What a dreadful accident.... Two dead in six vehicle M6 crash
Mr X
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6054494.stm
Two dead in six vehicle M6 crash
Two people have been killed and two more left seriously injured after a
six vehicle crash on the M6 motorway.
Cheshire Police said two articulated lorries and a transit van collided
on the northbound carriageway near junction 19 and Knutsford services.
They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
articulated lorry, a van and a car.
A police spokeswoman said most of the motorway between junctions 19 and
18 is closed apart from two lanes northbound.
Drivers are warned to expect long tailbacks.
The two people who are seriously injured were taken to Leighton
Hospital, Crewe, while others were treated at the scene.
========================================================================
What a dreadful and tragic accident.
Not just for the "original" parties to the accident - the two artics and
the transit van, and not just for the poor emergency services who have
to "clean up the mess" but because of the totally inadequate central
reservation barriers we seem have inflicted upon us in this country.
I have noticed from travelling in France that the new pay motorways have
very substantial concrete central barriers (in the shape of an inverted
'Y') and at such a height that cars can use their full headlights at
night without dazzling drivers on the opposite carriageway.
"They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
articulated lorry, a van and a car"
So this part of the accident was entirely preventable. Is this a money
thing?
--
Mr X
Fod
On Oct 16, 2:45 pm, Mr X <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> I have noticed from travelling in France that the new pay motorways have
> very substantial concrete central barriers (in the shape of an inverted
> 'Y') and at such a height that cars can use their full headlights at
> night without dazzling drivers on the opposite carriageway.
>
> "They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
> articulated lorry, a van and a car"
>
> So this part of the accident was entirely preventable. Is this a money
> thing?
No idea. The upgrading of the A8 near me uses concrete central
barriers though not in the Y shape, just a thick barrier about 1 metre
high. Whether or not this will be on going or just for upgrades to
busy roads time will tell.
Fod
Malcolm Stewart
news:yiTQtMA5...@privacy.net...
> "They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
> articulated lorry, a van and a car"
>
> So this part of the accident was entirely preventable. Is this a money
> thing?
> --
> Mr X
Following the fairly recent roadworks, there's new style concrete barriers
on the M1 north of the M1/M6 junction.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Steve Firth
> So this part of the accident was entirely preventable.
Possibly not, there's no certainty that a solid barrier would prevent
crossover accidents. Such accidents still occur in France and in Italy
where such barriers are common.
> Is this a money thing?
Mostly it's a safety thing. A solid concrete barrier causes a vehicle to
rebound into the traffic on the same carriageway, more often than not. It
also does not absorb energy from the impact hence vehicles bounced back
into the running lanes still have a lot of KE and carnage occurs on that
side of the motorway as a vehicle bounces and spins into the following
traffic.
Armco and wire rope barriers constrain the vehicle by deforming and
absorbing energy. They actually guide the vehicle was well as stopping it
from crossing the motorway, and they slow the vehicle progressively.
Unfortunately although Armco can constrain a 44 tonne vehicle, it's not so
hot at stopping two of them.
Peter Johnson
<malcolm...@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Following the fairly recent roadworks, there's new style concrete barriers
>on the M1 north of the M1/M6 junction.
>
There's a section of the M25, near the M1, with them as well.
John B
Indeed, when I've seen concrete barriers in use in the UK it's only
been where widening work has eaten into the central reservation to the
point where there wouldn't be room for a conventional Armco barrier.
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Mr X
<%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
>On 16 Oct 2006 08:45:02 -0500, Mr X wrote:
>
>> So this part of the accident was entirely preventable.
>
>Possibly not, there's no certainty that a solid barrier would prevent
>crossover accidents. Such accidents still occur in France and in Italy
>where such barriers are common.
The big concrete ones? What happens when a vehicle goes across? Does it
smash the concrete or does it jump over?
I've seen the semi-circular tyre marks on the French ones where a
vehicle hits the barrier, goes up, and then down...
>> Is this a money thing?
>
>Mostly it's a safety thing. A solid concrete barrier causes a vehicle to
>rebound into the traffic on the same carriageway, more often than not. It
>also does not absorb energy from the impact hence vehicles bounced back
>into the running lanes still have a lot of KE and carnage occurs on that
>side of the motorway as a vehicle bounces and spins into the following
>traffic.
Ok, understood...
>Armco and wire rope barriers constrain the vehicle by deforming and
>absorbing energy. They actually guide the vehicle was well as stopping it
>from crossing the motorway, and they slow the vehicle progressively.
>
>Unfortunately although Armco can constrain a 44 tonne vehicle, it's not so
>hot at stopping two of them.
Yes, the problem with Armco seems to be the supporting posts falling
over rather than the barrier itself..
Thank you for your insight.
--
Mr X
Jerry
If I recall cirrectly the posts are designed to do just that, so that they
don't cut into the car.
Mr X
<J...@home.com> writes
>If I recall cirrectly the posts are designed to do just that, so that they
>don't cut into the car.
Thanks. I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Would you just
expand a wee bit?
--
Mr X
Steve Firth
>>Possibly not, there's no certainty that a solid barrier would prevent
>>crossover accidents. Such accidents still occur in France and in Italy
>>where such barriers are common.
>
> The big concrete ones? What happens when a vehicle goes across? Does it
> smash the concrete or does it jump over?
I've seen both, large vehicles can smash right through. The barrier isn't
as solid as it looks. The important feature is the foot of the barrier. The
inverted Y shape is supposed to steer the front wheels of the vehicle and
constrain it to remain on the same carriageway or at least to strike the
barrier a glancing blow rather than 90 degrees.
I've also seen vehicles that have hopped over the barrier. I think that
this happens most often when <something> on the motorway causes the front
end to lift, such as hitting a vehicle that is already stationary, or
hitting street furniture.
That last problem is being handled to an extent by replacing the solid
steel tube supports for signs etc with latticework aluminium which crumples
on impact, rather than falling onto the road to cause an effective take-off
ramp.
Steve Firth
For both Armco and wire rope, the posts are designed to break or release
the barrier when hit hard enough. The barrier then soaks up energy by
deforming but should not deform sufficiently to allow the vehicle to cross
onto the other side.
The videos of a car hitting either form of barrier are instructive, the
barrier fence itself can be seen to break from the posts then stretch
around the vehicle slowing it and constraining it to running along the
outside lane without bouncing back into traffic. Sadly I can't find any
video on the web that shows how it works.
LionOfTheSouth
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6uc8bycaemxm$.109jyshaln4tb.dlg@40tude.net...
