saw an interesting accident today

[ric04vrs]

he couldn't reverse,i was right up his ass:rolleyes:

so the accident is your fault then :P

[oilburninnut]

in a word yes,guilty as charged:rofl:

[gadgetman]

Lorry.

I'd make sure the coucil get involved to sort the junction out with some better traffic management!

If it's an accident blackspot, then the local papers would love to get their teeth in.

[Mac1961]

Well, there is an argument that if you pull into the middle of a road, you expect an exit to become available. The lorry driver could (IMO) reasonably have expected that the MPV would not have done that without some expectation of getting across the road (and thus out of his way) before he arrived, assuming it's a flowing road and not a high street or near a school where he might be expected to brake at a moment's notice. Seemingly either the lorry driver was wasn't looking (though apparently he was) or the MPV hadn't cleared, but presumably the MPV must also have seen a lorry approaching from half a mile away, so should have reversed if no chance of getting out since it's illegal to cause oncoming traffic to brake on a main road. Not really clear cut to me without knowing all the details.

I'm not arguing with anyone by the way, just not sure how each side of the story stacks up is all.

Regards

Mo

Where the hell do you get the idea that it's "illegal to cause oncoming traffic to brake on a main road". I know this wasn't the case, but what if the MPV had broken down or had been involved in an earlier accident, do you think he would still be entitled to plough on through regardless. On the information available the truck driver is guilty, no argument. Every driver has a 'duty of care' to every other road user, whether a driver, passenger or pedestrian.

[cheezemonkhai]

Blatant example of driving without due care and attention.

On the phone perhaps?

Remember the M3 crash where the lorry driver was fiddling with his dash mounted phone and ploughed full whack into a pug 106? Luckily there were no fatailities or serious injuries but it does have some similarities about it.

Wasn't that a 206 with some poor girl driving on her first day at a new job, where the car was so crushed it was smaller than the drivers seat :(

[heresmo]

Where the hell do you get the idea that it's "illegal to cause oncoming traffic to brake on a main road". I know this wasn't the case, but what if the MPV had broken down or had been involved in an earlier accident, do you think he would still be entitled to plough on through regardless. On the information available the truck driver is guilty, no argument. Every driver has a 'duty of care' to every other road user, whether a driver, passenger or pedestrian.

Erm... from the Highway Code, the following will do. I know the HC is not legally binding in itself, but flouting its rules normally has legal consequences behind it:

Turning right

179

Well before you turn right you should

• use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
  
• give a right-turn signal
  
• take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right
  
• leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible

180

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

[my bold] Taken from here:

170-183: Road junctions : Directgov - Travel and transport

The MPV shouldn't have been there really, but as already said in my post #19,

quote: ... if the people carrier had to sit in a road when an oncoming vehicle was half a mile away and still was hit, then surely someone should have "let it out" before then or there is a very serious traffic management problem at that junction.Unquote.

Nothing I have said suggested that a vehicle is entitled to run into another.

You also say "On the information available" - agreed; my earlier point that you don't know the lorry driver's side, perhaps expectiing it to have cleared (since it shouldn't have been there), speed of travel, forward visbility, weather conditions or road surface - and maybe his brakes failed? We just don't know his side.

At the risk of repeating myself, howsoever this particular accident happened, there's clearly need for extra care when turning right at that particular junction. It's sure as heck not easy to get junctions changed - I'm learning that the hard way - but just attaching blame and forgetting about it is exactly what riles me.

Regards

Mo

[KenONeill]

Or, in apparently similar circs to the cited M3 incident, wagon driver found to be blameless, since he was suffering from undiagnosed aerythmic sleep anaepema (SP) [means that you can "nod off briefly and unexpectedly"].

[KenONeill]

Oh yeah, and I agree totally with what Mo has just said in post #31.

[heresmo]

Oh yeah, and I agree totally with what Mo has just said in post #31.

I'm curious - does "Oh yeah" mean you agree, or as in "Oh yeah right", meaning the opposite? As I've probably said my bit already, it's just a question, not a starter for ten BTW.

Ta

Mo

[jec]

i contacted them today but they wern't interested,they didn't even know there had been an accident there.

