Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Cynic on 26 Dec 2009 11:34 On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:33:40 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> I have never been trained on high vehicles. Do the instructors do any >> bridge training work? >Why would they need to other than "make sure you know the height of your >vehicle and observe warning signs." Because you learn from *experience*. Simple instructions rarely do the trick adequately. I could explain to you how to land an aeroplane or hover a helicopter every day for months, but unless you actually attempt it yourself many times, you will not be able to achieve it. -- Cynic
From: Ian Dalziel on 26 Dec 2009 12:01 On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:30:25 +0000, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:54:36 +0000, Ian Dalziel ><iandalziel(a)lineone.net> wrote: > >>>>Bollocks. Driving into solid objects is a bad idea, however modern >>>>your "safety equipment". >>> >>>What a completely irrelevant reply to the point I was making. >> >>It is not irrelevant. You have to avoid solid bits in the way of the >>vehicle you are driving. However low your vehicle, there are solid >>bits intruding into the carriageway wich it is advisable to avoid. > >But bridges ain't one of them for a car driver. Of course they are - driving into a bridge pillar can be severely injurious to health. -- Ian D
From: Mr X on 26 Dec 2009 12:12 "Cynic" <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3kecj513s1qjvqna0agsnem36dsk4jsm6m(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:33:40 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >>> I have never been trained on high vehicles. Do the instructors do any >>> bridge training work? > >>Why would they need to other than "make sure you know the height of your >>vehicle and observe warning signs." > > Because you learn from *experience*. Simple instructions rarely do > the trick adequately. > > I could explain to you how to land an aeroplane or hover a helicopter > every day for months, but unless you actually attempt it yourself many > times, you will not be able to achieve it. > 10,000 hours in fact. I wonder how much time pilots have in the air? I know that the 10,000 hrs figure is being baned about in surgery as the European Working Time Directive kicks in and people have to restructure their training to meet it while getting exposure.
From: Mr X on 26 Dec 2009 12:57 <James Martin(a)hgvu.com> wrote in message news:d7jcj5pfsls71bmfh6stcjcnumk6eph6h2(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:13:48 +0000, mechanic <mechanic(a)example.net> > wrote: > > > >>there were road closures for maintenance/ resurfacing and traffic >>was diverted off the A1 onto the lanes of North Yorkshire with no >>diversion signs or other indications of ways round the obstruction. >>If one had no local geographic knowledge of the local towns and >>their relative positions, and no maps in the car, what then? >> >>Nightmare! > Before setting out on a journey into an area that is not known to you > one checks out the area for such things before leaving home by ringing > the local police for the area concedrned . Troll.
From: NM on 26 Dec 2009 13:01
On 26 Dec, 17:44, James Mar...(a)hgvu.com wrote: > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:33:13 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> > wrote: > > > > >On 26 Dec, 11:09, James Mar...(a)hgvu.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:11:49 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> > >> wrote: > > >> >In message <4B35CD53.30C4C...(a)siz82442582548524542efitter.com>, at > >> >08:46:11 on Sat, 26 Dec 2009, johannes > >> ><j...(a)siz82442582548524542efitter.com> remarked: > >> >>> So how do you navigate through built up areas you don't know? > > >> >>I find it easy enough. Looking for features and landmarks learned from maps > >> >>and google earth. E.g. two roundabouts then a school, a railway bridge etc. > > >> >That's fine as long as you don't end up a hundred yards the wrong side > >> >of a set of "buses only" bollards, or similar feature. > > >> >In a recent discussion of Cambridge, it transpired that to get to the > >> >other side of one similar "obstruction" required a two mile diversion > >> >using exactly the correct roads at every junction. Although maybe a > >> >satnav wouldn't necessarily be up to date with all the "no left turn > >> >except..." and other anti-ratrun devices either (many of which the > >> >Google Streetcar seems to ignore!) > > >> I wonder how many satnav's had their owners running round in circles > >> when the bridges went down Cockermouth and Workington the other > >> week and are still sending their owners on wild goose chases ! . > > >Hardly a reasonable comment, these were exceptional circumstances but > >supposing the people had a map instead, it would be just as incorrect, > >the sat nav owner can download an update, how do you update a map > >without buying a new one (Admiralty charts excepted). > > Which again proves that a satnav is a useless piece of nonsense one > can see a diversion sign on any road and act accordingly but you > people who just love new gadgets will never see that no matter how > useless they are . No it dosen't, at the point of the 'deviation' both are equally useless, that proves neither is superior to the other however the sat nav can be made useful again either free or at a nominal cost on the internet whereas an updated version of the book will be needed with probably a longer lead up time to it's availability. |