George Collings Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Pure speculation, Could it be the Honda driver has poor depth perception (wonder what might cause that) and tried to get in the gap twixt 'van and Megane. Thank goodness for Big Brother and his CCTV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Dave, I'm so happy that the couple are recovering okay and getting back 'on the road' - I don't know them but please do pass on my best wishes when you next meet, and I'm sure other forum members would wish to do the same. Brian Kirby - 2013-07-16 7:11 PM Dave Newell - 2013-07-16 5:45 PM.............In the meantime this thread is not about towing, there is nothing at all to suggest that towing the car had anything to do with the collision other than the Honda driver saying he thought the Megane was "following the motorhome way too close" D. Ah, now I understand. So he thought he should knock the motorhome out of the Megane's way! How thoughtful. :-D This actually does beg ONE question though ... should a car on an 'A' frame have an 'on tow' sign in the back of the car being towed so that others know it is 'joined' to the vehicle in front? Due to some idiots driving too close to other cars the driver of the Honda saying what he has isn't actually THAT stupid, regardless that his actions were ultimately what caused the accident. I would, however, question the 'sense' in towing such a large and heavy car on an 'A' frame in the first place behind what appeared to be a 'normal' coachbuilt motorhome ... just wondering, that's all! :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 George Collings - 2013-07-16 7:51 PM Pure speculation, Could it be the Honda driver has poor depth perception (wonder what might cause that) and tried to get in the gap twixt 'van and Megane. Thank goodness for Big Brother and his CCTV Yep Sounds like the Honda driver didn't realise that the Megane was being towed. Maybe he'd not come across an A-frame before. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 George Collings - 2013-07-16 7:51 PM Pure speculation, Could it be the Honda driver has poor depth perception (wonder what might cause that) and tried to get in the gap twixt 'van and Megane. Thank goodness for Big Brother and his CCTV The accident happened when they were adjacent so appears to be nothing to do with the Honda driver thinking that the towed car was a separate driver who was too close. This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:15 PM This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." You obviously 'comprehend' things differently then! All it says is that it came close to colliding with the Honda. As the article was mainly about the motorhome it would obviously mention it first in the sentence so it actually doesn't mean anything! No more so than if it had said "the Honda .... came close to colliding with the camper van"! *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:15 PM George Collings - 2013-07-16 7:51 PM Pure speculation, Could it be the Honda driver has poor depth perception (wonder what might cause that) and tried to get in the gap twixt 'van and Megane. Thank goodness for Big Brother and his CCTV The accident happened when they were adjacent so appears to be nothing to do with the Honda driver thinking that the towed car was a separate driver who was too close. This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." You're speculating but you obviously didn't read my update post too closely: "It seems the incident was caused by the other party, a car in the outside lane. Apparently the police have tracked both vehicles back for up to 8 miles prior to the accident on CCTV and the motorhome driver has been told he did nothing wrong at all. The car had been in lane three for 7 miles prior to the collision and as he overtook the motorhome veered into the side of it and causing it to roll three times," This is as described to the motorhome driver by the police who have 7 plus miles worth of CCTV footage to confirm the events leading up to and including the collision itself. The Honda driver's first words to the police after the incident were "have I killed them? it was my fault!" The motorhome had moved into the middle lane to clear the inside lane for traffic joining from the upcoming junction, middle lane was all clear for him to do so at this point. The Honda had been in the outside lane for over 7 miles at this point and had been seen to veer suddenly several times. Mel, when I see them next I will pass on all good wishes from this forum. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Mel B - 2013-07-16 8:23 PM Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:15 PM This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." You obviously 'comprehend' things differently then! All it says is that it came close to colliding with the Honda. As the article was mainly about the motorhome it would obviously mention it first in the sentence so it actually doesn't mean anything! No more so than if it had said "the Honda .... came close to colliding with the camper van"! *-) I try to comprehend things sensibly. If it was the other way round I think that the police would have said that the Honda came close to colliding with the campervan. If I read that a a car had collided with an ice-cream van I would assume that the car was at fault! Does this sound odd to you? 