How's my driving?

[7mike]

Hackney said:

7mike said:

I'll post my usual link for this:

http://www.keithlane.com/page5.htm

Personally I wouldn't position alongside an LGV with a slower vehicle ahead restricting speed & therefore ruling out an escape route.

So like this then?

You could get all angry on the OPs behalf or look a bit earlier; 14 seconds into the front facing video. Accelerating up to the side of a LGV with Armco to the right & a van which you have no control over directly ahead who has not even cleared the front of the LGV. Incidentally what would you consider a safe following distance at 40/50mph; reckon it's more than the length of an artic.

[FakeConcern]

7mike said:

Hackney said:

7mike said:

I'll post my usual link for this:

http://www.keithlane.com/page5.htm

Personally I wouldn't position alongside an LGV with a slower vehicle ahead restricting speed & therefore ruling out an escape route.

So like this then?

You could get all angry on the OPs behalf or look a bit earlier; 14 seconds into the front facing video. Accelerating up to the side of a LGV with Armco to the right & a van which you have no control over directly ahead who has not even cleared the front of the LGV. Incidentally what would you consider a safe following distance at 40/50mph; reckon it's more than the length of an artic.

Except at that point we were doing 20mph or less and the road opens to 3 lanes just past that point. However looking at that maybe I was a bit close to the Focus later on. Incidentally, I don't think anyone's getting angry, seems to me to be a productive discussion.

[Funk]

FakeConcern said:

My thought at the time was that I could fairly easily nip in front of the Focus...

Yep, I'd have been keeping an eye on the lorry in my mirror and realising what he was doing if have firmed it up and gotten in front of the Focus.

[FakeConcern]

Funk said:

FakeConcern said:

My thought at the time was that I could fairly easily nip in front of the Focus...

Yep, I'd have been keeping an eye on the lorry in my mirror and realising what he was doing if have firmed it up and gotten in front of the Focus.

In retrospect was probably the best option, even at risk of upsetting Focus driver.

[7mike]

FakeConcern said:

Except at that point we were doing 20mph or less and the road opens to 3 lanes just past that point. However looking at that maybe I was a bit close to the Focus later on. Incidentally, I don't think anyone's getting angry, seems to me to be a productive discussion.

Not sure if you had a look at the link I posted; it is quite useful. From the beginning of your first video had you positioned opposite the gap created by the LGV and the van following it you would have had space around you. If that meant joining the motorway behind the LGV you would have passed it at leisure once established on the motorway with absolutely no change in your journey time. Whatever you, I or anyone else thinks about the lorry driver's behaviour is irrelevant; no one else can manage the space for us.

[XJ Flyer]

7mike said:

FakeConcern said:

Except at that point we were doing 20mph or less and the road opens to 3 lanes just past that point. However looking at that maybe I was a bit close to the Focus later on. Incidentally, I don't think anyone's getting angry, seems to me to be a productive discussion.

Not sure if you had a look at the link I posted; it is quite useful. From the beginning of your first video had you positioned opposite the gap created by the LGV and the van following it you would have had space around you. If that meant joining the motorway behind the LGV you would have passed it at leisure once established on the motorway with absolutely no change in your journey time. Whatever you, I or anyone else thinks about the lorry driver's behaviour is irrelevant; no one else can manage the space for us.

Seeing it from the point of view of any decent truck driver that situation was mostly the result of the truck driver not leaving sufficient seperation distance to the car ahead through the roundabout and then into the exit onto the slip road and then also undertaking the camera car.With the obvious forseeable result of blocking traffic needing to merge from the offside according to the stupid road layout.

As for the diagonal space idea that's only going to work if everyone is keeping sufficient seperation distances in all lanes unlike in this case.In which the van following the truck was too close at the point where the camera car could potentially have changed lanes to follow the truck and the truck was following the car too closely through the roundabout let alone then attempting to undertake traffic that forseeably needs to merge from the offside in addition to that.The only logical course of action in that case would be for any traffic in the offside marked lane to just stop and then wait for a space to get into the correct lane to suit the stupid roundabout and exit slip road lane layout.

