Lorry crumple zones

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
if the cab over style of lorry we get in europe is intrinsically unsafe in
a crash compared to the bonneted vehicles they have in the USA. Surely its
common sense that if you have 2 metres of bonnet in front of you to crumple
in a crash with another truck you're going to come off a lot better than
in a euro cab where the crumple zone consists of a windscreen and your legs?

B2003

[JNugent]

Surely, in a real sense, it's better for the driver to have the biggest
possible incentive not to crash into anything?

[Clive George]

Cab over also gives you a better view.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

That logic rather falls over if someone else is to blame for the accident.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:09:18 +0000
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Surely, in a real sense, it's better for the driver to have the biggest
>> possible incentive not to crash into anything?
>
>Cab over also gives you a better view.

Not much help if you're heading towards the back of a trailer thats
just appeared out of the fog at 56mph I wouldn't have thought.

B2003

[JNugent]

Are lorry drivers *supposed* to drive their lorries at 56 mph in fog so thick
that they can't stop within the distance they can see to be clear?

[Nightjar]

On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

First, forward control cabs give a better view, which improves safety on
the typical European road, better manoeuvrability, again important for
many European roads, and a better carrying capacity within the permitted
legal overall tractor and trailer length.

Second, to withstand the loads they have to endure, tractor units are
best built on a chassis, which would make a crumple zone, at best,
difficult to include.

Third, The European Commission has already concluded that the answer is
to increase the strength of the driver cabin* and to require the
provision and use of suitable driver / passenger restraint systems.
Adding energy absorbing under-run systems, which help protect cars,
would also reduce deaths in car to lorry impacts by around 12%.

* Approved standards exist, but are currently voluntary.

Colin Bignell

[Paul - xxx]

Did they die from crush injuries then?

Seems a knee-jerk reaction to me, when no-one really knows yet, beyond,
possibly, the police/Forensics etc ...

Besides, the bonnet of a US truck isn't a crumple zone ...

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

[Nick Finnigan]

On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder

... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.

> if the cab over style of lorry we get in europe is intrinsically unsafe in
> a crash compared to the bonneted vehicles they have in the USA. Surely its
> common sense that if you have 2 metres of bonnet in front of you to crumple
> in a crash with another truck you're going to come off a lot better than
> in a euro cab where the crumple zone consists of a windscreen and your legs?

Trucks have the same crash effectiveness as cars.

[Nightjar]

On 07/11/2011 19:23, Nick Finnigan wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
>
> ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.

The front of the Ginster's lorry has been gutted by fire, but it also
seems to have hit the back of the lorry in front quite hard. I suspect
it will prove to be quite a challenge for the pathologists to discover
exactly which caused their deaths.

Colin Bignell

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:39:28 +0000
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>First, forward control cabs give a better view, which improves safety on

Well thats not true because many lorries have had cars stuck under them
at the front and the driver hasn't seen. If the car was 10 foot further
ahead because of a bonnet there's a damn site higher chance of the driver
seeing one side of the other of the car sticking out.

>Second, to withstand the loads they have to endure, tractor units are
>best built on a chassis, which would make a crumple zone, at best,
>difficult to include.

Monocoque is a lot stronger than a chassis but I suspect the shape of a
truck would make it awkward to use. No reason it couldn't be used for
buses though apart from maybe price. Easier just to sling a couple of rails
together and bolt a drivetrain on.

>Third, The European Commission has already concluded that the answer is
>to increase the strength of the driver cabin* and to require the
>provision and use of suitable driver / passenger restraint systems.
>Adding energy absorbing under-run systems, which help protect cars,
>would also reduce deaths in car to lorry impacts by around 12%.

Increasing strength isn't always what you want. Cars could be made completely
crushproof and survive any head on but the decelleration forces on the
occupants would certainly kill them.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
>
> ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.

You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And the
reason for that would be crash injuries.

> Trucks have the same crash effectiveness as cars.

A tank has better crash effectiveness than both but I wouldn't want to
be in one that hit something solid at 30mph and came to a dead stop in
a microsecond. There's more to crash survival than the stucture around
you remaining undamaged.

B2003

[Paul - xxx]

bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> >> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do
> wonder
> >
> > ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.
>
> You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And
> the reason for that would be crash injuries.