'Today a tree collided with a car"? By your logic that's a sensible sentence. To me it's nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:58 PM Mel B - 2013-07-16 8:23 PM Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:15 PM This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." You obviously 'comprehend' things differently then! All it says is that it came close to colliding with the Honda. As the article was mainly about the motorhome it would obviously mention it first in the sentence so it actually doesn't mean anything! No more so than if it had said "the Honda .... came close to colliding with the camper van"! *-) I try to comprehend things sensibly. If it was the other way round I think that the police would have said that the Honda came close to colliding with the campervan. Context, dear boy, context ... Dave had already posted what had happened from the 'horses mouth' as it were, but you chose to try to intimate that the camper driver was at fault when he wasn't! *-) If I read that a a car had collided with an ice-cream van I would assume that the car was at fault! Does this sound odd to you? 'Today a tree collided with a car"? By your logic that's a sensible sentence. To me it's nonsense! That is total nonsense ... everybody knows that trees can't drive! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:58 PM If I read that a a car had collided with an ice-cream van I would assume that the car was at fault! ....yes, but as the quote goes, "assumption is the mother of all f***-ups". Many years ago, driving to work, I collided with a 4-axle coal lorry. My insurance report said the same, the police understood the same, ..........but its driver was successfully prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, whereas, at no point was any blame attached to me. He had pulled out of a side road, directly in front of me (legally doing 60mph, and with nowhere to go but straight into the side of the lorry), but there is no other way of describing it other than me colliding with him. (Damn near killed me as well :-() Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Robinhood - 2013-07-16 9:49 PM Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:58 PM If I read that a a car had collided with an ice-cream van I would assume that the car was at fault! ....yes, but as the quote goes, "assumption is the mother of all f***-ups". Many years ago, driving to work, I collided with a 4-axle coal lorry. My insurance report said the same, the police understood the same, ..........but its driver was successfully prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, whereas, at no point was any blame attached to me. He had pulled out of a side road, directly in front of me (legally doing 60mph, and with nowhere to go but straight into the side of the lorry), but there is no other way of describing it other than me colliding with him. (Damn near killed me as well :-() Now then Robin >:-)................were you not reading the road ahead? 8-)..................did you not see the lorry approaching from the side road?.......... :-S Tut tut *-)...............speed awareness course for you me thinks :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Purely to clarify a point that some have raised, the Megane DID have an "ON TOW" sign at its rear and a pair of reflective triangles. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-07-16 9:56 PM Now then Robin >:-)................were you not reading the road ahead? 8-)..................did you not see the lorry approaching from the side road?.......... :-S Tut tut *-)...............speed awareness course for you me thinks :D .....you know, Dave, I think those were almost exactly the questions asked of the Lorry Driver by the Police. :-| (Given that his view was clear, and I was almost on top of him before he pulled out!) (It didn't go to court, he pleaded guilty in advance. However, he did also get summonsed for the details he left with me (which were wrong, but I suspect somewhat innocently), so he DID get taken to court for failing to stop, and failing to report - I think he (or his employers) probably upset someone else along the way. I was initially down to attend court as a witness, but since the hearing wasn't to cover the facts of the collision, simply the technicalities of the documentation, I got a phone call the day before telling me not to attend - rather odd, as it could have been anyone on the phone, so I checked with the court before I failed to attend). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Robinhood - 2013-07-16 10:05 PM pelmetman - 2013-07-16 9:56 PM Now then Robin >:-)................were you not reading the road ahead? 8-)..................did you not see the lorry approaching from the side road?.......... :-S Tut tut *-)...............speed awareness course for you me thinks :D .....you know, Dave, I think those were almost exactly the questions asked of the Lorry Driver by the Police. :-| (Given that his view was clear, and I was almost on top of him before he pulled out!) (It didn't go to court, he pleaded guilty in advance. However, he did also get summonsed for the details he left with me (which were wrong, but I suspect somewhat innocently), so he DID get taken to court for failing to stop, and failing to report - I think he (or his employers) probably upset someone else along the way. I was initially down to attend court as a witness, but since the hearing wasn't to cover the facts of the collision, simply the technicalities of the documentation, I got a phone call the day before telling me not to attend - rather odd, as it could have been anyone on the phone, so I checked with the court before I failed to attend). :D........so were you driving defensively? ;-)...............ie in case the muppet in the lorry pulled out in front of you :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pampam Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Hello would you please give my best wishes to the couple who actually survived that horrific crash and hope they get well soon, it looked like it was going to be a tragic accident but luckily they survived am so relieved for them and hope they have many more miles of safe motoring. PP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 pelmetman - 2013-07-16 10:13 PM Robinhood - 2013-07-16 10:05 PM pelmetman - 2013-07-16 9:56 PM Now then Robin >:-)................were you not reading the road ahead? 