It blows my mind there is even discussion on this, it’s 100% the lorry drivers fault. Poor mirror work the entire junction…approach, waiting and going. And extremely poor oberservation as been said the car was in front at one point.
No pity at all just a ■■■■■■■ ■■■■ driver.
merc0447:
It blows my mind there is even discussion on this, it’s 100% the lorry drivers fault. Poor mirror work the entire junction…approach, waiting and going. And extremely poor oberservation as been said the car was in front at one point.No pity at all just a [zb] [zb] driver.
Yeah but but camaraderie mate 
merc0447:
It blows my mind there is even discussion on this, it’s 100% the lorry drivers fault. Poor mirror work the entire junction…approach, waiting and going. And extremely poor oberservation as been said the car was in front at one point.No pity at all just a [zb] [zb] driver.
Which can only mean that you think that the car driver was 100% in the right and you’d drive a car ( or a truck ) in exactly the same way in a similar situation. 
While there’s not much point in telling cylists not to undertake left turning trucks if you think the car driver wasn’t the main culprit and zb driver,if not crash for cash scammer,in this case.
On that note what next.Muppet car driver undertakes a truck using the hard shoulder on a motorway entry slip and that’s still the truck driver’s fault because he’s using the offside mirrors to watch for traffic on the motorway not someone trying to undertake in a place they shouldn’t be and wouldn’t be expected to be.
Only person to blame here are the road planners. As we know, The hgv driver had to approach the junction on that side of the road
in order to be able to join the dual carriageway without going over into the 2nd lane of the carriageway.
No indicators were used or required as only a left hand turn can be executed.
The hgv driver had seen the car in front of him join the carriageway without incident and as he was next in line had been looking for a gap to enter the busy road, and noticed that it appeared clear after the artic. He is about to set off when he sees a car that is obstructed behind that artic, this is what distracts his attention and ultimately causes the accident.
The car his vehicle crushed looks to be in front of him, but as the cab is considerable higher than the small car, I assume
he never saw it or expected it to be there. remember also that the driver would have been twisted around trying to get a better
view of the busy road, conscious that he will have to make rapid progress once he finds a gap.
The car driver cannot be blamed either, most don’t have the experience to understand what room an HGV vehicle requires
when manoeuvring. his inexperience is evident in the fact that he didn’t set off when the truck driver did. if he wanted a good view to join the carriageway, why did he come along the inside of the truck which would obstruct his view.
It would have been so easy for the road planners to make one steady curve to the left and an entry slip road, which would make life easier for truck drivers
but road planners don’t have an HGV license so are not aware of the problems they create.
I rest my case me-lord.
TruckOff:
The car driver cannot be blamed either, most don’t have the experience to understand what room an HGV vehicle requires
It doesn’t need ‘experience’ because it’s there in black and white within rules 170 and 221 of the highway code.Also in this case it’s obvious,even to a provisional licence holder,let alone anyone who’s actually passed the driving test,that it’s also a single lane entry which by definition means one line of traffic at the entry not two anyway and therefore wait in line and in turn behind the vehicle ahead. Whether it’s a car and let alone a truck which at best will totally block the vision from the right,or at worse will inevitably take out the car when it turns.
Which leaves another question as the car driver seems to be someone who’s possibly never even read the Highway Code let alone understood it maybe it’s not a crash for cash scammer but possibly someone driving without a licence. 
Oh wait a cyclist driving a car without a licence like they ride a bicycle might explain it.
It really is time to stop making excuses for this type of muppetry and make those to blame take responsibility for what is an unacceptable lack of basic driving skills and common sense on the road.In which case as I said this one fits into a similar category as someone trying to undertake a truck in a motorway entry slip maybe even using the hard shoulder and then blaming the truck driver for the resulting mayhem.
Carryfast:
merc0447:
It blows my mind there is even discussion on this, it’s 100% the lorry drivers fault. Poor mirror work the entire junction…approach, waiting and going. And extremely poor oberservation as been said the car was in front at one point.No pity at all just a [zb] [zb] driver.
Which can only mean that you think that the car driver was 100% in the right and you’d drive a car ( or a truck ) in exactly the same way in a similar situation.
While there’s not much point in telling cylists not to undertake left turning trucks if you think the car driver wasn’t the main culprit and zb driver,if not crash for cash scammer,in this case.