[XJ Flyer]

FakeConcern said:

Except at that point we were doing 20mph or less and the road opens to 3 lanes just past that point. However looking at that maybe I was a bit close to the Focus later on. Incidentally, I don't think anyone's getting angry, seems to me to be a productive discussion.

The relevant question is how close was the truck to the car ahead at the lane merging point on the slip road after exiting the roundabout.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 2nd April 05:22

[Munter]

Looks to my (untrained) eye, that this is a typical "people not accelerating on slip roads" problem.

That ripples back until it gets to the OP and the truck. The truck is not allowing for someone 5 or 6 cars ahead being too weak to push the pedal on the right far enough. Therefore expects the OP to accelerate harder than he does. Being a stereotype truck driver, he believes traffic should work the way he wants it to. And blames the cars nearest to him.

If you don't want to annoy the truck you have to be right up against the Focus, so the trucker can see you are held up. If you don't want to be that close to the Focus you annoy the trucker.

This is why the general population needs to be educated on how to use slip roads without causing congestion behind them.

[Funk]

FakeConcern said:

Funk said:

FakeConcern said:

My thought at the time was that I could fairly easily nip in front of the Focus...

Yep, I'd have been keeping an eye on the lorry in my mirror and realising what he was doing if have firmed it up and gotten in front of the Focus.

In retrospect was probably the best option, even at risk of upsetting Focus driver.

Yep. Rather tussle with a Focus than a 44-ton truck.

[johnao]

StressedDave said:

Have you considered the fact that whilst you may have had a great view of the lorry up close and personal, it's highly unlikely the lorry driver could see you at all and was remarkably surprised when he had to jam the brakes on to avoid rubbing you up against the Armco?

Sorry Dave, however many times you look at both videos and examine what was happening second by second, there's only one rational answer... the lorry driver was being an idiot, and what's worse... he was deliberately being an idiot in trying to bully himself into a position ahead of the OP.

[waremark]

Did you use your left indicator approaching the merge point?

Doesn't the truck driver take the view that you have tried to overtake him and now you are pushing in front of him in his lane?

[StressedDave]

johnao said:

Sorry Dave, however many times you look at both videos and examine what was happening second by second, there's only one rational answer... the lorry driver was being an idiot, and what's worse... he was deliberately being an idiot in trying to bully himself into a position ahead of the OP.

Thing is, I'm not entirely sure that he is wholly culpable in this. The key thing is to look at the rear camera footage at the point where the front of the lorry comes into view. There's a honking great blind spot in that corner made up by the mirror array and the A post (not that there's a B post or beyond in a lorry) into which it could be argued (by any competent lawyer, of which I am not one) that the OP's car was hidden at the material times, i.e. when the lorry driver was checking those positions and his whole attention not on the farrago ahead caused by people not understanding the lack of accelerative capacity of a lorry (the vehicle three in front), which I'm afraid includes the OP.

It might be nice to imply omnicognisance when it suits us, but in this case, it's entirely possible to give the lorry driver the benefit of the doubt. I'd imagine similar shots taken from the lorry would show the OP's car suddenly appearing in front as if he'd try to race the lorry from behind and only just made it, provoking the lights, and no doubt in-lorry questioning as to parentage.

BTW, it's interesting to note the lack of comment on the clear 3-point offence occasioned during the hissy fit by the OP thereafter </troll>.

[johnao]

StressedDave said:

Thing is, I'm not entirely sure that he is wholly culpable in this. The key thing is to look at the rear camera footage at the point where the front of the lorry comes into view. There's a honking great blind spot in that corner made up by the mirror array and the A post (not that there's a B post or beyond in a lorry) into which it could be argued (by any competent lawyer, of which I am not one) that the OP's car was hidden at the material times,

Dave, are we looking at the same video?

For a whole 5 seconds (from 32 to 37) the car is in front of the lorry cab. At 34 seconds I would argue that from the rear camera image one can just about discern the lorry driver in his cab. If I can see the lorry driver, he can see me. And, don't forget we're looking at the front of the cab from a rear mounted camera; the front of the car would be at least another 3 to 4 metres further ahead and well within the view of the lorry driver.

