Caravan Merges Into Truck

Are We Lost · Guru

RE: Caravan Merges Into Truck

Hitting the road · Senior Member

Dunno, I see a different picture...I won't be popular...but let's knock out the sound for a sec...the front of the truck is pretty well parallel with the caravan's wheels in the overtaking lane when the utility driver starts to noticeably move across in to the right lane, the truck driver, or anyone else for that matter would react by moving to the right a little more giving the person a bit of room assuming there was just a bit of lane wander going on as you would be accelerating.
The truck driver seeing the caravan moving right would have been 100% aware of oncoming traffic and knew he could not move further across in to the oncoming traffic...at that point it was too late to "hit the brakes" ...if the road was empty i am sure he would have moved further to the right giving dumbo in the utility more space.

I am not usually a person that hangs on to a horn when ever some bozo does something dumb, I generally try to get out of their way as a horn blast rarely stops stupidity. Does anyone really believe that had the truck driver leaned on the horn the fool in the utility would have changed his behavior...lol...not likely.

Besides, given that the truck driver is expected by many here to have slammed on the brakes in his 42 tonne or 64 tonne rig what ever it was, when half way up the caravans length, would it really have made any difference to the impact? Maybe the point of impact would have been a few feet further back, or the prime mover could have become unstable and jack knifed causing much more damage and mayhem... but same result as it was obvious the Utility driver was intent on blocking the truck from overtaking...and certainly with all the trailer wheels locked up on the combination the driver would have had far less control...the very last thing any driver would have expected is the totally moronic behavior displayed by the utility driver...I applaud the truck driver.

(As an aside, does anyone know what it costs to lock up a truck trailer combination with potentially 32 tyres on the road getting badly flat spotted? Umm let's see, 32 x $300.00 to replace the affected tyres = $9,600.00 out of the operators pocket, so locking up wheels in a futile attempt to avoid which was avoidable was not going to change the outcome...)

-- Edited by Hitting the road on Thursday 4th of May 2023 07:30:53 AM

-- Edited by Hitting the road on Thursday 4th of May 2023 10:57:41 AM

Izabarack · Guru

Do we really need to watch more than the first few seconds of the video, without the audio? What i see is some Numpty drifting out of his lane into the path of the truck. The presence of the van is the only thing that makes the video relevent to the Forum. No indicator and an obvious omission of checking for adjacent vehicles has iniated the coming together. Just shows that even the posession of a basic Driver's License does not prevent stupidity and a deficit of Situational Awareness.

dogbox · Guru

i see it as the truck was in the process of overtaking and for whatever reason the ute with van moved across into the path of the truck , all the other things mirrors, indicators, road rage (?) ect ect just make the ute driver look bad.

as mentioned earlier which ever opinion, as to right/wrong should of did this or should have done that, who finishes up coming out the worst. better to avoid the situation if possible

Greg 1 · Guru

Driver in the Ute with caravan 100% to blame in this instance. He drifted over into the right lane when there was no reason to do so causing the collision. Perhaps the truck could have hit the brakes and maybe avoided the impact, but he was a fair way up the side of the van when the Ute came across on him, so that is pure speculation.

vince56 · Senior Member

As an ex-police highway patrol, (bikes and cars) I can tell you that both drivers are at fault, as I said previously the vanner is a goose, no doubt. The car caused the accident but the truck driver could have avoided the accident or at least made an effort to avoid in my opinion. I am confident they would both be in front of a Magistrate if this footage were to get into the hands of a competent cop. Not to mention the insurance companies involved, I bet the cars insurer would love to see that video!

dogbox · Guru

vince56 wrote:

As an ex-police highway patrol, (bikes and cars) I can tell you that both drivers are at fault, as I said previously the vanner is a goose, no doubt. The car caused the accident but the truck driver could have avoided the accident or at least made an effort to avoid in my opinion. I am confident they would both be in front of a Magistrate if this footage were to get into the hands of a competent cop. Not to mention the insurance companies involved, I bet the cars insurer would love to see that video!

3-4 seconds from the time the van starts to move across to point of collision probably about the point that the van driver would have been able to see the truck in mirrors why would he not attempt to get back into his lane?

Are We Lost · Guru

dogbox wrote:
....... why would he not attempt to get back into his lane?

