Car crash ! The blame game.

GusGus

So I had the misfortune of been involved in a crash on the m50 yesterday. The good part is I am not injured but it was pretty scary.
So in brief . I was travelling northbound after exiting exit 4. I had moved into lane directly to my right. ( so there were two lanes to my right and one to my left) . I travelled along there was a large articulate lorry to my right and we were travelling at similar speed . at the westlink bridge the lorry switched lanes. I think he hit my front door first but it could of been the back I can't remember. I ended up spinning and the lorry hit me about another 4/5 as if he was pushing me along . I could see the front of the lorry. Eventually after what seemed like forever I did a full 360 into the left lane and regained control and was able to avoid the barrier on the left. Thank god no one was in that lane. The lorry stopped about 1000m up the road . There must of been some weight in it.

Anyways the lorry is claiming he never saw me. He said he indicated to move lanes. He said he though he had a blow out and did if know he had hit me. He did say he moved lanes but said he wouldn't take any responsibility and that it was entirely my fault .

The Garda came and they were very courteous. As no one injured they just wanted to make sure everyone was off the road etc . They said that the lorry will probably claim that I was undertaking him and that although he changed lanes he will try and move some responsibility . They felt as do I that I must of been in the trucks blind spot at the time as even when he hit he didnt notice me.

So I know have the mess of insurance companies. The car was only 10 days old and I'd just take it back from garage after getting a few things fitted. There is less than a 1000km on it and loads of damage down one side. Every panel .

I really don't want to accept it back even if they say they can fix it. I'll loose a further packet when I have to declare it was in a crash.

Anyone any thoughts on who is responsible and how I should proceed ? I know and I am grateful no one was injured.

Greenmachine

Leave it up to the insurance at this point. It all you can do.

ianobrien

Quick reading, the trucks fault for changing lanes when it wasn't clear. Indicating does NOT give right of way. If the person in the other lane is doing something illegal (speeding, etc) its still the fault of the person who crossed the white line.

NipNip

Well to me, it's very simple. You don't just indicate. You have to observe that you are free to manoever first!

GusGus

Greenmachine wrote: »

Leave it up to the insurance at this point. It all you can do.

Do you know if I have to accept a repair or how does it work ? I don't know yet even if it is repairable .

NipNip

GusGus wrote: »

Do you know if I have to accept a repair or how does it work ? I don't know yet even if it is repairable .

Did your insurance company email you their policy booklet? Or post it to you?

stimpson

Isn't it illegal for trucks to drive in the innermost overtaking lane?

Leave it up to your insurance. Sounds like the truck is 100% at fault.

PyeContinental

Yes to the above regarding it being the truck's fault, but when all this is over, one of the lessons to take from this is not to put yourself in the danger zone of the blind spot of a lorry. Be aware that a truck driver probably can't see you when you are along a significant section of its flank, and that this can be worse depending on whether a truck is left or right hand drive, so always make a mental note of the registration plate of the truck as you approach.

This story is a reminder to everyone that it doesn't matter who is right after an accident like this, you'd still rather it never occurred, and the consequences could be worse than a wrecked car. Never drive beside a truck at the same speed. Pass by completely as quickly as you can, or hang back if you can't completely clear the truck. Don't put yourself in danger and don't give the truck driver the opportunity to do something stupid.

djimi

If he claims you were undertaking you claim he was overtaking. Without witnesses there is not way to prove either.

Ultimately he changed lanes into you; I don't see him arguing his way out of this tbh.

Bio Mech

stimpson wrote: »

Isn't it illegal for trucks to drive in the innermost overtaking lane?

Leave it up to your insurance. Sounds like the truck is 100% at fault.

No only the one closest to the central median so on a three lane road the middle one is ok.

Bio Mech

PyeContinental wrote: »

Yes to the above regarding it being the truck's fault, but when all this is over, one of the lessons to take from this is not to put yourself in the danger zone of the blind spot of a lorry. Be aware that a truck driver probably can't see you when you are along a significant section of its flank, and that this can be worse depending on whether a truck is left or right hand drive, so always make a mental note of the registration plate of the truck as you approach.

