Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
An RTC and a damaged vehicle is reason for the police to be involved isn’t it?
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
An RTC and a damaged vehicle is reason for the police to be involved isn’t it?
Indeed, I was merely talking about either driver being prosecuted as per Carryfasts query.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
As far as I know there’s been a few cases where videos of high speed runs,where it was just an issue of the speed nothing else,have been posted on youtube etc and the biker/driver has been prosecuted just based on the video evidence.The fact is in many cases the speed thing seems to be more of an issue than other more serious cases.
As I said I’d bet that had the accident resulted from excessive speed ( such as that example of 165 mph being shown on the approach to the entry slip road ) being shown in the video,instead of tail gating being the contributory factor then the law would have been asking questions regardless of wether death or injury took place.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
An RTC and a damaged vehicle is reason for the police to be involved isn’t it?
Indeed, I was merely talking about either driver being prosecuted as per Carryfasts query.
I think it’s more of a case of the ‘circumstances’ related to the cause of the RTC not just wether it’s a case of death or injury.Such as in the case as I’ve said of a car being hit at an entry slip road having not given way by a drunk driver or a driver running at 165 mph on the approach to it regardless of the fact that they had the priority.Maybe the issue of accidents caused by tail gating is because the law itself isn’t taking a serious enough view of the issue of vehicles travelling without sufficient seperation distance especially on the approach to entry slip roads which seems to fit the description of driving without consideration for other road users to me.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
As far as I know there’s been a few cases where videos of high speed runs,where it was just an issue of the speed nothing else,have been posted on youtube etc and the biker/driver has been prosecuted just based on the video evidence.The fact is in many cases the speed thing seems to be more of an issue than other more serious cases.
As I said I’d bet that had the accident resulted from excessive speed ( such as that example of 165 mph being shown on the approach to the entry slip road ) being shown in the video,instead of tail gating being the contributory factor then the law would have been asking questions regardless of wether death or injury took place.
Yes, plenty of idiots have been prosecuted from videos of excessive speed posted on YouTube. An equal number have also not been prosecuted for various reasons.
Had excessive speed been a contributing factor, then a prosecution may have taken place. Evidence of excussive speed is usually pretty obvious.
We don’t know what action was taken. Perhaps no action was taken or one/both drivers received a warning. Who knows.
I have no doubt that the footage was examined by police officers, as I’m sure the truck driver would have insisted on it.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
An RTC and a damaged vehicle is reason for the police to be involved isn’t it?
Indeed, I was merely talking about either driver being prosecuted as per Carryfasts query.
I think it’s more of a case of the ‘circumstances’ related to the cause of the RTC not just wether it’s a case of death or injury.Such as in the case as I’ve said of a car being hit at an entry slip road having not given way by a drunk driver or a driver running at 165 mph on the approach to it regardless of the fact that they had the priority.Maybe the issue of accidents caused by tail gating is because the law itself isn’t taking a serious enough view of the issue of vehicles travelling without sufficient seperation distance especially on the approach to entry slip roads which seems to fit the description of driving without consideration for other road users to me.
As I said, I’m sure the footage would have been viewed by police officers.
Carryfast:
As for yourself your comments just seem to confirm my ideas that both I and probably RoadRats,assuming that he’s an advanced police driver with experience going back to the 1980’s,haven’t got anything to learn from someone who passed their test in 2004 and their LGV class 2 on 30/10/11 and who’s experience of driving trucks,so far,seems to be mainly local multi drop.In which case it’s no surprise that knowing what the safety and survival of all concerned takes,over years of long distance trunking on motorways,would be a bit of a surprise to you.
I am not even trying to teach anyone at all. Please show me where i am trying to teach anyone how to drive? i was just like you stating an OPINION just like you do on a daily basis about Thatcher. So please change the record and wipe that mouth which is full of crap.
As with RoadRats, we have sorted that out via PM as it was sort of hijacking the thread like you do on a daily basis.
