HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[heebeegeetee]

Gaz. said:

fk me! I usually skip HBGT's posts so I missed that gem until you pointed it out.

How can anyone be so fking stupid?

Try doing a job where you are treated badly, almost all the time, and you might get an idea of what I mean.

If you've never been on the receiving end of what very much feels like a form of prejudice, then it's easy for you to scoff. I mean, it really did feel at times that people target hgvs, or are drawn to them somehow. In this case I can't help wonder why the caravanner didn't try to push the car in front of the hgv off the road, especially as the car seemed to be creating space in front for the caravanner to merge into, but I do think some people are somehow drawn into conflict with hgvs and this guy seems to be one of them imo.

[DAVEVO9]

The Mad Monk said:

Why didn't you tell us that it wasn't a proper HGV before??

I posted that clip to show a proper HGV so that others can see the truck, ( just call it a truck shall we? ) that hit the car/caravan is clearly not a HGV.

It had already been mentioned before I posted that about the "truck" not being a HGV.

For me, it makes all the difference about the OP's mentioning it being a HGV in the title.

Most people referring to, when posting replies, as the "HGV" driver etc.

He is just a glorified VAN driver.

The vid clip shows a Proper HGV driver dealing with a similar situation, "professionally"

Hope that clears things up for you.

Edited by DAVEVO9 on Monday 20th April 16:07

[The Wookie]

nipsips said:

There is no way this will go 50/50 even with the truck accelerating. And I have years of motor claims experience.

Obviously not that much experience; my old man's insurance company tried to go 50:50 when some idiot changed lanes into his rear quarter and claimed he was moving out to avoid a bus lane that wasn't even there. There wasn't even a claim that Dad was trying to block him.

He had to threaten legal action as it was so obviously stupid before they backed down. I think they may have even still paid out the claim along with the tosspot's whiplash compo but refunded Dad's excess and marked it down as a no fault claim.

[Sargeant Orange]

kev1974 said:

Calza said:

Why did that woman decide to go for a jog down the slip road?!

She was in the car behind the truck according to the truck driver's facebook.

Probably proper freaked out at seeing the caravan bloke take on a truck and learn the hard way, almost certainly the shenanigans caused her to have to brake really suddenly as well.

I assumed she was going to clear some cones so she could pass, but then didn't bother

[kiseca]

DervVW said:

nipsips said:

saaby93 said:

nipsips said:

So for it to be 50/50 you have to have some negligence against the truck driver.

Where does it say in the highway code that you have to brake, potentially causing an accident behind you to let someone who was indicating in. It doesnt. The truck driver is established in his lane and has every right to accelerate if he sees fit to do so. The caravan driver has to adapt his driving to suit.

I think you ned to re-read your HC code.
Is holding your line, resulting in an avoidable collision there?

nipsips said:

There is no way this will go 50/50 even with the truck accelerating. And I have years of motor claims experience.

No wonder some claims go the way they do. Maybe some retraining?

Perhaps you could direct me to where the Highway Code states that?

Actually I'll have a look for you. To start with:

266
Approaching a junction. Look well ahead for signals or signs. Direction signs may be placed over the road. If you need to change lanes, do so in good time. At some junctions a lane may lead directly off the motorway. Only get in that lane if you wish to go in the direction indicated on the overhead signs.

272
Unless signs indicate that a lane leads directly off the motorway, you will normally leave the motorway by a slip road on your left. You should:

• watch for the signs letting you know you are getting near your exit
• move into the left-hand lane well before reaching your exit
• signal left in good time and reduce your speed on the slip road as necessary.

165
You MUST NOT overtake

• if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you (but see Rule 129)
• if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line

133
If you need to change lane, first use your mirrors and if necessary take a quick sideways glance to make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed. When it is safe to do so, signal to indicate your intentions to other road users and when clear, move over.

134
You should follow the signs and road markings and get into the lane as directed. In congested road conditions do not change lanes unnecessarily. Merging in turn is recommended but only if safe and appropriate when vehicles are travelling at a very low speed, e.g. when approaching road works or a road traffic incident. It is not recommended at high speed.

In fact the only things that I can see that the truck driver is guilty of is potentially this:

147
Be considerate. Be careful of and considerate towards all types of road users, especially those requiring extra care (see Rule 204).

