Road rage video off facebook

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
21

Bluey Circles:
Would really need to see previous 5 minutes, but presuming nothing had happened before what we see in the video.

Van has found himself in wrong lane and needs to move left to exit motorway at junction, he does cut in very sharply in front of lorry, lets assume poor driving skills (there is lots of it about and we need to cater for it) it would then appear the van is slowed considerably by the fiesta who presumably is also wanting to filter to the left. Lorry driver seems to loose his professionalism here, (he will be seeing crap driving evryday, why is he getting rattled by it), he pulls out, blasts horn at van driver then rather pointlessly starts to tailgate the small Citroen. Then we see an astonishing act of road rage by the van driver.

If I were judge;
Van Driver; permanent loss of driving licence + £1,000 fine, background reports needed to see if custodial sentence would also be appropriate.
Truck Driver; should have stayed cool, shouldn’t have got involved, shouldn’t have tailgated small car, 3 penalty points + £100

soap.png

22

thecouch:
Not having a current Road Tax does not invalidate vehicle insurance and neither does not having an MOT.

A cheap and cheerful Insurer can try and say not having an MOT invalidates a policy but it cannot enforce this

Are you sure about that?
Road tax maybe but id be surprised if they didnt insist on the mot being current for vehicle road worthiness etc.

23

The-Snowman:

thecouch:
Not having a current Road Tax does not invalidate vehicle insurance and neither does not having an MOT.

A cheap and cheerful Insurer can try and say not having an MOT invalidates a policy but it cannot enforce this

Are you sure about that?
Road tax maybe but id be surprised if they didnt insist on the mot being current for vehicle road worthiness etc.

He is correct.
The vehicle must be in road worthy condition, but doesn’t state must have MOT.
I’ve seen plenty WITH MOT’s that aren’t in road worthy condition.

24

Was the clip filmed or uploaded on 14/01/2011 :question:

25

ROG:
Was the clip filmed or uploaded on 14/01/2011 :question:

Neither, date set wrong it said in the info.

It happened last week, few other drivers caught in the congestion / mayhem.

26

Night-and-day:
I don’t think he got as close to the Citroen as it looks, just the camera angle

You may be correct these cameras make judging distances quite difficult, however if we agree the van cut in far too closely at (0:11) then we must also conclude he went too close to the citeron at (0:19) granted it is not as close, but it is not that dissimilar to the gap he was clearly annoyed at created by the moron in the transit cutting in. But, it all pales into insignificance when we see what follows.

27

waynedl:

The-Snowman:

thecouch:
Not having a current Road Tax does not invalidate vehicle insurance and neither does not having an MOT.

A cheap and cheerful Insurer can try and say not having an MOT invalidates a policy but it cannot enforce this

Are you sure about that?
Road tax maybe but id be surprised if they didnt insist on the mot being current for vehicle road worthiness etc.

He is correct.
The vehicle must be in road worthy condition, but doesn’t state must have MOT.
I’ve seen plenty WITH MOT’s that aren’t in road worthy condition.

I wouldn’t have thought he had broken any ‘not having insurance’ law by not having a current mot, however I would guess in the event of a claim they would only be paying out 3rd party. No matter how excellent mechanically the vehicle is in, I would guess there could be the argument that not having the MOT makes the vehicle unroadworthy.

28

Looks like the driver got sack well deserved imo.

manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ … r-10289198

29

Gembo:

Bluey Circles:
Would really need to see previous 5 minutes, but presuming nothing had happened before what we see in the video.

Van has found himself in wrong lane and needs to move left to exit motorway at junction, he does cut in very sharply in front of lorry, lets assume poor driving skills (there is lots of it about and we need to cater for it) it would then appear the van is slowed considerably by the fiesta who presumably is also wanting to filter to the left. Lorry driver seems to loose his professionalism here, (he will be seeing crap driving evryday, why is he getting rattled by it), he pulls out, blasts horn at van driver then rather pointlessly starts to tailgate the small Citroen. Then we see an astonishing act of road rage by the van driver.

If I were judge;
Van Driver; permanent loss of driving licence + £1,000 fine, background reports needed to see if custodial sentence would also be appropriate.
Truck Driver; should have stayed cool, shouldn’t have got involved, shouldn’t have tailgated small car, 3 penalty points + £100

Far to lenient considering what the lorry driver got up to before the clip started.
As suspected he was being aggressive and using his vehicle to bully the van driver on to the hard shoulder as seen in the latest link.
The 2 drivers are as bad as each other and are the types that cause serious accidents.
More needs to be done to get these idiots off our roads.

