You tube (shunt) lorry driver keeps his HGV licence
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: boltar2003 on 27 May 2010 05:19 On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:09:10 +0100 "Brimstone" <brimstone(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. B2003
From: boltar2003 on 27 May 2010 05:24 On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:52:27 +0100 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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. Yes the car driver was an idiot. But she made a momentary mistake. The lorry drivers mistake went on for minutes. Its on a completely different scale of idiocy. B2003
From: GT on 27 May 2010 05:34 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:htldfr$6gk$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Thu, 27 May 2010 10:09:10 +0100 > "Brimstone" <brimstone(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. What - do you mean you could hear the scraping noise even if you are above the source of the noise and can't see it. Don't forget that you are sitting behind a pane of glass and have an engine running (diesel or v6/8 I would guess for that torque)?
From: Man at B&Q on 27 May 2010 05:40 On May 27, 10:24 am, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:52:27 +0100 > > "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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.. > > Yes the car driver was an idiot. But she made a momentary mistake. The lorry > drivers mistake went on for minutes. What mistake was that then? Not having x-ray vision? MBQ
From: GT on 27 May 2010 05:43
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e4ednah8UPUHqWPWnZ2dnUVZ7vmdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4bfe324a$0$17484$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> 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. >> > Isn't there a slight difference in the resistance of a domestic carpet > compared to a wet high speed road surface? Of course there is a difference between a carpet and a we road, but only in the same way as there is a difference between pushing a toy car by hand and trying to drag a tonne of metal sideways. |