M5/M6 merge/collision driving poll

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

[vonhosen]

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

Correct.

But that doesn't remove the lorry driver's obligations to always give way to avoid a collision.

The gap would have been big enough if the lorry driver had done what he was supposed to (the caravaner would still have committed an offence if the lorry driver had done what he should have, it just means that he wouldn't have gone on to commit his own offence).

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 24th April 22:28

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

maybe not. But if you see a car with its left indicator on what do you think it might do next?

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

It says he wants to pull into a gap that does not exist. The bigger gap is behind the police car and that isn't big enough.


Indicating does not give right of way. This junction is very well signed and warning about getting in lane are for several miles before this happened, what does that tell you about the caravan driver?

I can safely say he was trying to jump a big queue as I drive this route daily and the M5 entrance has caused the M5 lane to have tailbacks of many many miles.


Lorry driver didn't like queue jumper, queue jumper decided to crash.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

No one has said it is a right of way, that strawman has come up several times in this thread.

It is a piece of information, a signal of the mental caravanner's intention. The fact he was mental was not known at that time, but his intention was clear.

Given his lack of preparedness we could also deduce he's a below-average driver, we know his intention, so the possibility of a stupid move is already there.


ETA It's often quite easy to see an intended action even without indication (luckily, given the common lack of any): lane position or drifting to one side of a lane shows what the car is likely to do, 5 or sometimes 10 seconds before it does. Add it up with other traffic, closing speeds or junctions and these things become fairly obvious.

I don't think anyone on this site who claims to care about their driving could have failed to spot that situation developing if they were in the truck driver's seat.

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 24th April 22:33

[NoNeed]

vonhosen said:

Correct.

But that doesn't remove the lorry driver's obligations to always give way to avoid a collision.

How could he know there would be a collision before the caravan started moving over? and once it started moving once I listened with the volume up it sounded like he had scraped the lorry like he was barging it out of the way

[vonhosen]

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

It says he wants to pull into a gap that does not exist. The bigger gap is behind the police car and that isn't big enough.


Indicating does not give right of way. This junction is very well signed and warning about getting in lane are for several miles before this happened, what does that tell you about the caravan driver?

I can safely say he was trying to jump a big queue as I drive this route daily and the M5 entrance has caused the M5 lane to have tailbacks of many many miles.


Lorry driver didn't like queue jumper, queue jumper decided to crash.

And lorry driver decided to crash rather than give way as the highway code, common sense & Sec 3 RTA would have required in the circumstances.

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

It says he wants to pull into a gap that does not exist. The bigger gap is behind the police car and that isn't big enough.


Indicating does not give right of way. This junction is very well signed and warning about getting in lane are for several miles before this happened, what does that tell you about the caravan driver?

yes what does the indicator tell you the caravan driver might do next that would be different to him not having the indicator on?

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

maybe not. But if you see a car with its left indicator on what do you think it might do next?

Wait for a gap to pull into? maybe wait for somebody to let him in? gentle headlight plash "there you go sir" I certainly would not expect him to go for a gap that didn't exists.

[oldcynic]

saaby93 said:

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

It says to me that the CRV is going to dive in ahead of the Renault. I'm astounded that the CRV followed the course of action he chose, as I suspect the lorry driver was, however Mr Hazell actively chose a collision course and was also in the wrong.

[vonhosen]

NoNeed said:

vonhosen said:

Correct.

But that doesn't remove the lorry driver's obligations to always give way to avoid a collision.

How could he know there would be a collision before the caravan started moving over? and once it started moving once I listened with the volume up it sounded like he had scraped the lorry like he was barging it out of the way

The caravaners nearside wheels are in the slip road before there is any collision & at this point he is still moving left in clear view of the lorry driver. Instead of braking the lorry driver accelerates at this point & it's following that that collision noises start.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

No one has said it is a right of way, that strawman has come up several times in this thread.

It is a piece of information, a signal of the mental caravanner's intention. The fact he was mental was not known at that time, but his intention was clear.

Given his lack of preparedness we could also deduce he's a below-average driver, we know his intention, so the possibility of a stupid move is already there.

It signals the direction he wants to go, it does not signal the intention to crash.

[Halb]

NoNeed said:

It says he wants to pull into a gap that does not exist. The bigger gap is behind the police car and that isn't big enough.


Indicating does not give right of way. This junction is very well signed and warning about getting in lane are for several miles before this happened, what does that tell you about the caravan driver?

