HGV vs caravan smash on the M6

[LocoCoco]

dfen5 said:

LocoCoco said:

I'd put blame 50/50 with the video, all on the CRV without the video.

So. Mr caravan, can you explain why you chose to sideswipe the truck? A normal person wouldn't do that.

I think there's a proven, by the video, difference in intent. The caravan intends to merge, the lorry driver intends to block and leave the shed-dragger in a precarious situation - fast moving traffic approaching etc.

I reckon the HGV's insurers will be ripped a new one if they try to defend that.

Maybe on his first attempt, after the initial contact though, the caravan driver can't reasonably expect that the lorry will give way to him, therefore his intent is to ram the lorry.

Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a diferent result.

[surveyor]

LocoCoco said:

dfen5 said:

LocoCoco said:

I'd put blame 50/50 with the video, all on the CRV without the video.

So. Mr caravan, can you explain why you chose to sideswipe the truck? A normal person wouldn't do that.

I think there's a proven, by the video, difference in intent. The caravan intends to merge, the lorry driver intends to block and leave the shed-dragger in a precarious situation - fast moving traffic approaching etc.

I reckon the HGV's insurers will be ripped a new one if they try to defend that.

Maybe on his first attempt, after the initial contact though, the caravan driver can't reasonably expect that the lorry will give way to him, therefore his intent is to ram the lorry.

Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a diferent result.

Or more likely it's blind panic at that stage.

[LocoCoco]

surveyor said:

LocoCoco said:

dfen5 said:

LocoCoco said:

I'd put blame 50/50 with the video, all on the CRV without the video.

So. Mr caravan, can you explain why you chose to sideswipe the truck? A normal person wouldn't do that.

I think there's a proven, by the video, difference in intent. The caravan intends to merge, the lorry driver intends to block and leave the shed-dragger in a precarious situation - fast moving traffic approaching etc.

I reckon the HGV's insurers will be ripped a new one if they try to defend that.

Maybe on his first attempt, after the initial contact though, the caravan driver can't reasonably expect that the lorry will give way to him, therefore his intent is to ram the lorry.

Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a diferent result.

Or more likely it's blind panic at that stage.

Or red mist.

[AA999]

saaby93 said:

e asked about liability rather than fault
Too many times now we've lost common courtesy on the road
Anyone can see the CRV and caravan wants to come off at the exit he's doing everything he can to let everyone know that.
We're not talking about a collision where hes just swung left and taken out anything in range without warning

Up ahead the van's done the same manoeuvre without issue and is on his way. Every day it happens all over the place without issue. The move in itself doesn't result in a collision. Something else turns it into a collision.

There is clearly one side of the debate that goes down the line of 'offering/displaying' courtesy to keep people 'happy'.
But then its not something that is demanded by law. So the situation arises that one encounter you will receive courtesy and on another you will not.
It would be nice indeed if everyone gave equal amount of courtesy to everyone else on the roads, but if its not in law and enforced then it will never happen.

The problem as I see it is that certain types will demand courtesy and will go to the extreme to get it. This is bullying in a way, and if there are no motorists who stand up for themselves then it acts as a 'green light' for those certain types to do it more often and gain 'followers', as people act very much like sheep both on the road and off.

[barker22]

oldcynic said:

I do wonder if the initial scrape led to the CRV driver being even more determined to get in front in order to exchange details and let the insurers fight it out - in some ways he had nothing to lose from there on in, at least in insurance terms.

The initial scrape may be up for debate as far as who gets liability apportioned, however the second scrape is 100% undeniably the CRV drivers fault. It was wreckless.

To be honest had the HGV driver shown that video without sound then non of us would have known there was a 1st scrape at all, just a hgv driver closing a gap.

[spikeyhead]

barker22 said:

The initial scrape may be up for debate as far as who gets liability apportioned, however the second scrape is 100% undeniably the CRV drivers fault. It was wreckless.

To be honest had the HGV driver shown that video without sound then non of us would have known there was a 1st scrape at all, just a hgv driver closing a gap.

Au contraire, reckless probably, but not wreckless

[getawayturtle]

I'm disappointed we never got to see what was left of his caravan.