You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 07:05 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4bfe4f5e$0$17528$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:kpWdnXz9l73Q02PWnZ2dnUVZ8rednZ2d(a)bt.com... >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> news:4bfe4ba2$0$17517$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fMCdnWBOlNJD2mPWnZ2dnUVZ7vCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>>> news:4bfe3e42$0$17506$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > [snip] >>>> Why are you criticising the lorry driver when the situation only arose >>>> because of the stupidity of a car driver? >>> >>> I'm criticising the lorry driver because he should have stopped >>> regardless of who caused the incident. >> >> Indeed, but if one is not aware of an incident then there is no reason to >> stop is there? > > We have established the mechanics of the incident and we know that he was > aware of the loss in power Kindly show me where it is reported that the lorry driver was aware of the loss in power? > and so should have stopped. Hence my criticism. He stopped when he became aware of the incident.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 07:06 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gYOdnatc5sSyzWPWnZ2dnUVZ7tmdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe4d0b$0$17513$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "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. > > Are you suggesting that it can't be seen through a lorry's side window? No. I'm suggesting that you and Conor have told us that a truck driver can't see what is immediately in front of him. If you are now telling us that the driver could see the car through his side window, then you have rather destroyed your already flawed argument!
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 07:07 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4bfe5066$0$17492$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:N66dnW4RR9U_02PWnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>> So all your theories outweigh empirical evidence and the opinion of the >>>> police crash investigators, the VOSA investigators and the Traffic >>>> Commissioner do they? >>> >>> They are not my theories, but pure physics. >> Like I said theories, regardless of whose they are. > > You're repeating yourself again. Theories are unproved propositions. The > physics invoved here are proven fact. Show this proof. >> As I said before, take a ride in a lorry, you'll learn a lot. > > There is nothing to learn by my taking more rides in lorries, unless I > were unfortunate enough to be involved in a 'car dragging' incident! If you've ridden in lorries, you certainly didn't learn anything.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 07:08 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:EpidnUNg6bdezWPWnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe46e0$0$17524$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:866u5aF87fU6(a)mid.individual.net... >>> 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. >> >> That's simply not true. > How do you know? I just do. How do you know otherwise?
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 07:10
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4bfe4e2b$0$17484$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message > news:866vfdFh59U9(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 27/05/2010 11:18, GT wrote: >>> "Conor"<conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:866u5aF87fU6(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> 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. >>> >>> That's simply not true. >>> >> And your first hand experience is? > > .22 rifles and shotguns. And regardless of what guns you have fired, the > sound waves are emmitted in a circular pattern, with the exception of > directly in front of the weapon as the silencer bounces the sound round > and muffles it. It travels in a circular pattern until something obstructs it. The obstruction in this instance is the firer of the weapon. |