All bad
Ray Keattch
Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back left.
Drivers too close behind.
Roads don't need ruddy widening in many cases, they just need to be used
by people with brains.
--
MrBitsy
Nick Finnigan
> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>
> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back left.
> Drivers too close behind.
... drivers in front deliberately close to trap the tipper
... main driver initially a bit close but drops back as he 'puts the power
on' to create a large enough gap for the tipper, but not large enough for
the 4x4 to consider moving out.
... main driver blocks lane 2 for no gain.
... following driver fails to use right foot when tipper pulls back
Harry Bloomfield
I would blame all of that mess upon the artic driver. Obviously the
tipper had previously been making better speed than the artic,
otherwise he would not have been behind the artic. Had the artic driver
just eased off by 2mph, the tipper would have got by and been on his
way. Instead the tipper driver will be trying to overtake again, at the
next hill.
The 4x4 driver added to the problem by driving far too close for his
own safety and as you suggest - would have prevented the tipper
dropping back had the 4x4 not turned off. He also turned off, seeming
to rely on the slip road being clear of obstructions, for he certainly
could not see to check, before he turned off - because he was too close
behind the artic to see anything.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
OG
"Ray Keattch" <r.keat...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:SvudnTNcIdbIu6DW...@giganews.com...
And the 'advanced driver' commentator took almost a minute to drop back to a
nominally safe 'two second rule' distance behind the tipper.
Mr. Benn
news:mn.fd907d9c16...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk:
> Ray Keattch was thinking very hard :
>> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>>
>> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
>> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
>> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back
>> left. Drivers too close behind.
>>
>> Roads don't need ruddy widening in many cases, they just need to be
>> used by people with brains.
>
> I would blame all of that mess upon the artic driver. Obviously the
> tipper had previously been making better speed than the artic,
> otherwise he would not have been behind the artic. Had the artic
> driver just eased off by 2mph, the tipper would have got by and been
> on his way. Instead the tipper driver will be trying to overtake
> again, at the next hill.
I don't understand why it is the responsibility of the artic driver to
enable the tipper lorry to get past. If the tipper didn't have enough
speed to be able to pass then what was the point in attempting to overtake
the artic? Once the tipper driver realised his mistake then he should have
eased off by 2mph and pulled back into the nearside lane instead of
blocking lane 2 to faster-moving traffic instead of messing around in lane
2 around for a minute or so.
> The 4x4 driver added to the problem by driving far too close for his
> own safety and as you suggest - would have prevented the tipper
> dropping back had the 4x4 not turned off. He also turned off, seeming
> to rely on the slip road being clear of obstructions, for he certainly
> could not see to check, before he turned off - because he was too
> close behind the artic to see anything.
Absolutely.
Harry Bloomfield
> I don't understand why it is the responsibility of the artic driver to
> enable the tipper lorry to get past. If the tipper didn't have enough
> speed to be able to pass then what was the point in attempting to overtake
> the artic? Once the tipper driver realised his mistake then he should have
> eased off by 2mph and pulled back into the nearside lane instead of
> blocking lane 2 to faster-moving traffic instead of messing around in lane
> 2 around for a minute or so.
The cause of so many of these HGV 'duals' on motorways is that they are
fitted with speed limiters. So assuming neither HGV is struggling up a
hill they are both only able to do precisely 56mph. So often the only
way for one to overtake another, is for the one being overtaken to slow
down below his 56mph limit.
Nick Finnigan
>
> The cause of so many of these HGV 'duals' on motorways is that they are
> fitted with speed limiters. So assuming neither HGV is struggling up a
> hill they are both only able to do precisely 56mph.
They are struggling up a hill. There's a bleedin obvious cutting and a
bleedin obvious high road bridge as the tipper starts falling back from
overtaking the artic. The tipper presumably caught up and could have
overtaken on level ground on the approach.
Mr. Benn
But if they are both travelling at 56mph, there is no advantage in one
being in front of the other. I realise that on an incline then the vehicle
with less power to weight might be travelling slower and in that case, the
other lorry may be able to overtake but if that's not the case, then surely
an overtake shouldn't be attempted.
To expect the lorry being overtaken to shed some of his speed is
unreasonable given the fact that it will take the driver significant time
to regain that speed again.
I could be missing something however but I don't see it.
Harry Bloomfield
> They are struggling up a hill. There's a bleedin obvious cutting and a
> bleedin obvious high road bridge as the tipper starts falling back from
> overtaking the artic. The tipper presumably caught up and could have
> overtaken on level ground on the approach.
Cuttings and high road bridges do not logically mean it is an uphill
stretch of road. It looked to me as if the tipper actually got a few
feet ahead of the artic at one point.
JNugent
The lorry-driver attempting the overtake committed a straightforward offence
under Section 3 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act:
QUOTE:
3 Careless, and inconsiderate, driving
If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention,
*or* [my emphahsis] without reasonable consideration for other persons using
the road, he is guilty of an offence.
ENDQUOTE
I have seen exactly such an offence tried in court (before 1988, when the
wording of the statute may have been slightly different) and the driver given
a fine of �20 (more than it sounds today) and a licence endorsement.
This is exactly the sort of thing for which police traffic patrols in
unmarked cars should be vigilant. Today, it might even be possible to deal
with it by FPN (and if it isn't, it ought to be).
Harry Bloomfield
> But if they are both travelling at 56mph, there is no advantage in one
> being in front of the other.
