HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[darren f]

shost said:

Can we not ask the Lorry driver what the outcome was?

I would have thought he's too busy ringing round the recruitment agencies / down the job centre. The photos above confirm my thoughts- let's face it they were doing 10mph max, it wasn't a question of needing to do an emergency stop- all the wagon driver had to do was ease off. The idiot caravanner wanted to merge left, anyone with eyes and a brain could see that, the truck driver wasn't going to let him, to teach him a lesson no doubt. A long blast on the horn and a few hand gestures towards the pillock car driver would have sufficed here, not intentionally causing an accident. As many have said 'the meeting of 2 idiots'

As for everyone saying 100% the caravanner's fault- would they attempt to maintain / close the gap in that situation? Willingly put another driver in a position of danger for a prolonged time? Could they not anticipate the potential accident scenario? If the answer to all 3 questions is yes, please could they place an identifiable mark on their vehicle so I have opportunity to avoid them at all costs when out on the road.

[saaby93]

Leicesterdave said:

I work for an insurance company- and this is the easiest liability decision I've ever made. Lorry is correctly proceeding- caravan is changing lanes.

Regardless of the lorry driver's attitude- caravan driver is 100% at fault, no question about it.

Weird - nipslips said same - what sort of training courses are there for insurance assessors?
Its obviously contrary to the legal position
and nipslips said about 10 pages ago if he was driving he's also try to avoid the collision

[trashbat]

saaby93 said:

Every day all over the country you see people accidentally get into the wrong lane at roundabouts, traffic lights or slip roads. They realise they're in the wrong place and sheepishly put on their indicator so as to move into where they shoudl be. What do you acknowledge it's happened and let them in because you know taht one day you too could make a similar mistake?

What you describe is a two-way interaction between two people where one asks for permission to do something, and the other permits them, and only then do they do it. This is a mechanism to be encouraged and I'm sure we mostly do it.

What this video shows is much more of a one-way interaction where the first person says, 'I'm doing this now, better get out of the way'. Do you think it was a mistake or miscommunication? I don't.

And this behaviour obviously isn't something to be encouraged, although you would think you'd attempt to draw the line before it caused you real inconvenience or anyone got hurt.

IMO there should be a new section of the Road Traffic Act that allows the police to confiscate people's awful cars and caravans after such behaviour, and publicly destroy them pour encourager les autres.

[saaby93]

trashbat said:

saaby93 said:

Every day all over the country you see people accidentally get into the wrong lane at roundabouts, traffic lights or slip roads. They realise they're in the wrong place and sheepishly put on their indicator so as to move into where they shoudl be. What do you acknowledge it's happened and let them in because you know taht one day you too could make a similar mistake?

Or do you drive into them and say 'ha ha your fault'?
Oh dear this is going to take a few months to sort out

What you describe is a two-way interaction between two people where one asks for permission to do something, and the other permits them, and only then do they do it. This is a mechanism to be encouraged and I'm sure we mostly do it.

What this video shows is much more of a one-way interaction where the first person says, 'I'm doing this now, better get out of the way'. Do you think it was a mistake or miscommunication? I don't.

And this behaviour obviously isn't something to be encouraged, although you would think you'd attempt to draw the line before it caused you real inconvenience or anyone got hurt.

So you think driving into someone is a way to try to teach them a lesson?
Of course it isnt. Its cutting off your nose to spite your face
Its lucky we're only talking about paintwork and the truck didnt damage any passengers in the car
If you see someone making a mistake crossing the road do you drive into them or slow up and try to let them carry on across?
Both parties know they got it wrong but thats enough. No need to try to teach them a lesson for it
Due care for other road users

[s3fella]

First contact happens well before the final side shunt, if you listen you can hear the truck Colin with the caravan as the crv is still in camera shot, and the turducken appears to accelerate up the side of the caravan and tow car scraping against it.

Could the caravan and car got hitched up to the truck in some way, and he's been dragged alongside it? Then seeing the impending barrier crv man booted it to try to break free ? Tenuous maybe, but a possible.

But a proper pair of lasers and I'd not want that trucker driving for my company.

[darren f]

trashbat said:

....What this video shows is much more of a one-way interaction where the first person says, 'I'm doing this now, better get out of the way'. Do you think it was a mistake or miscommunication? I don't.

The left-hand indicator was I suggest, the opening 'I'd like to do this please' gambit. Hasn't everyone (apart from the driving gods on here I suppose) been caught in the incorrect lane at some point? I know I have and accordingly I tend to make allowances for others when they are caught in similar circumstances. Yes in this case, the caravan driver probably was a pushing-in queue-jumping tosspot, but to intentionally have an accident because of this is simply Contrary to the majority 'insurance industry' view on here IMO it would be good if both drivers got a pasting over this incident.

[DJP]

trashbat said:

Someone should make notes on you lot and remind you of your bizarre attitude to liability whenever your next 'this awful thing happened to me' thread comes around.

I got punched in the face! Yeah well it's 75% your fault for having your face there.

