From: JNugent on
NM wrote:
> On 13 June, 16:09, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message
>>> news:87k9t8FmriU2(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>> On 13 June, 15:10, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/06/2010 14:22, NM wrote:
>>>>>>> It does, try entering such a road when it's busy, you need to wait for
>>>>>>> a gap in the lorry 'train' before you launch yourself from the slip
>>>>>>> road, similarly you need to plan ahead to find a suitable gap long
>>>>>>> before your exit, some don't this can lead to very hairy cutting
>>>>>>> across the bows.
>>>>>> The lorries should be leaving a larger gap as a matter or course. If
>>>>>> not, they should be prosecuted for driving with excess meat to the
>>>>>> head.
>>>>> Why? They are doing nothing wrong, they are complying with law,
>>>> Driving too close to the vehicle in front is not complying with the law.
>>> Define "too close".
>>>> Failing to allow overtaking traffic (on the right) to pull left (and
>>>> failing to leave a gap into which that traffic *can* pull left) is
>>>> similarly unlawful.
>>> Under what legislation?
>> The Road Traffic Act.
>>
>> The early sections include a catch-all offence of driving without due care
>> and attention *or* (not *and*) without consideration for other road-users. It
>> covers everything from read-ending the vehicle in fron to splashing a
>> pedestrian by driving through a deep puddle.
>>
>> Endorsable, of course.
>
> But it dosen't define too close does it? My opinion of too close and
> yours may differ if you choose to prosecute me under this legislation
> I will have an opportunity to refute your assesment.

Neither your opinion nor mine are of real assistance to us. The relevant
opinions are those of the police who enforce the law and the courts who deal
with cases brought under the Act.

"Too close" is a candidate for either DWoDCAA or DWoCORU.
From: JNugent on
NM wrote:
> On 14 June, 21:43, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 14/06/2010 20:14, NM wrote:> On 13 June, 16:19, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> ou consider such a gap long enough to move a car into at 56 mph?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yes. Unfortunately, most lorry drivers don't know how large this gap
>>>> should be.
>>> What evidence do you have to support that, have you been on a course
>>> for example?
>> I know it to be true because I spend a lot of time on the roads.
>>
>> car drivers are much more likely to have accidents which
>>
>>> fails to support your bigoted view of truckers.
>> Lorry drivers are supposed to be better trained, or so we're told, so
>> they have no excuse.
>
> But their lower accident rate suggests they don't need an excuse.

Put two lorries on the M25 at dead of night, no other traffic around, and
they're in constant danger of crashing into each other and closing the
motorway for three days.

Put three lorries on the M20 in similar dead-of-night conditions and they can
crash into each other in formation, with similar effects on the road.

Only really superb drivers can manage anything as spectacular as that.
From: JNugent on
NM wrote:
> On 14 June, 21:46, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 14/06/2010 19:37, NM wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 June, 15:37, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> They should be leaving a decent gap for something called safety. Not a
>>>> concept lorry drivers are familiar with, so it would seem.
>>> Statistically more likely to crash in a car than a truck, explain
>>> please?
>> What a load of bollocks and, to be honest, a predictable comment from a
>> thick lorry driver. It seems it's ok for a lorry driver to drive
>> dangerously as long as he can find another group of road users he
>> believes to be worse.
>
> Not really, it's you attempting to prove, by assertion alone, that
> truck drivers are:-
> a, stupid,
> b, don't leave enough gaps,
> c, fail to drive safely.

Those observations were made in response to threats that the nearside lane of
UK motorways would effectively be blockaded if an overtaking lane ban (for
lorries) were made more widespread.
From: NM on
On 15 June, 01:28, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > On 13 June, 16:09, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> >> Brimstone wrote:
>
> >>> "JNugent" <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:87k9t8FmriU2(a)mid.individual.net...
> >>>> NM wrote:
> >>>>> On 13 June, 15:10, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 13/06/2010 14:22, NM wrote:
> >>>>>>> It does, try entering such a road when it's busy, you need to wait for
> >>>>>>> a gap in the lorry 'train' before you launch yourself from the slip
> >>>>>>> road, similarly you need to plan ahead to find a suitable gap long
> >>>>>>> before your exit, some don't this can lead to very hairy cutting
> >>>>>>> across the bows.
> >>>>>> The lorries should be leaving a larger gap as a matter or course. If
> >>>>>> not, they should be prosecuted for driving with excess meat to the
> >>>>>> head.
> >>>>> Why? They are doing nothing wrong, they are complying with law,
> >>>> Driving too close to the vehicle in front is not complying with the law.
> >>> Define "too close".
> >>>> Failing to allow overtaking traffic (on the right) to pull left (and
> >>>> failing to leave a gap into which that traffic *can* pull left) is
> >>>> similarly unlawful.
> >>> Under what legislation?
> >> The Road Traffic Act.
>
> >> The early sections include a catch-all offence of driving without due care
> >> and attention *or* (not *and*) without consideration for other road-users. It
> >> covers everything from read-ending the vehicle in fron to splashing a
> >> pedestrian by driving through a deep puddle.
>
> >> Endorsable, of course.
>
> > But it dosen't define too close does it?  My opinion of too close and
> > yours may differ if you choose to prosecute me under this legislation
> > I will have an opportunity to refute your assesment.
>
> Neither your opinion nor mine are of real assistance to us. The relevant
> opinions are those of the police who enforce the law and the courts who deal
> with cases brought under the Act.
>
> "Too close" is a candidate for either DWoDCAA or DWoCORU.

We agree, one man's 'too close' is another man's 'sufficient room'.
From: NM on
On 15 June, 01:31, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> > On 14 June, 21:43, Silk <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> >> On 14/06/2010 20:14, NM wrote:> On 13 June, 16:19, Silk<m...(a)privacy.net>  wrote:
>
> >> ou consider such a gap long enough to move a car into at 56 mph?
>
> >>>> Yes. Unfortunately, most lorry drivers don't know how large this gap
> >>>> should be.
> >>> What evidence do you have to support that, have you been on a course
> >>> for example?
> >> I know it to be true because I spend a lot of time on the roads.
>
> >>   car drivers are much more likely to have accidents which
>
> >>> fails to support your bigoted view  of truckers.
> >> Lorry drivers are supposed to be better trained, or so we're told, so
> >> they have no excuse.
>
> > But their lower accident rate suggests they don't need an excuse.
>
> Put two lorries on the M25 at dead of night, no other traffic around, and
> they're in constant danger of crashing into each other and closing the
> motorway for three days.
>
> Put three lorries on the M20 in similar dead-of-night conditions and they can
> crash into each other in formation, with similar effects on the road.
>
> Only really superb drivers can manage anything as spectacular as that.

Evidence? I have been watching the antics of superb drivers all last
night and today, without exception they all appeared to be
holidaymakers complete with kids etc. Didn't encounter a single
accident in which any lorry was involved, so much for constant
danger.

Accidents usually involve several situations coming together at the
same time seldom is there one root cause, using the M20 or the M25 in
a truck by itself isn't risky I have done it literally thousands of
times myself without even witnessing an incident soley involving
trucks, never mind being involved in one.

In fact I can only remember one accident where there was only a truck
alone involved, that was over 35 years ago and the german driver was
found on post mortem to be drunk as a skunk.