They both have a MAXIMUM speed limit of 56mph, but it doesn't mean they
can both maintain that irrespective of inclines. The tipper was close
behind the artic, which logically means he was making better average
speed than the artic.
> I realise that on an incline then the vehicle
> with less power to weight might be travelling slower and in that case, the
> other lorry may be able to overtake but if that's not the case, then surely
> an overtake shouldn't be attempted.
>
> To expect the lorry being overtaken to shed some of his speed is
> unreasonable given the fact that it will take the driver significant time
> to regain that speed again.
I don't think it is that unreasonable, when the alternative is many
miles and many minutes of two well matched HGV's blocking a motorway,
while one overtakes another. Really the only driver with the ability to
resolve it, is the one being overtaken. The one doing the overtaking
must logically be averaging a better speed to be in a position to
attempt to get past.
JNugent
> After serious thinking Mr. Benn wrote :
>> I don't understand why it is the responsibility of the artic driver to
>> enable the tipper lorry to get past. If the tipper didn't have enough
>> speed to be able to pass then what was the point in attempting to
>> overtake
>> the artic? Once the tipper driver realised his mistake then he should
>> have
>> eased off by 2mph and pulled back into the nearside lane instead of
>> blocking lane 2 to faster-moving traffic instead of messing around in
>> lane
>> 2 around for a minute or so.
>
> The cause of so many of these HGV 'duals' on motorways is that they are
> fitted with speed limiters.
No, it isn't.
The cause of so many of these HGV 'duels' on motorways is that their drivers
are inconsiderate turds.
Harry Bloomfield
> I have seen exactly such an offence tried in court (before 1988, when the
> wording of the statute may have been slightly different) and the driver given
Wasn't that in pre-governor days?
>
> This is exactly the sort of thing for which police traffic patrols in
> unmarked cars should be vigilant. Today, it might even be possible to deal
> with it by FPN (and if it isn't, it ought to be).
The driver of the vehicle is the guilty one, rather than the tipper
driver. He made it so far, but was defeated by the governors fitted to
both vehicles. The vehicle being overtaken should legally have to
facilitate being overtaken.
Mr. Benn
> JNugent has brought this to us :
>> I have seen exactly such an offence tried in court (before 1988, when
>> the wording of the statute may have been slightly different) and the
>> driver given a fine of �20 (more than it sounds today) and a licence
>> endorsement.
>
> Wasn't that in pre-governor days?
>
>>
>> This is exactly the sort of thing for which police traffic patrols in
>> unmarked cars should be vigilant. Today, it might even be possible to
>> deal with it by FPN (and if it isn't, it ought to be).
>
> The driver of the vehicle is the guilty one, rather than the tipper
> driver. He made it so far, but was defeated by the governors fitted to
> both vehicles. The vehicle being overtaken should legally have to
> facilitate being overtaken.
But there is no such law and the arctic driver was entirely within his
rights to continue at the speed he wanted to continue travelling at.
I think this is a case of us having to agree to disagree on this one Harry.
Nick Finnigan
> Nick Finnigan presented the following explanation :
>> They are struggling up a hill. There's a bleedin obvious cutting and a
>> bleedin obvious high road bridge as the tipper starts falling back
>> from overtaking the artic. The tipper presumably caught up and could
>> have overtaken on level ground on the approach.
>
> Cuttings and high road bridges do not logically mean it is an uphill
Yes they bleedin do, and yes it bleedin was.
> stretch of road. It looked to me as if the tipper actually got a few
> feet ahead of the artic at one point.
Yes, and so they were not both at the same governed speed; and then fell
back as the bleedin obvious hill took away his max speed advantage
Harry Bloomfield
> Harry Bloomfield wrote:
>> The cause of so many of these HGV 'duals' on motorways is that they are
>> fitted with speed limiters.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> The cause of so many of these HGV 'duels' on motorways is that their drivers
> are inconsiderate turds.
Well that goes without saying, but the overtakes would be over in
seconds, if the one being overtaken just eased his speed by 2mph below
his limiter speed. All the one doing the overtake can do is keep his
foot flat on the floor.
On those rare occasion when I'm trundling along at around 56mph and an
HGV chooses to try to overtake, I ease off to get them past.
Harry Bloomfield
> Yes, and so they were not both at the same governed speed; and then fell back
> as the bleedin obvious hill took away his max speed advantage
That is not the way it looked to me. The tipper got partially ahead of
the artic, then they BOTH hit the 56mph limit where they both did the
same speed, at which point the tipper driver decided after a while of
sitting alongside the artic that its driver was not going to let him
past - the tipper driver then eased off to drop back.
I remain unconvinced that they are on a hill climb.
Harry Bloomfield
> But there is no such law and the arctic driver was entirely within his
> rights to continue at the speed he wanted to continue travelling at.
Obviously at the start of the maneuver the artic is doing less than
56mph or the tipper driver (also limited to 56) would not have been
able to get alongside him.
Now if you were overtaking another car and the driver increased his
speed whilst you were in mid overtake, making your overtake more risky
it would be them at fault rather than you. The same applies to HGV's.
>
> I think this is a case of us having to agree to disagree on this one Harry.
OK, but remember only one of the two HGV drivers had it within his
power to end the conflict satisfactorily.
ARWadsworth
"Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.0ad57da1ab...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
The film was shot just after this section of motorway.
http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5899.aspx
You can use Google Earth to work out if the motorway is climbing.
