# Nice HGV driver - doesn't see car.



## BentMikey (17 Mar 2010)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caPmw3OVQMo


----------



## Davywalnuts (17 Mar 2010)

Shocking!!!


----------



## dan_bo (17 Mar 2010)

shoot!


----------



## magnatom (17 Mar 2010)

That can't be real...can it!? If it is it is truly shocking!


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 Mar 2010)

That's exactly what happened to my Wife last year, although fortunately the driver had a passenger who noticed he'd clipped my Wife's car and turned it in front of the HGV.. so he stopped.

My youngest Daughter was in the child seat in the back, and my Sis-inLaw over from Canada in the passenger seat which ended up nearest the front of the HGV!!!!

Unbelievable!


----------



## 2Loose (17 Mar 2010)

OMG! he really doesn't know the car is there does he!


----------



## Twenty Inch (17 Mar 2010)

My mate used to drive lorries - part of their training was to park a car in front of the cab, climb in the cab, and then realise that you couldn't see the car - the field of vision starts about 6 metres in front of the cab. Round my way, some lorries now have horizontal mirrors in front of the windscreen so that drivers can see precisely that front-of-cab blind spot.


----------



## semislickstick (17 Mar 2010)

Is that real or a stunt?
Wouldn't you be beeping your horn like mad?
Wouldn't other traffic try to warn the lorry? Not much traffic around for the lorry to be in the fast/middle lane.


If anyone wants to ask them.....http://www.arclidtransport.co.uk/contact.asp


----------



## thomas (17 Mar 2010)

semislickstick said:


> Is that real or a stunt?
> Wouldn't you be beeping your horn like mad?
> Wouldn't other traffic try to warn the lorry? Not much traffic around for the lorry to be in the fast/middle lane.
> 
> ...



Looked pretty real. I think if something like that happened sensible reactions of what to do would go out the window.

Very weird & scary.


----------



## semislickstick (17 Mar 2010)

thomas said:


> Looked pretty real. I think if something like that happened sensible reactions of what to do would go out the window.
> 
> Very weird & scary.




Just thought it would be easy to find in online news.

I couldn't find it.


----------



## Tynan (17 Mar 2010)

that clip of the truck nearly killing Boris Johnson on the back road is the manic one, where the back door swings open and picks a range rover up in the air and throws it across the road


----------



## Rhythm Thief (17 Mar 2010)

I like the way the car has its brake lights on. 

DAF 95s - which that was - have a huge blind spot immediately in front of the windscreen. It's quite possible to "lose" a car in there, and when your truck weighs 44 tonnes it'd be fairly easy to miss the bump, too. I once hit a car without realising it.


----------



## StuartG (17 Mar 2010)

When I was driving lorries in the late 1960s quite a few had windows at floor level on both sides so you could see what was around the front sides of you.

One would have thought a proximity warning device would be useful too.

But it comes back to the regulators - allowing designs with significant blind spots anywhere should be a no-no.


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Mar 2010)

That is awful.

I notice some lorries have cameras...at the rear at least.


----------



## mr_cellophane (17 Mar 2010)

Clio, 90% plastic so hardly any weight there.
I saw a lorry turn a car 90 degrees on the M6 by Fort Dunlop last year. I was going the opposite way, but I think the lorry driver knew. If he breaks too hard is it possible that the car will then carry on on its' own momentum and is then likely to flip over.
Your instinct would be to stamp on the brake, you would probably be so busy sh1tting yourself, you wouldn't take it off.


----------



## StuartG (17 Mar 2010)

Here is the sort of vehicle: http://www.visionmotorservices.co.uk/cridge/d/511-3/Morris+FG+livestock+transporter.jpg

Smaller than the above but the same principal could be applied


----------



## Rhythm Thief (17 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> But it comes back to the regulators - allowing designs with significant blind spots anywhere should be a no-no.



Yes, that's true enough. In my last job I drove a Renault Magnum which, while a very tall cab, had a windscreen the size of a football pitch. I could see far more in front of me than I've been able to in other cabs. The modern DAFs have a blind spot mirror above the windsccreen, which is a step in the right direction, but I don't understand why more manufacturers haven't adopted some of the ideas Renault introduced in the Magnum.


----------



## StuartG (17 Mar 2010)

So Rhythm Thief - which truck models should we cyclists be especially very, very afraid of when they pull up close behind us at the traffic lights?


----------



## quidditys_shore (17 Mar 2010)

that is shocking! anyone know what happened after?

for me lorry drivers are the worst on the roads as most dont seem to understand how dangerous what they are driving is.

couple of months ago i was going to work (morrisons) on the bus at 7am. came to a crossroads where the lights had been green for about 5-10 seconds. just going through when the driver had to slam on his breaks because a morrisons wagon came flying through on red! 
i got to work & tried to find the driver but the store manager got to me first & told me that i didnt know what i was talking about, that i had no experience of driving a HGV or how long it takes to stop! he said it was better for him to go through the red (IF it was red!) than slam on his breaks, jack knife the wagon & cause more injury!


----------



## 4F (17 Mar 2010)

quidditys_shore said:


> that is shocking! anyone know what happened after?
> 
> for me lorry drivers are the worst on the roads as most dont seem to understand how dangerous what they are driving is.



I am sorry but that is way too much of a sweeping generalisation. There are many good lorry drivers out there and yes a few idiots.

As they drive for a living I would have to say that the general standard of driving from HGV drivers is far superior to many many car drivers.

And no I do not drive a lorry.


----------



## Jezston (17 Mar 2010)

Tynan said:


> that clip of the truck nearly killing Boris Johnson on the back road is the manic one, where the back door swings open and picks a range rover up in the air and throws it across the road



Wait what? I want to see this!


----------



## magnatom (17 Mar 2010)

4F said:


> I am sorry but that is way too much of a sweeping generalisation. There are many good lorry drivers out there and yes a few idiots.
> 
> As they drive for a living I would have to say that the general standard of driving from HGV drivers is far superior to many many car drivers.
> 
> And no I do not drive a lorry.



+1

That is despite the very nasty incident I had with the tanker. Some of my best treatment is from HGV drivers.


----------



## dodgy (17 Mar 2010)

Jezston said:


> Wait what? I want to see this!




View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyO4Y210eFo


----------



## downfader (17 Mar 2010)

Wasnt a road rage driver of a smaller lorry banned and imprisoned for doing something similar recently? It was on the Beeb site, but I cant remember much about it.

If its real it is shocking, but there again you can never tell half the time. If its fake its very well done and very convincing.


----------



## semislickstick (17 Mar 2010)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG6Gri_BCsQ


Same vid, posted by different user month earlier.

We'd have all seen this on the news if it was real....wouldn't we?