LOL! This, all day long.

saaby93 said:

I have it as caravan driver normal guy making a mistake
Truck driver normal guy creating a collision where one didn't need to happen
It doesnt look like he made a mistake it looks deliberate
So 100% truck drivers fault

See above.

[Dr Jekyll]

saaby93 said:

I have it as caravan driver normal guy making a mistake
Truck driver normal guy creating a collision where one didn't need to happen
It doesnt look like he made a mistake it looks deliberate
So 100% truck drivers fault

Being in the wrong lane was a mistake. Barging into the correct lane assuming that the lorry would give way was deliberate.

[grimmac]

Leicesterdave said:

I work for an insurance company- and this is the easiest liability decision I've ever made. Lorry is correctly proceeding- caravan is changing lanes.

Regardless of the lorry driver's attitude- caravan driver is 100% at fault, no question about it.

nipsips said:

Agree with this massively. As previously stated the lorry driver is a cock sprocket of the highest order, he should have slowed down.

However DWDCA is a criminal conviction and insurance terms which is civil liability he wont get apportioned any blame.

Are you "guys in the know" saying that the insurer of the caravan driver will simply roll over and say "yep, you're right... Our driver was completely at fault, we accept 100% of the blame... How much do we owe you to fix your lorry that drove into our (insured) caravan??"

BTW, I'm not saying they wouldn't, I just find the above scenario hard to imagine happening.

[trashbat]

saaby93 said:

o you think driving into someone is a way to try to teach them a lesson?
Of course it isnt. Its cutting off your nose to spite your face

Which is what I said.

When driving, you actually have lots of subtle opportunities to reward or punish other people for their behaviour. If someone communicates their intention clearly and early, you can give them room - perhaps when they want out of a side road, or to overtake something else, or to get past you. Equally you can choose not to actively accommodate people who are pushy, late or rude. Hopefully you only do this within whatever parameters it takes to avoid an accident.

saaby93 said:

If you see someone making a mistake crossing the road do you drive into them or slow up and try to let them carry on across?

Which bit(s) of this do you think was a mistake, other than it ultimately resulting in a collision?

Plus avoiding action is usually along the lines of reacting to a single event. In a flash, you think "someone has walked out into the road up there, I expect if I do nothing I will hit them, but I think I can stop so I will brake hard", for example. It's a lot more complicated when the event is a continuously developing thing, in this case when it slowly transpires that someone is persistently determined to get on to that road at all costs.

This makes your parallel of someone crossing the road a bit weak. I honestly don't know what a good parallel would be, because thankfully this kind of insane incident is rare.

Don't get me wrong, the HGV driver could have done more, but you're placing a burden of responsibility on him that's actually quite a lot greater than the law & legal process ever expects.

[Sonic]

trashbat said:

Someone should make notes on you lot and remind you of your bizarre attitude to liability whenever your next 'this awful thing happened to me' thread comes around.

I got punched in the face! Yeah well it's 75% your fault for having your face there.

Only on PH, a driving enthusiasts site of all things, could it be reasoned that the person who drove their car into the side of a lorry is entirely absolved of any fault and the lorry forced into taking avoiding action 100% at fault for causing the incident.

I find that genuinely quite concerning so many feel they can just point their car somewhere with a flick of an indicator and expect everybody else to avoid them in order to avoid an accident, else it's 100% the avoidees fault.

[kev1974]

barker22 said:

There is two separate incidents in that clip. The second smack is 100% the CRV's fault.
I still think it should all go as the CRV's fault, however the truck driver could have handled it better.

When you watch, the point at which the CRV starts to cross, look at where the caravan is, the door of the caravan isn't visible. Looking up the caravan specs its a Bailey Pegasus GT65 and looking at the placement of the door its one of the larger models which puts it at 7.4m long minimum.

This means that over 2/3rds the length of that caravan hasn't even entered the lane yet and it just in't going to fit with the CRV's current trajectory.
The snapshot above is the point where you can be certain that that vehicle is coming over ready or not.

If the trucker had Emergency stopped at this point then in my mind that would put the CRV solely at fault anyway as that's a complete fail on a driving test. Causing another road user to change speed/direction which would be a serious fail. Or just plain dangerous driving.
Even if the truck was stopped dead at this point in the clip(which it isn't) the CRV will cross over the solid white line which is illegal in itself and should carry a 3 point penalty. Up to this point in the clip the trucker hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Good snapshot. I think you're right, caravan would have hit truck anyway at this point, even if the truck wasn't moving. It also shows that caravan man hasn't got the extended mirrors he is legally required to have (while the law doesn't specifically enforce extended mirrors, it does precisely specify the area and distance behind your vehicle that you must be able to see in your mirrors, and the interpretation of this from the Caravan Club is that you basically need the extended mirrors to stand a chance of meeting those legal requirements, it's just not possible to satisfy the law with the built in mirrors alone).

Trucker's insurance will eat caravan man for breakfast both for the lane change without checking for a gap first, and the lack of proper equipment i.e. extended mirrors.