• try to be understanding if other road users cause problems; they may be inexperienced or not know the area well.

be patient; remember that anyone can make a mistake.

• do not allow yourself to become agitated or involved if someone is behaving badly on the road. This will only make the situation worse. Pull over, calm down and, when you feel relaxed, continue your journey.
• slow down and hold back if a road user pulls out into your path at a junction. Allow them to get clear. Do not over-react by driving too close behind to intimidate them.

Law EPA 1990 sect 87

168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

None of these say - the person who is entering his intention to enter your lane has priority. You MUST slow down or stop to let the person who is breaking every rule above skip two miles of traffic.

And for the record my training is absolutely fine and my employer has absolutely no issue with the way I handle motor claims nor their outcomes. I dont see the need for the personal dig however. I'm only trying to shed some light on what will happen.

If I was representing the truck driver I would be stating the laws above that the caravan driver broke, and if I was representing the caravan driver I would be telling him he is at fault.

Hard to argue with that!

When driving a vehicle we have a duty of care to other road users. If we did not, then it would be OK for truck drivers (or any other drivers) to just run over whoever gets in their way if that person had broken a law to do so. Clearly we cannot mow down pedestrians without bothering to brake or swerve, even when they chose to leap out in front of us and make a collision inevitable if we did not change course or speed. Similarly truck drivers cannot simply plough into vehicles that have cut them up, if an averagely competent truck driver could have reasonably been expected to avoid the accident.

That is why, once a collision looks likely, regardless of who is at fault, the truck driver should be slowing down, not speeding up.

[wibblebrain]

surveyor said:

It's normally 2 lanes - restricted to 1 by roadworks, Driver may have just cocked up then left struggling to get back in, before discovering a lorry driver so in the right that he drove into him and closed the motorway.

CRV driver is a plonker, but to all those who condemn him outright: Have you ever made a mistake? Instead of being an ahole who deliberately tried to jump the queue, perhaps he just made an honest mistake and left it too late to merge into the lane and struggled to find a gap big enough to pull into the queue. Sure, he shouldn't have then tried to barge in, but perhaps again he made a mistake and the non-HGV was in his blindspot.

We should all make some allowances for other people being idiots / making innocent mistakes. To accelerate into the gap to deliberately prevent the CRV merging in, without taking account of the potential consequences, is reckless. I think the lorry driver should be done for dangerous driving. He's an arrogant cock of the 1st degree.

• *******************************************************************

I came across a tt like this about 3 weeks ago. I was merging on to the M1 from the Wetherby services. The inside lane was chock-a-block with trucks, but there was a gap I could merge into. So I accelerated up to their speed so as to merge in. However one of the HGV drivers took the same attitude as this twonk and deliberately accelerated in order to close the gap and prevent me merging in, which then forced me to slow dramatically to avoid running out of acceleration lane. Then I was faced with having to merge in to the traffic from almost a standstill. Showed the same bloody minded attitude as this idiot. If he'd simply maintained his speed I could have merged in easily.

[nipsips]

The Wookie said:

Obviously not that much experience; my old man's insurance company tried to go 50:50 when some idiot changed lanes into his rear quarter and claimed he was moving out to avoid a bus lane that wasn't even there. There wasn't even a claim that Dad was trying to block him.

He had to threaten legal action as it was so obviously stupid before they backed down. I think they may have even still paid out the claim along with the tosspot's whiplash compo but refunded Dad's excess and marked it down as a no fault claim.

Depends on the insurer and how good an argument they could come up with. Its all about what you can prove. Most lane changing incidents you will differing version of events and as there is no evidence to prove either sides story.

Fortunately dash cameras and CCTV evidence cannot be manipulated and you will always get the facts.

I had a claim recently where we insured a person who said they were exiting the service station to get onto a motorway and the car in front stopped dead and started to reverse up the slip road hitting our customer. I told them the other driver will say you hit them in the rear and its down to us to prove different. At this point she told me she had a dash camera and would get the footage over to me. Lo and behold, called the other drivers insurer to be told - your driver has hit our driver in the rear, why on earth would our driver reverse up the sliproad. Received the footage only to be gobsmacked as this guy stopped dead, and started to reverse back plain as day. Sent it over to the other insurer who have now paid our claim. Without the dashcam footage it wouldn't be the same outcome and our driver would be held at fault even though they were in the right.

