Motorway merge fail??

All this "speed kills" rubbish seems to have caused the weak minded with a driving licence to believe that any significant amount of pressure on the right pedal is likely to lead to carnage and the result is people tootling around blindly, arguably causing more danger than the minority who drive at an inappropriate high speed.

This is a case in point. Even in top gear, fully loaded, the lowest powered Ford Focus is capable of accelerating from 31 to 35 MPH in that time and the driver chose not to. It's entirely the car drivers fault, and they should be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. I've said it before, we should throw the book at people who cause collisions and ban them. This would send a clear message to those bad drivers and the shockingly misguided people who think this accident was entirely the fault of the HGV driver.
 
Got to agree with Orionaut.

From looking at the video, the gap between the silver car in front and the truck is too tight to fill in comfortably, which is probably why the red car was hesitated to go in the first place. The gap may look ok from the video cam but it is easier said than doing it from inside of the red car.

Also knowing that the truck does not stop as quickly as the car so it is never good to have the truck too close behind you.

A better understanding/awareness of the road is needed here.
 
Yet another accident where both parties could easily have avoided it by being either a little bit more aware or a little bit more courteous.

Too many people seem to be of the mindset that they'd happily plough headlong into an accident they could avoid because 'I am in the right, why should I move'
 
:p This has been decided in Court & you lot still argue about it. As the Law stands it was the Car drivers fault, End of.
 
Legally it's all the car drivers fault which is why it settled in favour of the truck driver.

However it has to be one of the most avoidable nonfault accidents ever. The fact it wasn't his fault doesn't change the fact it's very poor driving.
 
LOL, as the two above have said, it was legally proven to to be the car drivers fault, that kind of makes it final don't you think!

However, whether it was "right" is still 50/50. If I was the car driver I'd have sped up to get in the gap. If I was the truck driver I'd have slowed slightly when the car was already 3/4's infront. What I wouldn't have done however is pull my car into the side of a truck :D
 
godinman said:
This, people seem unable to have anything other than a black and white view of the situation. Legally the car driver was at fault tho.
Click to expand...

Indeed, however in some cases people will be dicks on the road because "legally" they are in the right, a bit more common courtesy would go a long way...
 
This is a good example of why insurers load a premium for a non-fault claim. Everyone thinks this is unfair but a surprisingly high proportion of non-fault accidents could have been avoided by the innocent party if they were paying more attention, or were more perceptive, etc etc.

Which is why insurers believe those who have had a non-fault are at risk of having further accidents and find insurance costs more as a result.
 
godinman said:
This, people seem unable to have anything other than a black and white view of the situation. Legally the car driver was at fault tho.
Click to expand...
The thing is, courts in these cases are gray so to find the car driver 100% at fault says a lot as they would assign some blame to the truck driver if they felt he also helped cause an avoidable accident.
 
Jokester said:
The thing is, courts in these cases are gray so to find the car driver 100% at fault says a lot as they would assign some blame to the truck driver if they felt he also helped cause an avoidable accident.
Click to expand...

I somewhat doubt they would, the highway code is sufficiently clear - the truck was in its lane and never deviated from its lane, it was the car that joined the motorway, not the truck.

This is not a grey court case at all, legally its black and white - he merged, his fault.
 
[TW]Fox;26348838 said:
I somewhat doubt they would, the highway code is sufficiently clear - the truck was in its lane and never deviated from its lane, it was the car that joined the motorway, not the truck.

This is not a grey court case at all, legally its black and white - he merged, his fault.
Click to expand...
You've missed my point, the court can find 80/20, 60/40 or whatever, so to find the car driver at 100% implies that the accident wasn't avoidable from the truck drivers point of view (as Lopez says just because you have right away doesn't mean you can plow into other vehicles if it's possible to avoid them - something else that's stated in the highway code.). Something that a few people in the thread have argued.
 
The car is 100% at fault.

The fact people are even arguing this is a demonstration of how poor driving standards in this country have become.
 
Jokester said:
You've missed my point, the court can find 80/20, 60/40 or whatever, so to find the car driver at 100% implies that the accident wasn't avoidable from the truck drivers point of view (as Lopez says just because you have right away doesn't mean you can plow into other vehicles if it's possible to avoid them - something else that's stated in the highway code.). Something that a few people in the thread have argued.
Click to expand...

Fox still has a point. The lorry driver could have avoided that accident but chose not to.

It's not the lorry drivers fault, as he had right of way, but he could have slowed right down to let the car driver in. He didn't want to however, as he was aiming for his fuel efficiency bonus which requires a nice steady speed.
 
Last edited:
Easily avoided. Worth noting that the lorry might have had another six feet off its tail, though, hence its heisitation to slow. All conjecture though.
 
Spunkey said:
The car is 100% at fault.

The fact people are even arguing this is a demonstration of how poor driving standards in this country have become.
Click to expand...

The fact people can't differentiate between legalism and common sense is a demonstration of how standards-based this country has become.

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/motori...iltering-ford-smash-into-lorry-11363904460694
By Matt Kimberley
Many drivers wrongly believe that they have the right of way when entering a motorway and that existing traffic should move out of the way, but the Highway Code states that drivers should “give priority to traffic already on the motorway”.
Click to expand...

To quote Lopéz, quoting the highway code.
Lopéz said:
Right at the start of the Highway Code:

1. Overview
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident. (my emphasis there)
Click to expand...

The journalist in the OP has clearly misrepresented the highway code.

ianh said:
LOL, as the two above have said, it was legally proven to to be the car drivers fault, that kind of makes it final don't you think!
Click to expand...
Wrong. Our entire source is a poorly written journalistic article on a minor news outlet, with virtually no details given.

All the source tells us is

the footage was used to settle the insurance dispute in the haulier’s favour.
In this instance, the claim was settled very quickly at no cost to Malcolm Group.
Click to expand...

We have no other details of this specific case. We have no idea if the insurance was even disputed. The car driver could have got out its vehicle 'Oh my gosh I am SO sorry it was SO totally my fault'. 'Footage was used' could mean that footage was put before a judge, or the company sent a letter to the car driver 'oh btw we have footage and you were totally at fault, so, you kinda should really accept fault.'

We know next to nothing, and you want claim that total lack of information as concrete legal proof for your position?



Once again, i present to you myself as evidence, a thorn in your dystopia. 10 years driving, 10 years no claims. I am a courteous road user that would have been more accommodating for that car. Can you please state how my testimony is evidence of my 'poor driving'. For the record, can you also please state how long you have been driving and how many incidents you have been in.
 
Last edited:
Why did the lorry speed up just before the Focus was about to pass and merge? Bit of a **** thing to do.
 
Last edited:
Lorries hate to come off the throttle in my experience and this was another example but the obligation is on the emerging car to deal with and it didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom