You may have been quite angry last night after coming across me.
But you might want to bear in mind that while you want to keep your speed up to make it up the hill, doing so by holding 56mph through a 40 zone in a village; catching up with the car in front and slamming your brakes on, flashing your lights and leaning on your horn is not the right way to do it.
I was that driver doing the speed limit. Sorry. However, I don't apologise for finding the steeping bit of hill that I was able, in roadworks so you couldn't pass, and bringing the car to a gentle stop with you behind me before moving off again.
I could see you struggling to get going again and I hope you were shuffling gears for the next thirty minutes. Knob.
Pat / other professional driversd - is it possible for an HGV to exceed 56mph with a decent downhill gradient, as I was doing a GPS 44mph and he came rocketing up on my tail?
|
|
Sounds like you both deserved to meet each other. Baffling behaviour from both of you.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 08:45
|
|
I'm baffled that you think bullying other drivers when they're doing the speed limit is an acceptable course of action.
|
I never said bullying other drivers is acceptable. Not sure how you've drawn that conclusion.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 09:05
|
|
I would have stopped too, rather than continue at 40mph with a lorry up my chuff.
|
|
I'd have been terrified, but I would have speeded up, let him overtake at the earliest opportunity, taken his number and reported him to his employer and the police - I hope.
|
|
Interesting thought - I wonder if he's had car drivers hooting behind him when he's had to creep up that hill in a low gear.
|
Of course it is possible.
With a gross weight of 44 tonnes anything is going to gather momentum pretty fast down a hill (Beattock is the best one).
But I'm with Sooty and think both of you behaved very badly and I can only hope no other innocent road user came across both of your fits of road rage.
Perfect recipe for an accident if ever I heard one.
Lucky for both of you it didn't result in the same as on the A34 last night.
Pat
|
I'e often been in roadworks on the M5 or M6 with say a 40mph limit with an HGV inches off the bumper with nothing you can do. You can't speed up (much) because of the average speed cameras. Defensive driving teaches you to lift off and gradually slow down a bit so they back off - that's a RoSPA driving course.
I'm not sure it was right to have then stopped but lifting off so the lorry backed off a bit maybe have been okay to get to drop back.
If it had a number on the back about 'how's my driving' I might have phoned that instead. Was this lorry UK or foreign registered?
So I assume sooty/Pat are okay with holding up the lorry in the 40mph zone or should Fursty have speed up to 56mph?
Maybe the driver was reaching the limit of his driving time - but does that give him the right to speed by such a margin o bully drivers?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 10:19
|
'm with Rob on this one: I wouldn't have gone as far as FF in actually stopping, but slowing down to try to get him off your back sounds sensible - in self-defence in case there could have been an accident, rather than revenge.
And it's only fair to say that 'executive' cars (usually black) are far more likely to do this than HGVs, which are in the vast majority of cases driven by professionals and driven well.
|
>>
>> And it's only fair to say that 'executive' cars (usually black) are far more likely
>> to do this than HGVs, which are in the vast majority of cases driven by
>> professionals and driven well.
>>
An aggressive tailgater "controlling" 40 ton of lorry with the braking distance of the Queen Mary 20 feet off my boot is a lot more dangerous than an aggressive tailgater "controlling" 2 ton of Bavaria's finest at the same distance though.
|
> So I assume sooty/Pat are okay with holding up the lorry in the 40mph zone
>> or should Fursty have speed up to 56mph?
I seem to have not made myself clear, going by a couple of comments, i think they were both equally guilty of being stupid (in different ways) and trying to teach each other a lesson. Pity there wasn't a copper about to bang their heads together.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 10:53
|
>> I'e often been in roadworks on the M5 or M6 with say a 40mph limit
>> with an HGV inches off the bumper with nothing you can do. You can't speed
>> up (much) because of the average speed cameras.
>>
Don't average speed cameras give you the opportunity to speed up, change lanes to get out of the way of bully drivers?
|
>> Don't average speed cameras give you the opportunity to speed up, change lanes to get out of
>> the way of bully drivers?
Absolutely but with all three lanes with cars doing the limit and no way of getting into the other lane.... what can you do?
You can't speed up because the lorry then won't let you slow down. You can't get into another lane because there are no gaps. And the car in front of you is already doing the speed limit... so what does the stupid lorry driver want to happen?
They aren't all like this thankfully. Their livelihood depends on their licences.
|
>> Lucky for both of you it didn't result in the same as on the A34 last night.
Yes, very sad. Heard it mentioned on the way home last night, and this morning they have reported that a 45 yr old woman and 3 children died as a result of it. Along with 11 people sustaining minor injuries.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-37042932
|
Lorries can exceed their governed maximum speed downhill by freewheeling.
I'm surprised by the po-faced attitudes displayed by some here. When other vehicles are going faster or slower than me I overtake them or get out of their way. Of course the opportunity may not arise for a while and then someone has to wait.
This is a crowded country and sometimes everyone is held up. No point in grinding your teeth and getting in a state about it. Just be late, everyone will understand.
|
>> >> Lucky for both of you it didn't result in the same as on the A34 last night.
The lorry driver has pleaded guilty to the deaths.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-37607400
Doesn't mention other than "he was distracted by using a mobile phone". Reports elsewhere ( tinyurl.com/zetrd8e - Oxford Mail) said he was changing the music on his phone. Caught by his own dashcam.
