HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[kev1974]

It's made various national newspapers this morning after the Birmingham Mirror picked it up last night, including the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049827/Wh...

Comments seem generally anti-caravan push-in man.

Now that it has got widespread coverage it might be good if the police would give a comment on who they consider at fault, so everyone can learn from it.

[saaby93]

KrazyIvan said:

Why is this thread still going.

Because people have different opinions
It's pretty obvious the van up ahead knows what he's doing and has pushed in and no-one seems bothered about it
This guy isnt as assertive so could easily be someone who's unsure of the road layout. It's never been the clearest of junctions and if you find the left lane is full of traffic, then you find you need to be in it what do you do? Anyway it looks like he's chosen waht he thought was a professional truck driver to help him in to lane. If the caravan guy had been driving an arctic (or a van!) instead, would the truck driver had been more forgiving?

In this thread there's a significant number who'd like to hang the caravan driver out to dry at all costs for trying to get into the queue
In the merge thread it's the opposite. Most people think you should push into the front of the queue, hold up everyone whos been queueing and berate the guy who's trying to prevent that.

How do you explain to Joe Driver the different approaches?

[DonkeyApple]

Vipers said:

I am indicating so I have the right of way, how many times have we heard that.

I would say, however, that I prefer the 'I'm indicating, so have right of way' loons to the 'I don't need to indicate because my debt financed big German car makes me too important to be concerned about mere poor people' cretins.

I remember happier times when it was just the Volvo badge that warned you that the driver in front was genuinely terrible and likely to random episodes. Today we have this trio of German badges and their pan UK army of buffoons to contend with. I'll settle for idiots who use indicators as part of their program of stupidity over those who deliberately don't use them in theirs'.

[stuartmmcfc]

KrazyIvan said:

Why is this thread still going.

The crv driver caused the accident and I would be amazed if his insurance didnt get landed with a 100% of the bill.

The truck driver is a moron, and I suspect his boss had a few choice words with him.

As for the theory abut Mr CRV just missing his junction, on balance of probabilities that is unlikely. For that to be the case he would have had to
A) miss all the signs, and that junction is well signed.
B) not questioned the long queue in lane 1.
C) Not have used one of the busiest junction on the uks motorway network.
D) Not own a Sat nav telling him a mile earlier this was his junction.
E) Had no idea where he was.

It is much more likely he was jumping the queue.

A,b,c,d and e are quite likely for someone who pulls a caravan and is probably retired.
I've got a relative who pulls a caravan and is frankly an accident waiting to happen.

[saaby93]

kev1974 said:

It's made various national newspapers this morning after the Birmingham Mirror picked it up last night, including the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049827/Wh...

Comments seem generally anti-caravan push-in man.

Now that it has got widespread coverage it might be good if the police would give a comment on who they consider at fault, so everyone can learn from it.

I read that article as being pretty much againt the truck driver.
Vonhosen has already commented about what the Police view might be.

The caravan drivers made a mistake and is trying to get into lane, so could be some offences there but as the van ahead showed, on its own that doesnt necessarily lead to a collision.
The truck driver saw what was happening, could and should have avoided a collision but chose not to.
Either party could have avoided it and because they didn't, everyone else on the motorway had to take the consequences

[kev1974]

saaby93 said:

kev1974 said:

It's made various national newspapers this morning after the Birmingham Mirror picked it up last night, including the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049827/Wh...

Comments seem generally anti-caravan push-in man.

Now that it has got widespread coverage it might be good if the police would give a comment on who they consider at fault, so everyone can learn from it.

I read that article as being pretty much againt the truck driver.
Vonhosen has already commented about what the Police view might be.

The article may be but it was the reader comments below it that I said were majority coming down against the caravanner.

Would be nice to have the formal and definitive police view.

[VolvoT5]

Pair of wkers. This 'accident' could have been avoided by either driver. Yes the caravan driver was being rude by shoving over but it was very obvious what he was going to do and the van driver could have avoided a crash (and blocking the road) by just letting him in.

[DonkeyApple]

kev1974 said:

The article may be but it was the reader comments below it that I said were majority coming down against the caravanner.

Would be nice to have the formal and definitive police view.

Maybe the readers have assumed the truck driver is white and the caravan puller is not a UKIP voter?

[V8forweekends]

Willy Nilly said:

The HGV didn't have to give way to the CRV, he had priority over the CRV. The CRV pushed in and lost, it will be a seminal moment in the driving career of the CRV driver. See how he never again pushes into queues of traffic, particularly when the traffic in the queue is quite a bit bigger than he is.

I doubt that - I suspect he will continue to assert he has a perfect right to drive in whatever direction he likes as long as he has his indicator on, and he will tell everyone he was rammed by a crazy driver on the M6.

[grimmac]

VolvoT5 said:

Pair of wkers. This 'accident' could have been avoided by either driver. Yes the caravan driver was being rude by shoving over but it was very obvious what he was going to do and the van driver could have avoided a crash (and blocking the road) by just letting him in.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes... But here starts the grey area of whether it really is down to other people to avoid crashing into you... or whether its down to you to avoid crashing into other people.

Do we really want a situation where you can get to the end of a slip road and (gradually) barge your way in and the person not letting you is to blame for any contact?

Or the reverse.. Do we want a situation where you can do what the truck driver did here simply becasue you are "established in your lane" and "correctly proceeding".

Which is why the blame has to be apportioned between both drivers when an incident such as this happens.

100% responsibility cannot fall on either party. (Although insurance liability apparently can).

