Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why the speed difference between buses and lorries?
1,254 views
Skip to first unread message
ne...@the.shed
Aug 12, 2013, 8:40:06 AM8/12/13
to
I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70? If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow? As a car driver I'd much
prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of mobile
roadblocks on the motorways.
NJR
trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70? If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow? As a car driver I'd much
prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of mobile
roadblocks on the motorways.
NJR
Mark Goodge
Aug 12, 2013, 10:21:41 AM8/12/13
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:40:06 +0000 (UTC), ne...@the.shed put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
>trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70?
Because bus passengers have a choice, but fifty pallets of washing machines
don't.
Or, to put it another way, buses weren't restricted because it was felt
that doing so would be likely to discourage people from using them and
cause them to favour driving instead. But freight can't go by car, so
making all freight go a bit slower isn't going to result in any modal shift
away from HGVs.
>If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
>crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
>potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow?
The original reason for the EU limit was nothing to do with safety, it's to
do with reducing fuel consumption. The UK government at the time spun it as
a safety measure, partly bcause they felt it would be more palatable to the
public and partly because there have recently been some well-publicised HGV
crashes and the limit could, conveniently, be put forward as something
being done.
>As a car driver I'd much
>prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of mobile
>roadblocks on the motorways.
So, I think, would most drivers.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
keyboard and typed:
>I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
>trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70?
don't.
Or, to put it another way, buses weren't restricted because it was felt
that doing so would be likely to discourage people from using them and
cause them to favour driving instead. But freight can't go by car, so
making all freight go a bit slower isn't going to result in any modal shift
away from HGVs.
>If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
>crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
>potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow?
do with reducing fuel consumption. The UK government at the time spun it as
a safety measure, partly bcause they felt it would be more palatable to the
public and partly because there have recently been some well-publicised HGV
crashes and the limit could, conveniently, be put forward as something
being done.
>As a car driver I'd much
>prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of mobile
>roadblocks on the motorways.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
PJK
Aug 12, 2013, 11:13:05 AM8/12/13
to
Peter.
ne...@the.shed
Aug 12, 2013, 2:48:00 PM8/12/13
to
followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
google it.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Aug 12, 2013, 2:50:20 PM8/12/13
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:21:41 +0100
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
>>crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
>>potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow?
>
>The original reason for the EU limit was nothing to do with safety, it's to
>do with reducing fuel consumption. The UK government at the time spun it as
>a safety measure, partly bcause they felt it would be more palatable to the
>public and partly because there have recently been some well-publicised HGV
>crashes and the limit could, conveniently, be put forward as something
>being done.
Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about HGV
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
>>crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
>>potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow?
>
>The original reason for the EU limit was nothing to do with safety, it's to
>do with reducing fuel consumption. The UK government at the time spun it as
>a safety measure, partly bcause they felt it would be more palatable to the
>public and partly because there have recently been some well-publicised HGV
>crashes and the limit could, conveniently, be put forward as something
>being done.
fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end would be a
damn sight more effective.
NJR
JNugent
Aug 12, 2013, 3:21:14 PM8/12/13
to
On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
lorry in the overtaking lane between (say) 06:00 and (say) 22:00.
A bit more creatively, it could also be made an offence for the driver
of a lorry which is being overtaken by another lorry not to slow to let
the overtaker back into the nearside lane straightaway.
I suggest six penalty points either way, to reflect the danger of
rear-end collision.
PJK
Aug 12, 2013, 3:28:08 PM8/12/13
to
56mph for trucks. They are limited to a set speed of 85kph and a
stabilised speed of 90kph by their speed limiters. This equates to
56mph despite the fact that the speed limit for that class of vehicle is
60mph on a motorway. Similarly a coach must have a speed limiter fitted
limiting it to a speed of 100kph or 62mph. The speed limits which apply
on a motorway are 60mph for a vehicle of over 12 mtrs in length and 70
mph up to 12 mtrs. Irrespective of speed limits the speed limiter will
prevent speeds over 100 kph under normal circumstances. I don't need to
Google it to know this.
Peter.
Nightjar
Aug 12, 2013, 3:59:16 PM8/12/13
to
On 12/08/2013 19:48, ne...@the.shed wrote:
are specified in multiples of 10 kph. Therefore, although HGVs are speed
limited to 90 kph (56 mph), to comply with EU Directives, their legal
speed limit on UK motorways is 60mph - the next higher multiple of 10
mph. Similarly, PSVs are speed limited to 100 kph (62 mph) but, to allow
them to do that legally, their motorway speed limit is the next higher
multiple of 10 mph i.e. 70mph.
Colin Bignell
Adrian
Aug 12, 2013, 5:25:43 PM8/12/13
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:50:20 +0000, neil wrote:
> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about
> HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end
> would be a damn sight more effective.
You either forget or are unaware that there are length restrictions on
> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about
> HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end
> would be a damn sight more effective.
trucks. Make the front longer, you have to recoup that length somewhere.
Which means less load space.
B'sides, do you not think the manufacturers might have thought of that
already?
John Williamson
Aug 12, 2013, 6:00:39 PM8/12/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> In what country? Not on UK motorways where their limit is 70. Anyone who's
> followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
> google it.
>
The speed limit on a motorway for a PCV is 70 mph. All PCVs that are of
> In what country? Not on UK motorways where their limit is 70. Anyone who's
> followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
> google it.
>
an age likely to be in regular use *must* have a road speed limiter
fitted set to a speed no higher than 100kph.
It is possible and legal for a coach to be travelling downhill at 70
mph, but as soon at the road starts rising or is flat again, the speed
will drop.
NatEx follow the same rules as the rest of us, and in my 35 years of
driving coaches in the UK and abroad, I've *never* know a NatEx coach to
exceed the legally required set speed by more than a couple of miles per
hour, unless he's been driving down a steep motorway bank such as the on
on the M40 North of High Wycombe. Even in the days before limiters, in
my experience they very rarely broke the motorway speed limits.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Graham Harrison
Aug 12, 2013, 6:48:14 PM8/12/13
to
"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:b6sqtg...@mid.individual.net...
JNugent
Aug 12, 2013, 7:20:00 PM8/12/13
to
Message has been deleted
stephen
Aug 13, 2013, 6:49:44 AM8/13/13
to
On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 08:27:50 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
I think cars should be limited and be confined to the inside two lanes and coaches unlimited and allowed to use all lanes, that would encourage modal shift!
I think cars should be limited and be confined to the inside two lanes and coaches unlimited and allowed to use all lanes, that would encourage modal shift!
Nightjar
Aug 13, 2013, 9:03:42 AM8/13/13
to
On 13/08/2013 11:49, stephen wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 08:27:50 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
>
> I think cars should be limited and be confined to the inside two lanes and coaches unlimited and allowed to use all lanes, that would encourage modal shift!
>
Well, on Top Gear, James May was promoting the benefits of driving a bus
> On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 08:27:50 UTC+1, Huge wrote:
>
> I think cars should be limited and be confined to the inside two lanes and coaches unlimited and allowed to use all lanes, that would encourage modal shift!
>
for personal transport.
Colin Bignell
Mentalguy2k8
Aug 13, 2013, 10:34:39 AM8/13/13
to
"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b6t48b...@mid.individual.net...
> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> In what country? Not on UK motorways where their limit is 70. Anyone
>> who's
>> followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
>> google it.
>>
> The speed limit on a motorway for a PCV is 70 mph. All PCVs that are of an
> age likely to be in regular use *must* have a road speed limiter fitted
> set to a speed no higher than 100kph.
National Express must be buying their speed limiters from a different
>> In what country? Not on UK motorways where their limit is 70. Anyone
>> who's
>> followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
>> google it.
>>
> The speed limit on a motorway for a PCV is 70 mph. All PCVs that are of an
> age likely to be in regular use *must* have a road speed limiter fitted
> set to a speed no higher than 100kph.
supplier than every other coach company then! Either that or their drivers
are overriding the limiters somehow.
On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly doing
~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone else up on
uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There is no way they (the
ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph. I concede that downhill they're liable
to exceed their limiter but you simply can't maintain that speed on a flat
stretch with a working limiter, it won't let you. Especially with the weight
and wind resistance of a coach.
I can't recall seeing any other coach doing that kind of speed, it's always
the National Express ones. Presumably there's some kind of penalty for not
getting somewhere quick enough.
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 10:41:05 AM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:34:39 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
> National Express must be buying their speed limiters from a different
> supplier than every other coach company then! Either that or their
> drivers are overriding the limiters somehow.
Considering that any vaguely recent coach will have the limiter as part
> National Express must be buying their speed limiters from a different
> supplier than every other coach company then! Either that or their
> drivers are overriding the limiters somehow.
of the engine management, and every coach - as HGV - has to have the
limiter checked and recalibrated regularly, it's very unlikely.
> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly doing
> ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone else up on
> uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There is no way they
> (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
Mentalguy2k8
Aug 13, 2013, 10:47:00 AM8/13/13
to
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 10:49:54 AM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:47:00 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone else
>>> up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There is no
>>> way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>> What are you basing this on?
