Safe Speed Forums

I wonder if anyone could put forward sensible views on what could/would have prevented the following accident scenario.
Couple of pensioners (with full faculties) driving down the M6 in their new car (which is 1yr old). they're keeping to approx 60mph in lane 1 because they've only had the car for 1 week and are still getting used to it.
it's daylight, visibility is good , road is dry and busy, but relatively slow (this is birmingham area).
foreign (Hungarian), left hand drive, truck enters the M6 from a slip road and having not apparently seen the car, drives straight into the rear LH corner of it, spins it round, hits it again in the process, spinning it again before the 2 vehicles stop.
Despite all the surrounding traffic, no one else hits the vehicles and somehow no-one is injured (apart from possible whiplash).

The above accident did happen and I've tried to keep it impartial and have given all the details that i know of.

anyone help?

(1) if clear they could have moved to lane 2
(2) if not they could have sped up briefly
(3) the truckie could have opened his eyes.

Having said that I got nailed last year in a similar fashion. Driving in L1 because I had just entered from a junction and was planning on leaving at the next. Truck entered from same juction as me but went into L2. Pulled up alongside me, decided traffic was too heavy so moved to L1... then decided that his best excuse was to accuse me of undertaking. So much for avoiding accidents by NOT exceeding the speed limit.

I don't have the details to know whether there was enough space for 1) or 2), although given how busy the M6 was, I suspect moving into lane 2 was not viable.

just added a bit more above, but it does sound like there wasn't a whole lot they could have done.

Well from the description, the speed up or change lanes options were probably not obvious options: busy and slow in the birmingham area means all lanes packed and normally less than 2 seconds gaps, so nowhere to move.

I find it rather odd that the truck driver couldn't see the car, unless they occupied his blind spot - Hungarian implies that it might be a foreign truck with driver in left seat. It is therefore possible that he really didn't see them because they always occupied the gap between mirror and window vision.

So an unfortunate incident then.

However, the car driver should have been aware of the truck especially when it got really close, and even a slight closing of the gap to the vehicle in front should have been enough to avoid being swiped. If not, then hitting the horn should have alerted the truck driver. So COAST on the part of the car driver then.

The fundamental problem however is visibility from the truck driving seat, and there are options, such as fitting a blind spot mirror that provides additional coverage perhaps mounted inside the cab top right (from drivers view), or in the modern technology age perhaps a side mounted camera. They still rely on the driver having time to use them, but I always manage a glance over my shoulder when joining a motorway, so I think that had they been fitted the accident shouldn't have happened.

i saw a near miss in a similar fashion on the M25 a couple of months ago....where the M20 joins the M25 it becomes four lanes for a couple of miles or so......there was a little car in lane 3 that moved into lane 2 right in the blind spot of a foreign HGV in lane 1......the car then sat there making no attempt to either overtake the truck or slow down.......

It was a typical M25 sort of day with very heavy traffic and an average speed in the low 50's and i just couldnt believe anybody could be so stupid.........anyway when the four lanes merged to three the truck indicated and started to move and fortunately for the little car someone had seen the trouble they were in and had left a gap for them in the next lane..........

Im sure its the 'if im under the speed limit i must be ok' attitude again no one seems to pay attention to anything else but there speed anymore.....

but in answer to the original post when im in lane 1 with traffic merging from the left i make mirror checks and lifesavers to ensure no one is trying to merge into the side of my car......if there was an HGV next to me that hadnt seen me i would either accelerate into the gap ahead of me or get into lane 2

Difficult to say exactly, but I from everybody I know who has driven trucks say left-hookers are an absolute nightmare. The blind-spots are huge apparently, so those that suggest the truck driver was not observing enough maybe being a little too critical. Perhaps your right, but the likelyhood was it was a blind-spot situation.