Earlier it was suggested that there was previous road rage. That would be one explanation. But if that is the case, why do we not see the internet plastered with such video? The truckie posted this video, so if he was not the instigator why not publish that as well?

On the other hand maybe the ute driver's actions were unintentional. Maybe he was focusing on tuning the radio, fiddling with the phone, etc rather than the road ahead. Or maybe he fell asleep. Any of those would explain not seeing what was clearly visible in the RH side mirror. The truck would have been pretty obvious.

Whatever the case, the accident itself was totally avoidable if the truckie had taken the right action. At the 6 second mark ....

If the ute/van drift was unintentional, sounding the horn would have alerted the driver .... no accident.

If the ute/van drift was intentional, a tap on the truck brakes and the truck could have easily pulled in behind. Going uphill, with at most 2 metres past the van rear, no heavy braking would be required. Yes, frustrating, but no accident.

Think of the alternative .... how many seconds would be required to be on the wrong side of the road to get past? It took 10 seconds to get from the back of the van to the front. Another 8-10 seconds to be level with the ute? Another 20 seconds to get in front? How many cars coming the other way in that time? The truckie's actions make no sense other than road rage.

dogbox · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:

dogbox wrote:
....... why would he not attempt to get back into his lane?
Earlier it was suggested that there was previous road rage. That would be one explanation. But if that is the case, why do we not see the internet plastered with such video? The truckie posted this video, so if he was not the instigator why not publish that as well?
On the other hand maybe the ute driver's actions were unintentional. Maybe he was focusing on tuning the radio, fiddling with the phone, etc rather than the road ahead. Or maybe he fell asleep. Any of those would explain not seeing what was clearly visible in the RH side mirror. The truck would have been pretty obvious.
Whatever the case, the accident itself was totally avoidable if the truckie had taken the right action. At the 6 second mark ....
If the ute/van drift was unintentional, sounding the horn would have alerted the driver .... no accident.
If the ute/van drift was intentional, a tap on the truck brakes and the truck could have easily pulled in behind. Going uphill, with at most 2 metres past the van rear, no heavy braking would be required. Yes, frustrating, but no accident.
Think of the alternative .... how many seconds would be required to be on the wrong side of the road to get past? It took 10 seconds to get from the back of the van to the front. Another 8-10 seconds to be level with the ute? Another 20 seconds to get in front? How many cars coming the other way in that time? The truckie's actions make no sense other than road rage.

regardless of what happen earlier (the truck could have been trying to get past the van for miles, who knows) just look on YouTube an see the number of accidents that could have been avoided if someone had of given way to someone who thinks they own the road and the rules don't apply to them. what we see, is what is posted .i was not there but the van driver looks bad and came out second best, without taking into consideration other factors mirrors, indicators, no need to change lanes, pervious behaviors by either party.

dogbox · Guru

vince56 wrote:

As an ex-police highway patrol, (bikes and cars) I can tell you that both drivers are at fault, as I said previously the vanner is a goose, no doubt. The car caused the accident but the truck driver could have avoided the accident or at least made an effort to avoid in my opinion. I am confident they would both be in front of a Magistrate if this footage were to get into the hands of a competent cop. Not to mention the insurance companies involved, I bet the cars insurer would love to see that video!

what would the truck driver be charged with?

it appears from the video, and that is all we have to go on, the van driver did not have the correct mirrors, did not indicate, changed lanes for no apparent reason.

Are We Lost · Guru

dogbox wrote:

what would the truck driver be charged with?

it appears from the video, and that is all we have to go on, the van driver did not have the correct mirrors, did not indicate, changed lanes for no apparent reason.

I think everyone agrees the van driver did all those things wrong and absolutely deserves infringements for them. Quite possibly a worse one as well.. road rage ... probably not a traffic infringement as it is much worse.

But, while he was in the wrong that does not make the truck driver right.

You asked what would the truck driver be charged with. How about crossing the centreline into the path of oncoming traffic? Dangerous driving at the minimum, probably road rage. For a full 4 seconds when he was being pushed out of his lane, he kept trying to win instead of taking avoidance actions. He could have easily slowed and pulled back into the lane and there would not have been an accident.

It was so close to this morphing into a "ruin your life" outcome or worse.