----------



## dodgy (17 Mar 2010)

He says in the other video that he had to repost it because he had the video the wrong way up.


----------



## semislickstick (17 Mar 2010)

dodgy said:


> He says in the other video that he had to repost it because he had the video the wrong way up.



Different user and its now the M1 not the A1.


----------



## downfader (17 Mar 2010)

dodgy said:


> He says in the other video that he had to repost it because he had the video the wrong way up.



Two different accounts, both with "I will repost". Sounds dodgy.


----------



## dodgy (17 Mar 2010)

Ah right, looking more and more like a well executed fake.


----------



## quidditys_shore (17 Mar 2010)

4F said:


> I am sorry but that is way too much of a sweeping generalisation. There are many good lorry drivers out there and yes a few idiots.
> 
> As they drive for a living I would have to say that the general standard of driving from HGV drivers is far superior to many many car drivers.
> 
> And no I do not drive a lorry.





what i ment was, of the bad driving that i've encountered there's been a higher preportion of it from lorry drivers than form others. the vast majority are good, its just those that arent are far more dangerous than car drivers because of the size & weight of vechile they drive


----------



## StuartG (17 Mar 2010)

dodgy said:


> Ah right, looking more and more like a well executed fake.


Could be. The car tyres don't appear to be under any stress. One would have thought they would have shredded being pushed sideways for so long and at least caused the car to shake. No bits flying off or plumes. But if it is a fake it is awfully well done. Just like: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCgZnqbbhQo


----------



## tightwad (17 Mar 2010)

quidditys_shore said:


> that is shocking! *anyone know what happened after?*
> 
> for me lorry drivers are the worst on the roads as most dont seem to understand how dangerous what they are driving is.
> 
> ...


Yes, according to eye-witnesses, the lorry driver pushed the car back to the Clio driver's house. Whereupon a massive argument started when the driver accused 'Yorkie' of taking the long way home. 
Police were called and the Clio was impounded due to the state of the tyres, which showed significant wear. Officer Jones stated: 'In all my years of being a traffic cop I have never met a car driver with a more cavalier attitude to driving. The tyres were worn down to the wheel bearings. It's one thing to tailgate a lorry in order to save a little fuel here and there but honestly bumming a ride at the front of the lorry - well he's just taking the p*ss.'


----------



## dodgy (17 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> Could be. The car tyres don't appear to be under any stress. One would have thought they would have shredded being pushed sideways for so long and at least caused the car to shake. No bits flying off or plumes. But if it is a fake it is awfully well done. Just like:
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCgZnqbbhQo




The road was damp, but yeah, I agree. I don't know if it's fake or not, I've not actually ever seen a truck pushing a clio on the motorway so don't know what it looks like in real life


----------



## palinurus (17 Mar 2010)

I really shouldn't've spent so much time reading the comments.

This one is class though:

"Yeah because they staged a 22 second video just for that.... It isn't fake. It does happen. It's like saying "That dog pee'd in our toilet.. Its so fake" It does happen. Dogs have pee'd in a toilet. Some dogs are very smart. Man I love dogs."


----------



## hackbike 666 (17 Mar 2010)

I just realised that that car wasn't wearing hi-viz...or a helmut.


----------



## Crankarm (17 Mar 2010)

Presumably the lorry driver must have seen the car prior to it going into the blind spot? Was he asleep or having a w**k? Surely he would have felt/noticed the impact of the car hitting the front of his truck? He should definitely be taken off the road and banned as he is clearly lethal.


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2010)

It must be a fake IMO, the lorry driver had to notice something in the build up to the car getting in that position.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (18 Mar 2010)

HLaB said:


> It must be a fake IMO, the lorry driver had to notice something in the build up to the car getting in that position.



Not necessarily ... I've "lost" a car in the blindspot on the nearside of the cab in that very model of truck before now, and I can easily imagine a situation on a motorway where the car driver gets into that blindspot without the driver seeing him. Say - and I have no way of knowing if this is what actually happened - the lorry driver is in the middle lane overtaking another truck. The car driver enters the motorway at a slip road unseen by the lorry driver, who then pulls back across, quite properly, into the inside lane. In doing so, he clips the back of the car, spinning it around into the front of his truck. All accomplished within the driver's blind spots and all without the sort of impact which the driver of something weighing 44 tonnes might be expected to notice.


----------



## tightwad (18 Mar 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Not necessarily ... I've "lost" a car in the blindspot on the nearside of the cab in that very model of truck before now, and I can easily imagine a situation on a motorway where the car driver gets into that blindspot without the driver seeing him. Say - and I have no way of knowing if this is what actually happened - the lorry driver is in the middle lane overtaking another truck. The car driver enters the motorway at a slip road unseen by the lorry driver, who then pulls back across, quite properly, into the inside lane. In doing so, he clips the back of the car, spinning it around into the front of his truck. All accomplished within the driver's blind spots and all without the sort of impact which the driver of something weighing 44 tonnes might be expected to notice.



You thought about driving a snow plough?


----------



## just jim (18 Mar 2010)

I think it's faked, or part of some viral campaign.
Edit/ campaign for heaven knows what but hey it's the wild west interweb.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Mar 2010)

It's exactly the position a car will end up in if clipped at the rear by an HGV. It might be fake, but I think there's a good chance it isn't.


----------



## BigSteev (18 Mar 2010)

According to Sky News where both the company concerned admit to an incident and the police who are investigating it, it's genuine.


----------



## StuartG (18 Mar 2010)

If you google "arclid transport a1 m1" you will see sky is just one of many media organisations reporting it on 18/03. None before. Not only have Sky copied the video in to their own format (with permission?) but the different media seem to be copying words from each other on the same day. Except there are at least two conflicting statements from Arclid.

So who verified what is unclear. What is pretty certain is this thread was what gave this old story 'legs'. It is now in a speedy gallop!


----------



## Twenty Inch (18 Mar 2010)

I've found the Sky article too. I can believe it - I've seen a truck pull out to change lanes on the M20 and clip an estate car on the nearside rear bumper. It bounced the car across 2 lanes and a 360 degree pirouette like you or I would kick a cuddly toy across the room, without diverting from its trajectory.


----------



## Tenorman (18 Mar 2010)

Twas just shown on the BBC 1 o'clock news too, where they said the company have confirmed it as being genuine. How come it's taken so long to appear when the incident was supposed to have happened in January?


----------



## jayonabike (18 Mar 2010)

So it WAS real then....jesus


----------



## Bman (18 Mar 2010)

Shocking.


----------



## Plax (18 Mar 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8574609.stm


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (18 Mar 2010)

bloody hell it's was real. why did the police not sort it out in jan?


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Mar 2010)

bromptonfb said:


> bloody hell it's was real. why did the police not sort it out in jan?



They did, and wrote it off (from evidence at the time) to be a damage-only RTC.

