Who is to blame?

[stevieboy308]

EnglishTrucker:
I know it’s a different scenario. But a Gist driver got found “AT FAULT” for an accident he had on the M4.

A car was coming down the slip road as the truck was going past. The car driver was one of these that thinks that he has the right of way and did not adjust his speed to the motorway traffic. The car pulls out and hits the truck.

In the investigation they found the truck driver “at fault” as they said he should have seen the car and slowed down. My argument is was this correct, what if the car was in his blind spot and he didn’t see it? After all isn’t it the traffic on the slip road that should adjust it’s speed before entering lane 1? Where do you draw the line on blame?

there must be more to it?? as the end of a slip road is a give way, so if a car crashed into a truck in lane 1 whilst trying to join, then that car didn’t give way, cars fault, fact! if someone pulled out of a side road and caused a crash i think they’d struggle to defend it, an thats the same thing.

EnglishTrucker:

pecjam23:

EnglishTrucker:
I know it’s a different scenario. But a Gist driver got found “AT FAULT” for an accident he had on the M4.

A car was coming down the slip road as the truck was going past. The car driver was one of these that thinks that he has the right of way and did not adjust his speed to the motorway traffic. The car pulls out and hits the truck.

In the investigation they found the truck driver “at fault” as they said he should have seen the car and slowed down. My argument is was this correct, what if the car was in his blind spot and he didn’t see it? After all isn’t it the traffic on the slip road that should adjust it’s speed before entering lane 1? Where do you draw the line on blame?

Ive seen on numerous occasions on dual carriage ways when a car coming down the on ramp , they have failed to force there way in because vehicles on the road cant make way for them and they use the hard shoulder to join…problem with slowing down for us on the road already is sometimes you BOTH end up slowing down to let each other go first then you BOTH decide to speed up because the OTHER person is slowing down and then CRASH BANG WALLOP…

I know what you mean. Many a time I’ve been fully loaded, seen a car, started to slow down and they are doing the same thing. This is bloody dangerous. I think motorway driver training should be a compulsory part of your driving licence requirements.

I will not pull out unless I absolutely have to. You see it all the time. You pull out, slowing the middle lane down only for the car that is along side on the on ramp to floor it, with no thanks, and leaving you looking like a Muppet.

If I’m in a truck entering the motorway and no one moves over for me I just go up the hard shoulder (keeping a sharp eye out for any parked vehicles) and then pull out. You can’t enter lane 1 from a standstill, you will kill someone.

whilst i agree with you, if a copper see’s you going down the hard shoulder, you’re likely to get done.

going by the book, then yes you should stop and join from a standstill.

i did my class 1 in exeter and there was a doggy slip road on a dual carraigeway, the slip road was on a corner and if you went too far along it you would lose too much or the approching traffic due to the curve of the bend, there was a point at which if you hadn’t joined an a gap wasn’t comming then you had to stop, so as to maintain enough vision.

back to the original point there isn’t a different set of rules if you’re a pro driver or not, so the fact that the bus driver is a pro and sould of known better is irrelavent when it come to aportioning blame, which is what we’re talking about.

ROG:

stevieboy308:
of course a switched on experienced driver, may take action to avoid a collision that would of been caused by someone else’s mistake. however if they fail to make avoiding action it doesn’t make it half there fault.

stevie

By LAW, the bus is at fault as it impeded the oncoming trafic lane BUT, in terms of good safe driving from the trucker, there is no point in ‘being right’ if that means being involved in an incident/collision.

i’d already agreed with you there!

[rog]

If I’m in a truck entering the motorway and no one moves over for me I just go up the hard shoulder (keeping a sharp eye out for any parked vehicles) and then pull out. You can’t enter lane 1 from a standstill, you will kill someone

whilst i agree with you, if a copper see’s you going down the hard shoulder, you’re likely to get done.

A cop may tug you for going down the hard shoulder to get an explanation but they are more likely to SEE why it happened and not bother - why? - easy - SAFETY comes first before the LAW.

As long as the shoulder is clear then it is better to be safe than legal - I have actually done this many times (car & truck) and have had a cop nearby - no probs

just remembered - did it once with a traffic cop sat next to me in my little Fiat before it got killed by one of those horrible big LGVs

[annitram]

ROG:

If I’m in a truck entering the motorway and no one moves over for me I just go up the hard shoulder (keeping a sharp eye out for any parked vehicles) and then pull out. You can’t enter lane 1 from a standstill, you will kill someone

whilst i agree with you, if a copper see’s you going down the hard shoulder, you’re likely to get done.

A cop may tug you for going down the hard shoulder to get an explanation but they are more likely to SEE why it happened and not bother - why? - easy - SAFETY comes first before the LAW.