30

Bluey Circles:
Would really need to see previous 5 minutes, but presuming nothing had happened before what we see in the video.

Van has found himself in wrong lane and needs to move left to exit motorway at junction, he does cut in very sharply in front of lorry, lets assume poor driving skills (there is lots of it about and we need to cater for it) it would then appear the van is slowed considerably by the fiesta who presumably is also wanting to filter to the left. Lorry driver seems to loose his professionalism here, (he will be seeing crap driving evryday, why is he getting rattled by it), he pulls out, blasts horn at van driver then rather pointlessly starts to tailgate the small Citroen. Then we see an astonishing act of road rage by the van driver.

If I were judge;
Van Driver; permanent loss of driving licence + £1,000 fine, background reports needed to see if custodial sentence would also be appropriate.
Truck Driver; should have stayed cool, shouldn’t have got involved, shouldn’t have tailgated small car, 3 penalty points + £100

[/quote]

albion1971:
[
As suspected he was being aggressive and using his vehicle to bully the van driver on to the hard shoulder as seen in the latest link.
The 2 drivers are as bad as each other and are the types that cause serious accidents.
More needs to be done to get these idiots off our roads.

What latest link■■?
Do you mean this crock of bullshine from the van drivers statement to his boss??
Quote:
“”"He said: “It wasn’t me driving, it was one of my lads. His excuse was the lorry driver wouldn’t let him onto the motorway and he felt threatened.

“He said he was intimidated by the lorry driver who forced him onto the hard shoulder at one point.

“He felt his life was in danger and the lorry kept trying to swerve into him.
END QUOTE.

Jesus h Christ, some folk will believe anything they read. :laughing: :laughing:
Yeah, van driver sure looked intimidated didn’t he. :laughing: :laughing:

31

Bluey Circles:
Lorry driver seems to loose his professionalism here, (he will be seeing crap driving evryday

Talking of bullshine, I get sick of this old bollox being trotted out at every opportunity.
By your logic, truck drivers should be prepared to be walked over by all these tools every day without said tools being in fear of any form of retribution or retaliation what so ever because we are “professionals”. :unamused:
Give me a ■■■■■■■ break.
We are all just human and expect me to give you a coffee invite out the window or some horn sounds if you cut me up!

32

Yes I believe it. Why do you think the van driver was so upset?
Open your eyes and stop being so biased. You can see this type of aggression day in day out on our roads.
Just read a thread about joining motorways to see the amount of drivers on here with bad attitudes to other motorists.
Truck drivers that think they can force other drivers off the road need banning for life.

33

lgamston:
Looks like the driver got sack well deserved imo.

manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ … r-10289198

This doesn’t excuse the bellend in the van but it seems that as usual, there were prior events leading up to what happened & the dash cam man has edited the video down in his favour.

Both complete tossers in needs of licenses revoking in my opinion, ■■■■■■■ about on one of the busiest stretches of motorway in the country.

34

albion1971:
Yes I believe it. Why do you think the van driver was so upset?
Open your eyes and stop being so biased. You can see this type of aggression day in day out on our roads.
Just read a thread about joining motorways to see the amount of drivers on here with bad attitudes to other motorists.
Truck drivers that think they can force other drivers off the road need banning for life.

OK then, It could well have been one of those all to common ‘on slip’ situations where I do truly believe some people think the guy in lane 1 needs to adjust his speed or move over to lane 2 to suit the vehicle joining. How many times do you see this happen?
I got abuse (from a van driver funnily enough) for the same thing a few weeks back. He was going for a non existent gap in my side bars until he ran out of road.

35

thecouch:

Latique:

The-Snowman:
chuffin hell. It takes a special kind of bellendery to bring traffic to a standstill on a motorway so you can lean out the window to voice your displeasure.
Although our dash cam filmer might get a bit more sympathy for being cut up if he hadnt then gone on to sit 6 inches off the arse of a citroen

especially in a fully liveried un taxed and therefore uninsured van with your contact details all over it now that takes being a bellend to the next level suspect a p45 is on its way to the driver .also think he had little choice than to run up close to the citreon he had just been forced to change lanes by the tool in the van if you look he backs off strait away as he gets things under control

Not having a current Road Tax does not invalidate vehicle insurance and neither does not having an MOT.

A cheap and cheerful Insurer can try and say not having an MOT invalidates a policy but it cannot enforce this

The third party cover remains in place - but see what happens with any claim one makes for their own vehicle, should it be involved in an accident.

Insurance firms themselves still try and get out of paying - when it’s a third party claim. Had that happen to me in the past year, and it just slows down the process of getting paid out.
It’s illegal to drive without basic third party cover. As having no MOT does not invalidate that third party cover - it could indeed be said that it’s not actually illegal to drive without an MOT.
The police won’t be arresting anyone over it alas… Fine and IN points on licence only?