Or the bodywork and doors have crumpled so much the doors can't be
opened or have trapped the occupant with minimal injury, which has
happened many times.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On 8 Nov 2011 10:11:11 GMT

"Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Or the bodywork and doors have crumpled so much the doors can't be
>opened or have trapped the occupant with minimal injury, which has
>happened many times.

Minimal injury is still an injury. But certainly in cars sure - though even
then the car would have to be pretty comprehensively crushed for there to be
no escape route or for the driver to be pinned down, unlikely in a truck though
that has a lot of interior space and a huge front windscreen that can be
smashed.

B2003

[GT]

"Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0hlcy9...@news.individual.net...

> bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
>> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>> > On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> >> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do
>> wonder
>> >
>> > ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.
>>
>> You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And
>> the reason for that would be crash injuries.
>
> Or the bodywork and doors have crumpled so much the doors can't be
> opened or have trapped the occupant with minimal injury, which has
> happened many times.

Climb through the window?

[Nightjar]

On 08/11/2011 09:53, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:39:28 +0000
> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> First, forward control cabs give a better view, which improves safety on
>
> Well thats not true because many lorries have had cars stuck under them
> at the front and the driver hasn't seen. If the car was 10 foot further
> ahead because of a bonnet there's a damn site higher chance of the driver
> seeing one side of the other of the car sticking out.

Have you actually sat in a lorry with a long bonnet? There might be a
blind spot very close to a forward control vehicle, but the blind spot
on a lorry with a bonnet is very much larger.

>
>> Second, to withstand the loads they have to endure, tractor units are
>> best built on a chassis, which would make a crumple zone, at best,
>> difficult to include.
>
> Monocoque is a lot stronger than a chassis

Not necessarily, particularly if the chassis uses a space frame.
However, the strength to weight ratio can be better.

> but I suspect the shape of a
> truck would make it awkward to use.

The need to be able to couple up to a trailer would make it virtually
impossible for a tractor unit.

> No reason it couldn't be used for
> buses though apart from maybe price. Easier just to sling a couple of rails
> together and bolt a drivetrain on.

Particularly when you want to have a different body for a different use,
which is something bus manufacturers have to take into account.

>> Third, The European Commission has already concluded that the answer is
>> to increase the strength of the driver cabin* and to require the
>> provision and use of suitable driver / passenger restraint systems.
>> Adding energy absorbing under-run systems, which help protect cars,
>> would also reduce deaths in car to lorry impacts by around 12%.
>
> Increasing strength isn't always what you want.

Nevertheless, lorries built to the existing voluntary standards do have
higher occupant survivability.

> Cars could be made completely
> crushproof and survive any head on but the decelleration forces on the
> occupants would certainly kill them.

However, the laws of physics mean that a lorry is far less likely to
come to an abrupt stop. It is more probable that the cab will be crushed
before the deceleration becomes significant. In any case, lorry cabs are
large enough for it to be quite possible to allow the occupants to
decelerate at a slower rate than the cab body.

Colin Bignell

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:03:40 +0000
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>Have you actually sat in a lorry with a long bonnet? There might be a

Yes I have, back in the 90s at a fair in the DC. Though to be honest I
can't remember much of what the view was like. I do remember the interior
and controls looked like they had been flown in from the 1960s.

>blind spot very close to a forward control vehicle, but the blind spot
>on a lorry with a bonnet is very much larger.

Possibly larger overall, but you'd have more chance of seeing a car sticking
out from the side.

>Particularly when you want to have a different body for a different use,
>which is something bus manufacturers have to take into account.

That doesn't seem to put off manufacturers of train carriages from using
monocoque designs.

>Nevertheless, lorries built to the existing voluntary standards do have
>higher occupant survivability.

Than US bonneted trucks?

>However, the laws of physics mean that a lorry is far less likely to
>come to an abrupt stop. It is more probable that the cab will be crushed
>before the deceleration becomes significant. In any case, lorry cabs are

Well yes, and Terry Trucker is at the front of said cab. Not the best
scenario really. I would have thought far better if there was a few metres
of bonnet to crumple first before it got to the cab.

B2003

[Nick Finnigan]

On 08/11/2011 09:56, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
> Nick Finnigan<n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
>>
>> ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.
>
> You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And the
> reason for that would be crash injuries.

No, most people who die in a fire are fully capacitated.

>> Trucks have the same crash effectiveness as cars.
>
> A tank has better crash effectiveness

No, it doesn't.

