welltin:
Sorry, I dont think I am explaining myself very well.
The driver had nothing for the first accident as the car driver took liability, for the second it was a friendly please be more careful. The third is the only accident being investigated formally, but only because he has had 3 accidents within 6 months. If it was just the 3rd accident on its own, it would have been a freindly please be more careful, but its not.
Does that make sense?
I can see how you might consider 3 accidents as excessive, but if you look at the first accident, you do point out that he was blameless, so you shouldn’t even bring that into the equation.
The second “incident” was not as such an accident either and if I were on a disciplinary meeting and this was bought up would ask about the result of your investigation into this incident and what action the company carried out in reporting to and attempting a claim against the people responsible for the hole being there in the first place. Then asking if the company had recouped their losses from the relevant authorities. The answers to these questions would be relevent in me forming some defence with regard to the incident.
The third accident I would have to hold my hands up to, and then try to justify the fact that I have only in fact through neglegence been the cause of one event so respectfully apologize and accept my verbal warning as the first stage of a disciplinary procedure along with any assesment and extra training to saw fit to offer me
As an asside, I was doing multidrop steel deliveries around London for a company and was awarded a certificate for 10 years accident free driving, but on the 11th year had 3 accidents, my driving standard hadn’t changed IMHO, but sometimes these things happen. I didn’t have another accident again for about 9 years so what changed I can’t say
Shrek:
I don’t suppose any of your management team have considered the driver’s welfare have they? Has he been asked if everything’s OK? Does he have personal problems? Is he happy at work or is something bothering him so much that he can’t concentrate properly? Is there anything the company can do to help him? It sounds like quite a big firm, do you have an occupational health dept or have you thought of making him a referral to an organisation that can help him? Just a thought.
Of course, he may just be a gloit who can’t drive a wagon properly, in which case he should be executed in the yard in front of the men.
Skrek, Thats the point of this afternoons meeting. I am investigating the accident, I have the drivers written report on what happened, I have the vehicle with the damage, but now I need to know if there is anything that may be causing the problem. IE personal issues etc. If there is a personal problem then as you say he will be pointed in the direction of some help.
For the 3 accidents this guys had, only one is really his fault. even that is one that is very easy to do, by even the best.
I just wonder if giving him a written warning would just place him more on edge or make him feel persecuted.
Oh what’s all this saying an accident is not an accident but an “incident”.
An accident is an unintentioned event. Even if the accident was caused by somebody’s total baffoonary, it still an accident.
ie
The lorry crashed into the lamp post. The driver had been reading the Sun at the time. Thats still an accident because the driver never intended driving into the lampost.
or
The lorry crashed into the lamp post. The driver did this because he had a pathalogical hatred of lamp posts.
Thats not an accident, because it was done intentionally.
1st Incident thrown out = Car drivers fault as you have said
2nd incident did you have pic’s etc location and details of pot hole and did a claim go through and who won that ?
3rd incident as others said blind spot etc investigate that issue maybe a official verbal
If anothe insident at driver fault then more indepth looking at the drivers ability’s
Have his driving assesed and have this on a half day exercise.
If there are issues then further training maybe needed
First was accident involving a car joining carriageway from Slip road, traffic was slow moving
then that would be the cars problem for not stopping
Wrong. Whilst the car was in the wrong for pulling out, as the traffic was slow moving, the driver was well aware and would have not had to take emergency action that would have risked injury to him or others or damage to the load. The driver should’ve slowed up and allowed the car out, even though it was in the wrong, when it was obvious that to fail to do so would result in a collision. I deliberately say collision because it was completely avoidable. As a professional driver, he should expect to have to make compromises for the poorer ability of other road users.
The second incident is slightly plausible although in the light of the third, I’d be suspect.
As regards the third incident, he should have got out to look first if in doubt. It is completely his fault. Had his mirrors been aimed correctly and he was actually using them, he’d not have hit the bollards. I’ve reversed in some right pokey yards with stuff dumped everywhere and have never hit anything on the blind side of the cab.
Personally, I’d be giving him a written warning if he’s been there longer than a year or his P45 if he hasn’t. Personally, it sounds like he either can’t drive for toffee or simply doesn’t give a stuff.
