From: Noddy on

"John Hudson" <huddo(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:GfObi.13240$wH4.10699(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Funny, I thought the laws of physics were the same world wide.

I'm sure they are, but the laws of weight bearing axles certainly aren't,
and that's what it's all about.

Physics be damned.

> Got any evidence?

I could probably find some, but if I bothered to go looking for it would it
make the slightest bit of difference to you?

I'm guessing no, so you'll just have to die wondering.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Michael on
Daryl Walford wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> What have B doubles or triples (which are far from new) have to do with
> anything, their axle loadings are no different to a semi with a single
> trailer.
>
>
>
> Daryl
Yes but twice, or three times the weight.
Mick C
From: Noddy on

"Michael" <mickpc(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:q3Rbi.13475$wH4.2728(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Yes but twice, or three times the weight.

And?

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Daryl Walford on
Michael wrote:
> Daryl Walford wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> What have B doubles or triples (which are far from new) have to do
>> with anything, their axle loadings are no different to a semi with a
>> single trailer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daryl
> Yes but twice, or three times the weight.

Which is spread over many more axles so the axles loadings are no
different to a single trailer semi so therefore they cause no more
damage to roads than any other large truck.



Daryl
From: Daryl Walford on
Noddy wrote:
> "George W. Frost" <frosty(a)iceworks.org> wrote in message
> news:VYRbi.13520$wH4.1998(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Very easy to make judgements after the event
>
> Yep. Everyone's an expert in this area :)
>
>> Very easy to make judgements even before the event and then to claim,
>> "See, I told you"
>
> Nope, that actually takes some knowledge or skill.
>
> Not everyone can look at a given situation and predict likely faults. Not
> that you need to be a rocket scientist in a lot of cases, but you at least
> need *some* idea.
>
>> There is always someone who will disagree with whatever is going
>
> Yep.
>
>> There are heaps of doomsday prediction experts out there.
>
> Yep.
>
>> Remembering that
>> Hindsight is man's greatest assett
>
> It is indeed.
>
> Listening to some guy on talkback radio last week who said the only *real*
> solution to level crossing accidents was to fit boom gates at every crossing
> in Victoria, but the downside is that to do so would cost around three
> quarters of a billion dollars, take around 20 years and there's enough
> evidence of people driving around boom gates in suburbia to suggest that
> they're not the foolproof solution people think they are. Whether that was
> true or not I can't tell you, but I have a simpler and more cost effective
> idea that would return some money to the government coffers.
>

I wonder how they think a boom gate usually made out of thin aluminum
will stop a semi from 100kph?
A boom gate may be easier to see but if a driver can miss seeing a large
train and big flashing lights IMO boom gates will make SFA difference.

> Simply lower the speed limit to 70km/h for 500mtrs each approach side of the
> crossing (or whatever speed the experts feel is appropriate for the area),
> fit a "give way" sign at the crossing itself (to remind people that they're
> supposed to slow down and proceed at a speed that allows them to stop if
> necessary), and plant a speed camera with a wireless link to mother either
> side of the crossing in the limited zone with large warning signs alerting
> drivers of their presence.
>
That would have to be the cheapest and easiest way of preventing a
repeat of last weeks crash.



Daryl