As long as the shoulder is clear then it is better to be safe than legal - I have actually done this many times (car & truck) and have had a cop nearby - no probs

Most traffic cops appear to know the difference between using and abusing the hard shoulder and would not bother you assuming you entered lane one asap, however I have seen a truck driver who travelled down the hard shoulder for 3/4 mile and actually undertake the truck in lane one rather than ease off and feed in when possible. ( No cops around then though).

[happy_keith]

EnglishTrucker:
'…a Gist driver…“AT FAULT” for an accident…on the M4…the truck was going past…car driver…did not adjust his speed to the motorway traffic. The car…hits the truck.

'…[T]he investigation…found the truck driver “at fault” as they said he should have seen the car and slowed down…Where do you draw the line on blame?

Perhaps never be afraid of the horn “to remind other road users of one’s presence” (blah): Clearly, risk threats aren’t always in front of us in the event of a cut-up/side-swipe.

Whilst we too often occupy the place of regularly suffering the actions of muppets, why not use the ‘Code’ containing that nugget for safety in moments when it’s appropriate .

Maybe it’s very ‘English’ to prefer anonymity on the road or when in a crowd such as many do, but maybe we as drivers of nasty things ought to individually and actively consider how should a reasonable person of qualified authority & responsibility for a nasty bit of kit react if a brain-dead chav began to amble into one’s nuclear laboratory: Mutter to oneself and let a chain-reaction of catastrophe unfold …or initiate an authorised alarm procedure?

[englishtrucker]

ROG:

EnglishTrucker:
I know it’s a different scenario. But a Gist driver got found “AT FAULT” for an accident he had on the M4.

A car was coming down the slip road as the truck was going past. The car driver was one of these that thinks that he has the right of way and did not adjust his speed to the motorway traffic. The car pulls out and hits the truck.

In the investigation they found the truck driver “at fault” as they said he should have seen the car and slowed down. My argument is was this correct, what if the car was in his blind spot and he didn’t see it? After all isn’t it the traffic on the slip road that should adjust it’s speed before entering lane 1? Where do you draw the line on blame?

That is a terrible decision - how the hell can the trucker be at fault if he stayed in his lane at a constant speed

IF, and I do say IF, the trucker had adjusted speed to deliberately impede the car joining then that would be a different matter.

I would have taken that ruling all the way to the high court as it seems to suggest that anyone in lane 1 MUST give way or make provision for those intending to join from the slip road which would mean that if the slip road was realy busy then it could mean a vehicle in lane 1 having to come to a complete stop

There must be more to the reason as to why the GIST trucker got that decision

Rog, I don’t know the ins and outs of it, all I do know is I was chatting to one of the TWI’s (Gist driver trainers) who was in the meeting with the Union, Transport Manager, Driver and Health and Safety Rep. He told me they found the accident was a “Preventable” one. I said to this guy how the hell can it be the drivers fault if he is on the motorway minding his own business in lane 1. He said that they said it was “Preventable” because he should be aware of his surroundings, especially at a slip road and that he should have seen the car. I said he was talking bollox as it’s not the motorway traffic that should be adjusting it’s speed, but the slip roads.

The driver had to go through some “extra” training and another driving assessment.

I don’t know what decision the insurers came too, this was a company investigation. At Gist if you have ANY accident, down to hitting a bollard, you are suspended and off the road pending an accident investigation.

[rog]

EnglishTrucker:
I know it’s a different scenario. But a Gist driver got found “AT FAULT” for an accident he had on the M4.

A car was coming down the slip road as the truck was going past. The car driver was one of these that thinks that he has the right of way and did not adjust his speed to the motorway traffic. The car pulls out and hits the truck.

In the investigation they found the truck driver “at fault” as they said he should have seen the car and slowed down. My argument is was this correct, what if the car was in his blind spot and he didn’t see it? After all isn’t it the traffic on the slip road that should adjust it’s speed before entering lane 1? Where do you draw the line on blame?

ROG:
That is a terrible decision - how the hell can the trucker be at fault if he stayed in his lane at a constant speed

IF, and I do say IF, the trucker had adjusted speed to deliberately impede the car joining then that would be a different matter.

I would have taken that ruling all the way to the high court as it seems to suggest that anyone in lane 1 MUST give way or make provision for those intending to join from the slip road which would mean that if the slip road was realy busy then it could mean a vehicle in lane 1 having to come to a complete stop

There must be more to the reason as to why the GIST trucker got that decision

EnglishTrucker:
Rog, I don’t know the ins and outs of it, all I do know is I was chatting to one of the TWI’s (Gist driver trainers) who was in the meeting with the Union, Transport Manager, Driver and Health and Safety Rep. He told me they found the accident was a “Preventable” one. I said to this guy how the hell can it be the drivers fault if he is on the motorway minding his own business in lane 1. He said that they said it was “Preventable” because he should be aware of his surroundings, especially at a slip road and that he should have seen the car. I said he was talking bollox as it’s not the motorway traffic that should be adjusting it’s speed, but the slip roads.