[furnessvale]

UK and european operators have always had the option of providing a
bonneted vehicle and each increase in length has allowed this to
happen.

What actually happens is that each increase in length is immediately
used for more load space and, once again, the driver has to take his
chances. Indeed, some designs deliberately squeeze the driver into as
small a space as possible, with a sleeper pod overhead, to maximise
profit.

The only cure would be for regulations to specify maximum payload
length within a more generous overall length but, even then, watch for
enterprising manufacturers bending the rules somehow.

George

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:37:49 +0000

Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>On 08/11/2011 09:56, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
>> Nick Finnigan<n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
>>>
>>> ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.
>>
>> You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And the
>> reason for that would be crash injuries.
>
> No, most people who die in a fire are fully capacitated.

In a house fire I suspect most people who die are overcome by smoke. In a
vehicle fire it will be injuries or concussion. Either way , neither are
fully capacitated (if thats even a valid phrase).

>>> Trucks have the same crash effectiveness as cars.
>>
>> A tank has better crash effectiveness
>
> No, it doesn't.

Really? So you think if a 60 ton challenger tank and an HGV had a head on
the HGV would come out of it better do you?

You're an idiot.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:24:02 -0800 (PST)
furnessvale <furne...@aol.com> wrote:
>The only cure would be for regulations to specify maximum payload
>length within a more generous overall length but, even then, watch for

I think thats how it works in the USA isn't it?

B2003

[furnessvale]

On Nov 9, 10:15 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 01:24:02 -0800 (PST)
>

> furnessvale <furnessv...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The only cure would be for regulations to specify maximum payload
> >length within a more generous overall length but, even then, watch for
>
> I think thats how it works in the USA isn't it?
>
> B2003

I would say almost certainly, otherwise some of those sleeper rigs
would be history.

George

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:19:54 -0800 (PST)
furnessvale <furne...@aol.com> wrote:

Yes, they are exceptionally long. Watching ice road truckers I noticed that
some of the tractors were almost as long as the trailer. You have to wonder
how they can justify hauling around all that dead weight. Surely even in the
US fuel consumption must be an issue for truckers.

B2003

[NM]

On Nov 9, 10:13 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:37:49 +0000
>
> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:

> >On 08/11/2011 09:56, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> >> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
> >> Nick Finnigan<n...@genie.co.uk>  wrote:

> >>> On 07/11/2011 16:15, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> >>>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
>
> >>>   ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.
>
> >> You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And the
> >> reason for that would be crash injuries.
>
> >  No, most people who die in a fire are fully capacitated.
>
> In a house fire I suspect most people who die are overcome by smoke. In a
> vehicle fire it will be injuries or concussion. Either way , neither are
> fully capacitated (if thats even a valid phrase).
>
> >>>   Trucks have the same crash effectiveness as cars.
>
> >> A tank has better crash effectiveness
>
> >  No, it doesn't.
>
> Really? So you think if a 60 ton challenger tank and an HGV had a head on
> the HGV would come out of it better do you?
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> B2003

I would expect them both to be damaged/dead. similar top speeds, 44
tonnes against 60 tonnes, nobody is going to walk away. The tank will
probably deform less due to it's construction but the deceleration
forces will do the damage.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:45:52 -0800 (PST)
NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>I would expect them both to be damaged/dead. similar top speeds, 44
>tonnes against 60 tonnes, nobody is going to walk away. The tank will
>probably deform less due to it's construction but the deceleration
>forces will do the damage.

Wrong. The tank will have some scratched paintwork, the HGV will be scrap
and most of the front will probably be wrapped around the tank. Do you
honestly think that something built to withstand being hit by a depleted
uranium round doing the speed of sound is going to be the slightest bit
damaged by hitting a lorry?

If that doesn't convince you then you might want to consider what happens when
locomotives and HGVs have had a coming together then extrapolate that to the
truck hitting something built even stronger than a loco.

B2003

[The Revd]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:53:19 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

Not a good analogy. Kinetic energy, which is a function of speed, is
the primary force involved in interactions between HGVs and
locomotives.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:13:47 -0500
The Revd <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
>Not a good analogy. Kinetic energy, which is a function of speed, is
>the primary force involved in interactions between HGVs and
>locomotives.

A train loses very little energy when it hits an obstruction like a vehicle
so thats irrelevant. The point is that the locomotives usually end up virtually
undamaged even though the forces on both vehicles at the point of impact will
be the same.