>
> Which bit?
The claims that they are regularly exceeding 62 & 70mph.
>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone else
>>> up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There is no
>>> way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>> What are you basing this on?
>
> Which bit?
Mentalguy2k8
Aug 13, 2013, 10:57:08 AM8/13/13
to
news:kudh2i$vt$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
Message has been deleted
Steve Firth
Aug 13, 2013, 11:16:12 AM8/13/13
to
bozo?
BTW thank for the confirmation that you infest Cosham.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 11:32:51 AM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:57:08 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone
>>>>> else up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There
>>>>> is no way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>>>> What are you basing this on?
>>> Which bit?
>> The claims that they are regularly exceeding 62 & 70mph.
> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
> regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
Once again, but rephrased... How do you _know_ they are?
>>>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone
>>>>> else up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There
>>>>> is no way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>>>> What are you basing this on?
>>> Which bit?
>> The claims that they are regularly exceeding 62 & 70mph.
> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
> regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
Mentalguy2k8
Aug 13, 2013, 11:35:32 AM8/13/13
to
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1293663061398099312.702142%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org...
your car lately?
You can contact your local nick on 0845 045 4545 if you want to grass anyone
up.
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 11:38:10 AM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:07:03 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Is no one checking the tachos ?
That's just one of the many failings in MG's theory...
> Is no one checking the tachos ?
That's just one of the many failings in MG's theory...
Mentalguy2k8
Aug 13, 2013, 11:38:41 AM8/13/13
to
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 11:39:37 AM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:38:41 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>>>>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone
>>>>>>> else up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes.
>>>>>>> There is no way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>>>>>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>>>>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone
>>>>>>> else up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes.
>>>>>>> There is no way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>>> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who
>>> was regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
>> Once again, but rephrased... How do you _know_ they are?
> Boring!
Riiiiight. Gotcha. Thank you for providing such overwhelming and
>>> was regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
>> Once again, but rephrased... How do you _know_ they are?
> Boring!
compelling evidence.
Nightjar
Aug 13, 2013, 11:53:24 AM8/13/13
to
limiter could be set at anything up to 107kph ~ 66mph. The car speedo
could be showing 70mph at anything from 58mph to 70mph.
Colin Bignell
Message has been deleted
Steve Firth
Aug 13, 2013, 12:03:52 PM8/13/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:57:08 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:57:08 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> Is no one checking the tachos ?
No one is checking MentalTwat's speedometer. It's permissible for it to
over read by 10% + 2mph. At 62 that means his speedo could read 62 + 6 + 2
= 70 mph.
Same goes for Bloater.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Steve Firth
Aug 13, 2013, 12:10:46 PM8/13/13
to
calibration limits of speedometers, noted. Just general stupidity, noted.
> You can contact your local nick on 0845 045 4545 if you want to grass anyone up.
tossers who use the term "grassing up". Usually accompanied by threats of
violence.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 12:47:42 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:56:22 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Assuming GPS-based speedo readings are better than inbuilt car ones
Massively.
> Assuming GPS-based speedo readings are better than inbuilt car ones
Massively.
Nightjar
Aug 13, 2013, 1:48:54 PM8/13/13
to
On 13/08/2013 17:03, Steve Firth wrote:
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:57:08 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kudh2i$vt$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:47:00 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>>>>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone
>>>>>>> else up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There
>>>>>>> is no way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>>>>
>>>>>> What are you basing this on?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which bit?
>>>>
>>>> The claims that they are regularly exceeding 62 & 70mph.
>>>
>>> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
>>> regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
>>
>> Is no one checking the tachos ?
>
> No one is checking MentalTwat's speedometer. It's permissible for it to
> over read by 10% + 2mph...
> Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:57:08 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>
>>> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kudh2i$vt$4...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:47:00 +0100, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly
>>>>>>> doing ~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone
>>>>>>> else up on uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There
>>>>>>> is no way they (the ones I've seen) are limited to 62mph.
>>>>
>>>>>> What are you basing this on?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which bit?
>>>>
>>>> The claims that they are regularly exceeding 62 & 70mph.
>>>
>>> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
>>> regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
>>
>> Is no one checking the tachos ?
>
> No one is checking MentalTwat's speedometer. It's permissible for it to
+ 10kph when I last checked = 6.25mph.
Colin Bignell
ne...@the.shed
Aug 13, 2013, 2:23:49 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:34:39 +0100
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:b6t48b...@mid.individual.net...
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> In what country? Not on UK motorways where their limit is 70. Anyone
>>> who's
>>> followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
>>> google it.
>>>
>> The speed limit on a motorway for a PCV is 70 mph. All PCVs that are of an
>> age likely to be in regular use *must* have a road speed limiter fitted
>> set to a speed no higher than 100kph.
>
>
>National Express must be buying their speed limiters from a different
>supplier than every other coach company then! Either that or their drivers
>are overriding the limiters somehow.
>
>On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly doing
>~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone else up on
>uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There is no way they (the
Yup. I've clocked plenty of them doing around 70 going by the sat nav speed
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:b6t48b...@mid.individual.net...
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> In what country? Not on UK motorways where their limit is 70. Anyone
>>> who's
>>> followed a Nat Exp bus in a hurry knows that but if you don't believe me
>>> google it.
>>>
>> The speed limit on a motorway for a PCV is 70 mph. All PCVs that are of an
>> age likely to be in regular use *must* have a road speed limiter fitted
>> set to a speed no higher than 100kph.
>
>
>National Express must be buying their speed limiters from a different
>supplier than every other coach company then! Either that or their drivers
>are overriding the limiters somehow.
>
>On the A3 between London and Portsmouth you can see them regularly doing
>~70mph on flat stretches, tailgating, then holding everyone else up on
>uphill stretches etc. Their drivers are arseholes. There is no way they (the
readout, never mind the car speedo. Anyone who thinks they're limited to
62 is deluded.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Aug 13, 2013, 2:26:16 PM8/13/13
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:25:43 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:50:20 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about
>> HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end
>> would be a damn sight more effective.
>
>You either forget or are unaware that there are length restrictions on
>trucks. Make the front longer, you have to recoup that length somewhere.
>Which means less load space.
Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could easily
slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
>B'sides, do you not think the manufacturers might have thought of that
>already?
Manufacturers will get away with building the cheapest design they can
get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square box.
NJR
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:50:20 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about
>> HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end
>> would be a damn sight more effective.
>
>You either forget or are unaware that there are length restrictions on
>trucks. Make the front longer, you have to recoup that length somewhere.
>Which means less load space.
Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could easily
slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
>B'sides, do you not think the manufacturers might have thought of that
>already?
Manufacturers will get away with building the cheapest design they can
get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square box.
NJR
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 2:35:55 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:26:16 +0000, neil wrote:
>>> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about
>>> HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end
>>> would be a damn sight more effective.
>>You either forget or are unaware that there are length restrictions on
>>trucks. Make the front longer, you have to recoup that length somewhere.
>>Which means less load space.
> Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could easily
> slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
Have you never noticed how many artic cabs have wind deflectors _on top_
>>> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something about
>>> HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the front end
>>> would be a damn sight more effective.
>>You either forget or are unaware that there are length restrictions on
>>trucks. Make the front longer, you have to recoup that length somewhere.
>>Which means less load space.
> Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could easily
> slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
of the cab, smoothing the airflow over the trailer?
B'sides, think about the lower rooflines of HGVs with day cabs rather
than sleepers. Do you think there might be a functional reason for that
taller roofline, p'raps related to the bed height in the back of the cab
over the engine?
>>B'sides, do you not think the manufacturers might have thought of that
>>already?
> Manufacturers will get away with building the cheapest design they can
> get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square box.
infinitessimal increase in manufacturing cost which results in a
significant reduction in running costs might, just p'raps, result in an
equally significant increase in market competitiveness and thereby sales
volume?
Do you deliberately keep reminding me regularly of Duhg, with his line
about his complete and utter ignorance of facts being an advantage in
allowing him "free thinking"?
You really ought to write to Mercedes, Scania, DAF or any of the other
big truck manufacturers - with you on board, in place of all those
useless tossers who currently staff their product planning and
aerodynamics teams, the entire market could be theirs so easily!
ne...@the.shed
Aug 13, 2013, 2:51:09 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:35:55 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:26:16 +0000, neil wrote:
>> Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could easily
>> slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
>
>Have you never noticed how many artic cabs have wind deflectors _on top_
>of the cab, smoothing the airflow over the trailer?
And what? A barn door with a wind deflector is still a barn door. Increase
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:26:16 +0000, neil wrote:
>> Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could easily
>> slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
>
>Have you never noticed how many artic cabs have wind deflectors _on top_
>of the cab, smoothing the airflow over the trailer?
the height of the cab but slope the front, much more efficient.
>B'sides, think about the lower rooflines of HGVs with day cabs rather
>than sleepers. Do you think there might be a functional reason for that
>taller roofline, p'raps related to the bed height in the back of the cab
>over the engine?
>> Manufacturers will get away with building the cheapest design they can
>> get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square box.
>
>Even if that was the case, which it isn't, then don't you think that an
Its amazing what you trolls can learn by correspondance course under
your bridges.
