From: Conor on 27 May 2010 05:59 On 27/05/2010 09:50, GT wrote: > "Conor"<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message > news:865t0oFr7cU5(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 26/05/2010 14:53, GT wrote: >> >>> Its only my opinion, but I simply don't believe he didn't know about the >>> car. I can buy the fact that the driver couldn't see the car, but he >>> *must* >>> have felt something. >> >> I ripped a steel canopy off a building once in an artic. Didn't feel a >> thing. > > You drove into a building and didn't notice! I can't accept any driving > related argument from someone who doesn't drive round buildings? > >> The collision/impact/crash cannot have been truely >>> smooth... Lorries have a large amount of power (torque), but even >>> supposing >>> that the car 'joined' with the front of the truck without a 'shunt', the >>> transition from normal driving to pushing a car sideways at 60mph would >>> require a significant change in power and he has to have felt that sudden >>> loss in momentum. >>> >> Nope. Put even 5 tonnes on the back of an artic and you'll not even know >> its there. > > If you were to suddenly add 5 tonnes to the back of a truck you would feel a > small loss in power There was no sudden adding of weight. , but that is not the point here - no one seems to grasp > the physics involved here - we are not talking about an increase in the mass > and weight of a well-oiled trailer for the engine to 'pull'. Its one thing > to 'pull' a lubricated, well balanced mass, as there is very little friction > required - the torque is not affected too much. But when a new mass greatly > increases the frictional drag, there is no way that a correctly trained > truck driver would not notice the sudden drain in power (even if he didn't > see or feel the impact). > > Before you reply, please find a toy car and get down on the carpet... I don't need to. I've over 1.5 million miles experience driving lorries - somewhat more than you. > > A small car can easily tow a trailer weighing a tonne, or even 2 tonnes, but > add half a tonne as a frictional mass (not on a trailer) and the car > probably won't even be able to set off. > No it can't. A tonne is very noticable in a car. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 27 May 2010 06:00 On 27/05/2010 09:53, GT wrote: >> To the side of it. Noise is always louder to the side. > > In whos world? Everyones. I've been in the Army. A rifle being fired sounds a shitload louder to the person to the side of it than the person firing it. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 27 May 2010 06:01 On 27/05/2010 10:02, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > Well mine has about 350 but thats beside the point. Wow, 1/6th... > The noise of hitting the > cone and the scraping sound would have been a giveaway if I hadn't seen it > already (cone knocked over by another vehicle in roadworks , going to fast to > swerve , not an interesting tale). > You were in a car therefore your anecdote is irrelevant. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 27 May 2010 06:01 On 27/05/2010 10:02, Brimstone wrote: > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe331f$0$17498$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:865t7kFr7cU9(a)mid.individual.net... >>> On 26/05/2010 17:33, GT wrote: > >>>> - How come lorries can stop within 6 inches of my rear bumper at >>>> traffic >>>> lights then? >>>> >>> Because they don't. Get out and look next time. You'll find its a lot >>> further than 6 inches. >> > At traffic lights or road junction with a "Give Way" or "Stop" line, do > you stop when the white line is about to disappear from your view or do > you pull up so that the front of your vehicle is on the line? If the > latter, how do you know where to stop? > > DING! We have a winner. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 06:02
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:IvKdnfAc4PMMqGPWnZ2dnUVZ8kidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:caidncJm9MRNr2PWnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > >> Because CTM and others > > Sorry, I got the attribution wrong. > > Make that "GT and others". You still got your attribution wrong!! I think you should make a point of reading all posts before getting personal - you just embarassed yourself again. Had you bothered to read my posts, you would know that I agreed that she was to blame and that she should have "at least given dangerous driving points), although I suspect it will be a while before she goes on a motorway again anyway" You have quoted me here because you think I'm 'anti-lorry'. The argument we are having on another subthread here is about the physics of the event and the opinion I have formed is based on those physics. You have yet to quote any fact to support your opposing opinion and refuse to admit that the facts prove your opinion wrong! |