train crossing truck driver
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:29 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 $25,600,000 worth depending on the figure used)? > Also if we had dedicated truck lanes would they really cost sixty thousand > times as much to maintain? > How much does a bus weigh? How much more damaged do Bus Lanes get? > > I ask these questions seriously, but i don't expect you to answer them, if > you could point me to where you found your info i'll have a look for myself. > I agree about needing to know what it means in dollar term but can't see a > way to express these figures in dollar terms without a quantifier. There is > much more info needed to validate these figures. Just generating numbers > from a formular is a long way from an engineering proof. > And without proof or validation, using the figures as one of the reasons to > remove trucks from the road seems a little half baked. > I'm willing to pay for all the theoretical damage in the world, as long as i > can use my theoretical dollars. > > H. > > > > > > Oh BTW, that does put a new sting in my argument for getting cargo off the road. And I am not trying to argumentative, just objective. Mick C
From: Michael on 12 Jun 2007 08:48 hoot wrote: > "John Hudson" <huddo(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote in message > news:f1obi.12624$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. > > > > > > Oh yes and now you can understand why they penalize truck drivers so heavily for overloading, not to mention B doubles and the new triples. Mick C
From: hoot on 12 Jun 2007 09:37 > 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 Are you refering to the Chicago Boyz Blog and the " wear and tear of roads tends to increase to the fourth power when axle loads go up" link specifically? I've just scanned that and already have issues with comparing the conditions of their "Experimental Site" to Australian Highways. But i'll read it properly when i have more time. H.
From: hoot on 12 Jun 2007 10:24 > Oh BTW, that does put a new sting in my argument for getting cargo off > the road. > And I am not trying to argumentative, just objective. > Mick C I'm not arguing with getting the cargo off the road, but earlier in this thread you told someone that they offered excuses not answers. I'm saying that just stating that all cargo should go on trains and get trucks off the road opens up many more questions than it answers. I'd love to see less trucks on the road especially the ones driven by fuckwits. But not all drivers are fuckwits, in fact hardly any of them are. I spend a lot of time on the rod and sometimes i'd prefer to be driving amongst the trucks, for the most part they are pro's and not given to erratic behavior like many car drivers seem to be. But to get the cargo off the road would require massive logistical change and massive amounts of money and an industry willing to change and pay. As it is now i think the idea is a bust it just can't happen as easily as you seem to think. I'm not sure if you have considered just how thoroughly we rely on trucking. Look around you now and see if you can see five man made things that haven't involved a truck somewhere in thier production and deliver. Honestly i can't see one from my desk. H
From: hoot on 12 Jun 2007 10:27
> Oh yes and now you can understand why they penalize truck drivers so > heavily for overloading, not to mention B doubles and the new triples. > Mick C Thanks for the clarification Mick but i wasn't having trouble understanding overloading penalties. H. |