LU battery electric loco in pile up

[Talltim]

Yesterday, an Allelys lorry with a London Underground battery electric loco ran away at Wembley and wiped out loads of cars.

 

[Bucoops]

Hope nobody hurt!

 

Wonder if that will be on their tele program?

[cnw6847]

It’s suggested on the twitter post that cars were illegally park.

It’s going to be quite an investigation I’d have thought.

Hopefully no one hurt.

[Craig1989]

Where was the battery loco going/ coming from? 
 

cheers Craig 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

2 hours ago, cnw6847 said:

It’s suggested on the twitter post that cars were illegally park.

Some of them clearly weren't. You can see the end of the yellow lines at the end of the video. Some of the cars may well have been on private land, though, which might be something of an insurance headache for the owners if Allelys or their insurers choose to play awkward.

[MossdaleNGauge]

It’s the road leading to Stonebridge Park Depot, just to the left of the crash is a sign saying no parking. Will make an interesting episode of Train Truckers and how they rescue the train.

[Michael Hodgson]

18 minutes ago, MossdaleNGauge said:

It’s the road leading to Stonebridge Park Depot, just to the left of the crash is a sign saying no parking. Will make an interesting episode of Train Truckers and how they rescue the train.

 

 

I don't think the company will want that programme broadcast!  Seems odd thae everybody in that clip seem to the car owners - no sign of anybody from Alleleys - though they might have been receiving medical attention or talking to police at the time.  If there was a driver in the lorry at the time, I assume it suffered a total brake failure - or was it parked unattended at the time ?

 

A big insurance claim there all right.

[Jenny Emily]

1 hour ago, MossdaleNGauge said:

It’s the road leading to Stonebridge Park Depot, just to the left of the crash is a sign saying no parking. Will make an interesting episode of Train Truckers and how they rescue the train.

 

 

The sign actually says no unauthorised parking. 

Edit: looking at the road, there are no signs at that point to indicate it as private land, and without double yellow or double red lines, or more specific signage, insurers would have a hard time claiming the cars were illegally parked. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Jenny Emily

[rogerzilla]

Maybe they'll do a bloopers reel.

[big jim]

Bloody cyclists!

 

 

 

 

 

(standard twitter response)

[JeffP]

Maybe, just maybe, we could start moving RAILWAY rolling stock using the RAILWAY? 

As far as possible anyway.

Instead of huge lorries on our congested, narrow, badly maintained roads?

[SM42]

The insurance liability doesn't change on private land, otherwise every driver would be committing an offence once they parked on their drive or visited the local supermarket car park. 

 

Illegal parking, now a civil matter, I suspect will make little difference but may be mitigation in reducing a claim liability rather than refusing to pay out. 

The insured has suffered a loss regardless. How responsible they are for it is up for argument

 

The biggest issue, if they want to go down the awkward route, will be who hit who.

 

The initial truck/ car contact will be easy, but if the truck didn't hit any other vehicle and just pushed them together then who is the claim against. 

 

Whichever way it goes  it was certainly a mess and AIUI no-one was injured. 

 

Bent metal is easy to deal with. Bent people less so, so let's be thankful for such mercies. 

 

Andy

Edited May 14, 2023 by SM42

[Michael Hodgson]

I'm surprised this hasn't attracted extensive media coverage - looks like an ideal opportunity for some from another channel to have a go at the TV series, or at the railway for moving stuff by road, and even the number of cars involved is the sort of thing that would usually attract attention.

[chris p bacon]

Maybe it's 'cash for crash' where the cars all piled into the Allelys lorry......😀

 

I did wonder if there was a bit of a set up with the twitter vid, as if the incident had just happened then why wasn't there anyone on the lorry or nearby as they always run with a driver and helper. Also the person filming was offering to help but whilst still holding on to his phone.

[Busmansholiday]

Truck runaways aren't uncommon and generally happen during connection of the tractor unit to the trailer. We had a few at work, including one that tragically killed the driver.

Basically you reverse the tractor onto the

trailer then pull forward to ensure it's locked together. Usually it will not move forward so you put the unit in neutral, and apply the handbrake. Failing to apply the handbrake is the bit where it goes wrong as at that point nothing will move.

When you connect up the tractor air lines to the trailer, with the brakes off, it releases the trailer brakes. The steeper the slope, the quicker it starts moving. 

 

[nightstar.train]

2 hours ago, SM42 said:

The biggest issue, if they want to go down the awkward route, will be who hit who.

 

The initial truck/ car contact will be easy, but if the truck didn't hit any other vehicle and just pushed them together then who is the claim against. 

 

I think usually the way it happens is you claim against whoever immediately hit you. I was in a crash once where I'd just parked and a British Gas van hit the parked car in front of me and pushed it into me. I claimed against that car, and that car claimed double against British gas. So unless Alley's insurers step up and just say "all claims to us, we'll take care of it", it's going to be a hell of a mess of claims and counter claims. 

