HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[Mave]

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!

How about the first statement in the highway code

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident"

Edited by Mave on Monday 20th April 18:46

[Sonic]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

The CRV driver is an idiot. The HGV driver is a dangerous idiot and should know better.

You seem to have got that a bit backwards, rather like the dangerous CRV idiot.

[Scootersp]

CRV driver should have clearly seen he was being blocked off as the slip road veered off and expected/accepted the Lorry thought he was pushing in and wasn't going to let him in, maintaining the lorries pace there was ample room to be along side him and in the chevrons/hatched area between the slip road and motorway lanes (ie he didn't need to continue to pinch the HGV there was an 'out') where, whilst not ideal, he could have waited for someone further back (with a more level head) to take pity on him and let him in.

[Europa1]

Not sure whether it would have had any bearing on this particular accident, but it doesn't look as though the Honda driver has fitted the sticky out extra wing mirror thingies which I thought you had to have when towing a caravan behind a car.

[vonhosen]

DJP said:

Paul O said:

...50/50 for the reality of causing the accident, but 100% Hondas fault if you read it by the letter of the road rules.

This absolutely.

The lorry driver was being a cock but not actually committing any offences.

OTOH, to crash where he did, caravan tt must have driven up the central reservation, onto the chevronned area and into a gap that wasn't there.

Bell-end.

Having an collision when you could have easily avoided it is committing an offence.
It's not the lorry driver's job to Police other people's poor planning/driving.
It is his responsibility to avoid collisions where he can, rather have one in order to enforce what he sees as his right. If he wants the other party dealt with he should provide evidence to the prosecuting authorities rather than deal out his own form of justice.
When both parties have a collision by attempting to force their will when it's completely avoidable, then they both carry a portion of the blame for that collision.

[MX51ROD]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

But do you also acknowledge the HGV driver is an utter penis?

Do you acknowledge he closed the gap in order to try and 'police' his bit of road?

Do you acknowledge he had ample opportunity (as a professional driver) to avoid the collision and therefore save a lot of people a lot of heartache?

Yes , Yes & Yes
But the CRV driver should realised he was going to loose this battle and given up , the HGV driver obviously had no intention in giving way and also was not concerned about any damage to his truck so ploughed on , the CRV will have seriously dented doors and who knows what damage to his caravan , and a seriously dented NCB

[Jim the Sunderer]

The gadgey should probably use his insurance payout on cruises.

He'd get sent to Her Maj's Holiday Camp if he was a 19 year old.

[jagracer]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

The CRV driver is a dangerous idiot and should know better. The HGV driver is a dangerous idiot and should know better.

I've edited that for you. No excuses on either side.

[andygtt]

clearly its a 10 place grid penalty for unsafe release for the Caravaner?

[kev1974]

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.

Nah, valiant defence effort, but Captain Caravan clearly and noisily brushes the side of the truck early on so he knew full well the truck was there from that point on, yet he still ploughs ahead and a couple of meters up the road tries to cut the truck up (where he receives the second punishment). There was no "honest mistake" there, certainly not after the first contact.

Also he indignantly shouts "I was indicating", so that was his defence, he thinks they make spaces magically appear; when he talks the incident through with his insurer and he mentions "I was indicating", their next couple of questions will be along the lines of "why were you indicating ... oh so you wanted to change lanes into the one occupied by the truck ... did you look to check there was a space big enough to move into? ... you didn't / there wasn't? oh dear your premiums just went sky high, sorry about that".

[rambo19]

An indicator is not an automatic right of way.

[philmots]

wibblebrain said:

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

..it could be argued that he accelerated to firmly show there wasn't a big enough gap for CRV to enter (in fairness, there wasn't before he accelerated) as he didn't want to cause an accident behind by anchoring on!

Again; stty situation I'm glad I'm not part of!

[untakenname]

Imo the caravan driver is 100% at fault, he probably does it day in day out to other road users and finally got his comeuppance.

