billybigrig:
That’s what properly adjusted mirrors and correct use of them, combined with a little bit of expectation and anticipation is for Mike. Don’t know about you but I would have been keeping a wary eye on the slip road for nimrods like the civic driver. Blind spots are nominal these days and things have to pass through an awful lot of non blind spot to get to them.
Yeah, i’d agree the drive should of seen him. I just reckon he never, the onus being on the car to give way makes it pretty much the car drivers fault IMO. I think wether he could of backed off a few clicks or not is academic
So if it was a truck that was in the same situation of having run up to speed and needed to merge with traffic on the motorway,which although having the priority,hasn’t left sufficient space between vehicles what then.It’s no good saying the onus was on the vehicle entering.The inevitable results will be just the same but ( a lot ) worse in that case.
I don’t make the laws, the road signs mean give way or they don’t.
Carryfast:
He doesn’t need to ‘see anything at all’.All it takes is a bit of anticipation on approach to the slip road.IE it’s a hazard with traffic likely to be merging ahead of me wether I see it or not so back off and make loads of room between me and the truck ahead just in case a coach/truck/car or two needs to merge in front.It’s all about basic survival for everyone concerned on the roads.
I can’t really disagree with you. But also a car driver should be able to see if he doesn’t give way he’s going to hit a big lorry?
The point I’m making isn’t one of arguing about who has priority it’s the one of sufficient space being left between vehicles to allow other vehicles to merge safely in the case of entry slips roads and joining motorways which are two totally seperate issues.
They’re related issues CF, we all know with traffic volumes and poor driving that the safe gap rarely exists BUT it’s easy enough for one to be made when appropriate. Unfortunately too many big truckers seem to think giving way or backing off for any reason is somewhat akin to questioning their manhood
billybigrig:
That’s what properly adjusted mirrors and correct use of them, combined with a little bit of expectation and anticipation is for Mike. Don’t know about you but I would have been keeping a wary eye on the slip road for nimrods like the civic driver. Blind spots are nominal these days and things have to pass through an awful lot of non blind spot to get to them.
Yeah, i’d agree the drive should of seen him. I just reckon he never, the onus being on the car to give way makes it pretty much the car drivers fault IMO. I think wether he could of backed off a few clicks or not is academic
So if it was a truck that was in the same situation of having run up to speed and needed to merge with traffic on the motorway,which although having the priority,hasn’t left sufficient space between vehicles what then.It’s no good saying the onus was on the vehicle entering.The inevitable results will be just the same but ( a lot ) worse in that case.
I don’t make the laws, the road signs mean give way or they don’t.
Things aren’t always as black and white as that.If that had been a more serious accident involving casualties I wouldn’t like to bet that the law wouldn’t have looked on the seperation distance between the trucks as being a factor in stopping the car from being able to merge safely whereas a much larger gap would have allowed it.Rather than it just being a case of the car ‘failing to give way’.In just the same way that failing to give way can sometimes not always mean total blame in the case of traffic pulling out of a junction subject to a give way line,being involved in a collision with a vehicle,which although on the priority road,was speeding and/or overtaking on the wrong side of the road going through the junction.
Carryfast:
So if it was a truck that was in the same situation of having run up to speed and needed to merge with traffic on the motorway,which although having the priority,hasn’t left sufficient space between vehicles what then.It’s no good saying the onus was on the vehicle entering.The inevitable results will be just the same but ( a lot ) worse in that case.
Same rules apply. You can’t barge in! If the merging vehicle has to stop, so be it, though that is far from ideal in any such scenario and a potential nightmare on a motorway. The car driver above made a big misjudgement and deserves to pay the trucker’s costs not vice versa. Thank god the trucker had a camera, as the proof of wrongdoing is obvious - I’m not on anyone’s side. Maybe you CF are playing devil’s advocate here.
I was going to mention the infamous Arclid incident which sounds identical to the above. The truck driver was found entirely innocent of any wrongdoing by the TC then as would be the truck driver above IMO.
As for the actuality of leaving enough room for merging vehicles, despite that not being a requirement for drivers per se AIUI, who denies there wasn’t enough space ahead of the car driver to accelerate into anyway? Couldn’t have been much less safe to do that rather than the attempted manoeuvre.
Carryfast:
So if it was a truck that was in the same situation of having run up to speed and needed to merge with traffic on the motorway,which although having the priority,hasn’t left sufficient space between vehicles what then.It’s no good saying the onus was on the vehicle entering.The inevitable results will be just the same but ( a lot ) worse in that case.
Same rules apply. You can’t barge in! If the merging vehicle has to stop, so be it, though that is far from ideal in any such scenario and a potential nightmare on a motorway. The car driver above made a big misjudgement and deserves to pay the trucker’s costs not vice versa. Thank god the trucker had a camera, as the proof of wrongdoing is obvious - I’m not on anyone’s side. Maybe you CF are playing devil’s advocate here.