This story is a reminder to everyone that it doesn't matter who is right after an accident like this, you'd still rather it never occurred, and the consequences could be worse than a wrecked car. Never drive beside a truck at the same speed. Pass by completely as quickly as you can, or hang back if you can't completely clear the truck. Don't put yourself in danger and don't give the truck driver the opportunity to do something stupid.

That's good advice. I never merge/change lanes into a trucks blindspot if I can avoid it and don't hang around in a trucks blindspot.

daveohdave

While the trucker shouldn't be laying blame, he's correct not to accept it. Never, ever take blame at the roadside.

guil

Here's an example of what can be seen in the mirrors of a truck. There's a car on my left less than 1 foot away from me.

I'm not saying the truck was without fault but to travel in that position beside a truck is utter stupidity

Bio Mech

guil wrote: »

Here's an example of what can be seen in the mirrors of a truck. There's a car on my left less than 1 foot away from me.

I'm not saying the truck was without fault but to travel in that position beside a truck is utter stupidity

You could argue that its utter stupidity too for a truck driver to be driving in the middle lane of a busy motorway and then merging back left knowing they have a blind spot where cars joining from the entry lane could be.

It depends on your perspective. Personally I don't think it was utter stupidity on either side just a couple of unfortunate circumstances.

traprunner

guil wrote: »

Here's an example of what can be seen in the mirrors of a truck. There's a car on my left less than 1 foot away from me.

I'm not saying the truck was without fault but to travel in that position beside a truck is utter stupidity

The bottom mirror should really be pointing down more to help kill off the blind spot. There is no need for it to see so much of the sky as you can see the sky in the upper mirror. Cars don't drive in the sky either. If the truck had mirrors adjusted like this then he is creating a bigger blind spot than necessary.

Gosub

Now, if you had a dash-cam, you could prove who was doing what. At least to your insurance company.

All trucks and large vans have blind spots. It's best to assume you can't be seen near a large vehicle.

miece16

yeah just about to say. invest in a dash cam. i got one and its the best €45 i ever spent

Kenny Logins

traprunner wrote: »

The bottom mirror should really be pointing down more to help kill off the blind spot. There is no need for it to see so much of the sky as you can see the sky in the upper mirror. Cars don't drive in the sky either. If the truck had mirrors adjusted like this then he is creating a bigger blind spot than necessary.

Camera angle looks a little low to me.

Irishcrx

As said , leave it up to your insurance company now and be thankfull that you weren't seriously injured. Truck shouldn't have moved into your lane without being sure the lane was clear but he probably didn't see you in his blind spot.

Always pass a lorry or large vehicle as soon as it is safe to do so, never ever stay alongside them at the same speed or drive in their blind spots. I don't think it's illegal but as a general rule of thumb they drive in the left lane and I rarely (But do) see large lorries overtaking but in future always stay behind or overtake them quickly.

I feel so much safer on the motorway in a car with a bit of power and this is exactly the reason why.

guil

traprunner wrote: »

The bottom mirror should really be pointing down more to help kill off the blind spot. There is no need for it to see so much of the sky as you can see the sky in the upper mirror. Cars don't drive in the sky either. If the truck had mirrors adjusted like this then he is creating a bigger blind spot than necessary.

Yeah that's true. It's up like that from getting hit with tress all day

traprunner

guil wrote: »

Yeah that's true. It's up like that from getting hit with tress all day

LOL....that's a whole new thread.

guil

traprunner wrote: »

LOL....that's a whole new thread.

What's funny about it. I drive a bin truck and in estates all day. How is it funny that I can't get around them without putting the mirrors into trees cos inconsiderate **** in cars abandon them where ever they like

_Kaiser_

So if I read this right..

OP joins the M50 and moves into L1... truck beside him in L2 decides to move into his lane and hits the OP in the process

Truck driver at fault.

traprunner

guil wrote: »

What's funny about it. I drive a bin truck and in estates all day. How is it funny that I can't get around them without putting the mirrors into trees cos inconsiderate **** in cars abandon than where ever they like

Touchy a bit?

