M5/M6 merge/collision driving poll

[powerstroke]

The thing to remember on the motorway these days people only indicate to force there way into another occupied lane, if there is plenty of room or they are changing lane to leave at a junction in good time they don't!!!!

[Nickbrapp]

What is the point in closing a gap or not letting someone merge?

9/10 the person that Doesn't let you in bumbles along at 50 as soon as the road opens up again and then you over take them anyway.

Are these people thinking on no he can't get to his destination 1 car length sooner than I do? Utter morons.


The lorry driver should have let him merge. Failing that the caravan should have carried on to the next junction.

[iacabu]

vonhosen said:

Halb said:

iacabu said:

I voted close the gap but avoid a crash purely for the fact the caravan moved over before any indication the HGV was giving him room.
I normally have no issues with letting people merge as it keeps queues down and I'm not a tt, but if someone is bullying their way in and almost running into your side then they can do one to be honest

One can only move into a gap that is there. People may allow the gap or not, but if the gap is not there, it's mental to force your way in, the CRV man wanted to impose his will on the motorway and failed.
His punishment is his sartorial advice.

No less so if someone is trying to force their way in ahead to drive into them if it was possible to avoid doing so.
You gain nothing doing so, you only lose too.

Just watched it again, there was definitely a second or two where the caravan had his indicator on and the HGV could have slowed down...but he didn't, not everyone does...that's no excuse for the caravan to force his way in and continue to try and push the HGV over.

Yes, the HGV could of course avoided the collision had he recognised the caravan was crazy, but as he didn't technically do anything wrong and continued to drive in his lane, the collision is the fault of the caravan who decided it would be better to ram the HGV to get in front rather than wait.

Edited by iacabu on Friday 24th April 08:20

[RochdalePioneers]

Replay the video from 26s. The HGV is in the lane. The CRV is not visible suggesting it is directly alongside. On the solid hatchings. You hear a horn (from the CRV) and some choice savverninnit verbal from the HGV driver. The Armco is ahead. There is no room at all in the diverging lane and there is an empty hard shoulder ahead on the main carriageway.

At which point the CRV accelerates and swerves right immediately in front of the HGV which collects him. Even if there had been just enough room between the corner of the Armco and the corner of the HGV to fit the car, there wasn't to fit the caravan.

You can discuss the actions of the HGV in not backing off to let the CRV in before 00:26. With the Scenic also in the non-gap and traffic presumably behind the HGV could I suppose have dropped anchor at that point. Probably causing an accident behind.

But that's NOT where the accident occurred. The CRV - from a point directly alongside an HGV - drives into solid hatchings then tries to drive through a not-big enough (and illegal) gap and get wrapped around the HGV.

The precursor to the crash was 50/50. The actual crash was 100% the fault of the CRV. He decided to drive onto hatchings and commit to a stupid won't work manuever. His fault.

[saaby93]

RochdalePioneers said:

Replay the video from 26s. The HGV is in the lane. The CRV is not visible suggesting it is directly alongside. On the solid hatchings. You hear a horn (from the CRV) and some choice savverninnit verbal from the HGV driver. The Armco is ahead. There is no room at all in the diverging lane and there is an empty hard shoulder ahead on the main carriageway.

At which point the CRV accelerates and swerves right immediately in front of the HGV which collects him. Even if there had been just enough room between the corner of the Armco and the corner of the HGV to fit the car, there wasn't to fit the caravan.

You can discuss the actions of the HGV in not backing off to let the CRV in before 00:26. With the Scenic also in the non-gap and traffic presumably behind the HGV could I suppose have dropped anchor at that point. Probably causing an accident behind.

But that's NOT where the accident occurred. The CRV - from a point directly alongside an HGV - drives into solid hatchings then tries to drive through a not-big enough (and illegal) gap and get wrapped around the HGV.

The precursor to the crash was 50/50. The actual crash was 100% the fault of the CRV. He decided to drive onto hatchings and commit to a stupid won't work manuever. His fault.

Have another think about the camera angles
If the CRV was alongside the truck it wouldn't have appeared sideways across the front of it.
For the most part it was in the position an HGV would have been trying to the same position just in front of the truck with indicator on and would have been pretty clear from the trucks cab.

[heebeegeetee]

C.A.R. said:

I had this recently - a colleague was giving me directions on the M4 and told me that actually; we needed to be in that queueing traffic to my left which peeled off to the M32. Brilliant.

So indicating my intentions to move over and searching ahead for a suitable gap whilst still travelling along at ~ 40mph with traffic behind me gaining, do you think anyone would let me in?