They are now investigating further due to the video.


----------



## chap (18 Mar 2010)

Plax said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8574609.stm



Being a spokesman must be one of the most soul destroying experiences on the planet. In a bid to shirk responsibility some anonymous wretch with a bad suit for a personality comes on and states in monotone an abstraction the absolute obvious.

'An incident took place'

Had the car driver died then we would hear: 'Lessons have been learnt'.

Why these people are allowed to get away with this rubbish shows the absolute lack of accountability required from anyone with power/ money.


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Not necessarily ... I've "lost" a car in the blindspot on the nearside of the cab in that very model of truck before now, and I can easily imagine a situation on a motorway where the car driver gets into that blindspot without the driver seeing him. Say - and I have no way of knowing if this is what actually happened - the lorry driver is in the middle lane overtaking another truck. The car driver enters the motorway at a slip road unseen by the lorry driver, who then pulls back across, quite properly, into the inside lane. In doing so, he clips the back of the car, spinning it around into the front of his truck. All accomplished within the driver's blind spots and all without the sort of impact which the driver of something weighing 44 tonnes might be expected to notice.


 Mind you IIRC there was a case on the M50 (Dublin) where two trucks converging at the toll booth queues did not notice the car they were gradually crushing.


----------



## BlueDog (18 Mar 2010)

Not sure what this guys excuse is though


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJ2BHoqnfE


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2010)

BlueDog said:


> Not sure what this guys excuse is though
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJ2BHoqnfE



He can normally drive under that bridge, they must of lowered it


----------



## magnatom (18 Mar 2010)

Has anyone seen this linked video.


----------



## HLaB (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> Has anyone seen this linked video.


 One very, very, very....... lucky man!


----------



## MacB (18 Mar 2010)

I'm still feeling suspect about the original footage, maybe I'm too suspicious, but it does seem to be gliding too smoothly.


----------



## Tynan (18 Mar 2010)

magnatom said:


> Has anyone seen this linked video.



dear god, what exactly do they use for level crossings in Turkey, how did he get out of that alive


----------



## BenM (18 Mar 2010)

MacB said:


> I'm still feeling suspect about the original footage, maybe I'm too suspicious, but it does seem to be gliding too smoothly.


More detail on the BBC


----------



## CopperBrompton (18 Mar 2010)

It's genuine, but it now seems clear the driver was perfectly well aware the car was there - it's being pursued now as a road-rage incident.


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Mar 2010)

Mmm, doubt the video is real would have been on every news station within hours, also whoever was filming it just happened to be in the right place for an extended period of time.
I saw a scary one about 3 years ago on the A14, I was driving about 100m behind a truck and saw it hit a car door which had just been opened in a layby. The door just exploded and disintegrated, 2 or 3 seconds later that would have been a dead person.
I memorised the truck number plate and company and reported what I had seen to the local cop shop. This was the interesting bit, in spite of it happening on a very busy road [near Bar Hill] nobody else had taken note of the truck. The police were extremely thankful as the car owner was in shock and would also otherwise be facing a large bill.


----------



## CopperBrompton (19 Mar 2010)

It is real: it's on the BBC news site


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Mar 2010)

totallyfixed said:


> I saw a scary one about 3 years ago on the A14, I was driving about 100m behind a truck and saw it hit a car door which had just been opened in a layby. The door just exploded and disintegrated, 2 or 3 seconds later that would have been a dead person.
> I memorised the truck number plate and company and reported what I had seen to the local cop shop. This was the interesting bit, in spite of it happening on a very busy road [near Bar Hill] nobody else had taken note of the truck. The police were extremely thankful as the car owner was in shock and would also otherwise be facing a large bill.



First rule of opening your car door into the inside lane of a dual carriageway is: don't. Second rule is look in your mirror first.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Mar 2010)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> It's genuine, but it now seems clear the driver was perfectly well aware the car was there - it's being pursued now as a road-rage incident.



In that case - and I still maintain a similar scenario would be possible without the driver knowing about it immediately - I hope they nail the silly bastard. Having an HGV licence comes with certain responsibilities which include not doing something like that when you're having a bad day.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Mar 2010)

totallyfixed said:


> I saw a scary one about 3 years ago on the A14, I was driving about 100m behind a truck and saw it hit a car door which had just been opened in a layby. The door just exploded and disintegrated, 2 or 3 seconds later that would have been a dead person.
> I memorised the truck number plate and company and reported what I had seen to the local cop shop. This was the interesting bit, in spite of it happening on a very busy road [near Bar Hill] nobody else had taken note of the truck. The police were extremely thankful as the car owner was in shock and would also otherwise be facing a large bill.



I think that's the fault of the car driver surely, or were there extenuating circumstances?

"Highway code rule 239:
you *MUST* ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic"

Who remembers that driver being pulled over by the cops on one of the TV cops programmes, and getting his door taken off by a tank transporter?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Mar 2010)

I worked with another driver once who told me that he'd been driving past a police car on the hard shoulder of the motorway when the policeman decided to open the door. He stopped as quickly as he could and ran back to find the copper sitting ashen faced with one of his driving gloves missing where it had gone with the car door . And a terrible smell, because he'd, er, soiled himself, for which one can hardly blame him.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Mar 2010)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ivers-to-get-wedged-under-lorry-201003192575/


----------



## magnatom (19 Mar 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ivers-to-get-wedged-under-lorry-201003192575/




Excellent!


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I think that's the fault of the car driver surely, or were there extenuating circumstances?
> 
> "Highway code rule 239:
> you *MUST* ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic"
> ...



On this occasion it was the truck drivers fault as he had veered out of his lane, however as RT says unlikely he would have felt anything.
I admit I didn't witness this one but in the Army a tank driver in his Chieftain pancaked a German car [and I do mean pancaked in the literal sense of the word], Knew nothing about it until he was hauled up in front of the C.O. The story goes that the German guy had left his car in an Army exercise area to walk his dog, the look on his face when he got back to what was left of his car must have been priceless.


----------



## Origamist (26 May 2010)

A lorry driver who was shown on YouTube driving along a motorway with a car trapped in front of his cab has been told he can keep his licence. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/10162158.stm


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 May 2010)

Good. As I said earlier in the thread, having driven that very model of truck I can easily understand how a car could get into that position without the driver knowing anything about it. It's an argument for modifying truck design - which has already been done as more modern trucks have a mirror over the windscreen.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

totallyfixed said:


> On this occasion it was the truck drivers fault as he had veered out of his lane, however as RT says unlikely he would have felt anything.
> I admit I didn't witness this one but in the Army a tank driver in his Chieftain pancaked a German car *[and I do mean pancaked in the literal sense of the word], *Knew nothing about it until he was hauled up in front of the C.O. The story goes that the German guy had left his car in an Army exercise area to walk his dog, the look on his face when he got back to what was left of his car must have been priceless.