I was a truck driver in the past so know about it. Sure even driving a van and car now the trees and hedges are a problem.

I was more thinking about the row between animal lovers, farmers and road users that would most likely happen if a thread was started about hedge rows not being trimmed.

bucketybuck

Can't see how this is anything but the truck drivers fault. He cannot prove you were undertaking, and even if he could it wouldn't matter anyway, the onus is on him to ensure it is safe to change lanes.

barney1975

Liability in these instances are quite difficult for the insurances companies to gauge. In relation to your car they will not repair in the instance the car repair costs exceed 60% of the current Book Value of the car. It would be deemed written off then and they would give you money to repurchase rather than repair. Sometimes this can be more hassle than getting it repaired as their valuations are sometimes way below what you recently paid. Best of luck all the same.

paddyland

I think you'll find in a thread like this that the apparent culpability of the truck driver varies according to how much each poster hates truck drivers, or indeed any road user other than themselves.

There are a number of factors involved. If you arrive on the M50 in the slip lane, intending to move right into the first driving lane, and there is a truck in the second (centre) lane, you must assume that he is going to move left into the first (correct) driving lane. Never merge right when there is a truck to the right of that. Accelerate ahead, or fall back before your manoeuvre. His speed is limited, and his all round visibility is less. Simple, defensive driving, but unfortunately a couple of brain cells beyond most motorists' powers of awareness and observation.

Secondly, never drive alongside a truck, on either side, matching his speed. So many motorists do this constantly, particularly middle lane hogs. You are trapping him in his lane, giving him no options for evasion, and also putting yourself in danger. A driver who is stupid enough to sit alongside a heavy truck in traffic, will likely have no idea of what a truck driver's blind spot is.

Thirdly, if a truck is passing you, let him go before accelerating. So many motorists start accelerating as a truck is passing them, little realising that the truck is on a speed limiter. The truck is then marooned in the centre lane, with possibly a whole lot of motoring morons all undertaking him slowly, or sitting on his inside. One motorist's bad driving not only increases the hazard for himself and the truck driver, but can also encourage the bad driving of everyone else, who generally copy whatever the mob are doing.

None of this is to absolve the truck driver in this particular instance. None of us were there to see what exactly happened, so NOBODY here can make an accurate judgement. My point would be, if there is one, that the difference between motorists who continually learn and improve their skills over years of driving, and motorists who 'pass their test' and immediately stop learning any further, is a gulf.

Be a driver who continually learns and adapts. Don't be a driver who says "I am entitled to 'x,' I am in the right." Be a driver who anticipates the limitations of others, particularly heavier vehicles, and make allowances. Be quick, be proactive, and most of all, be aware.

bucketybuck

paddyland wrote: »

None of this is to absolve the truck driver in this particular instance. None of us were there to see what exactly happened, so NOBODY here can make an accurate judgement.

Two vehicles involved, one was changing lanes while the other was driving straight ahead. It isn't hard at all to make an accurate judgement, the duty of care is on the vehicle changing lanes.

Marcusm

paddyland wrote: »

I think you'll find in a thread like this that the apparent culpability of the truck driver varies according to how much each poster hates truck drivers, or indeed any road user other than themselves.

There are a number of factors involved. If you arrive on the M50 in the slip lane, intending to move right into the first driving lane, and there is a truck in the second (centre) lane, you must assume that he is going to move left into the first (correct) driving lane. Never merge right when there is a truck to the right of that. Accelerate ahead, or fall back before your manoeuvre. His speed is limited, and his all round visibility is less. Simple, defensive driving, but unfortunately a couple of brain cells beyond most motorists' powers of awareness and observation.

Secondly, never drive alongside a truck, on either side, matching his speed. So many motorists do this constantly, particularly middle lane hogs. You are trapping him in his lane, giving him no options for evasion, and also putting yourself in danger. A driver who is stupid enough to sit alongside a heavy truck in traffic, will likely have no idea of what a truck driver's blind spot is.

