No matter what the vehicle in lane 1 wanted to do or not to do the law is quite clear - any vehicle changing lanes must not do so if that lane is not clear to move into
Safety wise - if I had been the truck in lane 1 then I would have eased off for the silly 7.5
Bluey Circles:
90% blame for the camera truck, you are not allowed to crash into others simply because they are making a mistake, it was obvious what was going to happen and the driver appeared to make no attempt to avoid the collision.
Camera truck driver - HGV licence chucked in dustbin for eternity
7.5 guy - 6 points + £100what always puzzles me with these videos is; after reviewing his own driving video - he still doesnt get it.
I’d agree there is a strange thought process going on with the camera vehicle driver.Not sure if it’s 90% but at least 75% blame.
At 0.06 I’d be thinking it looks like there’s a good possibility the 7.5 tonner wants to move into lane 1 thereby creating a seperation distance issue to the artic ahead in lane 1 which even at that point isn’t ideal.At which point our hero decides that the best idea is to close the gap massively to keep the 7.5 tonner out instead of vice versa thereby removing any safe seperation distance even if the 7.5 t driver had decided to abandon the move.
The point then being not only the predictable outcome in this case.But what would have happened if the vehicle ahead in lane 1 had made an emergency stop at 0.47. 
If so there’s no way that the camera driver could have used the excuse that the 7.5 tonner had taken out his seperation distance.Because he’d already made a much better job of doing that by his own stupid actions in the form of an obvious blocking move.
ROG:
No matter what the vehicle in lane 1 wanted to do or not to do the law is quite clear - any vehicle changing lanes must not do so if that lane is not clear to move intoSafety wise - if I had been the truck in lane 1 then I would have eased off for the silly 7.5
I think this case was more an issue of the camera driver removing the safe seperation distance to the vehicle ahead in lane 1 to block a lane change from lane 2 to 1.Instead of the opposite in opening it to maintain and create safe seperation distance for both himself and the lane changing vehicle.
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
90% blame for the camera truck, you are not allowed to crash into others simply because they are making a mistake, it was obvious what was going to happen and the driver appeared to make no attempt to avoid the collision.
Camera truck driver - HGV licence chucked in dustbin for eternity
7.5 guy - 6 points + £100what always puzzles me with these videos is; after reviewing his own driving video - he still doesnt get it.
I’d agree there is a strange thought process going on with the camera vehicle driver.Not sure if it’s 90% but at least 75% blame.
At 0.06 I’d be thinking it looks like there’s a good possibility the 7.5 tonner wants to move into lane 1 thereby creating a seperation distance issue to the artic ahead in lane 1 which even at that point isn’t ideal.At which point our hero decides that the best idea is to close the gap massively to keep the 7.5 tonner out instead of vice versa thereby removing any safe seperation distance even if the 7.5 t driver had decided to abandon the move.
The point then being not only the predictable outcome in this case.But what would have happened if the vehicle ahead in lane 1 had made an emergency stop at 0.47.
What the video reminds me of is the numerous cycling videos that used to get uploaded on a regular basis where the cyclist seems more intent on getting an action video than avoiding an accident. It is as if some people with dashcams are longing for an incident and internet fame.
edit; And since dashcams have been a very popular pressy this xmas, be extra careful this next month as there are going to an extra amount of clowns out there trying to get involved in some action.
It should never be considered “wrong” for someone to refuse to brake hard to avoid hitting an idiot who is playing chicken with you.
Consider the safety of OTHER users, for example the vehicle right behind, or alongside in lane 2. There is a barrier on the left, so “steering away” isn’t an option.
You don’t want to be involved in a crash “all by yourself” because some fool has “forced” you off the road. The horn was sounded, and ignored. This impact is 100% the fault of the 7.5t then.
If I were to suggest that ANY blame were on the DAF driver - then when approaching someone coming at you on their wrong side of the road, - it would be “blameworthy” to head-on hit them, rather than just crash off a cliff/bridge/hilltop and kill yourself.
If I thought laying down my life would save multiples of innocents - then I would like to think I would be stepping up to the mark.
If I am “pushed” into risking my life to let a tool of scot-free though - Nope!.. If I’m forced into a collission - it’s going to be involving him - make no mistake!
At lower speeds, I’d still rather have the head-on impact as in this vid - than “run off the road all by myself” or swerve into the innocent front car - to save the bell-end being sent off to tend the garden. 
Of course you’re still braking all the while to reduce impact velocity, but I would argue that any blame at all is upon the camera driver in the vid above.
