HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[Hugo a Gogo]

LocoCoco said:

andyps said:

LocoCoco said:

You think? not to me.

So what is your record

I dunno significantly longer than that though.

From an old thread on here RE stopping distances:

"Porsche 996 with PCCB

From 80 MPH

Thinking distance = 80 feet
Braking distance = 182 feet
Total = 262 feet or 79.8576 metres."

I doubt the brakes on my car are anywhere near as good as on a Porshce 996 so my 50m estimate doesn't seem that impressive I guess.

the Porsche distance is not a skid

[Moonhawk]

Both drivers are idiots.

CRV driver clearly left his exit far too late - but it can happen, people are only human. Not enough evidence to say whether this was a genuine mistake or a self entitled prick manoeuvre.

CRV and most of the caravan was ahead of the HGV at 0:16 (despite the HGV drivers protestations to the contrary a little later in the video at 0:58).

HGV driver clearly accelerated quite rapidly at 0:19 and sat right up the backside of the Merc ahead of it specifically to prevent the CRV from merging. Had he not accelerated and continued to coast - the CRV would have had plenty of space to merge between the Merc and HGV.

After the gap had been closed by the HGV - the CRV driver continued to press on with the merge instead of falling back and continued to push the manoeuvre despite clear indications that contact had been made.

CRV clearly caused the collision - but the HGV driver was trying to be Billy Big bks for no reason. It would have cost nothing to simply coast and let the CRV merge. I'd attribute blame 75:25 to the CRV:HGV.

Personally as the HGV driver i'd have let the CRV go rather than risk a collision. Some haulage firms have rules that can see you dismissed if you have a certain number of "incidents" - even if they aren't your fault. Personally I wouldn't risk my career for 20ft of road space.

[bobtail4x4]

problem is the d*ck in the honda needed 40 foot.

[With these feet]

bobtail4x4 said:

problem is the d*ck in the honda needed 40 foot.

Which would have been the case if the truck driver had lifted instead of flooring it.

[Vipers]

LocoCoco said:

This thread has made me think that I wrongly took 100% of the blame in a crash I had.

Came round a bend too fast to be met with a 4x4 stopped on my side of the road, engine running. Driver had just reversed off their drive, closed their gate and got back into car.
I slammed on the brakes, locked up and skidded for ~50m right into the back of the 4x4 (impact speed was only 10mph or so, another 5m of tarmac would've been enough for me to stop in time, opposite lane was occupied so I couldn't drive around the stopped 4x4.)
Driver of the 4x4 says they watched the whole thing unfold in their rear view mirror.

Of course I accepted all of the blame but the logic in this thread suggests that the other driver had a duty of car to release the handbrake and attempt to drive forwards to avoid me and that insurers would have declared the incident a 50/50 .

Interesting, and here is another dodgy one. As you come around this roundabout dropping from 40 to 30, the dirt track off to the right of the picture is the driveway to my pals house. It has been there well over 60 years, well before they built the roundabout, tossers.

Now when ever I visit, I slow right down on the roundabout indicating left, and be very careful in case the car behind me is "assuming" the indictor is just to exit the roundabout, and doesn't expect me to down even further to turn left as well.

Good planning on the roundabout Aberdeenshire council.

[kiseca]

saaby93 said:

LocoCoco said:

This thread has made me think that I wrongly took 100% of the blame in a crash I had.

Came round a bend too fast to be met with a 4x4 stopped on my side of the road, engine running. Driver had just reversed off their drive, closed their gate and got back into car.
I slammed on the brakes, locked up and skidded for ~50m right into the back of the 4x4 (impact speed was only 10mph or so, another 5m of tarmac would've been enough for me to stop in time, opposite lane was occupied so I couldn't drive around the stopped 4x4.)
Driver of the 4x4 says they watched the whole thing unfold in their rear view mirror.