Thirdly, if a truck is passing you, let him go before accelerating. So many motorists start accelerating as a truck is passing them, little realising that the truck is on a speed limiter. The truck is then marooned in the centre lane, with possibly a whole lot of motoring morons all undertaking him slowly, or sitting on his inside. One motorist's bad driving not only increases the hazard for himself and the truck driver, but can also encourage the bad driving of everyone else, who generally copy whatever the mob are doing.

None of this is to absolve the truck driver in this particular instance. None of us were there to see what exactly happened, so NOBODY here can make an accurate judgement. My point would be, if there is one, that the difference between motorists who continually learn and improve their skills over years of driving, and motorists who 'pass their test' and immediately stop learning any further, is a gulf.

Be a driver who continually learns and adapts. Don't be a driver who says "I am entitled to 'x,' I am in the right." Be a driver who anticipates the limitations of others, particularly heavier vehicles, and make allowances. Be quick, be proactive, and most of all, be aware.

I think I agree with this advice entirely; however, I don't think it has any bearing on liability. The truck driver is on notice that he has a significant blind spot and is therefore expected to exercise his skill level to ensure that no car is in his blind spot. If he is merging left, he can do this by slowing down to precipitate any car in his blind spot passing him out (effectively passing him on the left or colloquially "undertaking").

glic71rods46t0

paddyland wrote: »

I think you'll find in a thread like this that the apparent culpability of the truck driver varies according to how much each poster hates truck drivers, or indeed any road user other than themselves.

There are a number of factors involved. If you arrive on the M50 in the slip lane, intending to move right into the first driving lane, and there is a truck in the second (centre) lane, you must assume that he is going to move left into the first (correct) driving lane. Never merge right when there is a truck to the right of that. Accelerate ahead, or fall back before your manoeuvre. His speed is limited, and his all round visibility is less. Simple, defensive driving, but unfortunately a couple of brain cells beyond most motorists' powers of awareness and observation.

Secondly, never drive alongside a truck, on either side, matching his speed. So many motorists do this constantly, particularly middle lane hogs. You are trapping him in his lane, giving him no options for evasion, and also putting yourself in danger. A driver who is stupid enough to sit alongside a heavy truck in traffic, will likely have no idea of what a truck driver's blind spot is.

Thirdly, if a truck is passing you, let him go before accelerating. So many motorists start accelerating as a truck is passing them, little realising that the truck is on a speed limiter. The truck is then marooned in the centre lane, with possibly a whole lot of motoring morons all undertaking him slowly, or sitting on his inside. One motorist's bad driving not only increases the hazard for himself and the truck driver, but can also encourage the bad driving of everyone else, who generally copy whatever the mob are doing.

None of this is to absolve the truck driver in this particular instance. None of us were there to see what exactly happened, so NOBODY here can make an accurate judgement. My point would be, if there is one, that the difference between motorists who continually learn and improve their skills over years of driving, and motorists who 'pass their test' and immediately stop learning any further, is a gulf.

Be a driver who continually learns and adapts. Don't be a driver who says "I am entitled to 'x,' I am in the right." Be a driver who anticipates the limitations of others, particularly heavier vehicles, and make allowances. Be quick, be proactive, and most of all, be aware.

For someone blaming other posters for hating truck drivers you are expressing a fair bit of contempt for other drivers yourself.
The logic of your post suggests that drivers must take responsibility for the limitations of truck drivers. That is utter rubbish. Each road user should use the roads in accordance with the rules of the road and should be able to assume that all other drivers do the same.

We should have zero tolerance for truck drivers bullying their way into lanes without taking adequate account of their own blind spots.
Truck driver at fault if OP'S story is truthful

miece16

i've seen many trucks bullying their way into lanes in rush hour traffic. one case i saw, they didnt use their indicator and the car behind got an awful shock who had to hit the brakes hard to avoid getting the front of their car smashed by the trailer

paddyland

bucketybuck wrote: »

Two vehicles involved, one was changing lanes while the other was driving straight ahead. It isn't hard at all to make an accurate judgement, the duty of care is on the vehicle changing lanes.