B2003

[The Revd]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:35:12 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

But it's the kinetic energy of the locomotive that does the damage to
whatever it hits. A slow moving tank, which not only moves slower but
weighs less, will not have the same impact.

[Clive George]

On 09/11/2011 10:53, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:45:52 -0800 (PST)
> NM<nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>> I would expect them both to be damaged/dead. similar top speeds, 44
>> tonnes against 60 tonnes, nobody is going to walk away. The tank will
>> probably deform less due to it's construction but the deceleration
>> forces will do the damage.
>
> Wrong. The tank will have some scratched paintwork, the HGV will be scrap
> and most of the front will probably be wrapped around the tank. Do you
> honestly think that something built to withstand being hit by a depleted
> uranium round doing the speed of sound is going to be the slightest bit
> damaged by hitting a lorry?

But a crumple zone isn't there to protect the vehicle, it's there to
protect the people in it.

So while the tank might be rather less bent, the occupants may still be
broken because they'll have been stoppped rather suddenly. Which is what
NM said.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:12:14 +0000
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>So while the tank might be rather less bent, the occupants may still be
>broken because they'll have been stoppped rather suddenly. Which is what
>NM said.

Thats also what I said many posts ago where this crumple zone topic arose
in that I wouldn't want to be in a tank that hit an immovable object at 30mph.
But the tank would use the truck as its crumple zone.

B2003

[NM]

On Nov 9, 11:35 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:13:47 -0500
>

the centre of gravity of the train is considerably higher than the
vehicle.

[NM]

On Nov 9, 10:53 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:45:52 -0800 (PST)
>

if you have 44 tonnes at 56 mph into 60tonnes at 55 mph are you saying
all that energy is dissapated solely in deformation of the truck, the
tank would be sufficiently shocked to put a lethal amount of
deceleration on it's occupants.

[Nightjar]

On 08/11/2011 14:38, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:03:40 +0000
> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> Have you actually sat in a lorry with a long bonnet? There might be a
>
> Yes I have, back in the 90s at a fair in the DC. Though to be honest I
> can't remember much of what the view was like. I do remember the interior
> and controls looked like they had been flown in from the 1960s.
>
>> blind spot very close to a forward control vehicle, but the blind spot
>> on a lorry with a bonnet is very much larger.
>
> Possibly larger overall, but you'd have more chance of seeing a car sticking
> out from the side.

Not that much more likely. It would be better to have forward control
and something like ultrasound parking detectors to warn the driver if a
car has cut in close ahead of the cab.

>> Particularly when you want to have a different body for a different use,
>> which is something bus manufacturers have to take into account.
>
> That doesn't seem to put off manufacturers of train carriages from using
> monocoque designs.

There are other considerations with railway carriages, in particular the
behaviour of a chassis if the couplings fail in an accident. That is not
a problem with buses and coaches, but they do have to allow for all
sorts of coach builders to fit their own, often quite different, bodies.

>> Nevertheless, lorries built to the existing voluntary standards do have
>> higher occupant survivability.
>
> Than US bonneted trucks?

The EC papers don't say but, given that they have several disadvantages
over forward control cabs, I suspect they were not considered.

>
>> However, the laws of physics mean that a lorry is far less likely to
>> come to an abrupt stop. It is more probable that the cab will be crushed
>> before the deceleration becomes significant. In any case, lorry cabs are
>
> Well yes, and Terry Trucker is at the front of said cab. Not the best
> scenario really.

The occupants are usually sitting far enough back for there to be a
useful deceleration zone available.

> I would have thought far better if there was a few metres
> of bonnet to crumple first before it got to the cab.

Except, of course, that long bonnet will be on a chassis and will not
crumple.

In overall terms, being an occupant in a lorry is one of the safest
places to be in an accident, so this is not a pressing need. In my view,
it would be far more useful to fit lorries with radar collision
detectors, which would slow the vehicle if there was an obstruction
ahead and ensure that they kept to safe following distances. Not only
would that improve the survivability of the lorry occupants, it would
greatly improve the chances of anyone in a smaller vehicle ahead of it.

Colin Bignell

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:53:01 -0800 (PST)
NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>if you have 44 tonnes at 56 mph into 60tonnes at 55 mph are you saying
>all that energy is dissapated solely in deformation of the truck, the

Pretty much. You're talking about probably 10cm thick high grade steel armour
vs a couple of chassis rails and a whatever tin or plastic the cab is
made of. I suspect the tank would simply tear the cab off the truck, crush
the chassis and most of the energy would be lost as it mangles the trailer.