"One of the issues a sentencing judge will have to think about is how long the defendant was distracted by his mobile phone. This was at least seven-and-three-quarter seconds as shown by dash cam video. The best evidence shows simultaneously the defendant looking repeatedly at his mobile phone. Another angle through the windscreen shows the fast-approaching queue of vehicles.â€
|
>> The lorry driver has pleaded guilty to the deaths.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-37607400
Sentenced to 10 yrs prison for causing the death of a mother and three children while changing the music on his mobile phone.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37823457
Short version. www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTkm5_K6zkY
Long version. www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj-9Vu_0TAw
|
>>>> The lorry driver has pleaded guilty to the deaths.
At least he did that, though I suspect that it contributed to a reduced tariff?
I am quite surprised at the speed that this one came to court and the family now have a chance to move on, however hard that may be.
|
Absolutely the right result and dealt with quickly to avoid the foreign driver going bak home and never returning,
My regret is that we can't deport him to be imprisoned in his home land for the full term and know it will happen. Know he will be deprived of his treasured family, just as he has deprived others of theirs.
We, as a country will keep him. will treat him with respect even though imprisoned.
He'll never wonder how he's going to pay the bills for the next 10 years, how he's going to keep warm in the winter or how he's going to keep fit and healthy.
We'll imprison him, but we'll provide for him.
Who will provide for the loss these families face?
Our system will fail them, as it always seems to do to the innocent.
Thanks for posting the long version VX, I will make sure at least a few hundred lorry drivers sit in silence and watch that from start to finish next year.
Yes, it's a drop in the ocean but it's a start.
Pat
|
|
Surely the victims will be in for a very substantial pay out from the lorry driver's insurers. If he has no insurance the MIB will meet the claim. Of course that is little in the way of recompense for their loss but hopefully financially they should be OK.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 31 Oct 16 at 16:54
|
It may well happen CG but that will never in any way compensate for their loss.
I know just how many drivers still use their phones while driving, both lorry and car drivers.
They all think nothing like that will ever happen to them.
That video of the driver in his cab, happy and doing just what so many do on a day to day basis, will strike home.
I've covered a fair few miles over yesterday and today and on the whole was surprised to see a great standard of driving.
Two cars missed all of the signs for the slip road they wanted and then crossed on the hatched area to get in at the last minute, but after I slowed and flashed to let them in they at least put their hand up to say thanks...I can live with that, I suppose.
I ended up upstairs on the Eurotunnel this morning at 6am in the dark and very foggy but found that the XC60 actually has more vision on the ramp than the V70 did so a shorter bonnet might be the reason for that.
My phone rang a number of times and yes, I could have taken it via the hands free Bluetooth system and the 'car' would have talked to me and I could have answered.
However, my training as a lorry driver has taught me to assess a situation and when the risks are high, the traffic is busy, visibility not good and the markers are stacked up against that option, to ignore it.
It doesn't mean that when the traffic is light you won't see me having a sip of coffee from a Costa cup but it does tell me my priorities are somewhere near where they should be.
Pat
|
"It may well happen CG but that will never in any way compensate for their loss."
I never said it did but I was answering your question as to who would provide financially for the families
|
I know, I really wasn't berating you CG.
I try so hard to get this message across...and seem to fail all the time.
It is sad that it seems this is what it takes to convert just a few.
Pat
|
>> Surely the victims will be in for a very substantial pay out from the lorry
>> driver's insurers. If he has no insurance the MIB will meet the claim. Of course
>> that is little in the way of recompense for their loss but hopefully financially they
>> should be OK.
I know you don't mean that it's OK, CG, and you have implied what I am about to write... I fear that the assessment of damages will be much more financial than any kind of recompense for lives wrecked, endless grief and emotional damage. e.g. if a victim was a young, high earner then the damages would probably be much higher then for an accident in which a stay-at-home parent and children were killed. I hope that's not the case but I have a feeling it is.
|
>>Surely the victims will be in for a very substantial pay out from the lorry driver's insurers
I think you'll find that the victims are dead.
|
Granted I have only saw the short clip, however it was an interesting clip.
We all know phones can distract you, when looking at phone you're not looking at the road.
However, from what I could see it would appear that he did glance at the road a couple of times.
So it looks like although he may have seen the stationery vehicles, the risk did not actually register with him. Which is breathtaking to realise that his eyes couldn't get the message through to his brain due to the phone distraction.
Although he has caused deaths and ruined families forever, including his own, I do feel a small part of sorry for him. He did not set out that day to kill. He was just going to his work.
|
I'd want to hear the lorry driver's version before passing judgement on his driving.
However, based on FF's version, in my view FF was driving carelessly, maybe even dangerously - certainly not defensively. It makes me wonder whether his being rear-ended on the M25 recently may also have been preventable.
I would not be comfortable as FF's passenger.
|
>> I would not be comfortable as FFs passenger.
In car or plane.
FF is a pilot, everything must be done by the book and speed limits are absolute. The roads are not like that and you have to make allowances for others mistakes. I hope he flies better than he drives.
|
|
I've almost always found that if you are being tailgated or a driver behind is too close for comfort, then gradually slowing down for a short period generally encourages them to drop back, rather than just rely on your brake lights.
|
>> I've almost always found that if you are being tailgated or a driver behind is too close for comfort, then gradually slowing down for a short period generally encourages them to drop back, rather than just rely on your brake lights.