With that in mind I try to get the hell out of their way, and if I can't do that I make damn sure I've got a good escape route, be that slow down, speed up or change lanes. If the car driver sensed that the HGV would have been joining at roughly the same time, it may have been prudent to start indicating. Hopefully someone in L2 would have been alert to the danger they were in and let them into L2.

yes, I think you're right, I clearly hadn't thought about it enough. Obviously the car was going faster than the truck and would have been edging past while the truck was on the slip road. They almost made it...
Obviously the truck shouldn't have pulled out but if the car driver had been more observant he could at least have given a blast on the horn.

All sorts of things can happen to vehicles in L1 where there's an on ramp. I *always* try to pull out to make room for any traffic that might be merging.

Where there's an on ramp, I *always* suspend overtaking.

Where there's merging traffic it pays to be highly aware of the risks of observation failures from merging vehicles.

All in all, I'd suggest that best practice from the vehicle on the motorway could easily have avoided this crash. But the techniques required are not commonly taught, so no blame should be attached to the car driver.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

yet another good reason for making more training (and retraining) compulsory...

The Police attended the crash scene and I have not been told of any indication that they intended to apportion blame to the car's driver.

The couple in question were my parents this saturday at about noon, at Junction 9 of the M6. they were very shaken up for a while and feel lucky to be alive, never mind escaping without a scratch or bruise. how much of this is down to the car (a 54 plate Fiesta) i don't know. I'm just please i still have them.

Once returned home, they sorted out the contents of the car and my father drove down to the original family meeting in maidenhead.

I suspect car was in trucks blindspot. On realising he was about to be squished he tied to accelerate past the truck but either didn't have the space or time.

A bit of observation on the part of the car driver would have spotted the collision course earlier, a bit of consideration on the part of the car driver would have suggested he should make a space for the truck. If traffic was heavy then this could only be done by slowing to allow the truck to join.

Of course the truck should not be moving into a space he can't be certain is clear.

Sorry Paul. Unless I'm way off then the car driver has to take at least 50% blame.

Condolences to Stackmonkey, it seems you posted as I started to compose my thoughts. Doesn't change my viewpoint though.

Why I think I'd like to see some kind of refresher course offered to all - but there has to be an incentive - such as some car ruinning costs discount system to offset cost of the refresh course.

As for the scenario - Hungarian driver hit the rear LH corner. More than likely the old couple's insurers would support thier claim that the foreigh driver is 100% liable. On entry to motorway - and bearing in mind he's LH drive with all the pitfalls - then all the more reason to exercise car on his part when joining. He's also not using the COAST model - from the ramp you begin the concentration process - take a hard observing look at the traffic in the three lanes you see ahead and look in the wing mirror (in his case may have a SMIDSY - but he should still be aware of this problem being used to his rig But even so - on joining - truckie should have been scanning ahead and to his rear and of all potential blind spots to himself and others. Ultimately though - the vehicle joining the motorway has to give way if traffic conditions dictate a collision - and we would not prosecute a run into the hard shoulder as escape route in these circumstances.

If he entered motorway on the solid chevron hatch triangle - offence which we do you for! He would not have leg to stand on either in court or with liability.

As for the car driver - again COAST problem to some extent. Drivers should always anticipate a joiner's error at these points. I tend to watch - if I am able to move to L2 - I move into the flow of L2, adjusting speed to suit, and assist the other diver's entry - or I adjust the speed - either lowering it or accelerating out of danger dependent on the situation in front of me.

But even so - more than likely the old couple's insurers will deem the other party liable based on

"RoadCraft" (motorway driving chapter)

"Highway Code - Rule 233 which states priority to be given to traffic already on motorway"

"Driving the Essential Skills" Pages 216-226 which also states using the slip road to adjust to speed - but also reminding priority to be given to traffic alread on motorway - and advises MSM/PSL routine (another way of saying COAST!

Edited for some typos

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

It is an unfortunate accident where they are not to blame. however I doubt that many people on this board would have been hit. most of the people on this board are thinkg an extra step ahead of the rest. Your parents should have seen the truck as they should have been going at least 5 mph faster. new cars are better run in on ordenary roads rather than a constant 60. so a quick squeeze on the gas would have helped them and the car.