>tank would be sufficiently shocked to put a lethal amount of
>deceleration on it's occupants.

Maybe.

This truck was hit by a locomotive head on. Not much left of it really is
there?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=321tf4EBA-E

And this was the damage to the loco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAdXLw63DwY

A few bent panels and scratched paint.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:07:26 +0000
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>There are other considerations with railway carriages, in particular the
>behaviour of a chassis if the couplings fail in an accident. That is not
>a problem with buses and coaches, but they do have to allow for all
>sorts of coach builders to fit their own, often quite different, bodies.

Why do we still have coachbuilders in the 21st century? Why don't volvo or
scania or whoever just build the entire bus and let the customer decide the
interior layout, the same that its done for aircraft?

B2003

[Nick Finnigan]

On 09/11/2011 10:13, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:37:49 +0000
> Nick Finnigan<n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2011 09:56, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:23:50 +0000
>>> Nick Finnigan<n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>>>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder
>>>>
>>>> ... probably the M5 fire rather than the M5 crash.
>>>
>>> You only die in a fire if you're too incapacitated to get out. And the
>>> reason for that would be crash injuries.
>>
>> No, most people who die in a fire are fully capacitated.
>
> In a house fire I suspect most people who die are overcome by smoke. In a
> vehicle fire it will be injuries or concussion. Either way , neither are
> fully capacitated (if thats even a valid phrase).

Most people who die in a fire are fully capacitated before they are
affected by the fire and its associated smoke.

>>>> Trucks have the same crash effectiveness as cars.
>>>
>>> A tank has better crash effectiveness
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>
> Really? So you think if a 60 ton challenger tank and an HGV had a head on
> the HGV would come out of it better do you?

To measure crash effectiveness you need to pick on something your own
size, and measure the survivability for occupants. e.g. Would you rather
hit a challenger tank whilst in another tank or a HGV?

[NM]

On Nov 9, 4:03 pm, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:53:01 -0800 (PST)
>

The truck and the train didn't meet head on at the same or similar
speeds did they, thus your comparison is invalid.

[NM]

Scania and Volvo's production trucks are not yet pressurised.

[Nightjar]

What do they build, double deckers, single deckers, full size buses,
midibuses, minibuses, service buses, coaches, or rolling hotels, just to
mention a few, quite different options?

Colin Bignell

[Dr Zoidberg]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:9hqhhn...@mid.individual.net...

> On 07/11/2011 16:15, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> Given the news that 2 lorry drivers have died in the M5 crash I do wonder

>> if the cab over style of lorry we get in europe is intrinsically unsafe
>> in
>> a crash compared to the bonneted vehicles they have in the USA. Surely
>> its
>> common sense that if you have 2 metres of bonnet in front of you to
>> crumple
>> in a crash with another truck you're going to come off a lot better than
>> in a euro cab where the crumple zone consists of a windscreen and your
>> legs?
>

> Surely, in a real sense, it's better for the driver to have the biggest
> possible incentive not to crash into anything?
>
That was a clarkson idea - remove airbags on the steering wheel and replace
them with a metal spike!

--
Alex

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 17:12:31 +0000
Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>> In a house fire I suspect most people who die are overcome by smoke. In a
>> vehicle fire it will be injuries or concussion. Either way , neither are
>> fully capacitated (if thats even a valid phrase).
>
> Most people who die in a fire are fully capacitated before they are
>affected by the fire and its associated smoke.

So in effect people are fine until they're not. Yeah , thanks for that
genius insight sherlock.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:14:54 -0800 (PST)
NM <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D321tf4EBA-E

>>
>> And this was the damage to the loco:
>>

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzAdXLw63DwY

>>
>> A few bent panels and scratched paint.
>>
>> B2003
>
>The truck and the train didn't meet head on at the same or similar
>speeds did they, thus your comparison is invalid.

I suggest you read the blurb. The truck had rail wheels and was working
on the same line that the train hit it on.

B2003

[bolta...@boltar.world]

Why not all of the above? Car manufacturers manage to produce numerous
different models so why is it so hard to do for buses? They could produce
half a dozen basic formats and then its fitted out inside to the customers
spec. Whats the problem?

