From: Conor on
On 27/05/2010 09:50, GT wrote:
> "Conor"<conor(a)> wrote in message
> news:865t0oFr7cU5(a)
>> 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
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
On 27/05/2010 10:02, boltar2003(a) 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
On 27/05/2010 10:02, Brimstone wrote:
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4bfe331f$0$17498$c3e8da3(a)
>> "Conor" <conor(a)> wrote in message
>> news:865t7kFr7cU9(a)
>>> 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
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:caidncJm9MRNr2PWnZ2dnUVZ7t2dnZ2d(a)
>> 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!