From: Michael on
George W. Frost wrote:
> "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
>
>
Given enough willpower and encouragement you could even get some people
to actually consider a fair argument instead of dismissing it because
they think that the few negative points they can bring to mind are
sufficient to rule the whole concept out.
Your turn.
Mick C
From: Michael on
Diesel Damo wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:20 am, Stuart Naylor <n...(a)none.invalid> wrote:
>> The sort that has the sun in their eyes?
>
> Didn't this happen some time between 1 and 2 pm? Why was he looking up
> at the sky and not at the road?
>
Thats what I heard after the crash, 3pm, maybe this time of year, but
not between 1 and 2.
Mick C
From: jonz on

"reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message
news:o7Oai.11367$wH4.7252(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:466a458f$0$59825$c30e37c6(a)lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
>> news:136kcqd3u4mc645(a)corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yeah, but do they give you a past history like a data recorder?
>
> I work for a fuel company, every truck in the fleet has GPS uplinking done
> by a company called Minor Planet, Your speed, location, rpm, brake use,
> etc etc is recording permanently and is linked to your name via a tag on
> system in the truck.
>
> weekly speed reports for every vehicle are produced and handed over to the
> fuel companies we contract to, certain companies stipulate that any truck
> continually going over 104kmh will not be allowed to travel outside city
> areas, ie no country work.
>
> our company stipulates gps data must match manifest AND logbook data,
> punishable by either removal from current task to a shittier one or
> ultimately sacking.

and you like the big brother approach? imo, someone breathing down your
neck makes for a very uncomfortable work place. ergo: a more dangerous
workplace.............
>
> this is how it will all eventually be,

yeah, human robots, scared to make any sort of decision of their own
volition.............

but until it is you will get
> companies pushing their drivers. and expect the cost of most goods to
> increase in line with the large costs incurred in complying 100% with
> safety regulations.

???????????????
>
>
>


From: Michael on
reg-john wrote:
>
> "hoot" <ratat(a)tat.gov> wrote in message
> news:466ae74e$0$22418$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Yes I said 60,000, care to prove me wrong???? look it up, you have
>>> access to the net, if you don't have the time say so and I will do it
>>> for you, atm I have the time.
>>> I know it seems amazing at first glance, but when you some factors
>>> into account it isn't so hard to believe, remember the square law
>>> from high school for a start, eg 10^2 = 100, 1000^4 = 10000000
>>
>> Could you please show your working for this "1000^4 = 10000000"
>>
>>> Mick C
>>> Remember my name, yes that is my name, and never accuse me of posting
>>> without understanding what I am saying again, at your own peril.
>>> Please beware of the dog.
>>
>> You're funny.
>
> indeed quite funny, but neglected to actually respond to anything else i
> said, for good reason too, he has an overripe pear for a brain.
>>
>> H.
>>
>
You attacked my credibility, I had no problem with the rest of your
post. You assume that I just want to argue for the sake of it. Do you
find the need to be right all the time?
Mick C
From: Michael on
reg-john wrote:
>
> "hoot" <ratat(a)tat.gov> wrote in message
> news:466ae74e$0$22418$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>> Yes I said 60,000, care to prove me wrong???? look it up, you have
>>> access to the net, if you don't have the time say so and I will do it
>>> for you, atm I have the time.
>>> I know it seems amazing at first glance, but when you some factors
>>> into account it isn't so hard to believe, remember the square law
>>> from high school for a start, eg 10^2 = 100, 1000^4 = 10000000
>>
>> Could you please show your working for this "1000^4 = 10000000"
>>
>>> Mick C
>>> Remember my name, yes that is my name, and never accuse me of posting
>>> without understanding what I am saying again, at your own peril.
>>> Please beware of the dog.
>>
>> You're funny.
>
> indeed quite funny, but neglected to actually respond to anything else i
> said, for good reason too, he has an overripe pear for a brain.
>>
>> H.
>>
>
Oh BTW, did you not care to look up the figure I gave you?
Such a cold hard fact.
Mick C