36

Gembo:

albion1971:
Yes I believe it. Why do you think the van driver was so upset?
Open your eyes and stop being so biased. You can see this type of aggression day in day out on our roads.
Just read a thread about joining motorways to see the amount of drivers on here with bad attitudes to other motorists.
Truck drivers that think they can force other drivers off the road need banning for life.

OK then, It could well have been one of those all to common ‘on slip’ situations where I do truly believe some people think the guy in lane 1 needs to adjust his speed or move over to lane 2 to suit the vehicle joining. How many times do you see this happen?
I got abuse (from a van driver funnily enough) for the same thing a few weeks back. He was going for a non existent gap in my side bars until he ran out of road.

Yes it probably was one of these situations but no need for all that nonsense .Drivers surely need to adapt their driving for the clowns that do not know the rules.
Just because the other driver is in the wrong does not give anyone the right to drive aggressively.
You see it all the time…drivers will not come off the limiter…ease off leave a decent gap and be courteous…works far better.

37

Gembo:

Bluey Circles:
Lorry driver seems to loose his professionalism here, (he will be seeing crap driving evryday

Talking of bullshine, I get sick of this old bollox being trotted out at every opportunity.
By your logic, truck drivers should be prepared to be walked over by all these tools every day without said tools being in fear of any form of retribution or retaliation what so ever because we are “professionals”. :unamused:
Give me a [zb] break.
We are all just human and expect me to give you a coffee invite out the window or some horn sounds if you cut me up!

with my reality shoes on I don’t disagree with you, in fact 20 years ago I would have probably jumped out of the cab and invited him for a Ronnie Pickering but that would be as idiotic as the van driver.
But back to the ideal world, you shouldn’t be getting involved, back off, let the situation calm down, try and work out what the safest think to do is. Driving a 44 ton truck is a very serious business, get it wrong and you can do a lot of damage, very easily kill others and destroy lots of lives. There is no room for a hot head in a truck, driving one is as serious as it gets. Great pity society doesn’t see it that way, considering the crap pay, the stupidly long hours, the impossible deadlines; it is clear the job dose not get anywhere near the respect it should.

38

Winseer:

thecouch:

Latique:

The-Snowman:
chuffin hell. It takes a special kind of bellendery to bring traffic to a standstill on a motorway so you can lean out the window to voice your displeasure.
Although our dash cam filmer might get a bit more sympathy for being cut up if he hadnt then gone on to sit 6 inches off the arse of a citroen

especially in a fully liveried un taxed and therefore uninsured van with your contact details all over it now that takes being a bellend to the next level suspect a p45 is on its way to the driver .also think he had little choice than to run up close to the citreon he had just been forced to change lanes by the tool in the van if you look he backs off strait away as he gets things under control

Not having a current Road Tax does not invalidate vehicle insurance and neither does not having an MOT.

A cheap and cheerful Insurer can try and say not having an MOT invalidates a policy but it cannot enforce this

The third party cover remains in place - but see what happens with any claim one makes for their own vehicle, should it be involved in an accident.

Insurance firms themselves still try and get out of paying - when it’s a third party claim. Had that happen to me in the past year, and it just slows down the process of getting paid out.
It’s illegal to drive without basic third party cover. As having no MOT does not invalidate that third party cover - it could indeed be said that it’s not actually illegal to drive without an MOT.
The police won’t be arresting anyone over it alas… Fine and IN points on licence only?

The Insurer cannot remove any part of the cover for the lack of an MOT / Road Tax eg the Third Party element and the Own Damage remain intact.
ri
The Ombudsman explicitly states that the lack of an MOT does not affect a policy in itself, it may reduce the value of the car if it’s written off by 10% although if it’s likely the car would have passed an MOT it will have no effect.

The FOS does allow an Insurer to restrict the Own Damage section if the car was “Unroadworthy” and that the accident “Was most likely caused” or was “Significantly contributed to” by the vehicle being “Unroadworthy”.

The FCA (Who regulate Insurers) have a specific regulation that Insurers cannot decline a claim due to a Warranty eg “The car must have an MOT and / or Tax” if the breaching of the Warranty had no bearing on the claim. Thus not having an MOT in itself would not necessarily directly contribute to a claim in itself.

The FCA regulation can be explained more easily in thus, if you had Home Insurance which had a warranty that you must have key operated window locks and that these must be used when no one is at home. If you did not use the window locks and the house burnt downed due to an electrical fault, the fire would not have been prevented by the window locks being used so the claim should be paid.