B2003

[Clive]

In message <j9besv$40p$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
writes

>Well yes, and Terry Trucker is at the front of said cab. Not the best

>scenario really. I would have thought far better if there was a few metres

>of bonnet to crumple first before it got to the cab.

Why not just make it illegal to tailgate and lay down a fixed distance
between HGVs and all other vehicles as well as other HGVs.
--
Clive

[Nightjar]

On 10/11/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:26:52 +0000
> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 09/11/2011 16:08, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:07:26 +0000
>>> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> There are other considerations with railway carriages, in particular the
>>>> behaviour of a chassis if the couplings fail in an accident. That is not
>>>> a problem with buses and coaches, but they do have to allow for all
>>>> sorts of coach builders to fit their own, often quite different, bodies.
>>>
>>> Why do we still have coachbuilders in the 21st century? Why don't volvo or
>>> scania or whoever just build the entire bus and let the customer decide the
>>> interior layout, the same that its done for aircraft?
>>
>> What do they build, double deckers, single deckers, full size buses,
>> midibuses, minibuses, service buses, coaches, or rolling hotels, just to
>> mention a few, quite different options?
>
> Why not all of the above? Car manufacturers manage to produce numerous
> different models so why is it so hard to do for buses?

Because the car manufacturers do it by having hugely expensive fully
computerised production lines that simply cannot be justified for the
volume of sales that a bus manufacturer will see.

Colin Bignell

[Clive George]

On 10/11/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:

> Why not all of the above? Car manufacturers manage to produce numerous
> different models so why is it so hard to do for buses? They could produce
> half a dozen basic formats and then its fitted out inside to the customers
> spec. Whats the problem?

I suspect there's a reason that the people building busses make money
doing so and you don't : they know what works.

Even car manufacturers outsource body manufacture for rarer model
shapes, eg some estate cars.

If it was economically worthwhile for volvo etc to build more complete
busses, they'd do so, but the fact they don't tells me they don't
consider it to be worth it. The only alternative is corruption, and this
doesn't feel like an area the Mafia would have a big hand in.

[NM]

On Nov 10, 12:47 pm, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j9besv$40...@speranza.aioe.org>, boltar2...@boltar.world

> writes>Well yes, and Terry Trucker is at the front of said cab. Not the best
> >scenario really. I would have thought far better if there was a few metres
> >of bonnet to crumple first before it got to the cab.
>
> Why not just make it illegal to tailgate and lay down a fixed distance
> between HGVs and all other vehicles as well as other HGVs.
> --
> Clive

Exactly how would that be policed?

[NM]

On Nov 10, 9:43 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:26:52 +0000
>
>
>
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

> >On 09/11/2011 16:08, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:
> >> On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:07:26 +0000
> >> Nightjar<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>  wrote:
> >>> There are other considerations with railway carriages, in particular the
> >>> behaviour of a chassis if the couplings fail in an accident. That is not
> >>> a problem with buses and coaches, but they do have to allow for all
> >>> sorts of coach builders to fit their own, often quite different, bodies.
>
> >> Why do we still have coachbuilders in the 21st century? Why don't volvo or
> >> scania or whoever just build the entire bus and let the customer decide the
> >> interior layout, the same that its done for aircraft?
>
> >What do they build, double deckers, single deckers, full size buses,
> >midibuses, minibuses, service buses, coaches, or rolling hotels, just to
> >mention a few, quite different options?
>
> Why not all of the above? Car manufacturers manage to produce numerous
> different models so why is it so hard to do for buses? They could produce
> half a dozen basic formats and then its fitted out inside to the customers
> spec. Whats the problem?

Then law of diminishing returns probably.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:45:53 +0000
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10/11/2011 09:43, bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> Why not all of the above? Car manufacturers manage to produce numerous
>> different models so why is it so hard to do for buses? They could produce
>> half a dozen basic formats and then its fitted out inside to the customers
>> spec. Whats the problem?
>
>I suspect there's a reason that the people building busses make money
>doing so and you don't : they know what works.

Or its easy to just keep doing what you've been doing for 100 years.

>If it was economically worthwhile for volvo etc to build more complete
>busses, they'd do so, but the fact they don't tells me they don't
>consider it to be worth it. The only alternative is corruption, and this
>doesn't feel like an area the Mafia would have a big hand in.

Well apparently its economical for them to build their own truck cabs.
Why don't they let coachbuilders build them?

