Dependant on the age of the truck would spend on whether it had AEBS fitted. Our new ones have and I think it was made compulsory in 2016 from memory for new trucks.
AEBS will hopefully stop more bad accidents like this from happening but people can still turn the system off and there is always the fact it can malfunction and not work when it’s needed.
How many people would take a truck out knowing the AEBS system is not working rather than defect it and refuse to take it until it is fixed.
If you took out a truck with collision avoidance technology that wasn’t working you would be in very hot water if you did crash, both in the law and civil courts.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
.
alte hase:
newmercman:
If you took out a truck with collision avoidance technology that wasn’t working you would be in very hot water if you did crash, both in the law and civil courts.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
And if the technology was functioning but nevertheless a collision occurs that would exonerate you, would it?
What is made by man is as fallible as man.
I doubt it. Its an “aid” so there to help but the driver is still there to blame for technology failing.
To be fair if a driver isn’t paying attention he deserves the blame
yt03:
jakethesnake:
yt03:
jakethesnake:
If only all the people who jump inbetween trucks in traffic would see thisYou have a strange logic
Why is that a strange logic?? People need educating on what can happen… some people are lacking something upstairs, you being one of them I think
Most drivers know what can happen but tend to ignore the fact that they could be involved in the next one.And as a now retired truck driver you know what gets me?
You are correct some drivers do cut in but a lot of truck drivers do not leave sufficient room from the vehicle in front sometimes leaving other drivers no choice.
Also what really gets me is when a vehicle does cut in the lorry driver does not do what he or she should do. Back off! Instead they sit right close behind being a big dik.
Some drivers are just [zb] in reality.I never once said truck drivers are saints, they are just as bad… we should know better when to back out of it I totally agree, car drivers also need to learn about putting themselves in danger. You pretty much have to think for half of them these days.
I never said you did say that. Did I ? Sorry but it sounds like you need to gain some experience in how to drive a truck correctly and stop blaming others for your poor driving.
You are not alone there though. 
newmercman:
There’s a flaw in that statement, you have to think for all of them, not just half of them, it’s the way it has always been, expect the unexpected and believe that every other road user is a complete idiot and will do something stupid and you’ll be a lot safer.
To be fair all the thinking for them in the world won’t help if/when they are determined enough to create havoc by cutting in too close and removing your seperation distance followed by an emergency stop.Which I’d guess was the point in using the example of the ‘damage’ caused in this totally different scenario.
kcrussell25:
To be fair if a driver isn’t paying attention he deserves the blame
Like ever lower speeds technology isn’t the answer to what seems like something going wrong with too many drivers’ thought process.I’d guess that making the driving test tougher in the form of a police training style running commentry having to be provided by the driver,might at least help to wash out those who don’t seem to have a clue regarding forward planning.
While we can probably add the Italian tanker explosion to the ongoing list. 
newmercman:
If you took out a truck with collision avoidance technology that wasn’t working you would be in very hot water if you did crash, both in the law and civil courts.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Only if if was made law. ?
steviespain:
newmercman:
If you took out a truck with collision avoidance technology that wasn’t working you would be in very hot water if you did crash, both in the law and civil courts.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Only if if was made law. ?
I would say that any prosecutor would be all over that, basically saying that you knowingly took/sent out a vehicle that had a feature that could have prevented the crash which wasn’t working. Had it been working there wouldn’t have been a crash.
How is a jury going to react to that?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
steviespain:
newmercman:
If you took out a truck with collision avoidance technology that wasn’t working you would be in very hot water if you did crash, both in the law and civil courts.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Only if if was made law. ?
Current Euro6 covers AEBS I believe.
New trucks all have it fitted.
If it’s fitted and you’re in an accident what then?
Turned on: the accident may or may not be your fault.
Turned off: the arguments will be that having it on, may have prevented or lessened the accident. Doesn’t really matter who caused the accident.