>infinitessimal increase in manufacturing cost which results in a
>significant reduction in running costs might, just p'raps, result in an
>equally significant increase in market competitiveness and thereby sales
>volume?
a whole new cab layout is pretty expensive so the price would be high and
it might not sell.
>Do you deliberately keep reminding me regularly of Duhg, with his line
>about his complete and utter ignorance of facts being an advantage in
>allowing him "free thinking"?
>You really ought to write to Mercedes, Scania, DAF or any of the other
>big truck manufacturers - with you on board, in place of all those
>useless tossers who currently staff their product planning and
>aerodynamics teams, the entire market could be theirs so easily!
mind :o)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-save-fuel-
and-lives.html
Oh but wait, thats a right wing paper , its obviously all bourgeois lies
designed to confuse the prolitariate road warriors.
NJR
Adrian
Aug 13, 2013, 3:06:11 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:51:09 +0000, neil wrote:
>>> Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could
>>> easily slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
>>Have you never noticed how many artic cabs have wind deflectors _on top_
>>of the cab, smoothing the airflow over the trailer?
> And what? A barn door with a wind deflector is still a barn door.
> Increase the height of the cab but slope the front, much more efficient.
Go and play with, f'rexample, the truck configuration tool on DAF's
>>> Bollocks. Whats the top of the cab used for? Nothing. They could
>>> easily slope the windscreen back over the top of the drivers head.
>>Have you never noticed how many artic cabs have wind deflectors _on top_
>>of the cab, smoothing the airflow over the trailer?
> And what? A barn door with a wind deflector is still a barn door.
> Increase the height of the cab but slope the front, much more efficient.
website. Both their "larger" ranges, CF and XF, offer a variety of cab
sizes. Only the largest has that big step above the windscreen.
Now look at the position of the steering wheel relative to that
windscreen, and an interior shot with the overhead console (well within
the driver's reach).
How much space is there to lose...?
>>B'sides, think about the lower rooflines of HGVs with day cabs rather
>>than sleepers. Do you think there might be a functional reason for that
>>taller roofline, p'raps related to the bed height in the back of the cab
>>over the engine?
> No. You ever been inside a cab? The bed is more or less seat level.
http://www.daf.com/ImageBank/low_resolution/25-New-XF-sleeping-
compartment-1.jpg
>>> Manufacturers will get away with building the cheapest design they can
>>> get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square box.
>>Even if that was the case, which it isn't, then don't you think that an
> Isn't it? Wow, now you're an expert in the design of trucks are you?
Go and look carefully at a line drawing of a truck cab. Now draw lots of
right angled lines on it.
>>infinitessimal increase in manufacturing cost which results in a
>>significant reduction in running costs might, just p'raps, result in an
>>equally significant increase in market competitiveness and thereby sales
>>volume?
> None of them will do anything until the others do.
> And I imagine
...this should be good...
> designing a whole new cab layout is pretty expensive so the price would
> be high and it might not sell.
>>Do you deliberately keep reminding me regularly of Duhg, with his line
>>about his complete and utter ignorance of facts being an advantage in
>>allowing him "free thinking"?
> Look up hypocrite - thats you.
infallibly right, and do everything I say they should"?
>>You really ought to write to Mercedes, Scania, DAF or any of the other
>>big truck manufacturers - with you on board, in place of all those
>>useless tossers who currently staff their product planning and
>>aerodynamics teams, the entire market could be theirs so easily!
> I do so love it when you walk right into it. Baby and candy springs to
> mind :o)
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-
> save-fuel-and-lives.html
>
> Oh but wait, thats a right wing paper , its obviously all bourgeois lies
> designed to confuse the prolitariate road warriors.
Para 1
"...thanks to new legislation"
Para 2
"New proposals for greater freedom in truck design"
Para 3
"The European Commission proposals would adapt the Weight and Dimensions
Directive to allow truck designers to create more rounded shapes and add
aerodynamic flaps. A current maximum combination length of 18.75 metres
would be increased, provided the increase is in the cab section."
ne...@the.shed
Aug 13, 2013, 3:58:14 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:06:11 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:51:09 +0000, neil wrote:
>Go and play with, f'rexample, the truck configuration tool on DAF's
>website. Both their "larger" ranges, CF and XF, offer a variety of cab
>sizes. Only the largest has that big step above the windscreen.
Thanks, but I don't need to play online, I've been in the real thing.
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:51:09 +0000, neil wrote:
>Go and play with, f'rexample, the truck configuration tool on DAF's
>website. Both their "larger" ranges, CF and XF, offer a variety of cab
>sizes. Only the largest has that big step above the windscreen.
>Now look at the position of the steering wheel relative to that
>windscreen, and an interior shot with the overhead console (well within
>the driver's reach).
>
>How much space is there to lose...?
as curved glass.
>> No. You ever been inside a cab? The bed is more or less seat level.
>
><cough>
>http://www.daf.com/ImageBank/low_resolution/25-New-XF-sleeping-
>compartment-1.jpg
wouldn't make any difference.
>> Isn't it? Wow, now you're an expert in the design of trucks are you?
>
>Here's a clue.
>Go and look carefully at a line drawing of a truck cab. Now draw lots of
>right angled lines on it.
Not very good at this are you Ade.
>> I do so love it when you walk right into it. Baby and candy springs to
>> mind :o)
>
><chuckle>
crap out of your arse when its so dark under that bridge.
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-
>> save-fuel-and-lives.html
>>
>> Oh but wait, thats a right wing paper , its obviously all bourgeois lies
>> designed to confuse the prolitariate road warriors.
>
>It's clearly got you confused for a start...
half a chance they could come up with something that would meet current
legislation. Too complex for you? Never mind.
NJR
Message has been deleted
John Williamson
Aug 13, 2013, 4:14:10 PM8/13/13
to
it must read no more than 10% higher than actual speed at 30mph. I have
checked a random selection over the years against measured miles using a
stopwatch, and found errors at 60 mph ranging from +7% (Most Fords) to a
Renault which over-read by 30%. All were legal.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
John Williamson
Aug 13, 2013, 4:18:08 PM8/13/13
to
operator giving them the registration number, and the time and location
of the alleged offence. The facts will very likely be checked, and it
will almost (As in 99% of the time) invariably be found that the law has
not been broken. On the other occasion, they will find a defect that
will be repaired within 7 days.
John Williamson
Aug 13, 2013, 4:27:30 PM8/13/13
to
constantly whinging about the fact that the coach they've been driving
that day will only do 99kph on the flat.
Just to clarify matters, I am a coach driver, so I *know* what speed
they will do from personal experience. The last time I drove one that
would exceed 70 mph on the flat was in about 1990.
Then compulsory speed limiters were introduced, and all coaches started
magically and annoyingly travelling at the new mandated maximum set
speed of 70mph, and when the limiters were required to be set at 65mph
and then 62mph, it only took a few months for all of them to be
adjusted, at which point we were all driving at the new limits.
Steve Firth
Aug 13, 2013, 5:02:11 PM8/13/13
to
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The only legal requirement for a car speedometer is that, when fitted, it
> must read no more than 10% higher than actual speed at 30mph. I have
> checked a random selection over the years against measured miles using a
> stopwatch, and found errors at 60 mph ranging from +7% (Most Fords) to a
> Renault which over-read by 30%. All were legal.
I'm sorry but that's not correct. I'm not sure if it ever was correct.
> The only legal requirement for a car speedometer is that, when fitted, it
> must read no more than 10% higher than actual speed at 30mph. I have
> checked a random selection over the years against measured miles using a
> stopwatch, and found errors at 60 mph ranging from +7% (Most Fords) to a
> Renault which over-read by 30%. All were legal.
C & U Regs 1986 refer to EU directive 75/443/EEC which states:
4.3.5. the vehicle is tested at the following three speeds : 40, 80 and 120
km/h, or 80 % of the maximum speed specified by the manufacturer, if this
is inferior to 150 km/h;
The speed tolerances permitted are that the speedometer cannot indicate a
speed lower than the true speed and must confirm to the 10%+2mph (actually
4 km/h) as I said previously.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1975:196:0001:0005:EN:PDF
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Mark Goodge
Aug 13, 2013, 5:45:16 PM8/13/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:51:09 +0000 (UTC), ne...@the.shed put finger to
keyboard and typed:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-save-fuel-
>and-lives.html
Which says, inter alia, that...
The European Commission proposals would adapt the Weight and Dimensions
Directive to allow truck designers to create more rounded shapes and add
aerodynamic flaps.
That rather supports the view that the reason it can't be done at the
moment is because it isn't practical within the current build regulations.
You will also note, if you care to read the article closely, that the
images which illustrate that article are from the manufacturers, who seem
to be a few years ahead of you when it comes to considering the
possibilities of more aerodynamic HGVs. What has been holding them back
from poutting their ideas into reality has not been a lack of technical
ability, but rather a lack of regulatory freedom.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
keyboard and typed:
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-save-fuel-
>and-lives.html
Which says, inter alia, that...
The European Commission proposals would adapt the Weight and Dimensions
Directive to allow truck designers to create more rounded shapes and add
aerodynamic flaps.
moment is because it isn't practical within the current build regulations.