>>
I sometimes do that, although I wouldn't in this instance. The speed, with which some of them do drop back, leads me to think they've probably been in robot mode, rather than consciously aggressive.
|
>>I sometimes do that, although I wouldn't in this instance.>>
Yes, it depends on the circumstances, but I just take my foot off the accelerator and the speed only drops slowly, especially in higher gears. It's enough, as I said, to put doubt in the following driver's mind, so he/she drops back.
Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the fairer sex have probably been the far more aggressive drivers for quite some time now, complete with foul language and rude gestures if anyone crosses their path?
|
>> The roads are not like that and you have to make allowances for others
>> mistakes.
which is why I think FF may have contributed to his shunt on M25.
>> I hope he flies better than he drives.
>>
Pilots are supposed to be trained in being calm and collected in stressful situations, and I hope not prone to being goaded in to road-rage revenge actions.
Trucker Dave Walker pulls into middle lane of the M62 to let traffic slip on. Driver Dave, 59, from Selby, is unable to stop his 44 tonne lorry in time. He slams into the Honda's boot three times before they come to a stop
Dramatic dashcam footage shows a driver appearing to 'teach a trucker a lesson' by breaking sharply in front of him – but his foolhardy manoeuvre backfires and the 44-tonne lorry slams into his rear end three times.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Bg1rpOcYM
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 11:39
|
|
It is not surprising that these wannabe traffic cops often get rear ended. The tube has many examples.
|
>> FF is a pilot, I hope he flies better than he drives.
I think what he said the other day almost came true.
"Statistically, I'm more likely to be involved in another accident now. "
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=22688&m=503746&v=e
|
The truck driver was clearly an a***. A dangerous a*** at that.
I quite understand your reaction, I would certainly wanted to mess up his time as he had mine.
However, the best way to manage an a*** is not by being one yourself. With the level of nutter that this trucker would appear to have been it could have got really silly. Never mind your loss of attention to actually driving.
So I get it. I might even have done similar. But I think in calmer moments we'd both know it was better not to.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 11:59
|
You really really don't want to be in a car between lorries when there's a big nose-to-tail multiple shunt.
I was nearly in one once not here, but in the US, on the New Jersey Turnpike. The truck in front started bouncing on locked rear wheels. I hit the brake pedal and all my wheels locked (my nine-year-old Plymouth had a powerful brake servo, narrow balding crossplies and very low-geared steering made worse by a stylish oval steering wheel). I was about to go under the back end of the truck, but reacted correctly by taking my foot off the brakes to allow steering and turning onto the hard shoulder, still going faster than the truck . Can't imagine how I managed that in the second or two available... It was a very very hairy experience. I had to sit there for a minute to let my heart rate normalize. Now I leave a decent gap to allow gentle braking when necessary.
Live and learn, what? But all roads and all vehicles are dangerous. We must be mad to have anything to do with them.
I've posted this before needless to say. Sorry to be a bore.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 12:48
|
|
Fursty, while the trucker's driving is indefensible, what I could say in mitigation is that he is sat high above you and possibly had a very clear view of the road ahead? Still doesn't excuse his actions. But I don't think I would have slowed on the uphill like you did - two wrongs don't make a right, etc.
|
>> Fursty, while the trucker's driving is indefensible, what I could say in mitigation is that
>> he is sat high above you and possibly had a very clear view of the
>> road ahead?
He(?)was still trying to push FF well over the speed limit though...and having a clear view doesn't change the lorry's Queen Maryesque braking distance.
|
>>the lorry's Queen Maryesque braking distance.<<
I don't really agree with that spamcan.
In my experience a lorry can stop on a tanner if needed. With EBS, ABS and TC along with air brakes and discs all round, there really is no difference to any other vehicle if you have the confidence in your load to absolutely stand on the brake pedal.
I've shifted a load or two in the trailer when I've had to do it, and had to re-stack it by hand and it's the reason I never take short cuts when carrying steel or timber etc with the straps.
I need to know I can use all the lorry's abilities without the load ending up in the cab with me.
Pat
|
>> >>the lorry's Queen Maryesque braking distance.<<
>>
>> I don't really agree with that spamcan.
>>
You're obviously better qualified than me to comment Pat.
There's some interesting looking gen. here - although it's 15 years old:-
www.ukmotorists.com/hgv%20braking%20distances.asp
|
That's actually an interesting article but it is, as you say, 15 years old and things have moved on so much since then.
I'd love to see the sane thing updated now , it would make interesting reading.
I'm sure you'll agree that as lorry drivers, whenever we brake suddenly, the load in the back is always in our minds and determines how hard the foot goes down!
I'm useless at maths but I've made many a split second calculation based on how hard=how far:)
Pat
|
>> whenever we brake suddenly, the load in the back is always in our minds
Possibly, literally.
;>)
|
>> >>the lorry's Queen Maryesque braking distance.<<
>>
>> I don't really agree with that spamcan.
>>
>> In my experience a lorry can stop on a tanner if needed.
Hmm, according to this, the braking distance of lorries is a lot longer than cars....
www.ukmotorists.com/hgv%20braking%20distances.asp
which quotes a laden Iveco Tractor and Trailer taking 27 meters to stop on a slight downhill on a good road surface and in dry conditions. A Ford Mondeo would take 7.14 meters, so if the lorry is on the cars bumper and the car does an emergency stop then the chances are the lorry will go in to the back of the car.
I see it all the time on the motorways, especially in average speed camera roadworks where the lanes are narrow, congested and I am doing the speed limit plus a couple if I am lucky (if there is room) and a 40 tonne HGV is right on my bumper.
I hate them when they do this - they are risking my life - not theirs and one doing this killed my cousin nearly 20 years ago now.
|
>> if the lorry is on the cars bumper and the car does an emergency stop
>> then the chances are the lorry will go in to the back of the car.
>>
By my calculation the chances of the lorry NOT hitting the back of my car are Zero.
The next concern is will it just hit or ride over the top.
An incentive to install a rear facing camera and a sign saying " Smile you are on camera and Youtube " ?
.
|
>> and a sign saying " Smile you are on camera and Youtube <<
...and any lorry driver worth his salt would wave....with one finger!
You forget that almost all lorries have forward facing cameras now.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 17:50
|
>> >> and a sign saying " Smile you are on camera and Youtube <<
>>
>> ...and any lorry driver worth his salt would wave....with one finger!
Really? Waving a single finger is a sign that a lorry driver is worth his salt?
What a peculiar standard. Perhaps if they aimed a little higher then incidents like Fursty's wouldn't happen.
|
>>Really? Waving a single finger is a sign that a lorry driver is worth his salt?<<
You lost your sense of humour totally then Mark:)
Incidents like FF's will always occur because drivers like BOTH the lorry driver and FF suffer from road rage and don't know how to control their tempers.
It's a recipe for disaster and will befall either, or both of them, if they don't learn to let it go.
Pat
|
In this case it wouldn't have happened without the "professional" driver.
And he was an example of a "professional" driver, Fursty was a mere amateur.
|
Fursty is a professional pilot, I'm a professional lorry driver.
Fursty can't drive a lorry, I can't drive a plane.
Both are amateur car drivers.........but one of us thinks we're not.
Guess who?
Pat
|
>> Both are amateur car drivers.........but one of us thinks we're not.
>>
>> Guess who?
I have no idea what either of you think of your car driving skills, or even what they're like.
But I do know that you think the t*** in the cab behind Fursty was a professional driver. Which wouldn't be quite the word I would use.
|
I made ir clear in my first post in this thread what I think of them both.
Here it is , just in case you try to ignore it again
>>But I'm with Sooty and think both of you behaved very badly and I can only hope no other innocent road user came across both of your fits of road rage.
<<
Pat
|
So you don't think the lorry driver was "professional "?
If you do, then of what value is it?
If you do not, then what is the criteria to be considered "professional"?
|
I think both the lorry driver and FF were a pair of professional idiots.
There's a lot of it about.
Pat
|
I'll ask you again; do you consider the lorry driver in this case a professional driver?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Come on, it was you who made this point about professional drivers, and I'd like to understand it.
My money is that you won't answer. And that you'll make some excuse about not wanting to.
|
>> I'll ask you again; do you consider the lorry driver in this case a professional
>> driver?
>>
>> If so, why?
>> If not, why not?
Are you in pompous pratt mode again?
A professional driver is someone who holds a vocational licence (if they are legal) and earns their living by driving large vehicles not covered by a car licence.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 07:55
|
>> A professional driver is someone who holds a vocational licence (if they are legal) and
>> earns their living by driving large vehicles not covered by a car licence.
Fair enough.
So nothing to do with driving ability and no different to a private hire, taxi or coach driver.
So lets stop using it in a way that pretends it has some value as a driving standard.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 13:23
|
>> So nothing to do with driving ability and no different to a private hire, taxi
>> or coach driver.
>>
>> So lets stop using it in a way that pretends it has some value as
>> a driving standard.
>>
I know you are being provocative, and obviously know nothing about HGV training, driving tests, medical examinations, or actual driving. There are good a bad in all professions, how do you rate in yours? You seem to think you are an expert in other people's jobs.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 14:42
|
Ummm, what makes you think I know nothing about driving an HGV?
So go wind your neck in, you ass.
I asked, asked you note, the definition of "professional" driver. Turns out its having a licence and getting paid.
Yet its often put forward as if it means something more than that.
|
>>how do you rate in yours? You seem to think you are an expert in other people's jobs.<<
But we don't know what his is Sundodger, he's probably the little man who puts the sunbeds out on the beach each morning with a massive alta ego!
Pat
|
I used to do that, in Lagos. A very happy summer.
Why do you look down on people who do that?
|
>> But we don't know what his is Sundodger, he's probably the little man who puts
>> the sunbeds out on the beach each morning with a massive alta ego!
>>
>> Pat
>>
At least I could line up the sunbeds, and I can reverse park a lorry that bends in the middle. :-)
|
Love reverse parking an artic, I can get it in the smallest space but still haven't mastered the art of it with the XC60 yet:)
Pat
|
>> I can get it in the smallest space
>>
..... even the boot of the car in front........
;-)
|
If the caravan is single axle, not surprised. Twins are a lot easier.
Long trailer + short tugger = happiness
Short trailer + long tugger = misery!
The really fun bit starts with reversing a two trailer outfit, such as some showman have. A longer than normal tractor unit with a generator, a ride trailer, and on the back, a living van. Trawled around the web and even came across a lorry with three trailers!
|
>>So lets stop using it in a way that pretends it has some value as
>> a driving standard. <<
In the eyes of the law it does, and what's more it means my standard of driving is higher than yours!
How's that for an ego shatterer:)
Pat
|
>> How's that for an ego shatterer:)
You think my ego depends on our comparative driving abilities? How very small.
|
>> >>So lets stop using it in a way that pretends it has some value as
>> >> a driving standard. <<
>>
>> In the eyes of the law it does, and what's more it means my standard of driving is higher than yours!
Both wrong. In the eyes of the law it means that you are permitted to drive trucks. Lets be fair, you dont even understand stopping distances and think that a raised middle finger is the work of a driver worth his salt.
And it offers *no* comparative judgement, something else I would have thought you would have grasped.
|
>>Both wrong. In the eyes of the law it means that you are permitted to drive trucks<<
Wrong again Mark, you're really not having a very good day are you.
Try Googling elevated fines for professional drivers.
See how much you're fined for using a phone while driving a car for example and how much I'm fined for doing the same while driving a lorry.....simply because the law considers, quite rightly, I should know better as a professional driver.
What's more, to hold an HGV licence now, I also have to be of good repute as a professional driver but any Tom Dick or Harry can hold a car licence.
Things have changed since you dabbled, do try and keep up old chap.
Pat
|
What have elevated fine levels got to do with degree of competency or professionalism ? That's to do with standard of required behaviour.
And if that behaviour was consistent then elevated fines would not be required.
I know you desperately want to call yourself a professional driver, and you are one so why not, just don't pretend it implies anything about your driving behaviour.
Are you sure you train people in this stuff? Because you don't seem to have a firm understanding.
Still when the EC directives go away you can try this stuff instead.
|
>>a professional driver, and you are one so why not<<
You finally agree after the last few years telling I'm not one?
>>just don't pretend it implies anything about your driving behaviour. <<
I don't have to, my driving record speaks volumes for that!
>>Are you sure you train people in this stuff?<<
What stuff?
I don't train people to drive lorries, driving schools do that.
>>Still when the EC directives go away you can try this stuff instead. <<
Again, what stuff?
Pat
|
[Sigh] its like pushing wet atring up hill.
Of course you are "professional" in the sense that you get paid to do something, although you dont anymore, do you?
That just has nothing to say about the quality or style of your driving, neither of which I care about. I just dislike the idea that someoe with your attitude to behaviour and the laws of physics tries to put teuck drivers on a pedestal.
|
>> tries to put teuck drivers on a pedestal<<
That's actually quite hard as opposed to knocking you off yours, that's a doddle.
I do enjoy a good spat with you.
When you get into one of your 'I'm lacking is self confidence and my ego has got up and gone' moods it really is so good for forum traffic.
Pat
|
Good, well now you feel all warm and cuddly just remember what I said.
By the way, am I so important in your life? Because you're not in mine. I thought I'd explained that here before?
Although I take your point that when I write loads of people come to read, who cares why they think I'm writing just as long as they come. But don't let it get to you, its good that you can see the benefit to the forum in that. Perhaps you could find a way to help it also?
|
>> When you get into one of your 'I'm lacking is self confidence and my ego
>> has got up and gone' moods it really is so good for forum traffic.
>>
>> Pat
>>
I think the sun must be way above his yardarm. His finger / keyboard coordination is also below par.
|
On a phone, up a mountain.
It does make me smile. When idiots like you are trying to be insulting, albeit at a schoolboy level, I do lnow that I've not only got through, you also haven't got anything grown up to say on the actual subject.
Although sitting here on my own grinning is collecting the odd look.
Nonetheless, I'll get chalk that down as yet anothet point.
|
>>>> Still when the EC directives go away you can try this stuff instead. <<
>> Again, what stuff?
I don't know what stuff he refers to but the EU/EC directive he's referring to is I assume 2003/59/EC. This is related to competence of HGV drivers. In the UK I think this is referred to as Drivers CPC.
Once we leave the EU then 2003/59/EC is no longer applicable and therefore no HGV drivers needs to aim for a Drivers CPC. I bet they will be glad not to spend weekends doing that. :-)
|
Wrong again.
Here is the current situation...
>>The government has said it has no plans to scrap the Driver CPC after Brexit.
Responding to a question from CM about whether the Driver CPC would be kept, scrapped or amended, a spokesman for the DfT said : “Lorry drivers help keep Britain moving and play a vital role in boosting growth and prosperity
“The Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) training can play a significant role in making roads safer and reducing pollution through eco-driving.â€
The spokesman added that that the government would be working with the haulage industry to improve the training itself as operators remained best placed to detail what they wanted from it.<<
Pat
|
>>The government has said it has no plans to scrap the Driver CPC after Brexit.
>>
This statement is somewhat at odds with rest of the quote.
> “The Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) training can play a significant role in making roads
>> safer and reducing pollution through eco-driving.â€
>>
>> The spokesman added that that the government would be working with the haulage industry to
>> improve the training itself as operators remained best placed to detail what they wanted from
>> it.
It reads more like a we'll get back to you rather than anything definitive.
|
It isn't that really Sooty.
Leaving the EU Directive totally aside, it shows they have listened to both the Haulage Industry and to trainers who implement it.
Customers value firms who have trained staff, and indeed the BRC Accreditation demands it.
Training of drivers has measured and positive results in both compliance and fuel saving, not to mention customer service, H&S, first aid and many more fields.
The training as it stands is good but has certain flaws in the way it's implemented but unfettered by the EU Directive it can finally be tailored to suit, which will be a good thing.
Pat
|
|
I was just commenting on the statement, which is just a generic holding answer and differed from the first sentence.
|
|
There is also the inescapable fact that scrapping the driver CPC would lead to wholesale redundancies in the training business, leaving a lot of grandmothers without an egg to suck. ;)
|
You really think that's the only string I have to my bow HM, I was never a believer in putting all my eggs in one basket.
Pat
|
Certainly not Pat. FWIW I sort of agree with you that ongoing training is beneficial, but the way it's currently implemented is flawed.
Trouble is that much of the present DCPC format has been discredited by a combination of poor training providers, an inflexible and cumbersome administration and delivery process and, at the "rough end" of the industry, an insistence that drivers should dip into their own pockets to provide said training, or at the least, do it in their own time; which as you are well aware sometimes brings them into a situation where they are in breach of the very laws which the training seeks to enforce.
I would like to see an end to the current "cop-out" which enables drivers to sit through the same seven hours of tedious drivel year on year, without even the need for a simple test at the end of it, simply in order to tick a box on some auditor's compliance sheet. And I'm sorry, your courses may well be a lot better and more informative than that but there's a lot that fall far short of your standards as you will be well aware, and many drivers quite understandably see the whole thing as a load of window-dressing for the benefit of suits.
|
>> an insistence that drivers should dip into their own pockets to provide said training, <<
>> to sit through the same seven hours of tedious drivel year on year, without even the need for a simple test at the end of it, simply in order to tick a box on some auditor's compliance sheet.<<
We hear this quoted so often but when you look at the two quotes above they don't actually make sense.
Why would anyone who is paying for their own training buy the same course five times?
It's a bit like buying five copies of the same paperback!
In practice it almost always never happens
A) For the reasons above
B) Because if a haulage firm is paying they want their drivers to actually learn something to warrant the outlay
C) Because any good trainer worth their salt won't do it.
I've refused to do a second course this week for someone desperate for a DQC card, because it would be the same course as I did for him last week.
Pat
|
EU directives are directives for national law. So leaving the EU will not affect any of them that are enshrined in UK law, and if we wish to drop or modify a directive, new UK law will be required.
I will be pressing for the driving licence law to be changed in respect of driving three wheelers, but I wont do it until Brexit is effective. However, should you go on holiday to France, their law trumps it, so a car licence gained since 19 January 2013 may not cover it.
|
>>
>> In practice it almost always never happens
>>
>> A) For the reasons above
>> B) Because if a haulage firm is paying they want their drivers to actually learn
>> something to warrant the outlay
>> C) Because any good trainer worth their salt won't do it.
>>
>> I've refused to do a second course this week for someone desperate for a DQC
>> card, because it would be the same course as I did for him last week.
>>
>> Pat
>>
Well good for you. But he's going to get his card anyway if he's in a hurry because he'll simply go elsewhere and take whichever module comes up first whether he's done it before or not; because he legally can. The point I was making, as you are perfectly aware, is just that; you CAN do the same module over and over again should you choose to (and even if they aren't the same it feels like they are by the time you get five hours into it) and there is no qualifying exam at the end of it; which makes the whole thing an utter farce.
I do not dispute that you can learn from them should you choose to, nor do I dispute that some drivers can't or won't learn; I am frequently asked by a couple of ours about drivers' hours stuff which they really should know by heart given how long they've been doing the job. I even had our driver trainer ( unfortunately of the ilk who has an overblown sense of his own importance) tell me that I couldn't drive a bob-tail unit on a cat C licence. If they don't know it doesn't give you a deal of confidence does it?
For the record, our company used a highly reputable trainer (Coates of Leicester) and I'm absolutely convinced that I sat through the same module three times out of five.
|
>> were a pair of professional idiots<<
What part of the above don't you understand?
Pat
|
>> You lost your sense of humour totally then Mark:)
Obviously, I didn't even realise that this was an amusing subject.
|
If you're looking for an argument anything is fair game I suppose!
Pat
|
I do take your point Zippy and it's understandable given your cousins accident.
But can anyone explain why as soon as there is queuing traffic on a motorway there is always a 'shunt' of cars usually 4 or 5, standing there scratching their heads wondering what happened?
If their braking is so much better how come they can't manage to stop?
Lack of attention, I presume.........and there's the big difference between an amateur and a professional driver.
Pat
|
>>....and there's the big difference between an amateur and a professional driver.
Well, that and middle finger usage, apparently.
|
Many lorry drivers are professional but some are not.
tinyurl.com/q6pcv9y (Daily Mail)
What is left of the grey BMW belongs to a colleague. The lorry driver was on speed.
The BMW was stationary in a queue on the M25. His wife borrowed the car and was driving and luckily she and their baby survived but she had to spend months in hospital. One other driver was killed.
|
Pat >>>I don't really agree with that spamcan.
In my experience a lorry can stop on a tanner if needed. <<<
" a lorry can stop on a tanner" it would appear that it is this sort of perception that pervades a proportion of the 'professional' driving community. No wonder they tailgate. They even do it to other lorries where the high driving position confers no advantage. They are pepared to gamble with their own lives as well as the mutiple occupants of a car.
I hope you do not 'preach what you practice' based on your personal experience and perceptions.
|
I have 30 years accident free lorry driving behind me Sherlock, that covers many, many miles of tramping from Cornwall to Scotland, so whatever I practiced, it worked for me.
You lot need to lighten up a bit and take humour how it's meant on here, although I accept a lorry drivers humour is often hard to understand.
Meanwhile, no-one has come up with an excuse for the car shunts we see on a daily basis?
Pat
|
40mph is about 60 feet per second.
If vehicle B is following vehicle A at 60fps with a separation of 20 or 30 feet, I would expect B to hit A regardless of whether it had equal stopping power if driver B's reaction time started when driver A hit the brakes for a rapid stop.
I wouldn't have stopped and blocked the road like FF, mainly in case the lorry driver turned out to be a cycle path; but I would have coasted to a halt, if necessary, where the lorry could pass. Experience suggests that the other party often doesn't twig, even if I use the slowing down hand signal and left indicator, ends up stopped behind anyway, and has to be waved past. I will say I have never had to do this to a lorry driver - they usually back off when I slow down.
I don't do it myself and I am not prepared to be tailgated by anybody, for any distance.
This afternoon, friend driving, all lanes occupied, we pulled over from lane 4/4 of the M25 at the earliest opportunity to allow the tailgater (car) behind past. He immediately rushed up to the car 2 seconds ahead, who stood his ground, so Mr Tailgater undertook him, moved back out into his safety space, and did the same again to the one now in front. No wonder there are unnecessary 'accidents'.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 18:10
|
Pat you're not saying FF was wrong in not speeding to let the lorry go faster than the speed limit are you? I assume you're in agreement with a few of us that FF then did wrong in stopping the lorry.
>> In my experience a lorry can stop on a tanner if needed.
In my experience, lorries drivers aren't always so good at stopping. I have no recollection to this day how/why an HGV re-ended a hire car I was in but I do remember coming around in the ambulance and later sitting in the ambulance and seeing:
1. HGV wedged into the boot of my hire car.
2. Tanker of some sort jack-knifed into the HGV
3. A major motorway in Italy near the airport shut for a few hours and flights missed etc.
I am told the HGV driver thought he'd killed me and was relieved when I came around in the ambulance. In the end our excess for car hire was returned so he was seen to be to blame.
I have no idea how he crashed into the back of us and why my car might have slowed/stopped. I have no memory apart from hearing the sound of the HGV crash into the back, glass smash, metal tear and compress and yes I did think at that point it was game over. I do recall thinking.... well this is it for us. Somehow the roof ripping my head open didn't damage me too much.
So even if I'd done an emergency stop (I didn't) how did an HGV crash into the back of us? A professional driver. Luckily no car was in front for us to get squashed.
My hire car:
postimg.org/image/tqg78g2qv/
To think I took photos of the scratches to the rear wheel arch before setting out.
|
|
And my incident shows why HGVs and similar vehicles should not drive so near. What if FF had a blow out or something? Or something made him brake suddenly? What would the lorry driver have done then? Apart from hit FF's car.
|
|
Another question... if you're being tailgated by an HGV and you have to touch or use your brakes and he runs into you. He's going to be blamed for the accident - fact and no defence because you need to be able to stop in an emergency. So why do it?
|
|
Try telling that to a judge when you have brake tested a HGV with a dashcam and have been charged with dangerous driving.
Last edited by: Old Sundodger on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 21:38
|
Who said anything about brake testing? But if they cause a crash from driving too close for their speed they are to blame. Any vehicle has to stop if necessary and safely. Remember your driving test? In FF example it was a 40mph limit - so it was reduced to 40mph for a reason.
So if the car (hypothetical) had to brake then the lorry driver has to stop safely too.
Their dash cam in this situation could show them as driving to close for their speed.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 21:44
|
I always thought that if you hit the rear of the vehicle in front then you were automatically to blame? (that's what my insurers once told me many years ago when something similar happened to me). Therefore, the lorry driver in the "clip" was technically at fault? - Isn't that what the recent "scams" were based on also?
|
I can think of many scenarios where you might need to brake and it would be a problem if there was a 44 tonne lorry a few feet behind you.
Highway code rule 126:
assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/559afa50ed915d1592000026/the-highway-code-stopping-distances.jpg
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should:
- leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown above)
- allow at least a two-second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster-moving traffic and in tunnels where visibility is reduced. The gap should be at least doubled on wet roads and increased still further on icy roads
- remember, large vehicles and motorcycles need a greater distance to stop. If driving a large vehicle in a tunnel, you should allow a four-second gap between you and the vehicle in front.
Or are lorry drivers drive allowed to ignore the highway code?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 11 Aug 16 at 23:08
|
Or are lorry drivers drive allowed to ignore the highway code?
From a ex professional lorry driver
Since "a lorry can stop on a tanner" and in "30 years accident free lorry driving behind me whatever I practiced, it worked for me", we have the proof that don't have to worry.
|
>>Since "a lorry can stop on a tanner" and in "30 years accident free lorry driving behind me whatever I practiced, it worked for me", we have the proof that don't have to worry.<<
Would you like to clarify the meaning of that Sherlock because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Either the word 'we' or 'they' is missing making it read in an entirely different context.
Pat
|
delete that
insert and
You should know exactly what it meant!
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 08:57
|
So it was a go at my driving then.
OK, I did an average of 1800 miles per week for 48 weeks of the year all the year round.
Those miles were done in dense fog, black ice, snow, soft snow on top of black ice, high winds and glorious sunshine.
They were done on motorways dual carriageways, A roads and single track country lanes all in an artic, as I've never driven a rigid HGV vehicle.
Over the years I met some idiots on the road, and dealt with them in the manner of my choosing which was always to slow down and get them in front of me because I didn't want to be a part of their accident that was waiting to happen but was happy to watch from behind.
