From: John Hudson on 12 Jun 2007 07:13
"reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message
> 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.
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:15
John Hudson wrote:
> "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message
>> 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.
Yea and how many people would press the "never get another speeding
ticket button", I call it cruise control BTW.
But doesn't the government rely on revenue because you've been *bad*.
Nobody tell Howard.
He might have to add a cruise control tax.
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:16
> "Michael" <mickpc(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> Neither does anyone else Noddy.
> So, the accident that occurred in Kerang a few days ago was a figment of the
> media's imagination?
No but you imagination is clearly in need of medical assistance.
Drugs are evil.
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:18
> 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.
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:25
> "John Hudson" <huddo(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> "reg-john" <al(a)fddfd.com> wrote in message
>>> 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
> 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
> 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.
There you go, have fun.