You will also note, if you care to read the article closely, that the
images which illustrate that article are from the manufacturers, who seem
to be a few years ahead of you when it comes to considering the
possibilities of more aerodynamic HGVs. What has been holding them back
from poutting their ideas into reality has not been a lack of technical
ability, but rather a lack of regulatory freedom.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Steve Firth
Aug 13, 2013, 5:58:39 PM8/13/13
to
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:51:09 +0000 (UTC), ne...@the.shed put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-save-fuel-
>> and-lives.html
>
> Which says, inter alia, that...
>
> The European Commission proposals would adapt the Weight and Dimensions
> Directive to allow truck designers to create more rounded shapes and add
> aerodynamic flaps.
>
> That rather supports the view that the reason it can't be done at the
> moment is because it isn't practical within the current build regulations.
http://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/uploads/realisticfuelsavingonhgvviaaerodynamicdragreductionfinalprojectreport.pdf
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 18:51:09 +0000 (UTC), ne...@the.shed put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-save-fuel-
>> and-lives.html
>
> Which says, inter alia, that...
>
> The European Commission proposals would adapt the Weight and Dimensions
> Directive to allow truck designers to create more rounded shapes and add
> aerodynamic flaps.
>
> That rather supports the view that the reason it can't be done at the
> moment is because it isn't practical within the current build regulations.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Adrian
Aug 14, 2013, 3:18:46 AM8/14/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 19:58:14 +0000, neil wrote:
>>Go and play with, f'rexample, the truck configuration tool on DAF's
>>website. Both their "larger" ranges, CF and XF, offer a variety of cab
>>sizes. Only the largest has that big step above the windscreen.
> Thanks, but I don't need to play online, I've been in the real thing.
So you don't need to look at the evidence that the extra space is
>>Go and play with, f'rexample, the truck configuration tool on DAF's
>>website. Both their "larger" ranges, CF and XF, offer a variety of cab
>>sizes. Only the largest has that big step above the windscreen.
> Thanks, but I don't need to play online, I've been in the real thing.
optional, and specifically chosen by the operators. Who are the ones
paying for fuel.
>>Go and look carefully at a line drawing of a truck cab. Now draw lots of
>>right angled lines on it.
> Err, why right angled? The whole point is they *wouldn't* be right
> angles.
>>> Manufacturers will get away with building the cheapest design they
>>> can get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square
>>> box.
And square boxes tend to have right angles. If there aren't a
>>> can get away with selling - in the case of truck cabs thats a square
>>> box.
preponderance of right angles, then it's not a square box, so your claims
are bollocks.
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10159687/Curvy-lorries-could-
>>> save-fuel-and-lives.html
>>>
>>> Oh but wait, thats a right wing paper , its obviously all bourgeois
>>> lies designed to confuse the prolitariate road warriors.
>>It's clearly got you confused for a start...
> Not at all. The point is numptie, they do have the staff to do it and
> given half a chance they could come up with something that would meet
> current legislation. Too complex for you? Never mind.
down to legislation, but to the designers being lazy and penny-pinching.
>>>>> Sounds believable. Though if they really wanted to do something
>>>>> about HGV fuel consumption changing the barn door profile of the
>>>>> front end would be a damn sight more effective.
>>>>You either forget or are unaware that there are length restrictions on
>>>>trucks. Make the front longer, you have to recoup that length
>>>>somewhere. Which means less load space.
ne...@the.shed
Aug 15, 2013, 4:05:23 PM8/15/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:27:30 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Yup. I've clocked plenty of them doing around 70 going by the sat nav speed
>> readout, never mind the car speedo. Anyone who thinks they're limited to
>> 62 is deluded.
>>
>That must include the hundreds of coach drivers I work with who are
>constantly whinging about the fact that the coach they've been driving
>that day will only do 99kph on the flat.
Really? Well on the flat sat nav speed indicators don't lie - unlike bus
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Yup. I've clocked plenty of them doing around 70 going by the sat nav speed
>> readout, never mind the car speedo. Anyone who thinks they're limited to
>> 62 is deluded.
>>
>That must include the hundreds of coach drivers I work with who are
>constantly whinging about the fact that the coach they've been driving
>that day will only do 99kph on the flat.
drivers. I saw 70mph following a nat exp bus only a few months ago so I don't
give a shit what they're supposed to be limited to, what they ARE limited to
is another matter.
>Just to clarify matters, I am a coach driver, so I *know* what speed
>they will do from personal experience. The last time I drove one that
>would exceed 70 mph on the flat was in about 1990.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Aug 15, 2013, 4:07:25 PM8/15/13
to
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:18:08 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
buses under 12 metres is 62 or its 70. It can't be both. Currently the law
says 70. Ergo no law has been broken.
NJR
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
>> regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
>
>Next time you see it happen, feel free to contact the police or the
>operator giving them the registration number, and the time and location
>of the alleged offence. The facts will very likely be checked, and it
>will almost (As in 99% of the time) invariably be found that the law has
>not been broken. On the other occasion, they will find a defect that
>will be repaired within 7 days.
How can the law be broken if the limit is 70? Either the legal limit for
>> I see them regularly exceeding 62mph and saw one just last week who was
>> regularly exceeding 70mph, all on flat stretches.
>
>Next time you see it happen, feel free to contact the police or the
>operator giving them the registration number, and the time and location
>of the alleged offence. The facts will very likely be checked, and it
>will almost (As in 99% of the time) invariably be found that the law has
>not been broken. On the other occasion, they will find a defect that
>will be repaired within 7 days.
buses under 12 metres is 62 or its 70. It can't be both. Currently the law
says 70. Ergo no law has been broken.
NJR
John Williamson
Aug 15, 2013, 5:50:36 PM8/15/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:27:30 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Yup. I've clocked plenty of them doing around 70 going by the sat nav speed
>>> readout, never mind the car speedo. Anyone who thinks they're limited to
>>> 62 is deluded.
>>>
>> That must include the hundreds of coach drivers I work with who are
>> constantly whinging about the fact that the coach they've been driving
>> that day will only do 99kph on the flat.
>
> Really? Well on the flat sat nav speed indicators don't lie - unlike bus
> drivers. I saw 70mph following a nat exp bus only a few months ago so I don't
> give a shit what they're supposed to be limited to, what they ARE limited to
> is another matter.
>
And the last time The Sun took up this cudgel, they showed a grainy
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:27:30 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Yup. I've clocked plenty of them doing around 70 going by the sat nav speed
>>> readout, never mind the car speedo. Anyone who thinks they're limited to
>>> 62 is deluded.
>>>
>> That must include the hundreds of coach drivers I work with who are
>> constantly whinging about the fact that the coach they've been driving
>> that day will only do 99kph on the flat.
>
> Really? Well on the flat sat nav speed indicators don't lie - unlike bus
> drivers. I saw 70mph following a nat exp bus only a few months ago so I don't
> give a shit what they're supposed to be limited to, what they ARE limited to
> is another matter.
>
picture of a car speedometer reading 80mph with a NatEx coach in view.
This proved absolutely nothing.
I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
don't want to have coach drivers breaking the law. Even better, contact
one of the Red Top rags with full details, and we'll see it all over the
papers again, until their fraudulent ways are shown up again and they
have to climb down.
>> Just to clarify matters, I am a coach driver, so I *know* what speed
>> they will do from personal experience. The last time I drove one that
>> would exceed 70 mph on the flat was in about 1990.
>
> See above.
>
willing to start a no win no fee case alleging defamation.
Adrian
Aug 16, 2013, 3:57:26 AM8/16/13
to
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 20:07:25 +0000, neil wrote:
> How can the law be broken if the limit is 70? Either the legal limit for
> buses under 12 metres is 62 or its 70. It can't be both. Currently the
> law says 70. Ergo no law has been broken.
Apart from the law on the fitting, maintenance and calibration of speed
> How can the law be broken if the limit is 70? Either the legal limit for
> buses under 12 metres is 62 or its 70. It can't be both. Currently the
> law says 70. Ergo no law has been broken.
limiters - which says 100kph.
Scion
Aug 16, 2013, 4:57:01 AM8/16/13
to
Adrian put finger to keyboard:
The difference being that the limiter that must be fitted by law does
*not* limit the vehicle's top speed in all conditions i.e. downhill. So
they are two distinct laws (speed limiter and speed limit) and it is
possible to break one without breaking the other; Neil's assertion that
"it can't be both" is based on the false premise that the speed limiter
law is a speed limit law.
*not* limit the vehicle's top speed in all conditions i.e. downhill. So
they are two distinct laws (speed limiter and speed limit) and it is
possible to break one without breaking the other; Neil's assertion that
"it can't be both" is based on the false premise that the speed limiter
law is a speed limit law.
John Williamson
Aug 16, 2013, 5:11:54 AM8/16/13
to
over 70mph is breaking the law relating to its speed limit.
A coach travelling on the flat or uphill at more than 100kph probably
has a defective speed limiter, so the company would be breaking the law
relating to the fitting and maintenance of speed limiters.
That should be clear enough for even Harry to grasp.