I was going to mention the infamous Arclid incident which sounds identical to the above. The truck driver was found entirely innocent of any wrongdoing by the TC then as would be the truck driver above IMO.
As for the actuality of leaving enough room for merging vehicles, despite that not being a requirement for drivers per se AIUI, who denies there wasn’t enough space ahead of the car driver to accelerate into anyway? Couldn’t have been much less safe to do that rather than the attempted manoeuvre.
I’m certainly not playing devils advocate in the argument.I’m just going by years of experience of treating slip roads as a hazard in which regardless of who has or hasn’t got priority treating them using the black and white priority is everything idea as opposed to moving into lane 2 at best or at least making plenty of room in front for merging traffic will often mean the difference between an accident or not.Admittedly the former wouldn’t be taken into account in the event of an accident of this type but it’s a bit difficult to believe that the issue of tailgating by traffic having ‘priority’,as shown in the video in question,wouldn’t be taken into account as a factor in such an accident involving merging traffic getting caught up in such a close and closing seperation distance.Although no surprise going by past example on here that many wouldn’t view that distance,between the two trucks in question,as being a case of tailgating.
However that would in most cases only leave the other option of emergency stops having to be carried on entry slips by traffic travelling at sufficient speed to merge but without sufficient space to merge into being left between vehicles which have the so called ‘priority’ together with all the implications of that of that traffic then needing to merge from a standstill or at best a crawl.Which,as you’ve admitted,would be ‘far from ideal’.It seems obvious that a change in the law is required concerning the issue of vehicles travelling on motorways etc having ‘priority’ over vehicles merging from entry slip roads.
But how man times do you see a car in lane 1 and a car on a slip road both break simultaneously and ending up at about 20 mph. Fact is motorway traffic has priority and no matter how you try and butter it up, it’s down to the vehicle merging from a slip road to join safely… No one else on the live carriage way should have to bat an eye lid.
I am almost paranoid about people coming up the inside where you can’t see them - they match your speed in your blind spot and the above (or worse) happens, so I get where you’re coming from CF. Yes, it is all parties’ responsibility to maintain safety, but if the trucker had avoided the car (rather than vice versa which should have happened) and assuming it was possible, who is to say that wouldn’t have led to more attempted undertaking with subsequent similar nastiness?
I’m not sure what you are getting at with a change in the law regarding priority at junctions. I’m sure you don’t think “might is right” should apply but if it’s “first come first served” IYKWIM then that would lead to anarchy IMO.
FarnboroughBoy11:
But how man times do you see a car in lane 1 and a car on a slip road both break simultaneously and ending up at about 20 mph. Fact is motorway traffic has priority and no matter how you try and butter it up, it’s down to the vehicle merging from a slip road to join safely… No one else on the live carriage way should have to bat an eye lid.
I wouldn’t like to bet on it in a case such as this one bearing in mind the seperation distance between the trucks which the car trying to merge got caught up in the middle of.Which still leaves the question of wether you’d take the same view if it was a truck in a similar situation that the car was in,of which I’ve seen plenty of times in my time and luckily for all concerned had made allowances for accordingly.Although the option of not batting an eyelid was always there.It’s my bet in that case that most of those truck drivers who wouldn’t bat an eye lid and who’d put a car into the same situation as in this case wouldn’t do the same thing if it was a truck instead.Unless they’ve got suicidal tendencies. In which case it all then becomes a case of double standards and bullying concerning car drivers because the results would obviously be a lot different in the case of the vehicle entering from the slip road being a truck.
Snudger:
I am almost paranoid about people coming up the inside where you can’t see them - they match your speed in your blind spot and the above (or worse) happens, so I get where you’re coming from CF. Yes, it is all parties’ responsibility to maintain safety, but if the trucker had avoided the car (rather than vice versa which should have happened) and assuming it was possible, who is to say that wouldn’t have led to more attempted undertaking with subsequent similar nastiness?
I’m not sure what you are getting at with a change in the law regarding priority at junctions. I’m sure you don’t think “might is right” should apply but if it’s “first come first served” IYKWIM then that would lead to anarchy IMO.
What I’m saying why the big difference between the views of those who support the idea of zip merging in the case of lane closures but not in the case of motorway junctions.
Where do you get “so called priority” from Carryfast?
The Law is perfectly clear, it states that traffic on the road being merged with has priority, there is nothing “so called” about it.
Grr, my goddam connection just dropped out so I’ll type it again.
