toonsy:
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being there
There’s a big difference between ‘being there’ as opposed to cutting into the seperation distance between traffic as part of an unsafe lane change.Even if in this case the defendant was going to plough into the truck ahead anyway all the more reason to stay well out of its way.
Franglais:
Wiretwister:
It was his first day back after a holiday so as valid as your point is “in general” I can’t see it being relevant here.Tiredness after a holiday?
I don`t think it can be written off as irrelevant at all.
First day back may be the first early start after two weeks of late nights and late rising?
Having time off is never a guarantee of having rest, at any time.
Robroys point was the legally allowed 3x15, 3x13 hour attended work scheduling. With respect the pictures in the mail report didn’t convey a picture of a man who took much care of himself and has major health issues. I would be surprised if I was the only one who found inactivity as tiring and frantic, physical activity. with age should come experience and, hard as it is at 61 my hopes of playing for England have probably passed whereas when I was in my mid teens, an enthusiastic 5 a side player, those hopes were more realistic. If he was knackered then I would suggest he’s been negligent by taking the shift.
toonsy:
I’m amazed there’s people in here apportioning even a small amount of blame on the Audi driver.The report says there was dashcam footage of the whole incident from a number of vehicles, along with numerous witnesses and a police investigation that said the Audi was travelling at 11mph - none of any of that points to the Audi driver.
Yet the truck driver didn’t take any avoiding action and braked three seconds AFTER IMPACT. So take the Audi out of the way and what would happen? The jailed driver wouldve slammed into the back of the lorry instead, because he’s still flat out and hasntbseen the entire queue of slow traffic.
The way he then after afterwards… Well…
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being there
I wouldn’t put any blame at all on the Audi driver for the crash, but as has already been said drivers need educating about the dangers of sitting in stationary traffic in a live lane. If the Audi had been watching the traffic approaching then he could of taken evasive action when it became apparent that the truck wasn’t stopping
Night-and-day:
toonsy:
I’m amazed there’s people in here apportioning even a small amount of blame on the Audi driver.The report says there was dashcam footage of the whole incident from a number of vehicles, along with numerous witnesses and a police investigation that said the Audi was travelling at 11mph - none of any of that points to the Audi driver.
Yet the truck driver didn’t take any avoiding action and braked three seconds AFTER IMPACT. So take the Audi out of the way and what would happen? The jailed driver wouldve slammed into the back of the lorry instead, because he’s still flat out and hasntbseen the entire queue of slow traffic.
The way he then after afterwards… Well…
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being there
I wouldn’t put any blame at all on the Audi driver for the crash, but as has already been said drivers need educating about the dangers of sitting in stationary traffic in a live lane. If the Audi had been watching the traffic approaching then he could of taken evasive action when it became apparent that the truck wasn’t stopping
Then what about the next vehicle? And the next? Should they also take evasive action?
This is all wonderful in hindsight but in the moments of the incident we’re talking split second judgements when the reality is that at the very least it should be expected that the person behind you is alert enough to stop…
End of the day if you go into the back of a vehicle it’s very hard to justify why it’s not your fault. Add in going into the back of a vehicle at 52mph (or flat out for that vehicle) with no inkling if any reaction until three seconds AFTER the crash is inexcusable and he deserves all he’s got and more.
toonsy:
Night-and-day:
toonsy:
I’m amazed there’s people in here apportioning even a small amount of blame on the Audi driver.The report says there was dashcam footage of the whole incident from a number of vehicles, along with numerous witnesses and a police investigation that said the Audi was travelling at 11mph - none of any of that points to the Audi driver.
Yet the truck driver didn’t take any avoiding action and braked three seconds AFTER IMPACT. So take the Audi out of the way and what would happen? The jailed driver wouldve slammed into the back of the lorry instead, because he’s still flat out and hasntbseen the entire queue of slow traffic.
The way he then after afterwards… Well…
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being there
I wouldn’t put any blame at all on the Audi driver for the crash, but as has already been said drivers need educating about the dangers of sitting in stationary traffic in a live lane. If the Audi had been watching the traffic approaching then he could of taken evasive action when it became apparent that the truck wasn’t stopping
Then what about the next vehicle? And the next? Should they also take evasive action?
This is all wonderful in hindsight but in the moments of the incident we’re talking split second judgements when the reality is that at the very least it should be expected that the person behind you is alert enough to stop…
End of the day if you go into the back of a vehicle it’s very hard to justify why it’s not your fault. Add in going into the back of a vehicle at 52mph (or flat out for that vehicle) with no inkling if any reaction until three seconds AFTER the crash is inexcusable and he deserves all he’s got and more.
Spot on toonsy, you know the score.
toonsy:
Night-and-day:
toonsy:
I’m amazed there’s people in here apportioning even a small amount of blame on the Audi driver.The report says there was dashcam footage of the whole incident from a number of vehicles, along with numerous witnesses and a police investigation that said the Audi was travelling at 11mph - none of any of that points to the Audi driver.