That's too simplisitc a view. One scenario would be that the truck driver was in the centre lane, passing a slower vehicle. Once he clears the slower vehicle, he absolutely correctly indicates and moves to the left lane. His mirror probably doesn't completely cover both of the lanes to his left. If there is a car in the slip lane, moving to the right as the truck is moving to the left, then culpability is wide open, but the weight of favour would have to be towards the truck driver in such an instance.

In fairness, the OP hasn't given us an altogether clear view of what happened. He tells us the truck indicated and moved left, but he hasn't really told us his position or speed, or the truck's speed, or who was passing who, or if he was sitting alongside the truck at the same speed. Was the OP changing lanes at the same time? If I was the insurance assessor, I would need far more information.

seamus

Zero doubt of truck driver fault here. The size of the vehicle is immaterial to blame, it's pretty basic rules of the road that you do not change lane without yielding to traffic already in that lane. The only exception to this rule is if both vehicles were changing into the same lane, in which case the vehicle in the rightmost lane has right of way. But from the OP's post it seems pretty clear that they were occupying the lane before the truck moved.

Your car is ten days old, but by virtue of this accident its value has been massively affected. I'd claim for a complete replacement of the vehicle. Simply replacing the damaged panels will not leave you back in the same financial position - if you were to attempt to sell the car on after fixing it, you would be at least 20% down on an equivalent vehicle, just because it's been crashed.

Gosub

b3m19tlos0ekqp wrote: »

For someone blaming other posters for hating truck drivers you are expressing a fair bit of contempt for other drivers yourself.
The logic of your post suggests that drivers must take responsibility for the limitations of truck drivers. That is utter rubbish. Each road user should use the roads in accordance with the rules of the road and should be able to assume that all other drivers do the same.

We should have zero tolerance for truck drivers bullying their way into lanes without taking adequate account of their own blind spots.
Truck driver at fault if OP'S story is truthful

I have a bit of a problem with this bit. In any journey my goal is to get to the other end with as little drama as possible. Rules of the road are fine, but they won't help you if you are inside a truck that has a blowout on the motorway. For that matter, if there's any unforeseen event, rules of the road generally go out the window.

For me, it's best to use common sense and awareness. It doesn't matter who was in the right or obeying rules if you are killed in a crash, like the lad who was killed by the wrong-way driver on the motorway recently. He was probably observing the rules of the road.

The above has held up for me during 42 years of accident-free driving in many countries, in all classes of vehicles. Many accidents have been avoided by observance and quick reactions. The further ahead you observe, the less you need quick reactions.

paddyland

b3m19tlos0ekqp wrote: »

For someone blaming other posters for hating truck drivers you are expressing a fair bit of contempt for other drivers yourself.
The logic of your post suggests that drivers must take responsibility for the limitations of truck drivers. That is utter rubbish.

DON"T quote things I did not say. Drivers must be AWARE of other driver's limitations. NOWHERE did I say drivers must take responsibility for other driver's limitations. You are responsible for your own driving. But you have a duty to make yourself AWARE of everything going on around you. Truck drivers are generally a hell of a lot more aware of everything around them than general motorists, who seem to pay little or no attention, most of the time. I have contempt for drivers who pay little or no attention. And on the M50, that is mostly private motorists, I am afraid.

glic71rods46t0

paddyland wrote: »

That's too simplisitc a view. One scenario would be that the truck driver was in the centre lane, passing a slower vehicle. Once he clears the slower vehicle, he absolutely correctly indicates and moves to the left lane. His mirror probably doesn't completely cover both of the lanes to his left. If there is a car in the slip lane, moving to the right as the truck is moving to the left, then culpability is wide open, but the weight of favour would have to be towards the truck driver in such an instance.

