From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 05:07 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:htlc9o$4qr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Wed, 26 May 2010 17:06:41 +0100 > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >><boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message >>news:htj94e$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. > Ho-ho.
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 05:09 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:htlcf3$562$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Thu, 27 May 2010 01:36:26 +0100 > Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >>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. > > 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?
From: boltar2003 on 27 May 2010 05:09 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! B2003
From: Brimstone on 27 May 2010 05:10 "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:866qevF6lmU6(a)mid.individual.net... > > 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'? > I'd guess because it was a damage only incident so the police will leave to the insurance companies.
From: bod on 27 May 2010 05:16
Brimstone wrote: > "bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message > news:866qevF6lmU6(a)mid.individual.net... > >> >> 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'? >> > I'd guess because it was a damage only incident so the police will leave > to the insurance companies. > > But he was taken to court and on the face of it, it was (IMO) her fault. Seems a bit one sided? Bod |