■■■■ tries to get lorry involved in cash for crash, apparently with a child in the back seat
dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tempt.html
Obviously a crash for cash attempt. Nothing in front of that clown, I agree with the driver in that article, if that wagon had been carrying a JCB or earthmover then it would of been a different story.
Ive got to get a camera 
tango boy:
Ive got to get a camera
Ditto.
Something has happened further down the road in my opinion, truck driver was expecting it.
No noticeable ’ cab dive ’ that I saw.
I now got a dash cam…
Decided to go for the Transcend DrivePro 200 after much reading and then watching reviews on a website called something like ‘Techmoan’ I think…
eagerbeaver:
No noticeable ’ cab dive ’ that I saw.
really? he braked that hard his hazard lights came on !
Yep some previous here, crash for cash scum tend to use the handbrake not the footbrake.
Still stupid but it would be interesting to hear both sides.
Chaversdad. Lol, I was watching the slo-mo version.
Got distracted by some very tasty white choc/raspberry cookies. I shall go into the corner and put my favourite dunce hat on.
Why on earth were both the BMW and the lorry travelling in the middle lane of three, when the inside lane was absolutely clear■■? They should be booked!
Goldfinger:
I now got a dash cam…Decided to go for the Transcend DrivePro 200 after much reading and then watching reviews on a website called something like ‘Techmoan’ I think…
Hmmm, might have to visit that site.
Supatramp:
Why on earth were both the BMW and the lorry travelling in the middle lane of three, when the inside lane was absolutely clear■■? They should be booked!
Err probably because the lorry was overtaking dashcam truck and the beemer was overtaking both of them.
If I had to put my TNCSI hat on I’d say that the Volvo moved into lane two to overtake dashcam man and in doing so he either pulled out in front of the beemer or the beemer drivers perception was that the lorry had pulled out in front of him. Either way, as has been mentioned, the guy in the truck was expecting it.
What an absolute ball bag!
I think most of us have been ’ brake tested ’ at some time or other. Sometimes you pull out, and the vehicle you have seen approaching is travelling a tad quicker than you thought.
A quick apologetic wave is my way of trying to avoid any hassle.
But I reckon you KNOW when it’s coming. It’s not rocket science, vehicle you had a ’ misunderstanding ’ with suddenly comes flying past you and almost immediately pulls in front!
Nothing justifies brake testing in my opinion. Regardless what the target vehicle is perceived to have done.
It’s spread like a virus, in recent years, amongst the monkey see monkey do morons I’m forced to share the country with.
+1 OAD.
Typical daily wail sensationalist bandwagon jumping. The car was braking way to far in front, brake lights on, to be a ‘crash for cash’ scam. Truck braked hard and controlled. No sign of potential motorway pile up. …
Non event. 
Don’t forget the public still hate us truckers and still love to drive 4x4s themselves - so they’ll be more sympathetic with the car than the trucker in the vids alas…
Notice the truck had it’s side door livery fuzzed out.
If I was that firm I’d like the whole bloody world to know what crap a haulier is expected to deal with each and every day… 
Thought I would try and put some speeds on it, slowed it down to a frame by frame and timed the white lines (almost certainly 9m apart) I reckon he was on his limiter at 56 and was brought down to 29mph.
I made a little graph to look at his braking, his initial braking would have given a stopping distance(56mph to Zero) of 82m but his braking own to 29 if extended would have given more like122m. what would he be capable of from 56mph ? 56m ?
i know, I’m going mad in my retirement … LOL