On that note what next.Muppet car driver undertakes a truck using the hard shoulder on a motorway entry slip and that’s still the truck driver’s fault because he’s using the offside mirrors to watch for traffic on the motorway not someone trying to undertake in a place they shouldn’t be and wouldn’t be expected to be.
The lorry driver left far to big a gap, inviting the car driver to use the space he left. Also the car was in front of the truck so the driver should have seen it, plus the truck driver has hit a stationary vehicle. Car driver probably doesn’t realise the danger they were getting themselves into by driving into the gap. Poor observation and positioning by the lorry driver that has caused this. 100% his fault IMO. As someone said above, he’s probably positioned himself like that so he wouldn’t swing out into lane 2 when he pulled out and it’s backfired on him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
damoq:
The lorry driver left far to big a gap, inviting the car driver to use the space he left. Also the car was in front of the truck so the driver should have seen it, plus the truck driver has hit a stationary vehicle. Car driver probably doesn’t realise the danger they were getting themselves into by driving into the gap. Poor observation and positioning by the lorry driver that has caused this. 100% his fault IMO. As someone said above, he’s probably positioned himself like that so he wouldn’t swing out into lane 2 when he pulled out and it’s backfired on him.
How does the truck driver supposedly ‘invite’ the car driver to do anything when rule 221 of the Highway Code unarguably applies in that situation.Together with the fact that it’s a single lane entry anyway in which case the car is ‘supposed’ to wait in line behind the truck,just like the camera car did,regardless of rule 221.While if the car driver doesn’t know or understand rule 221,let alone the correct procedure at a single lane junction entry,then the muppet needs to be re tested that’s if he/she even has a licence.
That’s assuming it wasn’t a crash for cash in which case the question is why did the car driver just sit there when the truck moved instead of moving off with it.
Some of you lot need to go to Specsavers. The one thing the lorry actually did right was his positioning. There’s enough room for 2 lanes there but the paint on the floor is painted in a way that it’s only 1. There’s clearly paint on the floor on both sides of the truck. He positioned himself as he should’ve. The single lane is there for a reason. To prevent things like this happening. And how did that car expect to be able to see what’s coming.
The lorry driver failed miserably on observation but the car driver got what he deserved.
Our Insurance agent was in this afternoon and I asked him where he thought an Insurance Company would place the blame and he reckoned it would be 100% the truck, simply because whilst the car driver may have been an idiot, the truck driver should have seen and did have the chance to see the car.
From watching the video I recognised the junction, it’s single lane coming out of Magna park in Leics on to dual carridgeway, so really the car should not have gone up the side of him but the driver should have seen him,but obv didnt…woops
albion:
Our Insurance agent was in this afternoon and I asked him where he thought an Insurance Company would place the blame and he reckoned it would be 100% the truck, simply because whilst the car driver may have been an idiot, the truck driver should have seen and did have the chance to see the car.
That’s a ridiculous idea.By that logic any collision will always be directed against the innocent party if it’s deemed that they could have seen/avoided the nutter.Which in this case would apply just the same in the case of anyone undertaking a truck,possibly using the hard shoulder,on a motorway entry slip and then getting side swiped while the driver is watching traffic on the offside for a safe gap.IE a crash for cash scammers’ charter.
Whatever happened to the basis that “the person behind at the moment of contact is considered to be the one at fault”… 
(Unless reversed into of course)
A tottaly avoidable accident by the hgv driver, he should have shut down the space to his n/s to stop any numpty using it. I do not not know the junction, but could he not have pulled further round onto the short slip road & used his mirror to judge a safe space in the traffic as to when to pull onto the dual carriage way…
Winseer:
Whatever happened to the basis that “the person behind at the moment of contact is considered to be the one at fault”…(Unless reversed into of course)
No such presumption.Lane change and being hit by approaching traffic.Lane change which removes the vehicle behind’s braking distance followed by an emergency stop.Pulling out from a junction creating an impossible speed differential regards approaching traffic.
dave docwra:
A tottaly avoidable accident by the hgv driver, he should have shut down the space to his n/s to stop any numpty using it.
Why would anyone be ‘using’ a non existent traffic lane ?.Or how does that idea fit rule 221 of the Highway Code and a truck’s need to allow for cut in anyway.
Carryfast:
Why would anyone be ‘using’ a non existent traffic lane ?.Or how does that idea fit rule 221 of the Highway Code and a truck’s need to allow for cut in anyway.
