From: GT on
"Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:866ufpF87fU11(a)mid.individual.net...
> On 27/05/2010 10:54, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
>
>>> behind a pane of glass and have an engine running (diesel or v6/8 I
>>> would
>>> guess for that torque)?
>>
>> V6 diesel. I don't know how I manage to hear scaping cones or ambulence
>> sirens
>> or car horns with , as you say , a pane of glass and engine noise between
>> me and the outside world. And thats without the radio on!
>
> Your car has soundproofing, lots of it, between the cabin and the engine.

And yet he can still hear noises, which again suggests that the truck driver
would have clearly heard the tyre screaching noise as it would have been
many, many times louder than a traffic cone.


From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s-mdnSZ1j58V1GPWnZ2dnUVZ8nWdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
> <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
> news:htldfr$6gk$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:09:10 +0100
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Well mine has about 350 but thats beside the point. 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).
>>>>
>>>What if you hadn't seen it and the collision was so gentle that there was
>>>no
>>>noise transmitted to you?
>>
>> Then I wouldn't have heard the initial bang. But I'd still have heard the
>> scraping sound coming from under the car.
>>
> How do you know beyond all reasonable doubt that you would have heard it?
>
Because it is audible on the video clip which is recorded on a low quality,
low sensitivity microphone from 20 feet away and is clearly much louder than
the engine noise from the truck.


From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4bfe4107$0$17486$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:svqdndiShcXdqGPWnZ2dnUVZ8m6dnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>> "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?
>
> Simple - I stop at the line. The reason I know where to stop is that I can
> see the line out of my side 'A' window. Being able to see something
> enables me to know where it is.
And what leads you to believe that lorry drivers don't use a similar
technique so that they know how close they can stop behind a car?


From: Brimstone on
"bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:866rjrF6lmU12(a)mid.individual.net...
> Brimstone wrote:
>> "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:866qevF6lmU6(a)mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>
>>> Like I said at the start of this thread; "Why hasn't she been nicked
>>> for her obvious dangerous driving"? Or at the least, 'driving without
>>> due care and attention'?
>>>
>> I'd guess because it was a damage only incident so the police will leave
>> to the insurance companies.
>>
>>
> But he was taken to court and on the face of it, it was (IMO) her fault.
> Seems a bit one sided?
>
I hadn't realised he'd been prosecuted. As you say, one sided, but "very"
rather than "a bit".


From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4bfe4319$0$17517$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "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!
As I said elsewhere, what makes you think your theoretical models outweigh
the real world, which is what a number of people are basing their arguments
on? Your the only one relying on theory.