Driving and Roads

[Black Hole]

Can one opt out of paying for schools if one has no children? I'm not a criminal, so should I pay for prisons? You pay your taxes for "the common good".

Excellent.

 

[Deleted member 473]

Or North Korean ones. He's going to disarm the police to deal with your choice of terrorism. That should do the trick then (But I bet a fiver he wouldn't object to an armed bodyguard)

He isn't going to do anything. He will not win.

 

[Trev]

He isn't going to do anything. He will not win.

Might not win, but might lose a load of face if he makes a definite threat then doesn't carry it out. And face is pretty much everything in the far east no matter what the consequences. I feel that he would even prefer a nuclear war to losing face. Having said that, they won last time. and so did N Vietnam.

 

[af123]

So, who's fault is this? Opinions seems to be divided around t'Interweb but I think it's clear cut.

 

[MikeSh]

In that specific case it's got to be the lorry driver's fault. He can't even claim the car was in his blind spot by the front wheel.

 

[Trev]

The car driver being stupid enough to go up the inside of a truck indicating left (in this case, or right as the case might be). Should have been applying a bit of self preservation tactics. Stupid!

 

[af123]

Obviously not as clear-cut as I thought then.
I think it's the car driver's fault (as far as I can tell from the video, that's a single lane turning left onto a dual carriageway that the lorry happens to be on the right side of) but the lorry driver could have avoided it.

 

[Trev]

But he has to be on the RH side to prevent mounting the pavement on his left when he turns. The stupid car driver put himself slap bang in the middle of the 'danger zone'. The truck was indicating left when the car drove up the inside. Had the car driver got his finger out and gone when the truck started moving he would have been clear. So, driving up the inside, slow away = stupid!

 

[Black Hole]

The lorry had left enough room for vehicles on the left. The car was on the left and well ahead of the lorry. The lorry took off while looking right, didn't (rather than couldn't) see the car, and cut the corner off.

The car could have been more defensive, but only by hanging back to the extent that everyone else would have wondered what the heck he was doing. I'm on the car's side.

 

[MikeSh]

The truck was indicating left when the car drove up the inside.

I can't see any left, or right, indication from the lorry.
I'd assumed it was a two-lane junction but looking again at the video there may be faded markings reducing it to a single lane, but being wet doesn't help. If that's the case then technically the car driver was wrong, though the council could also be blamed for not maintaining the markings.
Nonetheless, the car was actually ahead of the lorry and if the lorry driver had checked in front before pulling out he would have seen him there. It's a variation of the classic 'roundabout shunt' where someone thinks the car in front has gone or is going and goes themselves ... only to find the one in front is still there.

 

[Trev]

The lorry took off while looking right, didn't (rather than couldn't) see the car, and cut the corner off.

Has no choice but to cut the corner off. That's the way artics/long vehicles work.

I can't see any left, or right, indication from the lorry.

Ah, I think you'r right on further examination.

It's a variation of the classic 'roundabout shunt' where someone thinks the car in front has gone or is going and goes themselves .

There you go. It was not unreasonable for the truck driver to think the car had gone, as he drove off, then stopped.
Changed my mind. Lorry driver at fault.

 

[EEPhil]

When I eventually got to look at the video (tried 3 browsers to get there!)...
Looking at the layout of the junction there wasn't any need for the lorry to be so far to the right. As the lorry could only turn left any reasonable driver would have to assume he was going to turn left - and yet the car goes up his inside. Agree with MikeSh -When positioned at the give way the car should have been visible to the lorry as he was in front. The lorry driver did not check to see that his exit road was clear - too busy checking the traffic from the right. My verdict. Driving without due care etc. by the lorry driver.

 

[Trev]

there wasn't any need for the lorry to be so far to the right.

Yes there was. He was pretty close to up the kerb even with that much 'over to the right'. Perhaps a couple of feet, but he has to allow for stuff in a big truck. But still the truck driver.

