When were HGVs first banned from Lane 3 of motorways?
Mortimer
but I can't remember seeing HGVs in Lane 3 ever since I started driving in
1981. Googling on "year when HGVs were banned from Lane 3" doesn't produce
any matches. I doubt whether I've still got my original edition of the
Highway Code which I bought at the time, as I've probably updated it
periodically.
Boltar
No deai , but I wish they'd ban 7.5 tonners from the outside lane as
well. They can be a right pain in the @arse.
B2003
Conor
> No deai , but I wish they'd ban 7.5 tonners from the outside lane as
> well. They can be a right pain in the @arse.
>
Speed limited ones are. But considering unlimited ones mostly are doing
the legal limit, why is there a problem?
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Boltar
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:28:57 -0700, Boltar wrote:
> > No deai , but I wish they'd ban 7.5 tonners from the outside lane as
> > well. They can be a right pain in the @arse.
>
> Speed limited ones are. But considering unlimited ones mostly are doing
> the legal limit, why is there a problem?
And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None. 7.5 tonners
are just another moving roadblock. Plus a lot of them are very badly
driven.
B2003
Conor
@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Boltar says...
> On Sep 4, 12:00 pm, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:28:57 -0700, Boltar wrote:
> > > No deai , but I wish they'd ban 7.5 tonners from the outside lane as
> > > well. They can be a right pain in the @arse.
> >
> > Speed limited ones are. But considering unlimited ones mostly are doing
> > the legal limit, why is there a problem?
>
> And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None.
Indeed. The majority I see aren't managing to reach 70.
> 7.5 tonners
> are just another moving roadblock. Plus a lot of them are very badly
> driven.
>
That's because most of them are driven by car drivers who've not had to
pass a test to drive them.
Brian Robertson
> In article <314b5ffd-4cf9-43a6-a875-d8cdf7a4d735
> @z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Boltar says...
>> On Sep 4, 12:00 pm, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:28:57 -0700, Boltar wrote:
>>>> No deai , but I wish they'd ban 7.5 tonners from the outside lane as
>>>> well. They can be a right pain in the @arse.
>>> Speed limited ones are. But considering unlimited ones mostly are doing
>>> the legal limit, why is there a problem?
>> And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None.
>
> Indeed. The majority I see aren't managing to reach 70.
>
>
>> 7.5 tonners
>> are just another moving roadblock. Plus a lot of them are very badly
>> driven.
>>
> That's because most of them are driven by car drivers who've not had to
> pass a test to drive them.
>
Or it could be that most of them are driven by car drivers and 90% of
all car drivers are bad drivers.
Brian.
Boltar
> > And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None.
>
> Indeed. The majority I see aren't managing to reach 70.
Depends on the traffic. As soon as it clears most cars in the outside
lane get up to 80-90 I would reckon.
> That's because most of them are driven by car drivers who've not had to
> pass a test to drive them.
Probably true.
B2003
Brian Robertson
No point in mentioning the Highway Code on here, mate. Most of them will
think it's a new board game from Matel.
Brian.
BrianW
LOL!
What were those motoring convictions you got? Drink driving and
driving an unfit vehicle, weren't they? You really are beyond parody,
Mr Begg-Robertson.
Clive
<m...@privacy.net> writes
although most M/ways were only 2 lane in those days. Dates evade me
but I can remember HGVs being restricted to lanes 1&2 and then later
coaches being governed to 100kph and restricted to lanes 1&2. It's
about time that the government got it finger out and restricted all
vehicles that couldn't maintain 60 to lane 1 and those that couldn't
maintain 70 to lanes 1&2, leaving lane three free for most of us.
--
Clive
Boltar
> coaches being governed to 100kph and restricted to lanes 1&2. It's
> about time that the government got it finger out and restricted all
> vehicles that couldn't maintain 60 to lane 1 and those that couldn't
> maintain 70 to lanes 1&2, leaving lane three free for most of us.
Problem is maintaining 60 on a hill for a heavy vehicle. One slow poke
could jam up the whole lane for miles. I think a good solution would
be to have smart limiters on trucks that allow them to exceed 56mph ,
say up to 65 or 70mph for 30 seconds once every 5 mins or so which
would allow them to quickly overtake another truck in front but
prevent them from doing a National Express and bomb down lane 2 trying
to keep up with the cars.
