You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 27 May 2010 04:35 "Stephen Bagwell" <stephenb1963uk(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a2eed347-06d2-4eb0-ab41-e2f7efcb6f11(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com... > On 26 May, 14:53, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:44:26 +0100 >> >> "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >You too would benefit from sitting a lorry's driving seat. >> >> I might not have ridden in a lorry but I've ridden in enough noisy buses >> in my time and you can still hear whats going on outside perfectly well. >> You'd certainly be able to hear squeeling tyres. >> >> B2003 > > The rain would have lessened the noise and smell from the car's tyres. Well the insensitive mobile phone microphone clearly picked it up from 2 lanes away and from behind glass, so the noise wasn't lessened much!
From: GT on 27 May 2010 04:50 "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:865t0oFr7cU5(a)mid.individual.net... > On 26/05/2010 14:53, GT wrote: > >> Its only my opinion, but I simply don't believe he didn't know about the >> car. I can buy the fact that the driver couldn't see the car, but he >> *must* >> have felt something. > > I ripped a steel canopy off a building once in an artic. Didn't feel a > thing. You drove into a building and didn't notice! I can't accept any driving related argument from someone who doesn't drive round buildings? > The collision/impact/crash cannot have been truely >> smooth... Lorries have a large amount of power (torque), but even >> supposing >> that the car 'joined' with the front of the truck without a 'shunt', the >> transition from normal driving to pushing a car sideways at 60mph would >> require a significant change in power and he has to have felt that sudden >> loss in momentum. >> > Nope. Put even 5 tonnes on the back of an artic and you'll not even know > its there. If you were to suddenly add 5 tonnes to the back of a truck you would feel a small loss in power, but that is not the point here - no one seems to grasp the physics involved here - we are not talking about an increase in the mass and weight of a well-oiled trailer for the engine to 'pull'. Its one thing to 'pull' a lubricated, well balanced mass, as there is very little friction required - the torque is not affected too much. But when a new mass greatly increases the frictional drag, there is no way that a correctly trained truck driver would not notice the sudden drain in power (even if he didn't see or feel the impact). Before you reply, please find a toy car and get down on the carpet... Push the top car along on its wheels, in the direction it is meant to travel. Now turn it sideways and see how much extra force is required to move it - its not the mass that is the problem here, its the additional and sudden increase in drag that is the problem. A small car can easily tow a trailer weighing a tonne, or even 2 tonnes, but add half a tonne as a frictional mass (not on a trailer) and the car probably won't even be able to set off.
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 04:52 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:edbsv5lfgrtpbc07kmc1cejh8qeaauv42n(a)4ax.com... > 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? > 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. You'll notice that there has been no comment on the car driver's performance, only on the alleged failure of the lorry driver to get her out of the situation she got herself in.
From: bod on 27 May 2010 04:57 Brimstone wrote: > "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:edbsv5lfgrtpbc07kmc1cejh8qeaauv42n(a)4ax.com... >> 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? >> > 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. > > You'll notice that there has been no comment on the car driver's > performance, only on the alleged failure of the lorry driver to get her > out of the situation she got herself in. > > Like I said at the start of this thread; "Why hasn't she been nicked for her obvious dangerous driving"? Or at the least, 'driving without due care and attention'? Bod
From: boltar2003 on 27 May 2010 04:59
On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:06:41 +0100 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: ><boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message >news:htj94e$q0q$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On Wed, 26 May 2010 14:44:26 +0100 >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>You too would benefit from sitting a lorry's driving seat. >> >> I might not have ridden in a lorry but I've ridden in enough noisy buses >> in my time and you can still hear whats going on outside perfectly well. >> You'd certainly be able to hear squeeling tyres. >> >Buses are a lot quieter than lorries, they don't have a radio or stereo >playing and the driver has very much better all round vision. There is no >comparison. You've obviously never been on a bus when the schools are kicking out. B2003 |