[Leicesterdave]

grimmac said:

Are you "guys in the know" saying that the insurer of the caravan driver will simply roll over and say "yep, you're right... Our driver was completely at fault, we accept 100% of the blame... How much do we owe you to fix your lorry that drove into our (insured) caravan??"

BTW, I'm not saying they wouldn't, I just find the above scenario hard to imagine happening.

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

Conversation to TPI will be: Liability is not in dispute, can you give us the details of your outlay? There is simply no question that lorry driver is at fault- he was correctly proceeding, never changed lanes. How would it remotely be the caravan guy not at fault?

[chilistrucker]

Lousy driving, either 1 of those could have easily avoided the final outcome!
2 mongs don't make a right.

[saaby93]

trashbat said:

Don't get me wrong, the HGV driver could have done more, but you're placing a burden of responsibility on him that's actually quite a lot greater than the law & legal process ever expects.

I'm not convinced
We're given a lot of responsibility to avoid collisions when driving. It often takes two people and normally one or the other or both could help avoid it. Just because one person makes a mistake doesn't mean the second one has to compound it.
The caravan drivers made a mistake and is asking for help out of the situation
The truck drivers looks to have decided not to give help but to drive into the car/caravan
I cant see why it wouldnt be 'driving without due care and attention'
so fully covered by the legal process

[nipsips]

Leicesterdave said:

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

Conversation to TPI will be: Liability is not in dispute, can you give us the details of your outlay? There is simply no question that lorry driver is at fault- he was correctly proceeding, never changed lanes. How would it remotely be the caravan guy not at fault?

This. Behind the scenes they will be having conversations with caravan dude to tell him he shouldn't have changed lanes without making sure it was safe. He will argue that he was indicating then probably post up a post on caravanners world or whatever forum stating its not fair etc etc. If he doesnt like it he can take it to the ombudsman who will likely side with the insurer as long as they have been fair and taken everything into consideration.

[DervVW]

Leicesterdave said:

grimmac said:

Are you "guys in the know" saying that the insurer of the caravan driver will simply roll over and say "yep, you're right... Our driver was completely at fault, we accept 100% of the blame... How much do we owe you to fix your lorry that drove into our (insured) caravan??"

BTW, I'm not saying they wouldn't, I just find the above scenario hard to imagine happening.

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

Conversation to TPI will be: Liability is not in dispute, can you give us the details of your outlay? There is simply no question that lorry driver is at fault- he was correctly proceeding, never changed lanes. How would it remotely be the caravan guy not at fault?

Thank you for that.

I am worried that I share the road with people who think that the lorry driver was MORE at fault than the CRV driver.

Surely from a legal strct rule point of view the CRV is at fault.
As a human rule the CRV was wrong, but the lorry driver showed no help where he may have been able to help.

[aks7297]

Leicesterdave said:

I work for an insurance company- and this is the easiest liability decision I've ever made. Lorry is correctly proceeding- caravan is changing lanes.

Regardless of the lorry driver's attitude- caravan driver is 100% at fault, no question about it.

+1

[With these feet]

Sonic said:

Only on PH, a driving enthusiasts site of all things, could it be reasoned that the person who drove their car into the side of a lorry is entirely absolved of any fault and the lorry forced into taking avoiding action 100% at fault for causing the incident.

I find that genuinely quite concerning so many feel they can just point their car somewhere with a flick of an indicator and expect everybody else to avoid them in order to avoid an accident, else it's 100% the avoidees fault.

The issue is that the truck driver made no attempt to enable the CRV's manoeuvre, in fact his actions made what may have been a minor bump into a fairly big accident. We are all in agreement the CRV is in the wrong, but the way the truck driver held his position and in fact closed the gap and moved over, meant the CRV was stuffed.

Cause - CRV making a late dive / missed the queue / not familiar with road / taking satnav as gospel showing 2 lanes / driver a numpty.

Contributing to the accident - stubborn selfish driving from truckie, using vehicle to barge his way through.

If it were his car and not a works vehicle, do you think he would be so blasé about the incident or perhaps hit the brakes and let him in?

[saaby93]

Leicesterdave said:

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

Conversation to TPI will be: Liability is not in dispute, can you give us the details of your outlay? There is simply no question that lorry driver is at fault- he was correctly proceeding, never changed lanes. How would it remotely be the caravan guy not at fault?

I think youre misusing the changing lanes thing
It can normally happen when say a truck changes lanes and collects a car it hasnt seen. No question there of liability.
Here its pretty obvious here that the car and caravan is ahead of the truck, signals well it's intention that it needs to merge into the queue of traffic. Everyone can see what needs to happen. Who hasnt been in the wrong lane at some point?
It would be no loss to the truck (or any of us) to drop back and let it in and all would be well with the world
Instead the truck tries to 'hold the line' and eventually drives into the car caravan as the gap closes.
So no its not the usual 'lane changing' incident, it's an 'I'm going to drive into you' incident