Again I say to him, next time you see this happening, give the full
details to the police, and they will take the appropriate action. Any
such action can only help road safety by removing illegal vehicles and
law breaking drivers from the road.
ne...@the.shed
Aug 16, 2013, 4:22:34 PM8/16/13
to
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:50:36 +0100
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
>limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
Why? I'm quite happy with them doing 70 thanks.
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
>limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
>Are you calling me a liar? If so, I dareasy I could find a lawyer
>willing to start a no win no fee case alleging defamation.
If you're saying that coaches never do 70 then yes, you're a liar.
NJR
David B
Aug 16, 2013, 5:42:53 PM8/16/13
to
I'm also a coach driver and I used to drive for National Express and I can tell you from personal experience that the vehicles go no faster than 62 mph. I can also tell you that my old car showed an indicated 68 mph when the tomtom satnav shows a steady 62 mph. So anyone who claims coaches are speeding is either mistaken or the coach was going downhill. My coach driving is now limited to a casual basis - a few coaches that i drive do go a bit faster than 62 but within the 5% tolerance for non digi tacho vehicles.
John Williamson
Aug 16, 2013, 6:33:01 PM8/16/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:50:36 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
>> limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
>
> Why? I'm quite happy with them doing 70 thanks.
>
You're the one making accusations that coaches are speeding. Either show
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:50:36 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
>> limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
>
> Why? I'm quite happy with them doing 70 thanks.
>
some credible evidence or stop posting rubbish.
>> Are you calling me a liar? If so, I dareasy I could find a lawyer
>> willing to start a no win no fee case alleging defamation.
>
> LOL :o) Yeah , good luck with that one!
>
> If you're saying that coaches never do 70 then yes, you're a liar.
>
uphill. If they do more than 70, the driver is breaking the law. Report
him or her to the authorities, otherwise stop whining about it.
John Williamson
Aug 16, 2013, 6:34:52 PM8/16/13
to
David B wrote:
> I'm also a coach driver and I used to drive for National Express and I can tell you from personal experience that the vehicles go no faster than 62 mph. I can also tell you that my old car showed an indicated 68 mph when the tomtom satnav shows a steady 62 mph. So anyone who claims coaches are speeding is either mistaken or the coach was going downhill. My coach driving is now limited to a casual basis - a few coaches that i drive do go a bit faster than 62 but within the 5% tolerance for non digi tacho vehicles.
>
The problem is that we're replying to Neil, who keeps proving he knows
> I'm also a coach driver and I used to drive for National Express and I can tell you from personal experience that the vehicles go no faster than 62 mph. I can also tell you that my old car showed an indicated 68 mph when the tomtom satnav shows a steady 62 mph. So anyone who claims coaches are speeding is either mistaken or the coach was going downhill. My coach driving is now limited to a casual basis - a few coaches that i drive do go a bit faster than 62 but within the 5% tolerance for non digi tacho vehicles.
>
absolutely nothing about more and more subjects with every thread he
posts in.
I suppose that the law of averages say that sooner or later, he'll get
something right.
ne...@the.shed
Aug 17, 2013, 3:26:56 PM8/17/13
to
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 23:33:01 +0100
the satnav and the car speedo being out is close to zero and they both
read about 70mph.
>> If you're saying that coaches never do 70 then yes, you're a liar.
>>
>They will do 70 or more down some steep hills, but never on the flat or
>uphill. If they do more than 70, the driver is breaking the law. Report
>him or her to the authorities, otherwise stop whining about it.
I'm not whining about it. If you'd bothered to follow this thread from the
start you'd know I was asking why lorrys can't legally go as fast as buses
given that a loaded bus having an accident is far more likely to cause injury
and death than a lorry.
NJR
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:50:36 +0100
>> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
>>> limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
>>
>> Why? I'm quite happy with them doing 70 thanks.
>>
>You're the one making accusations that coaches are speeding. Either show
>some credible evidence or stop posting rubbish.
I'm not making any accusations , I'm stating a fact. The chances of both
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 22:50:36 +0100
>> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> I repeat my request. If you think you see a coach exceeding its speed
>>> limit, please pass the details on to the police. As an industry, we
>>
>> Why? I'm quite happy with them doing 70 thanks.
>>
>You're the one making accusations that coaches are speeding. Either show
>some credible evidence or stop posting rubbish.
the satnav and the car speedo being out is close to zero and they both
read about 70mph.
>> If you're saying that coaches never do 70 then yes, you're a liar.
>>
>They will do 70 or more down some steep hills, but never on the flat or
>uphill. If they do more than 70, the driver is breaking the law. Report
>him or her to the authorities, otherwise stop whining about it.
start you'd know I was asking why lorrys can't legally go as fast as buses
given that a loaded bus having an accident is far more likely to cause injury
and death than a lorry.
NJR
John Williamson
Aug 17, 2013, 4:40:08 PM8/17/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> I'm not whining about it. If you'd bothered to follow this thread from the
> start you'd know I was asking why lorrys can't legally go as fast as buses
> given that a loaded bus having an accident is far more likely to cause injury
> and death than a lorry.
>
Easy. Buses and coaches are much more stable and have more predictable
> I'm not whining about it. If you'd bothered to follow this thread from the
> start you'd know I was asking why lorrys can't legally go as fast as buses
> given that a loaded bus having an accident is far more likely to cause injury
> and death than a lorry.
>
handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
the potential to kill or injure thousands.
PCVs were, and mostly still are, tested for stability with a full load
when they're made. Lorries generally have a higher centre of gravity,
which is not certified to be low enough to permit a tilt of 30 degrees
before falling over.
There's also the way that passengers whinge like mad if you don't go
fast enough for their liking, while freight (mostly) just sits in the
back not doing anything much. Then add the way that travelling at 90kph
with a large commercial vehicle reduces the fuel bill by about 20%
compared with travelling at 100 kph. I have verified this by experiment.
David B
Aug 17, 2013, 7:43:54 PM8/17/13
to
Speedo by law cannot underread so the sat nav is likely to read less.
Trains can go much faster than the legal limit for cars in the UK, can carry hundreds of passengers and there is no requirement for them to have a seat never mind a seat belt. So using your first point as there is so much potential risk to life these should be speed restricted to 50 mph immediately !!
Trains can go much faster than the legal limit for cars in the UK, can carry hundreds of passengers and there is no requirement for them to have a seat never mind a seat belt. So using your first point as there is so much potential risk to life these should be speed restricted to 50 mph immediately !!
ne...@the.shed
Aug 18, 2013, 3:27:07 PM8/18/13
to
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100
mind a motorway, I doubt it could injure thousands. And really nasty loads
- eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
>PCVs were, and mostly still are, tested for stability with a full load
>when they're made. Lorries generally have a higher centre of gravity,
>which is not certified to be low enough to permit a tilt of 30 degrees
>before falling over.
There is that. However it doesn't explain why trucks across the pond are
allowed to do 70 or even 80. Though that does have its down side as this
video nicely demonstrates. Skip to 3:25.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwFXWMO4w0U
NJR
>Easy. Buses and coaches are much more stable and have more predictable
>handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
>incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
>causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
>condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
>kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
>the potential to kill or injure thousands.
Hmm. Even if a loaded fuel tanker blew up in the centre of a town , never
>handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
>incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
>causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
>condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
>kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
>the potential to kill or injure thousands.
mind a motorway, I doubt it could injure thousands. And really nasty loads
- eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
>PCVs were, and mostly still are, tested for stability with a full load
>when they're made. Lorries generally have a higher centre of gravity,
>which is not certified to be low enough to permit a tilt of 30 degrees
>before falling over.
allowed to do 70 or even 80. Though that does have its down side as this
video nicely demonstrates. Skip to 3:25.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwFXWMO4w0U
NJR
John Williamson
Aug 18, 2013, 6:08:00 PM8/18/13
to
ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> Easy. Buses and coaches are much more stable and have more predictable
>> handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
>> incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
>> causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
>> condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
>> kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
>> the potential to kill or injure thousands.
>
> Hmm. Even if a loaded fuel tanker blew up in the centre of a town , never
> mind a motorway, I doubt it could injure thousands. And really nasty loads
> - eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
>
Given the rules for carrying nuclear waste, the worst that's likely to
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100
> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> Easy. Buses and coaches are much more stable and have more predictable
>> handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
>> incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
>> causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
>> condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
>> kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
>> the potential to kill or injure thousands.
>
> Hmm. Even if a loaded fuel tanker blew up in the centre of a town , never
> mind a motorway, I doubt it could injure thousands. And really nasty loads
> - eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
>
happen in an accident involving it is having to use a crane to put the
intact, undamaged, container onto a different lorry.
The really nasty loads are things like chlorine and hydroflouric acid.
Some commercially useful chemicals can contaminate watercourses to an
extent where carrying them are forbidden in Germany in areas containing
watercourses which deliver drinking water. I've even seen the warning
signs on autobahns.
>> PCVs were, and mostly still are, tested for stability with a full load
>> when they're made. Lorries generally have a higher centre of gravity,
>> which is not certified to be low enough to permit a tilt of 30 degrees
>> before falling over.