Could this have been due to one of the artics having a blow out? I have
recently passed my Class 1 test, and was told by an instructor that a lot of
accidents occur because a lorry driver is driving along,casually holding the
steering wheel,maybe one handed,maybe even with just a couple of
fingers.Front tyre blows out,and the steering pulls so hard and so fast that
if you are not concentrating fully, you will be over the other side of the
road before you know it.If lucky you will end up just casuing a lot of
damage to the vehicle and the central reservation as well as some broken
fingers.if not, a lot of people die. A fully laden artic can be what? 44
tons?
Mr X
LionOfTheSouth <lion_of_...@hotmail.com> writes
>A fully laden artic can be what? 44
>tons?
48? And maybe many of the foreign ones are overloaded?
--
Mr X
Stu
It's not just you, I can't find it on the internet either.
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f8he5bq7lppt.1kpea8qxjop48$.dlg@40tude.net...
Brimstone
> Could this have been due to one of the artics having a blow out? I
> have recently passed my Class 1 test, and was told by an instructor
> that a lot of accidents occur because a lorry driver is driving
> along,casually holding the steering wheel,maybe one handed,maybe even
> with just a couple of fingers.Front tyre blows out,and the steering
> pulls so hard and so fast that if you are not concentrating fully,
> you will be over the other side of the road before you know it.If
> lucky you will end up just casuing a lot of damage to the vehicle and
> the central reservation as well as some broken fingers.if not, a lot
> of people die. A fully laden artic can be what? 44 tons?
You've *just* passed your test and don't know the maximum permitted weight
for a lorry (special loads excepted)?
Steve Firth
> Could this have been due to one of the artics having a blow out?
I honestly have no idea.
> I have
> recently passed my Class 1 test, and was told by an instructor that a lot of
> accidents occur because a lorry driver is driving along,casually holding the
> steering wheel,maybe one handed,maybe even with just a couple of
> fingers.Front tyre blows out,and the steering pulls so hard and so fast that
> if you are not concentrating fully, you will be over the other side of the
> road before you know it.If lucky you will end up just casuing a lot of
> damage to the vehicle and the central reservation as well as some broken
> fingers.if not, a lot of people die.
My memory is that the most common blowout is the inside tyre on the trailer
or the inside tyre on one of the rears of the tractor unit.
Certainly when I see blowouts via CCTV it's usually one of those, which I
guess is because it's difficult to see damage on these tyres. Steering
blowouts seem very rare.
Given it was two artics and a van, fuckwittery on the part of one or more
drivers seems likely. The only time I have been close to an accident like
this was when the driver in front of me swerved from L3 to L2 without using
mirrors. As they did so, they got close to whacking a van driver in L2 who
swerved into L1 and as he did so was smacked by an HGV that rolled the van
up like the lid on a sardine tin.
The driver causing the accident got away scot free.
> A fully laden artic can be what? 44 tons?
At present, and all barriers will have to be replaced if we go to heavier
vehicles.
PC Paul
There's a few here (going wrong...) :
This one starts slow but has a range of barriers shown:
PC Paul
Nono, he's just passed the *Class 1* test. That's petrol tankers, nasty
acids, the if-it-crashes-run-like-hell class of HGV.
Shouldn't think they cover things like maximum loads on that...
Brimstone
"Class One" is the slang term for the old HGV Class One driving licence, now
officially known as C+E and entitles someone to drive vehicles over 3500kg
with a trailer over 750kg.
The load is irrelevant, except if it's a hazardous load then the driver has
to have had additional trining to deal with that type of load.
When I was learning to drive a coach part of the instruction covered both
passenger and goods vehicles and maximum loads were part of that.
Alex Flaherty
Mr X wrote:
> Monday, 16 October 2006, 12:42 UK
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6054494.stm
>
> Two dead in six vehicle M6 crash
>
> Two people have been killed and two more left seriously injured after a
> six vehicle crash on the M6 motorway.
>
> Cheshire Police said two articulated lorries and a transit van collided
> on the northbound carriageway near junction 19 and Knutsford services.
>
> They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
> articulated lorry, a van and a car.
>
> A police spokeswoman said most of the motorway between junctions 19 and
> 18 is closed apart from two lanes northbound.
>
> Drivers are warned to expect long tailbacks.
>
It's always amazed me that supposedly "qualified" British drivers
encounter extreme difficulty in propelling a vehicle in the same
direction as hundreds of others around them without managing to become
involved in a collision.
For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
manage to crash into each other?
Brimstone
>
> It's always amazed me that supposedly "qualified" British drivers
> encounter extreme difficulty in propelling a vehicle in the same
> direction as hundreds of others around them without managing to become
> involved in a collision.
>
> For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
> manage to crash into each other?
With skill and dedication.
Alex Flaherty
Brimstone wrote:
>
> With skill and dedication.
There was an accident recently around here which caused a closure (both
ways) of the M4 and delays of almost five hours for those unfortunate
enough to have been caught up in it.
The estimated loss to local industry (all things considered) was
something like £200k.
I'm all for pointing the finger at the guilty party and making them
(via their insurers) personally liable for the entire amount.
I can guarantee any future premiums they would be forced to pay would
make it financially impossible for them to ever drive a motor vehicle
again.
Stu
Easy answer is accidents will always occur, either due to human error,
mechanical failure or unforeseen circumstances.
For you to make such a statement, just shows that you have a bit of an
ignorant attitude and think it could never happen to you. You are wrong as
there are too many factors to be able to compensate for, no matter how good
a driver you think you are, sometimes you are not as in control as you think
you are. It is possible to greatly reduce your chances of being involved in
a accident, but not eliminate your chances.
"Alex Flaherty" <vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote in message
news:1161023717.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Tunku
> I'm all for pointing the finger at the guilty party and making them
> (via their insurers) personally liable for the entire amount.
>
> I can guarantee any future premiums they would be forced to pay would
> make it financially impossible for them to ever drive a motor vehicle
> again.
>
Just don't fall asleep at the wheel and land on a railway track, or all
your chickens will come home to roost at the same time. ;-)
--
Tunku
"end user" v. A command regrettably not implemented in most systems.
Martin Milan
> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>
> Not just for the "original" parties to the accident - the two artics
> and the transit van, and not just for the poor emergency services who
> have to "clean up the mess" but because of the totally inadequate
> central reservation barriers we seem have inflicted upon us in this
> country.
>
> I have noticed from travelling in France that the new pay motorways
> have very substantial concrete central barriers (in the shape of an
> inverted 'Y') and at such a height that cars can use their full
> headlights at night without dazzling drivers on the opposite
> carriageway.
>
> "They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
> articulated lorry, a van and a car"
>
> So this part of the accident was entirely preventable. Is this a money
> thing?
