train crossing truck driver
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: hoot on 13 Jun 2007 23:35 > 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 The derivation of the 60,000 figure is still elluding me (given 40t , 1t and the fourth power) That one link that states, "In other words, a 40 ton truck can easily cause as much damage to a typical road as 60,000 1 ton cars. The fourth power rule isn't carved in stone," does nothing to explain how the figure is derived. And ... with only a small amount of reading from the other links from John i also see- "One legal 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck does as much damage to road pavement as 9,600 cars" "Heavy trucks and buses are responsible for a majority of pavement damage. Considering that a typical automobile weighs between 2,000 and 7,000 lbs (curb weight), even a fully loaded large passenger van will only generate about 0.003 ESALs while a fully loaded tractor-semi trailer can generate up to about 3 ESALs." That's only 1000 times. (ESALs = Equivalent Standard[or Single] Axel Loads) Much of the available info seems to lean towards road loading as applied to road design rather than road degradation. So my oppinion will continue to be that the 60000 times is an overstatement, or perhaps an oversimplification of the method, and should be used advisedly when trying to cite it as reason to get trucks off the road. Anyway, assuming i'm 100% wrong and you are 100% right and trucks must be removed from the road (for whatever reason) and frieght must be put on rail, my questions to you are, Where exactly would you start, what's the first step?. In your mind if everyone involved in the process was in agreement, how long do you envisage the transition taking? And, do you have a rough figure in mind for what it might cost? H.
From: Blinky Bill on 14 Jun 2007 04:00 "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:1371cfpg41ed81d(a)corp.supernews.com... > 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. It won't prevent such crashes - it may reduce their incidence and raise revenue, but it can't prevent them.
From: Blinky Bill on 14 Jun 2007 04:03 "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:1371c43qtpqs34c(a)corp.supernews.com... > 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. It's the number of axles that does it.
From: jonz on 14 Jun 2007 04:23 "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote in message news:466fcdf9$0$40414$c30e37c6(a)lon-reader.news.telstra.net... > > "John Hudson" <huddo(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote in message > news:GfObi.13240$wH4.10699(a)news-server.bigpond.net.au... > >> Funny, I thought the laws of physics were the same world wide. > > I'm sure they are, but the laws of weight bearing axles certainly aren't, > and that's what it's all about. > > Physics be damned. > >> Got any evidence? > > I could probably find some, but if I bothered to go looking for it would > it make the slightest bit of difference to you? > > I'm guessing no, so you'll just have to die wondering. newsnewsnewsnewsnews >> a new shipment of *instant expert* has just arrived and is available >> now.........since the high demand of the last few days has exhausted >> supplies, we have found an alternate source. this is in 100ml cans, >> simply add water. effective immediately..........you don`t have to feel >> left out of the debate ever again...never mind what the topic is, this >> stuff is good !! *instant expert* try it today... see noddy for >> details...................j > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. >
From: Michael on 14 Jun 2007 04:49
Blinky Bill wrote: > "Daryl Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:1371cfpg41ed81d(a)corp.supernews.com... >> Noddy wrote: >>> "George W. Frost" <frosty(a)iceworks.org> wrote in message >>> news:VYRbi.13520$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. > > It won't prevent such crashes - it may reduce their incidence and raise > revenue, but it can't prevent them. > > How about my suggestion that we actually get the freight off the road in the first place. With a few more trains about people would think twice about taking them on. Mick C |