No. Cos in the UK we love to queue - but we hate to yield. As it happened a gap opened up but was not big enough, I tried to get over but had my rear wheel precariously in the outside lane of motorway, which stopped a truck who couldn't get by. Great.

Unfortunately the blame lies with me, forward planning is what ultimately avoids this situation. However, people make mistakes and will continue to do so until the day that driving is done for us by autonomous cars. We could all do with being a bit more accommodating on the roads, including the van driver in the original clip.

Oh come on, that's terrible. To slow down, and then stop in a live lane and stop the traffic in that lane, not knowing (or caring?) what mayhem is being caused behind is an absolutely terrible thing to do.

Yes, we all make mistakes but we should not choose to greatly impede and endanger others by doing so.

Matt UK said:

If caravan man had bought a car with enough engine, he could have taken the gap ahead of the Renault...

I'm surprised how many haven't picked up on this. There is a much bigger gap in front of the Renault, who actually slows down to make the gap bigger. As I said in a previous post though, I do know that people 'fixate' on hgvs, (I think they're determined to have as much trouble with them as possible) and I think that's whats happened here.

[saaby93]

heebeegeetee said:

Matt UK said:

If caravan man had bought a car with enough engine, he could have taken the gap ahead of the Renault...

I'm surprised how many haven't picked up on this. There is a much bigger gap in front of the Renault, who actually slows down to make the gap bigger. As I said in a previous post though, I do know that people 'fixate' on hgvs, (I think they're determined to have as much trouble with them as possible) and I think that's whats happened here.

I noticed that gap when I posted up the photo, and it looks the renault was prepared to yield if the CRV had gone ahead there. However the CRV seems to have chosen the 'professional' truck driver as someone who would let him in and so positioned alongside the renault in front of the truck, expecting the truck to stay behind him as he moves behind the renault.
Anyway we cant mind read

All we can do is ask what a normal driver would do when presented with those circumstances hence the poll

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 08:42

[xRIEx]

saaby93 said:

heebeegeetee said:

Matt UK said:

If caravan man had bought a car with enough engine, he could have taken the gap ahead of the Renault...

I'm surprised how many haven't picked up on this. There is a much bigger gap in front of the Renault, who actually slows down to make the gap bigger. As I said in a previous post though, I do know that people 'fixate' on hgvs, (I think they're determined to have as much trouble with them as possible) and I think that's whats happened here.

I noticed that gap when I posted up the photo, and it looks the renault was prepared to yield if the CRV had gone ahead there. However the CRV seems to have chosen the 'professional' truck driver as someone who would let him in and so positioned alongside the renault in front of the truck, expecting the truck to stay behind him as he moves behind the renault.
Anyway we cant mind read

All we can do is ask what a normal driver would do when presented with those circumstances hence the poll

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 08:42

I've never towed a caravan before, but I imagine it takes a lot of work to vary the speed of the car and caravan significantly, I wonder if CRV driver didn't think he could make that gap in time.

[Halb]

ZesPak said:

So thinking outside your 14ft steel box, where have you ever seen a gap big enough to fit a 30ft vehicle?

When people make the gap and allow you in.

vonhosen said:

No less so if someone is trying to force their way in ahead to drive into them if it was possible to avoid doing so.
You gain nothing doing so, you only lose too.

The CRV man did the driving into.

talksthetorque said:

Any gap over 30 ft created by someone who IS letting you in.

Exactly.

[vonhosen]

iacabu said:

vonhosen said:

Halb said:

iacabu said:

I voted close the gap but avoid a crash purely for the fact the caravan moved over before any indication the HGV was giving him room.
I normally have no issues with letting people merge as it keeps queues down and I'm not a tt, but if someone is bullying their way in and almost running into your side then they can do one to be honest

One can only move into a gap that is there. People may allow the gap or not, but if the gap is not there, it's mental to force your way in, the CRV man wanted to impose his will on the motorway and failed.
His punishment is his sartorial advice.

No less so if someone is trying to force their way in ahead to drive into them if it was possible to avoid doing so.
You gain nothing doing so, you only lose too.

Just watched it again, there was definitely a second or two where the caravan had his indicator on and the HGV could have slowed down...but he didn't, not everyone does...that's no excuse for the caravan to force his way in and continue to try and push the HGV over.

Yes, the HGV could of course avoided the collision had he recognised the caravan was crazy, but as he didn't technically do anything wrong and continued to drive in his lane, the collision is the fault of the caravan who decided it would be better to ram the HGV to get in front rather than wait.