Try going on the A1 between Darlington and Durham - they have these
stupid post and chain dividers now - deadly - especially for bikes.
Alex Heney
<vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
They don't.
So you can cancel your "amazement".
if they had such "extreme difficulty", then the death rate on our
roads would be *far* higher than it is, and not just to the extent of
being on a par with most other European motorways (which are almost
all more dangerous places than ours), but way beyond that.
>
>For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
>manage to crash into each other?
People make mistakes. Mechanical failures happen (although these cause
far fewer accidents than human error).
But neither happen very often, in the scheme of things. Yes, if you
listen to the radio travel reports, there are usually one or two
motorways partially closed at any time due to accidents.
But there are *millions* of drivers use the motorways every day. Who
have a few hundred accidents between them, most of which are very
minor (even on the motorways).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The road to success is always under construction.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Cynic
<vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
>It's always amazed me that supposedly "qualified" British drivers
>encounter extreme difficulty in propelling a vehicle in the same
>direction as hundreds of others around them without managing to become
>involved in a collision.
>
>For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
>manage to crash into each other?
Yup - just carry on with that, "It could never happen to me,"
attitude, and you'll come a cropper one day. We are *all* capable of
making mistakes, even you.
--
Cynic
Conor
says...
> Certainly when I see blowouts via CCTV it's usually one of those, which I
> guess is because it's difficult to see damage on these tyres. Steering
> blowouts seem very rare.
In 14 years and 1.7 million miles, the only blowouts I've ever had have
all been on the trailers. When performing tight turns at delivery
points/shit junctions, the trailer tyres get a real hammering and are
subject to a lot of force applied sideways which can't be good for the
sidewalls.
--
Conor
I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.
Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
Conor
Alex Flaherty says...
> For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
> manage to crash into each other?
>
15 hour days/84hr weeks and 3am starts/finishes don't help.
Mr X
<conor....@gmail.com> writes
>In article <1161023717.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>Alex Flaherty says...
>
>> For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
>> manage to crash into each other?
>>
>15 hour days/84hr weeks and 3am starts/finishes don't help.
Does your tacho approve of that?
--
Mr X
TripleS
I seem to recall seeing a video of a large lorry hitting an Armco type
barrier, but that was a good few years ago.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Daytona
>There's a few here (going wrong...) :
>
><http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/collections/video/2003285294_cablebarrier/2003285295_cabletest1.html>
>
>This one starts slow but has a range of barriers shown:
>
><http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/collections/video/2003285294_cablebarrier/2003285297_cabletest3.html>
I posted a link here
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_thread/thread/89d562b9856b0ae8/fc506b71024aadaf?#fc506b71024aadaf>
when the subject was last discussed.
Daytona
Daytona
wrote:
>Unfortunately although Armco can constrain a 44 tonne vehicle,
I didn't think that it could, and I'm not talking about tipping over
after impact due to the cog. The energy contained by a 44t object at
56mph is huge.
My previous rudimentary efforts at calculating the energy -
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.driving/browse_thread/thread/89d562b9856b0ae8/77809fec86eefba8?#77809fec86eefba8>
Daytona
Conor
3x11 hr daily rests (13hr working day) and 3x 9hr reduced daily rests
(15hr working day) = (13x3)+(15x3)=84.
Mr X
<conor....@gmail.com> writes
>In article <UFwpUMAw...@privacy.net>, Mr X says...
>> In article <MPG.1f9ef6a02...@news.individual.net>, Conor
>> <conor....@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> >In article <1161023717.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Alex Flaherty says...
>> >
>> >> For Christ's sake, you're all going in the same direction, how do you
>> >> manage to crash into each other?
>> >>
>> >15 hour days/84hr weeks and 3am starts/finishes don't help.
>>
>> Does your tacho approve of that?
>>
>Perfectly legal.
>
>3x11 hr daily rests (13hr working day) and 3x 9hr reduced daily rests
>(15hr working day) = (13x3)+(15x3)=84.
Cheers! I hope you get paid for all those hours!
--
Mr X
Conor
> >3x11 hr daily rests (13hr working day) and 3x 9hr reduced daily rests
> >(15hr working day) = (13x3)+(15x3)=84.
>
> Cheers! I hope you get paid for all those hours!
>
No bloody way I'd work that TBH. Heard plenty of old timers moaning
when they don't get a 70+hr week in. Personally, I like to try and have
a little bit of a life outside work.
tjf
>
>> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>>
>> Not just for the "original" parties to the accident - the two artics
>> and the transit van, and not just for the poor emergency services who
>> have to "clean up the mess" but because of the totally inadequate
>> central reservation barriers we seem have inflicted upon us in this
>> country.
>>
>> I have noticed from travelling in France that the new pay motorways
>> have very substantial concrete central barriers (in the shape of an
>> inverted 'Y') and at such a height that cars can use their full
>> headlights at night without dazzling drivers on the opposite
>> carriageway.
As has been mentioned, they are starting to appear in the UK too now,
on roads that have been updated. However, they don't appear to be as
high as you say the French ones are, and instead of the inverted 'Y',
they seem to be utilising the patented 'launch pad' shape instead.
This is on the M6, near J12.
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/2359fe4029.jpg
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/4482/imgp3248zq0.jpg
I know these pics make me look like some sort of central reservation
spotter, but I'm not!!
>>
>> "They smashed through the central reservation colliding with another
>> articulated lorry, a van and a car"
>>
>> So this part of the accident was entirely preventable. Is this a money
>> thing?
>
>Try going on the A1 between Darlington and Durham - they have these
>stupid post and chain dividers now - deadly - especially for bikes.
The dual carriageway (or one of them anyway, I don't know if there is
another one coming from somewhere else) going to Windermere from the
M6 is a little crazy in places too. Firstly, most of it doesn't even
have central reservation barriers anyway, despite the road being ultra
bumpy and drivers in the outside lanes flying round the tight corners
at 90mph--there's just a strip of grass separating the lanes. I guess
back when this road was being designed, someone must have thought that
that was a little dangerous, and so further along, they decided to
implement some sort of preventative measure to stop cars crossing to
the other side. Shame the idea they finally landed on was a long row
of huge oak trees!! Nice and safe, man!!
The whole road is a truely surreal experience to drive on, when
compared to the safer(-looking) things we see all the time elsewhere.
iiiiDougiiii
Mr X wrote:
> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>
It wasn't an accident, it was yet another road crash waiting to happen.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
Clive Coleman.
iiiiDougiiii <do...@zing.icom43.net> writes
>It wasn't an accident,
should be dual carriageway along all it's length.
