From: Michael on 10 Jun 2007 04:16 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 10 Jun 2007 04:36 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 10 Jun 2007 04:39 "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 10 Jun 2007 04:51 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 10 Jun 2007 04:53
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 |