HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[Challo]

aks7297 said:

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

Agreed. Yes the HGV could have dropped back and allowed him in, but like people have stated he would have had to stop in the lane to allow the CRV driver to move across. Also surely you should indicate and then wait for the gap to come available, not decide stuff anyway else im going into that space and no one is going to stop me. Whats worse is that even though there is intial contact between them, rather then the CRV driving heeding and pulling onto the hard shoulder he dives in front of the truck, which potentially could have ended alot worse.

Mental driving from the CRV driver.

[grimmac]

Wowzers... Thanks @nipsips and @leicesterdave.

I still think the likelihood of his employer giving him a pat on the back for this is very remote. Even though it won't cost him a penny to get his lorry repaired or hire one to cover this time.

[xRIEx]

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?

But the TPI may well come back with: "we dispute liability." The video means the facts aren't in doubt, but I do doubt it would swing totally in one way or the other.

Not being funny Dave, but you've been in this job since December? Insurance (and probably more the law that goes with it) is a very peculiar animal and outcomes are not always as expected. Claims can be weird and extremely varied (e.g. boy pushes his sister off a swing, she hits her head and develops epilepsy - playground is held liable to the tune of nearly £100k).

[trashbat]

saaby93 said:

I cant see why it wouldnt be 'driving without due care and attention'
so fully covered by the legal process

CPS guidance is as follows:

CPS said:

Driving without reasonable consideration

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users

Driving without due care and attention

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.

In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver, the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the drivers knowledge.

The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

Prosecutors should also consider whether a driver has failed to observe a provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may constitute evidence of careless or even dangerous driving; see section 38(7) of the RTA 1988.

Although the feral PH jury seems quite sure I'm wrong, I very much think you're going to struggle with terms such as 'deliberate' or 'incompetent' which seem to me to require quite a lot more than slowly proceeding in a straight line at the same speed.

[Dr Jekyll]

saaby93 said:

'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

No, the truck driver decided not to give help but the caravan driver decided to change lane anyway. Apparently under the impression that his signal was some kind of order to the truck driver.

[grimmac]

kev1974 said:

It also shows that caravan man hasn't got the extended mirrors

FWIW I think he does have extended mirrors on (not great ones by the look of it)... Whether he was looking in them is debatable though.

Double reflection of the shiny silver door handle


main mirror folded back by now, extending one folded forwards

[Oggs]

Looking at that picture how on earth does the CRV driver think there is a big enough gap for him?

[andy-xr]

vonhosen said:

Nobody is saying it wasn't poor planning by the caravaner. The caravaner is potentially committing offences. But none of that absolves the lorry driver from his responsibilities. He fell short of what is expected of him, his driving was below standard too. Instead of trying to teach the caravaner a lesson about their poor driving by using his own poor driving, he should have left it to the authorities to deal with the caravaner if he believes there were offences & provided evidence as a witness. All he has potentially done is left himself open to prosecution & financial loss for no benefit.

This didn't all happen suddenly, it was easily avoidable by either party but they were both just too bloody minded & foolish.

I'm nodding at this one.

Separately, the guy in the lorry really didnt need to be such a wker about it, if he'd left the guy to get in, caravan stan would probably have had a better holiday, Trucker Dave probably would have been more productive for the rest of the day and none of the people behind him would have been held up as long as they were.

And that woman wouldnt have gone for a jog down the road, which really really confused me.

Edited by andy-xr on Tuesday 21st April 10:01

[smithyithy]

Both at fault.

Caravan driver was prat, trying to cut in, trying to argue with a HGV while towing a massive plastic box.

HGV driver knew the caravan had cut in and still refused to yield, as a professional driver he should've had some sense that an accident was much more likely if he didn't just swallow his 'pride' and let the idiot in front, something he probably encounters on a daily basis anyway.

In the end, two ego's come together and fk up everyone else's day. Well done.

[FraMac]

Dr Jekyll said:

Apparently under the impression that his signal was some kind of order to the truck driver.

Off topic (for which I apologise) I saw the same behaviour on a roundabout this morning (as many here probably see each day). Driver of Audi TT in wrong lane (lane clearly marked what direction it's for) doesn't want to queue with others. Traffic light control changes to green, Audi TT accelerates hard and indicates to push into a non existent gap in the lane next to it whilst starting the maneouvre- Volvo driver already occupying non existent gap chooses not to yield - cue Woman driving TT shaking fist, shouting, leaning on horn.

Disappointing, but certainly less worrying than Caravan vs truck.

[xRIEx]

smithyithy said:

In the end, two ego's come together and fk up everyone else's day. Well done.

End thread.

[saaby93]

trashbat said:

lthough the feral PH jury seems quite sure I'm wrong, I very much think you're going to struggle with terms such as 'deliberate' or 'incompetent' which seem to me to require quite a lot more than slowly proceeding in a straight line at the same speed.

Looked pretty deliberate to me
He'd decided no way was he going to let the car/caravan in and prefer to have a collision than be courteous.
Isnt that incompetent too

[hornetrider]

V8forweekends said:

Marvib said:

That video has gone viral, 1.6 million views in 2 days.

No it hasn't, that was mostly me watching over and over again

Original link isn't working for me - is it broken for everyone else?

[Kawasicki]

I honestly believe that many so called accidents are completely intentional, just like this one.

I often see people not wishing to back down, they would prefer to teach the other party a lesson. Then it all goes wrong, to varying degrees.

I think the proportion of "teach the other party a lesson" accidents is way higher than most would imagine.

[Sensibleboy]

100% the Hondas fault. Seems to believe an indicator being on gives a right to change lanes. He seemed to initially want to bully the car in front too.

He just seemed to want to get ahead at any cost. What a bizarre bit of driving.

[saaby93]

hornetrider said:

Original link isn't working for me - is it broken for everyone else?

yep gone - unavailable

[anonymous-user]

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.

I see this incident more like getting punched in the face because you stood there shouting "Come on then! Do it! fking punch me!" rather than walking away and avoiding the fight.

If that had been me driving, I would have noted the indicating Honda and his aggressive attempts to move over, and averted any trouble by simply braking to open up the gap for him, much like if someone randomly threatened to punch me in the street, I would walk/run away rather than get to the actual punching bit.

[DervVW]

hornetrider said:

V8forweekends said:

Marvib said:

That video has gone viral, 1.6 million views in 2 days.

No it hasn't, that was mostly me watching over and over again

Original link isn't working for me - is it broken for everyone else?

No its gone - must have been taken down

[Deisel Weisel]

getawayturtle said:

Apologies if this has been posted on here already. My searches drew a blank.

Caravan driver tries barging his way into the same space a HGV is trundling along in, the HGV driver isn't having any of it

https://www.facebook.com/roger.franklin.969/videos...

Skip to 1:50. Don't have a YT link, sorry non FB users. NSFW, etc etc.

This content is currently unavailable

[hornetrider]

No one grabbed the video in 17 pages?!?!

Ah, jeez!