www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-34933345
"Dashcam footage of the encounter, recorded on the M1 near Northampton on 11 November, shows the lorry hitting Mr Stockdale's car....
"The former special constable...who runs a dashcam company, followed the lorry to a depot in Dunstable where an ambulance took him to hospital with neck and shoulder pain"
"Footage shows Mr Stockdale stayed in the middle lane for some time, which motorists can be fined for, but he said he was about to move over when the lorry driver began to "intimidate" him."
Footage shows not only that, but he was travelling slow enough in the middle lane for an artic to be able to overtake him, and that he chose not to move over when first hit but to stay there and get a bit more punishment. And artics are not allowed in lane 3 so the artic drivers' frustration was understandable. I suspect the lorry driver's manoeuvre was to encourage him to move over, with no intention of contact, but the idiot chose to stay put even when hit.
I guess he was either after compensation for his neck and shoulder or a bit of free advertising for his company.
|
There's more to this than meets the eye.
If you look at what it says below one of the photos
>>A second shunt occurred 15 minutes later as the lorry overtook once more <<
So it would appear he didn't follow him but overtook him again for that to happen.
Eagle eyed lorry drivers who have viewed the footage seem to be able to see orange flashing lights reflecting on the vehicle to leading them to believe he had his hazards on for some reason.
Pat
|
|
At the beginning of the clip you can see from the rearward view that there is another vehicle on the inside lane but you can't tell from the subsequent edited footage if that was still there or not as the incident developed. Maybe the traffic was just becoming clear on the inside behind him (there is certainly clear space ahead for a long way) and the car driver can claim to be about to move over. Even so I can't understand why he appeared to take no avoiding action at all. My instinct would be to brake to avoid a collision, and certainly not to make a call and continue to chase and overtake. Finally, any impact looks glancing so where the injury occurred is not clear.
|
|
Thought this was going to be about today's accident(s) between J16 and 19 and possibly on the A5 too. M1 closed both ways. Northampton gridlocked. Lots of colleagues late in to the office.
|
It seems likely that the car driver is incompetent, as are the majority who default to lane 2.
The wagon driver on the other hand used his lorry as a weapon and should be de-licensed.
|
|
You quite often see cars swooping across the front of lane hoggers, who then sometimes realise the error of their ways and move over. The lorry driver was unfortunate that he tried it on a complete idiot who had probably been lane hogging for some considerable distance (OK that's an assumption) and took no evasive action. I think you are being a bit harsh on the lorry driver.
|
There's a big difference between swooping in front of, and moving into the side of.
And had the lorry caught the rear of the car as it pulled out behind, the car would likely have gone off the road.
He knew full well that he had a long trailer and then moved over deliberately into the car. You can lose your licence for speeding, while endangering nobody. How can a deliberate collision with another vehicle merit any less?
Prison might not be overdoing it, loss of licence (even though it is in this case livelihood) isn't IMO for deliberate behaviour of that kind.
|
I'm with Pat on this, there are hazard lights on somewhere in the vicinity - we are not being told the full story.
The guy was driving too slow for the middle lane, and should not have been there. The truck driver should not have overtaken into lane 3 or side-swipped the car. A professional driver should show more tolerance.
But neck injuries from a glance like that? Never!
It's all just a big ploy to promote his dash-cam company.
|
No doubt the lorry driver was in the wrong but the car driver could have seen what was coming and moved over or decelerated. Or maybe he wasn't concentrating. Or maybe he was looking for confrontation and his 5 minutes of fame.
I have some sympathy for the trucker (as you can tell).