If you maintain a course towards a collision with something that's in front of you, because you believe the driver is falling short of the standard of competence & care required, you yourself fall short of that standard of competence & care required.

Yes the caravaner fell short of the standard, but so did the lorry driver by concentrating on trying to teach that driver a lesson rather than avoiding a collision.
He committed the same offence as the caravaner he was complaining about. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[vonhosen]

RochdalePioneers said:

Replay the video from 26s. The HGV is in the lane. The CRV is not visible suggesting it is directly alongside. On the solid hatchings. You hear a horn (from the CRV) and some choice savverninnit verbal from the HGV driver. The Armco is ahead. There is no room at all in the diverging lane and there is an empty hard shoulder ahead on the main carriageway.

At which point the CRV accelerates and swerves right immediately in front of the HGV which collects him. Even if there had been just enough room between the corner of the Armco and the corner of the HGV to fit the car, there wasn't to fit the caravan.

You can discuss the actions of the HGV in not backing off to let the CRV in before 00:26. With the Scenic also in the non-gap and traffic presumably behind the HGV could I suppose have dropped anchor at that point. Probably causing an accident behind.

But that's NOT where the accident occurred. The CRV - from a point directly alongside an HGV - drives into solid hatchings then tries to drive through a not-big enough (and illegal) gap and get wrapped around the HGV.

The precursor to the crash was 50/50. The actual crash was 100% the fault of the CRV. He decided to drive onto hatchings and commit to a stupid won't work manuever. His fault.

The precursor is part & parcel of the event. It demonstrates the mindsets of the parties involved that led to the crash. It demonstrates they were both more concerned about getting ahead of the other rather than taking care to avoid a collision.

[vonhosen]

Halb said:

ZesPak said:

So thinking outside your 14ft steel box, where have you ever seen a gap big enough to fit a 30ft vehicle?

When people make the gap and allow you in.

vonhosen said:

No less so if someone is trying to force their way in ahead to drive into them if it was possible to avoid doing so.
You gain nothing doing so, you only lose too.

The CRV man did the driving into.

talksthetorque said:

Any gap over 30 ft created by someone who IS letting you in.

Exactly.

If the caravaner wasn't ahead he couldn't get into the position he did. It's clear from the full video what it was all heading to & neither showed competence or sufficient care to avoid the outcome.

If the lorry had yielded to avoid a collision the caravaner's driving would have still fallen short of the standard, but the lorry driver wouldn't have. By getting embroiled rather than driving to avoid a collision the lorry driver's standards fell down to those displayed by the caravaner.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th April 16:42

[Halb]

vonhosen said:

If the caravaner wasn't ahead he couldn't get into the position he did. It's clear from the full video what it was all heading to & neither showed competence or sufficient care to avoid the outcome.
If the lorry had yielded to avoid a collision the caravaner's driving would have still fallen short of the standard, but the lorry driver wouldn't have. By getting embroiled rather than driving to avoid a collision the lorry driver's standards fell down to those displayed by the caravaner.

The Caravan was ahead at one point, regardless of anything one can only move into a gap that another driver allows, to move into another vehicle is lunacy, and at the time the caravan man wished to ram the truck, he was not ahead.
The caravan doesn't have a standard of driving in my view. He made his move and failed.

[vonhosen]

Halb said:

vonhosen said:

If the caravaner wasn't ahead he couldn't get into the position he did. It's clear from the full video what it was all heading to & neither showed competence or sufficient care to avoid the outcome.
If the lorry had yielded to avoid a collision the caravaner's driving would have still fallen short of the standard, but the lorry driver wouldn't have. By getting embroiled rather than driving to avoid a collision the lorry driver's standards fell down to those displayed by the caravaner.

The Caravan was ahead at one point, regardless of anything one can only move into a gap that another driver allows, to move into another vehicle is lunacy, and at the time the caravan man wished to ram the truck, he was not ahead.
The caravan doesn't have a standard of driving in my view. He made his move and failed.

He ended up in front so he had to be in front.
I don't disagree with you that the caravaner's driving fell below the standard required (I said it did), but the lorry driver's driving fell below the standard required too. None of it happened suddenly, he chose to maintain a course that it was easy to see was likely to end in a collision rather than taking an easy choice to avoid it. Fool v Fool = collision. It would only have taken one of them to do the right thing & there'd have been no collision. They both did the wrong thing & there was a collision.
The caravaner's poor driving doesn't absolve the lorry driver of his responsibilities or annul his own poor driving.

