High Way Code omission
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: NM on 14 Jun 2010 23:35 On 15 June, 01:33, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > 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. As happens every day in several of our continental neighbours with this policy, really what needs to happen to ease the situation is to repeal speed limiter rules in the entire EU, that will not increase the overall speed of truck traffic but will allow sufficient differential between individual lorries to avoid the duelling truck experienced at the moment. Previously trucks were limited to 60 mph in the UK, my old Transcontinental would do 85 mph easily and previously my old FB89 was geared to peak out at 72 mph giving a generous margin for passing. no duelling lorries in those days, overall speed was much the same as it is now.
From: JNugent on 15 Jun 2010 04:22 NM wrote: > 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'. Not that "another man's" opinion will necessarily be relevant.
From: JNugent on 15 Jun 2010 04:24 NM wrote: > 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. And of course, nothing untoward ever happens unless you are there on the spot, does it? > 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 True. But two lorries there and the risk seems to magnify greatly. > I have done it literally thousands of > times myself without even witnessing an incident soley involving > trucks, never mind being involved in one. And of course, nothing untoward ever happens unless you are there on the spot, does it? > 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. Oh, there have been plenty since then, even if you weren't there to witness them.
From: NM on 15 Jun 2010 11:43 On 15 June, 09:24, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: > NM wrote: > > 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. > > And of course, nothing untoward ever happens unless you are there on the > spot, does it? > > > 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 > > True. But two lorries there and the risk seems to magnify greatly. > > > I have done it literally thousands of > > times myself without even witnessing an incident soley involving > > trucks, never mind being involved in one. > > And of course, nothing untoward ever happens unless you are there on the > spot, does it? > > > 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. > > Oh, there have been plenty since then, even if you weren't there to witness them. Details then, and the figures to compare them with car accidents, I think thats a 'makee uppee' fact, lets see some proof, other than assertion, please?
From: JNugent on 15 Jun 2010 13:20
NM wrote: > On 15 June, 09:24, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote: >> NM wrote: >>> 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. >> And of course, nothing untoward ever happens unless you are there on the >> spot, does it? >> >>> 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 >> True. But two lorries there and the risk seems to magnify greatly. >> >>> I have done it literally thousands of >>> times myself without even witnessing an incident soley involving >>> trucks, never mind being involved in one. >> And of course, nothing untoward ever happens unless you are there on the >> spot, does it? >> >>> 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. >> Oh, there have been plenty since then, even if you weren't there to witness them. > > Details then, and the figures to compare them with car accidents, I > think thats a 'makee uppee' fact, lets see some proof, other than > assertion, please? Will the 4-day closure of the M25 (between the A21 and the A22, causing regional chaos all around London) in November 2004, caused by a night-time collision between two lorries (and no other vehicles) do? Otherwise, how about the three lorries which managed to collide with each other simultaneously on the M20 a few months later (another night-time collision when no-one else was about)? |