If the ute driver's action were intentional, and he blocked the truck from returning to the lane, how long would the truck be on the wrong side of the road? Look at the video and ask yourself .... at the 6 second mark is there any possible justification to keep going .... he was going to be on the wrong side of the road for maybe another 30 seconds.

dogbox · Guru

the truck driver may not be the sharpest tool in the shed
i would think if it came to any charges against him, a descent lawyer would find any number of reasons to argue a case in his defense possibly he could claim he just came off double lines and he had paced himself to overtake the van and had another truck right behind about to do the same thing, to brake suddenly could have been dangerous (total speculation) but if you listen to near end of the video the truck driver claims that the van driver had increased his speed when the truck was overtaking

-- Edited by dogbox on Sunday 7th of May 2023 08:12:41 PM

vince56 · Senior Member

No doubt the truck kept going when he could have tried to avoid, and probably would have avoided, a very dangerous situation that could have easily killed someone, he was being a bully.
As I said the car driver is an idiot who deserves the book thrown at him but that does not mean the other driver can do whatever he wants to take out his rage.
You do not have the right to do as you please because someone Pi..ed you off. You are required to avoid an accident whether you are at fault or not. It is dangerous driving as a minimum.

dogbox · Guru

vince56 wrote:

No doubt the truck kept going when he could have tried to avoid, and probably would have avoided, a very dangerous situation that could have easily killed someone, he was being a bully.

As I said the car driver is an idiot who deserves the book thrown at him but that does not mean the other driver can do whatever he wants to take out his rage.

You do not have the right to do as you please because someone Pi..ed you off. You are required to avoid an accident whether you are at fault or not. It is dangerous driving as a minimum.

not being privy to what happen previous, not even what type of truck is involved, if the driver had of jumped on the brakes it may have caused even more problems. you would charge the truck driver on the PROBABILITY of being able to avoid an accident based on what you see in the video?

Are We Lost · Guru

dogbox wrote:

not being privy to what happen previous, not even what type of truck is involved, if the driver had of jumped on the brakes it may have caused even more problems. you would charge the truck driver on the PROBABILITY of being able to avoid an accident based on what you see in the video?

Absolutely I would have charged him and there is no PROBABILITY about being able to avoid an accident

When the truck bumped the van causing the ute to move in front is when the truckie first applied the brakes. Clearly he was able to stop safely in a very short period, proving that he could have easily braked much sooner. No accident would have occurred.

It does not matter what happened previously. It does not matter what stupid things the ute driver did. The evidence is quite sufficient in that video to charge the truckie with numerous offences.

First, there would be no need for the truck driver to jump on the brakes. He was going about 4kph faster, and uphill, so a light tap on the brakes is all that would have been required. So that claim does not work.

At the 2 second mark the truck is in line with the back of the van. At the 6 second mark when he was being edged out of the lane, the truck has gained about 2-3 metre. There were 4 more seconds before he finally took his foot of the accelerator. At that point he was abreast of the front of the van. What was the plan next? Keep going on the wrong side of the road?

Instead, if he had slowed to 4kph slower than the van, he would then be back on his side of the road and behind the van. No accident. e.g. if truck was doing 94 and ute/van was doing 90, drop back to 86 and he would be clear to pull in behind in that same 4 seconds.

Then there is the audio. That makes it quite clear he intended to force the ute driver to give way.

Again, if the truckie had been driving a Barina instead would he have still done the same? If you had been in that driver's seat?

Anyway, this is getting a bit repetitive so unless something new comes up I will leave my comments there.

dogbox · Guru

as i stated before any descent lawyer would probably think a defense would be easy money.

Hitting the road · Senior Member

Very very obvious no posters above have driven a fully loaded semi trailer to have any understanding of the dynamics involved when you have 30 or 60 tonne pushing you from behind. You can't just slam on the brakes and expect an instant reaction...you would be a total fool if you did.

The truck looks to be a cab over as no bonnet is visible, the cab is level with the van wheels when the utility starts to move across...do you really think if the truck driver had "slammed" on the brakes he would have missed the idiot's caravan? Lol...not at all...

