Car on flames M50

Suasdaguna1

A Renault Clio went up in flames this morn. Unusual for a modern car dare I say even a Renault to implode. Unless they had warning lights that were ignored??

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/car-bursts-into-flames-on-m50-during-morning-rush-hour-29115863.html

shinkansen

looks about 10+ years old.

tossy

Scary experience,i hope everyone was ok.

In the last week i've seen a 01 lancer go up in flames and a 11 reg (i think) Audi A6 with the front burnt out both in Newbridge - scary stuff.

lookitsme

if they ignored a warning light they are a FLAMING GALAH

The Bishop Basher

Strange that they say presence of AGS was not required. I would have thought a car on fire in the middle of a Kane in the M50 would require their presence. Not having a go at them. Just a strange thing to write.

Glad no one was hurt.

Stheno

Glad no one was hurt, it looked pretty freaky

Technoprisoner

engine warning lights do not tell you if your car is about to go on fire..they tell you if you have a faulty sensor

keithclancy

Can happen if the battery shorts.

Have seen it occur when some tit chucked away the plastic cover on top of the battery becuase it was cracked.

Queue smoke and burning plastic while driving along.

Kenny Logins

Burst into flames?

ectoraige

Swanner wrote: »

Strange that they say presence of AGS was not required. I would have thought a car on fire in the middle of a Kane in the M50 would require their presence. Not having a go at them. Just a strange thing to write.

Glad no one was hurt.

First, it's the Indo so accuracy is not a prerequisite for a story.

Second, the statement that Gardaí were not required seems based on the account of "the man, who was returning from dropping his son to school".

Third, Gardaí may have already attended the scene and departed once there was no further need.

Fourth, a unit of the Dublin Fire Brigade was reported to be on scene so that's a team of fully trained paramedics right there.

Finally, it's the Indo so accuracy is not a prerequisite for a story. Wait - did I say that one already?

tossy

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Burst into flames?

It's a newspaper headline - come on

Which story are you going to click on...

Car bursts into flames on M50

or

Renault Clio owner regrets hiring cowboy autoelectrician.

Kenny Logins

tossy wrote: »

It's a newspaper headline - come on

Which story are you going to click on...

Car bursts into flames on M50

or

Renault Clio owner regrets hiring cowboy autoelectrician.

Just can't picture a Clio bursting into anything.. :pac:

TGi666

vtec failed to kick in yo!!!

Vojera

It happened to a friend of mine with one of the newer Clios. She only had the car a few weeks, noticed one morning that her dashboard lights weren't working and thought "that's funny, I'll deal with it later" and a few miles down the road had to pull onto the hard shoulder because of smoke coming from under the bonnet. She was barely out of the car before it ended up like the picture above.

The Renault dealer offered her a replacement or full refund (she took the money!); the car got sent to France for tests, and she never heard back what had happened. Scary!

davej

I saw it this morning (I was heading northbound), had to do a double take to process what was happening.
I reckon it had only just happened as I was passing..the flames were just licking at the front wheels at that stage :eek:

davej

Sesshoumaru

Glad no one was hurt!

But I wonder could these accident scenes have some sort of mobile automated camera system setup to take pictures of people rubbernecking and then send automatic fines/points to those people? Occasionally I'd be on the bike heading home and you'd hit a massive tailback on the M4 around Liffey Valley. After much filtering I'd end up finding the most minor of fender bender accidents and nearly everyone slowing down massively to LOOK at what had happened. This has happened a lot recently on the M4 at least. Anyone else notice this happening a lot recently?

HandsomeDan

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Glad no one was hurt!

But I wonder could these accident scenes have some sort of mobile automated camera system setup to take pictures of people rubbernecking and then send automatic fines/points to those people?

People are curious. They look at things. Nothing unusual about that...

Unlike say, spending €30,000 on a car with an 85 mile range

Sesshoumaru

HandsomeDan wrote: »

People are curious. They look at things. Nothing unusual about that...