The last vid @ 1:20 in shows what every trucker risks should they play the safety card in good faith, only to be back-stabbed by the person who’s live you’ve just been a hero and saved…
No impact between culprit car and swerving driver. Car driver briefly pauses, and then drives away, not even concerned for the safety of the crashed trucker. 
I see so many drivers with earphones in these days…
The collision is the fault of the 7.5t…
The chaos that ensues after they first touch, is only the fault of the pleb with a dashcam, who thinks his footage is armour.
It is, but only when viewed by the brain dead.
This a case of two wrongs just make a very wrong.
Winseer:
It should never be considered “wrong” for someone to refuse to brake hard to avoid hitting an idiot who is playing chicken with you.
But camera man didn’t have to brake hard, all he had to do was lift off the throttle for a second or two.
It takes two to play chicken, and two players met here. Neither of them came out ahead.
Regardless of who was in the wrong initially both drivers were badly in the wrong. The camera vehicle should have backed off end of and the incident would not have got out of hand, after the first bump the camera vehicle deliberately hits the puddle jumper for a second time and pushes him into a spin.
Had somone got badly hurt or killed in that incident then the police would have come down heavily on the camera vehicle driver. His actions could have caused a much worse accident than the initial bump.
Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Winseer:
Consider the safety of OTHER users, for example the vehicle right behind.
If the vehicle following you cant stop if you brake then thats their problem. Theyre obviously too close.
Winseer:
It should never be considered “wrong” for someone to refuse to brake hard to avoid hitting an idiot who is playing chicken with you.
.
It should always be considered ‘‘wrong’’ for someone to not avoid an accident (or in this case increase the severity) when he has the opportunity, as in the case of the idiot with the dashcam.
Refusing to brake hard does not come into it in this case, backing off his accelerator would have been sufficient.
The-Snowman:
Winseer:
Consider the safety of OTHER users, for example the vehicle right behind.If the vehicle following you cant stop if you brake then thats their problem. Theyre obviously too close.
What I’m getting at is “Don’t kill the guy behind, even if it’s going to be his fault, just to let the tool off in front who won’t be seriously injured by you tapping into him”.
Risk Management: What’s the worst that can happen to (1) Anyone (2) You (3) The property of others (4) Your property.
Would you have swerved off the road, rather than hit the wrong side of the road rear-ender in the second vid above?
Then there’s situations where nearly everyone is at fault… Trucker for being too close to DHL so he can’t see the oncoming situation developing, Trucker for not noticing the erratic overtake of car, and of course - it all happens so fast that “reactions” don’t even come into it.
I believe the woman driving the car ended up losing a hand - but could easily have been killed outright.
Even when driving out in my own car - I don’t pull between two artics at speed - ever.
robroy:
Winseer:
It should never be considered “wrong” for someone to refuse to brake hard to avoid hitting an idiot who is playing chicken with you.
.It should always be considered ‘‘wrong’’ for someone to not avoid an accident (or in this case increase the severity) when he has the opportunity, as in the case of the idiot with the dashcam.
Refusing to brake hard does not come into it in this case, backing off his accelerator would have been sufficient.
Yes, I agree - if there is nothing to prevent that (more than likely) then just taking it off cruise when the guy started to pull across would have probably been a better thing to do than reaching for the horn at all.
How many times per day do we ALL “let people in” and shake our heads tutting away?
Prevention is better than cure. We probably all do this when passing a broken down truck on the hard shoulder as well… Pull into Lane 2? - Of course, if it’s safe to do so… Bugger what the freak coming up lane two a mile behind you, but doing a tonner thinks.
Pair of an ■■■■
Indicator is NOT a right of way, but to many people think it is.
Vehicle in lane one should have eased up to allow other vehicle to pull in. Whatever the reason for the 7.5t pulling in too soon the driver being passed had adequate opportunity to avoid collision and failed.
I would avoid it to save on paperwork and having to declare the collision every time I renew my insurances for the next five years. More importantly I am professional.
Two ■■■■■ battling it out on the same stretch of road. Nothing to see here, move along please.
It would be interesting to find out what course of action both companies took against their ‘‘drivers’’ after they and their insurance companies studied this footage.
I would have sacked the pair of them for the stipidity, incompetence and arrogance displayed.
^^^ Fully Agree ^^^
Both at fault. In the old days that would be knock for knock. But nowadays everybody thinks they have the moral high ground. I get loads of ■■■■■ trying it on every day. But I don’t hit any of them, because the 3 seconds lost to letting them in, is hours gained over paperwork, repairs and job hunting.