You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 27 May 2010 08:22 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:i9WdnQpNi5MOzmPWnZ2dnUVZ7qadnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe50bd$0$17492$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ELmdncLQUY4I1mPWnZ2dnUVZ7oqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> "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. >> >> 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. We allready know the sequence of events - they have not been offered by you as support of your opinion. > You haven't even come up with a theory yet! No, you just haven't read those posts yet.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 08:24 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:YNKdnbXS6L7lyWPWnZ2dnUVZ7tCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe5181$0$17493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:wLadnW5Udb2T0GPWnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> "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? >> >> 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? I should imagine a lot of other drivers checked round them to see if something was wrong, but none of them found another vehicle pinned to the front of theirs making a terrible screeching noise, smoking from its tyres and slowing them down.
From: Ian Jackson on 27 May 2010 08:27 In message <htlcs3$5mc$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, boltar2003(a)boltar.world writes >On Thu, 27 May 2010 01:38:12 +0100 >Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>> - The mobile phone was also behind glass *PLUS* it was 2 lanes away from the >>> source of the noise. >> >>To the side of it. Noise is always louder to the side. > >Oh riiiight. This some new law of acoustics you've discovered is it? > >I guess new time I go to a concert I'll make sure I stand 6 foot away from >the speaker bank as it'll obviously be a lot quieter than being 60 foot >away out to the side! > Don't forget that the person pulling the trigger knows exactly when the bang will take place, and will be prepared for it, causing the brain to make a monetary reduction of auditory gain control. -- Ian
From: GT on 27 May 2010 08:26 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:YNKdnbXS6L7lyWPWnZ2dnUVZ7tCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe5181$0$17493$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:wLadnW5Udb2T0GPWnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> "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? >> >> 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. You want evidence, watch the video. No science needed to explain the noise - its coming from the car as it is dragged along and the noise is louder than the engine.
From: Ian Jackson on 27 May 2010 08:32
In message <785f0c82-1de8-4b98-b181-2105ba1eb90a(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Man at B&Q <manatbandq(a)hotmail.com> writes >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. > >What mistake was that then? Not having x-ray vision? > Surely making a momentary mistake doesn't brand you as a 'complete idiot'? If it does, I've been one, many, many, many times! -- Ian |