertz

But don't lorries also have two different systems for braking? Something about an exhaust brake I think I heard mentioned before.

The only difference between a truck going 50mph and a car going 50mph is higher force of momentum....to cancel out that momentum by braking you just need larger areas of friction (be it more wheel tread on the tarmac or larger discs & pads)...or am I missing some other factor?
This is all a bit mooted anyhow...those trucks the army use are relatively old, have fewer axles (and wheels) than a HGV and I doubt they could brake as fast as a modern ABS equipped car. They're built for all types of terrain which makes me think that maybe a modern motorway isn't the best place to be utilising them...

peasant

Wertz wrote: »

But don't lorries also have two different systems for braking? Something about an exhaust brake I think I heard mentioned before.

The "exhaust brake" works by closing the exhaust and cutting off the fuel supply. So the engine just compresses air against the closed exhaust which in effect causes strong engine braking.

This "brake" can only be used to slow down the lorry or to keep a constant speed when going downhill without having to (over)use the actual brakes, but not for stopping.

colm_mcm

Wertz wrote: »

The van is a Vito...nuff said...:pac:

A Vito with a VW Transporter bodykit?

Wertz

peasant wrote: »

The "exhaust brake" works by closing the exhaust and cutting off the fuel supply. So the engine just compresses air against the closed exhaust which in effect causes strong engine braking.

This "brake" can only be used to slow down the lorry or to keep a constant speed when going downhill without having to (over)use the actual brakes, but not for stopping.

Right, just didn't know how the second brake worked.

Incidentally, I remember seeing something on one of those science shows years back about some new type of system for braking on lorry trailers where a large rubber mat would deploy under the rear axles during extreme braking, to further cut stopping distance; did such a system ever make it into production?

colm_mcm wrote: »

A Vito with a VW Transporter bodykit?

Good call. Don't know how for the life of me I thought that was a Vito...must have been paying more attention to the merc badge on the truck and just assumed the van was a merc too...
My comment was a dig at the Vito (an unfair one)...I'm sure it's as good under braking as any similar van, including a Transporter.

colm_mcm

to be fair to Vitos, If I remember correctly they had ESP and ABS standard back in late 90's.

Voodu Child

Wertz wrote: »

The only difference between a truck going 50mph and a car going 50mph is higher force of momentum....to cancel out that momentum by braking you just need larger areas of friction (be it more wheel tread on the tarmac or larger discs & pads)...or am I missing some other factor?

Yes, there are quite a lot of other factors. Weight distribution, and shifting weight distribtion upon decelleration (applying huge braking force to an axle is pointless if that particular axle has very little weight on it). The huge % difference between laden/unladen compared to cars, and the compromises that brings with the design of brake systems (and the effect on friction 'footprint). The 'delay' effect inherent in air braking systems compared to hydraulic. Drum vs disc brakes. The fact that a truck weighing 50 times as much, requires 50 times as much braking force in it's braking system/components (yet does not have 50 times as many components to spread the load - ie physical strength limitations in the materials used are a factor). There are dozens of other factors, truck braking dynamics is much more complicated than small cars.

Toon--soldier

voodoo_child wrote: »

One video of a truck stopping faster than a van is meaningless, im sure i can find a youtube video of a pig flying, doesnt prove a thing.

Im telling you categorically that an 'average' truck has a significantly longer stopping distance than an 'average' car. I really can't fathom how anyone would argue otherwise - im an engineer by profession and I don't even NEED to go into the physics of it, it's common sense and i'd have thought even children know that a truck takes longer to stop than a car.

Say if i put bigger disks and calipers etc on my car are you saying this would have no effect on the stopping distance of the car??? all you have to do is when designing the the brake system of the truck is factor in the self-weight of the truck itself and the live load in the trailer

Voodu Child

Toon--soldier wrote: »

Say if i put bigger disks and calipers etc on my car are you saying this would have no effect on the stopping distance of the car??? all you have to do is when designing the the brake system of the truck is factor in the self-weight of the truck itself and the live load in the trailer

The stopping distance of your car is limited by the downward force on the wheels, and the friction between the tyres and road. Putting better brakes will work up to a point, but you'll hit a wall at some stage, where your better brakes will just put the car into a skid. A skidding car does not slow down as well as a properly braking car due to difference in static/dynamic friction.

