train crossing truck driver
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: George W. Frost on 10 Jun 2007 01:33 "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:136le5g736nac6b(a)corp.supernews.com... > Michael wrote: >> Daryl Walford wrote: >>> Noddy wrote: >>>> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message >>>> news:136k3cmqv8uhrcc(a)corp.supernews.com... >>>> >>>>> Is that what the driver is saying caused the crash? >>>>> If so I don't buy it, I can understand not seeing the actual train but >>>>> not seeing the flashing warning lights because of the sun is difficult >>>>> to believe. >>>> >>>> It is indeed. >>>> >>>> Given the geography it's difficult to believe that Ray Charles couldn't >>>> have seen the train coming five minutes before it got to the crossing. >>>> >>>>> My guess is he wasn't concentrating enough but that said a truck >>>>> driver needs lot of distance to stop so IMO there should be extra >>>>> warning flashing lights at least 200mtrs before crossings like that >>>>> where the speed limit is high or alternatively speed limits on the >>>>> approach to level crossings should be reduced or maybe a combination >>>>> of both. >>>> >>>> The story in this morning's paper (Herald Sun) seemed to be suggesting >>>> that he presumed he was going to beat the train over the crossing but >>>> bailed out at the last minute when he realised he wasn't going to make >>>> it. There's also been plenty of suggestion recently that such practices >>>> are relatively common in country areas as some truck drivers would >>>> rather take the risk than have to stop and waste ten minutes going >>>> through 18 gears to get back up to speed. >>>> >>> If true thats bloody stupid, IMO it would be better to have make >>> vehicles slow down when approaching a level crossing. >>> I don't know if the rule still exists but passenger coaches used to have >>> to "come to a complete stop and engage first gear" before entering a >>> level crossing, IMO thats a bit extreme but its got to be safer than >>> going through a crossing at 100kph. >>> >>>> It's *way* over time for tachographs to be mandatory in all heavy >>>> vehicles. >>> >>> There are better technologies around these days like GPS tracking, at >>> any time who ever is controlling the system can find out where a vehicle >>> is, how fast its going and even what gear its in and the engine rpm. >>> The DAF has some sort of tachograph system fitted as standard but AFAIK >>> no one looks at the data, I don't know if it even works. >>> A lot of the trucks in our fleet, especially the interstaters have the >>> GPS system fitted, the older DAF I used to drive has it but for some >>> reason mine doesn't. >>> One of our drivers does weekend work for Linfox doing supermarket >>> deliveries, apparently they have been told they are not allowed to >>> exceed 1800rpm in the MB Actross's, they must have a tracking system or >>> tachograph installed because the fleet controllers know if the drivers >>> disobey the no more than 1800rpm rule and they get a warning if they do >>> it too often. >>> >>> >>> >>> Daryl >> They couldn't do that from the oil usage? > > Please explain? > > > > Daryl Trying to get Michael to explain anything would be a major achievment
From: George W. Frost on 10 Jun 2007 01:41 "Michael" <mickpc(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:1Exai.11033$wH4.9718(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > Noddy wrote: >> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message >> news:136k3cmqv8uhrcc(a)corp.supernews.com... >> >>> Is that what the driver is saying caused the crash? >>> If so I don't buy it, I can understand not seeing the actual train but >>> not seeing the flashing warning lights because of the sun is difficult >>> to believe. >> >> It is indeed. >> >> Given the geography it's difficult to believe that Ray Charles couldn't >> have seen the train coming five minutes before it got to the crossing. >> >>> My guess is he wasn't concentrating enough but that said a truck driver >>> needs lot of distance to stop so IMO there should be extra warning >>> flashing lights at least 200mtrs before crossings like that where the >>> speed limit is high or alternatively speed limits on the approach to >>> level crossings should be reduced or maybe a combination of both. >> >> The story in this morning's paper (Herald Sun) seemed to be suggesting >> that he presumed he was going to beat the train over the crossing but >> bailed out at the last minute when he realised he wasn't going to make >> it. There's also been plenty of suggestion recently that such practices >> are relatively common in country areas as some truck drivers would rather >> take the risk than have to stop and waste ten minutes going through 18 >> gears to get back up to speed. >> >> It's *way* over time for tachographs to be mandatory in all heavy >> vehicles. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Noddy. > Now tell me, how hard is this to judge from at least 300 to 500 meters > away? Like the train a truck needs plenty of stopping distance, from this > distance he wouldn't have even have known if the lights were flashing. > It is sad that it has happened, but do we really need to victomise another > person to make this all better again? > Mick C From 100kph a truck would take about 200 metres to stop From 90 kph as was the speed of the train, it would have taken just on 2 kilometres to stop The truck hit the train 2/3 along the length, meaning the train was in front and truck driver would or should have seen the train long before he got near the crossing
From: XR8 Sprint on 10 Jun 2007 01:54 George W. Frost wrote: > From 100kph a truck would take about 200 metres to stop > From 90 kph as was the speed of the train, it would have taken just on 2 > kilometres to stop I think you will find that a passenger train could stop from that speed in around 600 - 800 metres. The big coal train in Qld which are about 1.5km long don't take 2km to stop. > The truck hit the train 2/3 along the length, meaning the train was in > front and truck driver would or should have seen the train long before he > got near the crossing > No doubt truckie is at fault. Remember a similar incident out near Cloncurry. Driver of semi was talking on the UHF to his mother when the radio went dead. He hit a cattle train just behind the Loco. He didn't survive, neither did around 50 head of cattle.
From: Noddy on 10 Jun 2007 01:58 "jonz" <series11(a)landy> wrote in message news:466b828d$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > yeeehaaaaa, lookout now........... its noddy and the lyncheroos. watch > as they run roughshod over the judicial system, haul this bloke from his > hospital bed, and hang him from his own bullbar.......cold drinks and > sausage sangers will be on sale, fun for all.... You were born a retard, weren't you? I mean, you couldn't get this good at it if you practiced 10 hours a day for 60 years. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 10 Jun 2007 02:01
"George W. Frost" <frosty(a)iceworks.org> wrote in message news:O9Mai.11255$wH4.1465(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > From 100kph a truck would take about 200 metres to stop > From 90 kph as was the speed of the train, it would have taken just on 2 > kilometres to stop > The truck hit the train 2/3 along the length, meaning the train was in > front and truck driver would or should have seen the train long before he > got near the crossing It's hard to imagine a scenario in that location where the driver *couldn't* see the train well in advance of him getting to the crossing unless he was asleep. -- Regards, Noddy. |