Adam
Steve Firth
> Nick Finnigan presented the following explanation :
> > They are struggling up a hill. There's a bleedin obvious cutting and a
> > bleedin obvious high road bridge as the tipper starts falling back from
> > overtaking the artic. The tipper presumably caught up and could have
> > overtaken on level ground on the approach.
>
> Cuttings and high road bridges do not logically mean it is an uphill
> stretch of road.
The fact that it was clearly an uphill section of road means that it is
an uphill section of road. It's the two-lane section of the M42
approaching Measham and the A42 from the west. Truck drivers acting like
berks on that section of motorway are common, as are fifteen mile
overtakes similar to that one.
Mr. Benn
The tipper driver was mistaken to start the overtake. He should not have
attempted it and eventually realised it.
Vicko Zoomba
wrote:
While I don't agree with the elephant racing I think the commentator
needs to get his fact correct. If you go to time frame 0:42 on the
clip the commentator states that the "lighter vehicle is capable of
doing 70 miles per hour". It's not and if he read the HC book he'd
realise this.
McKevvy
Mr. Benn
news:26ed78ba-d20f-4721...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
Maybe the video was made before limiters were mandatory. When was that
daft requirement introduced? It's bloody stupid.
Harry Bloomfield
> While I don't agree with the elephant racing I think the commentator
> needs to get his fact correct. If you go to time frame 0:42 on the
> clip the commentator states that the "lighter vehicle is capable of
> doing 70 miles per hour". It's not and if he read the HC book he'd
> realise this.
I interpreted that as he meant the 4x4.
Steve Firth
> I remain unconvinced that they are on a hill climb.
I remain unconvinced that you have a brain.
JNugent
> JNugent has brought this to us :
>> I have seen exactly such an offence tried in court (before 1988, when
>> the wording of the statute may have been slightly different) and the
>> driver given a fine of ￜ20 (more than it sounds today) and a licence
>> endorsement.
>
> Wasn't that in pre-governor days?
I don't know the history of engine-speed governors, so can't say.
But it makes no differebnce to the offence or its effect.
>> This is exactly the sort of thing for which police traffic patrols in
>> unmarked cars should be vigilant. Today, it might even be possible to
>> deal with it by FPN (and if it isn't, it ought to be).
> The driver of the vehicle is the guilty one, rather than the tipper
> driver. He made it so far, but was defeated by the governors fitted to
> both vehicles. The vehicle being overtaken should legally have to
> facilitate being overtaken.
Both of them were at fault.
Another possible solution is a straight HGV ban in the offside lane of
two-lane carriageways on grade-separated roads between 07:00 and 21:00. It
works well in other European countries.
JNugent
> "Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan:
>>> Yes, and so they were not both at the same governed speed; and then
>>> fell back as the bleedin obvious hill took away his max speed advantage
>> That is not the way it looked to me. The tipper got partially ahead of
>> the artic, then they BOTH hit the 56mph limit where they both did the
>> same speed, at which point the tipper driver decided after a while of
>> sitting alongside the artic that its driver was not going to let him
>> past - the tipper driver then eased off to drop back.
>> I remain unconvinced that they are on a hill climb.
> The film was shot just after this section of motorway.
> http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5899.aspx
> You can use Google Earth to work out if the motorway is climbing.
Interesting stuff from that URL:
STARTQUOTE:
A daytime ban on overtaking for heavy vehicles on a stretch of the M42 has
now become permanent after a successful trial resulted in less congestion and
improved journey time reliability.
The ban came into force on 10th August 2009 and applies to Heavy Commercial
Vehicles (HGV's) of 7.5 tonnes and over. These vehicles are restricted from
using the outside lane between 7am and 7pm on a three mile stretch of the
northbound carriageway of the M42, between junctions 10 and 11 near Tamworth.
The aim is to reduce congestion and cut the risk of accidents caused by slow
moving traffic on this uphill, two-lane section of the M42. By keeping heavy
vehicles to the inside lane only, the outside lane should remain clear for
faster, lighter traffic and help ensure more reliable journeys.
On average, 29,000 vehicles use this stretch of motorway each day, and almost
a quarter of these are HGVs. Before the trial, the motorway was often blocked
by overtaking lorries going slowly uphill. This caused frustration for other
road users held up in the outside lane.
ENDQUOTE
The easiest and best thing to do would be apply such a rule to all two-lane
motorway and (grade-separated) trunk-road carriageways, without having to
decide whether it's a good idea for each stretch and in either direction.
It *is* a good idea; that's all.
Ray Keattch
> Ray Keattch wrote:
>> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>>
>> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
>> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
>> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back
>> left.
>> Drivers too close behind.
>
> ... main driver initially a bit close but drops back as he 'puts the
> power on' to create a large enough gap for the tipper, but not large
> enough for the 4x4 to consider moving out.
Why would the 4x4 need to pull out? I wouldn't have positioned myself
next to the 4x4 by the way, yet I see no reason why the 4x4 would need
to get into lane two at that point.
> ... main driver blocks lane 2 for no gain.
Where would you like the main driver to go - back to lane one to be
replaced by the driver behind? For what other reason?
> ... following driver fails to use right foot when tipper pulls back
He overtook the lorries?
--
MrBitsy
Ray Keattch
Too right - this situation often happens on entry slip roads. Lorry
moves to lane 2, vehicle joins alongside then accelerates, leaving the
lorry out in lane 2.
If I join next to an HGV, I allow it to get ahead and move left ahead of
me. I then move to lane 2 to pass. I lose a few seconds but life
appears to carry on.
