From: Dave on 27 May 2010 13:31
On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT), McKevvy
>Try educating car drivers not to barge in in front of trucks. Try also
>to tell them to look in their mirrors before changing lanes/joining an
Yes...that would be nice, like the woman in the Vauxhall Zafira a week
or so ago who, as she moved in front of my truck from lane 2 promptly
jumped on the brakes because she wanted the exit immediately on my
left. She crossed the hatchings with feet to spare before the crash
From: Man at B&Q on 27 May 2010 15:05
On May 27, 4:39 pm, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in message
> > "Man at B&Q" <manatba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > On May 27, 11:30 am, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
> >> "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > <boltar2...(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
> >> >news:htldfr$6gk$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> >> >> On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:09:10 +0100
> >> >> "Brimstone" <brimst...(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
> > MBQ failed to indent his post:
> > "
> > So what's the frequency response of that "low quality, low
> > sensitivity" microphone? How does it corrspond to the frequencies
> > being emitted from (a) the scraping of the car (b) the engine noise?
> > "
> > The frequency response of mobile phone mics are typically between 300
> > hertz and 3,400 hertz, which is somewhere between the high pitched squeel
> > of tyres on tarmac and the low gritty noise of a large diesel engine.
> > Despite the noises being outwith the phone's sensitive response range, the
> > phone would picked up both noises with equal sensitivity.
> The only thing audible in the clip is a possible bit of wind noise, some
> muffled sounds from the interior of the observer's car and the comment from
> one of the occupants.
Correct, and, not exactly a phorensic investigation but, if you watch
carefully, and pause it at the right spot you can see the silhouette
of the drivers head and deduce that the car is *not* in his line of
site, due to the height of the windscreen.
From: DavidR on 27 May 2010 18:18
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote
> PS: I don't often drive by 'smell'. Anyone else tried that?
I had an argument about the pollen filter on a forum a while ago. I was told
I should replace it regularly because the carbon wears out and lets smells
in. They couldn't accept I don't care if I can smell the outside world.
Perhaps I'm unwittingly onto something.
From: Adrian on 28 May 2010 02:13
"DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
> I had an argument about the pollen filter on a forum a while ago. I was
> told I should replace it regularly because the carbon wears out and lets
> smells in. They couldn't accept I don't care if I can smell the outside
> world. Perhaps I'm unwittingly onto something.
Perhaps a better reason is that the pollen filter will block, restricting
air flow badly, leading to the car windows steaming up far more often.
From: Albert T Cone on 28 May 2010 04:44
> My opinion is that any decent driver would notice the sudden addition of 1
> tonne of tyre screaching, horn honking, frictional increasing weight to an
> otherwise straight, level part of a journey. Even if his vehicle is capable
> of pulling a well oiled, relatively low drag 44 tonnes.
For 44 tonnes to present an additional drag of 1 tonne requires an
incline of about 1.3 degrees, or 1 in 70, which is something most people
would struggle to discern from being level.
The coefficient of friction of sliding tyres on a wet road is quite a
lot less than unity, so the actual extra load presented to the lorry
would probably be less than one tonne.
Frankly, it's quite believable that the driver wouldn't notice the extra
load. As to whether he would hear the noise, I have no idea, never
having been in a lorry cab at motorway speeds.