[Krupp Stahl]

vonhosen said:

If you maintain a course towards a collision with something that's in front of you, because you believe the driver is falling short of the standard of competence & care required, you yourself fall short of that standard of competence & care required.

Yes the caravaner fell short of the standard, but so did the lorry driver by concentrating on trying to teach that driver a lesson rather than avoiding a collision.
He committed the same offence as the caravaner he was complaining about. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Absolutely.

[DocSteve]

I think vonhosen is spot on with the analysis.

One other thing to think about for those who would not consider "letting in" a vehicle in this context yet maintain they would avoid an accident is that the driver will have potentially slowed to a very low speed in a live carriageway where there might be other drivers behind not paying full attention and driving at a much higher speed. The driver trying to merge is likely to have turned the wheel towards your lane and depending on the positions of all at the time, if the slow vehicle is shunted from behind they are quite likely to hit you or another vehicle in the queuing lane.

Although on the continent there are other poor driving habits such as tailgating, deliberately "blocking" drivers trying to make lane changes for whatever reason seems to be a British speciality.

[saaby93]

C'mon own up .. who's adding to the crash number
32 now

[AC43]

s p a c e m a n said:

Ali_T said:

s p a c e m a n said:

Er, if you miss your junction you just carry on to the next one not stop in live traffic and force your way into a gap that isn't there.

Assuming...

a) the next junction has an off ramp
b) is in the same county
c) he knows where he's going because, let's face it, he tows a caravan and wears Pringle jumpers, so he probably votes for UKIP, has early dementia and didn't fork out for a sat nag upgrade.

None of those are even remotely close to being suitable reasons for what is at least undue care and attention. I've done it loads of times because I've had other things on my mind, I occasionally fk up the A2/A249 junction and that's a 10 mile detour every time that I do it. Do you know what I do every time? Call myself a dhead and carry on to the next junction.

This is my take on it. If I'm to much of a dhead to have got myself into the correct lane
early on than it's my fault if I find myself unable to get into that later. I would just trundle on to the next exit. And make sure I was in the correct lane good and early.

[Halb]

vonhosen said:

He ended up in front so he had to be in front.
I don't disagree with you that the caravaner's driving fell below the standard required (I said it did), but the lorry driver's driving fell below the standard required too. None of it happened suddenly, he chose to maintain a course that it was easy to see was likely to end in a collision rather than taking an easy choice to avoid it. Fool v Fool = collision. It would only have taken one of them to do the right thing & there'd have been no collision. They both did the wrong thing & there was a collision.
The caravaner's poor driving doesn't absolve the lorry driver of his responsibilities or annul his own poor driving.

I think he ended up squashed halfway on the lorry. Now the lorry slowed once the collision was inevitable and it looked like the speed/weight of the crv/caravan combo wedged itself on the front of the lorry. But he wasn't in front enough, maybe a bonnet, and regardless of that, one still cannot move into a space that doesn't exist, racing forward and pushing doesn't help. One is reliant on the good grace of the person driving parallel to you.
I do not think the lorry driver had any good grace, but if I had been the man in the crv, I definitely would not have tried to power over (regardless it it was a lorry or not) I would have cursed the selfish driver but not tried to play road bash and would have sadly travelled on.

[vonhosen]

Halb said:

vonhosen said:

He ended up in front so he had to be in front.
I don't disagree with you that the caravaner's driving fell below the standard required (I said it did), but the lorry driver's driving fell below the standard required too. None of it happened suddenly, he chose to maintain a course that it was easy to see was likely to end in a collision rather than taking an easy choice to avoid it. Fool v Fool = collision. It would only have taken one of them to do the right thing & there'd have been no collision. They both did the wrong thing & there was a collision.
The caravaner's poor driving doesn't absolve the lorry driver of his responsibilities or annul his own poor driving.

I think he ended up squashed halfway on the lorry. Now the lorry slowed once the collision was inevitable and it looked like the speed/weight of the crv/caravan combo wedged itself on the front of the lorry. But he wasn't in front enough, maybe a bonnet, and regardless of that, one still cannot move into a space that doesn't exist, racing forward and pushing doesn't help. One is reliant on the good grace of the person driving parallel to you.
I do not think the lorry driver had any good grace, but if I had been the man in the crv, I definitely would not have tried to power over (regardless it it was a lorry or not) I would have cursed the selfish driver but not tried to play road bash and would have sadly travelled on.

It all still adds up to both not driving to the required standard.