M5/M6 merge/collision driving poll

[NoNeed]

saaby93 said:

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

Have I said he is rational? and do you see danger in the picture? really as I don't.

He was travelling faster than the car in front and could have been going for that gap which may have made more sense as it was bigger.


You keep posting it like it means something but to think that the caravan driver will go for a tiny gap behind the zafira as opposed to the one in front would be daft/stupid/mental. No sane person could think he was going to try and put it in there.

Edited by NoNeed on Friday 24th April 23:22

[vonhosen]

NoNeed said:

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.

It's all accepted in relation to the caravaner, he was in the wrong all along.
It's just that the lorry driver then fell short of what was reasonably expected of him too.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

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.

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

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.

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

and where was the M5 lane first signed?

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

Have I said he is rational? and do you see danger in the picture? really as I don't

ok thanks
so the truck driver may not have seen danger either
and he's probably not being rational

It's easy for us sitting here
I see loads of danger in that photo with that indicator on, so the last place I'd want to be is on the inside of that caravan
If I dropped back I wouldn't be in any danger when it moved left later as I was pretty much expecting it to do from the indicator.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

Have I said he is rational? and do you see danger in the picture? really as I don't.

He was travelling faster than the car in front and could have been going for that gap which may have made more sense as it was bigger.


You keep posting it like it means something but to think that the caravan driver will go for a tiny gap behind the zafira as opposed to the one in front would be daft/stupid/mental. No sane person could think he was going to try and put it in there.

Edited by NoNeed on Friday 24th April 23:22

The bold bit worries me more than anything. If someone on a driving/car enthusiast site can't spot that sort of hazard, what are the uncaring masses like? Without the crash that would be absolute classic fodder for the hazard perception part of the driving test. I see it as a real concern if that doesn't scream "hazard" to you.

The CRV had already started braking (or slowing) before the gap opened up in front of the Scenic; trying to accelerate a car and caravan with a crap engine isn't an easy task. Changing speed requires a lot more forward planning (which is blatantly obviously a skill missing from Mr CRV's repertoire).

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

This picture/sign according to google measurements which are a straight line is 2.44 kilometres from initial contact.

[saaby93]

NoNeed said:

You keep posting it like it means something but to think that the caravan driver will go for a tiny gap behind the zafira as opposed to the one in front would be daft/stupid/mental. No sane person could think he was going to try and put it in there.

Its almost a standard move for HGVs - someone else posted that the Caravan driver was acting like an HGV driver.
They pull forward of the HGV theyd like to pull in front of, put the left indicator on, pull left ever so slightly, then drop back gradually to allow anything inside to move forwards, with the expectation the HGV behind keeps back too, then move left into the gap.
The truck here didnt drop back, instead looks to have moved forward, which he shouldnt have done with that left indicator going. The caravan driver should have realised this but instead still tries to move left. In trying to avoid a collision it uses the hatching (although it could have gone up the M6) and the truck driver is still determined not to drop back.
The inevitable happens, entirely predictable for these two , but completely avoidable

No Need thanks for going through that - it helped a lot

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 23:47

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

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.

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

and where was the M5 lane first signed?

I can't get streetview on my phone.

The hazard warning lines that you referred to start after the on slip of junction 9, so less than one mile before 8.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

This picture/sign according to google measurements which are a straight line is 2.44 kilometres from initial contact.

So 1.5 miles? Hardly "several", is it? It doesn't class as a few, not even a couple, nevermind several.

ETA: it even says 1 1/2m on the gantry.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

Have I said he is rational? and do you see danger in the picture? really as I don't.

He was travelling faster than the car in front and could have been going for that gap which may have made more sense as it was bigger.


You keep posting it like it means something but to think that the caravan driver will go for a tiny gap behind the zafira as opposed to the one in front would be daft/stupid/mental. No sane person could think he was going to try and put it in there.

Edited by NoNeed on Friday 24th April 23:22

The bold bit worries me more than anything. If someone on a driving/car enthusiast site can't spot that sort of hazard, what are the uncaring masses like? Without the crash that would be absolute classic fodder for the hazard perception part of the driving test. I see it as a real concern if that doesn't scream "hazard" to you.

The CRV had already started braking (or slowing) before the gap opened up in front of the Scenic; trying to accelerate a car and caravan with a crap engine isn't an easy task. Changing speed requires a lot more forward planning (which is blatantly obviously a skill missing from Mr CRV's repertoire).

now you are playing with words. I didn't say I don't see a hazard, a car slowing in a faster moving lane is in itself a real hazard. But you picture shows what? a massive gap well one a very lot bigger than the one in front of the lorry is actually in front of the scenic. A hazard is very very different to danger, danger requires an immediate response.



I would also add that that gap is being closed before the car comes into view and before indicators are visible.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

This picture/sign according to google measurements which are a straight line is 2.44 kilometres from initial contact.

So 1.5 miles? Hardly "several", is it? It doesn't class as a few, not even a couple, nevermind several.

ETA: it even says 1 1/2m on the gantry.

Hardly less than a mile you talk of too.

Those lines just after junction 9 stretch for 1.25 kilometres according to google.



Why would somebody on holiday and in no rush want to jump a 1.5 mile queue?

