From: Peter Beale on
Conor wrote:
> In article <7p73pkF9lvU1(a)>, Ivor Jones says...
>> Those well publicised cases where satnavs have taken lorry drivers along
>> narrow country lanes etc. are due entirely to the failure of the driver
>> to program them correctly.
> Is the wrong answer....

> You cannot "set them properly" for a lorry or a bus. Even the supposed
> dedicated HGV ones aren't much cop. For example, there's far more than
> 1500 low bridges but only Network Rail has a database the mappers can
> accesss. Local authorities seem to not know.
But every low bridge is clearly marked with the height, both at the
bridge itself and on approaching roads, in time for an alternative route
to be taken. Is it not the responsibility of the driver to note those
and take action, whatever his satnav may tell him?

Peter Beale

From: Cynic on
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:29:45 +0000, Denis McMahon
<denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)> wrote:

>> So you believe that the media is lying when it states that there were
>> no serious injuries?

>No, but there's a gap between what I'd call "serious" and what I'd call

>A cut needing a couple of stitches, a greenstick fracture of the
>forearm, a broken collar bone or mild concussion are not insignificant,
>but they're certainly not serious either.

The meda reports state that the only injuries were minor cuts and
bruises. As you appear to believe that there were greenstick
fractures, broken collarbones etc., you obviously think that the media
is lying or misinformed, and I ask you to justify your belief.

I can agree that the *potential* for very serious injury, including
death was present in the accident. It is extremely fortunate that the
actual consequences were as mild as it turned out. But don't make out
that the damage was a lot worse than it actually was simply because it
*could* have been worse.

I see no reason to suspect that any of the children suffered any
significant harm. Most of the harm would have been fright and shock
rather than physical injuries, but as the event was not long-lasting
or particularly horrific, the probability of any lasting effects are
extremely low. From the child's POV the event was most probably on
par with falling off a bicycle.

I see the no-win no-fee parasites are onto the case


From: Ophelia on
damduck-egg(a) wrote:
> I Set one with a Male voice to quickest and a one with a female to
> shortest The difference in directions was just like being in Mum and
> Dads Cortina again.


From: Ophelia on
James Martin(a) wrote:
> I gave the one a friend bought a try out have read previously how
> "wonderful" they where .

Ok but I found I needed time to accustom myself to it. I hated it at first,
but now I wouldn't be without it.

From: Cynic on
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:41:34 +0000, Denis McMahon
<denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)> wrote:

>It could be that height detection systems and warning lights should be
>placed on the approaches to bridges less than some specified height.
>I've seen such systems in use in some places.

There is a very simple system in use at most multi-story car parks I
have visited. A board hanging from chains above the entrance. If
your vehicle hits the board, it's too high. Adding a switch to the
board that will sound an alarm or lights if the board is struck would
be trivial.

I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.