--
Clive.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>Mr X wrote:
>
>> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>>
>It wasn't an accident,
So you are saying it was deliberate?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Software Independent: Won't work with ANY software.
Jerry
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:rka1k2d5a7ii9tl00...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Oct 2006 23:48:48 -0700, "iiiiDougiiii" <do...@zing.icom43.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Mr X wrote:
>>
>>> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>>>
>>It wasn't an accident,
>
> So you are saying it was deliberate?
It is likely that someone drove like a twat to cause it; surely the only
real accidents on the road are caused by unpreventable mechanical failure,
or unseeable road damage, fallen trees, etc.
People need to be more accountable for their actions on the roads.
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com>
Mr X wrote:
> Yes, the problem with Armco seems to be the supporting posts falling
> over rather than the barrier itself..
They're meant to - this is how some of the energy is absorbed.
What's crucial is that the Armco stays in one continuous strip
(stopping the vehicle from going through it). As the vehicle is already
travelling parallel to the Armco then breakable posts are OK as they
fail in sequence and the vehicle is stopped eventually by the next port
along. This would be different for a vehicle heading perpendicular
towards the Armco that needed to be stopped on the first impact.
A few years ago there was also a bolting problem with the installation
of some motorway Armco. By overlapping in the wrong sequence, the
ability to not separate was compromising (the joint should be in
compression under an accident, not in tenson and just relying on the
bolts). The whole lot had to be re-erected.
Alex Heney
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:rka1k2d5a7ii9tl00...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Oct 2006 23:48:48 -0700, "iiiiDougiiii" <do...@zing.icom43.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mr X wrote:
>>>
>>>> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>>>>
>>>It wasn't an accident,
>>
>> So you are saying it was deliberate?
>
>It is likely that someone drove like a twat to cause it;
Very possibly.
>surely the only
>real accidents on the road are caused by unpreventable mechanical failure,
>or unseeable road damage, fallen trees, etc.
Look up the meaning of "accident".
Clue: it doesn't mean "nobody's fault".
>People need to be more accountable for their actions on the roads.
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with this question.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My hat covers my head... Just like hair used to!
Jerry
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:43:12 GMT, "Jerry" <J...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:rka1k2d5a7ii9tl00...@4ax.com...
>>> On 25 Oct 2006 23:48:48 -0700, "iiiiDougiiii" <do...@zing.icom43.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mr X wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>>>>>
>>>>It wasn't an accident,
>>>
>>> So you are saying it was deliberate?
>>
>>It is likely that someone drove like a twat to cause it;
>
> Very possibly.
>
>>surely the only
>>real accidents on the road are caused by unpreventable mechanical failure,
>>or unseeable road damage, fallen trees, etc.
>
> Look up the meaning of "accident".
Look up the meaning of "responsible"
Alex Flaherty
Cynic wrote:
>
> Yup - just carry on with that, "It could never happen to me,"
> attitude, and you'll come a cropper one day. We are *all* capable of
> making mistakes, even you.
>
> --
> Cynic
I will...............but in the meantime, yet another example of
clumsiness closed the M4 and M32 exit junction this
week.............the inside lane of the M4 regularly gets jammed up
with everyone wanting to come off at the M32 and you always get the
morons who want to use that very exit but use the middle lane
(presumably because they consider themselves superior to everyone else
and aren't worthy to sit and queue like other mere mortals).
On this particular occasion, somebody decided to do just that but, upon
realising there were no gaps to dart into, chose to stop and indicate
left. In the middle lane.
Yep, I'll repeat that. He stopped in the *middle* lane of the M4 with
his left indicator on.
An articulated lorry smashed into him at approximately 40mph and the
motorway was closed for 3 hours. Cost to the local economy?
Apparently another £180k.
I repeat: what is it with British motorists that they are unable to
propel their vehicles in the same direction as everyone else without
colliding with other vehicles?
Brimstone
> I repeat: what is it with British motorists that they are unable to
> propel their vehicles in the same direction as everyone else without
> colliding with other vehicles?
Skill and dedication, just like every other race on the planet that uses
motorised vehicles.
Adrian
like they were saying :
> On this particular occasion, somebody decided to do just that but, upon
> realising there were no gaps to dart into, chose to stop and indicate
> left. In the middle lane.
>
> Yep, I'll repeat that. He stopped in the *middle* lane of the M4 with
> his left indicator on.
Not uncommon at all. The M25/M4 junction is notorious for it, as is the
M25/Staines junction. And, I'm sure, many others...
> An articulated lorry smashed into him at approximately 40mph and the
> motorway was closed for 3 hours. Cost to the local economy?
> Apparently another £180k.
>
> I repeat: what is it with British motorists that they are unable to
> propel their vehicles in the same direction as everyone else without
> colliding with other vehicles?
I'd say that - whilst there is a heavy degree of contributory stupidity
from the car driver - that one is fair and square the trucker's fault,
unless the car driver suddenly dipped over from L3 whilst slamming all on.
Since we all know that British HGV drivers are infallible, it must have
been Johnny Foreigner.
Alex Flaherty
Adrian wrote:
>
> I'd say that - whilst there is a heavy degree of contributory stupidity
> from the car driver - that one is fair and square the trucker's fault,
> unless the car driver suddenly dipped over from L3 whilst slamming all on.
>
> Since we all know that British HGV drivers are infallible, it must have
> been Johnny Foreigner.
For "heavy degree of contributory stupidity" I assume you mean 100%
liability (unless you're a lawyer in Blair's Britain of course).
I don't believe anyone thick enough to *stop* in the middle lane of any
motorway for no reason other than "they got in the wrong lane" can not
expect to be rear-ended by traffic.
Likewise, anyone travelling in an otherwise clear middle lane should
not have to be expected to be confronted with a moron parked up waiting
for a gap to appear in the inside lane.
The fact that it's been suggested that the trucker is to blame for such
a very incident demonstrates precisely why this country has gone to
ratshit.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> I'd say that - whilst there is a heavy degree of contributory
>> stupidity from the car driver - that one is fair and square the
>> trucker's fault, unless the car driver suddenly dipped over from L3
>> whilst slamming all on.
> For "heavy degree of contributory stupidity" I assume you mean 100%
> liability (unless you're a lawyer in Blair's Britain of course).
No, I certainly do not, nor am I a lawyer. I just believe in plain bloody
common sense and placing blame where it's due.
> I don't believe anyone thick enough to *stop* in the middle lane of
> any motorway for no reason other than "they got in the wrong lane" can
> not expect to be rear-ended by traffic.
