From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:ELmdncLQUY4I1mPWnZ2dnUVZ7oqdnZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4bfe4319$0$17517$c3e8da3(a)
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:IvKdnfAc4PMMqGPWnZ2dnUVZ8kidnZ2d(a)
>>>> "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!
>> 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.
> This is dealt with in the other thread - I have *no* theoretical models,
> only proven scientific fact. It is you that has no real world argument to
> support your opinion.

Now who is guilty of not reading posts? I offered the facts as a sequence of
events some while ago.

You haven't even come up with a theory yet!
Why is a theory needed when the facts are to hand?

From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:wLadnW5Udb2T0GPWnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4bfe43b7$0$17479$c3e8da3(a)
>>> "Man at B&Q" <manatbandq(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:785f0c82-1de8-4b98-b181-2105ba1eb90a(a)
>>> On May 27, 10:24 am, boltar2...(a) wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:52:27 +0100
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)> 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?
> You use the word 'if' as a reasoned argument?

It was a question.

> He did know about the collision.

At what point?

>>> and felt the substantial loss in power
>> How do you know that he would have felt a loss in power?
> We have already established that - go back and re-read older posts.

We know what your theory is, we don't know that he really did.

>>> and heard the tyre screaching
>> How do you know he heard the tyres screaching (sic)?
> The only way he would not have heard the noise would be if he were deaf.

Any evidence to support that view? Not theory, hard evidence please.

> There is no mention of this fundamental fact in the reports, I therefore
> assumed he was not deaf.
>>> 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?
> Perhaps not the first horn, but after a few horns, any alert driver is
> going to wonder what is going on!
And how many of the other "alert drivers" in the vicinity stopped to check
that there was nothing wrong with their vehicles?

From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:gYOdnatc5sSyzWPWnZ2dnUVZ7tmdnZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4bfe4d0b$0$17513$c3e8da3(a)
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:N9ydneDT6si712PWnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d(a)
>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bfe4107$0$17486$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:svqdndiShcXdqGPWnZ2dnUVZ8m6dnZ2d(a)
>>>>>> "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?
>>>>> 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!
You told us that you can't see a white stop line directly in front of your
car. But, you have devised a method for stopping with your bonnet close to
at the line at a junction. Why should a lorry driver be significantly

From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:TbWdnXNwWqMEzWPWnZ2dnUVZ8lednZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message

>>>>> No thanks - I'll stick with using my mirrors and turning round to look
>>>>> where I'm reversing. That is how I did it when I passed my driving
>>>>> test and it works for me and everyone else. You continue to use 'the
>>>>> force' if you want, but god help the child that walks behind you while
>>>>> you are doing it!
>>>> But you still can't see anything directly under the rear of the car
>>>> when reversing, so how do you know where to stop?
>>> I hear a screeching noise!
>> So you park using the resistance method, when the object you've just hit
>> fails to move you must be in the right place?
> No that was sarcasm - sorry to confuse you!

From: Brimstone on
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:EpidnUNg6bdezWPWnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4bfe46e0$0$17524$c3e8da3(a)
>>> "Conor" <conor(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:866u5aF87fU6(a)
>>>> 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?
Whether I know otherwise is irrelevant. I'm asking you to back up your