One thing to bear in mind is that the HGV driver may have had a blackbox recorder in the vehicle as well as the dashcam if stipulated by the insurers so if he takes evasive action to let the caravan force it's way in he will be reprimanded by work and put his livelihood on the line as the blackbox will register the sudden deceleration.

[anonymous-user]

Now that I've watched it again I feel less and less sympathy for the lorry driver.

Once he realised the Honda wanted in he was desperately stamping on the accelerator in an effort to be right up the backside of the car in front of him, furiously trying to make sure the Honda driver didn't stand a chance of getting in.

His driving was extremely aggressive at best.

A classic example of aggressive and bloody-minded driver meets another aggressive and bloody-minded driver which results in pointless damage.

It's pretty much the same as this:

http://youtu.be/LAzku3R_6FQ

[With these feet]

rambo19 said:

An indicator is not an automatic right of way.

No, but it does show other road users your intentions and as stated above from the highway code, you dont have an absolute right of way.
If you decide to ignore the other drivers indication, or as in this case, close the gap and move over a little more, then the results are hardly surprising. If the truck driver had simply dabbed the brakes, the Honda would have slotted in.

Truck driver comes across as sweary, aggressive, knuckle dragger and a bit of a sod-you-Jack-Im-alright type.
Watching it again highlights his mentality , the CRV asking to come in but the truck driver deciding he was Judge and Jury.

Some think it was dangerous for the truck to stop as it was going too fast? Rubbish. No more than 15-20 mph in that lane, and hitting the Honda stopped the queue - same as if he'd have pressed the brake, no one tail ended him then? Again, referring to the highway code, you should always leave enough room to stop safely in any situation.

[Drive Blind]

funny to see the crv driver getting squashed.

As others have pointed out he's one of those "I'm indicating so get out my way" drivers who always push in at the front of a queue.

Would I damage my car proving a point? certainly not, but it's good to see somebody else doing it. Hopefully mr crv bawbag will modify his future lane discipline and lane changing behaviour.

[Otispunkmeyer]

Both to blame there IMO.

Regardless of whether someone is in the right or in the wrong, surely the top most priority is avoiding a collision. Regardless of being right or wrong, if you have the opportunity to get out of a crash situation, then you should be taking it. Yes the guy in the CRV with the self important yuppie mentality is being a douche bag. But the answer is not to deliberately not let him in by donning the silly littler englisher mentality that someone is pushing in front. Just chill out, its not worth it.

Yes it seems unjust to let people like that pull st like this and watch them get away with it. After all, how are they going to see the error of their ways if people keep bending to their will?, yes they may go on to do it with other people, but at least they didn't have an accident with you. These people will one day come unstuck in a big way. It will come round to get them in the ass.

I would have just eased off or even braked a bit if I was in the HGV... just let the sod get on with it.

[Mave]

untakenname said:

Imo the caravan driver is 100% at fault, he probably does it day in day out to other road users and finally got his comeuppance.

One thing to bear in mind is that the HGV driver may have had a blackbox recorder in the vehicle as well as the dashcam if stipulated by the insurers so if he takes evasive action to let the caravan force it's way in he will be reprimanded by work and put his livelihood on the line as the blackbox will register the sudden deceleration.

You honestly think someone will be "reprimanded and had his livelihood put on the line" if his employer finds evidence that he braked hard to avoid a collision?

[jagracer]

Mave said:

You honestly think someone will be "reprimanded and had his livelihood put on the line" if his employer finds evidence that he braked hard to avoid a collision?

Yup, I've seen it happen in our company although we don't yet have the video evidence to bail us out.

[With these feet]

Mave said:

You honestly think someone will be "reprimanded and had his livelihood put on the line" if his employer finds evidence that he braked hard to avoid a collision?

Perhaps it might have been better if he did "drive like a girl"..... Pretty sure they (the insurers) would be more annoyed at his antics in contributing to an accident rather than taking evasive action.