It's _every_ driver's responsibility not to go tanking into a stationary
vehicle at 40mph - no matter _how_ fucking stupid the driver of that
vehicle is being.
> Likewise, anyone travelling in an otherwise clear middle lane should
> not have to be expected to be confronted with a moron parked up
> waiting for a gap to appear in the inside lane.
Sorry, how was it "not ... to be expected"?
It's a frequent occurence on many motorways - and the very fact that L1 was
so solid stationary was a fairly bloody good indicator that it may well
happen. I also rather suspect that the tit that stopped had been pootling
with his left indicator on looking for gaps for a distance, giving plenty
of cues that
I *VERY* much doubt that this particular moron suddenly beamed in from L3
right in front of the truck, slamming all on with gay abandon. IF he did,
then, yes, that changes the issue somewhat. As I think you'll find I
already said.
> The fact that it's been suggested that the trucker is to blame for
> such a very incident demonstrates precisely why this country has gone
> to ratshit.
Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a stationary
vehicle at speed. End of.
Brimstone
> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a stationary
> vehicle at speed. End of.
Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary) motorway
permitted?
Alex Flaherty
Brimstone wrote:
>
> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary) motorway
> permitted?
>From reading Adrian's posts, apparently so. And woe betide you if you
collide with anyone so doing.
As I said, the country's gone to ratshit.
Adrian
they were saying :
>> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a stationary
Is that strictly relevant? Like I said - contributory stupidity from the
fuckwit who decided to stop? Absolutely no question that it was present.
Does that absolve the truck driver from plastering into the vehicle in
front of him? No. Of course it doesn't. Almost certainly following too
close, and probably not paying sufficient attention.
Adrian
much like they were saying :
>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>> motorway permitted?
> From reading Adrian's posts, apparently so.
Then you aren't reading my posts properly.
> And woe betide you if you collide with anyone so doing.
Woe betide you if you collide with the rear of any stationary vehicle.
If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
There's a big piece of glass in front of you which (in the unlikely event
it's used properly) does a remarkable job of helping alert you to such
eventualities.
Van Helsing
have stopped for any number of legitimate reasons. Is the truck allowed
to hit him because the truck driver didn't like his reasons for stopping?
The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is if the
car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning, stopped directly
in front of the truck placing the truck driver in a 'no choice' situation.
VH.
Brimstone
> Alex Flaherty (vanessa...@webtribe.net) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>>> motorway permitted?
>
>> From reading Adrian's posts, apparently so.
>
> Then you aren't reading my posts properly.
>
>> And woe betide you if you collide with anyone so doing.
>
> Woe betide you if you collide with the rear of any stationary vehicle.
>
> If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
Not necessarily true.
Brimstone
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>
>>> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a
>>> stationary vehicle at speed. End of.
>>
>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>> motorway permitted?
>>
>>
> Probably not - I have no idea. But it doesn't matter - the guy could
> have stopped for any number of legitimate reasons. Is the truck
> allowed to hit him because the truck driver didn't like his reasons
> for stopping?
If you didn't ask stupid questions you wouldn't get stupid answers.
>
> The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is if
> the car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning, stopped
> directly in front of the truck placing the truck driver in a 'no
> choice' situation.
Don't talk crap.
Knight Of The Road
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote
> If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
Not neccessarily. Legally, it is held to be negligence to stop a vehicle on
a motorway without cause.
--
Regards, Vince.
www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk
Van Helsing
> Van Helsing wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a
>>>> stationary vehicle at speed. End of.
>>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>>> motorway permitted?
>>>
>>>
>> Probably not - I have no idea. But it doesn't matter - the guy could
>> have stopped for any number of legitimate reasons. Is the truck
>> allowed to hit him because the truck driver didn't like his reasons
>> for stopping?
>
> If you didn't ask stupid questions you wouldn't get stupid answers.
OK - let me use less emotive language....
Assuming the car in question had been travelling in the middle lane for
an appreciable period prior to the impact are there any circumstances in
which a lorry can impact it from the rear and not be to blame?
>
>> The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is if
>> the car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning, stopped
>> directly in front of the truck placing the truck driver in a 'no
>> choice' situation.
>
> Don't talk crap.
I'm prepared to accept my arguments may be flawed. However I would
appreciate
more constructive feedback.
VH.
Brimstone
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Van Helsing wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a
>>>>> stationary vehicle at speed. End of.
>>>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>>>> motorway permitted?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Probably not - I have no idea. But it doesn't matter - the guy could
>>> have stopped for any number of legitimate reasons. Is the truck
>>> allowed to hit him because the truck driver didn't like his reasons
>>> for stopping?
>>
>> If you didn't ask stupid questions you wouldn't get stupid answers.
>
> OK - let me use less emotive language....
> Assuming the car in question had been travelling in the middle lane
> for an appreciable period prior to the impact are there any
> circumstances in which a lorry can impact it from the rear and not be
> to blame?
Stopping on the motorway without due cause is an offence. Therefore the car
driver is at fault.
>>> The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is if
>>> the car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning, stopped
>>> directly in front of the truck placing the truck driver in a 'no
>>> choice' situation.
>>
>> Don't talk crap.
> I'm prepared to accept my arguments may be flawed. However I would
> appreciate
> more constructive feedback.
Ask sensible questions or make sensible comments and you'll get sensible
responses.
Cynic
<vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
>Yep, I'll repeat that. He stopped in the *middle* lane of the M4 with
>his left indicator on.
>
>An articulated lorry smashed into him at approximately 40mph and the
>motorway was closed for 3 hours. Cost to the local economy?
>Apparently another £180k.
You appear to believe that the main fault lay with the car driver,
whereas the lorry driver is most to blame. The obstruction was
perfectly visible.
An obstruction can occur for lots of reasons besides bad driving. Had
the car been stopped due to mechanical problems or a traffic jam, you
would no doubt have expected the lorry driver to have been able to
stop in time.
--
Cynic
Mark Horton
The only way I could possibly think that the trucker could not be to
blame is the one that you yourself stated. Ie the driver of the vehicle
in front pulled a suicidal last minute manoeuvre, leaving no time for
the vehicle following to react. Also malicious braking could also be
another get out. Both of these scenarios would need either independent
witnesses or that the driver had videoed the events with a dashboard
mounted camera.
It is normally the accepted rule that the driver of the following
vehicle that is at fault if he hits the rear of the vehicle in front.
Mark
Cynic
<vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
>I don't believe anyone thick enough to *stop* in the middle lane of any
>motorway for no reason other than "they got in the wrong lane" can not
>expect to be rear-ended by traffic.
