£350
according to our mechanic just under £600 best thing is once scania brought the parts i was on my way in 30 mins so not to bad but i dont think the driver will be rubber knecking as to say again lol 
ROG:
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’
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’.
LOL! Assuming nobody was hurt. Would have loved to see the car drivers face as he pushed along sideways due to his boneheaded driving. 
I wonder if your college really did know the car was wedged in front of his truck, but decided “Sod it!, I’ll make him sweat for bit for being a total Berk!” 
Shrek:
Oh and Rog…mate, it’s a “collision” not a freakin’ “incident”.
OK, during the incident a collision occurred 
Happy Keith:
Wellers, Perhaps reappraise if the:welltin:
'…accidents…accidents…accident…3 accidents [being] excessive…?can correctly be attributed to your driver by falling correctly into that categorisation as defined by the
Oxford English Dictionary:
Accident
- 1 an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. 2 an incident that happens by chance or without apparent cause. 3 chance.
Or were they incidents?
I suppose that each event contains an element of how he owns his complicity within them …and do you like the lad, etc?
get a life keith
Doing damage to a vehicle in a pothole is entirely plausible.
Had you ever been into Northampton Cattle Market Truckstop when it was open■■? My god some of the holes in there were like driving into the ■■■■■■■■■■■■, most of the time they were filled with water so you couldn’t read how deep they were until, “BANG”, something got damaged. I know I did it on one occassion in a coach, and it totally knackered the door operating system, the boss however gave me the benifit and claimed against the truckstops insurance.
OLT:
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
Second was driving through a pot hole, took the front quarter panel clean off, broke the headlight lense and scuffed the front wing… Amazing thing to do in a pot hole…
who did the pothole belong to
the council
Third was last week, clattered some bollards while reversing on the services damaging front step, wing and quarterpanel again.
this one could have been driver abuse or just a ■■■■’up by the driver…
None look to me to deliberate acts of damage
There’s no ignoring the fact, the only people who do no damage do ■■■■ all. That fact we should all be aware of. Those who scoff and say ‘who? me? nah never’ sooner or later come to regret it. God knows I’ve done my share over the years. You just have to try and learn from the experience and strive for better. There’s nobody I can think of who actually sets out to do damage/have accidents, but transport is one of those games where the more you are doing it the more likely it is to happen. That said, disciplinary hearings can have a positive effect on a drivers perfomance, as long as they’re done in a proffessional manner and don’t resort to mud slinging ect., leaving the driver traumatised and maybee even more liable to ‘happenings’. In my own work they have a system where when a driver accumulates three lots of damage/accidents over a six month period, a disciplinary hearing is invoked and usually results in a written warning that stays on record for a further six months, if six months pass and no further ‘eventuallities’ occur, then it is wiped from the record and its back to a clean slate. If, however more ‘eventuallities’ occur then further action will be taken i.e.final written warning/dissmissal. This seems a pretty fair system to me, and, if its done fairly, should mostly be positive, for driver and company alike.
OLT:
if as you say he could have avoided the accident can you explain how
If he’d been actually thinking about what his eyeballs were telling him was gong on, he shouldn’t need to have done - merely drop speed off but yes if it comes to it.
If they can’t stop in time, that’s their problem for driving too close to the vehicle in front.
or he could have accelerated to allow him to go behind him
Straw grabbing noted.
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…
And all of them are as equally crap as he and you are and don’t deserve the title of professional driver. I have NEVER EVER hit another vehicle despite being carved up etc. Why? Because unlike you, I have a functioning brain that’s able to take what my eyes are telling me is going on, realise that an accident is a likely possibility and that to back off or take evasive action, if possible, would avoid it. You’re a thick stupid moron so you’d just plough on regardless, even if it ended up killing someone.
I cannot believe people are so braindead as to be completely incapable of seeing this. It scares me stupid that I have to share the road with morons like you.
So you’re saying that had he killed her, he would be completely blameless even though a simple slowing down and application of brakes could have prevented the collision? A Judge wouldn’t see it your way.
I don’t know if you have taken what I said in the wrong way or whether I said it in the wrong way. 
If the trucker in lane 1 had seen that the car intending to emerge from the slip was ‘likely’ to collide and did nothing which could ‘reasonably’ be done, then the trucker would be just as blameworthy as the car driver for the collision.
The question is always - Could the incident be avoided by one or more of the drivers involved
The only way we could know what exactly happened in this incident is if we were there at the time - anything else is pure speculation.
I cannot believe people are so braindead as to be completely incapable of seeing this. It scares me stupid that I have to share the road with morons like you.
You dont have to you now,you could always give up driving and become comedienne
There’s no ignoring the fact, the only people who do no damage do ■■■■ all. That fact we should all be aware of. Those who scoff and say ‘who? me? nah never’ sooner or later come to regret it. God knows I’ve done my share over the years. You just have to try and learn from the experience and strive for better. There’s nobody I can think of who actually sets out to do damage/have accidents, but transport is one of those games where the more you are doing it the more likely it is to happen. That said, disciplinary hearings can have a positive effect on a drivers perfomance, as long as they’re done in a proffessional manner and don’t resort to mud slinging ect., leaving the driver traumatised and maybee even more liable to ‘happenings’. In my own work they have a system where when a driver accumulates three lots of damage/accidents over a six month period, a disciplinary hearing is invoked and usually results in a written warning that stays on record for a further six months, if six months pass and no further ‘eventuallities’ occur, then it is wiped from the record and its back to a clean slate. If, however more ‘eventuallities’ occur then further action will be taken i.e.final written warning/dissmissal. This seems a pretty fair system to me, and, if its done fairly, should mostly be positive, for driver and company alike.
Papermonkey,
Our system is similar to yours, right across the board (warehouse ops, drivers, anyone). For a first occurance, people are given what we call councelling, which means they are spoken too, this is recorded and put on their file, then if they need speaking too again it is formalised. So basically, people cant be suprised when you discipline them with a verbal warning because they will have already been advised what they are doing is not acceptable, and that the fact has been recorded. Councelling is valid for 6 months.
If after councelling someone doesnt improve then we jump in with the disciplinary policy, verbal is 6 months, written is 9 months, and final… well… if you get to this stage you probably dont have long left.