Prev: A Cyclist Knob with a Camera
Next: Restaurant damaged by car.
From: Man at B&Q on 20 May 2010 04:10
On May 19, 6:01 pm, "Mortimer" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> "Man at B&Q" <manatba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:63054dd2-1d84-46f6-8728-bea364c17831(a)r21g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 7:23 pm, "Mortimer" <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > > Would the retardation force be as great as
> > > if the lorry had been able to slow using its brakes?
> > If it could, then there would be no need for the escape lane.
>
> Yes there would: I said " if the lorry had been able to slow using its
> brakes" (ie the normal situation). I was assuming that the lorry would use
> the escape lane because it *wasn't* able to use its brakes because they had
> failed.

Exactly. That's why I said "If it [the lorry] could [slow using its
brakes], then there would be no need for the escape lane".

You have to read it in context with my question "does it matter" which
you snipped.

If the lorry can't slow using its brakes because they have failed then
anything is better than nothing. Any retardation force in the escape
lane is better than none at all. Does it matter if it isn't as great
as it would be using the brakes, so long as it is great enough to at
least minimise the carnage?

MBQ
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: A Cyclist Knob with a Camera
Next: Restaurant damaged by car.