Yes, zip merging (1 vehicle “allowed” in at a time) is the way to go. In the above situation you could’ve fitted a (admittedly not the biggest and not very safely) lorry into that gap though it could’ve been bigger. The trucker’s responsibility was to maintain enough of a gap to be able to avoid hitting the vehicle in front should it suddenly stop (which is obvious), not make up for someone else’s incompetence. This was a case of car to lorry not lorry to car.
I’ve just realised that “first come first served” does (or at least should) apply at motorway slip roads, i.e. if you are merging ahead of oncoming traffic make sure you stay there (at least match their speed) and if you are behind oncoming traffic don’t try to accelerate down their inside to get on in front of them - pull in behind, then overtake. And if you are alongside at a similar speed then you need a quick judgement call. You see wallies getting it wrong all the time, but I have to ask, which case was the example above?
Simon:
Where do you get “so called priority” from Carryfast?
The Law is perfectly clear, it states that traffic on the road being merged with has priority, there is nothing “so called” about it.
Yes ‘so called priority’ in the same way in which it would be a ‘so called priority’ in any other case where a give way line doesn’t provide carte blanche or any guarantee that allowances won’t still sometimes need to be made,by the driver with the ‘priority’,to avoid an avoidable accident.Which would be a reasonable description of the type of ‘priority’ that applies in the case of motorway entry slip roads for example.
Snudger:
Grr, my goddam connection just dropped out so I’ll type it again.
Yes, zip merging (1 vehicle “allowed” in at a time) is the way to go. In the above situation you could’ve fitted a (admittedly not the biggest and not very safely) lorry into that gap though it could’ve been bigger. The trucker’s responsibility was to maintain enough of a gap to be able to avoid hitting the vehicle in front should it suddenly stop (which is obvious), not make up for someone else’s incompetence. This was a case of car to lorry not lorry to car.
The way I see the video is that there’s neither sufficient seperation distance between the two trucks from at least 0.04 on,which is before the car was even involved,if the truck in front had to make an emergency stop,let alone for traffic to merge safely into that type of a gap on reaching the entry slip ahead,at which point the seperation distance between the trucks was probably even less.
So assuming that zip merging,from the slip road,by a vehicle up to the length of a truck,is a reasonable expectation,on the approach to the slip road,on the road with the ‘priority’,by any competent driver,using reasonable anticipation at such a hazard situation,that doesn’t make the car driver in the video totally to blame for the accident in my view.Let alone what could have happened if the truck in front had made an emergency stop for whatever reason regardless of what the car driver did.
Car driver should have got a move on with their manoeuvre instead of easing off.
Truck driver should have anticipated the merging car and either backed off or changed lanes.
It’s the selfish attitude amongst all drivers that causes this.
Hopefully both drivers learnt a valuable lesson.
Obviously the car driver can pull out, safe in the knowledge that in the impending carnage, if he/she survives, he/she can put half the blame on the truck driver.
Suspect the car driver has pulled this off a number of times before but the trucks have always given way.
What would have happened had it been another truck and not a car merging?
Isn’t it good manners to give way? Don’t trucks expect everyone to give way to them? Oh I forgot, they force their way in regardless.
billybigrig:
Sure the car driver was ultimately and legally responsible but the lorry driver could have done a lot to prevent that accident. Better to be the “bigger man” so to speak than trash your wagon and deal with the paperwork and aftermath. We’re supposed to be the professionals here after all
Common sense at last!
Clearly none of your fellow drivers are professionals or want to be the “bigger man” (waist size excluded).
Rather than prevent an accident, they’d rather cause one to teach the car driving prat a lesson. Pathetic and sadly not uncommon.
billybigrig:
Sure the car driver was ultimately and legally responsible but the lorry driver could have done a lot to prevent that accident. Better to be the “bigger man” so to speak than trash your wagon and deal with the paperwork and aftermath. We’re supposed to be the professionals here after all
Common sense at last!
Clearly none of your fellow drivers are professionals or want to be the “bigger man” (waist size excluded).
Rather than prevent an accident, they’d rather cause one to teach the car driving prat a lesson. Pathetic and sadly not uncommon.
mickyblue:
So the Lorry drivers are not at fault at all. It was the muppet driving the car who is to blame for that as he didn’t think or use his head whilst driving and joining a busy motorway.
Didn’t they teach you any roads stuff at PCSO school?
Yes the car driver is to blame but the truck driver must also share some blame. He made no attempt to stop it from happening, something I’d expect a professional driver to do.
billybigrig:
It makes me wonder if there shouldn’t be an element of psychological testing involved with getting and maintaining LGV licences judging by some of the responses on this thread, the site in general and on the road experience.
In which case it all then becomes a case of double standards and bullying concerning car drivers because the results would obviously be a lot different in the case of the vehicle entering from the slip road being a truck. 