B2003
Mortimer
news:1e57bc0a-ea45-4976...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
There are various solutions that spring to mind:
- require all vehicles that are allowed on a motorway to have sufficent
power to maintain the appropriate speed limit for that vehicle on the sort
of gradients that will be encountered
- have smart limiters as you describe
- synchronise all speed limiters so that everyone's idea of 56 mph is the
same, avoiding the "1 mph differerential speed overtaking" problem
- change the Highway Code to say "you must not overtake if your vehicle
cannot go at least 5 mph faster than the vehicle you want to overtake"
I've no problem with HGVs overtaking really slow vehicles like tractors that
are doing 10-15 mph or abnormal-load low-loaders that are doing 30 or 40.
The differential speed is enough that they will complete the manoeuvre
reasonably quickly. What gets my goat is the drivers who want to overtake a
vehicle doing 55 in a vehicle that is speed-limited to 56. That's just
arrogant and selfish.
Anyway, we've strayed away from my original question...
Adrian
saying:
> There are various solutions that spring to mind:
>
> - require all vehicles that are allowed on a motorway to have sufficent
> power to maintain the appropriate speed limit for that vehicle on the
> sort of gradients that will be encountered
>
> - have smart limiters as you describe
>
> - synchronise all speed limiters so that everyone's idea of 56 mph is
> the same, avoiding the "1 mph differerential speed overtaking" problem
>
> - change the Highway Code to say "you must not overtake if your vehicle
> cannot go at least 5 mph faster than the vehicle you want to overtake"
How do you define "cannot go at least 5mph faster"? Vehicles just don't
have _a_ fixed maximum speed, unless there's a limiter in place. It'll
naturally vary up and down, quite considerably, depending on gradient,
wind speed and direction. It's really not uncommon for me, in a 2cv, to
be tonking along and catching something hand-over-fist, only to find that
for some reason either he's suddenly gained some speed or I've suddenly
lost some.
And that's before you account for twats who think "I'm not going to be
overtaken by that" and accelerate when you're half way past 'em. Like the
prize cunt in a Celica on the M1 the other week - he came blithering down
the sliproad, and pulled out _right_ in front of us, going considerably
slower. No, I couldn't have pulled into L2, because there was something
passing me. As soon as I can, I accelerate and pull out. I get alongside
him, he accelerates. I tuck in behind again. He brakes.
Mortimer
news:6iadnqF...@mid.individual.net...
>> - change the Highway Code to say "you must not overtake if your vehicle
>> cannot go at least 5 mph faster than the vehicle you want to overtake"
>
> How do you define "cannot go at least 5mph faster"? Vehicles just don't
> have _a_ fixed maximum speed, unless there's a limiter in place. It'll
> naturally vary up and down, quite considerably, depending on gradient,
> wind speed and direction. It's really not uncommon for me, in a 2cv, to
> be tonking along and catching something hand-over-fist, only to find that
> for some reason either he's suddenly gained some speed or I've suddenly
> lost some.
Sorry, after I wrote that I realised that I should have added the phrase
"for the road conditions at that instant". In other words, know what your
vehicle is capable of and if you find that you don't have the power, pull
back in and abort the overtake.
> And that's before you account for twats who think "I'm not going to be
> overtaken by that" and accelerate when you're half way past 'em. Like the
> prize cunt in a Celica on the M1 the other week - he came blithering down
> the sliproad, and pulled out _right_ in front of us, going considerably
> slower. No, I couldn't have pulled into L2, because there was something
> passing me. As soon as I can, I accelerate and pull out. I get alongside
> him, he accelerates. I tuck in behind again. He brakes.
I hate twats like that. When my parents had the caravan in the early 70s, we
found that occasionally lorry drivers tried to play this game - usually if
Mum was driving, probably because behing overtaken by a *woman* towing a
caravan offended their fragile masculine egos. In those days, caravans were
restricted to 40 so not unreasonably they were often overtaken by lorries.
Fine. But it seems that a few lorry drivers saw that she was a woman and
decided to brake as soon as they had overtaken. She'd overtake and they'd
either speed up as she did it or else let her continue and then speed up to
overtake her.
