The flashing hazard lights of a Nissan Micra painted a desperate signal on the fast lane of a Smart Motorway. Rajpal Dene, trapped inside, had no idea her vulnerability was escalating with each passing second. Her engine had failed without warning, leaving her stranded in a lane devoid of a hard shoulder.
For six agonizing minutes, the Micra remained stationary. Motorists swerved, some slowing to a crawl, others skillfully maneuvering around the obstruction. Thirty-five vehicles successfully navigated the hazard, a testament to attentive driving. But then came a van, traveling at a consistent 77mph, its driver seemingly unaware of the looming danger.
The impact was catastrophic. The Nissan burst into flames, becoming, as prosecutors described, “effectively incinerated.” Passenger Pulvinder Dhillon perished in the inferno, while Rajpal Dene was pulled to safety by quick-thinking drivers. The scene was one of devastation, a stark illustration of the risks inherent in a system malfunction.
The court heard a chilling detail: the Smart Motorway system wasn’t functioning. Crucially, 999 and 101 calls reporting the stranded vehicle weren’t relayed to National Highways, meaning no warnings appeared on the overhead gantries. The motorway was blind, unable to alert approaching drivers to the hazard ahead.
The prosecution acknowledged the system failure likely contributed to the collision, but vehemently argued it didn’t make the tragedy inevitable. “The fact that the Smart Motorway was not working does not mean everyone is then allowed to drive how they like,” the prosecutor stated. Rules of the road, he insisted, still applied.
The defendant, O’Sullivan, claimed another vehicle had swerved late, obscuring his view of the Micra. However, CCTV footage revealed the Nissan had been visible for over seven seconds, a distance of 260 meters. The prosecution countered that O’Sullivan’s attention was elsewhere, his focus lost in the moments leading up to the collision.
The defense argued O’Sullivan wouldn’t have been traveling at that speed if the Smart Motorway had been operational, if a red X had signaled the lane closure. The prosecution conceded this point, but emphasized the fundamental need for drivers to remain vigilant, regardless of technological aids. “All of those facts simply underline the need for us all to at least drive with due care and attention.”
The jury now faces a critical question: did O’Sullivan’s lack of attention, or the systemic failure of the Smart Motorway, bear the greater responsibility for the fatal crash? The trial continues, seeking to unravel the complex chain of events that led to a life tragically lost.
O’Sullivan, denying the charge of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, maintains he acted reasonably under the circumstances. The evidence, however, paints a picture of a driver traveling at high speed, with limited reaction time, and a crucial window of opportunity to avoid the stationary vehicle.
