my car was hit by a Tesco HGV

Jamie_Carter

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Jamie get over yourself. You're dragging this thread out as much as possible so you can stay up there on the moral high ground.

The op has already cleared up confusion about the lorry coming over from lane 3 to lane 1 to go left while the op had already stopped behind another car.

It's quite apparent that I got it wrong and I apologised to the Op. Why don't you grow some b@lls and stop trying to pick on easy targets? You could easily read back a few pages and see how the ops story came out in little pieces anbd put them together yourself but you prefer to jump on the MSE bullying bandwagon don't you.

Same applies to red eye. Get a grip!

Excuse me!!!!

The OP continually changed their story, and failed to answer important questions about positioning of the vehicles.

It has been made very clear that the highway code tells you to take care around HGVs due to their size, room needed, and poor visibility. Unless the OP responds to the questions, it is impossible to determine if the OP did follow the HC. All they have done is accuse the Op of dangerous driving (which has not ben backed up by any of the information the OP has provided), which is a serious accusation to make.

The last few posts have demonstrated the reasons why the HC says that you should take care around HGVs, and give them room. So how is this bullying??? It is educating people so that they don't put themselves in a similar situation, that could, and often does result in a far more serious outcome.

TrickyWicky

Yes and as always you jumped in on what.. page 5 and didn't bother to read the entire thread.

IF you read back you'd see that the op has answered things bit by bit. I was on the same track as you until they explained it fully at which point I understood. You however just read the opening post, jump to the last page and then start with your own version of whats happened and you can't let it go - just like the previous roundabout thread.

The op was in lane 1 (the left lane) waiting as a stationary vehicle behind another car. The lorry was in lane 3 out of 4 lanes. Lorry decides he wants to move over and take the left exit and inadvertantly hit the ops car. It took me 3 pages to get that out of the op but I got it and understood it.

Yes I thought the op was changing their story too but then they managed to get the point across (not everyone is good at that) and I understood it and realised I had made a mistake.

You however are unable to accept that people may not be at fault and continue to pick a fight several pages on which IMO is pointless.

Let it go Jamie. This thread is done and there is no point rehashing old ground that HAS been covered.

Jamie_Carter

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Yes and as always you jumped in on what.. page 5 and didn't bother to read the entire thread.

Wrong!!! I did read the thread from the start, and have read each post since.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

IF you read back you'd see that the op has answered things bit by bit. I was on the same track as you until they explained it fully at which point I understood. You however just read the opening post, jump to the last page and then start with your own version of whats happened and you can't let it go - just like the previous roundabout thread.

The OP hasn't answered many questions. They just became abusive because people suggested that it may not have been dangerous driving by the truck driver.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

The op was in lane 1 (the left lane) waiting as a stationary vehicle behind another car. The lorry was in lane 3 out of 4 lanes. Lorry decides he wants to move over and take the left exit and inadvertantly hit the ops car. It took me 3 pages to get that out of the op but I got it and understood it.

I know what the OP has said, but it's more a case of what they haven't said.

As you say, the truck driver most likely "inadvertantly hit the ops car". Probably due to them not being able to see them, because they were in a blind spot.

The recent posts have been educating people about blind spots on HGVs, and why other drivers should take care around them.

They have not been bullying, as you say.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

Yes I thought the op was changing their story too but then they managed to get the point across (not everyone is good at that) and I understood it and realised I had made a mistake.

The OP did change their story a couple of times. And told us as little as possible about the incident. So it is impossible to point blame.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

You however are unable to accept that people may not be at fault and continue to pick a fight several pages on which IMO is pointless.

No, the OP found it impossible to accept that the truck driver may not have been driving dangerously. And that it is possible that their own actions may have contributed to the incident.

Now you aren't the forum police. So don't try to stop people giving out information that could prevent a similar incident in the future.

TrickyWicky

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Now you aren't the forum police. So don't try to stop people giving out information that could prevent a similar incident in the future.

And neither are you so perhaps you need to accept that it is pointless to continue.

What you have said in your posts about HGV and blindspots has already been said - by myself and others. There is little point you jumping in on page 5 a day or two later and dragging up more bad feelings.

Have a nice evening.

Jamie_Carter

TrickyWicky wrote: »

And neither are you so perhaps you need to accept that it is pointless to continue.

What you have said in your posts about HGV and blindspots has already been said - by myself and others. There is little point you jumping in on page 5 a day or two later and dragging up more bad feelings.

Have a nice evening.

What is pointless is your arguing. If you don't like the advice that is being given, then ignore it.

photome

hiccup123 wrote: »

NO read the post with your eyes open. That's not what i asked.
Would you want vouchers in exchange for having your life and your kids lives put in danger.

Sick!!!!!

Seems to me that you want the driver to get the sack, thats sick!!!! but because he is over 50 and his kids are grown up,( of course you dont know that you are just making assumptions) it doesnt matter.

My guess is he will have been disciplined appropiately by his employer, so get on with your life, accidents happen.

In the meantime give HGVs more room especially on roundabouts

C_Mababejive

I wonder if the OP would have complained so vehemently had it been an independent haulier?



Disclaimer-Prestons of Potto are merely put forward as an illustrative example of many independent hauliers and there is no implication that they are or have been involved in roundabout altercations.

toejumper

my dh is a stobart lorry driver and delivers to tescos, I don't think the op realises the lorries are fitted with a computer that record everything the driver does like speed and his breaking, if he was driving dangerously it would of been recorded and checked when he got back to the depot. if he was found to be a dangerous driver in anyway he would be on a disciplinary or even sacked. stobarts and tesco are so strict with their drivers not like joe blogs haulage who don't give a stuff on how they drive or how they treat there lorries. just the other day a woman revered into dh lorry in a tesco car park and smashed her back window and dh was stationary, she got out of her car and was screaming like a banshee at him that it was his fault. the manager of the store was also having a go at him until he said he was stationary at the time of the accident. like you cant see a 40ft lorry. but when he got back to the depot he was called into the office and got a strict telling off and now its bee documented on his work file. The things that happen on a daily basis just down other peoples stupidity.

Sgt_Pepper_2

toejumper wrote: »

my dh is a stobart lorry driver and delivers to tescos, I don't think the op realises the lorries are fitted with a computer that record everything the driver does like speed and his breaking, if he was driving dangerously it would of been recorded and checked when he got back to the depot. if he was found to be a dangerous driver in anyway he would be on a disciplinary or even sacked. stobarts and tesco are so strict with their drivers not like joe blogs haulage who don't give a stuff on how they drive or how they treat there lorries. just the other day a woman revered into dh lorry in a tesco car park and smashed her back window and dh was stationary, she got out of her car and was screaming like a banshee at him that it was his fault. the manager of the store was also having a go at him until he said he was stationary at the time of the accident. like you cant see a 40ft lorry. but when he got back to the depot he was called into the office and got a strict telling off and now its bee documented on his work file. The things that happen on a daily basis just down other peoples stupidity.

What was his telling off for, being on the customer carpark?

toejumper

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

What was his telling off for, being on the customer carpark?

The telling off is just routine he didn't do anything wrong, he was parked in a designated parking bay for lorries, when he gets to any tescos he has to ring a bell which lets a member of staff now that a delivery is here, he could be waiting anything from 20 mins to an hour for someone to unlock the gates to let him in. this is why the lorry was stationary and he was sorting out the stores paper work.