Remembers to Give Way

[Dieselman]

You have already agreed that the lorry driver could have been bloody minded over the incident, I merely questioned whether he could have made some attempt to avoid the accident.

How can that be worth arguing over?

Surely you agree that the lorry driver should not simply plough into the car just because the car driver was 'wrong'?

I understood that lorry drivers were on a tight schedule so avoiding accidents would surely be high on their agenda. Maybe there was no trailer on the back in this case.

For goodness sake, stop attempting to make a long drawn out debate over a clear cut issue by bringing spurious unknowns in.

I know someone who, as a lorry driver, had a very similar incident when an undertaking car didn't make it through in time.
The first the lorry driver knew was feeling a bump.

 

[markjay]

There appear to be two separate arguments here.

The first says that there was nothing the lorry driver could have done to avoid the collision .

Either because he could not slow down or change lane, or because he could not see the other car.

Which are all indeed possibilities so fair enough.

The second says that the lorry driver should not have done anything to avoid the collision, even if he could.

This, to my mind, is lunacy.

 

[renault12ts]

You have already agreed that the lorry driver could have been bloody minded over the incident, I merely questioned whether he could have made some attempt to avoid the accident.

How can that be worth arguing over?

Surely you agree that the lorry driver should not simply plough into the car just because the car driver was 'wrong'?

I understood that lorry drivers were on a tight schedule so avoiding accidents would surely be high on their agenda. Maybe there was no trailer on the back in this case.

I think the lorry driver was absolutely NOT in the wrong. I have have not said, nor agreed that he was bloody minded (some else perhaps).

I also do not think he simply "ploughed into the car...as Dieselman has said, from the driver's point of view (as opposed to the camera's) he probably could not have seen the car. There is a well documented case of a lorry driver driving for a couple of miles unaware that the was pushing a car sideways along the motorway....he couldn't see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYo3kORaXAo

The maybes do not matter...it is what it is...and from what little e can see...the lorry driver did no wrong.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I think the lorry driver was absolutely NOT in the wrong. I have have not said, nor agreed that he was bloody minded (some else perhaps).

I also do not think he simply "ploughed into the car...as Dieselman has said, from the driver's point of view (as opposed to the camera's) he probably could not have seen the car. There is a well documented case of a lorry driver driving for a couple of miles unaware that the was pushing a car sideways along the motorway....he couldn't see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYo3kORaXAo

The maybes do not matter...it is what it is...and from what little e can see...the lorry driver did no wrong.

No one has said that the lorry driver did any wrong, I simply questioned whether he could have taken evasive action - you think not, fair enough.

I do find it odd that some posters seem to think that it would be acceptable for the lorry driver to not attempt to brake or change lanes because he was in the right.

Just read Markjay's post above and can see that I have repeated his thoughts accidentally.

 

[renault12ts]

OK...my final word.

The driver of the lorry imo did nothing wrong...but, if there was any possibility that he could have done anything to lessen or avoid the incident...he should have done it.

I'm out.

 

[markjay]

...The driver of the lorry imo did nothing wrong...but, if there was any possibility that he could have done anything to lessen or avoid the incident...he should have done it...

Fully agree.

 

[WDB124066]

What happened to the two second rule Mr PROFESSIONAL DRIVER!?

If your car overlaps past the B pillar it's game on AFAIC. I had someone try and do this to me, he caught it on camera called the cops while we were still on the road, they came out of town to meet us coming into town, cut a long story short the little sh1t who decided in his infinite wisdom to not let me in was rebuked by the Police.

Two second rule Mr Truck Driver, and don't forget it!

 

[WDB124066]

Oh and while you are about it stop trying to maintain slip stream with the truck in front, understand there is a merging lane and when the dotted line appears it's time to let them in, if you don't let people merge and it can be proven that you were trying to maintain slipstream by the following distance you were maintaining, then I'd say 100% truck driver's fault. Sorry.

And it looks like the green lorry behind with the white load was in on this convoy as well, means the car driver was shut out!