Unlike say, spending €30,000 on a car with an 85 mile range

My choice of everyday commuting vehicle is not impacted much by rubberneckers.



I was just thinking of my poor fellow motorists stuck in their cars, taking extra time to get home because some people like to gawk at accidents

On holiday in the US a number of years ago, while driving along the highway I passed a temporary sign that said "no rubbernecking". Within a minute I was passing the scene of an accident. No one slowed down to look and there was no massive tailback.

SmithG

This looks bad and worrying!

Kenny Logins

SmithG wrote: »

This looks bad and worrying!

..and we should feel bad and worried.

kirving

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Glad no one was hurt!

But I wonder could these accident scenes have some sort of mobile automated camera system setup to take pictures of people rubbernecking and then send automatic fines/points to those people?

It's not as simple as that though, even if one person slows a tiny bit as the accident is happenning, a tailback can be created further back down the road, which then moves slowly towards the accident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

Sesshoumaru

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's not as simple as that though, even if one person slows a tiny bit as the accident is happenning, a tailback can be created further back down the road, which then moves slowly towards the accident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M

That's very interesting! Does that mean though that a rubbernecking deterrence that was maybe 80% to 90% effective would have no affect or little affect on tail backs? In my experience people seem to slow down even more as they approach the accident scene. I think some deterrence would help.

RUSTEDCORE

ITS THE FUEL

lets just say if certain garages say their fuel takes you further you might wanna ask why

tin79

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

ITS THE FUEL

lets just say if certain garages say their fuel takes you further you might wanna ask why

Enlighten us with your knowledge

kirving

You can't have a deterrent against slowing down, as long as it's not done in a dangerous manner. When a car slows down in front of you, you're always going to slow a tiny bit more than they did, just to be sure. Over 100 cars say, the final one ends up stopped.

Sesshoumaru

Kevin Irving wrote: »

You can't have a deterrent against slowing down, as long as it's not done in a dangerous manner. When a car slows down in front of you, you're always going to slow a tiny bit more than they did, just to be sure. Over 100 cars say, the final one ends up stopped.

That's not the same as saying a deterrent would have no affect on the length of the tailback. Either way... personally speaking, I want the gawkers punished :pac:

Del2005

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

That's not the same as saying a deterrent would have no affect on the length of the tailback. Either way... personally speaking, I want the gawkers punished :pac:

How do you prove that a person slowing down is looking at the incident? I always slow down when passing RTIs but make sure I don't look, too many motorists act like rabbits in headlights when passing RTIs and don't pay enough attention to the road especially if there's a few emergency service vehicles on scene with blues on, so I slow down and back off the vehicle ahead for my own safety.

Phantom stoppages on motorways are very common and purely due to motorists flowing too close. Enforcement of stopping distances at all times is the solution not just when passing RTIs, as phantom stoppages cause a lot of RTIs.

Packet

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Burst into flames?

I drove past it on the other side of the M50. The front half of the car was completely engulfed in flames, the wheels were burnt away. I didn't see any sign of a collision. The flat-bed tow truck was already there.

davej

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

That's not the same as saying a deterrent would have no affect on the length of the tailback. Either way... personally speaking, I want the gawkers punished :pac:

In fairness, a car in flames in the middle of the motorway is something even the most vigilant motorist is going to look at...

davej

P_1

Good grief, the Indo including something logical in an article, is there a blue moon out there tonight?

“And the rubberneckers in the other lane who were not involved at all were causing big problems as well,” he added.

Chris_Heilong

As long as Simi and the RSA don't try and spin this by saying we all have to buy brand new cars or they will go up in flames....will someone think of the Children!

Rubberneckers are such a nightmare, 120->0 all because some gobsh!tes have to gawk at something on the other side of the road

newmug

Ah the poor aul car! Not a fan of Clio's, but its not a nice thing to see a car being burnt to death!