Silly question, what the ■■■■ does the average driver know or care about cut in or out! it was an empty piece of tarmac & you will always find someone if you leave space who thinks they have a God given right to use it, a lot of the numpties out there would only have read the highway code to pass a test & I am sure some of them must have had someone do the test for them judging by the standard of their driving, by the way the XPO driver imho opinion did not check the area his trailer was going to cut in to, and he had plenty of time to do this, if he had he would of seen the car to his n/s & would have avoided the numpty.
Just one more thing, did the numpty get sucked into the situation by the black car being so far from the lorry, also the lorry had not, as far as I can see used their left indicator as a warning (yes I do know he/she technicaly would be moving right ) at the start of the video…
Carryfast:
Winseer:
Whatever happened to the basis that “the person behind at the moment of contact is considered to be the one at fault”…(Unless reversed into of course)
No such presumption.Lane change and being hit by approaching traffic.Lane change which removes the vehicle behind’s braking distance followed by an emergency stop.Pulling out from a junction creating an impossible speed differential regards approaching traffic.
What kind of speed was that car doing to rear-end like that? The morgan didn’t even dally in pulling out there, so I’m thinking at least 70mph coming into the end of the dual carriageway…
Once again “Car impacting from the rear - is the one at fault” upheld.
Sure, the morgan pulled across in a dangerous fashion - but unless the car behind was diddling his phone/eating a bowl of cereal or whatever - how TF did he not even cover his brake with a lunging car in front of him, and entering a narrowing road to boot?
Had plenty of time to use the horn, but was there any braking there at all?
Not going through all these comments but just watching the video in the first post it shows total disregard for any other road user, the lorry driver drove recklessly and dangerously, he was totally oblivious to the vehicles around him. The car was there first and the driver just drove straight into it, had the car driver driven up the inside after the lorry got there the blame would have been reversed and even if that were the case the lorry drive should still have seen him arriving.
Winseer:
Carryfast:
Winseer:
Whatever happened to the basis that “the person behind at the moment of contact is considered to be the one at fault”…(Unless reversed into of course)
No such presumption.Lane change and being hit by approaching traffic.Lane change which removes the vehicle behind’s braking distance followed by an emergency stop.Pulling out from a junction creating an impossible speed differential regards approaching traffic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9x8_BHuTe0
What kind of speed was that car doing to rear-end like that? The morgan didn’t even dally in pulling out there, so I’m thinking at least 70mph coming into the end of the dual carriageway…
Once again “Car impacting from the rear - is the one at fault” upheld.
Sure, the morgan pulled across in a dangerous fashion - but unless the car behind was diddling his phone/eating a bowl of cereal or whatever - how TF did he not even cover his brake with a lunging car in front of him, and entering a narrowing road to boot?
Had plenty of time to use the horn, but was there any braking there at all?
Really? You think the Morgan was not to blame? You think the car should have avoided the collision? I make it about two seconds from the Morgan lurching onto the carriage way, and the car impacting.
Winseer:
Carryfast:
Winseer:
Whatever happened to the basis that “the person behind at the moment of contact is considered to be the one at fault”…(Unless reversed into of course)
No such presumption.Lane change and being hit by approaching traffic.Lane change which removes the vehicle behind’s braking distance followed by an emergency stop.Pulling out from a junction creating an impossible speed differential regards approaching traffic.
What kind of speed was that car doing to rear-end like that? The morgan didn’t even dally in pulling out there, so I’m thinking at least 70mph coming into the end of the dual carriageway…
Once again “Car impacting from the rear - is the one at fault” upheld.
Sure, the morgan pulled across in a dangerous fashion - but unless the car behind was diddling his phone/eating a bowl of cereal or whatever - how TF did he not even cover his brake with a lunging car in front of him, and entering a narrowing road to boot?
Had plenty of time to use the horn, but was there any braking there at all?
Maybe an extreme example but the Morgan probably looked like it was accelerating faster than it actually was combined with disbelief of the approaching driver that he wasn’t going to wait.The presumption stands if you pull out on someone it doesn’t matter whether you can get lined up and then hit from the rear or hit in the side it’s generally not the approaching driver’s fault.On that note I think the story was that the Morgan driver was rightly held to blame in that case before all the comments seem to have disappeared.
As for the example in this case it’s not who was behind or ahead it’s who was waiting at the junction first and who then arrived after and then tried to make two lanes of traffic out of one rather than waiting behind in turn.In addition to totally ignoring rule 221 of the Highway Code regardless.With the predictable result that the truck driver thought that the entry was clear of traffic to the nearside while looking to the right.