I can safely say he was trying to jump a big queue as I drive this route daily and the M5 entrance has caused the M5 lane to have tailbacks of many many miles.


Lorry driver didn't like queue jumper, queue jumper decided to crash.

That appraisal is mine also.

[NoNeed]

vonhosen said:

The caravaners nearside wheels are in the slip road before there is any collision & at this point he is still moving left in clear view of the lorry driver. Instead of braking the lorry driver accelerates at this point & it's following that that collision noises start.

The noise starts when the caravan driver tries to put car and caravan into a gap of less than 3 feet, could the lorry driver have reasonably expected that to happen and at the point he realises it may happen would an emergency stop have prevented it?

I say no as once apparent that the car will come over anyway crash or no crash even if the lorry stopped dead the back of the caravan would have still hit as it was not moving fast enough to clear the lorries space.


Having watched it for the 6th time tonight I can say the lorry driver made the initial collision worse by continuing and what could have been a scrage became a crash.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

I have, the lorry driver closed the gap in that photo, then caravan man got angry and decided he wasn't having that so rather than fall back in behind he kept his position, then in a last minute fit of anger he decided to crash.

ok but at the point in that photo where the gap hasnt yet been closed, can you see theres an indicator light on the car towing the caravan? Whats that saying

An indicator is not a right of way, the caravan should not change lanes until it is safe and clear to do so and besides the original gap was never actually big enough.

No one has said it is a right of way, that strawman has come up several times in this thread.

It is a piece of information, a signal of the mental caravanner's intention. The fact he was mental was not known at that time, but his intention was clear.

Given his lack of preparedness we could also deduce he's a below-average driver, we know his intention, so the possibility of a stupid move is already there.

It signals the direction he wants to go, it does not signal the intention to crash.

There never was an intention to crash. I doubt he thought, "I know what my holiday needs! Two hours delay and a fkload more cost!" He crashed because he didn't plan ahead and thought he could bully someone to give way. He assumed no one else would be so stupid as to crash so they would slam their brakes on. Truck driver assumed no one would be stupid enough to change lanes when he'd closed the door. This is the result of two idiots who were both stupid enough meeting.

ETA the very best result of the truck driver's action of blocking the caravanner's exit would be the caravanner diverted to the next junction, which could add 40 miles to his journey. Whatever way you want to look at it, blocking someone from taking their exit for the sake of "winning" the traffic is a 's trick.

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 24th April 22:42

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

Wait for a gap to pull into? maybe wait for somebody to let him in? gentle headlight plash "there you go sir" I certainly would not expect him to go for a gap that didn't exists.

ok I'll give a clue
To me I'd be thinking
First has he seen the car to the left is he going to move over and take it out?
Second thought would be hes going to drop in behind it
Whatever happens it looks like hes going to move left

Would it be best to move forward into that position or drop back a bit just in case?

what do you think someone exercising due care would do?

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

There never was an intention to crash. I doubt he thought, "I know what my holiday needs! Two hours delay and a fkload more cost!" He crashed because he didn't plan ahead and thought he could bully someone to give way. He assumed no one else would be so stupid as to crash so they would slam their brakes on. Truck driver assumed no one would be stupid enough to change lanes when he'd closed the door. This is the result of two idiots who were both stupid enough meeting.

He pulled into the path of a moving lorry, to say he didn't expect to crash is idiotic as once he started his manoeuvre the lorry would have still been there if stationary.

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

Wait for a gap to pull into? maybe wait for somebody to let him in? gentle headlight plash "there you go sir" I certainly would not expect him to go for a gap that didn't exists.

ok I'll give a clue
To me I'd be thinking
First has he seen the car to the left is he going to move over and take it out?
Second thought would be hes going to drop in behind it
Whatever happens it looks like hes going to move left

Would it be best to move forward into that position or drop back a bit just in case?

what do you think someone exercising due care would do?

The car crosses the line at 21 seconds, this I put at the time the lorry could have realised the car would carry on regardless. the collision starts at 23 seconds after about 6 foot of movment, even if the lorry driver thought that fking tt is going to come over the side of his lorry would be getting scraged anyway by the caravan.

The lorry driver made it worse by continuing but the initial scrage and the very poor driving was with the caravan queue jumper.

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

He pulled into the path of a moving lorry,

Did you think the car/caravan might do that when you saw the photo with the indicator?

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 22:49