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

I've just had a look, junction 9 is barely a mile before 8.

This picture/sign according to google measurements which are a straight line is 2.44 kilometres from initial contact.

So 1.5 miles? Hardly "several", is it? It doesn't class as a few, not even a couple, nevermind several.

ETA: it even says 1 1/2m on the gantry.

M5 signs start before there but that is the first of the clear lane signage it is signed well before then too.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

now you are playing with words. I didn't say I don't see a hazard, a car slowing in a faster moving lane is in itself a real hazard. But you picture shows what? a massive gap well one a very lot bigger than the one in front of the lorry is actually in front of the scenic. A hazard is very very different to danger, danger requires an immediate response.



I would also add that that gap is being closed before the car comes into view and before indicators are visible.

Hazard is very different to danger? Now who's playing with words? You (should) know what saaby93 meant by his question. It's a basic tenet of defensive driving, assume the worst, prepare for idiots and plan your escape route. Again, I wouldn't have thought that was a radical new idea on a driving website.

Again, I've mentioned it before but you missed it: how well does a small-engined car and caravan accelerate? (Or brake, for that matter.) Hint: really quite poorly. We know that driver has poor planning skills, so the lack of performance is magnified. Once he'd started slowing, the forward gap disappeared as an option (and we saw the scenic accelerating when he realised the CRV want going to try/able to get in front).

It's odd that you suggest the CRV try to get further forward when you deride him as a "queue jumper". I thought you'd be more against that option.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

Hardly less than a mile you talk of too.

Those lines just after junction 9 stretch for 1.25 kilometres according to google.



Why would somebody on holiday and in no rush want to jump a 1.5 mile queue?

1.25km is less than a mile you mook!

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

Hazard is very different to danger? Now who's playing with words? You (should) know what saaby93 meant by his question. It's a basic tenet of defensive driving, assume the worst, prepare for idiots and plan your escape route. Again, I wouldn't have thought that was a radical new idea on a driving website.

Again, I've mentioned it before but you missed it: how well does a small-engined car and caravan accelerate? (Or brake, for that matter.) Hint: really quite poorly. We know that driver has poor planning skills, so the lack of performance is magnified. Once he'd started slowing, the forward gap disappeared as an option (and we saw the scenic accelerating when he realised the CRV want going to try/able to get in front).

It's odd that you suggest the CRV try to get further forward when you deride him as a "queue jumper". I thought you'd be more against that option.

He already had speed, he was in a faster moving lane yet decided to go for the small gap than a big one, was it the police that put him off? had he been drinking? who knows but he decided to go for what seem to be the least rational option.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

NoNeed said:

Hardly less than a mile you talk of too.

Those lines just after junction 9 stretch for 1.25 kilometres according to google.



Why would somebody on holiday and in no rush want to jump a 1.5 mile queue?

1.25km is less than a mile you mook!

Very true.

but what's a mook? ok I got it google has educated me.


He would have driven past at least 1 miles worth of slow moving traffic to get to that crash, the queues some days are many many more miles than that, I have seen them back to the M54 where I join and that has to be close to 5 miles.

Edited by NoNeed on Friday 24th April 23:59

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

M5 signs start before there but that is the first of the clear lane signage it is signed well before then too.

I'm sure they start 8 or 9 miles before (or about 20+ in relation to services). Still doesn't mean the hazard warning lines start then, which is what you claimed.

[xRIEx]

NoNeed said:

xRIEx said:

Hazard is very different to danger? Now who's playing with words? You (should) know what saaby93 meant by his question. It's a basic tenet of defensive driving, assume the worst, prepare for idiots and plan your escape route. Again, I wouldn't have thought that was a radical new idea on a driving website.

Again, I've mentioned it before but you missed it: how well does a small-engined car and caravan accelerate? (Or brake, for that matter.) Hint: really quite poorly. We know that driver has poor planning skills, so the lack of performance is magnified. Once he'd started slowing, the forward gap disappeared as an option (and we saw the scenic accelerating when he realised the CRV want going to try/able to get in front).

It's odd that you suggest the CRV try to get further forward when you deride him as a "queue jumper". I thought you'd be more against that option.

He already had speed, he was in a faster moving lane yet decided to go for the small gap than a big one, was it the police that put him off? had he been drinking? who knows but he decided to go for what seem to be the least rational option.

fking hell, don't reply to my posts if you're not going to read them! I said earlier that the CRV slowed before the gap opened in front of the scenic. Gap then opens, CRV can't accelerate in time to make it, aims to slot behind the scenic (bad choice), scenic realises this and proceeds, truck driver doesn't like it and tries to discourage CRV, CRV doesn't notice/care.

[NoNeed]

xRIEx said:

fking hell, don't reply to my posts if you're not going to read them! I said earlier that the CRV slowed before the gap opened in front of the scenic. Gap then opens, CRV can't accelerate in time to make it, aims to slot behind the scenic (bad choice), scenic realises this and proceeds, truck driver doesn't like it and tries to discourage CRV, CRV doesn't notice/care.

Thee CRV had more than enough speed to go for the gap in front of that scenic



Having watched yet again I can safely say that the caravan man braked mid gap inbetween scenic and police car.

Edited by NoNeed on Saturday 25th April 00:08