There are a fair amount of Insurers whose Policy states the car must have a valid MOT, these tend to be the cheap and cheerful Insurers (It’s a good way of telling the rubbish Insurers) but as explained above it’s unenforcible.
[/quote]
Are you sure about that?
Road tax maybe but id be surprised if they didnt insist on the mot being current for vehicle road worthiness etc.
[/quote]
I’ve explained it above.

If you look on your own car’s MOT it’s states that the MOT is only evidence that the vehicle was roadworthy on the day it had an MOT test. So ignoring the Ombudsman’s explicit rule on MOT’s and the FCA’s common sense approach to warranties only applying if they effect the claim, relying on an MOT to demonstrate a car being Roadworthy is only effective on the day of the MOT test

39

thecouch:

Bluey Circles:
The Insurer cannot remove any part of the cover for the lack of an MOT / Road Tax eg the Third Party element and the Own Damage remain intact.
ri
The Ombudsman explicitly states that the lack of an MOT does not affect a policy in itself, it may reduce the value of the car if it’s written off by 10% although if it’s likely the car would have passed an MOT it will have no effect.

The FOS does allow an Insurer to restrict the Own Damage section if the car was “Unroadworthy” and that the accident “Was most likely caused” or was “Significantly contributed to” by the vehicle being “Unroadworthy”.

The FCA (Who regulate Insurers) have a specific regulation that Insurers cannot decline a claim due to a Warranty eg “The car must have an MOT and / or Tax” if the breaching of the Warranty had no bearing on the claim. Thus not having an MOT in itself would not necessarily directly contribute to a claim in itself.

The FCA regulation can be explained more easily in thus, if you had Home Insurance which had a warranty that you must have key operated window locks and that these must be used when no one is at home. If you did not use the window locks and the house burnt downed due to an electrical fault, the fire would not have been prevented by the window locks being used so the claim should be paid.

There are a fair amount of Insurers whose Policy states the car must have a valid MOT, these tend to be the cheap and cheerful Insurers (It’s a good way of telling the rubbish Insurers) but as explained above it’s unenforcible.

If you look on your own car’s MOT it’s states that the MOT is only evidence that the vehicle was roadworthy on the day it had an MOT test. So ignoring the Ombudsman’s explicit rule on MOT’s and the FCA’s common sense approach to warranties only applying if they effect the claim, relying on an MOT to demonstrate a car being Roadworthy is only effective on the day of the MOT test

Interesting stuff and well found, it is good that the ombudsman has ruled on this, presumably insurers must have been using these things as a wriggle-out.

40

Bluey Circles:
Interesting stuff and well found, it is good that the ombudsman has ruled on this, presumably insurers must have been using these things as a wriggle-out.

It’s been that way for a long time, people believing that a car must have an MOT / Tax is somewhat of an urban myth perpetuated somewhat by a few of the dodgy Insurers trying to pull the wool over their clients eyes and friend of friend’s pub talk

I helped an Admiral client out who was stopped by traffic cops who led the member of Insurance staff into voiding the Insurance over the phone due to the driver not having a current MOT.

Their car was impounded and the police were looking at a no insurance conviction.

We pointed out to Admiral a) Not having an MOT cannot affect his policy b) They cannot retrospectively void the policy over the phone.

Admiral paid the car pound release fees, storage fees, alternative transport costs eg his taxi costs to get home and to the car pound and provided written confirmation he was in fact covered so the police (Reluctantly) withdrew the No Insurance fixed penalty.

For the benefit of anyone in a similar situation or where their Insurer is trying to affect their cover due to lack of an MOT here are the relevant links.

Ombudsman

"13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain a specific requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. When deciding whether it was reasonable for an insurer to reject a consumer’s claim, we will look for evidence that the loss or damage was mostly likely caused – or was significantly contributed to – because the vehicle was not roadworthy.

An insurer can also reduce a payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. In these cases, we will look for evidence that the condition of the condition of the vehicle – or parts of it – were poor to decide whether this deduction is fair.

If the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, we will consider how likely it was that the vehicle would have passed an MOT test. If we decide – on the balance of probabilities – that the vehicle would have failed the test, we are likely to say that a deduction of up to 10% is reasonable."

financial-ombudsman.org.uk/p … ation.html

FCA I.C.O.B.S 8.1.2

"A rejection of a consumer policyholder’s claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is :

(3) for breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach "

handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/8/1.html

Note the FCA & Ombudsman are there mainly to protect the consumer eg Joe Public and not big businesses who are expected to be intelligent enough to negotiate insurance contracts. So this advice applies to consumers and small businesses