Cunting lorry drivers.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Harry Bloomfield on 25 Nov 2009 16:53 Silk formulated the question : > A light source that can't be relied upon to be there throughout the maneuver. > Are you getting this now? I got it from the start - of course the light source cannot be relied upon - I would expect the driver I was overtaking to dip long before my maneuver was completed. At that point I would be ready to switch to my own main beam. The point is to be able to see ahead of the vehicle ahead of you, to enable you to make an initial judgement of the road ahead - once that is done and the maneuver started, you do not need their lights any more. Think of it like this.... You are driving at a good speed down a dark unlit road, no other vehicles around you. Your own lights all fail, it is completely dark, you cannot see the road. What do you do? You bring your vehicle to a stop relying entirely on your mind's eye picture of the road ahead. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: NM on 25 Nov 2009 16:57 On 25 Nov, 20:18, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > On 24/11/2009 20:15, Conor wrote: > > > > > In article<hehd52$b4...(a)aioe.org>, Silk says... > > >> I'm sure that was the case. But I'm sure you could have simply had these > >> things pointed out to you. > > > I'm quite sure someone could have done me a nice list but until seen > > firsthand from the cab of the vehicle, its hard to get a true > > realisation of what you've done. > > >> On another note, you could be forgiven for > >> thinking that some lorry drivers have no idea what it's like to drive a > >> car, even though this is impossible. Perhaps it's easy to forget when > >> you move from one type of vehicle to another. > > > A lorry driver will have driven to work in a car then driven home in > > one. I was doing up to 300 miles a week commuting. > > I'm sure there must be lorry drivers who cycle to work or have late > stage dementia where they can't remember what they did an hour ago. They > certainly drive as if that were the case. > > For example, the inconsiderate tipper driver who pulled out in front of > me from a side road the other day, even though I was the only car in > sight and forced me to be stuck behind him until the next overtaking > opportunity 10 miles away. Or the lorry drivers who insist on overtaking > on the only stretch of road with an overtaking lane for miles around and > hold everyone up so they can get just one lorry in front because they're > going 0.5 mph faster. It's obvious to me that these people have no > understanding of what it's like to drive a car. Or certainly not on the > open road away from their 10 mile stop-start commute to work. Or they are pissed off with you calling them names, so they are getting their own back.
From: NM on 25 Nov 2009 17:00 On 25 Nov, 20:29, "Clive George" <cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > "Conor" <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:MPG.25779d3bc6d13ae0989992(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > > In article <MPG.25772afcb6d5bfec989...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Conor says... > > > <snip> > > > I noticed that Clive George has been surprisingly quiet despite > > answering posts I posted later than this one... > > Yes, because it was bollocks which I'd already answered, and I couldn't be > arsed to argue it with you. But since you ask... > > I already told you the high beam isn't an indication it's safe to overtake, > and others agreed. You still seem to believe it is. There's not much more I > can do about that - you're wrong, and experience shows you're incapable of > admitting it. > > The idea is that the full beam of the vehicle in front of you shows you the > nice straight bit of road, _and_ where it might not be straight too, as per > your examples. It's not "There's nothing coming the other way", but "There's > the road". > > I'm not going to trust some lorry driver to tell me it's safe to overtake by > putting full beam on, but I will use the extra vision it affords to help me > to make my own decision. Why is it encumbent on the truck driver to help you make your mind up?
From: Silk on 25 Nov 2009 17:08 On 25/11/2009 21:53, Harry Bloomfield wrote: > Silk formulated the question : >> A light source that can't be relied upon to be there throughout the >> maneuver. Are you getting this now? > > I got it from the start - of course the light source cannot be relied > upon - I would expect the driver I was overtaking to dip long before my > maneuver was completed. At that point I would be ready to switch to my > own main beam. There's a lot of expects and readies there. It's not a good idea to have to worry about your lights half way through an overtake at night. > The point is to be able to see ahead of the vehicle ahead of you, to > enable you to make an initial judgement of the road ahead - once that is > done and the maneuver started, you do not need their lights any more. You hope. > > Think of it like this.... > > You are driving at a good speed down a dark unlit road, no other > vehicles around you. Your own lights all fail, it is completely dark, > you cannot see the road. What do you do? > > You bring your vehicle to a stop relying entirely on your mind's eye > picture of the road ahead. You're talking about an unavoidable emergency situation. An overtake is neither of these.
From: Silk on 25 Nov 2009 17:10
On 25/11/2009 21:44, Harry Bloomfield wrote: > Silk formulated the question : >> Same kind of thing applies. Bike = very likely to be ridden by someone >> with a lower regard for life than other road users, so watch out. > > Or perhaps someone who simply enjoys demonstrating the level of their > skill in control and safety to themselves. I'd rather not take the chance. Car driving can also be quite > a risky business, especially for the unskilled - so why with such an > aversion to risk, take up driving? It's the lesser evil. Cars are inherently *far* safer than bikes and more comfortable and practical. |