>
> There is that. However it doesn't explain why trucks across the pond are
> allowed to do 70 or even 80.
traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
Manchester, never mind London.
There are very few countries with more vehicles per road mile than the UK.
John Williamson
Aug 18, 2013, 6:11:29 PM8/18/13
to
John Williamson wrote:
USA without any brakes on the steering axle.
> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> There is that. However it doesn't explain why trucks across the pond are
>> allowed to do 70 or even 80.
>
> It's not universal, and if you compare traffic density in the USA with
> traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
> of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
> Manchester, never mind London.
>
> There are very few countries with more vehicles per road mile than the UK.
I forgot to mention that there are still some heavy trucks in use in the
>> There is that. However it doesn't explain why trucks across the pond are
>> allowed to do 70 or even 80.
>
> It's not universal, and if you compare traffic density in the USA with
> traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
> of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
> Manchester, never mind London.
>
> There are very few countries with more vehicles per road mile than the UK.
USA without any brakes on the steering axle.
Message has been deleted
John Williamson
Aug 19, 2013, 3:08:13 AM8/19/13
to
Huge wrote:
>
Should I be glad about that?
Or just remind you about the M25, even at 3 in the morning?
> On 2013-08-18, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not universal, and if you compare traffic density in the USA with
>> traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
>> of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
>> Manchester, never mind London.
>
> There speaks a man who's never been on I-95.
>
>> It's not universal, and if you compare traffic density in the USA with
>> traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
>> of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
>> Manchester, never mind London.
>
>
Should I be glad about that?
Or just remind you about the M25, even at 3 in the morning?
Steve Firth
Aug 19, 2013, 5:07:21 AM8/19/13
to
that time.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Steve Firth
Aug 19, 2013, 5:07:22 AM8/19/13
to
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2013-08-18, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> On 2013-08-18, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's not universal, and if you compare traffic density in the USA with
>> traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
>> of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
>> Manchester, never mind London.
>
>> traffic density in the UK, it's nowhere near as busy. Just look at video
>> of rush hour in, say Los Angeles and compare that to Birmingham or
>> Manchester, never mind London.
>
> There speaks a man who's never been on I-95.
Or the Boston Turnpike. Or indeed the Boston end of I-90 the MassPike.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Ian Jackson
Aug 19, 2013, 6:08:38 AM8/19/13
to
In message
<401499623398595314.735855%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
Believe it or not, the quietest I've ever found the M25 was one summer
Friday afternoon, at around 4.30pm, between J8 and J15. The traffic in
my direction gradually seemed to evaporate, and on one occasion, I could
see no one behind me and only one car in front. It was quite spooky -
almost as though I'd slipped into a parallel universe.
I suspected that there might have been a massive pile-up behind me, and
that the motorway was blocked - but no - there were no reports of any
significant M25 traffic problems all that evening. It was only when I
got to J14 that the traffic started to build up again, and after J15 (M4
junction) it was back to its Friday rush-hour normal self.
--
Ian
<401499623398595314.735855%steve%-mallo...@news.eternal-september.org
>, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes
Friday afternoon, at around 4.30pm, between J8 and J15. The traffic in
my direction gradually seemed to evaporate, and on one occasion, I could
see no one behind me and only one car in front. It was quite spooky -
almost as though I'd slipped into a parallel universe.
I suspected that there might have been a massive pile-up behind me, and
that the motorway was blocked - but no - there were no reports of any
significant M25 traffic problems all that evening. It was only when I
got to J14 that the traffic started to build up again, and after J15 (M4
junction) it was back to its Friday rush-hour normal self.
--
Ian
stephen
Aug 19, 2013, 8:27:25 AM8/19/13
to
On Sunday, 18 August 2013 12:27:07 UTC-7, ne...@the.shed wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100 John Williamson
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100 John Williamson
And really nasty loads - eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
One really really nasty load, live trident warheads with fuel, go by road.
stephen
Aug 21, 2013, 6:54:15 AM8/21/13
to
ne...@the.shed
Aug 21, 2013, 3:21:50 PM8/21/13
to
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:08:00 +0100
one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
NJR
John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100
>> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> Easy. Buses and coaches are much more stable and have more predictable
>>> handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
>>> incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
>>> causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
>>> condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
>>> kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
>>> the potential to kill or injure thousands.
>>
>> Hmm. Even if a loaded fuel tanker blew up in the centre of a town , never
>> mind a motorway, I doubt it could injure thousands. And really nasty loads
>> - eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
>>
>Given the rules for carrying nuclear waste, the worst that's likely to
>happen in an accident involving it is having to use a crane to put the
>intact, undamaged, container onto a different lorry.
>
>The really nasty loads are things like chlorine and hydroflouric acid.
I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
>ne...@the.shed wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 21:40:08 +0100
>> John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>> Easy. Buses and coaches are much more stable and have more predictable
>>> handling than lorries, so the chance of them being involved in an
>>> incident is much lower per mile. As for having less potential for
>>> causing injury and death, look for hazchem labels on lorries, and
>>> condsider that most loads that are labelled as hazardous can hurt or
>>> kill a darn sight more than 100 people if there's an incident. Some have
>>> the potential to kill or injure thousands.
>>
>> Hmm. Even if a loaded fuel tanker blew up in the centre of a town , never
>> mind a motorway, I doubt it could injure thousands. And really nasty loads
>> - eg nuclear waste - tend to go by train. But I take your point.
>>
>Given the rules for carrying nuclear waste, the worst that's likely to
>happen in an accident involving it is having to use a crane to put the
>intact, undamaged, container onto a different lorry.
>
>The really nasty loads are things like chlorine and hydroflouric acid.
one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
NJR
Clive George
Aug 21, 2013, 3:34:33 PM8/21/13
to
On 21/08/2013 20:21, ne...@the.shed wrote:
> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
How do you think it gets to where it's used? I suspect pretty much all
> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
not used on site is transported by road.
John Williamson
Aug 21, 2013, 3:39:07 PM8/21/13
to
somewhere.
Adrian
Aug 21, 2013, 4:21:54 PM8/21/13
to
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:21:50 +0000, neil wrote:
> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
Altogether now...
> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
Oh, no, it isn't.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/mvr/topics/fluoroelastomers.htm
Clive George
Aug 21, 2013, 4:46:06 PM8/21/13
to
lorry tank broke, it would probably kill a few people, with the
potential for "a lot" in a busy area. Fortunately they're designed not to.
I'd be leery of working with it, but safe systems of work have been
devised so it's not too bad.
The HSE leaflet there merely says the risk of HF acid from burnt o-rings
isn't that big a deal.
Message has been deleted
Adrian
Aug 22, 2013, 3:21:21 AM8/22/13
to
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 21:46:06 +0100, Clive George wrote:
> The HSE leaflet there merely says the risk of HF acid from burnt o-rings
> isn't that big a deal.
Well, quite. And they're the scare stories that Bloaty's heard of HF
> The HSE leaflet there merely says the risk of HF acid from burnt o-rings
> isn't that big a deal.
through.
ne...@the.shed
Aug 22, 2013, 3:53:40 PM8/22/13
to
HF can burn you down to the bone, cause nerve damage and death.
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Aug 22, 2013, 4:05:06 PM8/22/13
to
chemicals including HF can do. Unlike you. Its not the nastiest chemical
on the planet but its a shed load worse than the other mineral acids which
just burn you. This will poison you, and even better its a delayed reaction
and by the time you notice the symptoms it could well be too late.
How about just for once you STFU when you don't have a fucking clue what
you're talking about.
NJR
Adrian
Aug 22, 2013, 5:53:22 PM8/22/13
to
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:05:06 +0000, neil wrote:
> How about just for once you STFU when you don't have a fucking clue what
> you're talking about.
When it comes to a toss-up between the HSE and some random twat that's
> How about just for once you STFU when you don't have a fucking clue what
> you're talking about.
been caught out in lies and dissemination umpty-fucking-seven times
already?
Well, let me think for one nanosecond.
Steve Firth
Aug 23, 2013, 6:12:00 AM8/23/13
to
Hydrofluoric acid OTOH ...
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
ne...@the.shed
Aug 23, 2013, 6:29:28 AM8/23/13
to
On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 10:12:00 +0000 (UTC)
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
NJR
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
><ne...@the.shed> wrote:
>> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
>> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
>
>Nah, it's completely innocuous being made from water and ground wheat.
>
>Hydrofluoric acid OTOH ...
Fair cop :o)
>> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
>> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
>
>Nah, it's completely innocuous being made from water and ground wheat.
>
>Hydrofluoric acid OTOH ...
NJR
ne...@the.shed
Aug 23, 2013, 6:32:05 AM8/23/13
to
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:53:22 +0000 (UTC)
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:05:06 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>> How about just for once you STFU when you don't have a fucking clue what
>> you're talking about.
>
>When it comes to a toss-up between the HSE and some random twat that's
>been caught out in lies and dissemination umpty-fucking-seven times
>already?
Uh huh. Well you believe what you like, I care not.
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 20:05:06 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>> How about just for once you STFU when you don't have a fucking clue what
>> you're talking about.
