M5/M6 merge/collision driving poll

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

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.

I've already said he's an idiot. Did you not read that bit?

And no the trick wouldn't be there (to the left of the CRV) if it was stationary, because the speed differential would then have seen it past. If doesn't take long to travel 15m at circa 40mph, about half a second (assuming 8 metres for CRV and caravan, 7m for truck, and starting noses level).

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

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

Which is exactly what we've been saying all along!

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

He pulled into the path of a moving lorry,

Did you think he might do that when you saw the photo?

No.


That photo shows he wants to move over as you can see his indicator, it does not show his intention to do so.

Why not put a pic up showing at what point you think he will come over whether the lorry moves or not.

I say at 21 seconds when the line is crossed.


Then tell me how far the moved before "contact" is made

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

He pulled into the path of a moving lorry,

Did you think he might do that when you saw the photo?

No.


That photo shows he wants to move over as you can see his indicator, it does not show his intention to do so.

Why not put a pic up showing at what point you think he will come over whether the lorry moves or not.

I say at 21 seconds when the line is crossed.


Then tell me how far the moved before "contact" is made

Are a 'want' and an 'intention' not the same for all practical purposes of this situation?

Would you deliberately block someone from taking an exit on a motorway?

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

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

Which is exactly what we've been saying all along!

Not what I have read. I read that two people went to a crash together deliberately, even from myself. Only tonight I have re-watched it many times and concluded that the initial contact would have been made regardless as a gap did not exist. the crash was made worse by both driver carrying on after contact was made.

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

He pulled into the path of a moving lorry,

Did you think he might do that when you saw the photo?

No.

ok thanks. I was trying to work out at what point people beocme aware there is danger
At that point that indicator came on, I'd have been going uh oh
and preparing to drop back or dropping back in case the next move was he was into the side of that car
You didnt have that sense of danger?

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

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

Which is exactly what we've been saying all along!

Not what I have read. I read that two people went to a crash together deliberately, even from myself. Only tonight I have re-watched it many times and concluded that the initial contact would have been made regardless as a gap did not exist. the crash was made worse by both driver carrying on after contact was made.

As I said before, no one deliberately crashes (unless they have a whiplash scam going). This is two idiots each thinking their manhood will be called into question if they were seen to back down.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

Are a 'want' and an 'intention' not the same for all practical purposes of this situation?

Would you deliberately block someone from taking an exit on a motorway?

An indicator show the direction you "want" to go. "Intention" while sometimes can be made obvious by road position and mannerisms can me misread or miss interpreted. The only person the knows what another intends to do is the person who is intending.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

As I said before, no one deliberately crashes (unless they have a whiplash scam going). This is two idiots each thinking their manhood will be called into question if they were seen to back down.

I agree to a point, I can understand the lorry drivers frustration as queue jumpers do tend to antagonise, what I don't understand is why a caravan driver would deliberately crash because somebody closed a gap.

[vonhosen]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

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

Which is exactly what we've been saying all along!

Not what I have read. I read that two people went to a crash together deliberately, even from myself. Only tonight I have re-watched it many times and concluded that the initial contact would have been made regardless as a gap did not exist. the crash was made worse by both driver carrying on after contact was made.

I don't think the collision would have happened if the lorry driver braked when the caravaner started to cross the line.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

As I said before, no one deliberately crashes (unless they have a whiplash scam going). This is two idiots each thinking their manhood will be called into question if they were seen to back down.

I agree to a point, I can understand the lorry drivers frustration as queue jumpers do tend to antagonise, what I don't understand is why a caravan driver would deliberately crash because somebody closed a gap.

What's this queue jumping st about? It's not a bank or a supermarket checkout, it's a motorway. You're sounding like those mumsnutters who block overtakes.

You didn't answer my earlier question: would you deliberately prevent someone from taking their motorway exit if it meant they ended up in front of you?

[vonhosen]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

As I said before, no one deliberately crashes (unless they have a whiplash scam going). This is two idiots each thinking their manhood will be called into question if they were seen to back down.

I agree to a point, I can understand the lorry drivers frustration as queue jumpers do tend to antagonise, what I don't understand is why a caravan driver would deliberately crash because somebody closed a gap.

Well like the lorry driver the caravaner probably didn't think there would be anyone foolish enough to crash rather than yield.
Once the collision started the caravaner probably did the same as the lorry driver, carry on regardless hurling abuse rather than stopping.
As I said earlier, fool v fool = collision.

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

saaby93 said:

NoNeed said:

He pulled into the path of a moving lorry,

Did you think he might do that when you saw the photo?