--
MrBitsy
Conor
says...
>
> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>
> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back left.
> Drivers too close behind.
>
> by people with brains.
Indeed. If you want to block off lanes, join the Police.
--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
Ray Keattch
>
> "Ray Keattch" <r.keat...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:SvudnTNcIdbIu6DW...@giganews.com...
>> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>>
>> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
>> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
>> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back
>> left.
>> Drivers too close behind.
>>
>> Roads don't need ruddy widening in many cases, they just need to be
>> used by people with brains.
>
> to a nominally safe 'two second rule' distance behind the tipper.
Yes, I agree with you his driving could easily have been improved upon.
He mentions the 4x4 may move out, but completely ignores the tipper
lorry just inches from the lorry ahead of it!
--
MrBitsy
Conor
Bloomfield says...
>
> Ray Keattch was thinking very hard :
> > This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
> >
> > Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
> > 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
> > visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back left.
> > Drivers too close behind.
> >
> > Roads don't need ruddy widening in many cases, they just need to be used by
> > people with brains.
>
> tipper had previously been making better speed than the artic,
> otherwise he would not have been behind the artic. Had the artic driver
> just eased off by 2mph, the tipper would have got by and been on his
> way. Instead the tipper driver will be trying to overtake again, at the
> next hill.
>
Was it an uphill?
Then in no feckin way am I easing off the loud pedal one bit. As soon as
you drop the power, forget trying to maintain the speed and expect a
couple of minutes of lots of gearchanging and watching the speedo
falling off.
Partac
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>
> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back
> left.
> Drivers too close behind.
>
> Roads don't need ruddy widening in many cases, they just need to be used
> by people with brains.
>
Where's Conor when you need him? I thought he'd be along by now, blaming a
car driver- any car driver.
Steve Firth
> Another possible solution is a straight HGV ban in the offside lane of
> two-lane carriageways on grade-separated roads between 07:00 and 21:00. It
> works well in other European countries.
It also worked well on that section of motorway. The truck drivers had a
fit about it but it was shown to have positive benefits on driver
behaviour and on journey times.
Harry Bloomfield
> Where's Conor when you need him? I thought he'd be along by now, blaming a
> car driver- any car driver.
He's in now and blaming (self incriminating) the lorry drivers with
there is no way he would ease off to let the tipper get past.
Peter Johnson
wrote:
>The fact that it was clearly an uphill section of road means that it is
>an uphill section of road. It's the two-lane section of the M42
>approaching Measham and the A42 from the west. Truck drivers acting like
>berks on that section of motorway are common, as are fifteen mile
>overtakes similar to that one.
The clip is a surely a demonstration of why that section of road was
the trial for the so-called 'journey time initiative', whereby HGV
overtaking was banned during peak hours. It didn't stop thoughtless
car or van drivers from cruising along in l2 at, say, 56mph, so turned
out to be a pointless exercise.
Ray Keattch
So you ae saying the tipper driver was at fault for trying the overtake?
--
MrBitsy
Ray Keattch
I was on the A1 in the roadwork section through the Hatfield tunnel
southbound. It was 5am with two cars ahead of me. Both were doing
exactly 40mph and were alongside each other for two miles.
There were no other cars visible ahead or behind.
--
MrBitsy
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
I take the view that it should not be necessary to run trials for that sort
of measure. It should be introduced on all 2-lane motorway carriageways and
comparable A-roads along their entire length without further ado.
As long as it is a general and not a localised scheme, it might even be
possible to avoid (or greatly reduce) the need for signage as long as an
effective (but cheaper) public information campaign was undertaken.
Nick Finnigan
>
> "Harry Bloomfield" <harry...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:mn.0ad57da1ab...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk...
>> Nick Finnigan used his keyboard to write :
>>> Yes, and so they were not both at the same governed speed; and then
>>> fell back as the bleedin obvious hill took away his max speed advantage
>>
>> That is not the way it looked to me. The tipper got partially ahead of
>> the artic, then they BOTH hit the 56mph limit where they both did the
>> same speed, at which point the tipper driver decided after a while of
>> sitting alongside the artic that its driver was not going to let him
>> past - the tipper driver then eased off to drop back.
>>
>> I remain unconvinced that they are on a hill climb.
>
>
>
> http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/5899.aspx
"Before the trial, the motorway was often blocked by overtaking lorries
going slowly uphill."
> You can use Google Earth to work out if the motorway is climbing.
I can't see a way there to prove it to HB.
(I presume it is the Salt Road Bridge).
Nick Finnigan
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Ray Keattch wrote:
>>> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>>>
>>> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
>>> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
>>> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back
>>> left.
>>> Drivers too close behind.
>>
>> ... drivers in front deliberately close to trap the tipper
>> ... main driver initially a bit close but drops back as he 'puts the
>> power on' to create a large enough gap for the tipper, but not large
>> enough for the 4x4 to consider moving out.
>
> Why would the 4x4 need to pull out? I wouldn't have positioned myself
> next to the 4x4 by the way, yet I see no reason why the 4x4 would need
> to get into lane two at that point.
To overtake, before the main driver caught up.
>
>> ... main driver blocks lane 2 for no gain.
>
> Where would you like the main driver to go - back to lane one to be
> replaced by the driver behind?
Yes, and maybe.
For what other reason?
To have a larger gap, better view and allow faster traffic to overtake.
>> ... following driver fails to use right foot when tipper pulls back
>
> He overtook the lorries?
He got left behind very quickly by the main driver.