Tossed it?


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I worked with another driver once who told me that he'd been driving past a police car on the hard shoulder of the motorway when the policeman decided to open the door. He stopped as quickly as he could and ran back to find the copper sitting ashen faced with one of his driving gloves missing where it had gone with the car door . And a terrible smell, because he'd, er, soiled himself, for which one can hardly blame him.


A mate of mine told me that he saw a policeman open the door of his car into the path of a fully loaded up delivery bike. The impact took the door off.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Common sense has prevailed.



It's like I say, these things can't be used safely anywhere, however competent the driver. Too big, too heavy, too many blind spots.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 May 2010)

dondare said:


> It's like I say, these things can't be used safely anywhere, however competent the driver. Too big, too heavy, too many blind spots.



Too many dozy car drivers, more like. 
One incident doesn't make every lorry ever unsafe: while I acknowledge that the blind spots on a DAF 95 are not ideal, I drove one all over the UK for eight months and had only one near miss, on a roundabout in Aberdeen, when a car pulled onto the roundabout next to my cab and nearly got taken out when I went to pull off the roundabout at the next exit.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Too many dozy car drivers, more like.
> One incident doesn't make every lorry ever unsafe: while I acknowledge that the blind spots on a DAF 95 are not ideal, I drove one all over the UK for eight months and had only one near miss, on a roundabout in Aberdeen, when a car pulled onto the roundabout next to my cab and nearly got taken out when I went to pull off the roundabout at the next exit.



Dozy drivers on motorways and inexperienced female cyclists in towns are part of the road environment. Lorries pose a hazard in the way that other large vehicles such as buses and coaches, which have much better visibility from the cab, do not. A vehicle which is only safe if everyone else keeps well out of it's way is not safe.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Dozy drivers on motorways and inexperienced female cyclists in towns are part of the road environment. Lorries pose a hazard in the way that other large vehicles such as buses and coaches, which have much better visibility from the cab, do not. A vehicle which is only safe if everyone else keeps well out of it's way is not safe.



That's a fair point, but my point was that these things are safe very nearly all the time. And no vehicle, no matter how few blind spots it has, is _always_ safe in every circumstance; the question is not "are artics safe?", but "are artics safer than ten 7.5 tonne vehicles?". DAF 95s are not made any more, and as I said earlier, the problem of the front blind spot has been addressed on more modern trucks by the fitment of a covvex mirror above the windscreen.
It's just occurred to me that you could very easily turn your argument around and say that because the driver of the Clio didn't see the tuck in her mirror before pulling out and clipping its front bumper, Renault Clios are also not safe.


----------



## KEEF (26 May 2010)

Two years ago one of my drivers overtook a car on the M1 and after checking all his mirrors could not see the car anywhere and presumed the car had left the Motorway at the last slip road so moved over into the nearside lane. The car which was keeping pace with him in his blind spot was caught by his truck and was flipped round to the front of the truck.The truck driver caught sight of the car as it moved out of his blind spot and stopped.So it can happen.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 May 2010)

KEEF said:


> Two years ago one of my drivers overtook a car on the M1 and after checking all his mirrors could not see the car anywhere and presumed the car had left the Motorway at the last slip road so moved over into the nearside lane. The car which was keeping pace with him in his blind spot was caught by his truck and was flipped round to the front of the truck.The truck driver caught sight of the car as it moved out of his blind spot and stopped.So it can happen.



That's what I would have thought happened in this case. A surprising number of car drivers seem perfectly content to join the motorway next to a truck and then sit there at the same pace as it for miles. This is one reason I don't bother moving over to let people on to the motorway any more: I don't mind whether people go in front of me or behind me, but I don't want them leaving me hung out to dry in the middle lane. Although putting the left hand indicator on usually gets them out of the way.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

You should not expect too much from truck drivers, there is a reason they do what they do, eating yorkies all day, rather than having a job that requires a brain.


----------



## Crankarm (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> You should not expect too much from truck drivers, there is a reason they do what they do, *eating yorkies all day*, *rather than having a job that requires a brain*.




Oooo!!! Lee is not gonna like these remarks .........


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> You should not expect too much from truck drivers, *there is a reason they do what they do*, eating yorkies all day, rather than having a job that requires a brain.



It's fun and it's easy, that's why. Which is more than you can say about a lot of jobs. In fact, it's the very fact that I can pretty much switch my brain off to do my job that appeals, thereby saving it for more important things like listening to Radio 4 all night.


----------



## Crankarm (26 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It's fun and it's easy, that's why. Which is more than you can say about a lot of jobs. In fact, it's the very fact that I can pretty much switch my brain off to do my job that appeals, thereby saving it *for more important things like* *listening to Radio 4 all night*.



ROFL 

You need a brain for this ?


----------



## dodgy (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> You should not expect too much from truck drivers, there is a reason they do what they do, eating yorkies all day, rather than having a job that requires a brain.



It's funny, I didn't get this impression of you when I spoke to you on the phone a couple of years or so ago.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (26 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> ROFL
> 
> You need a brain for this ?



Depends. Certainly more of one than you need for Radio 2.


----------



## KEEF (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> You should not expect too much from truck drivers, there is a reason they do what they do, eating yorkies all day, rather than having a job that requires a brain.



Yeah Yeah


----------



## trustysteed (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> You should not expect too much from truck drivers, there is a reason they do what they do, eating *yorkies* all day, rather than having a job that requires a brain.




they eat dogs!?


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It's just occurred to me that you could very easily turn your argument around and say that because the driver of the Clio didn't see the tuck in her mirror before pulling out and clipping its front bumper, Renault Clios are also not safe.



If Clios had blind spots equivalent to a DAF, they'd be less of a hazard because the driver would feel the bump and know that they'd hit something. Lorries combine every bad feature in a single vehicle.


----------



## adds21 (26 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> while I acknowledge that the blind spots on a DAF 95 are not ideal, I drove one all over the UK for eight months and had only one near miss



I'm not being funny, but surely you don't necessary know how many near misses you had. It's obvious the driver of the truck in the video wasn't aware he'd hit the car (or the car had hit him / whatever), so presumably if the car missed by a few inches, he may still be unaware of how close it was.

This certainly isn't directed solely at truck drivers BTW, I often think the same when cyclists / car drivers / whoever say they've had "x" near misses. It's always the ones we're *not* aware of which catch us out.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


>



I knew you couldn't resist that stinky bait Lee.


----------



## Crankarm (26 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Depends. Certainly more of one than you need for Radio 2.



You listen as well? Most of the rabid callers seem to be DM reading truckers .

I only listen when there is a cycling issue or HGV issue on .


