I remember this accident when it happened.
He was leaning over for a chocolate bar and cost someone their life.
m.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/driv … Lk2SihVxlR
Yes he may have been in the wrong but its an easy headline and the police love a story like this, trucker causes crash reaching for a chocolate bar. The article mentions nothing whatsoever about the car which was travelling at walking pace on the dual carriageway, which is surely equally dangerous.
Cosmic:
Yes he may have been in the wrong but its an easy headline and the police love a story like this, trucker causes crash reaching for a chocolate bar. The article mentions nothing whatsoever about the car which was travelling at walking pace on the dual carriageway, which is surely equally dangerous.
That may as well be the case but what if a vehicle had broke down or the driver was trying to limp to a layby or safe area … would your comment still be the same ■■
Why should the article mention the speed of the car? Was the car driver charged with any offence? Was he found guilty? Presumably there was some reason for driving slowly - Possibly attempting to limp the car into the lay-by just ahead? What difference would it have made had he stopped the car on the carriageway? Our gallant knight-of-the-road would have ploughed into it just the same.
nick2008:
Cosmic:
Yes he may have been in the wrong but its an easy headline and the police love a story like this, trucker causes crash reaching for a chocolate bar. The article mentions nothing whatsoever about the car which was travelling at walking pace on the dual carriageway, which is surely equally dangerous.That may as well be the case but what if a vehicle had broke down or the driver was trying to limp to a layby or safe area … would your comment still be the same ■■
Yes it would, because I purely commented on the physics of the case and made no judgement on rights or wrongs. My point is that it took two combined risk factors to make the accident happen but the article only comments on one of them.
The article refers to the fact the driver admits causing death by careless driving so the events of the accident are irrelevant with regard to the article, as they are reporting he admits it by his actions
Cosmic:
two combined risk factors to make the accident happen but the article only comments on one of them.
A slow car isnt really a risk factor. Drivers need to account for other vehicles AND THEIR SPEED. Its the main thing to be watching for when driving. Even if the car was doing 5mph its still not his fault when someone ploughs into him is it? If HGV man had been watching the road the other vehicles speed wouldn’t matter
The-Snowman:
Cosmic:
two combined risk factors to make the accident happen but the article only comments on one of them.A slow car isnt really a risk factor. Drivers need to account for other vehicles AND THEIR SPEED. Its the main thing to be watching for when driving. Even if the car was doing 5mph its still not his fault when someone ploughs into him is it? If HGV man had been watching the road the other vehicles speed wouldn’t matter
Wasn’t the HGV driver who hit the minibus on the M62 cleared of the same charge though, with the minibus driver being found guilty? Obviously there are differences in the circumstances but to say that a car crawling along a fast road isn’t causing a danger is plain wrong.
Yes drivers should take account of other drivers on the road, but is it reasonable to expect a car to be crawling along a dual carriageway without causing at the very least others to be surprised by the lack of speed? It’s bad enough when drivers come across a tractor on a dual, and they’re big buggers with flashy lights which you expect to be going slow.
2 golden rules of driving…
1.if the traffic in front slows down…you slow down.
2.if the traffic in front stops…you stop.
anything else is a crash?
Cosmic:
The article mentions nothing whatsoever about the car which was travelling at walking pace on the dual carriageway, which is surely equally dangerous.
Have you got a link to a source that says that. It’s the first time I’ve heard it.
cupidstunt:
but to say that a car crawling along a fast road isn’t causing a danger is plain wrong.
Its not a danger if your watching the road ahead and see it. And watching the road ahead is the most important thing about driving.
cupidstunt:
Yes drivers should take account of other drivers on the road, but is it reasonable to expect a car to be crawling along a dual carriageway without causing at the very least others to be surprised by the lack of speed? It’s bad enough when drivers come across a tractor on a dual, and they’re big buggers with flashy lights which you expect to be going slow.
You said it yourself. Take account of other drivers on the road. And yes,it is reasonable to expect a car to be crawling if your paying attention and anticipating the road ahead. You dont seem at all to feel the hgv driver might be at fault here for thinking that reaching for a bar of chocolate and not watching the road was the problem here. If he had been he could have dealt with a slow moving vehicle safely without killing anyone.
I had my dpf/cat block on the A1 in the dip where the speed camera used to be near Colsterworth at night. It literally lost all power and by the time I realised I couldn’t limp to the junction it’d conked out in the slow lane. Luckily every driver was wide awake and pulled out, but I really expected someone to career into it before the police arrived and closed the lane.
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-23454549
Doesnt excuse the poor driving standards by the LGV driver
Thanks mattecube