Bob
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>> Ray Keattch wrote:
>>> This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>>>
>>> Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
>>> 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
>>> visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back
>>> left.
>>> Drivers too close behind.
>>
>> ... drivers in front deliberately close to trap the tipper
>> ... main driver initially a bit close but drops back as he 'puts the
>> power on' to create a large enough gap for the tipper, but not large
>> enough for the 4x4 to consider moving out.
>
> Why would the 4x4 need to pull out? I wouldn't have positioned myself next
> to the 4x4 by the way, yet I see no reason why the 4x4 would need to get
> into lane two at that point.
>
I can't see why the 4x4 would pull out as it was waiting to exit the
motorway.
Bob
Bob
"Bob" <b...@bob.com> wrote in message
news:_9o%m.16776$cn1....@newsfe11.ams2...
Although of course the main driver wouldn't have known that - typing without
engaging my brain there!
Bob
NM
wrote:
> JNugent has brought this to us :
>
> > I have seen exactly such an offence tried in court (before 1988, when the
> > wording of the statute may have been slightly different) and the driver given
>
> Wasn't that in pre-governor days?
>
>
>
> > unmarked cars should be vigilant. Today, it might even be possible to deal
> > with it by FPN (and if it isn't, it ought to be).
>
> The driver of the vehicle is the guilty one, rather than the tipper
> driver. He made it so far, but was defeated by the governors fitted to
> both vehicles. The vehicle being overtaken should legally have to
> facilitate being overtaken.
>
> Regards,
> Harry (M1BYT) (L)http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Wrong, it's the overtaking vehicle that is required to keep clear, the
one being overtaken just maintains his course and speed.
NM
He's not the only one, I wouldn't either.
Matey in the tipper, had he the inclination, could not safely drop
back into lane one behind the artic as matey in the 4x4 was in the
space he needed to get into and was also in his blind spot so he
wouldn't be totally sure where the 4x4 was.
The initial overtake started OK he was caught out but the preformance
differential on the incline, there is no accurate way a following
driver can gage the weight of the lorry ahead, sure if it's at it's
max weight you can look at the tyres but lots of the time lots of the
lorries are not loaded to capacity so their ability to climb differs
wildly. This is what caught the tipper out, he was gaining on the flat
but the artic had it on the hill and the 4x4 was where he wanted to be
once he realised he'd lost the climb race.
Vicko Zoomba
> ARWadsworth wrote:
I have a *BETTER* idea. Let's take the freight off the roads and put
it onto the railway.
Oh hang on, that used to be done once...
McKevvy
Vicko Zoomba
> In article <SvudnTNcIdbIu6DWnZ2dnUVZ7oidn...@giganews.com>, Ray Keattch
> says...
>
>
>
> > This short clip on YouTube neatly shows how stupid drivers can be.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yafvang
>
> > Tipper lorry blocks lane two for no gain.
> > 4X4 tucks in close behind lorry in lane 1, thus blocking all forward
> > visibility for themselves AND stops the tipper lorry from moving back left.
> > Drivers too close behind.
>
> > Roads don't need ruddy widening in many cases, they just need to be used
> > by people with brains.
>
> Indeed. If you want to block off lanes, join the Police.
>
Well said!
Vicko Zoomba
So you'll have a massive queue of trucks stuck behind a 20mph tractor
thats trundling along?
Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?
McKevvy
Mr. Benn
I'm not speaking for Conor but I think the tipper driver was at fault. He
should have abandoned the attempt to overtake as soon as it became apparent
that he would be unable to achieve enough speed to pass. It's unreasonable
to expect an HGV driver to lose speed when it takes a substantial time to
re-gain it. Whose time is more valuable you may ask.
Harry Bloomfield
> I'm not speaking for Conor but I think the tipper driver was at fault. He
> should have abandoned the attempt to overtake as soon as it became apparent
> that he would be unable to achieve enough speed to pass. It's unreasonable
> to expect an HGV driver to lose speed when it takes a substantial time to
> re-gain it. Whose time is more valuable you may ask.
However, as I already suggested, no doubt the tipper driver would be
trying the same thing again a few miles down the road. If someone
generally has a better overall speed than that which you can/want to
make - then you facilitate there getting past you, rather than impede
them.
ARWadsworth
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jbn5ig.c8zrn81xfewajN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
Of course the Germans managed to operate such a system 10 years ago.
Adam
Steve Firth
> So you'll have a massive queue of trucks stuck behind a 20mph tractor
> thats trundling along?
Yup, let truck drivers get a feel of what it's like for a change. Of
course the number of tractors on two-lane motorways tends to be a number
close to zero.
Conor
says...
> So you ae saying the tipper driver was at fault for trying the overtake?
He should've had an idea he'd not be able to get past on an uphill but
you want to make sure you hit the bottom of the cliimb on full throttle
to get the best speed you can getting up it.
Conor
says...
No it wasn't. It was shown to work for an extremely short stretch with a
climb that virtually all trucks can now climb with minimal speed loss.
The only reason it has been a success is because the average HGV power
levels have increased in the time the trial was running to a level where
that quite shallow gradient can pretty much be easily handled by
everything going up it. If one were cynical, it could be seen that the
timing was quite cleverly done.
They wouldn't entertain trying it on Windy Hill for example because
there's such a vast difference in the speeds lorries climb it.
Conor
says...
Difference being that lorries only tend to be 5-10MPH below the average
speed of cars, not 1/3 of it.