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> I knew you couldn't resist that stinky bait Lee.



A Smiley isn't quite the same thing as biting, tho'.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

dondare said:


> A Smiley isn't quite the same thing as biting, tho'.



He knows me too well.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> He knows me too well.



Right. He'll be riding one of those lying down type bikes next.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Right. He'll be riding one of those lying down type bikes next.



If he can find someone to sell him one.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> If he can find someone to sell him one.



He's got an IQ of 133, you know.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

dondare said:


> He's got an IQ of 133, you know.



That's why he rides a bent, intelligent choice.


----------



## Debian (26 May 2010)

KEEF said:


> Two years ago one of my drivers overtook a car on the M1 and after checking all his mirrors could not see the car anywhere and presumed the car had left the Motorway at the last slip road so moved over into the nearside lane. The car which was keeping pace with him in his blind spot was caught by his truck and was flipped round to the front of the truck.The truck driver caught sight of the car as it moved out of his blind spot and stopped.So it can happen.





Rhythm Thief said:


> That's what I would have thought happened in this case. A surprising number of car drivers seem perfectly content to join the motorway next to a truck and then sit there at the same pace as it for miles. This is one reason I don't bother moving over to let people on to the motorway any more: I don't mind whether people go in front of me or behind me, but I don't want them leaving me hung out to dry in the middle lane. Although putting the left hand indicator on usually gets them out of the way.



But all the above comments say to me is that the driver was aware that his vehicle has a blind spot(s), knows that there was a vehicle to the inside, could no longer see the vehicle and _assumed therefore_ that it was no longer there and pulled over. This is nothing but careless or even dangerous driving. If you know you have a blind spot and you are driving a vehicle that can easily cause a fatal collision you don't make such assumptions, instead the onus is on the truck driver to make damn sure the vehicle isn't there - don't assume when that assumption could easily result in death!


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Debian said:


> But all the above comments say to me is that the driver was aware that his vehicle has a blind spot(s), knows that there was a vehicle to the inside, could no longer see the vehicle and _assumed therefore_ that it was no longer there and pulled over. This is nothing but careless or even dangerous driving. If you know you have a blind spot and you are driving a vehicle that can easily cause a fatal collision you don't make such assumptions, instead the onus is on the truck driver to make damn sure the vehicle isn't there - don't assume when that assumption could easily result in death!



Lorry drivers have to make the assumption that there's nothing where they can't see, otherwise they'd never be able to move at all.


----------



## Debian (26 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Lorry drivers have to make the assumption that there's nothing where they can't see, otherwise they'd never be able to move at all.



Does that make it right or safe? Shouldn't be on the road if that's the case.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

Debian said:


> Does that make it right or safe? Shouldn't be on the road if that's the case.



Well now, that's dabatable.....


----------



## Debian (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Trucks are not the only vehicles with blind spots, in fact all motor vehicles have blind spots.



But not usually blind spots large enough to hide an entire car.

Neither is it any excuse to think "oh, that car that was up my inside I can no longer see, therefore it must have gone somewhere else, ergo it's OK for me to pull over".


----------



## Crankarm (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Trucks are not the only vehicles with blind spots, in fact *all motor vehicles have blind spots*.



Yeah, it's known as the driver's seat .


----------



## GrasB (26 May 2010)

Debian said:


> But not usually blind spots large enough to hide an entire car.
> 
> Neither is it any excuse to think "oh, that car that was up my inside I can no longer see, therefore it must have gone somewhere else, ergo it's OK for me to pull over".


Try again! There are a large number of cars that can lose a car the size of a Mk1 Ford KA in the nearside rear quarter & a Fiat Cinquencento in the offside when there is *overlap* with the rear quarter panel. Having done lots of motorway miles in these cars I quickly found out that when overtaking or being overtaken one must increase the speed difference else someone might not see you or think you left the motorway.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

I think that I'll just watch from the sidelines, this time.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> I was waiting for a reply from Debian about blind spots and then reply....but GrasB beat me to it.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that all vehicles have blind spots, trucks since 07 have been fitted with mirrors to mitigate the risk of what happened to the women in the OP.
> 
> But please DO NOT try and speak for the driver (or any other person) in what they *was* thinking or might have done.



'were'


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Thank you Ian



All those Yorky bars have affected the part of your brain responsible for grammar.


----------



## dondare (26 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> I was waiting for a reply from Debian about blind spots and then reply....but GrasB beat me to it.



Just how many truckies are there on this forum site, anyway? 



User3143 said:


> The fact of the matter is that all vehicles have blind spots, trucks since 07 have been fitted with mirrors to mitigate the risk of what happened to the women in the OP.
> 
> But please DO NOT try and speak for the driver (or any other person) in what they were thinking or might have done.



No need to, they all seem to post here, eventually...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2010)

adds21 said:


> I'm not being funny, but surely you don't necessary know how many near misses you had.



You do though, because every manoevre you make while driving a truck is carried out while you watch the mirrors and everywhere else you can see. If you've just missed something, it appears pretty quickly in the mirrors or in your field of view, usually flashing its lights and gesticulating angrily out of the window. Believe me, you know when you've had a near miss.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2010)

Crankarm said:


> You listen as well? Most of the rabid callers seem to be DM reading truckers .
> 
> I only listen when there is a cycling issue or HGV issue on .



I never, _ever_, listen to Radio 2. Radio 4 or my Ipod, or silence. Late night Radio 2 is just horrible.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2010)

Debian said:


> But not usually blind spots large enough to hide an entire car.



My Citroen 2CV - not a big car by any means - does. I can easily lose a car in the wing mirrors when it's next to my rear wheels. That's why I check over my shoulder before changing lanes.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> All those Yorky bars have affected the part of your brain responsible for grammar.



"Yorkie".


----------



## Debian (27 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> But please DO NOT try and speak for the driver (or any other person) in what they were thinking or might have done.



I wasn't.

I was merely commenting on the post I quoted below. So don't attempt to malign my post please.



KEEF said:


> Two years ago one of my drivers overtook a car on the M1 and after checking all his mirrors could not see the car anywhere *and presumed the car had left the Motorway at the last slip road so moved over into the nearside lane*. The car which was keeping pace with him in his blind spot was caught by his truck and was flipped round to the front of the truck.The truck driver caught sight of the car as it moved out of his blind spot and stopped.So it can happen.



You see what I did there? I took someone else's words and commented on them - I didn't presume anything or make anything up.



Rhythm Thief said:


> My Citroen 2CV - not a big car by any means - does. I can easily lose a car in the wing mirrors when it's next to my rear wheels. That's why I check over my shoulder before changing lanes.



You've answered for me here.

Your 2CV has blind spots so you check to make sure there's nothing in them before manouvering. The driver referred to in the post I quoted above by KEEF didn't, he *assumed the vehicle had gone elsewhere and then manoeuvred.* This is nothing other than careless, or even possibly dangerous driving.