Of course I accepted all of the blame but the logic in this thread suggests that the other driver had a duty of car to release the handbrake and attempt to drive forwards to avoid me and that insurers would have declared the incident a 50/50 .

No over 90% of us are saying you shouldnt drive into something if you can avoid it.
It's only the rest who are saying I have right of way it's your fault if I crash into you

Here your fault for coming around a bend too fast to stop within distance you could see clear

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 11:08

Definitely LocoCoco is at fault, but if a reasonable driver of the 4x4 could have avoided the accident by moving out of the way, or could be expected to attempt to move out of the way, then the driver shares fault.

I see LocoCoco's point, but while I think it's a reasonable reaction of a driver in a moving vehicle to brake / swerve when faced with impending doom, I would estimate that the driver of a parked car who has the presence of mind in a panic situation to (perhaps) get in gear, handbrake off and drive out of the way of an out of control car is displaying reasonably impressive calmness under pressure and is quite quick thinking. I would expect the average driver to sit there, in their parked car, with their foot squashing the brake pedal and their eyes half shut.

I think this one is more interesting than Loco intended

[LocoCoco]

kiseca said:

saaby93 said:

LocoCoco said:

This thread has made me think that I wrongly took 100% of the blame in a crash I had.

Came round a bend too fast to be met with a 4x4 stopped on my side of the road, engine running. Driver had just reversed off their drive, closed their gate and got back into car.
I slammed on the brakes, locked up and skidded for ~50m right into the back of the 4x4 (impact speed was only 10mph or so, another 5m of tarmac would've been enough for me to stop in time, opposite lane was occupied so I couldn't drive around the stopped 4x4.)
Driver of the 4x4 says they watched the whole thing unfold in their rear view mirror.

Of course I accepted all of the blame but the logic in this thread suggests that the other driver had a duty of car to release the handbrake and attempt to drive forwards to avoid me and that insurers would have declared the incident a 50/50 .

No over 90% of us are saying you shouldnt drive into something if you can avoid it.
It's only the rest who are saying I have right of way it's your fault if I crash into you

Here your fault for coming around a bend too fast to stop within distance you could see clear

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 11:08

Definitely LocoCoco is at fault, but if a reasonable driver of the 4x4 could have avoided the accident by moving out of the way, or could be expected to attempt to move out of the way, then the driver shares fault.

I see LocoCoco's point, but while I think it's a reasonable reaction of a driver in a moving vehicle to brake / swerve when faced with impending doom, I would estimate that the driver of a parked car who has the presence of mind in a panic situation to (perhaps) get in gear, handbrake off and drive out of the way of an out of control car is displaying reasonably impressive calmness under pressure and is quite quick thinking. I would expect the average driver to sit there, in their parked car, with their foot squashing the brake pedal and their eyes half shut.

I think this one is more interesting than Loco intended

Exactly, imagine a dashcam vid that shows the rear view mirror, you see me in the mirror unable to stop and you hear the driver saying "Look at that tt, he's about to smash into me, I can feel my whiplash already!" Is Saaby really going to argue that the driver doesn't have duty of care to try to avoid the accident? I see that as a comparable situation to the one this thread is about.

[LocoCoco]

Hugo a Gogo said:

LocoCoco said:

andyps said:

LocoCoco said:

You think? not to me.

So what is your record

I dunno significantly longer than that though.

From an old thread on here RE stopping distances:

"Porsche 996 with PCCB

From 80 MPH

Thinking distance = 80 feet
Braking distance = 182 feet
Total = 262 feet or 79.8576 metres."

I doubt the brakes on my car are anywhere near as good as on a Porshce 996 so my 50m estimate doesn't seem that impressive I guess.

the Porsche distance is not a skid

My skid would have been longer than 50m then?

So how much distance roughly would it take an mx5 take to skid to a stop from 80mph (no abs)?

[speedking31]

And what if there was a gap in the oncoming traffic and as you made to pass it the parked car moved off causing you to have a collision?