>
>When it comes to a toss-up between the HSE and some random twat that's
>been caught out in lies and dissemination umpty-fucking-seven times
>already?
>
>Well, let me think for one nanosecond.
NJR
Nick Finnigan
Aug 28, 2013, 6:54:34 PM8/28/13
to
On 21/08/2013 21:21, Adrian wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:21:50 +0000, neil wrote:
>
>> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
>> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
<http://www.chemical.org.uk/regulatoryissues/healthandsafety/distributionofpackagedhydrofluoricacid.aspx>
>
>> I *really* hope hydroflouric acid doesn't get transported by road. Its
>> one of the most noxious chemicals this side of nerve gas.
>
> Altogether now...
>
> Oh, no, it isn't.
>
> http://www.hse.gov.uk/mvr/topics/fluoroelastomers.htm
There are at least two major UK users of HF in the North West, and even
if they both produce (anhydrous) HF on site, and any waste will be
transported by road as dilute HF acid. As is the UF6 to/from one of them.
jbradl...@gmail.com
Apr 17, 2016, 5:19:57 PM4/17/16
to
On Monday, August 12, 2013 at 8:21:14 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>
> > I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
> > trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70? If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
> > crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
> > potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow? As a car driver I'd much
> > prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of mobile
> > roadblocks on the motorways.
>
> The roadblocks can be eliminated by making it an offence to drive a
> lorry in the overtaking lane between (say) 06:00 and (say) 22:00.
>
> A bit more creatively, it could also be made an offence for the driver
> of a lorry which is being overtaken by another lorry not to slow to let
> the overtaker back into the nearside lane straightaway.
>
> I suggest six penalty points either way, to reflect the danger of
> rear-end collision.
i agree with a hgv being over taken should slow to allow vehicle over taking to pass but instead of trucks being banned from overtaking at certain times....stick 56mph limit on idiot car drivers...
> On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>
> > I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
> > trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70? If a 15 ton bus full of passengers
> > crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full of
> > potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow? As a car driver I'd much
> > prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of mobile
> > roadblocks on the motorways.
>
> The roadblocks can be eliminated by making it an offence to drive a
> lorry in the overtaking lane between (say) 06:00 and (say) 22:00.
>
> A bit more creatively, it could also be made an offence for the driver
> of a lorry which is being overtaken by another lorry not to slow to let
> the overtaker back into the nearside lane straightaway.
>
> I suggest six penalty points either way, to reflect the danger of
> rear-end collision.
i agree with a hgv being over taken should slow to allow vehicle over taking to pass but instead of trucks being banned from overtaking at certain times....stick 56mph limit on idiot car drivers...
NY
Apr 18, 2016, 3:48:28 AM4/18/16
to
<jbradl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d441d4ee-c930-488c...@googlegroups.com...
manoeuvre if he finds that he can't go significantly faster. Maybe base it
on a time limit: assuming that the overtaking lorry is not limited by
traffic in front of him, he should complete his manoeuvre within x seconds
or else abort it.
Better still, make lorries sufficiently powerful that they can all achieve
the speed limit and make sure that speed limiters are all set very
accurately to the same value so that one lorry driver knows that it will be
physically impossible for him ever to overtake another one and therefore he
shouldn't even try.
The problem is not with a lorry overtaking a tractor at 30 or slow lorry at
40. It's when lorry A, at 56.1 mph, tries to overtake lorry B at 56.0 mph.
Maybe allow lorry drivers a few seconds' exemption from the 56 mph limit in
order that they can overtake as soon as possible.
There are sections of two-lane trunk road, such as the A1(M) between the M18
and the A64 in Yorkshire, or the A34 in Oxfordshire, where cars can never
get above 56 mph for tens of miles because first one and then another lorry
pulls out into the path of traffic that wants to do 70.
>> I suggest six penalty points either way, to reflect the danger of
>> rear-end collision.
>
> i agree with a hgv being over taken should slow to allow vehicle over
> taking to pass but instead of trucks being banned from overtaking at
> certain times....stick 56mph limit on idiot car drivers...
Why? What's idiotic about car drivers wanting to drive faster than 56 mph
when it is safe to do so?
news:d441d4ee-c930-488c...@googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, August 12, 2013 at 8:21:14 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>
>> > I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
>> > trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70? If a 15 ton bus full of
>> > passengers
>> > crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full
>> > of
>> > potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow? As a car driver I'd
>> > much
>> > prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of
>> > mobile
>> > roadblocks on the motorways.
>>
>> The roadblocks can be eliminated by making it an offence to drive a
>> lorry in the overtaking lane between (say) 06:00 and (say) 22:00.
>>
>> A bit more creatively, it could also be made an offence for the driver
>> of a lorry which is being overtaken by another lorry not to slow to let
>> the overtaker back into the nearside lane straightaway.
Or else make it an offence for the overtaking driver not to abort the
>> On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>>
>> > I know its an EU thing , but whats the logic - if any - behind limiting
>> > trucks to 56mph but buses & coaches to 70? If a 15 ton bus full of
>> > passengers
>> > crashes it'll cause a damn site more injuries than a 15 ton lorry full
>> > of
>> > potatoes so why does the lorry have to go so slow? As a car driver I'd
>> > much
>> > prefer them so be able to do 70 so we don't get the miles on end of
>> > mobile
>> > roadblocks on the motorways.
>>
>> The roadblocks can be eliminated by making it an offence to drive a
>> lorry in the overtaking lane between (say) 06:00 and (say) 22:00.
>>
>> A bit more creatively, it could also be made an offence for the driver
>> of a lorry which is being overtaken by another lorry not to slow to let
>> the overtaker back into the nearside lane straightaway.
manoeuvre if he finds that he can't go significantly faster. Maybe base it
on a time limit: assuming that the overtaking lorry is not limited by
traffic in front of him, he should complete his manoeuvre within x seconds
or else abort it.
Better still, make lorries sufficiently powerful that they can all achieve
the speed limit and make sure that speed limiters are all set very
accurately to the same value so that one lorry driver knows that it will be
physically impossible for him ever to overtake another one and therefore he
shouldn't even try.
The problem is not with a lorry overtaking a tractor at 30 or slow lorry at
40. It's when lorry A, at 56.1 mph, tries to overtake lorry B at 56.0 mph.
Maybe allow lorry drivers a few seconds' exemption from the 56 mph limit in
order that they can overtake as soon as possible.
There are sections of two-lane trunk road, such as the A1(M) between the M18
and the A64 in Yorkshire, or the A34 in Oxfordshire, where cars can never
get above 56 mph for tens of miles because first one and then another lorry
pulls out into the path of traffic that wants to do 70.
>> I suggest six penalty points either way, to reflect the danger of
>> rear-end collision.
>
> i agree with a hgv being over taken should slow to allow vehicle over
> taking to pass but instead of trucks being banned from overtaking at
> certain times....stick 56mph limit on idiot car drivers...
when it is safe to do so?
sp...@potato.field
Apr 18, 2016, 4:26:27 AM4/18/16
to
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 08:49:01 +0100
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
><jbradl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d441d4ee-c930-488c...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 at 8:21:14 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
2013?? Jesus, that was one hell of a delay in replying! :)
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
><jbradl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d441d4ee-c930-488c...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Monday, August 12, 2013 at 8:21:14 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2013 13:40, ne...@the.shed wrote:
>Maybe allow lorry drivers a few seconds' exemption from the 56 mph limit in
>order that they can overtake as soon as possible.
means there's little chance of it being implemented by the EU or its DoT
lapdog.
>There are sections of two-lane trunk road, such as the A1(M) between the M18
>and the A64 in Yorkshire, or the A34 in Oxfordshire, where cars can never
>get above 56 mph for tens of miles because first one and then another lorry
>pulls out into the path of traffic that wants to do 70.
their vehicles abilities given the load.
--
Spud
NY
Apr 18, 2016, 4:48:15 AM4/18/16
to
<sp...@potato.field> wrote in message news:nf25ni$1mk8$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
I'm surprised that the A1 hasn't got a "no HGVs in Lane 2" rule like the A34
on the Berks/Ox border and the M42 around Tamworth have.
I have often drive the whole length of the A34 between M4 J13 and M40 J9 in
a queue of Lane 2 traffic that can't get past leapfrogging lorries. As soon
as one pulls in, another ahead of it pulls out. I've also been alongside a
lorry, overtaking it, when it has indicated and immediately pulled out into
my path. If you or I failed to notice a car on our right as we pulled out,
and got a long blast on the horn and headlights "watch out, I'm already
here", we'd pull back in - not so for lorries which use their size to barge
their way out, regardless of the fact that there is a car there.
on the Berks/Ox border and the M42 around Tamworth have.