That has nothing to do with the issue, a truck isn't 'a car with bigger brakes'. Its a much more complicated issue. Anybody who cares can google it, you'll throw up hundreds of studies and charts comparing truck vs car braking distances (generated by official transport bodies the world over).

Oilrig

voodoo_child wrote: »

The stopping distance of your car is limited by the downward force on the wheels

You claim to be an engineer, obviously not experienced in automotive issues.

Downwards force on the wheels (displayed ultimately as a mu value) as a defining factor is a very '70's view on vehicle braking performance. Take it up with your lecturer.

Energy transfer and heat dissipation are where you should be looking.

Unladen truck with state of the art braking system will stand on its nose.

Do the research... THEN reply.

Esel

My mate (the sanitary engineer one) told me never to tailgate trucks!

Dirty Knuckles

I'm an army driver.

Re. breaking distance, Pleasent is correct.

Only thing which hamper's the breaking distance on an army truck are the knobbly tyres with have a 50% road/off road bias. Which is fine on dry roads, but their a nightmare in the wet.

Apparently what happened yesterday was a female civilian driver pulled out in front of the first truck and broke hard, the army drive broke and believe me guys, those trucks will stop in the blink of an eye.

As regards trucks travelling too close, alot of that is for security reasons. You wouldn't believe the amount of civilian driver's who will try to force their way into an army convey. Lads, don't do this. Its stupid, its dangerous and if your the meat in the sandwich in the event of another accident like this your pretty fecked!.

Without going into operations matters, but a lot of these conveys are under armed escort & its imperitive that all vehicles in the convey are grouped like this.

Werdz your comments re. a proper war are contemptable when you take into account the number of Irish soldiers killed in the service of peace while you scratch your arse in the comfort of your own home thinking up smart arse comments for boards.ie.

Btw the Dept. have been made aware of the danger's of using truck as TCV's (troop carrying vehicles) for as long as I can remember, and thats over twenty years.

Wertz

Dirty Knuckles wrote: »

Werdz your comments re. a proper war are contemptable when you take into account the number of Irish soldiers killed in the service of peace while you scratch your arse in the comfort of your own home thinking up smart arse comments for boards.ie.

WTF? It was an off the cuff comment critical of the state of one of Dublin's main routes, not a dig at anyone in the defence forces.
I didn't say anything about a proper war, I compared the M50 to a warzone. Grow some skin.
BTW service of peace? I won't get into the fact that we're supposedly a neutral country...when the Irish army go to these places as peace keepers, it's mine and every body elses taxes paying for the privilege of sending and keeping those soldiers in that region, and for the most part, it's glorified police work and dodging bullets, when the army has no real teeth compared to other forces in those regions.
The comfort of my home? What has that to do with anything? The defence forces don't protect it, in the event of any incursion by foreign forces on our soil, we'd be forced to rely on the UK or other nations for real protection.
the only thing I've ever seen the army protecting are Securicor vans and the odd garda checkpoint.

astraboy

So all this was caused by a Woman driver!? Sorry, someone had to say it!:D

Wertz, the army do a lot more then you "see" and for the budget it receives the department of Defence and the forces themselves provide an excellent service. It must be remembered we are a country of 4M people, our defense forces are exteremly effective for the size of our population. Comparing our army to France, the UK or the US is not comparing like with like. The army rangers are one of the best special forces units in the world. The air corps provide transit for dignitaries, vital organs, search and rescue and troop transport. The navy does fisheries protection, many many search and rescue ops per year, drug control, assisting with salvaging operations.