[VolvoT5]

Reading through this thread I am quite amazed at the number of people that take quite a confrontational approach to driving "He has no right to come over...." etc. Seems like a recipe for an accident to me.

Any sensible driver of the Caravan would not try to force in. Any competent truck driver would not accelerate and move right when it became obvious the caravan was trying to force in. Both are very unreasonable.... I hope the insurance went 50/50 and they both got done for dangerous? driving.

[Dr Jekyll]

saaby93 said:

ecause people have different opinions

It's never been the clearest of junctions and if you find the left lane is full of traffic, then you find you need to be in it what do you do? Anyway it looks like he's chosen waht he thought was a professional truck driver to help him in to lane. If the caravan guy had been driving an arctic (or a van!) instead, would the truck driver had been more forgiving?

That's just it, you never need to be in it, other routes are available. I suspect a significant proportion of lane change collisions are the result of people thinking the world will end if they don't get in the lane they want.

[budgie smuggler]

VolvoT5 said:

Reading through this thread I am quite amazed at the number of people that take quite a confrontational approach to driving "He has no right to come over...." etc. Seems like a recipe for an accident to me.

Any sensible driver of the Caravan would not try to force in. Any competent truck driver would not accelerate and move right when it became obvious the caravan was trying to force in. Both are very unreasonable.... I hope the insurance went 50/50 and they both got done for dangerous? driving.

Dangerous driving? fk off you don't get done for that even if you over take around a blind bend and have a head on.

[saaby93]

Dr Jekyll said:

saaby93 said:

ecause people have different opinions

It's never been the clearest of junctions and if you find the left lane is full of traffic, then you find you need to be in it what do you do? Anyway it looks like he's chosen waht he thought was a professional truck driver to help him in to lane. If the caravan guy had been driving an arctic (or a van!) instead, would the truck driver had been more forgiving?

That's just it, you never need to be in it, other routes are available. I suspect a significant proportion of lane change collisions are the result of people thinking the world will end if they don't get in the lane they want.

They probably do think something like that
But if the sign or the paint on the road says thats the lane you should be in and you're in a different one, as a law abiding citizen it's easy to see why they want to get in the correct lane, otherwise you could end up in nowhere nowhere land
You see it happening all the time at roundabouts, traffic lights, town streets. Aren't we all used to it?

[silverfoxcc]

Whilst i am not a fan of enforcement cameras, situations like this could be stopped overnight by a TRO that make the dedicated lane for exit separated from the main carriageway by double white lines for lets say up to a mile from the exit.
The camera could then send out the ker-ching and have 3 points letters whenever fkwits like the Transit and Shed Hauler deem it necessary to cut in.
A short information film on the various car progs,local news progs etc plus papers giving out this info should be enough, plus MOST drivers understand the double white line concept ( dont they?)

either that ot physically separa them with a concrete wall

But i think the paint and TRO would be cheaper, and it can be done quickly, look at the various laws the govt pass when they want to.

[xRIEx]

silverfoxcc said:

Whilst i am not a fan of enforcement cameras, situations like this could be stopped overnight by a TRO that make the dedicated lane for exit separated from the main carriageway by double white lines for lets say up to a mile from the exit.
The camera could then send out the ker-ching and have 3 points letters whenever fkwits like the Transit and Shed Hauler deem it necessary to cut in.
A short information film on the various car progs,local news progs etc plus papers giving out this info should be enough, plus MOST drivers understand the double white line concept ( dont they?)

either that ot physically separa them with a concrete wall

But i think the paint and TRO would be cheaper, and it can be done quickly, look at the various laws the govt pass when they want to.

What would that achieve that a solid white linedchevron area and a big grass embankment don't already? It's just shifting the problem back a mile (if the solid white line is obeyed), and to add insult to injury, then rubbing it in for a mile for those who missed the turning as they drive on to the next junction.

[Patch888]

The comments on Facebook mostly point the blame to the lorry driver. This is astonishing (but what I would expect from Facebook users) just because your indicator is on it does not give you right of way to just swing your vehicle into another lane as you please. Madness.

[Kawasicki]

It's not hard people. If you can help avoid an accident you should/must.

It doesn't matter how bad the other driver is behaving.

[Evoluzione]

kev1974 said:

saaby93 said:

kev1974 said:

It's made various national newspapers this morning after the Birmingham Mirror picked it up last night, including the Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049827/Wh...

Comments seem generally anti-caravan push-in man.

Now that it has got widespread coverage it might be good if the police would give a comment on who they consider at fault, so everyone can learn from it.

I read that article as being pretty much againt the truck driver.
Vonhosen has already commented about what the Police view might be.

The article may be but it was the reader comments below it that I said were majority coming down against the caravanner.

Would be nice to have the formal and definitive police view.

Not really, they uphold the law, they aren't judges. Their POV would be just the same as any other human being.

[kiseca]

Patch888 said:

The comments on Facebook mostly point the blame to the lorry driver. This is astonishing (but what I would expect from Facebook users) just because your indicator is on it does not give you right of way to just swing your vehicle into another lane as you please. Madness.

Blaming the lorry driver does not absolve the caravan driver. Equally, pointing out that the caravan driver's actions were wrong does not absolve the truck driver.

Regardless of how stupid the caravan driver was, he cannot be responsible for the truck driver's decision to drive into an accident he could have avoided. That was the truck driver's choice. The caravanner didn't force the truck driver to collide. He presented the truck driver with an opportunity and a motivation to crash, and indeed, just like the truck driver, the caravanner is guilty of driving into an accident he could have avoided.