8-)..................did you not see the lorry approaching from the side road?.......... :-S Tut tut *-)...............speed awareness course for you me thinks :D .....you know, Dave, I think those were almost exactly the questions asked of the Lorry Driver by the Police. :-| (Given that his view was clear, and I was almost on top of him before he pulled out!) (It didn't go to court, he pleaded guilty in advance. However, he did also get summonsed for the details he left with me (which were wrong, but I suspect somewhat innocently), so he DID get taken to court for failing to stop, and failing to report - I think he (or his employers) probably upset someone else along the way. I was initially down to attend court as a witness, but since the hearing wasn't to cover the facts of the collision, simply the technicalities of the documentation, I got a phone call the day before telling me not to attend - rather odd, as it could have been anyone on the phone, so I checked with the court before I failed to attend). :D........so were you driving defensively? ;-)...............ie in case the muppet in the lorry pulled out in front of you :D ....oh I've done defensive driving courses on more than one occasion (part of the company car regime) but some circumstances you just can't defend against! (Muppets in lorries or muppets on forums being but two examples). :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Robinhood - 2013-07-16 10:19 PM (Muppets in lorries or muppets on forums being but two examples). :-S Oh don't be so defensive & sensible Robin *-)................. but I forget your not on holiday now :D...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 JudgeMental - 2013-05-22 10:17 PM was it an RV, as a renault megane is a hefty car to tow....That's exactly what I thought. It was probably one of those weird looking autosleepers that old people seem to prefer, Talisman I think they're called. If it was, at least it's one less of them on the road. :D Good that the occupants weren't seriously hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Dave Newell - 2013-05-23 7:45 PM Brian Kirby - 2013-05-23 7:30 PM Dave Newell - 2013-05-23 6:02 PM Thanks crinkly, at least you could see my point. Perhaps others could try reading what I write properly before jumping to conclusions. D. Do be realistic Dave. If that were to happen the whole forum would collapse! :-D Good point Brian and in all fairness I have been guilty of speed reading a post and getting the answer wrong several times before now. D.That's highly likely with some of Brians posts, as you have to speed read them before you end up comatose. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Dave Newell - 2013-07-16 8:49 PM Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:15 PM George Collings - 2013-07-16 7:51 PM Pure speculation, Could it be the Honda driver has poor depth perception (wonder what might cause that) and tried to get in the gap twixt 'van and Megane. Thank goodness for Big Brother and his CCTV The accident happened when they were adjacent so appears to be nothing to do with the Honda driver thinking that the towed car was a separate driver who was too close. This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." You're speculating but you obviously didn't read my update post too closely: "It seems the incident was caused by the other party, a car in the outside lane. Apparently the police have tracked both vehicles back for up to 8 miles prior to the accident on CCTV and the motorhome driver has been told he did nothing wrong at all. The car had been in lane three for 7 miles prior to the collision and as he overtook the motorhome veered into the side of it and causing it to roll three times," This is as described to the motorhome driver by the police who have 7 plus miles worth of CCTV footage to confirm the events leading up to and including the collision itself. The Honda driver's first words to the police after the incident were "have I killed them? it was my fault!" The motorhome had moved into the middle lane to clear the inside lane for traffic joining from the upcoming junction, middle lane was all clear for him to do so at this point. The Honda had been in the outside lane for over 7 miles at this point and had been seen to veer suddenly several times. Mel, when I see them next I will pass on all good wishes from this forum. D. But where did you get this information? I was able to find nothing on the web regarding your claims. And if the police know for certain that it was the Honda driver's fault, who you state has admitted liability, why are they asking for witnesses? Presumably this cctv that's been tracking them for miles would be proof enough? Have you seen a definitive report or have you simply heard the account of the motorhome driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Robinhood - 2013-07-16 9:49 PM Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:58 PM If I read that a a car had collided with an ice-cream van I would assume that the car was at fault! ....yes, but as the quote goes, "assumption is the mother of all f***-ups". Many years ago, driving to work, I collided with a 4-axle coal lorry. My insurance report said the same, the police understood the same, ..........but its driver was successfully prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, whereas, at no point was any blame attached to me. He had pulled out of a side road, directly in front of me (legally doing 60mph, and with nowhere to go but straight into the side of the lorry), but there is no other way of describing it other than me colliding with him. (Damn near killed me as well :-() But wouldn't any police report have said that Mr X collided with a coal lorry which had pulled out in front of him? Or this: 'Two cars were being driven on the motorway and Mr X who was driving in the centre lane collided with Mr Y who was in the outside lane.' Reading either of those reports would lead me to an assumption of who might be to blame. And yes, it would be an assumption but, until there is definite proof, are we not allowed to make assumptions? We're not in a court of law here, merely giving our views! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 peter - 2013-07-16 10:30 PM JudgeMental - 2013-05-22 10:17 PM was it an RV, as a renault megane is a hefty car to tow....That's exactly what I thought. It was probably one of those weird looking autosleepers that old people seem to prefer, Talisman I think they're called. If it was, at least it's one less of them on the road. :D Good that the occupants weren't seriously hurt. I do not agree about them looking weird. I think you have questionable Aesthetic taste. If it had been a 'Moncoque' Autosleeper Talisman it wouldn't have 'fallen apart' so easily, the habitation 'bit' was/is built like a 'Brick Outhouse' , originally designed by William Towns, of Aston Martin Lagonda fame, one of the very few motohomes where you would probably be SAFER in the back than in the cab, provided you were strapped in. Glad that no-one was killed,and are 'on the mend'. Ray PS I don't now own one, but did, and it's still going strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Had Enough - 2013-07-16 11:23 PM Dave Newell - 2013-07-16 8:49 PM Had Enough - 2013-07-16 8:15 PM George Collings - 2013-07-16 7:51 PM Pure speculation, Could it be the Honda driver has poor depth perception (wonder what might cause that) and tried to get in the gap twixt 'van and Megane. Thank goodness for Big Brother and his CCTV The accident happened when they were adjacent so appears to be nothing to do with the Honda driver thinking that the towed car was a separate driver who was too close. This from the police implies that the fault lies with the campervan driver who drifted towards the Honda, which had to take evasive action.: "A Lancashire Police spokesman said the camper van, which was travelling in the middle lane, came close to colliding with the Honda, which was in the third lane." You're speculating but you obviously didn't read my update post too closely: "It seems the incident was caused by the other party, a car in the outside lane. Apparently the police have tracked both vehicles back for up to 8 miles prior to the accident on CCTV and the motorhome driver has been told he did nothing wrong at all. The car had been in lane three for 7 miles prior to the collision and as he overtook the motorhome veered into the side of it and causing it to roll three times," This is as described to the motorhome driver by the police who have 7 plus miles worth of CCTV footage to confirm the events leading up to and including the collision itself. The Honda driver's first words to the police after the incident were "have I killed them? it was my fault!" The motorhome had moved into the middle lane to clear the inside lane for traffic joining from the upcoming junction, middle lane was all clear for him to do so at this point. The Honda had been in the outside lane for over 7 miles at this point and had been seen to veer suddenly several times. Mel, when I see them next I will pass on all good wishes from this forum. D. But where did you get this information? I was able to find nothing on the web regarding your claims. And if the police know for certain that it was the Honda driver's fault, who you state has admitted liability, why are they asking for witnesses? Presumably this cctv that's been tracking them for miles would be proof enough? Have you seen a definitive report or have you simply heard the account of the motorhome driver? Look, I posted the update simply to let peole know that while the motorhomers were seriously injured they are alive and recovering not to open a debate about it. I spoke to the motorhome driver whose account makes sense to me and I see no reason to question it. No I haven't seen a police report of the incident and no I'm not going into any more detail or entering into your debate further than this. The police asked for witnesses to come forward at the time of the incident which is pretty much standard procedure nowadays, I doubt they are still asking for witnesses 7 weeks later. You are making your observations based on news reports made at the time when few if any people knew the full story, certainly the press wouldn't have done. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cattwg Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 The terminology is interesting; “after their mobile home overturned”. I think it again demonstrates the greater public’s and in this case journalist’s unfamiliarity with our hobby. Users of this forum would never use the term ‘mobile home’ in that context – motorhome, camper van even motor caravan but never mobile home – to my mind that is a completely different animal. Cattwg :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted July 17, 2013 Author Share Posted July 17, 2013 To Dave N... Give up mate!..as having just revisited this, it appears as if a good many haven't even bothered reading recent "update" post... :-S (...as they're far more interested in making up their own scenarios as to what happened and why(and then,of cause, bickering about 'em!) Lets' hope your customer's missus makes it out of hospital soon...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.