B2003

[Nightjar]

Mandatory radar fitted to each lorry. It would be able to adjust the
safe follow distance to suit the vehicle speed and slow the vehicle down
even for unseen obstructions. The only problem with the system is that
the safe follow distance is often a lot bigger than many drivers like to
see left empty.

Colin Bignell

[Clive]

In message <j9heaq$8i6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
writes

>Well apparently its economical for them to build their own truck cabs.
>Why don't they let coachbuilders build them?

When Bristol buses were driven to ECW, the driver was sat on a seat on
the chassis in the open air.
--
Clive

[Clive]

In message
<54aefce9-e919-4e04...@s5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, NM
<nik.m...@mac.com> writes

>Exactly how would that be policed?

If you can measure the speed of vehicles, you can also time the
distances between them.
--
Clive

[Nightjar]

You can only make it mandatory if the driver has some way to measure the
distance, in which case you may as well use that to give automatic
control of the minimum distance.

Colin Bignell

[NM]

On Nov 10, 9:19 pm, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
wrote:

Such safe distance on a motorway will instantly be filled by a car,
then the lorry will drop back so the next car fills the gap
etc.etc.etc. suddenly hours are added on to a journey pushing up
costs. Leaving aside the cost of such radar It could work if all
vehicles were fitted with it not just one type.

[NM]

On Nov 11, 1:35 am, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 10/11/2011 23:34, Clive wrote:
>
> > In message

> > <54aefce9-e919-4e04-a47e-b97991b8a...@s5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, NM
> > <nik.mor...@mac.com> writes

> >> On Nov 10, 12:47 pm, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In message <j9besv$40...@speranza.aioe.org>, boltar2...@boltar.world
> >>> writes>Well yes, and Terry Trucker is at the front of said cab. Not
> >>> the best
> >>> >scenario really. I would have thought far better if there was a few
> >>> metres
> >>> >of bonnet to crumple first before it got to the cab.
> >>> Why not just make it illegal to tailgate and lay down a fixed distance
> >>> between HGVs and all other vehicles as well as other HGVs.
> >> Exactly how would that be policed?
> > If you can measure the speed of vehicles, you can also time the
> > distances between them.
>
> You can only make it mandatory if the driver has some way to measure the
> distance, in which case you may as well use that to give automatic
> control of the minimum distance.
>
> Colin Bignell

These type of vehicles already exist and they have proved singularly
unsuccessful at moving freight, known as trains.

[NM]

On Nov 10, 11:32 pm, Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <j9heaq$8i...@speranza.aioe.org>, boltar2...@boltar.world

> writes>Well apparently its economical for them to build their own truck cabs.
> >Why don't they let coachbuilders build them?
>
> When  Bristol buses were driven to ECW, the driver was sat on a seat on
> the chassis in the open air.
> --
> Clive

I remember them, quite common in the fifties would not be allowed now
I suspect, 'elf and safe tea innit.

[Nightjar]

Mainly because of the intransigence of the rail unions whenever any
change was suggested, particularly containerisation in the 1960s.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

IME of using the system on my car, it is not so much of a problem as you
suggest. I only suffer a drop in speed if the car cuts in so close that
it is picked up by the short range radar. The system ignores vehicles in
the long range zone that are moving faster than me, which is usually the
case if they have just overtaken.

As for cost, on a Mercedes E class, a package including the radar, plus
blind spot warning, plus lane keeping warning, plus automatic emergency
braking, is £2,345. I suspect it would be a lot less if it were in much
wider use and sold by someone else.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

I saw a chassis being driven that way only a few years ago. According to
the placard on the back, it was a fire engine chassis being delivered.

Colin Bignell

[furnessvale]

> unsuccessful at moving freight, known as trains.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In historical terms you are talking about a comparatively short period
when lorries were in the ascendence. Recent developments see the
trend going the other way, although, before you say it, lorries move
the majority of freight (ie in excess of 50% measured by tonnekms),
and will continue to do so for some considerable time.

George

[NM]

Using tonne/kms as a measure will always show trains at their best,
they excel at shifting bulk cargo between fixed points, like coal to
power stations, etc. and bulk exports to the docks, these generally
weigh a lot and travel usually long distances thus producing a skew in
favour of the train when viewed by this method.

Only the most rose tinted spectacled train enthusiast will argue that
rail will ever regain the position it had before the fifties.

