train crossing truck driver
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John Hudson on 12 Jun 2007 07:13 "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message news:P_tbi.12883$wH4.11831(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > would you then be in favour of the same system for cars? > > after all if every speed infraction can be recorded, a lot less people > will do so. > I don't think this would work, there'd be too many loose wires and blown fuses :-). Imagine cops with computers pulling us over for RBBT - random black box testing. huddo
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:15 John Hudson wrote: > "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message > news:P_tbi.12883$wH4.11831(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> would you then be in favour of the same system for cars? >> >> after all if every speed infraction can be recorded, a lot less people >> will do so. >> > > I don't think this would work, there'd be too many loose wires and blown > fuses :-). Imagine cops with computers pulling us over for RBBT - random > black box testing. > huddo > > Yea and how many people would press the "never get another speeding ticket button", I call it cruise control BTW. Nasty But doesn't the government rely on revenue because you've been *bad*. Oops Nobody tell Howard. He might have to add a cruise control tax. Mick C
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:16 Noddy wrote: > "Michael" <mickpc(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message > news:_J7bi.11888$wH4.7399(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > >> Neither does anyone else Noddy. > > So, the accident that occurred in Kerang a few days ago was a figment of the > media's imagination? > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. > > No but you imagination is clearly in need of medical assistance. Drugs are evil. Mick C
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:18 ant wrote: > George W. Frost wrote: > >> Just shows how stupid that women drivers in 4WD vehicles are > > Yep. Stick em in a falcodore, and they are Peter Brock, but suddenly add a > 4wd transmission and... > they turn into P plater men! > Whatever the hell u mean by that. Mick C
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:25
hoot wrote: > "John Hudson" <huddo(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote in message > news:f1obi.12624$wH4.5379(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message >> news:qwwai.10993$wH4.8742(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... >>> 60,000 times more damage? did you proofread this post? >>> >> I've had a bit of a look round the net and it is true. The calculation is >> axle load to the fourth power. This means that a 40 tonne truck will do >> yes, 60,000 times more damage than a one ton car. This refers to bitumen >> roads. If a car does sfa damage and you multiply it by 60,000 then it's >> still sfa. What one really needs to know is what this means in dollar >> terms. >> regards, >> huddo >> > > John, could you tell me where to find this info. > I'm having trouble understanding what you actually get (what units) when you > raise the weight to the fourth power. 40^4 = 2560000 and 1^4 = 1 so the > truck ends up 2.56 million times higher than the car. A 20ton truck is only > 160000 time higher. > > But what does it actually refer to? > Do i need to divide by the number of axles? > Why is it raised to the foruth? > How do the numbers generated translate into damage? > What is the SI unit for damage? And how many tons of wight equals one unit > of damage? > What is damage? a pot hole? Cracking? Rippling? > Does the cost of damage just refer to the cost of repair or should it take > into account lost revenue caused by road interuption or extra fuel/wear and > tear/time cost for driving around the damage? > If damage is related to wieght, why is the truck damage not 40 times the car > damage? > If a car does ten dollars worth of damage does a truck really do six hundred > thousand dollars worth. > (or $25,600,000 worth depending on the figure used)? > Also if we had dedicated truck lanes would they really cost sixty thousand > times as much to maintain? > How much does a bus weigh? How much more damaged do Bus Lanes get? > > I ask these questions seriously, but i don't expect you to answer them, if > you could point me to where you found your info i'll have a look for myself. > I agree about needing to know what it means in dollar term but can't see a > way to express these figures in dollar terms without a quantifier. There is > much more info needed to validate these figures. Just generating numbers > from a formular is a long way from an engineering proof. > And without proof or validation, using the figures as one of the reasons to > remove trucks from the road seems a little half baked. > I'm willing to pay for all the theoretical damage in the world, as long as i > can use my theoretical dollars. > > H. > > > > > > http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=how+much+damage+does+a+truck+do+to+a+road&meta=&btnG=Google+Search There you go, have fun. Mick C |