[The Stationmaster]

As far as insurance claims are concerned the rule used to be that you claimed against the owner/driver of the vehicle which hit yours and that rule was apparently always applied in multi-vehicle pile ups.  Presumably you/your insurer could then make a claim for an uninsured loss against the instigator of the pile up - once that vehicle/person has been clearly identified. 

 

Incidents in car parks - hence on private land - are normally covered by motor vehicle insurance depending in some respects on the policy covering the type of risk involved (as is the case anywhere due to the difference between 3rd Party and Fully Comprehensive cover).  But the requirement for a vehicle to be insured only applies if it is to be used on a public road etc so you don't require insurance when parked on private land.  

 

The status of that part of Argenta Road - i.e beyond the roundabout - is not at all clear.  There is no sign saying that it is a private road but it is very clearly sif gned as leading to various railway depots and in fact that is all it leads to.  Within the vicinity pf the collision there are three 'No Unauthorised Parking' notices plus another - just beyond the building - stating that unauthorised parked vehicles will be clamped.  So whatever else is the case there is not only sufficient signage to indicate that permission is needed to park there but from a Google Streetview look along the road it is equally clear that warning notices are placed on the windscreens of vehicles which did not have authority to park there (in fact in the video such a notice can be seen on the windscreen of the black car which is up against the red mini near the lower end of the line of  vehicles).  So oif nothing else it appears that the adjacent land owner has control of parking on that part of the road.  

 

So maybe an insurance assessor might have a way out in respect of claims from the owners of vehicles which sould not have been parked there - but that won't be the case for vehicles there legitimately.

 

 

 

 

 

Sign much further along the road which indicates that BR very clearly knew whom the land belongerd to

 

 

 

 

[ruggedpeak]

13 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

So maybe an insurance assessor might have a way out in respect of claims from the owners of vehicles which sould not have been parked there - but that won't be the case for vehicles there legitimately.

Dodgy parking does not of itself invalidate a 3rd paty motor insurance claim, even on private property. Just because a vehicle was illegally parked does not allow you to crash into it without liability! However it may be used to mitigate consequential and remoter losses. So repairs to cars will have to be covered under 3rd party liability and also direct injury claims, but more remote claims may be resisted, depending upon the precise circumstances. If the fault/blame is clearly attributable to an error or omission for example this is less likely. I make no comment on the circumstances of this case.

 

Looks like the loco itself may have been involved https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwBci8tWIAA2lkB?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Bucoops]

I note that several of the cars involved have orange high-viz inside so quite possibly there with permission. They are further along the row than the big pile at the beginning.

[ruggedpeak]

3 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

Also the person filming was offering to help but whilst still holding on to his phone.

That's modern tech and social media, this has done the rounds before but is very true:

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, nightstar.train said:

 

I think usually the way it happens is you claim against whoever immediately hit you. I was in a crash once where I'd just parked and a British Gas van hit the parked car in front of me and pushed it into me. I claimed against that car, and that car claimed double against British gas. So unless Alley's insurers step up and just say "all claims to us, we'll take care of it", it's going to be a hell of a mess of claims and counter claims. 

What is the legal basis for a claim, this would surely be important if it went to court - surely it has to be negligence on the part of whoever drove the truck/failed to keep its brakes in good order?  So what is negligent about parking a car and leaving it properly secured with the handbrake on (whether or not it is legal to park there)?  I suppose there can be contributory negligence if one of the cars didn't have its handbrake on. 

I can see there may be administrative convenience for the insurance industry to treat it like a game of skittles.  Whilst it isn't likely to be an issue here, in multi-vehicle pile-ups on a motorway, does anybody even know which vehicle(s) hit yours and the precise sequence of the impacts?

[cctransuk]

1 minute ago, Michael Hodgson said:

What is the legal basis for a claim, this would surely be important if it went to court - surely it has to be negligence on the part of whoever drove the truck/failed to keep its brakes in good order?  So what is negligent about parking a car and leaving it properly secured with the handbrake on (whether or not it is legal to park there)?  I suppose there can be contributory negligence if one of the cars didn't have its handbrake on. 

I can see there may be administrative convenience for the insurance industry to treat it like a game of skittles.  Whilst it isn't likely to be an issue here, in multi-vehicle pile-ups on a motorway, does anybody even know which vehicle(s) hit yours and the precise sequence of the impacts?

 

Can't comment on the legalities - but common sense tells me that, if illegally parked cars had not been preset, the truck could not have run into them.

 

Simples!

 

CJI.

[Michael Hodgson]

2 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Can't comment on the legalities - but common sense tells me that, if illegally parked cars had not been preset, the truck could not have run into them.

 

Simples!

 

CJI.

Likewise it could not have run into any legally parked cars if they had not been there.

[didcot]

Probably ploughed into the production crew of Train Truckers.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 minutes ago, didcot said:

Probably ploughed into the production crew of Train Truckers.

So they were liable?