[Nightjar]

On 11/11/2011 10:50, damdu...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:09:52 +0000, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2011 05:14, NM wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 11:32 pm, Clive<cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When Bristol buses were driven to ECW, the driver was sat on a seat on
>>>> the chassis in the open air.
>
>>>

>>> I remember them, quite common in the fifties would not be allowed now
>>> I suspect, 'elf and safe tea innit.
>>
>> I saw a chassis being driven that way only a few years ago. According to
>> the placard on the back, it was a fire engine chassis being delivered.
>

> On the last ones I saw about 10 years ago the drivers were kittted
> out in normal motorcyclist Kit including full face helmets which would
> seem to provide good protection against weather and small debri like
> grit and insects, a step up from an old cloth cap, scarf and maybe
> some goggles that you used to see.

That was probably the motorcyclist gear of the day too. I wonder if
there was a motorbike, strapped to the chassis somewhere, to get home on.

Colin Bignell

[Clive]

In message <ds2dnVci8Oj0fyHT...@giganews.com>, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> writes

>Mainly because of the intransigence of the rail unions whenever any
>change was suggested, particularly containerisation in the 1960s.

This is rubbish, I was with ASLEF&C at this time and the union had been
very moderate in it's use of restricting labour. However the whole
thing turned around when "Donaldson" (Later to become, Master of the
Rolls?) of the Industrial Relations Tribunal ruled that it was illegal
to work to rule, this put us in the illegal position of being in the
wrong when working correctly and in the wrong when working normally.
This ruling was overturned within a week or so by a higher court but
because it was such a disgusting attack by a government on normally
reasonable workers that since then the union became very militant, and
rightly so in my opinion from a personal perspective of being involved
at the time.
--
Clive

[Nightjar]

I don't think moderate is a term that comes to mind for any major union
of the time. However, my point is that they were taking action at all;
Instead of embracing the opportunity to bring additional traffic onto
the railways, they ensured it would end up on the roads. The rail unions
seemed only to see improved efficiency as pointer towards reduced
staffing levels, instead of seeing which ones might bring in more
business, thus safeguarding the jobs of their members. It is the lack of
foresight in their decisions that I criticise.

Colin Bignell

[NM]

On Nov 11, 3:46 pm, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
wrote:

This ruling
> > was overturned within a week or so by a higher court but because it was
> > such a disgusting attack by a government on normally reasonable workers
> > that since then the union became very militant, and rightly so in my
> > opinion from a personal perspective of being involved at the time.

I don't recall at any point during that period the activities of the
unions being those of normally reasonable workers.

[Clive]

In message
<00248774-c31d-4c00...@t8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, NM
<nik.m...@mac.com> writes

>I don't recall at any point during that period the activities of the
>unions being those of normally reasonable workers.

Were you a footplateman in the ASLEF&C at the time? It never appeared
in the press, but is correct.
--
Clive

[furnessvale]

On Nov 11, 10:38 am, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:

> Using tonne/kms as a measure will always show trains at their best,
> they excel at shifting bulk cargo between fixed points, like coal to
> power stations, etc. and bulk exports to the docks, these generally
> weigh a lot and travel usually long distances thus producing a skew in
> favour of the train when viewed by this method.

Your "skew in favour of trains" is the only sensible measure of
transport unless you believe that a tonne carried one km has exactly
the same value as tonne carried 1000kms

> Only the most rose tinted spectacled train enthusiast will argue that
> rail will ever regain the position it had before the fifties.

True, which is why I added my comment and do not wear such spectacles.

George

[Clive]

In message <j9b29b$2br$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
writes
>But certainly in cars sure - though even
>then the car would have to be pretty comprehensively crushed for there to be
>no escape route
My daughter hit another car and pushed the headlight back about six
inches, it was enough to jamb her door shut, she had to climb over the
centre consol and get out of the passenger side. (K reg VW Polo.)
--
Clive

[dr6092]

On Nov 8, 9:53 am, boltar2...@boltar.world wrote:

> Increasing strength isn't always what you want. Cars could be made completely
> crushproof and survive any head on but the decelleration forces on the
> occupants would certainly kill them.

The zone between the wheels does not crush until the forces have
already killed you.

[Cargo-Girl]

>
> Are lorry drivers *supposed* to drive their lorries at 56 mph in fog so thick
> that they can't stop within the distance they can see to be clear?


NO !