The obvious thing to have done would have been to have slowed down, then, if the car was still in the blind spot it would get ahead and become visible.


----------



## Browser (27 May 2010)

The follow-up article I read stated that the lady driving the Clio had carried out some sort of unsafe manouvre entering the motorway, which is apparrently how/why she ended up where she did.
All vehicles have blind spots, short of fitting them with radar or all-glass top-halves you'll never get rid of that.
Here's an idea, invest a shedload of cash and put all of the heavy freight back on the railways, which are designed for carrying heavier loads than roads after all, and reduce the number of HGVs out there. Then all you'd need would be fleets of smaller 3.5-tonners doing local deliveries! Oh, hang on a mo, _more_ 3.5-tonners? Maybe that's not such a good idea.........


----------



## Origamist (27 May 2010)

Browser said:


> All vehicles have blind spots, short of fitting them with radar or all-glass top-halves you'll never get rid of that.



In this case a class VI mirror would have been sufficient. 

Pic here: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...mirror&um=1&hl=en&safe=active&sa=N&tbs=isch:1


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> "Yorkie".



That is spelling rather than grammar. I would explain the difference but as you are a truck driver......


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 May 2010)

> I remember when I was a teenager there was a tractor unit where the cab was low down, almost level with that of a car driver.
> 
> What happened to that idea?



I remember that, the trailer projected over the top of the cab as well, quite aerodynamic if I remember rightly.


----------



## dondare (27 May 2010)

Here's an idea:- everyone stop buying so much stuff. I'm sure you don't really need half of it.


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Here's an idea:- everyone stop buying so much stuff. I'm sure you don't really need half of it.



I have an idea, most stuff we buy we never use, so I am opening a virtual shop where you get to spend real money to buy virtual products which are then put in your virtual junk room, you can visit them any time on line and even part exchange them for new virtual stuff. So you can always have the most up to date virtual stuff around and you help the environment because they are not physically shipped anywhere.

£200 for a virtual ipod anyone?


----------



## Rhythm Thief (27 May 2010)

> I remember when I was a teenager there was a tractor unit where the cab was low down, almost level with that of a car driver.
> 
> What happened to that idea?



You wouldn't have the forward vision to stop a fully freighted truck in time. Being so high up allows the driver to see situations developing a long way up the road and react nice and early. 
This incident was, regardless of how many blind spots a DAF 95 cab has, a freak. In most similar cases, something will alert the driver to the presence of a car across their bows. It's just that in this case, something didn't. You can't extrapolate from one odd case to every truck in Britain.


----------



## Debian (27 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> *You wouldn't have the forward vision to stop a fully freighted truck in time. Being so high up allows the driver to see situations developing a long way up the road and react nice and early*.
> This incident was, regardless of how many blind spots a DAF 95 cab has, a freak. In most similar cases, something will alert the driver to the presence of a car across their bows. It's just that in this case, something didn't. You can't extrapolate from one odd case to every truck in Britain.



That only implies the the truck must be travelling too fast. What happened to the maxim of always being able to stop in the distance you can see ahead?

Anyway, most trucks travelling on congested motorways are in convoys and the driver can see no further ahead than the back of the truck 20 feet in front no matter how high or low the cab.


----------



## dondare (27 May 2010)

A few months ago there was a pretty nasty accident on the road just by where my wife works, she didn't see the accident but she did see the wreckage. 
A lorry, coming off the M25 to join the A10, had closed the gap between it and the lorry in front. Except it wasn't really a gap. It was a car that the lorry driver couldn't see and , of course, didn't feel. 
Without making any wild guesses, I'd say that the situation was consistant with the car cutting in front of the lorry on the slip-road. You could say that if this is what happened, the car driver was being a bit dozy. In any case, he was crushed to death.


----------



## Debian (27 May 2010)

dondare said:


> A few months ago there was a pretty nasty accident on the road just by where my wife works, she didn't see the accident but she did see the wreckage.
> A lorry, coming off the M25 to join the A10, had closed the gap between it and the lorry in front. Except it wasn't really a gap. It was a car that the lorry driver couldn't see and , of course, didn't feel.
> Without making any wild guesses, I'd say that the situation was consistant with the car cutting in front of the lorry on the slip-road. You could say that if this is what happened, the car driver was being a bit dozy. In any case, he was crushed to death.



The car driver may have been a bit dozy to do this but sometimes it's almost impossible to enter or exit a motorway or busy dual carriageway without squeezing into the gap left between two lorries in a convoy. This is particularly true on an uphill stretch of motorway or dual.


----------



## dondare (27 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> You are either trolling here or quite simply one of the most piss poor drivers this country has ever know (if you drive of course) if you don't then you are very very ignorant.



Cutting in front of lorries seems to be quite common. I wonder now many drivers who do this realize just how dangerous it is?


----------



## dondare (27 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> You are talking about something else, I'm talking about it being ''almost impossible'' to join a motorway or dual carriage way.



Well, I was talking about something else, this was traffic that was leaving the motorway and had slowed right down. But you know how it happens, a driver leaves it a bit late then has to look for a gap. 

Coming on to a motorway is a bit different, because you are joining fast-moving traffic. But in either case, the gap that lorry drivers leave between themselves and the vehicle in front is going to look inviting. 
Learner drivers don't get motorway training.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

Debian said:


> That only implies the the truck must be travelling too fast. What happened to the maxim of always being able to stop in the distance you can see ahead?



... oh, forget it. When you've driven something bigger than a Nissan Micra, come back and tell me how much distance a 44 tonner needs to stop.


----------



## Debian (28 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> ... oh, forget it. When you've driven something bigger than a Nissan Micra, come back and tell me how much distance a 44 tonner needs to stop.



Insulting people is always a sign that insulter is losing / has lost the argument.

For the record I've driven a wide variety of vehicles up to a 38 ton artic and three of my father in laws ran their own haulage businesses, two of which I was involved with. At 50 mph a 44 tonner will take around 220 feet to stop (assuming well maintained brakes and tyres - not always a valid assumption); this equates to a safe following distance of 365 feet. At 30mph the comparative figures are 88 feet and 175 feet.

The actual stopping distance required is irrelevant, any driver needs to drive the vehicle so that (s)he can stop well within the distance that can be seen clear ahead. If you need 100ft to stop from 30 mph then you should have a 100 minimum gap between your vehicle and the vehicle in front. Now this, as an absolute requirement may not be practicable because other vehicles, like the cars mentioned earlier will probably fill the gap to a certain extent but certainly a bigger gap is required than is to be seen between most trucks convoying on the motorway.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Debian said:


> Insulting people is always a sign that insulter is losing / has lost the argument.