I have often drive the whole length of the A34 between M4 J13 and M40 J9 in
a queue of Lane 2 traffic that can't get past leapfrogging lorries. As soon
as one pulls in, another ahead of it pulls out. I've also been alongside a
lorry, overtaking it, when it has indicated and immediately pulled out into
my path. If you or I failed to notice a car on our right as we pulled out,
and got a long blast on the horn and headlights "watch out, I'm already
here", we'd pull back in - not so for lorries which use their size to barge
their way out, regardless of the fact that there is a car there.
sp...@potato.field
Apr 18, 2016, 5:09:01 AM4/18/16
to
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:48:50 +0100
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>I have often drive the whole length of the A34 between M4 J13 and M40 J9 in
>a queue of Lane 2 traffic that can't get past leapfrogging lorries. As soon
>as one pulls in, another ahead of it pulls out. I've also been alongside a
Yeah, been in that sort of situation. It rather puts the whole aura of
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>I have often drive the whole length of the A34 between M4 J13 and M40 J9 in
>a queue of Lane 2 traffic that can't get past leapfrogging lorries. As soon
>as one pulls in, another ahead of it pulls out. I've also been alongside a
"professional driver" that these guys like to project into perspective as the
joke it is. Any idiot who can drive a car without putting it into the nearest
post has the skill to get an HGV license - I've got one!
>lorry, overtaking it, when it has indicated and immediately pulled out into
>my path. If you or I failed to notice a car on our right as we pulled out,
>and got a long blast on the horn and headlights "watch out, I'm already
>here", we'd pull back in - not so for lorries which use their size to barge
>their way out, regardless of the fact that there is a car there.
between a lorry and a car doesn't always end well for the lorry driver either
if the vehicle overturns or goes off an embankment.
--
Spud
NY
Apr 18, 2016, 5:52:22 AM4/18/16
to
<sp...@potato.field> wrote in message news:nf286k$1qli$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
me. It's the fact that they take a long time to do it, sitting alongside the
lorry that they are overtaking for several minutes because of the very low
differential speed.
It cannot be easy driving a vehicle that has a very low
power/torque-to-weight ratio (and hence very poor acceleration) and which is
severely speed-limited. But that is what they are paid and trained to do -
how to drive safely *and with due consideration for other traffic*.
I've very occasionally found myself in the situation where my car runs out
of power when I'm trying to overtake, and I end up going no faster than the
vehicle I'm trying to overtake. But as soon as I realise what's happening,
I'll ease off the power or else brake so as to pull back behind the other
vehicle again, to have another go when I've got the gradient in my favour. I
don't sit there thinking "the longer I do this, the more likely I am to get
past" :-)
If I'm driving close to the speed limit and I come up behind a car that is
going fractionally slower, I don't immediately think "I must overtake",
especially if there is a lot of traffic in Lane 2 which is clearly going
much faster than I want to go. I may decide that 69 is as good as 70 mph, if
the alternative is to speed up to maybe 80 to match the speed of traffic in
Lane 2 until I've got past. But there must be something in the lorry
driver's mentality which says "I must go at 56.0 mph - 55.5 won't do".
To go back to the OP's question, I wonder if the fact that buses and coaches
are rigid vehicles whereas many lorries are articulated has any bearing on
the different speed limits? I presume articulated vehicles are more likely
to become unstable at high speed than rigid ones, if there is a crosswind
and the lorry starts to snake.
The other thing that gets me is the steep 1:4 hill (Sutton Bank) near me
which articulated HGVs are allowed to use but caravans are banned from
using. Almost every week (*) the hill is closed because yet another HGV has
got stuck on the hairpin bends (either because of the tightness of the bend
or else the steepness of the hill - I'm not sure which). And all HGVs have
to take the hill exceptionally slowly eg 10-20 mph when a car can do the
straight bits (though not the tight bends!) at maybe 40 mph.
The hill really isn't suitable for HGVs in the same way that it's not
suitable for caravans. It doesn't help that the road is a bit too narrow for
cars to be able to do a U turn if they find that the road ahead has been
blocked by yet another HGV. The excuse that the Highways Authority give for
not banning lorries is that it is an important route to the towns nearer the
coast and that (unlike caravans) there is no suitable alternative route.
Which is fair enough, as long as they make it clear that lorries (and their
drivers) must be capable of getting up the hill, with those that don't being
subject to a large "you'll never ever do this again" fine - such as
confiscation of the offending vehicle!
Perish the thought that hauliers might actually use vehicles that are suited
to the size of roads that they are using - eg smaller vehicles on the Sutton
Bank route.
(*) On the Google Streetview 2015 photo https://goo.gl/maps/TdYa1SuQUM22
they record that there were "74 blockages by HGVs last year" and on the 2011
photo it was 132 which is an average of one every three days.
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 09:48:50 +0100
> "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>I have often drive the whole length of the A34 between M4 J13 and M40 J9
>>in
>>a queue of Lane 2 traffic that can't get past leapfrogging lorries. As
>>soon
>>as one pulls in, another ahead of it pulls out. I've also been alongside a
>
> Yeah, been in that sort of situation. It rather puts the whole aura of
> "professional driver" that these guys like to project into perspective as
> the
> joke it is. Any idiot who can drive a car without putting it into the
> nearest
> post has the skill to get an HGV license - I've got one!
It's not the fact that they keep overtaking each other that really annoys
> "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>I have often drive the whole length of the A34 between M4 J13 and M40 J9
>>in
>>a queue of Lane 2 traffic that can't get past leapfrogging lorries. As
>>soon
>>as one pulls in, another ahead of it pulls out. I've also been alongside a
>
> Yeah, been in that sort of situation. It rather puts the whole aura of
> "professional driver" that these guys like to project into perspective as
> the
> joke it is. Any idiot who can drive a car without putting it into the
> nearest
> post has the skill to get an HGV license - I've got one!
me. It's the fact that they take a long time to do it, sitting alongside the
lorry that they are overtaking for several minutes because of the very low
differential speed.
It cannot be easy driving a vehicle that has a very low
power/torque-to-weight ratio (and hence very poor acceleration) and which is
severely speed-limited. But that is what they are paid and trained to do -
how to drive safely *and with due consideration for other traffic*.
I've very occasionally found myself in the situation where my car runs out
of power when I'm trying to overtake, and I end up going no faster than the
vehicle I'm trying to overtake. But as soon as I realise what's happening,
I'll ease off the power or else brake so as to pull back behind the other
vehicle again, to have another go when I've got the gradient in my favour. I
don't sit there thinking "the longer I do this, the more likely I am to get
past" :-)
If I'm driving close to the speed limit and I come up behind a car that is
going fractionally slower, I don't immediately think "I must overtake",
especially if there is a lot of traffic in Lane 2 which is clearly going
much faster than I want to go. I may decide that 69 is as good as 70 mph, if
the alternative is to speed up to maybe 80 to match the speed of traffic in
Lane 2 until I've got past. But there must be something in the lorry
driver's mentality which says "I must go at 56.0 mph - 55.5 won't do".
To go back to the OP's question, I wonder if the fact that buses and coaches
are rigid vehicles whereas many lorries are articulated has any bearing on
the different speed limits? I presume articulated vehicles are more likely
to become unstable at high speed than rigid ones, if there is a crosswind
and the lorry starts to snake.
The other thing that gets me is the steep 1:4 hill (Sutton Bank) near me
which articulated HGVs are allowed to use but caravans are banned from
using. Almost every week (*) the hill is closed because yet another HGV has
got stuck on the hairpin bends (either because of the tightness of the bend
or else the steepness of the hill - I'm not sure which). And all HGVs have
to take the hill exceptionally slowly eg 10-20 mph when a car can do the
straight bits (though not the tight bends!) at maybe 40 mph.
The hill really isn't suitable for HGVs in the same way that it's not
suitable for caravans. It doesn't help that the road is a bit too narrow for
cars to be able to do a U turn if they find that the road ahead has been
blocked by yet another HGV. The excuse that the Highways Authority give for
not banning lorries is that it is an important route to the towns nearer the
coast and that (unlike caravans) there is no suitable alternative route.
Which is fair enough, as long as they make it clear that lorries (and their
drivers) must be capable of getting up the hill, with those that don't being
subject to a large "you'll never ever do this again" fine - such as
confiscation of the offending vehicle!
Perish the thought that hauliers might actually use vehicles that are suited
to the size of roads that they are using - eg smaller vehicles on the Sutton
Bank route.
(*) On the Google Streetview 2015 photo https://goo.gl/maps/TdYa1SuQUM22
they record that there were "74 blockages by HGVs last year" and on the 2011
photo it was 132 which is an average of one every three days.
sp...@potato.field
Apr 18, 2016, 7:11:41 AM4/18/16
to
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 10:52:58 +0100
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>To go back to the OP's question, I wonder if the fact that buses and coaches
>are rigid vehicles whereas many lorries are articulated has any bearing on
>the different speed limits? I presume articulated vehicles are more likely
>to become unstable at high speed than rigid ones, if there is a crosswind
>and the lorry starts to snake.
I've no idea what the original thinking behind the speed limits is, but the
"NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>To go back to the OP's question, I wonder if the fact that buses and coaches
>are rigid vehicles whereas many lorries are articulated has any bearing on
>the different speed limits? I presume articulated vehicles are more likely
>to become unstable at high speed than rigid ones, if there is a crosswind
>and the lorry starts to snake.
yanks & canadians don't seem too concerned. Trucks there regularly do 75-80mph
if my experience is anything to go by.
--
Spud
0 new messages