Cunting lorry drivers.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Pip Luscher on 26 Nov 2009 17:39 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:31:01 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)yahoo.co.uk wrote: >Ok fine , my history needs improving. The point is that the roads even when >county councils had the chance were never straightened but instead still >follow the old trackways which in turn generally follow old field boundaries >or the whims of the local drovers. What might have been convenient for >shifting cattle 300 years ago to avoid boggy ground or whatever is irrelevant >for modern vehicles on tarmac roads. If the railways generally can be built >straight or with gentle curves so can the roads. So take a train. >I dread to think of the >amount of fuel wasted by all manor of vehicles constantly slowing down for >endless bends in the road then having to speed up again. Even the bloody >motorways in this country can't be built straight FFS even though compulsary >land purchase is a must with these projects anyway. That's fine if all you ever want to do is get from A to B. For many, the journey itself is also a destination. -- -Pip
From: Harry Bloomfield on 26 Nov 2009 17:43 Conor presented the following explanation : > You're not required to so if you do, its of your own volition. The lorry > driver is neither asking or expecting you to. ...and he could sit there waiting to get out for an hour, until someone decides to let him out. > > >> Why is it encumbent upon me to hold back and >> hold back the vehicles behind me when a truck is struggling his way >> around a tight two lane roundabout, when I could easily fly past him at >> no risk to me. > > Because there is a risk to you, dumbass. No risk to me, I said I could have whistled past him at no risk - as in before we get to the roundabout and be on my way. Instead I hold back and let him see I am holding back. It gets him through the roundabout with a minimum of delay and I soon be past him once clear of the roundabout. -- Regards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
From: boltar2003 on 27 Nov 2009 04:54 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:07:12 -0000 "Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >"Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >news:mn.d5297d9ba09cd718.106911(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk... >> boltar2003(a)yahoo.co.uk explained : >>> Anyone who says a curved road is >>> safer than a straight one and would make the slightest difference to >>> whether >>> a driver falls asleep at the wheel or not is a liar or a buffoon. Or in >>> the >>> case of politicians probably both. >> >> ..and the straighter they are, the further ahead you can see, the better >> your chance of spotting problems ahead and slowing down. > >That's the theory. Doesn't necessarily work in real life. People compensate >for that extra visibility by driving faster. Bloater's also pretty much >completely wrong with his falling asleep comment. Really? Show us some evidence proving me wrong then. I find it very hard to believe that turning a steering wheel slightly has the slightest effect on whether someone nods off. Even on a straight road you have to keep correcting anyway so I fail to see the difference. So come on , post a link to the evidence supporting your argument. B2003
From: boltar2003 on 27 Nov 2009 04:56 On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:39:12 +0000 Pip Luscher <pluscher(a)live.invalid.co.uk> wrote: >>for modern vehicles on tarmac roads. If the railways generally can be built >>straight or with gentle curves so can the roads. > >So take a train. Riiight. And if I'm going somewhere that doesn't have a station or I need to carry a load of stuff? >>I dread to think of the >>amount of fuel wasted by all manor of vehicles constantly slowing down for >>endless bends in the road then having to speed up again. Even the bloody >>motorways in this country can't be built straight FFS even though compulsary >>land purchase is a must with these projects anyway. > >That's fine if all you ever want to do is get from A to B. For many, >the journey itself is also a destination. I suspect they're a small minority and even if the roads are straight they could just take a roundabout route if they really like going around corners that much. B2003
From: Clive George on 27 Nov 2009 06:56
<boltar2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:heo7kk$8v1$1(a)aioe.org... > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:07:12 -0000 > "Clive George" <clive(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >>"Harry Bloomfield" <harry.m1byt(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:mn.d5297d9ba09cd718.106911(a)NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk... >>> boltar2003(a)yahoo.co.uk explained : >>>> Anyone who says a curved road is >>>> safer than a straight one and would make the slightest difference to >>>> whether >>>> a driver falls asleep at the wheel or not is a liar or a buffoon. Or in >>>> the >>>> case of politicians probably both. >>> >>> ..and the straighter they are, the further ahead you can see, the better >>> your chance of spotting problems ahead and slowing down. >> >>That's the theory. Doesn't necessarily work in real life. People >>compensate >>for that extra visibility by driving faster. Bloater's also pretty much >>completely wrong with his falling asleep comment. > > Really? Show us some evidence proving me wrong then. I find it very hard > to > believe that turning a steering wheel slightly has the slightest effect on > whether someone nods off. Even on a straight road you have to keep > correcting > anyway so I fail to see the difference. > > So come on , post a link to the evidence supporting your argument. It's part of a rather larger malaise, but see accident rates in the US vs here. A lot of the stuff they do because they can get away with it a large part of the time isn't nearly as easy over here. And you do know there's rather more to negotiating a corner than simply turning a steering wheel, don't you? You even mentioned part of it earlier. If you're honestly saying that a curvy road is as soporific as a dead straight one, there's not much hope for you. |