Secretelephant:
'…what’s all this saying an accident is not an accident but an “incident”.
An accident is an unintentioned event.
Er, no it aint …an accident is an unforeseen or unforeseeable event. Interesting that you ‘take-on’ the Oxford English Dictionary, although it suggests that you understand:
Secretelephant:
‘…The lorry crashed into the lamp post. The driver had been reading the Sun at the time. Thats still an accident because the driver never intended driving into the lampost…’
Wrongly …because it would be appreciated that the Sun reader was behaving without due care and attention whilst in charge of a lorry & was thus a foreseeable cause of an incident.
The logic of your proposed argument above suggests further condoning the same muppet if he had another (unfortunate?) accident - poor lamb - despite consuming seventeen pints of lager although he didn’t want to get drunk. Perhaps ask oneself why some folk always want things their way without any comeback…
However, an incident might be justified as an accident if: a totally licenced, fit, healthy & rested driver had a stroke & crashed whilst driving a roadworthy vehicle in reasonable or any weather condition with which he’d reasonably be expected to otherwise cope.
Proper reasoning regularly illustrates social ignorance regarding word misuse, yet with seemingly complex reasoning, society seems to continually hide behind the word ‘accident’. (The BBC Radio traffic announcers are often attributing results of idiotic activity as ‘accidents’ on the road when many may regularly suspect that they’re the resulting activity of half-wits).
This contributes to a net negative effect of everyday people not owning the little bits of daftness or their oversights in everyday actions, thus (as per this thread) forcing an employer and/or the nanny-state to take action upon all of those who otherwise - and fortunately - own, respect and accordingly action their responsibilities.
Therefore, I maintain the validity of the earlier post since the use of accurate words - as they describe other words often having subtle nuance - does matter when a site member seeks advice on assessing a third party’s job prospect.
From the discription of the incidents i’d say the driver is having a terrible run of luck and formal action would seem very harsh. But also you have to cover your back otherwise it could be neck on the block.
Wrong. Whilst the car was in the wrong for pulling out, as the traffic was slow moving, the driver was well aware and would have not had to take emergency action that would have risked injury to him or others or damage to the load. The driver should’ve slowed up and allowed the car out, even though it was in the wrong, when it was obvious that to fail to do so would result in a collision. I deliberately say collision because it was completely avoidable. As a professional driver, he should expect to have to make compromises for the poorer ability of other road users…
No sir,the car driver admitted liability,even thought the trafic was slowing down the truck drivers concerns are for those in front and those behind,not those affecting entry,the car driver has the distance of the slip road to make a safe entry out of the junction…if he/she cannot do this safely they must stop at the line as if it was a road junction…
How many times have you had or seen car drivers force there way out of a slip road…
OLT:
No sir,the car driver admitted liability,even thought the trafic was slowing down the truck drivers concerns are for those in front and those behind,not those affecting entry,the car driver has the distance of the slip road to make a safe entry out of the junction…if he/she cannot do this safely they must stop at the line as if it was a road junction…
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. A truck drivers concerns are for ALL THOSE AROUND HIM if nothing else but for his own safety. Obviously, you’ve only ever had the bare basics of driving lessons and are a member of the “it’s everyone elses fault” brigade.
How many times have you had or seen car drivers force there way out of a slip road…
Thankyou for destroying your own argument for me. It’s not unknown, therefore you should be planning for it happening.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. A truck drivers concerns are for ALL THOSE AROUND HIM if nothing else but for his own safety. Obviously, you’ve only ever had the bare basics of driving lessons and are a member of the “it’s everyone elses fault” brigade.
yes sir that is very true,i have never had an accident,but i have see hundreds behind me .