Why do you believe that the reason the car driver stopped should have
any effect whatsoever on the obligation for the lorry driver to be
able to stop in time? you have stated that the lane to the left of
the car was blocked by solid traffic for quite a distance, so if the
car had suffered a mechanical problem, the driver would have *had* to
have stopped in the same place.
It appears that your attitude toward driving is as faulty as those you
denigrate.
--
Cynic
Cynic
In the situation described, a seized engine would have made it
impossible to do anything else.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
>Not necessarily true.
Not necessarily, but there are very few circumstances where it would
not be, and the situation descibed is not one of them.
--
Cynic
Van Helsing
> Van Helsing wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Van Helsing wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a
>>>>>> stationary vehicle at speed. End of.
>>>>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>>>>> motorway permitted?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Probably not - I have no idea. But it doesn't matter - the guy could
>>>> have stopped for any number of legitimate reasons. Is the truck
>>>> allowed to hit him because the truck driver didn't like his reasons
>>>> for stopping?
>>> If you didn't ask stupid questions you wouldn't get stupid answers.
>> OK - let me use less emotive language....
>> Assuming the car in question had been travelling in the middle lane
>> for an appreciable period prior to the impact are there any
>> circumstances in which a lorry can impact it from the rear and not be
>> to blame?
>
> Stopping on the motorway without due cause is an offence. Therefore the car
> driver is at fault.
I still don't think it absolves the lorry driver from blame (unless....
see below). The fact remains he hit a stationary object. It may have
been the case the car driver did not have a legit reason to stop. It may
also have been the case the card driver did have a legit. reason to stop
no immediately obvious to the driver of the lorry.
>
>
>>>> The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is if
>>>> the car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning, stopped
>>>> directly in front of the truck placing the truck driver in a 'no
>>>> choice' situation.
>>> Don't talk crap.
>> I'm prepared to accept my arguments may be flawed. However I would
>> appreciate
>> more constructive feedback.
>
> Ask sensible questions or make sensible comments and you'll get sensible
> responses.
All right fuckwit, I will.
The basis of my point is that is is entirely possible for the action of
one driver to put another driver in such a situation such that an
accident is inevitable regardless of what the second driver does.
VH.
Brimstone
In the instance described the car driver had no reason to stop, assuming
there wasn't another stopped car in font of him which appears to be the
case,
>>>>> The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is
>>>>> if the car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning,
>>>>> stopped directly in front of the truck placing the truck driver
>>>>> in a 'no choice' situation.
>>>> Don't talk crap.
>>> I'm prepared to accept my arguments may be flawed. However I would
>>> appreciate
>>> more constructive feedback.
>>
>> Ask sensible questions or make sensible comments and you'll get
>> sensible responses.
>
> All right fuckwit, I will.
It's you who's changed therefore it's you who's the fuckwit.
> The basis of my point is that is is entirely possible for the action
> of one driver to put another driver in such a situation such that an
> accident is inevitable regardless of what the second driver does.
Quite true.
Alex Heney
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:tc34k212b347mc3h2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:43:12 GMT, "Jerry" <J...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:rka1k2d5a7ii9tl00...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 25 Oct 2006 23:48:48 -0700, "iiiiDougiiii" <do...@zing.icom43.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mr X wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What a dreadful and tragic accident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It wasn't an accident,
>>>>
>>>> So you are saying it was deliberate?
>>>
>>>It is likely that someone drove like a twat to cause it;
>>
>> Very possibly.
>>
>>>surely the only
>>>real accidents on the road are caused by unpreventable mechanical failure,
>>>or unseeable road damage, fallen trees, etc.
>>
>> Look up the meaning of "accident".
>
>Look up the meaning of "responsible"
>
I know the meaning of responsible.
It makes not the slightest difference to my point.
Being responsible for it does not mean it wasn't an accident.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Death sneaks up on you as a windshield sneaks up on a bug.
Brimstone
Never heard of dipping the clutch and coasting?
Alex Heney
<vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
I repeat.
there is NOTHING with British motorists that they are unable to do
what the VAST majority of them manage to do perfectly well.
You can always find incidents such as the above piece of stupidity.
But they are rare. Single figure numbers per day severe enough to
close the motorway out of several MILLION who use the motorways every
day.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Give a woman an inch and she thinks she's a ruler.
Van Helsing
>
> In the instance described the car driver had no reason to stop, assuming
> there wasn't another stopped car in font of him which appears to be the
> case,
>
No obvious or stated reason for the action of the car, but how does that
affect the blame attached to the driver of the truck.
>
> It's you who's changed therefore it's you who's the fuckwit.
>
Apart from shifting from a specific example of the concept to the
concept itself what makes the example "crap" but the concept valid.
Fuckwit
VH.
Alex Heney
<vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
>
>Adrian wrote:
>>
>> I'd say that - whilst there is a heavy degree of contributory stupidity
>> from the car driver - that one is fair and square the trucker's fault,
>> unless the car driver suddenly dipped over from L3 whilst slamming all on.
>>
>> Since we all know that British HGV drivers are infallible, it must have
>> been Johnny Foreigner.
>
>For "heavy degree of contributory stupidity" I assume you mean 100%
>liability (unless you're a lawyer in Blair's Britain of course).
>
Only an utter idiot could possibly think that.
Even on the motorway, you should ALWAYS be able to stop within what
you can see. It is NEVER 100% the fault of a stopping vehicle when
somebody runs into the back of them, unless they have changed lane as
well as stopping.
>I don't believe anyone thick enough to *stop* in the middle lane of any
>motorway for no reason other than "they got in the wrong lane" can not
>expect to be rear-ended by traffic.
>
>Likewise, anyone travelling in an otherwise clear middle lane should
>not have to be expected to be confronted with a moron parked up waiting
>for a gap to appear in the inside lane.
>
>The fact that it's been suggested that the trucker is to blame for such
>a very incident demonstrates precisely why this country has gone to
>ratshit.
The fact you think he might not be to blame at all demonstrates that
you should never be allowed near a motor vehicle.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you associate with the wise, you will become wise.
Alex Heney
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No, of course it isn't.
But that only means that the car driver contributed to the accident.
It does not absolve the truck driver from the majority of the
liability.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press on a small rodent's head to obtain file.
Alex Heney
<russiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
>> If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
>
>
>Not neccessarily. Legally, it is held to be negligence to stop a vehicle on
>a motorway without cause.
Cite?
Cynic
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stopping on the motorway without due cause is an offence. Therefore the car
>driver is at fault.
You are mistaken if you believe that culpability for an accident
always rests with the driver who has committed an offence.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
>Van Helsing wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Van Helsing wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a
>>>>>> stationary vehicle at speed. End of.