Also i am Multi dropping around the south of the country, so that’s you again knowing ■■■■ all and assuming what sort of job i do. I really think you need to get of that high horse and come back down to earth because once again your talking ■■■■.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
As far as I know there’s been a few cases where videos of high speed runs,where it was just an issue of the speed nothing else,have been posted on youtube etc and the biker/driver has been prosecuted just based on the video evidence.The fact is in many cases the speed thing seems to be more of an issue than other more serious cases.
As I said I’d bet that had the accident resulted from excessive speed ( such as that example of 165 mph being shown on the approach to the entry slip road ) being shown in the video,instead of tail gating being the contributory factor then the law would have been asking questions regardless of wether death or injury took place.
Yes, plenty of idiots have been prosecuted from videos of excessive speed posted on YouTube. An equal number have also not been prosecuted for various reasons.
Had excessive speed been a contributing factor, then a prosecution may have taken place. Evidence of excussive speed is usually pretty obvious.
We don’t know what action was taken. Perhaps no action was taken or one/both drivers received a warning. Who knows.
I have no doubt that the footage was examined by police officers, as I’m sure the truck driver would have insisted on it.
So the conclusion of all that is the video shows an obvious case of tail gating on the approach to the slip road which then contributed to a car having no space to merge.Then both the law and the truck driver seem to consider all that defence of the truck driver instead of evidence of careless driving and driving without consideration for other road users on the part of the truck driver .
Whereas if it had been a case,as I’ve said,of a car travelling at 165 mph on the approach,resulting in a similar type of accident,then that would be seen by the law differently. Which is a case of blatant double standards in the view of one type of zb driving v another both of which are as dangerous as each other in such circumstances and possibly more so in the case of trucks tail gating even on a clear stretch of motorway,let alone on the approach to slip roads, v running a car at 165 mph.
Which all seems to fit in the view of the German traffic police on the autobahn and the traffic police here for themselves in driving of motorway patrol cars,in that while it’s possible to drive a car safely at such speeds,it’s never safe to drive a vehicle without sufficient speration between it and the vehicle in front and special care is needed on the approach to entry slip roads.It’s that type of bs concentration on just the speed issue while ignoring everything else which ( rightly ) shows the police and British road traffic enforcement up as being selective in what they choose to enforce with driving standards on British roads that prove it.IE too much emphasis on speed and not enough on safe driving of which the two are totally unrelated.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
As far as I know there’s been a few cases where videos of high speed runs,where it was just an issue of the speed nothing else,have been posted on youtube etc and the biker/driver has been prosecuted just based on the video evidence.The fact is in many cases the speed thing seems to be more of an issue than other more serious cases.
As I said I’d bet that had the accident resulted from excessive speed ( such as that example of 165 mph being shown on the approach to the entry slip road ) being shown in the video,instead of tail gating being the contributory factor then the law would have been asking questions regardless of wether death or injury took place.
Yes, plenty of idiots have been prosecuted from videos of excessive speed posted on YouTube. An equal number have also not been prosecuted for various reasons.
Had excessive speed been a contributing factor, then a prosecution may have taken place. Evidence of excussive speed is usually pretty obvious.
We don’t know what action was taken. Perhaps no action was taken or one/both drivers received a warning. Who knows.
I have no doubt that the footage was examined by police officers, as I’m sure the truck driver would have insisted on it.
So the conclusion of all that is the video shows an obvious case of tail gating on the approach to the slip road which then contributed to a car having no space to merge.Then both the law and the truck driver seem to consider all that defence of the truck driver instead of evidence of careless driving and driving without consideration for other road users on the part of the truck driver .
Whereas if it had been a case,as I’ve said,of a car travelling at 165 mph on the approach,resulting in a similar type of accident,then that would be seen by the law differently. Which is a case of blatant double standards in the view of one type of zb driving v another both of which are as dangerous as each other in such circumstances and possibly more so in the case of trucks tail gating even on a clear stretch of motorway,let alone on the approach to slip roads, v running a car at 165 mph.