You cannot expect every driver involved in an accident to take responsabilty for it,if as you say he could have avoided the accident can you explain how ,by perhaps braking hard to allow the car to entry safely then the vehicle behind could have run into the back of him or he could have accelerated to allow him to go behind him and run into the vehicle in front or he could have pulled over into the second lane,if indeed he was on a duel carraigeway he could have side swipped a car then…
the law states “give way at road junctions”…
I wont get into an arguement over this but the people who have answerd this thread all seem to think that accident one was not the fault of the truck driver,even rog with his vast experience has said the same…
The most important thing, is to take a human view over the situations in which the accidents have occurred. If he is a good, dedicated driver, then the ones that he (in theory) is to blame for will only be human error, and maybe a day with an assessor would be a good thing. I lost my van driving job over accidents when the insurance company decided that i’d had too many, even though I was blameless in most cases, as the company view is that “all accidents are preventable”, but I had no one to fight my corner with me…
Well, I tried being nice, but when you ask someone why they think an accident happened and they reply with ’ I am a bad driver ’ I really dont know what else I can do, Especially seens as though the interview was formal and therefore had a note taker present.
I now have to pass this on to another manager to decide on disciplinary action.
I can’t believe he would say that! Does he really want to keep his job■■? Feels like such an injustice that he’s given the chance to explain and redeem himself, and a human boss, where so many others lose out.
welltin:
Well, I tried being nice, but when you ask someone why they think an accident happened and they reply with ’ I am a bad driver ’ I really dont know what else I can do, Especially seens as though the interview was formal and therefore had a note taker present.
I now have to pass this on to another manager to decide on disciplinary action.
I can give an real incident of a ‘car from slip road’ collision which was witnessed by many - the trafpol got the statements.
One of my colleagues was driving an 18 tonner north on the M1 at juntion 9 in lane 1 at a busy time of day when his ‘brakes came on’ - you guessed it - was not his brakes.
A car that was holding steady at his nearside rear (just behind the truck) decided that it would be a good idea to accelerate hard and try and beat the truck.
At the exact time the car accelerated the trucker was not looking at it which was reasonable as a driver would not be expected to ‘fixate’ on one area.
The car almost made it but it’s o/s rear caught the trucks n/s front. The car then ended sideways across the front of the truck.
The trucker was a small guy and could not see the car - it was only when horns started and fingers were pointed that he leant forward, looked down the front and saw it.
He did well to control both of them in that senario gently onto the shoulder.
A driver on the motorway does have ‘the right of way’ over those on a slip road as they have a give way line. That does not mean that gives the motorway driver the ‘right’ to deliberately make things difficult for those trying to exit the slip road and they would be ‘expected’ to safely and ‘reasonably’ assist which, to be fair, most do.
The only time a ‘problem’ occurs is when either the motorway driver is determined not to allow anyone from the slip road to join or a slip road driver decides that they have a ‘right to join’.
ROG:
A driver on the motorway does have ‘the right of way’ over those on a slip road as they have a give way line. That does not mean that gives the motorway driver the ‘right’ to deliberately make things difficult for those trying to exit the slip road and they would be ‘expected’ to safely and ‘reasonably’ assist which, to be fair, most do.
The only time a ‘problem’ occurs is when either the motorway driver is determined not to allow anyone from the slip road to join or a slip road driver decides that they have a ‘right to join’.
He’s right y’know!
For all those who think it is their divine right to “ignore” traffic merging from the left…beware, if a collision occurs, expect a nice police officer to ask “What did you do to avoid this collision”. If the answer is not supported by witness evidence or evidence from the scene, expect a day or 2 explaining your actions to a Court.
In the scenario described by the OP, both the car driver and the truck driver share blame for the collision.
Oh and Rog…mate, it’s a “collision” not a freakin’ “incident”.
The car almost made it but it’s o/s rear caught the trucks n/s front. The car then ended sideways across the front of the truck.
The trucker was a small guy and could not see the car - it was only when horns started and fingers were pointed that he leant forward, looked down the front and saw it.
cos wouldn’t the driver of heard it or even felt the hit or the car been draged, cos i have see smiler on the M1 at night and the only reason the driver does not stop is cos its take a bit of time to slow down
You dont have to let merging traffic in off slip roads its a give way line and i dont have to explain what give way means. We had a car driver who i must say have some balls on him put his car underneath the trailer and argued that he was joining the motorway and had right of way the police told him and explained to him that its a give way line and as the highway code states they must give way to motorway traffic. The only thing is once they cross that line its upto us to stop then even when the muppets do 40mph as i had the other day. or have i got the last post wrong?
Also last accident i had not my fault but happend wednesday someone was watching another driver reverse from one window whilst driving forward and went through my baby…
to allow the car to entry safely 