Not necessarily. Some people are just rude all of the time.



Debian said:


> For the record I've driven a wide variety of vehicles up to a 38 ton artic and three of my father in laws ran their own haulage businesses, two of which I was involved with. At 50 mph a 44 tonner will take around 220 feet to stop (assuming well maintained brakes and tyres - not always a valid assumption); this equates to a safe following distance of 365 feet. At 30mph the comparative figures are 88 feet and 175 feet.



Are there actually any forum members here who haven't driven trucks?



Debian said:


> The actual stopping distance required is irrelevant, any driver needs to drive the vehicle so that (s)he can stop well within the distance that can be seen clear ahead. If you need 100ft to stop from 30 mph then you should have a 100 minimum gap between your vehicle and the vehicle in front. Now this, as an absolute requirement may not be practicable because other vehicles, like the cars mentioned earlier will probably fill the gap to a certain extent but certainly a bigger gap is required than is to be seen between most trucks convoying on the motorway.



If you leave a gap of any length on a motorway, someone will slot into it. What's needed right now is a way that lorry drivers can tell when this has happened. 
A longer term solution could be to find an alternative to lorries for moving freight, or perhaps an alternative to cars for moving people. 
Taking all factors into account it would make a lot of sense to pack trains (which are much safer than cars) with passengers and leave the motorways for freight.
Only trouble is that there is no way that 40 ton vehicles designed for long-distance driving can be used safely in towns, most of which still have a medieval street plan.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

User3143 said:


> Yes, Debian.





Not all cyclists are tough and fearless. 
Not all pedestrians are even awake.
Not all motorists have an attention span as long as their journey.
Not all truck drivers have an IQ of 133.

You expect too much from people.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

Debian said:


> Insulting people is always a sign that insulter is losing / has lost the argument. has been awake for eighteen hours, has just got in from a gig and is really to tired to formulate a proper argument.



But fair enough, I didn't realise you'd driven artics before. Although it's not obvious from the tone of some of your posts.



> For the record I've driven a wide variety of vehicles up to a 38 ton artic and three of my father in laws ran their own haulage businesses, two of which I was involved with. At 50 mph a 44 tonner will take around 220 feet to stop (assuming well maintained brakes and tyres - not always a valid assumption); this equates to a safe following distance of 365 feet. At 30mph the comparative figures are 88 feet and 175 feet.
> 
> The actual stopping distance required is irrelevant, any driver needs to drive the vehicle so that (s)he can stop well within the distance that can be seen clear ahead. If you need 100ft to stop from 30 mph then you should have a 100 minimum gap between your vehicle and the vehicle in front. Now this, as an absolute requirement may not be practicable because other vehicles, like the cars mentioned earlier will probably fill the gap to a certain extent but certainly a bigger gap is required than is to be seen between most trucks convoying on the motorway.



I'm not - and never have been - disputing that artics need a larger gap to stop. (And, incidentally, one of my pet hates is those lorry drivers who drive three feet off the back of the vehicle in front.) But what I am saying is that being high up in the cab gives you a much better field of view and makes it far easier to read the road for much further ahead. This is not a function of driving too fast for the conditions, it's simply a way to constantly plan ahead. And the further ahed you can plan the better a driver you are, all else being equal.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Not necessarily. Some people are just rude all of the time.



I don't think that's fair. Even those who disagree with me on every issue ever would struggle to say I was "rude all of the time".


----------



## Riding in Circles (28 May 2010)

If trucks slowed down to increase the gap every time some numpty in a car pulled in front of them then they would never get where they are going.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> I don't think that's fair. Even those who disagree with me on every issue ever would struggle to say I was "rude all of the time".



I wasn't meaning to imply that about you specifically, I took his comment "Insulting people is always a sign that insulter is losing / has lost the argument" as a sweeping generalization that is not always valid. 
No offence intended.


----------



## GrasB (28 May 2010)

On a slight tangent when pulling onto a motorway between vehicles which are fairly close what would lorry drivers prefer:

A car in front of them at a higher speed & pulling away from your lorry as the car joins the carriage way
A car in front of you holding the same speed as your lorry
A car pulling in tight behind the vehicle in front but being caught by your lorry


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> I wasn't meaning to imply that about you specifically, I took his comment "Insulting people is always a sign that insulter is losing / has lost the argument" as a sweeping generalization that is not always valid.
> No offence intended.




Fair enough. Just making sure.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> On a slight tangent when pulling onto a motorway between vehicles which are fairly close what would lorry drivers prefer:
> 
> A car in front of them at a higher speed & pulling away from your lorry as the car joins the carriage way
> A car in front of you holding the same speed as your lorry
> A car pulling in tight behind the vehicle in front but being caught by your lorry



Of those three options, I prefer the first. (I presume you're talking about my lorry being on the carriageway and a car joining the motorway near it.) I actually don't mind whether a car goes in front of or behind my lorry in this situation, as I always leave plenty of space for them; what I don't like is when the car driver sits next to my cab at 55mph, waiting for me to move over. When I join a motorway, I'm looking for a safe gap from the moment I can see the carriageway, and I adjust my speed accordingly. What a lot of people seem to do these days is hammer down the sliproad regardless of what's in the inside lane, relying on other drivers accommodating them.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Google "Fatal Accident on M25".
9 out of 10 involve at least one lorry.

Without apportioning blame to the drivers, there does seem to be a problem with lorries.


----------



## 4F (28 May 2010)

Google "Fatal accident in London" and you get the opposite. What point are you trying to make ?


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

That there seems to be a problem with lorries on the M25. It's not the number of accidents overall, it's the proportion of them which involve lorries.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

4F said:


> Google "Fatal accident in London" and you get the opposite. What point are you trying to make ?



Seems to give an odd set of results altogether:
http://www.419baiter.com/_scam_emails/08-07b/scam-email-32908.html


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

Surely you'd need to know the cause of the incidents before attaching any significance to the fact that they involve lorries? I noticed that nine out of ten of them involved cars, for instance. And two out of ten mentioned that the lorry driver had been arrested following the incident. Or, to put it another way, eight out of ten did not.


----------



## GrasB (28 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Of those three options, I prefer the first. (I presume you're talking about my lorry being on the carriageway and a car joining the motorway near it.) I actually don't mind whether a car goes in front of or behind my lorry in this situation, as I always leave plenty of space for them


I perfer to be pulling away from the vehicle behind my self, especially with lorries from my POV it gives the least reason for the driver to take any action due to me pulling onto the DC. With that said it's not always doable to be pulling away. I with the last option I was more thinking about the driver behind rather than the driver in front as at the end of the day it's my responsibility to keep an appropriate gap to the vehicle in front.