The army protect the prisons and prisioner transport, provide national security, anti-terrorist and hostage rescue services where necessary as well as bomb disposal. In the event of an invasion we are surprisingly well equipped, more so then people realize. Certainly enough to give most invading forces a run for their money, on the ground at least.

If the department of Health was run like the dept of Defence it would be under budget and ship-shape within a year.

dodgyme

astraboy wrote: »

So all this was caused by a Woman driver!? Sorry, someone had to say it!:D

Wertz, the army do a lot more then you "see" and for the budget it receives the department of Defence and the forces themselves provide an excellent service. It must be remembered we are a country of 4M people, our defense forces are exteremly effective for the size of our population. Comparing our army to France, the UK or the US is not comparing like with like. The army rangers are one of the best special forces units in the world. The air corps provide transit for dignitaries, vital organs, search and rescue and troop transport. The navy does fisheries protection, many many search and rescue ops per year, drug control, assisting with salvaging operations.

The army protect the prisons and prisioner transport, provide national security, anti-terrorist and hostage rescue services where necessary as well as bomb disposal. In the event of an invasion we are surprisingly well equipped, more so then people realize. Certainly enough to give most invading forces a run for their money, on the ground at least.

If the department of Health was run like the dept of Defence it would be under budget and ship-shape within a year.

good man astraboy thanks for the list of items/functions that any army provides.
Most of the army lads I know are fat and lazy and very much in the spirit of the army deafness claims. I exclude the rangers etc for obvious reasons.

astraboy

dodgyme wrote: »

good man astraboy thanks for the list of items/functions that any army provides.
Most of the army lads I know are fat and lazy and very much in the spirit of the army deafness claims. I exclude the rangers etc for obvious reasons.

Troll. :rolleyes: And how many "army lads" do you know? Because I know many and they are far from fat and lazy, they have represented Ireland in UN peace keeping missions in an attempt to bring stability to regions around the globe. Every organisation has fat and lazy people in it, does not mean that everyone in that organisation is like them. And other countries have their police or other goverment depts take care of a lot of what the Irish army provides. Educate yourself before you start digging another hole for yourself, no need to go slagging off the army due to the actions of a few. Muppet. I'm not in the mood to argue with you on a public forum anymore, take it to PM. This is the motors forum, not the "slagging off the army cos I know nothing about it" forum.

Wertz

astraboy wrote: »

So all this was caused by a Woman driver!? Sorry, someone had to say it!:D

Wertz, the army do a lot more then you "see" and for the budget it receives the department of Defence and the forces themselves provide an excellent service. It must be remembered we are a country of 4M people, our defense forces are exteremly effective for the size of our population. Comparing our army to France, the UK or the US is not comparing like with like. The army rangers are one of the best special forces units in the world. The air corps provide transit for dignitaries, vital organs, search and rescue and troop transport. The navy does fisheries protection, many many search and rescue ops per year, drug control, assisting with salvaging operations.

The army protect the prisons and prisioner transport, provide national security, anti-terrorist and hostage rescue services where necessary as well as bomb disposal. In the event of an invasion we are surprisingly well equipped, more so then people realize. Certainly enough to give most invading forces a run for their money, on the ground at least.

If the department of Health was run like the dept of Defence it would be under budget and ship-shape within a year.

Ah I know they do, guy I used work with has a brother in the Rangers.
I just don't like being called out on a smart arse comment that that other poster hasn't the wit to spot as such and takes easy offence to, and responded in kind. Obviously the State needs an army to function properly even if we are neutral of sorts, and of course they perform many unseen tasks...but so does any force of any state.
This is all way OT so I'll give it up now.

Woman driver aside, she can hardly be blamed for the actions of drivers behind her...if you crash into the back of someone, it's your fault, therefore the army drivers in question have as much to answer for as any civilian.
Perhaps it was all a suicide pact when the recuits all heard they were headed for the Cooley mountains, to work off those Paddy's Day hangovers?
<Insert obligatory relevant smiley to illustrate sarcasm>
:pac: