You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Conor on 26 May 2010 20:35 On 26/05/2010 16:49, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:36:18 -0700 (PDT) > McKevvy<vicko_zoomba(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Ah rubbish. If the squealing sound is audible on a mobile phone clip taken >>> inside a car 2 lanes away then it must certainly be audible to anyone with >>> normal hearing 6 foot above it. >>> >> >> Not with a layer of glass in between and a roaring engine directly >> underneath him. He MAY also have had music on. > > So in other words truck drivers can't hear anything going on outside? > > Sorry , don't believe it. The engines arn't that loud and they don't use > special sound deadening glass in the windows. > When was the last time you rode in a lorry? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 26 May 2010 20:36 On 26/05/2010 17:05, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:41:32 -0700 (PDT) > McKevvy<vicko_zoomba(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Wouldn't the lorry driver feel some sort of immediate resistance, >>> especially as the car was being pushed sideways and thought "hello, >>> there's something wrong here"? >>> >> No because trucks are designed and geared to overcome resistance. The >> amount of resistance offered by the car is negligable to say the >> least. > > The amount of resistence offered by a traffic cone is miniscule but I > still noticed when one got stuck under my car a few years back. > Because its a poxy car with 100lb/ft of torque at best. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 May 2010 04:21 On Thu, 27 May 2010 01:35:04 +0100, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> Wouldn't the lorry driver feel some sort of immediate resistance, > >No. so a trucker thinks you wouldn't and the authorities accept you wouldn't, some people who have never been in a truck think otherwise.........I'm going with Conor -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: ChelseaTractorMan on 27 May 2010 04:31 On Thu, 27 May 2010 01:30:03 +0100, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >Because its a 44 tonne vehicle with 2100Nm of torque on tap. On many >lorries, the bottom of the windscreen is well over 6ft off the ground. "Ms Bell told Mr Tomlinson that it was "absolutely clear" that he could not see Ms Williams' Clio. "What you found when you pulled into the hard shoulder must have come as a complete shock and I think what you did, in reversing your tanker to release the Clio, was of huge credit to you. "You showed, in my view, coolness and a clear head. "I feel it is entirely inappropriate for me to take away your licence. "You, your employers and the haulage industry should be able to hold your heads up high after this incident." Ms Bell added that the case illustrated the dangers of lorry blind spots and urged firms to install close proximity mirrors on older vehicles. It is now law for them to be installed in new lorries, she said." shes a traffic commisioner, why not accept what she said? -- Mike. .. . Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
From: GT on 27 May 2010 04:35
"Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:865spaFr7cU2(a)mid.individual.net... > On 26/05/2010 14:25, boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:05:32 +0100 >> "GT"<a(a)b.c> wrote: >>> How can any lorry driver possibly fail to notice a car that drives >>> across >>> his path on a motorway and with which he subsequently collides, then >>> pushes >>> along the road for ages. I don't get that one at all - a mobile phone >>> microphone clearly picks up the screaching of the car's tyres and horns >>> from >>> other drivers from inside another vehicle 2 lanes away, so the driver >>> not >>> noticing is beyond comprehension. >> >> I was wondering the same. Either the guy is deaf , in which case he >> should >> have a re-test to make sure he's not a danger on the road or he's a liar >> and some sucker believed him. >> > Get in an artic and you'll see why it could be invisible. No - we were talking about hearing. Invisiblity is irrelevant to the ears! |