In fairness, the OP hasn't given us an altogether clear view of what happened. He tells us the truck indicated and moved left, but he hasn't really told us his position or speed, or the truck's speed, or who was passing who, or if he was sitting alongside the truck at the same speed. Was the OP changing lanes at the same time? If I was the insurance assessor, I would need far more information.

The OP's speed, or the trucks speed or his position is irrelevant. The issue is that the truck changed lanes where the lane was already occupied. Even if the car was doing the same speed as the truck it's not the car drivers full that the truck driver gambled with his blind spot. You seem to be complicating a very simple issue of liability. It's a pity that the op doesn't have witnesses - that truck driver could very well get prosecu

glic71rods46t0

Read my post again and try to understand it before jumping in with your caps lock on. I didn't quote you. I said the logic of your post was.......

paddyland wrote: »

DON"T quote things I did not say. Drivers must be AWARE of other driver's limitations. NOWHERE did I say drivers must take responsibility for other driver's limitations. You are responsible for your own driving. But you have a duty to make yourself AWARE of everything going on around you. Truck drivers are generally a hell of a lot more aware of everything around them than general motorists, who seem to pay little or no attention, most of the time. I have contempt for drivers who pay little or no attention. And on the M50, that is mostly private motorists, I am afraid.

paddyland

b3m19tlos0ekqp wrote: »

The OP's speed, or the trucks speed or his position is irrelevant. The issue is that the truck changed lanes where the lane was already occupied. Even if the car was doing the same speed as the truck it's not the car drivers full that the truck driver gambled with his blind spot. You seem to be complicating a very simple issue of liability. It's a pity that the op doesn't have witnesses - that truck driver could very well get prosecu

Were you there? How do you know who is liable? You don't. I don't. The OP gave far too little information. I am speaking generally. I cannot speak for one specific instance I did not see. You claim to speak for an instance you did not see.

bucketybuck

paddyland wrote: »

but he hasn't really told us his position or speed, or the truck's speed, or who was passing who, or if he was sitting alongside the truck at the same speed.

He probably hasn't told us that because its irrelevant.

glic71rods46t0

paddyland wrote: »

Were you there? How do you know who is liable? You don't. I don't. The OP gave far too little information. I am speaking generally. I cannot speak for one specific instance I did not see. You claim to speak for an instance you did not see.

Well it was an accident on the M50 where the righteous paddyland tells us most private motorists pay little or no attention so you seem to have a problem accepting the OP's version of events.
If the OP is being truthful in his account then there is no question who is at fault

paddyland

bucketybuck wrote: »

He probably hasn't told us that because its irrelevant.

That statement ends any notion that this was a reasonably serious thread.

paddyland

b3m19tlos0ekqp wrote: »

Well it was an accident on the M50 where the righteous paddyland tells us most private motorists pay little or no attention so you seem to have a problem accepting the OP's version of events.
If the OP is being truthful in his account then there is no question who is at fault

Quick to judgement? I'd want a hell of a lot more detailed information before I jump to hang someone. Is there any danger you could take what I post on face value, without calling me 'righteous,' and quoting things I did not say?

glic71rods46t0

paddyland wrote: »

That statement ends any notion that this was a reasonably serious thread.

I take it a serious thread is one where everyone agrees with you regardless of how illogical your position is - reasoned debate has no place in a "reasonably serious thread"?

alias no.9

The OP says they immediately joined the left of the 3 driving lanes upon entering the motorway, leaving the auxiliary lane to their left.
They say the collision happened at the toll bridge.
This would mean that they're firmly established in position in this lane before the truck moved to change lane.
The OP also stated that the truck driver initially thought they had a blowout which wouldn't reflect well on their level of observation.
It's only one side of the story but if it's accurate, everything points to the truck driver being 100% liable.
Personally I wouldn't have positioned myself immediately to the left of a truck, I prefer having no collision rather than being able to attribute liability to another party every day of the week.

glic71rods46t0

paddyland wrote: »

Quick to judgement? I'd want a hell of a lot more detailed information before I jump to hang someone. Is there any danger you could take what I post on face value, without calling me 'righteous,' and quoting things I did not say?