It is pretty obvious the utility driver is one of those deadbeats that you hate coming across, the bloke who drives at 85kmh until he reaches a passing lane then speeds up. How long had that been going on until the truck driver out of total exasperation tries to get past the road block?
If it were me driving the truck I likely would have reacted in exactly the same way...moved to the right to give the fool more room, not slam on the brakes and potentially jack knife the whole rig in to the caravan...the fact the ute kept coming across, that driver was just damned lucky the traffic from the opposite direction had passed...

I spent 20 years handling Heavy Motor Insurance so I would expect the Insurers will have seen the video; as the first thing the utility driver would have done is lodged a claim with his Insurer that he had been hit by a truck.
His insurer would have sent a Letter of Demand to the truck owner's Insurer, the Insurer would have got in touch with the truck owner requesting information re the alleged incident..
The truck owner would have sent the video to his Insurer denying liability, and lodging a counter claim for damages to the Utility owner's Insurer...the outcome may have been each insured pays for their own damages. The dopey utility driver would likely be paying two excesses, one for the van damages and one for his utility...and potentially the truck owner' insurance excess as well...

Are We Lost · Guru

Hitting the road wrote:
You can't just slam on the brakes and expect an instant reaction...you would be a total fool if you did.

do you really think if the truck driver had "slammed" on the brakes he would have missed the idiot's caravan? Lol...not at all...

But that is exactly what he did. Stopped in 4 seconds without touching the van (again). And he would not have needed such an emergency stop or even stopped at all if he had acted when he should have.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Monday 8th of May 2023 04:38:14 PM

dogbox · Guru

our expert ex cop vince 56 used the words " and probably avoided an accident" so there may be a reasonable question as to the out come.

as the truck "stopped in 4 seconds" i wonder if any tyres were flat spotted that, in itself could make the truck driver wish he never came across the van driver

DMaxer · Guru

I just have a few questions that perhaps one of you legal experts might like to answer.

1. How do you charge both of the drivers?

2. If the dash cam came into the hands of a competent police officer how can he use it in a prosecution if he was not the person in possession of it at the time, nor the operator of it.

3. How can a police officer give evidence as to how he thinks an accident may have occurred given that opinion evidence is inadmissible.

4,If you did charge both drivers, how does the prosecution not only force a defendant to give evidence but evidence against his own interests.

I look forward to your replies.

yobarr · Guru

Hitting the road wrote:
Very very obvious no posters above have driven a fully loaded semi trailer to have any understanding of the dynamics involved when you have 30 or 60 tonne pushing you from behind. You can't just slam on the brakes and expect an instant reaction...you would be a total fool if you did.

The truck looks to be a cab over as no bonnet is visible, the cab is level with the van wheels when the utility starts to move across...do you really think if the truck driver had "slammed" on the brakes he would have missed the idiot's caravan? Lol...not at all...

It is pretty obvious the utility driver is one of those deadbeats that you hate coming across, the bloke who drives at 85kmh until he reaches a passing lane then speeds up. How long had that been going on until the truck driver out of total exasperation tries to get past the road block?
If it were me driving the truck I likely would have reacted in exactly the same way...moved to the right to give the fool more room, not slam on the brakes and potentially jack knife the whole rig in to the caravan...the fact the ute kept coming across, that driver was just damned lucky the traffic from the opposite direction had passed...

I spent 20 years handling Heavy Motor Insurance so I would expect the Insurers will have seen the video; as the first thing the utility driver would have done is lodged a claim with his Insurer that he had been hit by a truck.
His insurer would have sent a Letter of Demand to the truck owner's Insurer, the Insurer would have got in touch with the truck owner requesting information re the alleged incident..
The truck owner would have sent the video to his Insurer denying liability, and lodging a counter claim for damages to the Utility owner's Insurer...the outcome may have been each insured pays for their own damages. The dopey utility driver would likely be paying two excesses, one for the van damages and one for his utility...and potentially the truck owner' insurance excess as well...

Excellent post Dean, telling it as it is. It astounds me that anyone sees fit to blame anyone except the ute driver, who is 100% at fault. Your comment that the ute driver is "one of those deadbeats you hate coming across" rings true, and I am pleased to see that this truckie called his bluff, as I too have done. Too bad, so sad, poor lad. Don't play games with the Big Boys. Cheers

Bobdown · Guru

From the shadow on the caravan when it has stopped, it looks like an empty car transporter truck.

