my car was hit by a Tesco HGV

fivetide

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I cant honestly say i would want anyone disciplined and/or sacked on the evidence of a member of the public when the law enforcement agencies dont feel that any action is warranted ,the driver passed d&d tests and presumably the dataflow from the on board tracker all shows ok.

Trouble is you see that there are some useless managers of companies who dont need real evidence to set such gears in motion.

Perhaps all those in favour of justice and rightful application of the law of the land in favour of lynch mob mentality should also email the CEO?

What about John Terry? Cleared in a court of law but found guilty and banned by the FA. Right or wrong? Also shows that just because the CPS didn't proceed or a copper who was approaching the end of their shift decided to use discretion and not report the driver doesn't mean that the incident didn't happen.

As you say, lorries have a big blindspot. With that in mind the driver has a responsibility to drive properly and in this case it is their poor lane discipline that has caused the crash.

Again, the driver has accepted 100% of the blame from what the OP has said. They only wanted an answer to a simple question

Kudos to Tricky for apologising. A number of other posters should be following his lead.

C_Mababejive

@#112

Not wishing to digress too much from the original discussion, I must admit to being only vaguely aware of Mr Terry's transgressions,not being a big football fan,and i have therefore read the wiki to bring myself up to speed.

True it appears that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the level of proof required for a criminal prosecution to proceed hence why the cps pulled it.

However in a lesser "court" i.e the FA disciplinary committee or whatever badge they wear, it was deemed there was sufficient evidence for them to apply a penalty and i would tend to agree with them.

And so here we are in another lower court.

The court of public opinion.

The range of experience in this particular court is wide and deep and contains people from all social strata.

Matters are often dissected to exhaustion and therefore it is likely that the final output is a fairly good reflection of what is generally acceptable and correct.

We may all sympathise with the OPs plight and as has been stated,there was no physical harm and hopefully by the time claims are settle,no financial or material loss.

Tesco is a global brand. It has both corporate and retail sites. Its interactive channels are well known or can easily be found. One need hardly ask in a forum as to where they might be found.

Should we see a man potentially disciplined on the evidence of an aggrieved party where there is no supporting evidence?

fivetide

#113

This thread was off topic as soon as the first replies went in.

Just to clarify, the initial post, the very first post by the OP makes no request for compensation or for anyone to be sacked, they simply ask for an apology.

Even though the driver accepted liabilty I have not been contacted by anyone from tesco and no one has apologised. I want an investigation into why the driver was driving dangerously. It was a friday afternoon and he was more concerned about not making it to his last delivery then me and my kids.

Does anyone have an email add to which I can complain. This complaint is different to the usual shopping complaints.

Any advice or emails would be much appreciated

Thanks

Where does that say "I want someone sacked?". The issue everyone picked up was the 'driving dangerously' aspect which is, as you say, not for this board to decide.

Given that the driver has made an error and admitted it, I see no harm in the comapny saying they will remind all drivers of their duty of care whilst on the road. Even contractors would come under that and it is what I would do if it was anything to do with us (I work for a company that has a large and specialist haulage division).

The lower court or FA in this case would be Tesco alone. Not this board. It is for them to simply say sorry to the OP and I really don't think they were askign too much. They certainly did not ask to be insulted and patronised as they were.

EDIT to add - It is a credit to the OP that unlike many posters who come on here having had a non fault accident where someone bumped their car in a car park at 2mph they are not looking for personal injury claims and asking about whiplash despite the fact their car was given a hefty hit by a HGV.

Makes a refreshing change.

McKneff

To be quite honest, after all this, if the OP is saying that she wanted an apology, I would find it very hard to believe that the lorry driver wouldnt have done this at the time.
Like

'All my fault, love, and I am sorry' , see what I mean and he was very likely really upset to see kids in the car too.

But the OP seems to want more, she wants the lorry driver disciplined, he very likely has been disciplined, and very likely lost money/bonus because of it. But the OP seems as if she actually needs to know, Why, I cant imagine.

Maestro.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Overtaking Left hand drive HGVs/coaches/large vehicles is even more perilous and on motorways it is best done only when there is an escape lane to the right if needed.

