Dot Com Accidents

[packhorse]

Hope our colleague (and others) are not seriously injured.............

[fox]

One of our drivers s**t himself!!!! Articulated lorry got his van on a roundabout. He was found ok.....afterwards.

[bellyfull]

I love it. "Articulated lorry got his van on a roundabout" and what does the Highway Code say about roundabouts and articulated lorries? The clue is 163. If this was followed then "got his van" wouldn't have happened. Just goes to show the ignorance of the highway code once the licence is in the hand and the ink is still wet... happy it ended well though! 

[gomezz]

Are the details of this particular incident hidden somewhere I cannot see them?  Or are you just assuming (possibly not too unreasonably) that it is the usual failure to apply the rules of geometry?

[Nomad]

From Fox's post (limited details) there could be a few scenarios where it was entirely the artic drivers error.

But lets not consider those.

[bellyfull]

Sorry, did I misinterpret "Articulated lorry got his van on a roundabout"? Oh and who's rules of geometry are we questioning here? Please enlighten us all as to how many scenarios you wish to use which will justify the ignorance of HC 163. Smaller vehicles drivers couldn't spell geometry let alone understand how it works in this situation. I see it every working day...

Defend the indefensible if you wish, but please use common sense and the rules which apply in this written scenario.

[Nomad]

You just put your own interpretation on it, and decided that your interpretation was the only viable one. As it also presented you with the opportunity to have a 'pop' at another person.

Your reply shows ignorance or at the least the inability to see beyond your primary supposition.

(1)Van on roundabout, lorry enters from left not obeying give way, forces van on to roundabout in effort to avoid collision.

(2)Large roundabout with multiple lanes, plenty of space for all parties, lorry decides to move from left lane to right lane with no concern for other users.

Both of the above could be classed as "Articulated lorry got his van on a roundabout

As an old trucker I've seen both of the above and felt let down by the poor standard of the offending truckers care/skill and consideration for others.

[gomezz]

who's rules of geometry are we questioning here?

Not questioning the rules.  They are universal and immutable.  At least they are in the Newtonian model of the world which most of us seem to get by with in our day to day lives.  There are other geometries which mathematicians and physicists like to play with, some of which have applicability in the post-Newtonian views of the universe but we 'umble folk need not concern ourselves with those.

[The Mrs]

Don't you mean HC 187? HC 163 makes no reference to long vehicles or roundabouts.

[bellyfull]

Thanks for actually looking it up Mrs. For information, both are correct. It will depend on which publication and by whom. Both "Findlay's" and "gov" have different sections (187 & 163) but give the same information as each other.
None the less we have all been hypothesising on what happened from Fox's somewhat short statement. The rule for large vehicles has always been understood thus.

When car drivers approach a roundabout, do not overtake large vehicles. Large vehicles (for example, trucks and buses) may have to swing wide on the approach or within the roundabout. Watch for their turn signals and give them plenty of room, especially since they may obscure other conflicting users.

To negotiate a roundabout, drivers of large vehicles may need to use the full width of the roadway, including mountable aprons it provided. They should be careful of all other users of the roundabouts and, prior to entering the roundabout, satisfy themselves that other users are aware of them and will yield to them. It's this satisfaction which is lacking.

Fox's statement was "the lorry driver got his van" which would suggest the van was ahead and the lorry driver deliberately went for him. I would venture to say that the van was to the rear of the lorry and to close and unaware of the peculiarities of large vehicle movements. What say you Fox?

Best description to give is in a resent accident whereby a lorry driver was on a large roundabout and would be turning left. In making their manoeuvre they ran over the small car unseen coming up on the nearside. There was no yielding by the car driver. Statement from the driver was, but he was mostly in the lane to the right of me. When asked why they didn't see the left side indicator the answers was, I thought it was a mistake... these situations are all too prevalent in rush hour scenarios. Too many small vehicle drivers in a hurry which is a potential disaster to all concerned.

[Nomad]

Or in short neither you nor I know what actually happened, but I choose to think on it whereas you

decided that your interpretation was the only viable one. As it also presented you with the opportunity to have a 'pop' at another person.

Not sure who are you trying to educate with your section in red text, nothing new there for me.

Or is it a long winded way of avoiding saying you may have been to quick with your criticism of others. I think it is 

[JCZY]

Game, set and Match, Nomad...   

[bellyfull]

Love you to Nomad. Everything you accuse me of is within your post...I do agree we know not what happened...Having a pop was not my intension it is however your assumption. I would venture to say "yes" I may have been guilty of defending a lorry driver in what I believe was a misleading statement. There was no mention of a coming together of two vehicles or a minor bump on a roundabout or a major one for that matter but an exact statement that the "lorry got him" I note this is an assumption that went unchallenged by you.

I gave my assumptions, as you call them, based upon my extensive knowledge in this area. I will go further and state for the record that I will witness or be involved in these sorts of altercations, (for want of a better word) at least 50 times in a year. It will not be the first or last time a righteous driver will sound their horn and exercise their index finger believing they are right...You may understand the red text however; it is my judgement that many more don't and that is not an assumption but based on daily life out and about in the real world.

As one of VLH's aims is to educate...not long winded enough for those who no not...don't you think?

JCZY Duce..

[Nomad]

JCZY thanks, I thought so to.

As the victor I exit the debate, leaving my opponent to prevaricate & squirm 

And apologise to other members for this short skirmish 

[JCZY]

JCZY Duce..

You cannot go to deuce if the match is already won....

[gomezz]

None the less we have all been hypothesising on what happened from Fox's somewhat short statement.

Excuse me!  I think not.   

