From: NM on
On 15 June, 18:20, JNugent <J...(a)nonexistentaddress.com> wrote:
> 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)?

Not really it's such a rare event (2004) that it's reported nationally
whereas similar more frequent car only events hardly get a mention in
the local rag

I was expecting some numbers, truck only accidents in a given time
period on the M25 against car only accidents and truck and car for the
same period, you may as well include motorcycles as well, so far your
assertions don't appear to back up, but never let a bit of blind
bigotry hold you back.