So, You have truck A broken down on a dual carriage way with 4 ways going, truck B with driver doing something he shouldn’t be doing but not with a mobile phone crashes flat out with no braking into truck A resulting in driver in truck A being thrown from the cab and injured, truck C within seconds crashes into the rear of truck B unfortunately resulting in the driver of truck C dying from his injuries.
Who is to blame for the death of the driver in truck C?
Well if B was concentrating he probably wouldn’t have hit A which in turn means C wouldn’t have it B but obviously a culmination of unfortunate events, how come C didn’t see B or could he not avoid hitting him ?
If I have to blame someone it would be B.
The inattention of B costs C their view of the road ahead.
It’s like if A, is in the road broken down C can’t see it because their view is obstructed by B. At the last minute B sees A and manages to swerve and avoid it. If there is no opportunity for C to swerve out they have been suddenly presented with a stationary object in their stopping distance and the two second rule wouldn’t give you enough because it relies on the vehicle in front performing an emergency stop not a surprise stationary object suddenly appearing in front of you.
What I would say is a lot of vehicles, when stopped or broken down, pull part way off the carriageway, and leave part of the vehicle protruding into the carriageway. I often think this is more dangerous than blocking the whole carriageway with the vehicle and the hazards on.
It’s a four second rule for HGV and PSV.
bald bloke:
Well if B was concentrating he probably wouldn’t have hit A which in turn means C wouldn’t have it B but obviously a culmination of unfortunate events, how come C didn’t see B or could he not avoid hitting him ?If I have to blame someone it would be B.
or c for not leaving enough of a gap to forsee any possible incident scenario.
I would have to say c. With additional blame to b.
As said each driver B and C have failed to observe the highway and kept separation of a safe distance
nick2008:
I would have to say c. With additional blame to b.
As said each driver B and C have failed to observe the highway and kept separation of a safe distance
^^^^^ that.
The collision between truck B and truck A is a seperate incident to the collision between truck C and truck B.In an ideal world truck C needs to have enough seperation distance to both be able to see past and ahead of truck B and to be able to stop if truck B stops suddenly for whatever reason regardless of what it stops for.
Legally truck C would be to blame though B should bear some guilt as well.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Would “C” have hit “B” with AEBS ?
cav551:
It’s a four second rule for HGV and PSV.
and yet acc defaults to 2 seconds and can be wound in closer.
dieseldog999:
bald bloke:
Well if B was concentrating he probably wouldn’t have hit A which in turn means C wouldn’t have it B but obviously a culmination of unfortunate events, how come C didn’t see B or could he not avoid hitting him ?If I have to blame someone it would be B.
or c for not leaving enough of a gap to forsee any possible incident scenario.
With the exception of Trucknet’s very own driving gods, apart from staying at home, no-one really drives in a manner that makes it impossible for other road users negligent actions to induce a collision. It’s a trade off between what a reasonable person would consider road safety and also making progress.
If it was anything other than this there would be no such thing as cash for crash insurance scams.
B’s negligence, in crashing into A, created a situation where their vehicle decelerated more rapidly and unexpectedly than another road user of average competence could be expected to anticipate.
dani1972:
Legally truck C would be to blame though B should bear some guilt as well.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
In Trucknet court but I would say B in actual court.
Bluey Circles:
Would “C” have hit “B” with AEBS ?cav551:
It’s a four second rule for HGV and PSV.and yet acc defaults to 2 seconds and can be wound in closer.
Which leaves the question is a driver maintaining sufficient seperation distance to be driving to the view ‘past’/ahead of the vehicle/s ahead,better than an artificial system which just seems to optimise the idea of driving to the vehicle ahead. 
Own Account Driver:
dani1972:
Legally truck C would be to blame though B should bear some guilt as well.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
In Trucknet court but I would say B in actual court.
Possibly based on the definition that you must be able to stop within the distance that you can ‘reasonably’ ‘expect’ to remain clear if something ahead runs into a stopped vehicle creating an impossible to deal with deceleration scenario.However just driving by the vision available to the back of the vehicle ahead is always going to be a grey area in that regard.In which case trying to always leave sufficient room to see ‘past’/beyond the vehicle ahead can be a life saver if not trumps the above definition of ‘reasonable’. 
Own Account Driver:
With the exception of Trucknet’s very own driving gods, apart from staying at home, no-one really drives in a manner that makes it impossible for other road users negligent actions to induce a collision. It’s a trade off between what a reasonable person would consider road safety and also making progress.If it was anything other than this there would be no such thing as cash for crash insurance scams.
B’s negligence, in crashing into A, created a situation where their vehicle decelerated more rapidly and unexpectedly than another road user of average competence could be expected to anticipate.
I think you could get a lot of sympathy from the police/courts and they may not fine or issue “C” with points, but I think “C” would really struggle to claim off “A” or "B"s insurance.
Own Account Driver:
With the exception of Trucknet’s very own driving gods, apart from staying at home, no-one really drives in a manner that makes it impossible for other road users negligent actions to induce a collision. It’s a trade off between what a reasonable person would consider road safety and also making progress.If it was anything other than this there would be no such thing as cash for crash insurance scams.
B’s negligence, in crashing into A, created a situation where their vehicle decelerated more rapidly and unexpectedly than another road user of average competence could be expected to anticipate.
If anyone is driving to the limits of not being able to stop in time,regarding a dead stop type collision among vehicles ahead.They’re also then in the realms of the vehicle ahead managing to swerve out of the way of the stopped vehicle leaving more or less the same situation of a supposedly ‘unexpectedly’ stopped vehicle in the way of the vehicle behind and no way of it stopping in time.IE avoiding either situation arguably isn’t an impossible driving god requirement and not doing so quite possibly won’t be accepted by the law as an excuse on the basis of the definition of what can ‘reasonably’ be ‘expected’ to remain clear ahead.IE the fact remains you shouldn’t be driving to the rear of the vehicle ahead.
Bluey Circles:
Own Account Driver:
With the exception of Trucknet’s very own driving gods, apart from staying at home, no-one really drives in a manner that makes it impossible for other road users negligent actions to induce a collision. It’s a trade off between what a reasonable person would consider road safety and also making progress.If it was anything other than this there would be no such thing as cash for crash insurance scams.
B’s negligence, in crashing into A, created a situation where their vehicle decelerated more rapidly and unexpectedly than another road user of average competence could be expected to anticipate.
I think you could get a lot of sympathy from the police/courts and they may not fine or issue “C” with points, but I think “C” would really struggle to claim off “A” or "B"s insurance.
Being dead I doubt he’d be that concerned
You can forget what it says in the Highway code about stopping distances. Just how far a car or light truck will travel before it can stop. These have brakes capable of achieving near to 1G rate of deceleration. The pass figure for HGV brakes is 1/2G to begin with. Sobering thought about 56 mph converted into artic lengths.
From the facts presented, I deduct that lorry B was driven by a foreign driver, watching a movie on his laptop or using his phone, and lorry C was a box jockey driving three feet behind lorry B, on the limiter and cruise control.
cav551:
You can forget what it says in the Highway code about stopping distances. Just how far a car or light truck will travel before it can stop. These have brakes capable of achieving near to 1G rate of deceleration. The pass figure for HGV brakes is 1/2G to begin with. Sobering thought about 56 mph converted into artic lengths.
Realistically vehicle stopping distances are irrelevant in the case of anyone being presented with a vehicle/s ahead at or coming to a more or less dead stop which they hadn’t anticipated.Such as in the case of the video I posted previously.