[packhorse]

Smaller vehicles drivers couldn't spell geometry let alone understand how it works in this situation. .

I take exception to that part bellyfull, its a bit harsh. Dont you ever drive a "smaller" vehicle

[fox]

I always drive a smaller vehicle and, just in case, always try to give room , as much as possible, to any kind of trucks in front of me, specially in roundabouts. Worth to say this van I pointed, was totally damaged on the left front side, so... what would you think about it? Of course the articulated lorry got the van, but could be prevented? gosh.  Don't know. But would bet yes.

[bellyfull]

Thanks for the update there Fox. Damage to the "front" left side; this would indicate the lorry wasn't reversing on the roundabout then and that the lorry was ahead of the van.  Sorry nomad this puts your two theories on the back burner. It would however explain my experience is nearer the mark and the piece submitted in "red" was indeed valid and worthy of its inclusion as it's my experience that "smaller" vehicle drivers are totally unaware of this rule and fervently believe they have "right of way" on a roundabout regardless of other road users.

Yes you may have left the debate in the knowledge that I am indeed in a prevaricated and squeamish position at that time. It would appear that you are wrong in this instance.

Packhourse, I apologise if you were offended as a small vehicle driver for my "generalisation" geometry remark. I would much rather offend you than injure you...yes an unfortunate description but at least a reaction from it. Yes I am a smaller car driver also, and all in red is not lost on me.

JCZY......New balls please....

[gomezz]

Thanks for the update there Fox. Damage to the "front" left side; this would indicate the lorry wasn't reversing on the roundabout then and that the lorry was ahead of the van.  Sorry nomad this puts your two theories on the back burner

How does that eliminate Nomad's number 1) scenario?   

[bellyfull]

Gomezz, the "scenario's given by nomad clearly show the lorry driver to be at fault. However this wasn't the case as given by Fox.

"Your reply shows ignorance or at the least the inability to see beyond your primary supposition" was the statement given Nomad.

On the accusation of supposition, I have been consistent in stating that "in my experience" the event described is prevalent to me and other lorry drivers as we witness these events on a weekly basis, so with that in mind, it is fair for me to comment using "primary suppositions" especially as the event describe by Fox is all too familiar to me albeit with little information but enough in my experience to add or reply to. To say the reply was done in ignorance is disrespectful to those with experience of such events and is given by those who do not.

We are all human and do get caught up in stupid moments...Its recognising those moments that are key. Yes I've had more moments then others, I do recognise them....eventually.

[gomezz]

Gomezz, the "scenario's given by nomad clearly show the lorry driver to be at fault. However this wasn't the case as given by Fox.

More supposition on your part.  In fact the way I read the original post was that it was being put down to the lorry driver.  But unless Fox cares to give us more detail then we are no further forward in knowing what actually happened.

[JCZY]

JCZY Duce..

You cannot go to deuce if the match is already won....

JCZY......New balls please....

As previosly stated the match is already won. 

The only way forward is asking Nomad for a rematch.  We'll just have to wait for another topic to come up, where then you can make sweeping generalisations, pass judgement on a situation where the majority of the facts are unknown, and then get your butt kicked again.

[bellyfull]

Gomezz, it pains me to have to enlighten you to what supposition "actually" means as your use of the word since introduced by Nomad is embarrassing so here goes...

Supposition...something that it is suggested might be true, or that is accepted as true on the basis of some evidence but without proof...However, thank you for recognising my hypothesis which was given on that limited proof available and as previously stated, on more than one occasion, it was derived from one's own experience.

On the evidence given you have blamed the lorry driver despite knowing the contact was to his rear. Education is indeed hard at time...

Prevaricate & squirm appears to be all too common then...

JCZY, I deduce your a player and run with the pack and have no individual thoughts. Apologies if my supposition is wrong. I derive that supposition from your last statement whereby you wish others to debate and wish to add nothing of your own.

[JCZY]

Au contraire, Bellyfull.  Its just that I have absolutley nothing new to add to what has already been said, it would be pointless of me to repeat what Nomad and Gomezz have already said.

So instead, I decided to show which side I was leaning towards by my comments.

however, as you think I have no thoughts,

These are my thoughts on the matter:

is that you are reading into a situation, where so few facts are given, and you have pronounced yourself an expert.

Is it not possible that it could be 6 of one, and half a dozen of the other?  Could it be possible that the lorry driver wasn't paying attention, and if he had been the situation could have been avoided?

On the evidence given you have blamed the lorry driver despite knowing the contact was to his rear.

At what point has Fox stated this?

Thanks for the update there Fox. Damage to the "front" left side; this would indicate the lorry wasn't reversing on the roundabout then and that the lorry was ahead of the van.  Sorry nomad this puts your two theories on the back burner

Could the dot.com be going round the roundabout, and the lorry driver did not giveway to the right?  That would also cause damage to the front left of the dot.com van.  I believe this was Nomads 1st scenario, and you have failed to rule that out.

Could it be possible that either the dot.com van or the lorry was going the wrongway round the roundabout?

Could it be that lorry driver was drunk?

Or maybe Aliens abducted the driver whilst he was driving, the lorry kept on moving with moment, hit the dot.com van, then the driver was delivered again?

Could it be possible that both were in the right, haveing a normal day, when a supervillian picked up the lorry, and lobbed it at the front left of the dot.com van?

Where am I going with this?  We don't know the facts, and you were the first to condem the dotcom driver.

Maybe you should train up and become a judge, or a magistrate, then you could sort out all those case which lack evidence.....  

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

However I prefer to stick to my tennis comments, much more amusing (in my opinion), and they still state my position in this matter (again in my opinion).

Oh and I accept your apology about your deduction of me