At 38 seconds the car is driven over a return arrow in lane 2 which is also within full view of the lorry driver. To any reasonably competent lorry driver it would be obvious that a) from no later than 34 seconds there is a car in lane 2, b) that the car was in a lane with return arrows, c) the car had nowhere to go but lane 1, and that the car's next manoeuvre had to be a merge with lane 1.

Whatever his barrister says, there's only one conclusion... the lorry driver was being an idiot.

[7mike]

johnao said:

StressedDave said:

Thing is, I'm not entirely sure that he is wholly culpable in this. The key thing is to look at the rear camera footage at the point where the front of the lorry comes into view. There's a honking great blind spot in that corner made up by the mirror array and the A post (not that there's a B post or beyond in a lorry) into which it could be argued (by any competent lawyer, of which I am not one) that the OP's car was hidden at the material times,

Dave, are we looking at the same video?

For a whole 5 seconds (from 32 to 37) the car is in front of the lorry cab. At 34 seconds I would argue that from the rear camera image one can just about discern the lorry driver in his cab. If I can see the lorry driver, he can see me. And, don't forget we're looking at the front of the cab from a rear mounted camera; the front of the car would be at least another 3 to 4 metres further ahead and well within the view of the lorry driver.

At 38 seconds the car is driven over a return arrow in lane 2 which is also within full view of the lorry driver. To any reasonably competent lorry driver it would be obvious that a) from no later than 34 seconds there is a car in lane 2, b) that the car was in a lane with return arrows, c) the car had nowhere to go but lane 1, and that the car's next manoeuvre had to be a merge with lane 1.

Whatever his barrister says, there's only one conclusion... the lorry driver was being an idiot.

....and from 10 seconds in the whole thing was predictable. So as everyone's Dad came out with that 'wise' bit of advice about treating everyone else on the road as an idiot why did the situation develop?

[SK425]

XJ Flyer said:

As for the diagonal space idea that's only going to work if everyone is keeping sufficient seperation distances in all lanes unlike in this case.

There's always some space between vehicles in lanes adjacent to you. The diagonal space diagram in the link posted is something of an ideal, but you can try to do the best you can with what you've got to work with in terms of traffic spacing around you. And you can refrain from starting to overtake until there is space to get all the way past.

<speculation>
Conceivably, if the OP had waited at 0:14, sufficient space would have been available around 0:33, but by that time he's still on the roundabout but heading for the slip road with the merge, and so it's no longer just "can I get past the lorry to be alongside space again", but "can I get past the lorry to be alongside a space I can merge into". The gap between the lorry and the Focus might not have looked good for that, and from behind the lorry there probably wouldn't have been time to get ahead of the Focus so perhaps he would have remained behind the lorry and not been nearly killed.

[StressedDave]

johnao said:

Dave, are we looking at the same video?

For a whole 5 seconds (from 32 to 37) the car is in front of the lorry cab. At 34 seconds I would argue that from the rear camera image one can just about discern the lorry driver in his cab. If I can see the lorry driver, he can see me. And, don't forget we're looking at the front of the cab from a rear mounted camera; the front of the car would be at least another 3 to 4 metres further ahead and well within the view of the lorry driver.

At 38 seconds the car is driven over a return arrow in lane 2 which is also within full view of the lorry driver. To any reasonably competent lorry driver it would be obvious that a) from no later than 34 seconds there is a car in lane 2, b) that the car was in a lane with return arrows, c) the car had nowhere to go but lane 1, and that the car's next manoeuvre had to be a merge with lane 1.

Whatever his barrister says, there's only one conclusion... the lorry driver was being an idiot.

We are... it's merely that you are assuming that the lorry driver was looking at that bit of the road at that time and not at the unfolding events a little further ahead that would be occupying his thoughts more.

Purely as a thought experiment, put a small traffic cone 2-3m in front of your bonnet, sit in the driving seat and work out how easy it is to see that if you're looking where you normally look whilst driving. Most of our belief that we see everything around us comes from being able to spot something entering the field of vision we don't normally see from somewhere we do. In this case it's entirely possible that the lorry driver didn't see the OP coming into the blurry bit close to the vehicle.

