From: Brimstone on
<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
<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
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
"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
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