I hope they get over the shock soon and they get a replacement car sorted out with minimum fuss.

The onus is always on the driver joining the motorway do do so safely. There seems to be a 'syndrome' now that if you signal on entry, people are obliged to give way or move over. THIS IS DANGEROUS as the vehicle on the motorway may not be able to move over. The vehicle joining must give way.

Left-hand drive trucks and foreign drivers are now a MAJOR hazard on our roads. In my opinion if they are not properly equipped to drive in the UK, with the additional mirrors required, they should be banned from entry at the ports. Extra driver training would not come amiss either. Something like a mandatory competency certificate would do the trick.

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

I agree with all of this, the emboldened comment particularly, and all of In Gears post.
The fact that you have restricted view due to the design of your vehicle is no defence to anything, and the left hooker is at fault. More awareness and planning by the car driver would have saved their skin, but it's down to the HGV driver.
Avoidance of the collision is as per In Gear's post.

I've dealt with one RTC involving a LHD HGV, where a young child ran out across the front, offside to nearside, at a busy pedestrian crossing. The lights had just changed to green for the HGV, but I think she thought she would have been seen by the driver when she set off. He didn't of course and collected her on his bumper. She fell under the HGV, and reports I had on attending the scene as family liaison officer were that she had been dragged 50 yards, she had gone under the wheels, and blood and legs were everywhere. I attended the hospital where the parents had been sent. On arrival at the hospital within the first hour, I made enquiries about the child, only to find that she had already gone home with minor cuts and bruises! Reports that she was near to death had fortunately been wildly exaggerated!
She'll never be so lucky again!

Point I'm making is that she probably assumed she had been seen, and probably would have been seen by a RHD HGV.

It is a growing concern.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

We probably agree actually. If I'd been the car driver, knowing what I know, I'd have felt entirely responsible for failing to avoid the crash. On the other hand, from a legal or insurance perspective the car driver probably deserves none of the blame.

If we were talking about moral responsibility, I'd suggest that the judgement should depend on the car driver's knowledge. If the car driver knew he was in a risky situation, but failed to deal with it, then blame is due. If his knowledge fell well short of the norm to allow it to happen then blame is due.

But I suggest that an average driver with 'normal' levels of knowledge might well have had the same crash. So no moral blame is due.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I am pleased that stackmonkey's parents escaped unhurt form a very shocking experience.

I would say that both drivers were 100% responsible for the collision because both could and should have taken appropriate action to avoid it. However, the truck driver carries (probably 100%) legal liability because it was his primary legal duty to give way.

I think road 'anti collision' rules could learn something from the marine equivalent here, the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea or "Colregs".

In this case, the truck is the marine equivalent of the 'give way' vessel and the car is the 'stand on' vessel. Under rule 17 of Colregs:

"The [stand on] vessel may ... take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules"

and:

"When, from any cause, the [stand on] vessel finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision"

but:

"This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.".

So the "stand on" vessel has a legal duty to take action to avoid the collision.

If helming a small boat, I always keep well out of the way of anything substantially larger. The same applies on the roads.

We need to separate legal blame, and blame as in who could have done something to avoid the accident.

Being in the right is little consolation when you are staring at a pile of twisted metal and have to wait for insurers to finish their legal wranglings and the mechanics to straighten things out.

By putting all the blame on one driver in an incident we miss a valuable learning opportunity for the other driver who may have been able to avoid the accident.

Of course to follow every accident up with a detailed analysis and point out to ach driver where they went wrong would take a lot of time and resources, something the police can't spare.

I think the driving test is partly to blame. It puts too much emphasis on tis is RIGHT and that is WRONG. Drivers should be educated in defensive driving from the outset.

Me too.

We've always referred to it as the "Gross Tonnage Rule", though I don't think it actually appears in the Colregs...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!