On 4 lane chunks of motorway you often see someone hogging lane 3 when 1 and 2 are empty. This means that 1/2 of the motorway is not being used, and creates congestion and frustration in the outer lane(s). If the authorities spent a fraction of the new motorway build cost on driver education (and even punishment) they would not have to spend so much widening some of the roads.
|
|
What?? It's OK to drive directly at another road user, and his fault if he doesn't take evasive action? The kind of 'swooping' manoeuvre you describe is, at best, borderline legitimate, so you'd better be quite sure before you start it that you can complete it safely. If it goes wrong, bleating 'the other fellow was in the wrong lane', when all he did was maintain a steady course and speed, will sound pretty thin.
|
Driving in the middle lane at under 56 mph earns you massive d1ck head points. Deliberately hitting another vehicle earns even more d1ck head points.
Points and a fine for Mr Stockdale, long ban and prison for the lorry driver.
Case closed.
|
This illustrates the principle that there are a lot of idiots driving badly out there but accidents are usually avoided by someone more intelligent taking avoiding action.
What we have in this case is two idiots involved. A sure recipe for disaster
|
So, the dick in the car decided to use his car to enforce a behaviour on the truck. No doubt the later overtake was to try and force the truck to stop. How dumb do you have to be to decide how another road user should behave or to try and force your point? b***** idiot.
Whereas the dick in the truck decided to use his vehicle to give the car driver a slap. More than once. Doesn't matter what level of a*** the car driver was, and I'm guessing ninja level, using your truck as a bat is dumb. b***** idiot.
Nick the pair of them.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 11:40
|
This is as smelly as a very smelly thing.
www.policewitness.com/
"Haytch Gee Vee". Why can't he speak proper?
|
Good spot - the victim of this crime is also CEO of PoliceWitness.com. Here's all about Matt. www.mattstockdale.com/
btw there is no mention of said incident in his Twitter account as far as I see.
And unlike the BBC article his webpage doesn't say he was the victim.
All very strange...
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 2 Dec 15 at 13:05
|
Reading the links above I suspect he specialises in 'provoking bad driving' as a way of promoting his business.
He is fully aware that an HGV cannot go into the outside lane to pass him so if he sits in the middle lane for long enough someone will bite.
But WHY do they bite, it makes me angry and I am sitting here writing a course so this will go into it now.
I would have ignored him and passed him slowly but carefully on the inside lane. The highway code allows you to pass slower traffic on the inside and I would have been happy to state my case in court if anything had come of it.
Never bow to provocation because we can all see just how wrong the lorry driver ended up being, simply by getting angry.
Pat
|
As a rule, 'overtaking' on the inside is safer during the week - most drivers have somewhere to get to and are not phased by a car using the inside. Weekends though, despite the traffic usually being lighter, a car on the inside is much more likely to raise Mr/Mrs Blinkers blood pressure and cause them to try and teach the 'whippersnapper' a lesson.
But personally, I'll never use the inside unless there is somewhere else to go in emergency.
|
I overtake on the inside all the time in the USA, but that is accepted as the norm. Mrs Schmidt tootling along in her CRV at 45 mph oblivious to all around.
Now in the UK....scenario is a quiet dual carriageway. Driver tootling along at 50 mph in lane two. You follow them in lane 2 but they seem oblivious to your presence, even at night with headlights on. So what is the best option? Flash them which can be construed as being aggressive. They are already aware of your presence because you have your headlights on. Or undertake in lane 1, completing the manoeuvre as fast as possible?
In my younger road rallying days they would have been vaporised by my Cibbies or Hella lamps fitted on the RS2000. But I'm now older and far more sensible, thank goodness.
|
I'd have flashed them from way back, so would have an idea of their likely behaviour. IME most people move over, the ones that don't usually simply sit there. The ones that will actually try to block as you undertake you are very few and far between.
Ultimately I would under take them if I could do so safely, otherwise just sit there until they leave or I do. Life's too short to care overmuch.
|
>>The former special constable
and
>>Former Independent Police and Crime Commissioner Candidate
I wonder why he's a 'former special constable'? Perhaps his behaviour deemed him unsuitable for the role?
|
Hell of a lot of crap dangerous drivers about, as there always were. Quite a few of these middle-lane mimsers are self-righteous and try to hold up other traffic on purpose. Pat needs to run the idiots off the road and beat them up with her rope-tightening baton.