>>>>> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
>>>>> motorway permitted?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Probably not - I have no idea. But it doesn't matter - the guy could
>>>> have stopped for any number of legitimate reasons. Is the truck
>>>> allowed to hit him because the truck driver didn't like his reasons
>>>> for stopping?
>>>
>>> If you didn't ask stupid questions you wouldn't get stupid answers.
>>
>> OK - let me use less emotive language....
>> Assuming the car in question had been travelling in the middle lane
>> for an appreciable period prior to the impact are there any
>> circumstances in which a lorry can impact it from the rear and not be
>> to blame?
>
>Stopping on the motorway without due cause is an offence. Therefore the car
>driver is at fault.
>
Any chance of answering the question?
He wasn't asking whether the car driver was at fault.
He was asking whether there are any circumstances where the truck
driver would NOT be at fault (clue: BOTH drivers may well have been at
fault. It isn't all-or-nothing).
>
>>>> The only mitigation for the truck driver, as others have said, is if
>>>> the car pulled over from lane 3, and with minimal warning, stopped
>>>> directly in front of the truck placing the truck driver in a 'no
>>>> choice' situation.
>>>
>>> Don't talk crap.
>> I'm prepared to accept my arguments may be flawed. However I would
>> appreciate
>> more constructive feedback.
>
>Ask sensible questions or make sensible comments and you'll get sensible
>responses.
>
He did.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Internal combustion engines are the dinosaurs' revenge
Cynic
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In the situation described, a seized engine would have made it
>> impossible to do anything else.
>Never heard of dipping the clutch and coasting?
That is exactly what I would expect to have happened. You cannot
however coast for long before coming to a halt, and if the lane to
your left is nose-to-tail with traffic, you will not be able to pull
over onto the hard shoulder.
--
Cynic
Knight Of The Road
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> In the situation described, a seized engine would have made it
> impossible to do anything else.
How often do engines "seize up" nowadays?
--
Regards, Vince.
www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk
gh
wrote:
>
>The fact you think he might not be to blame at all demonstrates that
>you should never be allowed near a motor vehicle.
Yes, but in fairness your recent history demonstrate that you should
never be allowed near a computer, but you're still fucking here
Cynic
<russiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In the situation described, a seized engine would have made it
>> impossible to do anything else.
>How often do engines "seize up" nowadays?
About as often as motorway accidents, I should think. It happened to
me a few years ago.
In any case, a seized engine was just one example. Any number of
mechanical problems can make it impossible to continue driving, and
with a traffic jam on the lane to your left, what else can a driver do
except to stop in the carriageway?
--
Cynic
Phil Bradshaw
> Assuming the car in question had been travelling in the middle lane for
> an appreciable period prior to the impact are there any circumstances in
> which a lorry can impact it from the rear and not be to blame?
>
car; if that veered off into L3 close to the stopped car then the following
driver may not have had that choice or possibly chose rear-ending rather
than rollover as more survivable all round.
The stopping would appear to be /prima facie/ cause.
Conor
Adrian says...
vehicles?
>
> I'd say that - whilst there is a heavy degree of contributory stupidity
> from the car driver - that one is fair and square the trucker's fault,
> unless the car driver suddenly dipped over from L3 whilst slamming all on.
...which is usually the case IME. Fuck what's behind them as long as
they don't miss their exit.
--
Conor
I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.
Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
Conor
Adrian says...
>
> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a stationary
> vehicle at speed. End of.
>
WRONG.
Conor
Adrian says...
> Alex Flaherty (vanessa...@webtribe.net) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
> >> Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary)
> >> motorway permitted?
>
>
> Then you aren't reading my posts properly.
>
> > And woe betide you if you collide with anyone so doing.
>
> Woe betide you if you collide with the rear of any stationary vehicle.
> If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
>
> it's used properly) does a remarkable job of helping alert you to such
> eventualities.
>
WRONG.
If a car pulls from L3 into the path of a HGV then slams on the brakes
coming to a complete stop, resulting in the HGV rearending him, the car
driver will be the one charged.
Conor
says...
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:53:33 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Adrian wrote:
> >
> >> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a stationary
> >> vehicle at speed. End of.
> >
> >Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary) motorway
> >permitted?
> >
>
> No, of course it isn't.
>
> But that only means that the car driver contributed to the accident.
>
> It does not absolve the truck driver from the majority of the
> liability.
>
Conor
says...
> Even on the motorway, you should ALWAYS be able to stop within what
> you can see. It is NEVER 100% the fault of a stopping vehicle when
> somebody runs into the back of them, unless they have changed lane as
> well as stopping.
>
WRONG.
Conor
> On 28 Oct 2006 10:46:15 -0700, "Alex Flaherty"
> <vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
>
> >Yep, I'll repeat that. He stopped in the *middle* lane of the M4 with
> >his left indicator on.
> >
> >An articulated lorry smashed into him at approximately 40mph and the
> >motorway was closed for 3 hours. Cost to the local economy?
> >Apparently another £180k.
>
> whereas the lorry driver is most to blame. The obstruction was
> perfectly visible.
>
It can be as visible as you like but if the lorry driver wasn't given
enough room to be able to stop in time, it isn't his fault.
You should try driving something 40 times heavier than a shitty car and
try to bring it to a stop from 56...
Michael Swift
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>That is exactly what I would expect to have happened. You cannot
>however coast for long before coming to a halt, and if the lane to your
>left is nose-to-tail with traffic, you will not be able to pull over
>onto the hard shoulder.
#2 son had a complete electrical failure in the middle lane of the M62
in the rush hour heading from Huddersfield to Manchester, no lights, no
power, nothing, he was sat there in a transit waiting to be hit for 10
minutes until the police arrived, he was *very* lucky and *very*
frightened.
Serves him right for working outside G.O.C. :-)
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Michael Swift
<conor....@gmail.com> writes
>You should try driving something 40 times heavier than a shitty car and
>try to bring it to a stop from 56...
Then surely the driver should be 40 times more careful.
H.G.V. Drivers used to be known as the 'Knights of the Road', from my
admittedly limited motorway driving they should be now known as the
'Killers of the Road'.
I've lost count of the times I've joined a busy motorway and so am stuck
in the inside lane with a large wagon 3 inches from my back bumper.
Michael Swift
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>You can always find incidents such as the above piece of stupidity. But
>they are rare. Single figure numbers per day severe enough to close the
>motorway out of several MILLION who use the motorways every day.
The last time I saw stats. I'm sure we had less accidents than many of
our continental neighbours.