Yet the truck driver didn’t take any avoiding action and braked three seconds AFTER IMPACT. So take the Audi out of the way and what would happen? The jailed driver wouldve slammed into the back of the lorry instead, because he’s still flat out and hasntbseen the entire queue of slow traffic.
The way he then after afterwards… Well…
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being there
I wouldn’t put any blame at all on the Audi driver for the crash, but as has already been said drivers need educating about the dangers of sitting in stationary traffic in a live lane. If the Audi had been watching the traffic approaching then he could of taken evasive action when it became apparent that the truck wasn’t stopping
Then what about the next vehicle? And the next? Should they also take evasive action?
This is all wonderful in hindsight but in the moments of the incident we’re talking split second judgements when the reality is that at the very least it should be expected that the person behind you is alert enough to stop…
End of the day if you go into the back of a vehicle it’s very hard to justify why it’s not your fault. Add in going into the back of a vehicle at 52mph (or flat out for that vehicle) with no inkling if any reaction until three seconds AFTER the crash is inexcusable and he deserves all he’s got and more.
Like I said I don’t put any blame on the Audi driver so I agree the truck driver deserves what he got. But yes the next vehicle, and the next should take evasive action. Its not split second at all, it was stated that the truck had 9 seconds to see the traffic, if the Audi was watching then for 5 of those seconds it would of been obvious that the truck wasn’t going to stop. In a perfect world yes it should be expected that the person behind will stop, but a bit of awareness would of saved two lives when he didn’t
Just in case there is anybody on here that is unclear (not that it will affect tonight’s sleep either way), I am not saying that the wagon steerer is not at fault. Nobody seems to know why the moron was so switched off, my suspicion is that there has been some kind of silly interaction between the Audi & the moron just before it all went the way of the pear.
I know from my own experience that whenever you are approaching junctions/exits on motorways in particular, I spend as much if not more bloody time in my o/s mirror than I do looking through the windscreen, and that MAY have been a contributing factor for Ray Charles.
The bellend in the Daf needs porridge for a significant period in my view. There certainly is in my opinion a growing contingent of fungus substitute steering attendants in this game now, and an ever increasing number of hairy eared old fools (other types of old fools are available 
) too. Which is disappointing because you would expect most experienced Werther’s munchers to be like Yoda and us young guns should be watching & learning 
toonsy:
I’m amazed there’s people in here apportioning even a small amount of blame on the Audi driver.The report says there was dashcam footage of the whole incident from a number of vehicles, along with numerous witnesses and a police investigation that said the Audi was travelling at 11mph - none of any of that points to the Audi driver.
Yet the truck driver didn’t take any avoiding action and braked three seconds AFTER IMPACT. So take the Audi out of the way and what would happen? The jailed driver wouldve slammed into the back of the lorry instead, because he’s still flat out and hasntbseen the entire queue of slow traffic.
The way he then after afterwards… Well…
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being there
I agree.
I think there’s some on here who in the same way that cyclist and many car drivers instantly want to put all blame on lorry drivers, the ones on here try and find a way to justify the truck even when he’s totally in the wrong. Even if the Audi cut in he didn’t react for 9 seconds. I’m sorry but he’s just totally in the wrong there whether he was asleep or just doing something else.
Carryfast:
eagerbeaver:
I get the feeling that this old chap in the Q3 is not totally blameless in this…The prosecutor says that the defendant pulled out in front of the victim causing him to brake and then somehow ploughed into the back of the victim while the victim was supposedly at that point running ahead at 11 mph ?.While seeming to ignore the comments that the victim had ‘cut in’ on the truck.Possibly removing its seperation distance ?.
In which case the question has to be what happened between the victim overtaking and being obstructed by and while obviously running faster than the truck at that point and then being in front of the truck running at 11 mph.As for the defendandt’s idiotic comments people can say strange things without thinking when in shock.
Cutting in removing separation distance… where does this 9 seconds of no reaction come from then that’s in the report? You need 9 seconds of distance. Even at 44 tons on a wet road you can come to a stop in 9 seconds
From the reports and the footage from the Renault, if the Audi hadn’t been in the way then dopey ■■■■ in the DAF would’ve probably hit the Renault with much greater force and probably not survived . The Audi has acted as a crash barrier/ crumple zone .
Even the two second rule wouldn’t have saved the occupants of the Audi .
Was most of the evidence about inattention and reactions gathered via telematics and in-cab cameras ?
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
DickyNick:
Carryfast:
eagerbeaver:
I get the feeling that this old chap in the Q3 is not totally blameless in this…The prosecutor says that the defendant pulled out in front of the victim causing him to brake and then somehow ploughed into the back of the victim while the victim was supposedly at that point running ahead at 11 mph ?.While seeming to ignore the comments that the victim had ‘cut in’ on the truck.Possibly removing its seperation distance ?.
In which case the question has to be what happened between the victim overtaking and being obstructed by and while obviously running faster than the truck at that point and then being in front of the truck running at 11 mph.As for the defendandt’s idiotic comments people can say strange things without thinking when in shock.