When someone turns in on an undertaker, the latter can quite often use the hard shoulder or equivalent to squeeze past.
|
I'm in the "what are the chances of two complete idiots being in the same place at the same time" camp.
Dont understand why the trucker did not undertake, its common place and more or less expected on the busy motorways round here.
|
Two idiots, each out to make a point. Overtaking in lane 1 would not have been strictly legal, as all three lanes were not occupied - but then what the trucker actually did was even less legal.
As Z says, the smooth pass on the left is common practice here. Quite often do it myself, but only in lane 1; in lane 2 you're much more likely to have someone pull over from lane 3 without looking - and there's then nowhere to go because lane 1 must be full or you'd already be there. Strictly one pass at a time, though; you want a chance to assess the likely behaviour of each driver before slipping past.
|
>> Two idiots, each out to make a point.
Only an idiot would try to 'make a point' instead of just trying to make progress. Nearest I come to 'making a point' these days is to go round the middle-lane mimser from lane 1 and cut back slightly rudely after passing. Don't suppose many of the carphounds notice slight rudeness though.
|
"Matt Stockdale in the news again:"
'S funny how trouble seems to follow that bloke ;-)
|
|
Yeah, in that article "I formed PoliceWitness after I was almost killed by a reckless HGV driver". That must be yet another incident as nothing I've seen yet nearly killed him.
|
How do you judge yourself ' nearly killed ' ? Vigilante prat.
Ex Special...says it all in his case. When the dance is over , it's time to hang up your shoes !
|
|
The article with the video says he's driving a Golf.. looks like a small Polo to me unless the perspective has squashed the image.
|
|
Is that the reason for all those trainers dangling from lamp-posts?
|
There's a petition going around all the lorry driver forums to try and get him prosecuted for 'provocation'.
It won't go anywhere but the negative publicity won't do him any good either.
It will certainly make the commercial press next week and I'm interested to see Will Shiers, the editor, take on that.
Pat
|
A lorry driver who allegedly "repeatedly and deliberately" rammed a car on a busy motorway has been charged with careless driving.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-35744590
|
|
How can it have been both careless and deliberate?
|
Presumably one is what he allegedly did and the other is what the police believe they can prove.
Since the former requires proof of intent and the latter mostly only proof of occurrence.
|
|
I'm sure I could be deliberately careless were I so minded.
|
Could you?
Wouldn't that be reckless?
|
|
No camera on earth is going to save your skin if you go looking for conflict with a moving HGV in a car.
|
>> A lorry driver who allegedly "repeatedly and deliberately" rammed a car on a busy motorway has been charged with careless driving.
And subsequently found not guilty
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-37288206
Paul Edwards, 68, was cleared at Wellingborough Magistrates' Court of driving without due care and attention.
Footage from a dashboard camera was alleged to have shown a lorry shunting a car near Northampton on 11 November.
Magistrates said they could not be sure the vehicles had collided, and found him not guilty.
They said Mr Edwards, of Trident Drive, Dunstable, was a "credible witness" and "competent driver with a 45-year clean driving licence".
|
Just looked at that Police Witness website.
I think the principle of this actually looks good
www.policewitness.com/personal-camera/
but would be interested to know if the police actually can make use of the information ie what makes it stream the info and to where?
I remember an incident kicked off in view of my work and there was a group of about 20 youths knocking lumps out of each other. The police were astonished that none of us had videoed it from the windows as this would have been hugely helpful for them!
|
"..................and liability for damage to the car was accepted by the firm's insurers."
So the car was physically damaged by the truck and the insurer paid out, but the Magistrates weren't sure??
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 21 Sep 16 at 10:48
|
|
Obviously one doesn't know the full facts, but in the absence of them, one can only suppose it came down to difference between civil and criminal law and the higher burden of proof needed for the latter.
|
"M1 lorry shunts" - Pat