And I'm with 7Mike... I wouldn't have done what the OP did because it was blindingly obvious that what did happened could have happened.

[XJ Flyer]

johnao said:

Dave, are we looking at the same video?

For a whole 5 seconds (from 32 to 37) the car is in front of the lorry cab. At 34 seconds I would argue that from the rear camera image one can just about discern the lorry driver in his cab. If I can see the lorry driver, he can see me. And, don't forget we're looking at the front of the cab from a rear mounted camera; the front of the car would be at least another 3 to 4 metres further ahead and well within the view of the lorry driver.

At 38 seconds the car is driven over a return arrow in lane 2 which is also within full view of the lorry driver. To any reasonably competent lorry driver it would be obvious that a) from no later than 34 seconds there is a car in lane 2, b) that the car was in a lane with return arrows, c) the car had nowhere to go but lane 1, and that the car's next manoeuvre had to be a merge with lane 1.

Whatever his barrister says, there's only one conclusion... the lorry driver was being an idiot.

+1

As a retired truck driver the relevant point is all about anticipation based on what would definitely have been seen in the mirrors at 0.12-0.20 on the forward facing video.IE a car in the lane to the right that will propably be taking the same exit of the roundabout according to the road markings into a slip road that might well only have one lane to exit into.In which case the truck driver was too close to the car ahead to allow for that forseeable situation in addition to being too close to it anyway.As for any so called 'blind spot' to the front offside of a RHD truck in the situation as shown in the videos I'd say that's just an excuse for an obvious piece of stupid unnecessary driving by the truck driver in this case.

[XJ Flyer]

StressedDave said:

We are... it's merely that you are assuming that the lorry driver was looking at that bit of the road at that time and not at the unfolding events a little further ahead that would be occupying his thoughts more.

If he was that worried about what was happening ahead he wouldn't have been accelerating on the exit of the roundabout thereby closing the gap between the truck and the car ahead even more than the already too small gap that was there all through the roundabout.Let alone bearing in mind and allowing for the possibility of merging traffic from the right hand lane ahead to suit the stupid road layout as in this case.

[waremark]

johnao said:

Whatever his barrister says, there's only one conclusion... the lorry driver was being an idiot.

It's not often I disagree with Johnao but it is certainly not true that there is only one conclusion! My conclusion is that the OP's lane disappeared, it was primarily his responsibility to find a suitable gap to merge into, and he failed to do so. The lorry driver was just continuing on his merry way in his own lane at his own pace.

To answer the OP's question, he should have held back at 12s, he should have held back again before the end of his lane, he should have used his left indicator to invite cooperation from the next vehicle behind, and he should not have shown petulance by the way he entered the motorway.

OP, sorry to be critical, you can take comfort from the fact that the majority here seem to be on your side!

[gherkins]

waremark said:

johnao said:

Whatever his barrister says, there's only one conclusion... the lorry driver was being an idiot.

It's not often I disagree with Johnao but it is certainly not true that there is only one conclusion! My conclusion is that the OP's lane disappeared, it was primarily his responsibility to find a suitable gap to merge into, and he failed to do so. The lorry driver was just continuing on his merry way in his own lane at his own pace.

To answer the OP's question, he should have held back at 12s, he should have held back again before the end of his lane, he should have used his left indicator to invite cooperation from the next vehicle behind, and he should not have shown petulance by the way he entered the motorway.

OP, sorry to be critical, you can take comfort from the fact that the majority here seem to be on your side!

I'm not trying to take sides - it's easily said in hindsight, but in my opinion the OP should have seen the lorry accelerating hard and either committed fully and got past the dawdling Focus or backed off and hoped to slot in behind the lorry (although this would have perhaps been problematic with the MINI behind).

What seems clear is that the lorry must have seen the OP and the situation of the road ahead and appears to have made an idiotic and inconsiderate choice in accelerating hard to block the OP. To those that think the lorry was merely getting up to speed on the slip road, if he'd continued in that way, he would have ended up in the back of the Focus.

Edited by gherkins on Thursday 3rd April 08:24