Which all seems to fit in the view of the German traffic police on the autobahn and the traffic police here for themselves in driving of motorway patrol cars,in that while it’s possible to drive a car safely at such speeds,it’s never safe to drive a vehicle without sufficient speration between it and the vehicle in front and special care is needed on the approach to entry slip roads.It’s that type of bs concentration on just the speed issue while ignoring everything else which ( rightly ) shows the police and British road traffic enforcement up as being selective in what they choose to enforce with driving standards on British roads that prove it.IE too much emphasis on speed and not enough on safe driving of which the two are totally unrelated.
Without being in full possession of all the facts, it’s impossible to reach any conclusion one way or the other.
Maybe there were charges brought against one or both drivers. You’re assuming there wasn’t. We don’t know for sure.
Also once all evidence is gathered, the file is passed to the CPS to decide whether to pursue any charges. We don’t know what they decided if it went that far.
Police gather the evidence. The CPS decide whether any charges should be brought against either party.
Carryfast:
Assuming that RoadRats is really a copper that just leaves the question as to why the law haven’t decided to sort out the truck driver using the video evidence in just the same way as if it had been a video of someone approaching the entry slip road at 165 mph and blaming the resulting crash on the driver who failed to give way .
We don’t know if the police were ever involved or not.
If no offence has been committed and there was no death and/or injury, there’s no need for police intervention.
As far as I know there’s been a few cases where videos of high speed runs,where it was just an issue of the speed nothing else,have been posted on youtube etc and the biker/driver has been prosecuted just based on the video evidence.The fact is in many cases the speed thing seems to be more of an issue than other more serious cases.
As I said I’d bet that had the accident resulted from excessive speed ( such as that example of 165 mph being shown on the approach to the entry slip road ) being shown in the video,instead of tail gating being the contributory factor then the law would have been asking questions regardless of wether death or injury took place.
Yes, plenty of idiots have been prosecuted from videos of excessive speed posted on YouTube. An equal number have also not been prosecuted for various reasons.
Had excessive speed been a contributing factor, then a prosecution may have taken place. Evidence of excussive speed is usually pretty obvious.
We don’t know what action was taken. Perhaps no action was taken or one/both drivers received a warning. Who knows.
I have no doubt that the footage was examined by police officers, as I’m sure the truck driver would have insisted on it.
So the conclusion of all that is the video shows an obvious case of tail gating on the approach to the slip road which then contributed to a car having no space to merge.Then both the law and the truck driver seem to consider all that defence of the truck driver instead of evidence of careless driving and driving without consideration for other road users on the part of the truck driver .
Whereas if it had been a case,as I’ve said,of a car travelling at 165 mph on the approach,resulting in a similar type of accident,then that would be seen by the law differently. Which is a case of blatant double standards in the view of one type of zb driving v another both of which are as dangerous as each other in such circumstances and possibly more so in the case of trucks tail gating even on a clear stretch of motorway,let alone on the approach to slip roads, v running a car at 165 mph.
Which all seems to fit in the view of the German traffic police on the autobahn and the traffic police here for themselves in driving of motorway patrol cars,in that while it’s possible to drive a car safely at such speeds,it’s never safe to drive a vehicle without sufficient speration between it and the vehicle in front and special care is needed on the approach to entry slip roads.It’s that type of bs concentration on just the speed issue while ignoring everything else which ( rightly ) shows the police and British road traffic enforcement up as being selective in what they choose to enforce with driving standards on British roads that prove it.IE too much emphasis on speed and not enough on safe driving of which the two are totally unrelated.
Without being in full possession of all the facts, it’s impossible to reach any conclusion one way or the other.
Maybe there were charges brought against one or both drivers. You’re assuming there wasn’t. We don’t know for sure.
Also once all evidence is gathered, the file is passed to the CPS to decide whether to pursue any charges. We don’t know what they decided if it went that far.
Police gather the evidence. The CPS decide whether any charges should be brought against either party.
I hope it does to to court and I will be interested to see the full investigation and final outcome as there does seem to be a very split opinion on this incident.
.