For what its worth if I was the truck driver I would have let the other driver in. I'd probably have sworn at him a bit but I wouldn't have risked getting hit over it. However as I've previously stated he was perfectly entitled to hold his position, its down to the manoeuvring driver to carry it out without putting risk to other road users as per the highway code ruling above.

[wibblebrain]

philmots said:

Although, I don't think braking entered his head!

On the contrary you can see he deliberately accelerated to make sure the gap wasn't big enough for the CRV.

[nipsips]

wibblebrain said:

CRV driver is a plonker, but to all those who condemn him outright: Have you ever made a mistake? Instead of being an ahole who deliberately tried to jump the queue, perhaps he just made an honest mistake and left it too late to merge into the lane and struggled to find a gap big enough to pull into the queue. Sure, he shouldn't have then tried to barge in, but perhaps again he made a mistake and the non-HGV was in his blindspot.

We should all make some allowances for other people being idiots / making innocent mistakes. To accelerate into the gap to deliberately prevent the CRV merging in, without taking account of the potential consequences, is reckless. I think the lorry driver should be done for dangerous driving. He's an arrogant cock of the 1st degree.

• *******************************************************************

I came across a tt like this about 3 weeks ago. I was merging on to the M1 from the Wetherby services. The inside lane was chock-a-block with trucks, but there was a gap I could merge into. So I accelerated up to their speed so as to merge in. However one of the HGV drivers took the same attitude as this twonk and deliberately accelerated in order to close the gap and prevent me merging in, which then forced me to slow dramatically to avoid running out of acceleration lane. Then I was faced with having to merge in to the traffic from almost a standstill. Showed the same bloody minded attitude as this idiot. If he'd simply maintained his speed I could have merged in easily.

Yes I have made a mistake. Have I ever assumed someone would let me in because I was indicating? No. Once it became clear the truck wasn't going to let him in he should have carried on to the next exit. An indication does not give right of way to anybody. It is simply showing intent. The first words out of the car drivers mouth were I was indicating.

I can say this until I'm blue in the face - There is no rule anywhere that states you have to let someone join a carriageway. And yes I've been in a similar situation myself where no one lets you in. But then its down to me to enter it safely.

[berlintaxi]

nipsips said:

I can say this until I'm blue in the face - There is no rule anywhere that states you have to let someone join a carriageway.

Indeed, but common courtesy maybe, unless you get off on making life difficult for yourself and others.

[heebeegeetee]

wibblebrain said:

CRV driver is a plonker, but to all those who condemn him outright: Have you ever made a mistake? .

Yes, but I wouldn't slow an m'way lane right down because of that. Thousands do though, every rush hour, although of course, they're not making mistakes, they know exactly what they're doing.

[xRIEx]

nipsips said:

Perhaps you could direct me to where the Highway Code states that?

Actually I'll have a look for you. To start with:

[b]168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous.[/b] Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

None of these say - the person who is entering his intention to enter your lane has priority. You MUST slow down or stop to let the person who is breaking every rule above skip two miles of traffic.

I assume you just copied and pasted without reading?

The truck driver didn't look like he was maintaining speed, he visibly closed the gap with the car in front and he didn't slow down (which was arguably necessary) to let the vehicle pass.

They are both stubborn idiots, and both had options to avoid the collision.


"Maintaining momentum" is a crap excuse if it means an hour or more delay while you sort out the aftermath of an accident!

[fatboy69]

Honda driver was/is a tt.

Clearly with a caravan attached he wasn't going to force his way in to the gap - without the caravan he 'might' have squeezed in.

Whilst the HGV driver could have let him in earlier i don't see how he can be blamed bearing in mind how late the CRV dhead left it too force his way in.

The CRV driver should be made to re-take his driving test as he is obviously unaware that just because you indicate it doesn't give you the god given right to push in.

Knob.

[MX51ROD]

I am a "shed puller " and I think the CRV driver made a BIG mistake trying to barge in , He should have realised the HGV is big and solid and will hurt , could have held back and most likely would have been let in behind the HGV ,

[Europa1]

fatboy69 said:

Honda driver was/is a tt.

Clearly with a caravan attached he wasn't going to force his way in to the gap - without the caravan he 'might' have squeezed in.

Whilst the HGV driver could have let him in earlier i don't see how he can be blamed bearing in mind how late the CRV dhead left it too force his way in.