Some people take offence very easily. The other day I was approaching lights
on a roundabout where traffic was stopped in Lane 1. As I approached in Lane
2, the lights changed so I was able to continue at barely reduced speed
while the dickhead in the flash Subaru in Lane 1 had to accelerate from
rest. He seemed to take offence that I in my little car had "dared" to
overtake his "compensation-for-a-small-penis" car and he tried the
"overtake-and-brake" trick. After he'd done it twice I shrugged at him and
stayed behind as he slowed down progressively from 60 to 50 to 40 to 30,
reasoning that it was just as tedious for him as for me to drive at such an
absurd speed, and hoping that he'd get fed up of it before me. As he did...
Adrian
saying:
>>> - change the Highway Code to say "you must not overtake if your
>>> vehicle cannot go at least 5 mph faster than the vehicle you want to
>>> overtake"
>> How do you define "cannot go at least 5mph faster"? Vehicles just don't
>> have _a_ fixed maximum speed, unless there's a limiter in place. It'll
>> naturally vary up and down, quite considerably, depending on gradient,
>> wind speed and direction. It's really not uncommon for me, in a 2cv, to
>> be tonking along and catching something hand-over-fist, only to find
>> that for some reason either he's suddenly gained some speed or I've
>> suddenly lost some.
> Sorry, after I wrote that I realised that I should have added the phrase
> "for the road conditions at that instant". In other words, know what
> your vehicle is capable of and if you find that you don't have the
> power, pull back in and abort the overtake.
Many's the time I've made good progress past a wagon, got towards the
back of the cab, and found that the wind is such that the blast from the
cab corners is just that bit too much. Or some dick up ahead has done
something silly, I've had to lift, and just haven't got enough power to
accelerate past again.
Wonderful thing, momentum.
Brimstone
I delivered a few box Transits for BT when I was plating. The "bow wave"
off of some lorries was enough to prevent me getting past.
I was trying to get past one particular lorry one day and unable to "break
through" when a gap appeared in both lanes 2 & 3. So I pulled into lane 3
and started getting past. Just at the crucial moment he pulled into L2 to
overtake.
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Brian Robertson
Drink driving, two bald tyres (Or was it 3?), no insurance and still a
learner driver. Please do get the story right.
Brian :-)
JNugent
It was back in the early-to-mid sixties. I clearly remember the PIF
(frequently shown on ITV in prime time and sometimes shown on BBC TV (as it
then was) just before closedown - at about 22:50).
There were several different public information films about "the new motorways".
Mortimer
news:dtGdndmo-NeQz13V...@pipex.net...
Oh, so it was not long after the first motorways opened - Preston Bypass
(M6) was Dec 1958 and parts of M1 were fairly soon after.
I remember a PIF about a middle-lane hogger (I think he was driving a Morris
Minor) on a motorway that was quieter even than a modern one at 3AM!
Boltar
> I've no problem with HGVs overtaking really slow vehicles like tractors that
> are doing 10-15 mph or abnormal-load low-loaders that are doing 30 or 40.
> The differential speed is enough that they will complete the manoeuvre
> reasonably quickly. What gets my goat is the drivers who want to overtake a
> vehicle doing 55 in a vehicle that is speed-limited to 56. That's just
> arrogant and selfish.
And ultimately pointless because if they've got a journey of 56 miles
it simply means they'll arrive 1 minute earlier going at 56 than at
55. Even driving the entire length of Britain from lands end to J.O.G
it would only shorten their journey by 15 minutes. But then I suppose
you're going to get bloody minded screw-you-jack truck drivers as much
as you do car & van drivers and they're the ones who do this.
B2003
Boltar
> power to maintain the appropriate speed limit for that vehicle on the sort
> of gradients that will be encountered
Sometimes I've wondered how many millions of tons of fuel would have
been saved by vehicles of all types over the decades if instead of
motorways going up hill and down dale they just carved through the
landscape as much as possible on the flat. And what is it with this
country and flippin curves in every road? You go to the states or even
some european countries and their motorways don't wind all over the
place nearly as much as ours. If the romans managed to build in
straight lines I'm sure we could manage it now.
B2003
Boltar
> Many's the time I've made good progress past a wagon, got towards the
> back of the cab, and found that the wind is such that the blast from the
> cab corners is just that bit too much. Or some dick up ahead has done
> something silly, I've had to lift, and just haven't got enough power to
> accelerate past again.
If your car hasn't got enough power to get past a truck because of the
wind then IMO its dangerously underpowered and shouldn't be allowed on
a motorway in the first place.