Conor
> In article <MPG.1faddec5c...@news.individual.net>, Conor
> <conor....@gmail.com> writes
> >You should try driving something 40 times heavier than a shitty car and
> >try to bring it to a stop from 56...
>
> Then surely the driver should be 40 times more careful.
>
> H.G.V. Drivers used to be known as the 'Knights of the Road', from my
> admittedly limited motorway driving they should be now known as the
> 'Killers of the Road'.
>
Oh go fuck yourself. We have far less accidents than you. I'm currently
at 1.7 million miles both points and accident free. You? Will you
actually ever drive 1.7 million miles in your entire pathetic life?
> I've lost count of the times I've joined a busy motorway and so am stuck
> in the inside lane with a large wagon 3 inches from my back bumper.
>
You've only yourself to blame for that but as a typical dumb fuck car
driver, you can't see why.
Stop diving into the gap they're trying to leave between them and the
vehicle in front as a safety zone.
Conor
> In article <o0f7k217lscm9udej...@4ax.com>, Cynic
> <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >That is exactly what I would expect to have happened. You cannot
> >however coast for long before coming to a halt, and if the lane to your
> >left is nose-to-tail with traffic, you will not be able to pull over
> >onto the hard shoulder.
>
> #2 son had a complete electrical failure in the middle lane of the M62
> in the rush hour heading from Huddersfield to Manchester, no lights, no
> power, nothing, he was sat there in a transit waiting to be hit for 10
> minutes until the police arrived, he was *very* lucky and *very*
> frightened.
>
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In article <loe7k2dnclsir335n...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>says...
>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:53:33 +0100, "Brimstone"
>> <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Adrian wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bollocks. It was the trucker's fault. He hit the rear of a stationary
>> >> vehicle at speed. End of.
>> >
>> >Is stopping on an otherwise clear (accepted that L1 was stationary) motorway
>> >permitted?
>> >
>>
>> No, of course it isn't.
>>
>> But that only means that the car driver contributed to the accident.
>>
>> It does not absolve the truck driver from the majority of the
>> liability.
>>
>It does if the fuckwit in the car slammed all on.
WRONG.
It does if the car driver *also* changed lanes suddenly.
If he didn't, then the truck driver is mainly to blame.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Volcano -- a mountain with hiccups.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In article <lhe7k2t084ij0p4s1...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>says...
>
>> Even on the motorway, you should ALWAYS be able to stop within what
>> you can see. It is NEVER 100% the fault of a stopping vehicle when
>> somebody runs into the back of them, unless they have changed lane as
>> well as stopping.
>>
>WRONG.
No, you are.
There was nothing even slightly wrong in what I said, and I really do
not see how you can possibly think otherwise, while claiming to be a
driver.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's never too late to have a happy childhood
Alex Heney
Any particular reason you might think that?
Even without the "fairness"?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
In politics stupidity is not a handicap.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>In article <kpc7k2157eaho20kc...@4ax.com>, Cynic says...
>> On 28 Oct 2006 10:46:15 -0700, "Alex Flaherty"
>> <vanessa...@webtribe.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Yep, I'll repeat that. He stopped in the *middle* lane of the M4 with
>> >his left indicator on.
>> >
>> >An articulated lorry smashed into him at approximately 40mph and the
>> >motorway was closed for 3 hours. Cost to the local economy?
>> >Apparently another Ł180k.
>>
>> You appear to believe that the main fault lay with the car driver,
>> whereas the lorry driver is most to blame. The obstruction was
>> perfectly visible.
>>
>It can be as visible as you like but if the lorry driver wasn't given
>enough room to be able to stop in time, it isn't his fault.
>
>You should try driving something 40 times heavier than a shitty car and
>try to bring it to a stop from 56...
It doesn't matter *what* you are driving. If you cannot stop within
what you can see, then you are not driving safely.
If the brakes/tyres are not sufficient to bring you to a halt as fast
as the car, then you leave a bigger gap.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Can't learn to do something well? Learn to enjoy doing it badly!
Alex Heney
<mike....@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vbe7k2hk5p09105ts...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>You can always find incidents such as the above piece of stupidity. But
>>they are rare. Single figure numbers per day severe enough to close the
>>motorway out of several MILLION who use the motorways every day.
>
>The last time I saw stats. I'm sure we had less accidents than many of
>our continental neighbours.
>
You appear to have added "m" on the front of the word "any" -
spellcheckers will not pick that up :-)
Cynic
wrote:
>> Woe betide you if you collide with the rear of any stationary vehicle.
>>
>> If you pile into a stationary vehicle, it's your fault. End of story.
>>
>> There's a big piece of glass in front of you which (in the unlikely event
>> it's used properly) does a remarkable job of helping alert you to such
>> eventualities.
>>
>WRONG.
>If a car pulls from L3 into the path of a HGV then slams on the brakes
>coming to a complete stop, resulting in the HGV rearending him, the car
>driver will be the one charged.
Yes, that has already been cited as an exception to the general rule.
--
Cynic
Michael Swift
<conor....@gmail.com> writes
>> #2 son had a complete electrical failure in the middle lane of the M62
>> in the rush hour heading from Huddersfield to Manchester, no lights, no
>> power, nothing, he was sat there in a transit waiting to be hit for 10
>> minutes until the police arrived, he was *very* lucky and *very*
>> frightened.
>>
>Perhaps he should get a decent van.
Couple of years old, how descent do you want?
Michael Swift
<conor....@gmail.com> writes
>> Then surely the driver should be 40 times more careful.
>>
>Bit hard when you cunts do all you can to cause accidents.
>
>> H.G.V. Drivers used to be known as the 'Knights of the Road', from my
>> admittedly limited motorway driving they should be now known as the
>> 'Killers of the Road'.
>>
>Oh go fuck yourself. We have far less accidents than you. I'm currently
>at 1.7 million miles both points and accident free. You? Will you
>actually ever drive 1.7 million miles in your entire pathetic life?
>
>> I've lost count of the times I've joined a busy motorway and so am stuck
>> in the inside lane with a large wagon 3 inches from my back bumper.
>>
>You've only yourself to blame for that but as a typical dumb fuck car
>driver, you can't see why. Stop diving into the gap they're trying to
>leave between them and the vehicle in front as a safety zone.
>
selfish, ignorant twats who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anything
more dangerous then a peddle cycle, and a three wheeler at that.
Michael Swift
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>>The last time I saw stats. I'm sure we had less accidents than many of
>>our continental neighbours.
>>
>
>You appear to have added "m" on the front of the word "any" -
>spellcheckers will not pick that up :-)
LOL, I know how picky some of the posters to this group are so I was
hedging my bet a bit, I thought we had the safest motorways in Europe
but was being careful.