Hit by a Woolworths Lorry.

Crabman

HenryWeston wrote: »

And sheeple who pass the car test should think before doing silly things like undertaking artics on roundabouts / not giving them enough space to manoeuvre at junctions etc, most people have only got themselves to blame when their car gets damaged. i think thats what the police were trying to tell you:rolleyes:

There was no roundabout involved here. The fact is the HGV driver should have been in proper control of his vehicle, that includes proper observation. If they ripped someone's bumper off without noticing then they clearly shouldn't be in control of an HGV.

I can't see what a driver in this situation could have done? What would you suggest?

mrbadexample

Crabman wrote: »

If they ripped someone's bumper off without noticing then they clearly shouldn't be in control of an HGV.

Actually, it's probably quite easy to do. Modern artics can pull so much weight, so easily, that the driver may well not have even felt it. I've seen an artic catch a just-opened car door with it's rear under-run bumper, drag the car 30 yards uphill, sideways, and the artic driver didn't know. It's only an extra tonne or so.

elite_2

HenryWeston wrote: »

And sheeple who pass the car test should think before doing silly things like undertaking artics on roundabouts / not giving them enough space to manoeuvre at junctions etc, most people have only got themselves to blame when their car gets damaged. i think thats what the police were trying to tell you:rolleyes:

But that is just bad driving...

Without hijacking the thread, this is what happened to me:

Lorry pulls alongside (undertaking) and then scrapes/clips my car, forcing me into oncoming traffic due to a (legally) parked car in the lorry's lane. - That's my fault then?

The police officer I spoke to explained that the damage didn't warrant the investigation (with there being no witnesses). She did however log with both insurance companies stating that although no one admitted liability it seemed unliley that the car driver was at fault

Crabman

mrbadexample wrote: »

Actually, it's probably quite easy to do. Modern artics can pull so much weight, so easily, that the driver may well not have even felt it. I've seen an artic catch a just-opened car door with it's rear under-run bumper, drag the car 30 yards uphill, sideways, and the artic driver didn't know. It's only an extra tonne or so.

Of course it's easy to do, that's why proper drivers use their mirrors

If someone can drag a car 30 yards without noticing anything at all, no glancing in any mirrors, etc. then they should have their licence revoked. No excuse for that.

quidsin

This just sucks, the action i would take would be- they have admitted they had a lorry in the area, if the value of the damage is more less than the hassle of following it up, i'd take wollies to the small claims court, it would be up to them to deny the collision took place, if you have a witness, and you get a good judge it won't matter who's driving as its yourself v wollies and not yourself v driver.

Conor_3

lynzpower wrote: »

why does it matter that woolworths had 4 vans in the area at the time.

the fact you have a witness saying it was a woolworths van surely is enough to point the finger squarely at woolies.

Two problems:
1) Woolworths don't run their own lorries. They may be in Woolworths colours but they could be run by a few different hauliers. For example, Tesco used to use Wincanton, Power Logistics, Eddie Stobarts and DHL - all in Tesco livery.

2)People make fraudulent claims against hauliers. A wagon can hit a car and not notice and it wouldn't necessarily leave any damage on the wagon, so they're an easy target.

"I was hit by one of your lorries" rings alarm bells with a transport office. Giving a registration and/or trailer number gets you taken more seriously.

Conor_3

Crabman wrote: »

There was no roundabout involved here. The fact is the HGV driver should have been in proper control of his vehicle, that includes proper observation. If they ripped someone's bumper off without noticing then they clearly shouldn't be in control of an HGV.

Why? Physics obviously isn't a strong point. It's a big vehicle, with a whacking engine, weighing around 17 tonnes when empty with the rear up to 53ft away from the driver. You actually have to hit a car either in a very obvious place where you see it or quite hard to notice it.

A plastic bumper held on by some plastic clips is hardly going to be noticed is it?

Conor_3

Crabman wrote: »

Of course it's easy to do, that's why proper drivers use their mirrors

If someone can drag a car 30 yards without noticing anything at all, no glancing in any mirrors, etc. then they should have their licence revoked. No excuse for that.

Go out and drive an artic then come back and tell me you still think that.

Driving up the road, I cannot see any cars directly behind me. Something to do with the lorry being about 2ft wider than a car.

elite_2

Conor wrote: »

Go out and drive an artic then come back and tell me you still think that.

Driving up the road, I cannot see any cars directly behind me. Something to do with the lorry being about 2ft wider than a car.

Never driven an artic, but surely the whole point of the hgv test is to ensure the competance of the driver, ensuring they are aware of their vehicle size, and therefore the clearence they need when making a manover. OP stated they were wating at traffic lights

Edit: This isn't to excuse idiotic behavior of some car drivers around hgvs, but both OP and (I believe) myself were inocent bystanders...

Crabman

Mirrors should still be used at all times - if they made contact with a child/pushchair and dragged that up the road (heaven forbid) your excuse would still stand? That the child/pushchair wasn't heavy enough to be noticed?

We are talking about vehicles on the side of the HGV as in the OP's incident. Not behind the HGV; not sure that's even relevant to this discussion.

The fact here is that if the HGV had been using mirrors effectively and properly, the vehicle would not have been struck and this entire situation could have been avoided.