> what I don't like is when the car driver sits next to my cab at 55mph, waiting for me to move over. When I join a motorway, I'm looking for a safe gap from the moment I can see the carriageway, and I adjust my speed accordingly. What a lot of people seem to do these days is hammer down the sliproad regardless of what's in the inside lane, relying on other drivers accommodating them.


This irritates me too, even in a car. You find a space & judge your arrival so that you don't require anyone to move.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Surely you'd need to know the cause of the incidents before attaching any significance to the fact that they involve lorries? I noticed that nine out of ten of them involved cars, for instance. And two out of ten mentioned that the lorry driver had been arrested following the incident. Or, to put it another way, eight out of ten did not.




The problem could stem from the fact that car drivers do not know how to behave around lorries and anecdotal evidence supports this. As I pointed out earlier, learner drivers do not get taught motorway driving. I would suspect that HGV drivers do. 
I think that some real research needs to be done here.


----------



## GrasB (28 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Surely you'd need to know the cause of the incidents before attaching any significance to the fact that they involve lorries? I noticed that nine out of ten of them involved cars, for instance. And two out of ten mentioned that the lorry driver had been arrested following the incident. Or, to put it another way, eight out of ten did not.



I wonder how much of it is because it's harder for lorries to get out of the way when someone does something stupid. They're not like my cars where you can just scrub off 5mph or quickly nip into that small gap or just take off like a scolded cat if need be.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> I wonder how much of it is because it's harder for lorries to get out of the way when someone does something stupid. They're not like my cars where you can just scrub off 5mph or quickly nip into that small gap or just take off like a scolded cat if need be.



Exactly. Make any sudden violent manoevres to avoid the idiot who's just nipped into your braking distance into a line of slowing traffic 50 yards before his junction and you're liable to find your trailer overtaking you merrily taking out cars as it goes. Hang onto your steering wheel and brake as hard as you safely can and you might go into the back of the bloke. Both are incidents involving lorries, neither can really be said to be the fault of the truck driver or evidence that trucks are dangerous. Idiots on teh road are dangerous, and that's about all there is to it.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> The problem could stem from the fact that car drivers do not know how to behave around lorries and anecdotal evidence supports this. As I pointed out earlier, learner drivers do not get taught motorway driving. I would suspect that HGV drivers do.
> I think that some real research needs to be done here.



This is a very good point. It's legal for learner HGV drivers to use motorways since they already hold a full (car) licence. Come to that, it's legal for learner car drivers to use motorways if they hold a full motorcycle licence. But I can't understand why motorway driving isn't a compulsory part of any driving test.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Exactly. Make any sudden violent manoevres to avoid the idiot who's just nipped into your braking distance into a line of slowing traffic 50 yards before his junction and you're liable to find your trailer overtaking you merrily taking out cars as it goes. Hang onto your steering wheel and brake as hard as you safely can and you might go into the back of the bloke. Both are incidents involving lorries, neither can really be said to be the fault of the truck driver or evidence that trucks are dangerous. Idiots on teh road are dangerous, and that's about all there is to it.



Statistically, over 50% of the population is subnormal.

O.K. that's a soundbite, but it goes towards explaining why there are so many idiots on the road. You might say that idiots are part of the road environment, and that all aspects of road design, vehicle design, driver training and legislation should take this into account.
Ideally, the roads should be places that even idiots can use to get home safely, not where they are culled.


----------



## GrasB (28 May 2010)

You can't legislate RTCs out of existence if people act like idiots. At some point people have to take responsibility for their actions & if they endanger them selves & other people by habitually acting like idiots *they should be removed from the roads*.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

GrasB said:


> You can't legislate RTCs out of existence if people act like idiots. At some point people have to take responsibility for their actions & if they endanger them selves & other people by habitually acting like idiots *they should be removed from the roads*.


That's the legislation bit. Make the driving test more rigorous and enforce the laws more rigorously. 
But the roads should never be considered as part of the process of Natural Selection, and even idiots need to be able to get around somehow. If dangers can be identified then they should be removed.
Apart from anything else it is probably small comfort to a lorry driver who has just turned a car into a tin of corned beef that it was the other fellows fault.


----------



## Riding in Circles (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Statistically, over 50% of the population is subnormal.



Is that a comment about women?


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> Are there actually any forum members here who haven't driven trucks?


Oooh, ooh, me Sir. I haven't. 

Do I win a Yorkie bar?


----------



## GrasB (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> That's the legislation bit. Make the driving test more rigorous and enforce the laws more rigorously.


I don't feel the test is particularly appropriate or that good at actually weeding out people who are "bad drivers", my general experience is that the most irresponsible drivers are the ones which pass their driving test easily. As such the whole way we test drivers needs to be overhauled but I personally am not sure what changes need to be made.

More rigorous enforcement of law would be good but this isn't legislation per-se this is policing. You can have all the legislation you want but if it's not enforced it may well not exist. This is the situation we seem to have gotten ourselves into in the UK. It may be a press lead miss-conception but my feeling is people aren't generally prosecuted for driving offences until a serious incident has occurred. This reactive rather than proactive policing IMO makes the crime getting caught not the actual act.



> But the roads should never be considered as part of the process of Natural Selection, and even idiots need to be able to get around somehow. If dangers can be identified then they should be removed.


The problem is you have people acting like idiots on the road then incidents will happen. You simply can't mitigate away this with removing potential dangers from the road as you end up with everyone having their own personal road network.



> Apart from anything else it is probably small comfort to a lorry driver who has just turned a car into a tin of corned beef that it was the other fellows fault.


Very true, very true.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> Is that a comment about women?



In any population random variation of any variable gives exactly equivalent numbers of subnormals and supernormals.
But injury, disease, genetic and congenital defects increase the proportion of subnormals. 
Walking, cycling, driving subnormals.
A civilised society both protects them and protects itself against them.


----------



## Riding in Circles (28 May 2010)

dondare said:


> In any population random variation of any variable gives exactly equivalent numbers of subnormals and supernormals.
> But injury, disease, genetic and congenital defects increase the proportion of subnormals.
> Walking, cycling, driving subnormals.
> A civilised society both protects them and protects itself against them.



I don't think the women on the forum are going to like you calling them subnormal.


----------



## dondare (28 May 2010)

Catrike UK said:


> I don't think the women on the forum are going to like you calling them subnormal.



Since over 50% of the population are men you could draw another inference.


----------



## 4F (29 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> But I can't understand why motorway driving isn't a compulsory part of any driving test.



It could be to do with the fact that not everyone has a motorway on their doorstep, nearest one to here is an hour away.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (29 May 2010)

4F said:


> It could be to do with the fact that not everyone has a motorway on their doorstep, nearest one to here is an hour away.



It could be, but I doubt it is. After all, plenty of people live a long way from a driving test centre and they're expected to make their way to one for their driving test.


----------