Cutting in removing separation distance… where does this 9 seconds of no reaction come from then that’s in the report? You need 9 seconds of distance. Even at 44 tons on a wet road you can come to a stop in 9 seconds
No one is saying that the defendant is blameless and probably would have run into the truck ahead regardless.Which answers your question.Which still leaves you to answer the questions arising within the second paragraph.IE the defendant is at least guilty of careless driving for running into stationary traffic ahead.Whether the victim can justifiably be regarded as part of that established stationary traffic ahead or actually put himself in harm’s way through an unsafe lane change is another matter.
If I’m in the same situation in my ar as the Audi driver found himself I keep an eye on my rear view mirror and if stationary I keep it in gear. It’s never happened but I’m ready for diving into the hard shoulder.
Having said that, the fat arrogant ■■■■ was totally to blame and should have been paying attention.
It beggars belief that after doing what he did he then said what he said.
W anchor.
Carryfast:
toonsy:
But yeah, some fault sits with the Audi driver just for being thereThere’s a big difference between ‘being there’ as opposed to cutting into the seperation distance between traffic as part of an unsafe lane change.Even if in this case the defendant was going to plough into the truck ahead anyway all the more reason to stay well out of its way.
According to the BBC News report on this case, Motorway cameras showed Rogers had been driving along behind the Audi for over one minute, so any cutting-in or unsafe lane change must have taken place almost a mile earlier, at the very least.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h … e-46923040
eagerbeaver:
I get the feeling that this old chap in the Q3 is not totally blameless in this…
+1
fat old unhealthy truckie,no doubt bored to tears on the cruise at 52.
momentary lapse of sanity/concentration and he has 18 month or so to contemplate the error of his ways for doing so.
just as well itl never happen to the phd professor holyier than now duddly doo good brigade in here or we would never hear the end of it.
personaly the most horrifying aspect of the news article was the link to the video of pregnant jessica simpson who has quadrupled in size to something similar to the hindenburg since i last saw her in the dukes of hazzard video.
that accident could happen to anyone reading this…even you!!
dieseldog999:
eagerbeaver:
I get the feeling that this old chap in the Q3 is not totally blameless in this…+1
fat old unhealthy truckie,no doubt bored to tears on the cruise at 52.
momentary lapse of sanity/concentration and he has 18 month or so to contemplate the error of his ways for doing so.
just as well itl never happen to the phd professor holyier than now duddly doo good brigade in here or we would never hear the end of it.
personaly the most horrifying aspect of the news article was the link to the video of pregnant jessica simpson who has quadrupled in size to something similar to the hindenburg since i last saw her in the dukes of hazzard video.that accident could happen to anyone reading this…even you!!
Yes it could happen to anyone but it is far more likely to happen to some rather than others. Some drivers are responsible whilst others are not.
Roymondo:
Carryfast:
There’s a big difference between ‘being there’ as opposed to cutting into the seperation distance between traffic as part of an unsafe lane change.Even if in this case the defendant was going to plough into the truck ahead anyway all the more reason to stay well out of its way.According to the BBC News report on this case, Motorway cameras showed Rogers had been driving along behind the Audi for over one minute, so any cutting-in or unsafe lane change must have taken place almost a mile earlier, at the very least.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h … e-46923040
Thanks.I read it properly the defendant pulled out on the Audi ‘minutes earlier’.Muppet of the highest order chuck the book at him 14 years max sentence as an example pour les autres.
dieseldog999:
eagerbeaver:
I get the feeling that this old chap in the Q3 is not totally blameless in this…+1
fat old unhealthy truckie,no doubt bored to tears on the cruise at 52.
momentary lapse of sanity/concentration
To be fair with only 18 years of driving behind him the muppet has obviously never known anything without a limiter fitted to it.Another example of why we need to ditch cruise control on trucks and get back to proper constant mesh gearboxes to wash out the brake and go steering wheel attendants.Who don’t know how to read the road ahead of them and who often seem to forget to even brake when needed as a result.
Beetlejuice:
I was also thinking the Q3 driver was not totally blameless ,But in any case RIP .And keep em peeled chaps …
Can someone explain how the q3 driver isn’t totally Blameless
Carryfast:
dieseldog999:
eagerbeaver:
I get the feeling that this old chap in the Q3 is not totally blameless in this…+1
fat old unhealthy truckie,no doubt bored to tears on the cruise at 52.
momentary lapse of sanity/concentrationTo be fair with only 18 years of driving behind him the muppet has obviously never known anything without a limiter fitted to it.Another example of why we need to ditch cruise control on trucks and get back to proper constant mesh gearboxes to wash out the brake and go steering wheel attendants.Who don’t know how to read the road ahead of them and who often seem to forget to even brake when needed as a result.
Have to agree with this - there seems to be an increase in these type of accidents where a driver has completely zoned out - almost like being in a trance. 
