How not to join a motorway!

JustinR1979

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

Its the mentality of british drivers these days, someone pulls out of a junction and gets T boned, it wasn't his fault he pulled out into flow of traffic the guy who t boned him was because he was travelling 2MPH over the limit, had he not travelled 2 mph over the limit then he would have stopped. not my fault I reversed into him, its the guy I hit because if he didn't stop and just went round me I wouldn't have hit him.

Indeed. Like those silica packs you get in boxes with do not eat on them, or apple pies that say may be hot after being microwaved.
No one can be responsible for their own stupidity, is always someone elses fault.

JustinR1979

BigSaver69 wrote: »

Capitan Cod - That is a total exaggeration.
Firstly - you don't know how big the truck was but a 11 ton truck should have 2-3x stopping distance of a car.
Secondly - trucks come with brakes which can be applied much harder than what was used.
Thirdly - The truck driver should have slowed down when the car approached him to put more distance between him and the truck in front - he didn't do this because he was probably asleep.

I have been in trucks and have driven them - the driver of the truck could have clearly avoided this situation.

Firstly, I drive an 18 tonne lorry, and that would stop quicker than a lot of cars. It nearly rips your face off.
Much more than the slightest touch of the pedal and you're headbutting the windscreen.

Secondly, if he braked harder car may have spun into lane 2 and been t boned at 70mph.
He carefully slowed to keep the car in front of him, and not a live lane.

Thirdly, no he was under no obligation to slow. The car should have joined when safe to do so, it didn't.
If he was asleep he would have woken with a start and jumped on the brakes.

Retrogamer

BigSaver69 wrote: »

I have been in trucks and have driven them - the driver of the truck could have clearly avoided this situation.

I don't think it's as clear as you mentioned.
I.e i think the car driver had a better chance of seeing the truck, than the truck driver had of seeing the car.

On top of that, the car driver has to give way to cars already on the motorway, the truck driver doesn't have to give way to people joining.

It's a lot easier for the car to adjust it's speed as well compared to the truck for obvious reasons.

The bottom line is the car could have slowed down, speeded up, pulled to the left or came to a stop. Instead of doing any of these they decided it was best to drive into the side of a lorry.

Sure, if the lorry driver had seen the vehicle and knew the driver was about to drive into the side of them they could have slowed down slightly but i think the car driver was the one asleep.

BigSaver69

Justin - noted but I disagree with your assertion that the lorry was under no obligation. We all have an obligation to avoid an accident if it is within our ability to do so. How do we know if the driver of the car was suffering a stroke? One must mitigate the possibility of an accident - to ignore this obligation is reckless.

Let me put it this way. If somebody was about to shoot you and I as a bystander that had the ability to stop it (without anyone getting hurt) would it be considered OK to let the shooter pump you full of bullets? I suppose I am under no obligation to stop it but I think common sense should prevail.

JustinR1979

BigSaver69 wrote: »

Justin - noted but I disagree with your assertion that the lorry was under no obligation. We all have an obligation to avoid an accident if it is within our ability to do so. How do we know if the driver of the car was suffering a stroke?

Same way we don't know if lorry driver was having one or not.


"Might is right" and this video demonstrates that nicely.


If you were 3 foot tall you wouldn't pick a fight with a 7 foot body builder, that would be suicidal.

BigSaver69

I don't think the driver of the car is in the right - he/she is most certainly in the wrong. But that doesn't absolve the lorry driver of his/her duty of care.

The lorry driver had a better view point of what was happening or about to happen but did nothing to prevent it. Therefore the lorry driver is just a guilty as the car driver.

JustinR1979

BigSaver69 wrote: »

Therefore the lorry driver is just a guilty as the car driver.

According to who, you? Or the Highway Code?


Do you not think the car deserved it for being so stupid?

tbourner

BigSaver69 wrote: »

Let me put it this way. If somebody was about to shoot you and I as a bystander that had the ability to stop it (without anyone getting hurt) would it be considered OK to let the shooter pump you full of bullets? I suppose I am under no obligation to stop it but I think common sense should prevail.

That's not exactly analogous though is it, to make the analogy fair it would be that someone is shooting a gun randomly at someone and you have the option to leave that person where they are or move them to another position - because you don't know if the shooter is going to aim straight or left or right your best course of action would be to do nothing otherwise you may make the situation worse by your action, particularly so if you assume that the shooter is unlikely to purposefully shoot someone.

In the video example, unfortunately the shooter was aiming straight ahead and the guy got shot - hindsight is great in that you should have moved him out the way, but at the time there was no logic in doing that.

The trucker HAD to assume the driver would do something other than drive into him - if he'd slowed down, the (slowing) driver may have been more likely to crash, if he'd sped up, the (speeding up) driver may have been more likely to crash, if he'd moved into the second lane (having not been prepared to) he'd be increasing the chances of causing an accident in his other blind spot.

Also, how many times do you think it takes for a trucker to slow down, move over etc. before realising that 99% of cars will just use their better performance and manoeuvrability to simply blast out of danger leaving the trucker to get back up to speed or have to move back over; having not actually put the car in any danger in the first place.

JustinR1979

You move out, they join then what?
Usually toe it up your inside, making you look a tool.
Or sit there blocking you for mile after mile slowing everyone down.
Or slow down, let you in, then have to overtake you, so they could just slow down and save you moving out slowing down all the traffic that are getting on with it.


People need to try not exceeding 56mph in their cars no matter what, see how they get on.


At least lorry speed limits are going up soon, shame the limiters won't be.

Captaincodpiece

BigSaver69 wrote: »

Capitan Cod - That is a total exaggeration.
Firstly - you don't know how big the truck was but a 11 ton truck should have 2-3x stopping distance of a car.
Secondly - trucks come with brakes which can be applied much harder than what was used.
Thirdly - The truck driver should have slowed down when the car approached him to put more distance between him and the truck in front - he didn't do this because he was probably asleep.

I have been in trucks and have driven them - the driver of the truck could have clearly avoided this situation.

At 30moh the highway code says 23 metres for a car.

Mira say a laden 42 tonne artic and trailer can stop in 27 metres.

I'd say trucks brake better than you think.