The way the truck stopped so quickly, probably a cab over semi with one trailer.

From the agro boofhead truckie's words, it's like I got you moron van driver, could have easily avoided a collision, had he read the road situation better, or wanted too !!

-- Edited by Bobdown on Monday 8th of May 2023 09:29:58 PM

Gundog · Guru

A little bit of observation of the dashcam footage did notice from the start of the video there is no speed indicated, however the after the vehicles stopped then speed was displayed.

Can you setup the dashcam to display the speed from a speed of your choice.......if thats the case the truckie may have been speeding.

-- Edited by Gundog on Monday 8th of May 2023 10:30:12 PM

vince56 · Senior Member

My point is that the truck driver appears not to have even tried to avoid the accident, I can't accept that he did nothing wrong. That's all.

Kebbin · Guru

As I said before they are both fools, someone posted they were dualling well before this happened. All of the Ex truck drivers would know that they are going up a hill and all the Truckie had to do to avoid said accident was to lift his right foot just a little.

But no way was he going to do that with the red mist taking control, both imbeciles should stick to dodgems.
Stop making excuses for imbeciles they are there to make you think about life not to preserve and protect, these people are putting us all at risk and to be taking sides in this abhorrent behaviour is just as bad as being one of these idiots!

dogbox · Guru

vince56 wrote:

My point is that the truck driver appears not to have even tried to avoid the accident, I can't accept that he did nothing wrong. That's all.

as stated earlier that the truckdriver is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but i'm sure if charged with anything (stupidity doesn't count) it would have trouble holding up in court.

deverall11 · Guru

vince56 wrote:
My point is that the truck driver appears not to have even tried to avoid the accident, I can't accept that he did nothing wrong. That's all.

Correct coming from an ex-cop. However in all the ramblings on this thread there is no mention about the truck

driver working and needing to get on with it, the caravan driver on holidays - slow down and let him pass.

Whilst the truck driver may not be right, having witnessed and experienced selfish driver do exactly what the caravan driver did,

I side with the truck driver. Shame it ended up in an accident. With any luck this brain dead caravan driver learned a lesson.

Picture this: A convoy of caravans travelling below the speed limit and a truck held behind needing to get

on with it. Even after a call on the CD radio no reactions from the convoy. As well as teaching some of these slow

learners how to tow a caravan safely, they should also be taught some road manners/etiquette.

Gundog · Guru

You make an assumption that Caravaner is on holidays, I could assume he was delivering a new van to another dealer or owner.

Then I could also assume, that truck was slipstreaming the caravan, when he pulled out the pressure wave destabilised the van thus it was reason the caravaner was moving to the right hence no indicator. But that could be BS also and the caravaner is a DH.

I cannot accept the excuse the truckies working and need to get on with it, total lame reason.

What about speed ?

dogbox · Guru

Gundog wrote:

You make an assumption that Caravaner is on holidays, I could assume he was delivering a new van to another dealer or owner.
Then I could also assume, that truck was slipstreaming the caravan, when he pulled out the pressure wave destabilised the van thus it was reason the caravaner was moving to the right hence no indicator. But that could be BS also and the caravaner is a DH.
I cannot accept the excuse the truckies working and need to get on with it, total lame reason.
What about speed ?

there is nothing to indicate speed, or speed limit but the truck did indicate at end of video that the van had sped up. maybe his WDH was not set up properly and the tail was wagging the dog

Gundog · Guru

dogbox wrote:
Gundog wrote:

You make an assumption that Caravaner is on holidays, I could assume he was delivering a new van to another dealer or owner.
Then I could also assume, that truck was slipstreaming the caravan, when he pulled out the pressure wave destabilised the van thus it was reason the caravaner was moving to the right hence no indicator. But that could be BS also and the caravaner is a DH.
I cannot accept the excuse the truckies working and need to get on with it, total lame reason.
What about speed ?

there is nothing to indicate speed, or speed limit but the truck did indicate at end of video

That was my point in yesterdays post with the 2 pictures I attached one at the start no speed on the dashcam, 16 second later the dashcam shows 57kph and the starts to count down.

WHY ?

I am not defending or accusing either party in the accident, just an observation