Conor
Bloomfield says...
>
> Partac explained on 01/01/2010 :
> > Where's Conor when you need him? I thought he'd be along by now, blaming a
> > car driver- any car driver.
>
> He's in now and blaming (self incriminating) the lorry drivers with
> there is no way he would ease off to let the tipper get past.
If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully understand
the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others in here who've
never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only guess and its a poor
one at that.
Steve Firth
> > It also worked well on that section of motorway. The truck drivers had a
> > fit about it but it was shown to have positive benefits on driver
> > behaviour and on journey times.
>
> Of course the Germans managed to operate such a system 10 years ago.
Longer than that I think. It was in operation between Frankfurt and
Basel when I worked in Germany and that was 20 years ago.
Harry Bloomfield
> If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully understand
> the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others in here who've
> never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only guess and its a poor
> one at that.
I think you are exaggerating the difference 2mph can actually make,
besides which not all of the HGV overtakes will actually be taking
place on a hill. 2mph difference in speed between overtaker and
overtaken will see HGV's able to pull back in within seconds, rather
than the two or three miles some of them no take and the annoyance they
cause.
Ray Keattch
> In article <mn.0b187da1f1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
> Bloomfield says...
>> Partac explained on 01/01/2010 :
>>> Where's Conor when you need him? I thought he'd be along by now, blaming a
>>> car driver- any car driver.
>> He's in now and blaming (self incriminating) the lorry drivers with
>> there is no way he would ease off to let the tipper get past.
>
> If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully understand
> the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others in here who've
> never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only guess and its a poor
> one at that.
Nobody needs to drive a fully laden HGV to understand the problems.
--
MrBitsy
Conor
Bloomfield says...
>
> Conor presented the following explanation :
> > If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully understand
> > the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others in here who've
> > never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only guess and its a poor
> > one at that.
>
> I think you are exaggerating the difference 2mph can actually make,
Thankyou for proving I was correct.
Its fuck all to do with the speed and everything to do with hitting it
flat out with your foot hard on the floor and not lifting off unless you
absolutely have to.
Conor
says...
Really? Harry's post suggests otherwise. I doubt you have a clue either
- certainly you appear completely oblivious to the reasons.
Harry Bloomfield
> Really? Harry's post suggests otherwise. I doubt you have a clue either
> - certainly you appear completely oblivious to the reasons.
Go on then, explain if you can?
56mph, supposing the limit were 54mph or 58mph?
Dropping 2mph is a loss in speed of a little less than 4% and is easily
recovered.
You said -"The only reason it has been a success is because the average
HGV power levels have increased in the time the trial was running to a
level where that quite shallow gradient can pretty much be easily
handled by everything going up it."
--
Mr. Benn
news:MPG.25a858ecc...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <mn.0b187da1f1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
> Bloomfield says...
>>
>> Partac explained on 01/01/2010 :
>> > Where's Conor when you need him? I thought he'd be along by now,
>> > blaming a car driver- any car driver.
>>
>> He's in now and blaming (self incriminating) the lorry drivers with
>> there is no way he would ease off to let the tipper get past.
>
> If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully
> understand the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others
> in here who've never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only
> guess and its a poor one at that.
Quite. It's hardly the same as driving a sports car.
Mr. Benn
news:MPG.25a878025...@news.eternal-september.org:
Out of interest, how long would it take to accelerate between 54mph and
56mph in a fully-laden HGV? Are we talking about tens of seconds or
minutes?
Harry Bloomfield
> Out of interest, how long would it take to accelerate between 54mph and
> 56mph in a fully-laden HGV? Are we talking about tens of seconds or
> minutes?
Usually just seconds...
Have you ever watched how quickly an HGV can get away from the lights
when they change, even on a hill start?
Harry Bloomfield
> Quite. It's hardly the same as driving a sports car.
But then neither is it like driving a horse and cart. On the one hand
he has suggested how powerful and what good acceleration modern HGV's
have, then goes on to complain about dropping 2mph for a few seconds.
Really just does not add up.
Silk
> If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully understand
> the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others in here who've
> never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only guess and its a poor
> one at that.
I think most people could take a reasonable guess that would turn out to
be fairly accurate.
ARWadsworth
ISTR that the setup in Germany was not a "set time" system like the M42
section but was either activated by an operator or possibly by sensors in
the road that automatically turned the signs on when the traffic was heavy.
It seemed to work well.
Adam
Ray Keattch
We understand the technical reasons, but it is the drivers decision
process that is being questioned.
--
MrBitsy
Ray Keattch
> In article <mn.0cb97da101...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
> Bloomfield says...
>> Conor presented the following explanation :
>>> If you'd actually ever driven a fully laden HGV, you'd fully understand
>>> the reasons why. However you can't so you, and all others in here who've
>>> never driven a fully loaded HGV up a hill, can only guess and its a poor
>>> one at that.
>> I think you are exaggerating the difference 2mph can actually make,
>
> Thankyou for proving I was correct.
>
> Its fuck all to do with the speed and everything to do with hitting it
> flat out with your foot hard on the floor and not lifting off unless you
> absolutely have to.
Two lorries side by side for miles for miles is a situation I would
describe as, 'have to ease off to allow the overtake to be completed
paying due regard to other road users'.
--
MrBitsy
NM
wrote:
Watch the same truck again at 44 tonnes.