I think the AEBS is pretty bad at throwing up false alarms. But I’ll not turn it off. It annoys me, but I can live with that.
If an idiot pulls in front, and there’s a crash, then although the AEBS didn’t prevent this imaginary accident, no arguments can be made about my failing to use a safety device.
On a wider point. Look at all the safety devices we have on all vehicles today: tyres, brakes, suspension and steering are all streets ahead of where they were before. If we all drove the same as we did twenty years ago there would be many fewer accidents today.
But we don’t! Better tyres and suspension means we take curves a little faster. Better brakes means we drive a little closer.
It’s not right and proper, but it’s what we do. We drive to what we think are the safe limits. The limits get higher, we adjust our driving.
And there is always someone who goes too fast or too close and goes beyond the limit.
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Yes i too have AEBS and lane departure.
So far the AEBS triggers warnings maybe 2 days a week on average, and has physically applied the brakes twice or maybe three times for no reason whatsoever, lane departure is going off for no reason several times a day every day.
Not a chance i’m turning either one off.
RIP driver
I’m not sure this accident has any thing to do with diving to close that truck has hit that stationary van at close to full chat . It’s either distraction or a medical incident . But absolutely awful for all involved
newmercman:
steviespain:
newmercman:
If you took out a truck with collision avoidance technology that wasn’t working you would be in very hot water if you did crash, both in the law and civil courts.Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Only if if was made law. ?
I would say that any prosecutor would be all over that, basically saying that you knowingly took/sent out a vehicle that had a feature that could have prevented the crash which wasn’t working. Had it been working there wouldn’t have been a crash.
How is a jury going to react to that?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
How would a jury react if all aids were turned of? Like i know some of the old boys do as soon as they get in
R.I.P
have seen exact same thing about 11years ago near Scunthorpe…i was thinking about it for months…
I hate that very poor technology called AEsomething…even i always swich it off…it still brakes on front of high roundabouts and when car leaving motorway slowing down…for me more harm than help!
There’s a flaw in that statement, you have to think for all of them, not just half of them, it’s the way it has always been, expect the unexpected and believe that every other road user is a complete idiot and will do something stupid and you’ll be a lot safer.
^^^^^^^ This exactly. Trust no one on the road. Expecting them all to do something idiotic will keep you safer in the long run.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Then you would never get anywhere.
RIP to that poor ■■■■■■ guy…condolences to his family.
not that we are experienced csi guys but…i had a thought…if the wide load had stopped whilst a recovery was going on in front…the ■■■■■■ vehicle was waiting behind…the artic heading on down at 56 mph…or whatever…( sure had to be some speed to squash that van so bad )…the ■■■■■■… handbrake on…no foot on the brake…artic doesnt see any brake lights…and not knowing vehicles were at a standstill…and it happened…
but as we all see much mayhem on our roads…and yet still they drive up each others backsides, and all at high end speed…not thinking something can happen…then we have those on hourly pay…that take their time…and those who cant wait to get somewhere fast…if thats possible…so in my opinion,nobody is taking any notice of tailgating…speed…on the phone…or whatever…safe driving folks…
truckyboy:
RIP to that poor ■■■■■■ guy…condolences to his family.…the ■■■■■■… handbrake on…no foot on the brake…artic doesnt see any brake lights…and not knowing vehicles were at a standstill…and it happened…
FFS! He should have seen the problem, traffic not moving, from as far ahead as he could see it. And he should have been looking.
mental note to self, I LOVE italics.
truckyboy:
not that we are experienced csi guys but…i had a thought the ■■■■■■… handbrake on…no foot on the brake…artic doesnt see any brake lights…and not knowing vehicles were at a standstill…
Yet another good reason to get rid of such ‘escorts’.At least then anyone stupid enough to be driving based on the premise,that anything ahead not showing brake lights,must obviously be travelling at 90 kmh + would get what they deserve in this case a faceful of massive digger being the last thing they ever see as it smashes its way through their cab. 