The CRV driver should be made to re-take his driving test as he is obviously unaware that just because you indicate it doesn't give you the god given right to push in.

Knob.

Agree the Honda driver was at fault, but in no way solely at fault - the lorry driver was also grade 8 on the pink clarinet for closing the gap.

[spats]

Just watched it. The Honda actually pulls past the blue Renault, so actually starts pulling into the lane whilst next to the Renault. He does this until he starts riding the solid white line.
There is NEVER enough space between the Renault and the truck. Regardless of if the truck accelerated at one point, the gap is clearly established as being too small to fit into. The Honda driver is almost pulling into the space occupied by the Renault, and its only once the Honda is actually riding on the solid white line does the Renault have to accelerate otherwise the Honda will hit him. You can actually see the Renault move right over to the left side of the lane, probably worried the Honda was going to hit him! The truck driver would have had to stop pretty quickly to stop the Honda driving into him, he sees him and moves over in the lane just like the Renault did, probably thinking he will see theres no space, that hes facing a truck or a barrier and will stop.
He drops out of view of the camera still able to pull away from the truck and avoid it, but somehow the Honda must accelerate again to get into a position to be far enough in front to get pulled round the truck.
Fault lies solely on the Honda driver, if the truck had braked the Honda probably would have still clipped the front of the cab as there was never enough space to get in to the lane.
The truck driver might have been able to brake and hope the guy behind is awake enough to brake in time to avoid hitting him up the rear, but that Honda driver shouldn’t have put himself into that situation in the first place. The fact hes out of the car looking angry rather than sheepish shows he wasn’t doing the manoeuvre because he was nervous about missing the junction, he wanted in and felt he could bully his way in.

[The Wookie]

nipsips said:

Depends on the insurer and how good an argument they could come up with. Its all about what you can prove. Most lane changing incidents you will differing version of events and as there is no evidence to prove either sides story.

The great thing about that particular one was that he identified the exact spot in his statement and specifically made his reasoning the bus lane. A few photos of the exact spot, as well as an up to date Google Maps snapshot, showed there was a total absence of bus lane. There wasn't any reason to change out of that lane at all for a good half a mile, this being a dead straight 30 limit in central london.

He claimed they were alongside but it was also difficult to argue that was cobblers as the positioning of the impact as it was about an inch long scuff (so very little speed differential) on the leading edge of the rear arch of the old man's car that matched up perfectly with the damage on the front right corner of his car. It was even an unusual colour paint so difficult to argue it happened in another accident.

At no point did he claim that the old man had moved over on him, it was simply that he was changing lanes and Dad was there but didn't move out of the way (into oncoming traffic) when he indicated and he had to move over because of the (non existent) bus lane.

I know these things aren't universal and there are as many crap insurance claims handlers as there are dodgy plumbers and useless lawyers and I think our main issue was that they had probably paid out before they'd even contacted us and hadn't done enough due diligence to realise that the facts and lies were pretty obvious. That all said the prevailing rationale seemed to be that a car changing lanes and the one alongside not yielding was 50:50 by default.

[surveyor]

Looking at some of these posts and the ability of people to read the road and drive defensively I am actually quite shocked.

There is no way that car and caravans manoeuvre was not clear from the first second it appeared. He was looking to get in. To not expect the squeeze in would be naive in the extreme and proof of very poor anticipation skills. The lorry driver could have avoided an accident in just the same way that the Honda could have.

In my view the camera show's the lorry driver in only very slightly higher ground than the CRV. If I was his boss I would not approve of him using my vehicle to cause such chaos.

[Mave]

philmots said:

stty situation, but i'd be claiming it wasn't safe to slam on therefore wasn't anything more I could do therefore it's 100% the CRV drivers fault.

Although, I don't think braking entered his head!

So do you think its safer to definitely crash, than to brake hard and maybe crash?

[Mave]

wc98 said:

V8forweekends said:

Agreed at the point where the crash happens - but the HGV baulked the CRV at an earlier point where it would have been easy (if annoying) to slow and let him in.

looking at the angle the crv is cutting in at 2.03 i think he forgot about the caravan. even if the lorry had stopped dead there and then i think the caravan would have been hitting it.

But if he had stopped dead, or slowed down, or even not accelerated, it would have been a far less dangerous collision of a lower speed side swipe rather than the lorry driving into the passenger door at head level.