Me vs HGV (Was I 8n the wrong)?

[Matt_75]

Originally Posted by MSS

The difference between "Must" and "Should" makes a huge difference in regulatory affairs, but not in terms of good advice which is much of the highway code.

The highway code states:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

[MSS]

Originally Posted by Matt_75

The highway code states:

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

I am not sure what point you are making, but it is that last bit which is important, the "good practice advice" in the highway code is used as evidence of wrongdoing in courts. The only practical difference between a "must" and "should" statement following a collision in the scenario described by the OP would be the length of discussion it takes before deciding he was in the wrong.

In any case, being legally in the wrong on the basis of a "should" as opposed to a "must" would be of little comfort when lying in an ICU or in a wooden box following a collision with another vehicle.

The key aspects to focus on are defensive driving and consideration for other road users.

Amateur legal experts often lose sight of the basics, which are not to die or do anything which leads others to die unnecessarily!

[Matt_75]

Originally Posted by MSS

I am not sure what point you are making

Just trying to add some clarification to the thread as the highway code's use of "must" and "should" was being discussed. I thought its relevance was pretty obvious

[rovertone]

Drivers who think that you should move to let them in is a 'bone of contention' with me. Many times I have been courteous and pulled over only to find myself left in the fast lane as the driver had sped off!
As has been said, in this case if the OP had checked the lane position as soon as possible on entering the slip road and stopped if necessary then following cars would have had to do likewise to then filter in turn.

They have the right idea in Portugal (not sure about Spain) but all slip roads onto major roads have 'give way' road marking so leaves no doubt.

[Costa Fortuna]

As an HGV driver and indeed instructor merging traffic should never under any circumstances deem the next lane next to a vehicle in lane one is empty. Many a time I have had a small car next to me and I simply cannot move over - sorry but you must learn how to merge - it's arrogance to expect people to shift out of your way for you. Giving an obscene gesture to another driver who doesn't comply to your rules is a poor show frankly. The driver in lane one always without exception knows more than you do at the merge point.

I know what I have written probably doesn't sit well with you, OP but it IS for your safety - if you have to come to a halt on the slip so be it. As heavy goods drivers we are all aware of the damage the vehicles we drive can do to a lightweight assembly of steel pressings and the occupants therein.

Oh, and a final thought for you - for insurance reasons an awful lot of trucks have on board cameras (some facing front and rear) so be careful - you may end up with your gesticulations (and car) on the 'net

[Yorkshire GOC]

Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza

Nobody is disputing that the OP was in the wrong however,a response like that from a professional driver,who must experience this situation almost daily, is totally unacceptable.
Not only is it very dangerous it is setting an appalling example from someone professionally trained in driving.The lorry driver should have let it go and pulled back otherwise he is going to have a very unhappy and possibly short career.

Spot on mate - a pro driver acting like a t**t

[VVC-Geeza]

Originally Posted by Costa Fortuna

As an HGV driver and indeed instructor merging traffic should never under any circumstances deem the next lane next to a vehicle in lane one is empty. Many a time I have had a small car next to me and I simply cannot move over - sorry but you must learn how to merge - it's arrogance to expect people to shift out of your way for you. Giving an obscene gesture to another driver who doesn't comply to your rules is a poor show frankly. The driver in lane one always without exception knows more than you do at the merge point.

I know what I have written probably doesn't sit well with you, OP but it IS for your safety - if you have to come to a halt on the slip so be it. As heavy goods drivers we are all aware of the damage the vehicles we drive can do to a lightweight assembly of steel pressings and the occupants therein.

Oh, and a final thought for you - for insurance reasons an awful lot of trucks have on board cameras (some facing front and rear) so be careful - you may end up with your gesticulations (and car) on the 'net

I accept all your points and they are very well made but as an instructor would you care to comment on the response of the lorry driver in this case.

[Ched]

I too am a hgv class one driver, as well as being a qualified hgv driving assessor, come out with me for the day and witness first hand the appalling driving standards of at least 50% motorists and some lorry drivers.

I guarantee within the hour you too will have used many hand signs as well as used every swear word known to man.

Driving standards in this country are at best abysmal and when someone who is driving does something wrong who better to blame but the driver going about his own business correctly.

[MSS]

Well, it seems that the OP's question has been adequately answered. Perhaps its time to move on from the OP and discuss another question.

The question I would pose is what penalty or penalties should apply for reckless or dangerous driving on the roads?

[The Rovering Member]

Originally Posted by rovertone

Drivers who think that you should move to let them in is a 'bone of contention' with me. Many times I have been courteous and pulled over only to find myself left in the fast lane as the driver had sped off.

Or match your speed which isn't a problem if you're in a car but if you match the speed of a lorry on the limiter this means the lorry can't get back into the inside lane without slowing down. Fortunately however, most people find being on the inside of a forty footer at full chat an uncomfortable place to be & back off if they can't get past.