I am being nosey now, can you tell us where it happened? I think I am near your vicinity:D

[Mac1961]

Erm... from the Highway Code, the following will do. I know the HC is not legally binding in itself, but flouting its rules normally has legal consequences behind it:

Turning right

179

Well before you turn right you should

• use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
  
• give a right-turn signal
  
• take up a position just left of the middle of the road or in the space marked for traffic turning right
  
• leave room for other vehicles to pass on the left, if possible

180

Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.

[my bold] Taken from here:

170-183: Road junctions : Directgov - Travel and transport

The MPV shouldn't have been there really, but as already said in my post #19,

quote: ... if the people carrier had to sit in a road when an oncoming vehicle was half a mile away and still was hit, then surely someone should have "let it out" before then or there is a very serious traffic management problem at that junction.Unquote.

Nothing I have said suggested that a vehicle is entitled to run into another.

You also say "On the information available" - agreed; my earlier point that you don't know the lorry driver's side, perhaps expectiing it to have cleared (since it shouldn't have been there), speed of travel, forward visbility, weather conditions or road surface - and maybe his brakes failed? We just don't know his side.

At the risk of repeating myself, howsoever this particular accident happened, there's clearly need for extra care when turning right at that particular junction. It's sure as heck not easy to get junctions changed - I'm learning that the hard way - but just attaching blame and forgetting about it is exactly what riles me.

Regards

Mo

Mo

I am well aware of the provisions of the Highway Code! Quote: "you don't know the lorry driver's side" Unquote, but then we don't know the MPV driver's side either, so we have to rely on the only witness, whose account is more important than either driver, since drivers often (but not always I admit) give an account that favours their own side. I am not "attaching blame and forgetting about it" as you put it, but I feel that the lorry driver should have stopped and not relied on other drivers to get out of the way to allow the MPV room to move.

[LJ_Matt]

Easy one this - the people carrier was at fault as it shouldn't have been on the road in the first place......... :P

(and chelsea tractors, and volvos and.......................

:sofahide:

[KenONeill]

I'm curious - does "Oh yeah" mean you agree, or as in "Oh yeah right", meaning the opposite? As I've probably said my bit already, it's just a question, not a starter for ten BTW.

Ta

Mo

Just an "I agree", which landed in a very conversational style since your post arrived whilst I was talking about a possible sleep disorder.

[heresmo]

Mo

I am well aware of the provisions of the Highway Code! Quote: "you don't know the lorry driver's side" Unquote, but then we don't know the MPV driver's side either, so we have to rely on the only witness, whose account is more important than either driver, since drivers often (but not always I admit) give an account that favours their own side. I am not "attaching blame and forgetting about it" as you put it, but I feel that the lorry driver should have stopped and not relied on other drivers to get out of the way to allow the MPV room to move.

Hi I'm going to have to post and run and I'll catch up later tonight.

I know you will know the Highway Code, it was just my response as to where I was coming from for clarification is all.

Forgive me, but you seemed to have made a decision that it was the lorry driver's fault (on the facts given) - I personally disagree with coming to conclusions without knowing all facts. Regarding witnesses, it is for independent orinterested parties to make as they will of each party's statement and even a witness' statement can be skewed by "I thought he would" so is not necessarily factual.

Regarding "Attaching blame and forgetting about it", this was not directed at you nor any of your comments, but specifically on how difficult it is to persuade councils to change junction layouts.

I really do have to go, so hope this makes sense and will catch you all later.

Byeee

Mo

[Mac1961]

Mo

Before this gets out of hand, lets just agree to disagree.

Cheers

Mac

[heresmo]

Mo

Before this gets out of hand, lets just agree to disagree.

Cheers

Mac

Hi again - back now. No worries, since we're both just offering opinions on "the event" .

I might ask if you'd be kind enough not to query my posts, starting with "Where the hell...?" I've always accepted when I'm wrong or talking through my hat. Anyway :handshke:

Mo

[Mac1961]

Hi again - back now. No worries, since we're both just offering opinions on "the event" .

I might ask if you'd be kind enough not to query my posts, starting with "Where the hell...?" I've always accepted when I'm wrong or talking through my hat. Anyway :handshke:

Mo

Mo

I apologise for my opening remark and I don't blame you for getting annoyed. However, I stick by the rest of my text.

Handshake

Mac