HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[DonkeyApple]

xRIEx said:

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.

Fix remote 'snipers' under motorway cameras. In this situation it's hard not to imagine that a 20p investment in two small pieces of lead would not have yielded immense returns for society as a whole.

[saaby93]

DonkeyApple said:

Fix remote 'snipers' under motorway cameras. In this situation it's hard not to imagine that a 20p investment in two small pieces of lead would not have yielded immense returns for society as a whole.

And under those signs with 'Keep Your Distance'
Anyone too close to the sign gets zapped

[Vipers]

saaby93 said:

DonkeyApple said:

Fix remote 'snipers' under motorway cameras. In this situation it's hard not to imagine that a 20p investment in two small pieces of lead would not have yielded immense returns for society as a whole.

And under those signs with 'Keep Your Distance'
Anyone too close to the sign gets zapped

All well and good till someone pulls out to overtake, or pulls in reducing your gap, not an easy fix.

[xRIEx]

DonkeyApple said:

Fix remote 'snipers' under motorway cameras. In this situation it's hard not to imagine that a 20p investment in two small pieces of lead would not have yielded immense returns for society as a whole.

[culpz]

i HATE seeing this sort of thing, especially with an outcome like this. I see it everyday though and it's just pure bullying tactics. It seems to be the thing to do nowadays aswell. Wildly pulling into other people's lanes and using your indicator as a battering ram. It's absolutely ridiculous!

On the flip side if i was the HGV driver i would have acknowledged the presence of the other vehicle and let them in. I know he didn't have to but surely he should have assessed that if he didn't it was going to cause a collision of some sort. It's like people want to have a crash just because they have right of way.

[knitware]

DonkeyApple said:

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'.

Fords, Vauxhall, Skoda etc etc are all driven by experts, just the German marques driven by buffoons, ignorance is bliss. Your thoughts are still in the 90's, boring pub talk, lacks intelligence and is predictable.

[smithyithy]

culpz said:

i HATE seeing this sort of thing, especially with an outcome like this. I see it everyday though and it's just pure bullying tactics. It seems to be the thing to do nowadays aswell. Wildly pulling into other people's lanes and using your indicator as a battering ram. It's absolutely ridiculous!

On the flip side if i was the HGV driver i would have acknowledged the presence of the other vehicle and let them in. I know he didn't have to but surely he should have assessed that if he didn't it was going to cause a collision of some sort. It's like people want to have a crash just because they have right of way.

This is exactly the feeling I get nowadays, people seem to not have a sense of preservation or risk management, they'd genuinely rather be in an accident just to 'prove a point'.

I've seen cars blasting side-by-side up single lane slips roads, speed-matching at those long motorway exit lanes, accelerating to close gaps when they anticipate a vehicle moving over.

Selfish idiocy.

[Sargeant Orange]

Interesting how the perception of the accident is completely different on the daily mail comments where they see no fault in the HGVs driving at all (not that i'm saying that DM readers are the bastion of all that is right on the roads!). It does go to show the type of people we are sharing the roads with though. Similarly the majority felt the Renault driver was in the right from the other thread as well.

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

[s3fella]

The other thing ref the HgV driver is did he sound his horn at all to signify his presence?

[KTF]

s3fella said:

The other thing ref the HgV driver is did he sound his horn at all to signify his presence?

Why not watch the video to see

[nipsips]

I can honestly say that in all my years of dealing with motor claims I have never had any third party insurer use:

"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."

I've certainly never used it in any of my arguments simply as it would be laughed at. I would laugh at it if I received it! If the financial implications weren't that I would get issued against as soon as I sent it I would try it for you and see what response I got.

You could in theory take it very literally and say that you could hold anybody at fault for not giving way if it can help avoid an accident. How would you feel if someone pulled out of a side road and their insurer denied liability that you should have given way as it could have helped avoid an accident?

I'm not going to go into specifics as it could identify the party's involved (obviously not something I want to do) but I was representing a driver who was driving along a motorway in lane 2 overtaking a steady queue of traffic when the motorway changed from 4 lanes to 3. Hundreds of signs leading up to this however the LHD lorry driver in lane 1 decided at last minute he didn't want to exit the motorway and pulled into lane 2, side-swiping my customer and pushing them down the road sideways until he realised what he had done. He has stated that our customer tried to move from lane 2 into lane 1 to exit at this junction and that they are at fault yet as our customer had no reason to exit, and the fact he has admitted he was in lane 1 and didn't have a reason to exit either it blows this theory out of the water as he HAD to change lanes to stay on the motorway.

However by what the anti truck camp are stating, our customer at the first sign of indication should have braked hard to let him move into a non existent gap, or moved over into lane 3 to let him out otherwise they are at fault for the accident.

Madness!

[surveyor]

nipsips said:

I can honestly say that in all my years of dealing with motor claims I have never had any third party insurer use:

"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."

I've certainly never used it in any of my arguments simply as it would be laughed at. I would laugh at it if I received it! If the financial implications weren't that I would get issued against as soon as I sent it I would try it for you and see what response I got.

You could in theory take it very literally and say that you could hold anybody at fault for not giving way if it can help avoid an accident. How would you feel if someone pulled out of a side road and their insurer denied liability that you should have given way as it could have helped avoid an accident?

I'm not going to go into specifics as it could identify the party's involved (obviously not something I want to do) but I was representing a driver who was driving along a motorway in lane 2 overtaking a steady queue of traffic when the motorway changed from 4 lanes to 3. Hundreds of signs leading up to this however the LHD lorry driver in lane 1 decided at last minute he didn't want to exit the motorway and pulled into lane 2, side-swiping my customer and pushing them down the road sideways until he realised what he had done. He has stated that our customer tried to move from lane 2 into lane 1 to exit at this junction and that they are at fault yet as our customer had no reason to exit, and the fact he has admitted he was in lane 1 and didn't have a reason to exit either it blows this theory out of the water as he HAD to change lanes to stay on the motorway.

However by what the anti truck camp are stating, our customer at the first sign of indication should have braked hard to let him move into a non existent gap, or moved over into lane 3 to let him out otherwise they are at fault for the accident.

Madness!

All the truck had to do was not furiously (as well as he can) accelerate to block the caravan. In your case your driver did not see the lorry. This is different as the truck sure as hell saw the caravan much earlier than the collision.

[nipsips]

You're right but the theory is the same. That clause in the highway code basically gives anybody the freedom to do whatever they want just because they are visible.

[saaby93]

nipsips said:

You're right but the theory is the same. That clause in the highway code basically gives anybody the freedom to do whatever they want just because they are visible.

I think youre now stretching the point too far and misinterpreting it
Of course it doesnt say that
All it says is that if youre able to try to avoid a collision you should do so.
If you see someone step out into the road, you should try to avoid them rather than say I was already follwoing this course and run them over. However you still have to be careful to avoid a worse collision in tryng to avoid them! No point missing them but running over the bus queue.
If you've tried to avoid them but failed, at least youve done all thats expected of you
If you havent tried at all (unless they stepped out right in front of you so you had no chance) youre not driving with due care

Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 22 April 12:15

[DonkeyApple]

knitware said:

DonkeyApple said:

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'.

Fords, Vauxhall, Skoda etc etc are all driven by experts, just the German marques driven by buffoons, ignorance is bliss. Your thoughts are still in the 90's, boring pub talk, lacks intelligence and is predictable.

Are you using your Chanel bag or the Fendi today?

[V8forweekends]

nipsips said:

I can honestly say that in all my years of dealing with motor claims I have never had any third party insurer use:

I used to deal with motor claims a long time back. We had one where our insured was overtaking a parked car. A car coming the other way crashed into him, head-on.

The Third Party contended that in spite of freely acknowledging there was enough room for them to pass each other, he was entitled to crash into our insured without incurring any costs as it was his right of way.

That seems to be what you're advocating.

That claim was settled 50/50.

[kiseca]

nipsips said:

I can honestly say that in all my years of dealing with motor claims I have never had any third party insurer use:

"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."

I've certainly never used it in any of my arguments simply as it would be laughed at. I would laugh at it if I received it! If the financial implications weren't that I would get issued against as soon as I sent it I would try it for you and see what response I got.

You could in theory take it very literally and say that you could hold anybody at fault for not giving way if it can help avoid an accident. How would you feel if someone pulled out of a side road and their insurer denied liability that you should have given way as it could have helped avoid an accident?

In cases where a defendant has pulled out in front of the claimant, and the claimant has braked or swerved or both - which seems the natural thing to do - and been unable to avoid the crash, I agree with you. In cases where the claimant can be shown to have simply not bothered to try and avoid the crash and instead made a conscious decision to collide with the defendant, are you really trying to say that they would not share liability?

nipsips said:

However by what the anti truck camp are stating, our customer at the first sign of indication should have braked hard to let him move into a non existent gap, or moved over into lane 3 to let him out otherwise they are at fault for the accident.

Madness!

No, the anti truck camp are saying that the truck driver in the OP's case is also at fault for the accident. Noone in this thread had passed comment on your client's case until you'd mentioned it. Was your client even aware that the truck intended to change lanes? Did he then attempt to block the truck?

nipsips said:

You're right but the theory is the same. That clause in the highway code basically gives anybody the freedom to do whatever they want just because they are visible.

No it does not. It does not remove fault from the person who pulls out of the junction, or from the person driving the caravan. Also, noone on this thread is saying that the caravan driver was not at fault.

[LocoCoco]

saaby93 said:

I think youre now stretching the point too far and misinterpreting it
Of course it doesnt say that
All it says is that if youre able to try to avoid a collision you should do so.
If you see someone step out into the road, you should try to avoid them rather than say I was already follwoing this course and run them over. However you still have to be careful to avoid a worse collision in tryng to avoid them! No point missing them but running over the bus queue.
If you've tried to avoid them but failed, at least youve done all thats expected of you
If you havent tried at all (unless they stepped out right in front of you so you had no chance) youre not driving with due care

Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 22 April 12:15

I apply all that logic both ways. The person stepping out right in front of you hasn't done all they can to avoid a collision, same as Mr caravan. If the caravan driver didn't want a collision he could have tried merging next to somebody who isn't deliberately speeding up to stop them.

[Kawasicki]

V8forweekends said:

I used to deal with motor claims a long time back. We had one where our insured was overtaking a parked car. A car coming the other way crashed into him, head-on.

The Third Party contended that in spite of freely acknowledging there was enough room for them to pass each other, he was entitled to crash into our insured without incurring any costs as it was his right of way.

That seems to be what you're advocating.

That claim was settled 50/50.

More examples of intentional crashing please.

[saaby93]

LocoCoco said:

I apply all that logic both ways. The person stepping out right in front of you hasn't done all they can to avoid a collision

Yes I see what your saying but even if they've made a mistake that doesn't absolve a driver if they can from at least trying to avoid running them over.
Anyway I don't have to say this as it's pretty much automatic that we would try to avoid.
Otherwise think of the paperwork!