On some roundabouts from a standing start with 560 of Mr Iveco's
horses, I start when the road is clear to my right and before I can
get part way across Mr Impatient-Rep hurtles on to the roundabout and
gives me the benefit of his full laser and sonic capability because
I'm across his path but I'm going as fast as I can and he wasn't in
sight when I started off. Thus I become another idiot truck driver.
good innit.
NM
wrote:
Acceleration fully loaded from a standing start is snail like.
NM
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <mn.0cb97da101687406.106...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
The overtaker is the one who needs to do something, the one being
overtaken needs do nothing. It's better that he dosen't otherwise
awkward situation can develop like them both easing off within
microseconds of each other both looseing speed, both dropping back,
nowhere for the man on the outside to go, insufficient power to
promptly get out of the way, etc, etc, etc.
I prefer just to hold the cars up for a minute or two, you pass them
later when they are in the services anyway, even if you do let them
past.
JNugent
The restriction on two-lane stretches of the A5 (Karlsruhe - Basel) autobahn
along the right bank of the Rhine is not automated. HGVs are simply banned
from the overtaking lane between 07:00 - 21:00.
It does work well. That part of the A5 is not only one of Germany's most
heavily used motorway stretches, but a crucial part of the whole N-S European
network (providing one of the most direct routes from north central Europe
to Switzerland and Italy). If we had such a well-used two-lane stretch in the
UK, it would be slowed to a trickle once a few lorries started dualling on it
(just think northern end of M11, or A14). But that doesn't happen - speeds
are pretty well up to 70 (mph) for most of the time.
JNugent
<sigh>
"duelling".
Harry Bloomfield
> On 2 Jan, 09:45, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Mr. Benn formulated on Saturday :
>>
>>
>> But then neither is it like driving a horse and cart. On the one hand
>> he has suggested how powerful and what good acceleration modern HGV's
>> have, then goes on to complain about dropping 2mph for a few seconds.
>> Really just does not add up.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>
> Acceleration fully loaded from a standing start is snail like.
Of course and we do appreciate that, but how long might it take to
regain the 2mph difference between 54 and 56? Obviously you have enough
power to start with to be able to do 56.
NM
wrote:
> NM formulated on Saturday :
>
>
>
> > On 2 Jan, 09:45, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Mr. Benn formulated on Saturday :
>
>
> >> But then neither is it like driving a horse and cart. On the one hand
> >> he has suggested how powerful and what good acceleration modern HGV's
> >> have, then goes on to complain about dropping 2mph for a few seconds.
> >> Really just does not add up.
>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
>
> > Acceleration fully loaded from a standing start is snail like.
>
> Of course and we do appreciate that, but how long might it take to
> regain the 2mph difference between 54 and 56? Obviously you have enough
> power to start with to be able to do 56.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Harry (M1BYT) (L)http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
That would depend on the load and the gradient, it could vary from a
minus value to a matter of seconds, you need to define the parameters
if you are searching for a value,
Derek Geldard
<vicko_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It *is* a good idea; that's all.
>
>I have a *BETTER* idea. Let's take the freight off the roads and put
>it onto the railway.
>
>Oh hang on, that used to be done once..
Yep, and it took Father-in-Law 3 weeks to ship a bed from Glasgow to
Leeds.
Derek
Derek Geldard
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>ARWadsworth wrote:
>>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1jbnmdl.11uqjuidcssztN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>>> ARWadsworth <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > It also worked well on that section of motorway. The truck drivers
>>>> had > a
>>>> > fit about it but it was shown to have positive benefits on driver
>>>> > behaviour and on journey times.
>>>>
>>>> Of course the Germans managed to operate such a system 10 years ago.
>>>
>>> Longer than that I think. It was in operation between Frankfurt and
>>> Basel when I worked in Germany and that was 20 years ago.
>>
>> ISTR that the setup in Germany was not a "set time" system like the M42
>> section but was either activated by an operator or possibly by sensors
>> in the road that automatically turned the signs on when the traffic was
>> heavy.
>>
>> It seemed to work well.
>
>The restriction on two-lane stretches of the A5 (Karlsruhe - Basel) autobahn
>along the right bank of the Rhine is not automated. HGVs are simply banned
>from the overtaking lane between 07:00 - 21:00.
>
>It does work well. That part of the A5 is not only one of Germany's most
>heavily used motorway stretches, but a crucial part of the whole N-S European
> network
How odd it is that the "Wirtschafts Wunder" / "Vorsprung durch
Technic" Nazis put up with it.
> (providing one of the most direct routes from north central Europe
>to Switzerland and Italy). If we had such a well-used two-lane stretch in the
>UK,
"British disease" we might have and "Sick man of Europe" we might be.
But for all that ... WE DON'T.
>it would be slowed to a trickle once a few lorries started dualling on it
>(just think northern end of M11, or A14). But that doesn't happen - speeds
>are pretty well up to 70 (mph) for most of the time.
Derek
Steve Firth
> >I have a *BETTER* idea. Let's take the freight off the roads and put
> >it onto the railway.
> >
> >Oh hang on, that used to be done once..
>
> Yep, and it took Father-in-Law 3 weeks to ship a bed from Glasgow to
> Leeds.
Yes, and when one used to order items for delivery they would only be
delivered to the station, no matter how inconvenient that was to reach
and the useless shifty British Rail bastards would either steal the
items or break them or both. I had a relative who ran a painting and
decorating business in the 60s. He used to receive tins of pain sent up
from the nearest city by rail. He was usually lucky if he received half
of his order and despite tins being fitted with clamps to hold the lids
on usually the paint would be spilled over the goods van floor and
platform.