 

[Black Hole]

There does appear to be only one lane approaching that junction, but nonetheless the lorry has taken a much wider line than it needed to and was to the right of another car in front.

Indicators are irrelevant, that was the only way to go, although I note there appeared to be no indication before the event but there is after the event.

There are several faults here: the lorry should not have been so far to the right if it was intended to be a single lane, inviting other drivers to use the left as another lane (this may have become the common practice at this junction, with the "right" aiming to join lane 2 of the carriageway, and I don't believe it needed that much room to make the turn); the lorry driver could have seen the car if he had been looking where he was going; and it was pointless for the car to go up the left side if oncoming traffic was then obscured by the lorry.

The car driver may have been stupid, but I think it's a cut and dried case against the lorry.

 

[Black Hole]

This incident is reminiscent of something that happened to me some years ago. The motorway roundabout down the road is not marked as two lanes, but is wide enough and is used that way (indeed, some of it is used as three lanes when there is queuing traffic). I was intending to exit the roundabout onto the motorway slip, so I was on the outside track, but the exit was closed for roadworks so I was forced to continue around the roundabout.

There was a construction vehicle on the inside track of the roundabout, with yellow beacons flashing all round. What I didn't notice until it was too late was that this vehicle was making a manoeuvre to turn a hair-pin into the motorway off-slip (where traffic from the motorway normally joins the roundabout, complete with "no entry" signs). The vehicle clipped me just as I screeched to a halt, and damaged a tyre in the process.

The driver was completely unrepentant, and called in the police straight away who then took his part, and I was held liable. I still maintain that making a manoeuvre like that, unexpected and illegal under normal traffic laws, should have been conducted with supervision or at least much more care and only when there was no other traffic around.

 

[MikeSh]

Indicators are irrelevant, that was the only way to go,

Ah, I've only just realised that this was a junction onto a dual carriageway - I thought it was a large roundabout. (Looking too hard at the immediate action ). Yes, indication would be superfluous. It certainly also pushes the blame more, but not entirely toward the car driver.
I reality the 'moral right' depends on the usual operation of that junction. If it is 'normal' for two lines to form with the right lane going into the outside lane of the dual carriageway, then the car driver was only doing what is normal practice. However, if the lorry driver isn't local ...

I suspect the insurers may treat it as a knock-for-knock as both drivers have been careless to some extent.

 

[EEPhil]

Yes there was. He was pretty close to up the kerb even with that much 'over to the right'.

Maybe. But if one of the local bin lorry drivers can turn almost on a sixpence, keeping left and not going up the kerb... shirley this one could have.
New signage required at the junction. Something about using only one lane, and beware of lorries taking an unusual path.

 

[Black Hole]

Noting that councils now have permission to remove signs willy-nilly in an effort to declutter and reduce confusion

 

[Brian]

There does appear to be only one lane approaching that junction, but nonetheless the lorry has taken a much wider line than it needed to and was to the right of another car in front.

Indicators are irrelevant, that was the only way to go, although I note there appeared to be no indication before the event but there is after the event.

There are several faults here: the lorry should not have been so far to the right if it was intended to be a single lane, inviting other drivers to use the left as another lane (this may have become the common practice at this junction, with the "right" aiming to join lane 2 of the carriageway, and I don't believe it needed that much room to make the turn); the lorry driver could have seen the car if he had been looking where he was going; and it was pointless for the car to go up the left side if oncoming traffic was then obscured by the lorry.

The car driver may have been stupid, but I think it's a cut and dried case against the lorry.

The junction in question has only one lane approaching it. The lorry is in the correct position to the right of the hatched off section of road on the left. The blue car undertook the lorry by driving through the hatched off section, and is clearly in the wrong.

 

[EEPhil]

The lorry is in the correct position to the right of the hatched off section of road on the left.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the area. From the dash cam and the p'ing rain I can't see any hatching to the left. A bit to the right and foot/cycle crossing lines.