The driver had to go through some “extra” training and another driving assessment.

I don’t know what decision the insurers came too, this was a company investigation. At Gist if you have ANY accident, down to hitting a bollard, you are suspended and off the road pending and accident investigation.

If the insurers did not pay out to the other party and the driver was not prosecuted by law then it says a lot for the inept decision making by the company - who put them above the law

[englishtrucker]

This is what the company is like though mate.

I turned up for work one day when I was doing Bristol store with the double decker. They have an external tail lift and you have to drop it to the floor so the flap from the dock sits on top and then the internal lift can line up with the flap and you can load the trailer.

Anyway, I gets in the truck, starts her up, raises the lift about 3ft and pulls off the bay so they can get another trailer on. When I went round the back to do the lift pins etc, I noticed that the external tail lift carriage had been nearly ripped off. Someone had pulled the truck forward with the lift sitting on the ground during the night.

They had tried to blame me for this (even though I’ve used these double deckers hundreds of times). Luckily for me I had witnesses that saw me lift it up BEFORE moving it.

They will always try it on. You have to cover your arse each day.

[wheel_nut]

Forget the bus was a bus, instead the bus was a building or a 250,000 volt electricity pylon, would the knob in the lorry still make the same mistake?

[englishtrucker]

Wheel Nut:
Forget the bus was a bus, instead the bus was a building or a 250,000 volt electricity pylon, would the knob in the lorry still make the same mistake?

Now the sparks are really flying.

[happy_keith]

Wheel Nut:
Forget the bus was a bus, instead the bus was a building or a 250,000 volt electricity pylon, would the knob in the lorry still make the same mistake?

Quite possibly!

…is the suggestion that we are all knobs until we all fully appreciate the phenomena of overhang growth whilst mindful of the reality that the poor sap - who no doubt felt a complete prawn - had met the minimum standard to drive the vehicle?
Who hasn’t clonked something through overhang growth?
Perhaps someone on a loftier perch than I might advocate that more comprehensive vehicle manouevring awareness/test/training is req’d…?

[truckermarcus]

both…supposed to be proffesional drivers.

[cruise_control]

truckermarcus:
both…supposed to be proffesional drivers.

end of they day we are all human - no one is perfect. You could complete, pass and excel in every advanced driver training course in the universe and still ■■■■ up out on the road, no one is perfect, not even members of the I.H.T.U.B i bet they have skeletons in the closet

[rog]

Happy Keith:
Perhaps someone on a loftier perch than I might advocate that more comprehensive vehicle manouevring awareness/test/training is req’d…?

It is done already

The ‘angle start’ which may be done on test requires the trucker trainee to give checks in the nearside mirror for the purpose of…
CHECKING THE REAR OVERHANG SWING DOES NOT HIT ANYTHING OR ANYONE as it goes over the pavement.

The examiners are really hot on that n/s mirror check in that circumstance - don’t do it at the right time or do it enough and it’s a FAIL.

Instructors teach the trainees about this and explain the reasons - if they don’t then they want shooting.

[cruise_control]

ROG:

Happy Keith:
Perhaps someone on a loftier perch than I might advocate that more comprehensive vehicle manouevring awareness/test/training is req’d…?

It is done already

The ‘angle start’ which may be done on test requires the trucker trainee to give checks in the nearside mirror for the purpose of…
CHECKING THE REAR OVERHANG SWING DOES NOT HIT ANYTHING OR ANYONE as it goes over the pavement.

The examiners are really hot on that n/s mirror check in that circumstance - don’t do it at the right time or do it enough and it’s a FAIL.

Instructors teach the trainees about this and explain the reasons - if they don’t then they want shooting.

By the candidate Do training vehicles carry firearms then That’s one way ROG to get a LGV training job if the intructors in leicester start dropping like flies…

[happy_keith]

ROG:
‘…The ‘angle start’…requires the trucker trainee to give checks in the nearside mirror for the purpose of…CHECKING THE REAR OVERHANG SWING DOES NOT HIT ANYTHING OR ANYONE…don’t do it at the right time or do it enough and it’s a FAIL…’

That’s a fair & valid point, Rog …but in mitigation, missing thin air might be considered easy-peasy. My experience in training design & understanding of educational pyschology suggests training value could be achieved with a need to learn the ease of hitting something tangible apparently far abeam rather than the continual need to gawp at fresh-air in that n/s mirror.

Sure, a pain to legislate but a pile of old polypropylene containers positioned adjacent to the rear wheels in the tatty yard at my C+E training providers place would’ve banged the message home to me lots better than the continual craning needed to pass the test and thus arguably tutor scant skill beyond the minimum standard needed to take out a bus…

Was our subject LGV fella’s mindset over-simply trained/tested with a bias toward what to do only if there was nothing of obvious significance at his tail-end …to the detriment of not fully appreciating what the effect of his vehicle’s action would be?

[orys]

post in wrong place, please delete