B2003
Mortimer
Earlier in the thread people have defended lorry drivers by saying that it
only delays other drivers by a few minutes when a lorry takes a long time to
overtake. Unfortunately this misses the point that it happens time after
time on a journey: as soon as one lorry has finished overtaking, another one
does it - and so it goes on mile after mile.
Some roads are notorious for it: the A34 is one that I know well. I've
sometimes driven from Newbury to Oxford and never got above 55 because of a
group of maybe ten or fifteen lorries nose-to-tail which have spent the
whole distance overtaking each other, which prevents any other traffic
getting past. And this is even on the flat or downhill sections, not just
the hilly bits like Gore Hill which you'd expect would sort the sheep from
the goats.
The A34 is a prime candidate for either a 7.5 weight restriction in Lane 2
(as on parts of the A42 NE of Birmingham) or else an extra HGV-free lane.
The two-lane stretch of the A1 north of the M18 in Yorkshire is another
example: it is often quicker for me to stay on the M1 as far as the A64
junction than it is to go via the M18 and A1, even though the latter is
shorter, because the M1 has a lorry-free lane.
Brimstone
Peter Campbell Smith
news:91804c6c-64cf-4b30...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
> Sometimes I've wondered how many millions of tons of fuel would have
> been saved by vehicles of all types over the decades if instead of
> motorways going up hill and down dale they just carved through the
> landscape as much as possible on the flat. And what is it with this
> country and flippin curves in every road? You go to the states or even
> some european countries and their motorways don't wind all over the
> place nearly as much as ours. If the romans managed to build in
> straight lines I'm sure we could manage it now.
Back in the 1970s, when many of the motorways were being built, I shared
lodgings with a chap who worked in the office that laid out new ones.
His main job was to work out the ups and downs, by taking a maximum
gradient and then working out the minimum amount of rocks and soil that
had to be moved the minimum distance so that the cuttings balanced the
embankments. The idea was to minimise the construction cost; back then,
saving fuel was less of an issue.
The curves, he told me, were for two reasons. Firstly, the UK is rather
full of things that couldn't easily be moved or demolished, but also
some research had shown that drivers are less likely to fall asleep if
motorways have a few curves.
Presumably in Roman times there were fewer obstructions on the route,
and I reckon that Roman suspension and road surfaces probably kept the
centurions from dozing off.
Peter
--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com
Ed Banger
<b27019ed-adf8-45ca...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Boltar <bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Can anyone think of any bus drivers who meet that description too?
--
Ed Banger
Boltar
> Can anyone think of any bus drivers who meet that description too?
All of them in london
B2003
Steve Firth
I've heard that bus drivers in Stockport have massive chips on both
shoulders. Although I'm not sure that the plural is appropriate.
Brimstone
It the lump of wood they have instead of a head.
Peter Hill
<bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sep 4, 1:30 pm, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None.
>>
>> Indeed. The majority I see aren't managing to reach 70.
>
>Depends on the traffic. As soon as it clears most cars in the outside
>lane get up to 80-90 I would reckon.
Seems they are the losers in the game of "outside lane brag". What I
call the condition when there are more cars in lane 3 than both other
lanes combined, everyone bragging "get out of my way I'm quicker than
you". But some will do 120mph when the nearside lane is clear.
Interstitial speeding in the gaps between a lorry overtaking and the
tail back from the next one. It's why the cops want model aircraft
(UAV) to catch them, they just can't get a patrol car though the
traffic quick enough to catch them and once lost in the queue to pass
the next overtaking lorry can't identify them from camera.
Fact is traffic density in lane 3 slows everyone down. Often slower
than the nearside lane.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Mortimer
news:e8l2c4lbc8fu7la8c...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 06:08:02 -0700 (PDT), Boltar
> <bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 4, 1:30 pm, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> > And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None.
>>>
>>> Indeed. The majority I see aren't managing to reach 70.
>>
>>Depends on the traffic. As soon as it clears most cars in the outside
>>lane get up to 80-90 I would reckon.
>
> Seems they are the losers in the game of "outside lane brag". What I
> call the condition when there are more cars in lane 3 than both other
> lanes combined
Ah - what I call a "lane inversion" where there are more cars in Lane 3 than
Lane 2 and more in 2 than 1 - the exact opposite of the way that motorways
should work. It's *almost* tempting to regard Lane 3 as the new Lane 1 and
overtake on the left. Well, *almost*.