You are making sweeping disparaging generalisations about most private motorists and you object to being described as righteous? Jesus wept!

pablo128

b3m19tlos0ekqp wrote: »

For someone blaming other posters for hating truck drivers you are expressing a fair bit of contempt for other drivers yourself.
The logic of your post suggests that drivers must take responsibility for the limitations of truck drivers. That is utter rubbish. Each road user should use the roads in accordance with the rules of the road and should be able to assume that all other drivers do the same.

We should have zero tolerance for truck drivers bullying their way into lanes without taking adequate account of their own blind spots.
Truck driver at fault if OP'S story is truthful

You remind me about the time my mates girlfriend was studying for her theory test for a driving licence. She was whinging about questions to do with tractors and motorcycles. "What the fcuk are these questions. I don't want to drive a tractor or a motorbike", she said. "No", I said, "but you have to share the roads with them."

bucketybuck

paddyland wrote: »

That statement ends any notion that this was a reasonably serious thread.

Build a bridge.

Its a very simple concept that you seemingly want to complicate. The OP is driving forward in his lane, the vehicle in the lane to his right has changed lanes and hit the OP. The duty of care is on the vehicle changing lanes.

The speed of the OP does not change that duty of care. The speed of the truck does not change that duty of care. The position of the OP relative to the truck does not change that duty of care.

As difficult as it can be for a truck driver to see everything it still doesn't change the simple fact that the onus is on the truck driver to ensure the inside lane was clear before he merged into it. You have picked a very open/shut case on which to make a stand.

Faolchu

alias no.9 wrote: »

The OP also stated that the truck driver initially thought they had a blowout which wouldn't reflect well on their level of observation.

I was going to say that, would the truck drivers behaviour on having a blow out indicate he had no regard for other road users? in the event of a blow out should he not have left the road to ensure his truck was fit to continue travel?

glic71rods46t0

pablo128 wrote: »

You remind me about the time my mates girlfriend was studying for her theory test for a driving licence. She was whinging about questions to do with tractors and motorcycles. "What the fcuk are these questions. I don't want to drive a tractor or a motorbike", she said. "No", I said, "but you have to share the roads with them."

I didn't do the theory test - does it tell drivers that they have a liability if a truck changes lane in on top of them causing a crash?
This thread is about liability in the circumstances outlined by the OP. Not sure what the ramblings of a mates girlfriend has to do with it but please explain, I'm intrigued!

paddyland

b3m19tlos0ekqp wrote: »

I take it a serious thread is one where everyone agrees with you regardless of how illogical your position is - reasoned debate has no place in a "reasonably serious thread"?

I take NO position on this accident. I have no idea what happened, only the OP's meagre statement. He is most likely in the right, but unlike you, I'd rather have more information before I go jumping to conclusions in this particular case. Bucketybuck suggests that more information is 'irrelevant.' So that's case closed, is it?

I simply posted a few basic observations about driving in proximity to trucks on the M50, and from out of nowhere, you jump down my neck, and call me 'righteous.' Every other thread on this Motors forum complains about stupid drivers on the M50, hogging lanes, undertaking, doing all kinds of crazy and wonderful things, yet when I suggest they are not all aware enough of others on the road, you take mighty offence, and start an internet flame war against me, shouting me down at every opportunity?

What is your problem?

paddyland

bucketybuck wrote: »

Build a bridge.

Its a very simple concept that you seemingly want to complicate. The OP is driving forward in his lane, the vehicle in the lane to his right has changed lanes and hit the OP. The duty of care is on the vehicle changing lanes.

The speed of the OP does not change that duty of care. The speed of the truck does not change that duty of care. The position of the OP relative to the truck does not change that duty of care.

As difficult as it can be for a truck driver to see everything it still doesn't change the simple fact that the onus is on the truck driver to ensure the inside lane was clear before he merged into it. You have picked a very open/shut case on which to make a stand.

I simply would like more information. It looks, on the OP's word, that he was in the right. Fair enough. But I would like a more detailed description. You think that's irrelevant.