while driving on the M42 North, Birmingham on monday night a lorry drifted over into my lane - im not sure if he had fallen asleep. i blasted the horn but he was still drifting. in the end i swerved and drove into some cones on the hard shoulder. the lorry driver swerved back into the middle lane and then sped off.
lorry driver in the middle lane, myself in the slow lane.
ive got his number plate and business name.
there are a few scratches to my car where the cones have bounced off it. as i had no witness's can i go anywhere with this? my friend is in the police and suggested that this wouldnt lead anywhere if reported to the police.
your advice is appreciated.
|
Mark it down to experience and learn the "escape route" rule. Never get alongide a lorry unless oyu have an alternate place to go to get out of its way.
Taught as part of "defensive driving"
|
i had an advanced driving course for Christmas so il be taking that soon!
scary experience though.
|
|
|
|
ive got his number plate and business name.
As you've got the business name and reg, report it to the company. OK, it probably won't get your car fixed, but at least they will know what type of cretin they're employing.
|
Is there a reason you were driving <56mph so that the lorry had to overtake you? Or was it roadworks?
It reminds me of the Fifth Gear tv show of last year where they had a nervous motorway driver on, she was pottering along at 50 and wondering why all the trucks were bunching up on her and boxing her in. Not once did Tiffany Dell or the so called 'motoring psychologist' say "speed up to 70", which would have solved the majority of her problems.
|
|
The presence of cones does suggest roadworks, but possibly it's just his preferred -- and far more economical -- speed. I take your point of course, but is 56 unreasonable in lane 1?
|
I'm with RF - a bit more observation and awareness *may* have avoided the situation. Not always, but usually it does.
However I'd be writing to the company concerned, especially if the damage was significant - i.e. to a reasonably new otherwise good condition car. If it's a bit of a wreck anyway then probably I'd put it down to experience. Without third party witness it's impossible to prove who was wrong - one word against another...
|
|
|
|
|
there are roadworks down there and it was 50mph limit
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of an incident many years ago on the M1. I came behind an artic veering across the inside and middle lane. When I finally got past him, I looked in my rear view mirror and lo and behold, he was brushing his teeth!
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
Most likely this one was on the phone to head office, the wife, or girl friend ...
|
|
|
>>Without third party witness it's impossible to prove who was wrong
Mind you, they don't know there are no independent witnesses, and they may settle rather than risk witnesses appearing. It's always worth a try.
v8man -- for God's sake keep quiet about this, or we'll have a law against brushing your teeth at the wheel in no time.
|
|
|
|
If your car is going to need money spent on it in excess of your no-claims excess I would be inclined to report it.
Then approach the lorry company and offer to settle privately.
|
On a one to one as described even if you could gain the interest of BiB in this matter after a statement from you, interview of offending driver, then the file presented to CPS, unless the lorry driver held his hands up (do pigs fly)and no actual contact, it appears there is no hope of them launching into prosecution mode.
From time, date and place, could the incident have been covered by CCTV - if so ups the anti and report.
Smokies suggestion of writing to the Transport Manager of the firm may invoke results. Drivers Tacho could put him the area of the incident?
DVD
|
Agreed
contact the haulage co and they will say 'cant do aything without the reg no'.
Then tell them that.
Then tell them you intend to follow it up with Police
Then tell them you intend to follow it up with HSE under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The company have a duty of care towards the public regardless of any motoring offence committed. Just because this happened on the road does not preclude action under this act.
Hugo
|
Yes, write to the firm and give the time, location and reg number with an explanation of what happened, you probably won't get anywhere but you never know if the firm is reputable.
56mph is unreasonable for a car to be driving in lane 1 as this is the exact speed, with some small degree of variance that HGV's are limited at. We have enough to contend with trying to get round each other without also trying to get round you (if the road is clear).
I will be the first to admit that some lorry drivers are %%""££** but most of us try and drive with care. He was most likely knackered. At night a lot of them are going to be sleepy, bear this in mind. When driving my car at speed if there is anything in lane 1, I will overtake in lane 3 if nothing behind, the road is there, use it.
***Never merge from lane 3 into lane 2 parallel to a lorry in lane 1.*** This makes me cringe every time I see it, you are merging in it's blind spot.
You're right, if we're not eating Yorkie's or on the phone we are brushing our teeth, a car is highly manouverable and quick to respond, a lorry is not, take a wide berth, I do when I'm in my car.
|
56mph is unreasonable for a car to be driving in lane 1 as this is the exact speed, with some small degree of variance that HGV's are limited at.
Thanks for the clarification. I take your point.
--
Badger was previously registered as Stripey
|
|
|
|
I would imagine that Dave A was doing 50 (there are cameras there or at least signs for them) and the lorry 56. What else could he do?
It just shows how stupid and unnecessary the 50 mph limit is on that stretch (and it is a stretch) of the M42. It's been there for ages; the lanes aren't narrower than normal and very little work is being done. What there is is well away from the carriageway. As Dave has proved, this sort of thing can make accidents more rather than less likely.
|
|
|
I would agree with RF. I think I made this point before..Whatever you do steer clear of HGV`s.If you have to avoid by accelerating/slowing down. I would...Never get in the way of an artic..No matter how extreme the measures..If you did get a speeding ticket.which I would think unlikely due to artic being so close..and speed not far behind/above. relates to avoidance of accident.I would be surprised if this isnt the case. Apart from legal side..My avoidance would be of artic.forget the rest
--
Steve
|
|
Like it was mentioned before, they arent to know that you dont have witnesses, if necessary 'her to is the boss' was sitting in the passenger seat !!!! Contact the firm, give your details and voice your intentions to take them to court if they are not willing to settle amicably
|
Could have a problem if asked for eye witness accounts you dont have..Possibly falsifying these is against the law..No damage was caused by the artic driver..Would suggest no one else. Was involved.Any damage was caused by driver avoidance. rather than any actual hit by artic driver..Try by all means to claim..as it does seem to be a claims society. proving is another matter/may be a long court case.if it goes that far..I may be wrong on all counts as I am not a lawyer/solicitor
--
Steve
|
Similar situation in principle to what happened to me three months ago.
Car swerved in front of my motorcycle causing me to brake heavily to avoid a collision, as a result of which I came off.
No contact between bike and car.
However, my insurance company is pursuing the other driver for damage to my bike and gear plus personal injury.
|
|
|
|