I find the best approach is to stay in Lane 2 (assuming Lane 1 has lots of
lorries in it), going the same speed as everyone in Lane 3 (so as not to
undertake them) but with loads of empty space in front of me so I don't need
to keep my eye out for the guy-in-front's brake lights all the time.
Boltar
> Seems they are the losers in the game of "outside lane brag". What I
> call the condition when there are more cars in lane 3 than both other
> lanes combined, everyone bragging "get out of my way I'm quicker than
> you". But some will do 120mph when the nearside lane is clear.
Actually its more usually a case of there being the usual middle lane
hogging dicks in lane 2 who refuse to move over so everyone who wants
to do more than 69.9999mph just decides to stay in lane 3 because they
know they're just going to have to pull out again in 30 seconds if
they move into lane 2. I just undertake these middle lane morons in
lane 1 if possible. Most of them still don't get the hint and move
over. I think there should be a heavy fine for anyone caught in the
middle lane when the nearside lane is clear.
B2003
Mortimer
I often encounter these bozos late at night on the M1 or M40 on Sunday
nights. Last Sunday was a case in point - small Ford (Fiesta, I think)
pootling long at about 55-60. Given that Lane 1 was mostly clear, apart from
occasional lorries, I was in Lane 1, as were most of the cars in front of
me. We all had to move over into Lane 3 to get past him and then back into
Lane 1. Many people flashed him as they passed behind him. Still he didn't
get the message.
Peter Hill
<bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sep 4, 12:00 pm, Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:28:57 -0700, Boltar wrote:
>> > No deai , but I wish they'd ban 7.5 tonners from the outside lane as
>> > well. They can be a right pain in the @arse.
>>
>> Speed limited ones are. But considering unlimited ones mostly are doing
>> the legal limit, why is there a problem?
>
>And how many cars stick to 70 in the outside lane? None. 7.5 tonners
>are just another moving roadblock. Plus a lot of them are very badly
>driven.
>
>B2003
Just a matter of time before the unlimited ones get replaced. They
can't afford the penalty's for late or missed delivery due to
breakdown of old vans.
Nick Finnigan
> My girlfriend believes that it was as recently as the late 80s or early 90s,
> but I can't remember seeing HGVs in Lane 3 ever since I started driving in
> 1981. Googling on "year when HGVs were banned from Lane 3" doesn't produce
> any matches. I doubt whether I've still got my original edition of the
> Highway Code which I bought at the time, as I've probably updated it
> periodically.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/camtr/consultationonamendmentstoth1141?page=2
would lead you to think it was in the 80s, but you can't rely on that.
JNugent
That's just replacement legislation. The third-lane ban has been in place for
around 45 years now (give or take a year or two).
I bet none of the HGV drivers who post here can remember a time when lorries
had access to the third lane (on dual-three-lane motorways, natch).
Knight Of The Road
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote
> I bet none of the HGV drivers who post here can remember a time when
> lorries had access to the third lane (on dual-three-lane motorways,
> natch).
I can't, I passed in 1986.
--
Regards, Vince.
Harry Monk's Long Distance Diary Luton-Huelva
http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=34657 (New 9th August 2008)
Conor
> There are various solutions that spring to mind:
>
> - require all vehicles that are allowed on a motorway to have sufficent
> power to maintain the appropriate speed limit for that vehicle on the sort
> of gradients that will be encountered
>
Are you going to pay for the 30% increase in the fuel bill?
> - synchronise all speed limiters so that everyone's idea of 56 mph is the
> same, avoiding the "1 mph differerential speed overtaking" problem
>
They are all set the same on the rolling roads.
> I've no problem with HGVs overtaking really slow vehicles like tractors that
> are doing 10-15 mph or abnormal-load low-loaders that are doing 30 or 40.
> The differential speed is enough that they will complete the manoeuvre
> reasonably quickly. What gets my goat is the drivers who want to overtake a
> vehicle doing 55 in a vehicle that is speed-limited to 56. That's just
> arrogant and selfish.
>
A 1MPH speed differential feels like a decent difference from the cab
of a truck.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Conor
29e030...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Boltar says...
> If your car hasn't got enough power to get past a truck because of the
> wind then IMO its dangerously underpowered and shouldn't be allowed on
> a motorway in the first place.
>
Exactly.
Conor
bd2c57...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Boltar says...
> On Sep 4, 4:27 pm, "Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > I've no problem with HGVs overtaking really slow vehicles like tractors that
> > are doing 10-15 mph or abnormal-load low-loaders that are doing 30 or 40.