They even had the cheek to ask him to pay for the goods van to be
cleaned on one occasion.
Harry Bloomfield
> That would depend on the load and the gradient, it could vary from a
> minus value to a matter of seconds, you need to define the parameters
> if you are searching for a value,
If the value meant that a 2mph loss of speed would result in a minus
acceleration, then the HGV would most likely be dropping its speed down
from 56 anyway - whether or not the throttle was eased back.
NM
wrote:
Why? If you are managing to just hold a speed an a hill then a twat in
a car pulls in front and you have to loose 2mph that's quite a bit of
the power band in that gear that you have just slipped down, at the
now reduced revs you may not have the power to be able to regain the
2mph, until the gradient eases.
JNugent
So someone who causes you to lose 2mph is a "twat", but it's perfectly
alright to hold the speed of a long queue of traffic to 20mph less than they
would otherwise be going?
NM
Of course, after all the motorway system is for the distribution of
freight.
JNugent
Really?
Where did you imagine you read that?
DavidR
> Nick Finnigan used his keyboard to write :
>> Yes, and so they were not both at the same governed speed; and then fell
>> back as the bleedin obvious hill took away his max speed advantage
>
> That is not the way it looked to me. The tipper got partially ahead of the
> artic, then they BOTH hit the 56mph limit where they both did the same
> speed, at which point the tipper driver decided after a while of sitting
> alongside the artic that its driver was not going to let him past - the
> tipper driver then eased off to drop back.
> I remain unconvinced that they are on a hill climb.
Something that is imperceptible in a car may have more effect to a lorry.
There's also the possibility of a slip stream effect. The following lorry
catches up, starts to overtake, slows down when it meets clean air and then
starts giving the overtaken lorry a tow.
My last car had a fairly high top gear (just sufficient to maintain speed on
the steepest mway incline) which meant I was always conscious to avoid the
trap. But it's something that drivers of high geared petrol cars are seen to
get caught out with all the time when they haven't got enough differential
- or haven't changed down - before pulling out. Even if the overtaken driver
backs off slightly while the overtaker still has some tow, it doesn't
necessarily help.
I don't know how slip stream sensitive lorries are but even so it must be
harder to anticipate when they are very much more gradient sensitive.
NM
I remember Ernest Marples telling us that on Pathe News (or something
similar in the late 1950's) when they were constructing the Preston by
Pass (the first true motorway) and extoling the virtues of the new
planned M1.
JNugent
Not in statute law, or a set of regulations, then?
Is this restriction written down anywhere? Does it actually exist?
PC Paul
It sounds to me like a fully laden HGV is actually a pretty dangerous
thing to have on the road, as it seems it can only be driven in a manner
that encourages the driver to press on at all costs rather than drive
considerately and with care for other road users.
Maybe they should keep the existing fleet but knock 10% off the allowable
weight, so that they have enough reserve to be driven safely?
NM
Maybe they should have all stayed at home in the warm during this
freeze instead of trying to clear the roads for you muppets.
Clive George
news:6786ec21-3fee-4af6...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
The artics which were blocking the roads when they jackknifed, you mean?
NM
> "NM" <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote in message
Is that what you think? No surprise there then.
Clive George
It's what I know. The main road here was blocked because of one. The council
have been out gritting and ploughing like mad, along with a few farmers, but
none of them are the aforementioned "fully laden HGV"s.
Brimstone
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:P8qdndDk8672Bt7W...@brightview.co.uk...
So what is a gritting lorry if it's not a laden "HGV" (sic)?
JNugent
[ ... ]
> So what is a gritting lorry if it's not a laden "HGV" (sic)?
I hope you've been OK.
It's good to see you back.
Mike
>In article <mn.fd907d9c16...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk>, Harry
>Bloomfield says...
>> I would blame all of that mess upon the artic driver. Obviously the
>> tipper had previously been making better speed than the artic,
>> otherwise he would not have been behind the artic. Had the artic driver
>> just eased off by 2mph, the tipper would have got by and been on his
>> way. Instead the tipper driver will be trying to overtake again, at the
>> next hill.
>>
>Was it an uphill?
>
>Then in no feckin way am I easing off the loud pedal one bit. As soon as
>you drop the power, forget trying to maintain the speed and expect a
>couple of minutes of lots of gearchanging and watching the speedo
>falling off.
If the truck is sufficiently powerful for the load then no 'minutes of
gearchanging' would be necessary.
Next time choose a decent truck with a properly specified torque
curve...and don't load it right up to the legal limit.
--
PC Paul
> So what is a gritting lorry if it's not a laden "HGV" (sic)?
A gritting lorry is a loaded truck (although not an artic, so incapable
of jackknifing) *but* a loaded truck is not a gritting lorry.
Brimstone
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:E5SdnWtYCNf9Vd7W...@pipex.net...
> Brimstone wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> So what is a gritting lorry if it's not a laden "HGV" (sic)?
>
> I hope you've been OK.
Fine thanks, just decided on a break.
> It's good to see you back.
Ta.
Brimstone
"PC Paul" <ur...@bitrot.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xo01n.4999$Mq5...@newsfe29.ams2...
It's useful to see that some people's ability to state the blindingly
obvious hasn't diminished during my absence.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>>> So what is a gritting lorry if it's not a laden "HGV" (sic)?
>> I hope you've been OK.
> Fine thanks, just decided on a break.
What was the food like?
Did you get a room to yourself?
:-)