On a motorway there should always be an escape lane to the right, as it is illegal for the big rigs to use the right hand side lane.

fivetide

McKneff wrote: »

To be quite honest, after all this,

Before all this, that's what the OP was asking for as per the very first post quoted above.

if the OP is saying that she wanted an apology, I would find it very hard to believe that the lorry driver wouldnt have done this at the time.
Like

'All my fault, love, and I am sorry' , see what I mean and he was very likely really upset to see kids in the car too.

I'm sure he did but they want an apology from the company he works for. This happens a lot. I'm sure the store staff involved in the M&S incident last week were shocked and desperate to do anything to help. Still didn't stop M&S commenting on it though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/03/contractor-marks-and-spencer-kent

But the OP seems to want more, she wants the lorry driver disciplined, he very likely has been disciplined, and very likely lost money/bonus because of it. But the OP seems as if she actually needs to know, Why, I cant imagine.

It seems quite clear to me. Imagine you went swimming at a Bannatyne gym and because staff had put the wrong amount of chemicals in the water you suffered a ad reaction.

Would you be happy with an "oh sorry" from the manager at the time or, as I said would you want to know as a company that they had reminded all staff of the correct proceedures so it doesn't happen again?

That is exactly what the OP says in their very first post and it was quoted above too.

I still fail to see how calling into question the OPs motives has any bearing on the question asked. It was all totally irrelevant and a lot of people responsible for essentially unhelpful and quite sanctimonious posts have simply gone through this thread thanking each other for posting yet more abuse. It's really not in the spirit of the board.

I'm sorry for those that cannot see that. I really don't like people being abused for no reason but if that's what people enjoy doing on here (and as I say, patting each other on the back for doing it) then so be it.

Please be nice to all MoneySavers. That’s the forum motto. Remember the prime aim is to help provide info and resources. If you don’t like someone, their situation, their question or feel they’re intruding on ‘your board’ then please bite the bullet and think of the bigger issue...

verityboo

Would still be interested to know what part of the OP's car was hit by the Lorry steps, front left corner. Was the OP in front of the lorry entering the roundabout or by the side? Also be interesting to see a google maps reference to the location.
Things still suggest to me that the lorry had to be in the right-hand lane to turn left (to clear the corner) and OP was in the blind-spot.
The OP might not like discussion about the collision but it is relevant due to their attitude about wanting retribution

C_Mababejive

Maestro. wrote: »

On a motorway there should always be an escape lane to the right, as it is illegal for the big rigs to use the right hand side lane.

I envisage a situation in which such an HGV may be in the left and has a car in front. I am in middle and contemplating an overtake. I would be wise to check right to ensure no other vehicle would occupy the right lane before i start to overtake in the middle lest the truck moves right and i have nowhere to go.

Jamie_Carter

fivetide wrote: »

What about John Terry? Cleared in a court of law but found guilty and banned by the FA. Right or wrong? Also shows that just because the CPS didn't proceed or a copper who was approaching the end of their shift decided to use discretion and not report the driver doesn't mean that the incident didn't happen.

As you say, lorries have a big blindspot. With that in mind the driver has a responsibility to drive properly and in this case it is their poor lane discipline that has caused the crash.

Again, the driver has accepted 100% of the blame from what the OP has said. They only wanted an answer to a simple question

Kudos to Tricky for apologising. A number of other posters should be following his lead.

This is nothing like the John Terry case.

Unlike driving a car, where you can see all around you, with virtually no blind spots, just by moving your eyes, in a HGV you have at least five mirrors (sometimes more), but there are huge blind spots. The driver often has to physically move in order to see certain areas, and some areas are impossible to see. So what I am saying is that in a car you more or less have all round vision, when a HGV driver has to constantly juggle between which mirror, and which window he is looking through. This is especially bad in busy traffic, low light, and poor weather conditions. So just because a driver didn't see a car that was in his bind spot doesn't make him a dangerous driver.

As the highway code says, it is also up to other drivers to take care when in close proximity to HGV's.

So if the truck driver was sacked, then he could claim unfair dismissal.

Jamie_Carter

Maestro. wrote: »

On a motorway there should always be an escape lane to the right, as it is illegal for the big rigs to use the right hand side lane.

I think you missed the point.

If a HGV is in the middle lane of a two lane motorway, a car overtaking it would have no escape lane.