> > The differential speed is enough that they will complete the manoeuvre
> > reasonably quickly. What gets my goat is the drivers who want to overtake a
> > vehicle doing 55 in a vehicle that is speed-limited to 56. That's just
> > arrogant and selfish.
>
> And ultimately pointless because if they've got a journey of 56 miles
> it simply means they'll arrive 1 minute earlier going at 56 than at
> 55.
Simpleton view. If I'm on a hill and I have to let off the accelerator,
I can lose 15-20MPH I cannot gain again until I reach the top. In
addition to that, fuel consumption plummets from 3-4MPG to 2.
Conor
@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Boltar says...
> On Sep 4, 4:27 pm, "Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > - require all vehicles that are allowed on a motorway to have sufficent
> > power to maintain the appropriate speed limit for that vehicle on the sort
> > of gradients that will be encountered
>
> Sometimes I've wondered how many millions of tons of fuel would have
> been saved by vehicles of all types over the decades if instead of
> motorways going up hill and down dale they just carved through the
> landscape as much as possible on the flat.
Shitloads. On windy hill on the M62, my fuel economy is as low as 2MPG
for several miles.
Clive
<conor_...@hotmail.com> writes
>Simpleton view. If I'm on a hill and I have to let off the accelerator,
>I can lose 15-20MPH I cannot gain again until I reach the top. In
>addition to that, fuel consumption plummets from 3-4MPG to 2.
you're trying to overtake is doing 20 mph less than you, it wouldn't
take miles to overtake it. Further as diesel engines use fuel metered
by the stroke and not foot position alone there's no reason to think
that 3 to 4mpg will fall to two mpg.
--
Clive
Clive
<conor_...@hotmail.com> writes
>A 1MPH speed differential feels like a decent difference from the cab
>of a truck.
to occupy the middle lane for so long.
--
Clive
Knight Of The Road
"Boltar" <bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Sometimes I've wondered how many millions of tons of fuel would have
> been saved by vehicles of all types over the decades if instead of
> motorways going up hill and down dale they just carved through the
> landscape as much as possible on the flat.
Exactly what they do in Italy- bridge, tunnel, bridge, tunnel, I've driven a
sixty mile stretch of Italian motorway and not spent much more than a mile
of if on actual land.
Conor
> In message <6ifb1fF...@mid.individual.net>, Conor
> <conor_...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Simpleton view. If I'm on a hill and I have to let off the accelerator,
> >I can lose 15-20MPH I cannot gain again until I reach the top. In
> >addition to that, fuel consumption plummets from 3-4MPG to 2.
> Are you sure it's not you taking the simpletons view? If the vehicle
> you're trying to overtake is doing 20 mph less than you, it wouldn't
> take miles to overtake it.
FFS..
He's doing 50MPH, I'm approaching at 55MPH. I have to back off as I'm
not allowed to overtake. As soon as I lift off, the turbos boost drops
off and I lose power and drop out of the powerband. I then have to
shift down and lose more speed etc etc.
> Further as diesel engines use fuel metered
> by the stroke and not foot position alone there's no reason to think
> that 3 to 4mpg will fall to two mpg.
>
It does.
Tell me, have you driven a 40+ tonne artic up a climb on a motorway
have you? In fact, have you driven one at all?
Conor
Half of you cunts are passing each other at very little speed
difference.
Conor
your driving so piss poor?
Derek
<russiat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Boltar" <bolta...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Sometimes I've wondered how many millions of tons of fuel would have
>> been saved by vehicles of all types over the decades if instead of
>> motorways going up hill and down dale they just carved through the
>> landscape as much as possible on the flat.
>
>
>Exactly what they do in Italy- bridge, tunnel, bridge, tunnel, I've driven a
>sixty mile stretch of Italian motorway and not spent much more than a mile
>of if on actual land.
On the coast there's usually there's a little town or fishing village
in the valleys that has to be served by an entrance and exit and
there'll be an optimum height to get the interchange in
Build it high and the bridges get very tall (Goes to collect Nobel
prize for the Bleedin' Obvious), build it low and the tunnels get
longer and more expensive.
Sea level is the same all the way along, so Bob's your uncle
Incidentally a subsidiary reason for building the motorways in the UK
was to get rid of all the hills of colliery waste (AKA Slag Heaps) and
they didn't want to haul it any further than they had to to keep the
cost down.
Derek