[AA999]

Blue Oval84 said:

So, it was fairly clear to me that the HGV driver HAD seen him, but just chose not to let him in, and Mr CRV was obviously going to get in regardless.

Where does liability lie here then? He was joining the lane, but the HGV driver clearly carried on when the car was coming over anyway.

I would view it as the 'liability'/onus falls with the driver conducting any maneuver to (a) make sure there is space to move in to and (b) that it can be done safely.
So fault should be with CRV driver.

There is too much of this "move or I'll crash in to you" scenarios on the roads these days, sure the driver being forced out of the way could yield, but if this happens all the time then the standard of driving on the roads would fall dramatically.
In my view its good to see (in this low speed example) the HGV driver not being bullied in to yield. Unfortunately it lands him in to a situation where he has to deal with his insurance.

[xRIEx]

LocoCoco said:

andyps said:

LocoCoco said:

You think? not to me.

So what is your record

I dunno significantly longer than that though.

From an old thread on here RE stopping distances:

"Porsche 996 with PCCB

From 80 MPH

Thinking distance = 80 feet
Braking distance = 182 feet
Total = 262 feet or 79.8576 metres."

I doubt the brakes on my car are anywhere near as good as on a Porshce 996 so my 50m estimate doesn't seem that impressive I guess.

If you're braking from 80mph to 10mph over 50m, I reckon (if my maths is in the right ballpark) that you'd cover it in about 2.5 seconds - I don't think that's anywhere near enough time for even a competent driver to get into gear and move off, especially when the instinctive reaction is going to be to freeze up. She may well have seen the whole thing unfold, but I don't think it's reasonable for her to have taken avoiding action in that situation. I think you were right to accept the blame in that scenario.

The main difference between your accident and the caravan/truck merger is expectation: the third party in your case would not necessarily expect (and therefore have prepared for) you coming round the corner at whatever speed; the truck driver had ample warning, and it was clear from his behaviour his intention was to block the caravan driver's manoeuvre even before any contact occurred. He was in a position to prepare for an idiotic manoeuvre, all the warning signs were there.

[Hugo a Gogo]

LocoCoco said:

My skid would have been longer than 50m then?

So how much distance roughly would it take an mx5 take to skid to a stop from 80mph (no abs)?

i dunno

the point is if you're skidding you are out of control, not slowing down much, and can't change direction

50m is a number of seconds of sitting there with the foot jammed in, hoping for the best

[LocoCoco]

xRIEx said:

LocoCoco said:

andyps said:

LocoCoco said:

You think? not to me.

So what is your record

I dunno significantly longer than that though.

From an old thread on here RE stopping distances:

"Porsche 996 with PCCB

From 80 MPH

Thinking distance = 80 feet
Braking distance = 182 feet
Total = 262 feet or 79.8576 metres."

I doubt the brakes on my car are anywhere near as good as on a Porshce 996 so my 50m estimate doesn't seem that impressive I guess.

If you're braking from 80mph to 10mph over 50m, I reckon (if my maths is in the right ballpark) that you'd cover it in about 2.5 seconds - I don't think that's anywhere near enough time for even a competent driver to get into gear and move off, especially when the instinctive reaction is going to be to freeze up. She may well have seen the whole thing unfold, but I don't think it's reasonable for her to have taken avoiding action in that situation. I think you were right to accept the blame in that scenario.

The main difference between your accident and the caravan/truck merger is expectation: the third party in your case would not necessarily expect (and therefore have prepared for) you coming round the corner at whatever speed; the truck driver had ample warning, and it was clear from his behaviour his intention was to block the caravan driver's manoeuvre even before any contact occurred. He was in a position to prepare for an idiotic manoeuvre, all the warning signs were there.

I think she froze too. I have to disagree about the expectation bit. That road is part of the EVO triangle and there's plenty of speeding cars at all times, i fail to believe she hasn't had a bunch of near misses/incidents. I think this because my driveway is similar.