 

[balge]

You and I are on the same planet...some of the others...

Having a long drawn out debate about how the lorry driver could possibly be at fault is madness.

Is it stupid and pointless yet?

 

[Wheelsnuts]

It's clear from the BBC report that the lorry driver was found not to be at fault. However, to me the important issue raised here is not a matter of apportioning blame but one of avoiding an incident. Maybe I am old fashioned but what happened to the road courtesy which was always drummed into us?

 

[John]

What happened to the two second rule Mr PROFESSIONAL DRIVER!?

Good point - the lorry driver was nothing like two seconds behind the other lorry.

Arguably, had the lorry driver been two seconds behind the other one, the gap would have been bigger at that time as the lorry would have been further back and the bell end in the car could have joined without issue - unless he deliberately tried to make an issue for the lorry driver.

 

[meeeb]

It's clear from the BBC report that the lorry driver was found not to be at fault. However, to me the important issue raised here is not a matter of apportioning blame but one of avoiding an incident. Maybe I am old fashioned but what happened to the road courtesy which was always drummed into us?

Not just courtesy, but self-preservation. Unless you're in a big truck up against a tiny car in which case you don't even lose your no-claims bonus, though it would appear that the car driver in this case was the author of his own misfortune.

The phrases "not at fault" and "not to blame" are open to interpretation, and it was the haulage company that said the lorry driver was not to blame. But they would wouldn't they?

Rather amusing that the Freight Haulage chap recommends that drivers give more room to large goods vehicles. That's rich considering that on some stretches of motorway HGVs travel so close together that entering or exiting the carriageway from a slip road is made extremely difficult.

 

[WDB124066]

Good point - the lorry driver was nothing like two seconds behind the other lorry.

Arguably, had the lorry driver been two seconds behind the other one, the gap would have been bigger at that time as the lorry would have been further back and the bell end in the car could have joined without issue - unless he deliberately tried to make an issue for the lorry driver.

It's easy to see what is happening here if you stop for a minute and put yourself in the situation. Trucks are obviously in convoy, slipstreaming, maintaining about a 0.3 second gap, synchronised on the GPS's, saving fuel beautifully, in contact with each other on the radio. They consciously decide to completely ignore the merge lanes to their left [who out there ignores that like they did?] and consciously decided to shut the car out of entering the Mway in-between them. How on Gods green earth you get to blame the car driver in a situation like this I don't know to be honest.

Don't tell me he didn't see the car because that is what the stripes are for and that is what his array of mirrors should have been for.

 

[Dieselman]

Not just courtesy, but self-preservation. Unless you're in a big truck up against a tiny car in which case you don't even lose your no-claims bonus, though it would appear that the car driver in this case was the author of his own misfortune.

So, why are we wasting bandwidth, pages of forum board, storage space and our lives discussing this?

The headline should read.

Tosspot in Civic attempts to push in front of lorry and gets owned.

 

[WDB124066]

Makes you wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars turn up doesn't it.... Or does it?

 

[Dieselman]

Makes you wonder what is going to happen when driverless cars turn up doesn't it.... Or does it?

Computers don't have genuine intelligence, but i think they will have more than many drivers.

 

[WDB124066]

Yes, and I suspect they would have done two main things in that situation, throttle back the truck and throttle on the car. I think the driver panicked when he realised the only way he was going to get onto the Mway was to stop dead in his tracks, that made him press the issue , and it went downhill from there....

 

[Giantvanman]

Computers don't have genuine intelligence, but i think they will have more than many drivers.

No ego either which can only be a good thing.

 

[Dieselman]

Yes, and I suspect they would have done two main things in that situation, throttle back the truck and throttle on the car. I think the driver panicked when he realised the only way he was going to get onto the Mway was to stop dead in his tracks, that made him press the issue , and it went downhill from there....

He passed the lorry on the inside, so could have just dropped in behind it.

As already said, he was the author of his own downfall.

 

[Dieselman]

No ego either which can only be a good thing.

Not for Mercedes AMG Leasing salesman.