You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 27 May 2010 06:40 "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:866vdjFh59U7(a)mid.individual.net... > On 27/05/2010 11:14, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:59:17 +0100 >> Conor<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> It was 2 million only a few months ago. Make your mind up. >> > The other mileage is car driven. And how many of the millions of miles involved pushing a fritional weight around in front of the vehicle? Those are the only relevant miles in this discussion.
From: boltar2003 on 27 May 2010 06:42 On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:29:22 +0100 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>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? This is just getting silly now. The sound of a cone being dragged is quite noticable! Also on a side note , don't try and kick the thing into the bushes once you extracate it from under the car. They have concrete bases and it hurts! :) B2003
From: GT on 27 May 2010 06:43 "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:866velFh59U8(a)mid.individual.net... > On 27/05/2010 11:17, GT wrote: > >>> There was no sudden adding of weight. >> >> There was in your post - I was replying to you saying "...even 5 tonnes >> on >> the back of an artic..." >> > I never mentioned a sudden adding of weight. Yes you did - we are talking about the sudden addition of significant, frictional weight to a moving vehicle when you posted saying that adding 5 tonnes to an artic wouldn't make any difference. If you were not talking about the sudden addition of weight then your post was a time-wasting irrelevance and we should leave this thread as it will very soon turn to insults again.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 06:44 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:N9ydneDT6si712PWnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "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? Because the 'line' that you talk about can be seen through the side window of a car. You can't see what is directly in front of you in a truck - you already told us that.
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 06:44
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4bfe43b7$0$17479$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Man at B&Q" <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:785f0c82-1de8-4b98-b181-2105ba1eb90a(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On May 27, 10:24 am, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:52:27 +0100 >> >> "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >Because CTM and others a) know best and b) want to slag off a lorry >> >driver >> >despite it being a car driver who caused the incident in the first >> >place. >> >> Yes the car driver was an idiot. But she made a momentary mistake. The >> lorry >> drivers mistake went on for minutes. > > Boltar failed to indent: > "What mistake was that then? Not having x-ray vision?" > > No, clearly humans do not have x-ray vision. His mistake was failing to > stop immediately after he collided into the car If he didn't know that there had been a collision why would he stop? > and felt the substantial loss in power How do you know that he would have felt a loss in power? > and heard the tyre screaching How do you know he heard the tyres screaching (sic)? > and the sound of multiple car horns directed at him. How does anyone know that that people blasting their horns are trying to attract their attention? > Just to be clear though - the collision was not his fault. I'm glad we've clarified that. Why are you so intent on pillorying the innocent party why has been found guilty of no offence whatsoever in two trials? |