[andyps]

LocoCoco said:

I think she froze too. I have to disagree about the expectation bit. That road is part of the EVO triangle and there's plenty of speeding cars at all times, i fail to believe she hasn't had a bunch of near misses/incidents. I think this because my driveway is similar.

Definitely her fault then - certainly should have anticipated that someone would come round the corner way faster than visibility would allow for and hit her car if she didn't dash away as soon as possible. In fact, she should never leave her driveway at all as it is obviously completely unrealistic to expect drivers to consider that they should be able to stop in time for a hazard around a blind corner

If your claims to skids much longer than 50m are true maybe it is time you considered how you drive?

[LocoCoco]

andyps said:

Definitely her fault then - certainly should have anticipated that someone would come round the corner way faster than visibility would allow for and hit her car if she didn't dash away as soon as possible. In fact, she should never leave her driveway at all as it is obviously completely unrealistic to expect drivers to consider that they should be able to stop in time for a hazard around a blind corner

If your claims to skids much longer than 50m are true maybe it is time you considered how you drive?

I know the accident was 100% my fault, the logic on here doesn't match that though.

I have to open the windows, switch off the heater and listen for engines when coming out of my driveway, if i pull out when theres a car coming at anything over 30mph (its an NSL) we wont see each other until we're about 5m apart and we'll crash.

Ive had hundreds of near misses over the years, its just the nature of that bit of road.

[andy-xr]

LocoCoco said:

I know the accident was 100% my fault, the logic on here doesn't match that though.

You drove into someone, the Honda and lorry drove into each other. It's apples and oranges

In your case, you could have anticipated that there could be something in the road, whether that's a woman in her car, a tree, an animal or even a traffic cone. The lorry vs Honda drove into each other and each could have avoided it, it's not the same thing

[LocoCoco]

andy-xr said:

You drove into someone, the Honda and lorry drove into each other. It's apples and oranges

In your case, you could have anticipated that there could be something in the road, whether that's a woman in her car, a tree, an animal or even a traffic cone. The lorry vs Honda drove into each other and each could have avoided it, it's not the same thing

I know they aren't the same. The whole, "if one party is able to avoid the collision, they have a duty of care to do so" part is similar though. She claimed to have watched it all, well if so she had the duty of care to try to avoid it. She didn't even try. Not that i think she should have to, already said it was my fault.
I'd bet good money that i could have reacted in time and driven forward ten feet if I was driving her car though.

[xRIEx]

andy-xr said:

LocoCoco said:

I know the accident was 100% my fault, the logic on here doesn't match that though.

You drove into someone, the Honda and lorry drove into each other. It's apples and oranges

In your case, you could have anticipated that there could be something in the road, whether that's a woman in her car, a tree, an animal or even a traffic cone. The lorry vs Honda drove into each other and each could have avoided it, it's not the same thing

This. LC, you're trying to look for similarities where there aren't any. The only thing in common is that it was an RTI involving two vehicles.

[Hugo a Gogo]

LocoCoco said:

I know they aren't the same. The whole, "if one party is able to avoid the collision, they have a duty of care to do so" part is similar though. She claimed to have watched it all, well if so she had the duty of care to try to avoid it. She didn't even try. Not that i think she should have to, already said it was my fault.
I'd bet good money that i could have reacted in time and driven forward ten feet if I was driving her car though.

next time, use those lightning reactions to come off the brakes and back on again instead of skidding for 50m

[LocoCoco]

Hugo a Gogo said:

next time, use those lightning reactions to come off the brakes and back on again instead of skidding for 50m

I did do that thanks, writing skidded was simpler. I was able to steer, but in a single lane, with cars coming the other way, there wasn't much point steering. At the last second, after the last oncoming car had passed the stopped one, i managed to steer into the other lane, it was my wheel that hit the back of the other car doing sod all damage to hers but bending my wheel sideways.