No.

ok thanks. I was trying to work out at what point people beocme aware there is danger
At that point that indicator came on, I'd have been going uh oh
and preparing to drop back or dropping back in case the next move was he was into the side of that car
You didnt have that sense of danger?

No not danger No.



I can sit here and say that 9999 times out of 10,000 I would have seen the indicator and let him in, however if I have been sat for a long time in a queue for a road that is clearly signed I might be thinking fk that cheeky tt I'm not letting him in.

I still would not expect a crash, and at the point where the lorry driver would have sensed a crash as the line is about to be crossed it was too late to move or do anything to avoid it.

I am with him right up to that initial collision as his actions are not anything but normal. Where he let himself down is carrying on as it was now clear the caravan man was a fruitcake.

[saaby93]

How far off the mark would I be if I said anyone driving up the left side of someone with their left indicator showing is driving without due care and attention?
Apart from the obvious danger of where that someone is going to go next?

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

As I said before, no one deliberately crashes (unless they have a whiplash scam going). This is two idiots each thinking their manhood will be called into question if they were seen to back down.

I agree to a point, I can understand the lorry drivers frustration as queue jumpers do tend to antagonise, what I don't understand is why a caravan driver would deliberately crash because somebody closed a gap.

What's this queue jumping st about? It's not a bank or a supermarket checkout, it's a motorway. You're sounding like those mumsnutters who block overtakes.

You didn't answer my earlier question: would you deliberately prevent someone from taking their motorway exit if it meant they ended up in front of you?

The queue was to join the M5 motorway, clearly signed and separated with lines from the main M6 for several miles.

The lorry is in that queue for a long time, the caravan clearly wasn't.

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

How far off the mark would I be if I said anyone driving up the left side of someone with their left indicator showing is driving without due care and attention?
Apart from the obvious danger of where that someone is going to go next?

I think they were both driving without due care and attention from the off. The caravan would have had a very long time to get into the M5 lane and plenty of signage telling him to do so. Closing the gap and ignoring an indicator is on par and for me the same, but what I am saying is I can kind of understand lorry mans frustration where as caravan man is clearly mental.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

The queue was to join the M5 motorway, clearly signed and separated with lines from the main M6 for several miles.

The lorry is in that queue for a long time, the caravan clearly wasn't.

That's a two lane slip with one lane closed; was that just as clearly marked? It's highly possible the dozy bugger in the CRV didn't see or register those signs, local knowledge or not, and thought he had time to make the mile-long merge.

Ignoring the crash, I still don't understand the general attitude for trying to make another motorist's life difficult (trying to make them miss the junction). That is the alternative 'crash didn't occur' outcome of the truck driver's action. Are people really that selfish? It's not even selfishness because there is zero advantage to blocking, it's pelt being an ahole; it loses you two seconds (assuming anyone maintains a two second gap from the vehicle in front).


ETA: several miles? Does the junction really run that long?
Further edit: clearly not, because it's barely a mile from j9 on slip.

Edited by xRIEx on Friday 24th April 23:19

[NoNeed]

vonhosen said:

I don't think the collision would have happened if the lorry driver braked when the caravaner started to cross the line.

I would like somebody more computer savvy than me to do a forensic tye video that we can add where we think it's obvious a collision will occur so the we can see how far they moved in that time and how long it would have taken the lorry to stop. It maybe my poor judgement but the point where I am thinking DANGER instead of dhead the collision is less than 3 seconds away maybe even only two.

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

I think they were both driving without due care and attention from the off. The caravan would have had a very long time to get into the M5 lane and plenty of signage telling him to do so. Closing the gap and ignoring an indicator is on par and for me the same, but what I am saying is I can kind of understand lorry mans frustration where as caravan man is clearly mental.

ok keep with it thanks
so caravn driver is clearly mental he has his left indicator on, the M5 is about to slip off to the left,



Do you think a rational person would go up the inside of the caravan?
I realise the truck driver may not be rational if hes feeling frustrated

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

That's a two lane slip with one lane closed; was that just as clearly marked? It's highly possible the dozy bugger in the CRV didn't see or register those signs, local knowledge or not, and thought he had time to make the mile-long merge.

Ignoring the crash, I still don't understand the general attitude for trying to make another motorist's life difficult (trying to make them miss the junction). That is the alternative 'crash didn't occur' outcome of the truck driver's action. Are people really that selfish? It's not even selfishness because there is zero advantage to blocking, it's pelt being an ahole; it loses you two seconds (assuming anyone maintains a two second gap from the vehicle in front).

How long was the gap in time on average? They were going quite slow.

And that queue usually stretches back several miles and is very clearly signed many many times and is also usually there well before the previous junction. The lines are different if you look, go on google and take a look for yourself it is miles back where the lanes are first identified.