I'm quite rightly proud of my accident free record, as are a great many other professional drivers and not forgetting the car drivers, like Humph, who do similar mileages accident free and are always a pleasure to share the roads with.
When you can do the same, please feel free to question my methods which have worked for me.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 09:24
|
I do not question that your method worked for you - just that statements like 'In my experience a lorry can stop on a tanner if needed' are factually incorrect, and if promulgated in your professional role in educating other drivers are irresponsible and potentially dangerous when they may be adopted by other less conscientious drivers.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 09:40
|
>>'In my experience a lorry can stop on a tanner if needed' are factually incorrect,<<
Well, I'll give you that one, they are factually incorrect.
There is no longer such a thing as a tanner and most drivers today wouldn't know what one was anyway.
Pat
|
|
It's a pity there are so few female drivers of HGV's. There would be less of the macho posturing referred to above. I know one, who got out of the industry, a while back. Became a qualified social worker. Strong personality. Had seen the world, or at least the UK, before going into that profession.
|
I bet she makes a good social worker Norton, she's earned those wings!
All the lads tell you their troubles on a night out and you end up as a cross between a marriage guidance counsellor and Marje Proops:)
.........and I forgot that when you meet their wives you have to be the soul of discretion too!
Pat
|
>>Female HGV drivers..
I was in Grimsby and turned in to a long straight road to an industrial estate.
There were cars parked on the right as far as I could see and an HGV had just started to pull out past the cars as I turned in to the road.
So I pulled up out of the way and waited to let the HGV use all of my side of the road.
When the driver was in sight of me I got a huge smile and long wave from her as a thank you!
It made my morning!
|
Slight thread drift but the A65 was closed for several hours yesterday after a lorry crashed on the bridge at Coniston Cold between Settle & Skipton. Major disruption ensued and doubtless there is now traffic light controlled one way traffic until bridge repairs completed. And the lights were only taken down a few months ago after previous bridge repairs which took months. Literally.
Pictures in out local rag, the Craven Herald, if anyone would be so kind as to do a link.
I'm not attributing any blame here as I don't know the circumstances, but will find out soon from my local police friends ( in the pub)!.
|
>>
>> Pictures in out local rag, the Craven Herald, if anyone would be so kind as
>> to do a link.
ear you go squire
tinyurl.com/zebchpa
|
|
Only tangentially linked to this, but it was quite satisfying yesterday to find that the car that cut me up really quite blatantly and aggressively on the A27 round Chichester yesterday morning was then the car I followed into our office car park and turned out to have been driven by someone coming to see me :D
|
>> Only tangentially linked to this, but it was quite satisfying yesterday to find that the
>> car that cut me up really quite blatantly and aggressively on the A27 round Chichester
>> yesterday morning was then the car I followed into our office car park and turned
>> out to have been driven by someone coming to see me :D
>>
Karma is a wonderful thing...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2960791/Commuter-swears-man-way-interview-man-recruiter.html
|
>> Karma is a wonderful thing...
>>
One of my favourites too. You can't beat a nice chicken karma.
|
>>
>> youtu.be/k1063Kkuh4U
>>
When i read the op, i thought about that video. Nasty really.
|
>> The truck driver
:Pedant mode:
Unless he's American, He's a lorry driver, not a truck driver.
www.thefreedictionary.com/lorry
|
|
They were always lurries, lorries, or wagons when I was a kid.
|
|
In a mixed language environment such as here, nobody understands the word "lorry" unless its another Brit whereas everybody understands the word "truck".
|
And no one can say " My yellow lorry is all oily" ten times quickly in quick succession.
Just thought you'd like to know. You'll try but you won't make it by the way...
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 19:04
|
Actually Runfer, its only you who can't say it. Your Mother told you nobody could say it either so that you didn't feel so bad about yourself with this on top of all your other problems challenges.
|
Don't believe you. I've never met anyone who can say it, and it's one of the first things I make a point of establishing about people. Anyone who could would almost certainly be subversive in other ways. Possibly even foreign.
;-)
|
Did you never see "The Truman Show"?
It was based on your life.
That other thing you do? that's not normal either.
|
Normality is a state I've never especially aspired to.
;-)
|
>> In a mixed language environment such as here,
I think you mean mixed culture environment. We all here type English, not a mixed language. Granted some people type gibberish too ;)
And its lorry, not truck. As runfer points out using truck in a tongue twister doesn't work but lorry does.
Red lorry, yellow lorry.
Or
Red truck, yellow truck?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 12 Aug 16 at 23:51
|
No I meant language. Had I meant culture, I would have said so.
I was referring to Chile.
|
You did say 'here' FM2R and for you 'here' is Chile. VxFan has assumed you meant where most of the rest of us are.... He shouldn't assume. And he should know.
But don't forget this website/forum is aimed at a tiny percentage of people and membership seems to be shrinking. They must be going somewhere else. Active posters since Brexit markedly down.
What plans does this site have to turn it around? Before long it will be a handful of members posting!
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 13 Aug 16 at 00:20
|
Since you're listed as Marketing Manager for HJ, I have to ask, do you have a vested interest in seeing the membership shrinking?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sat 13 Aug 16 at 05:22
|
Yeah, because C4P is really relevant to HJ; what with its size, relevance, number of posters, etc. etc.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Hilarious, not even a basic understanding.
|
|
Haven't been in years but is HJ back room much bigger than here? I don't think either are ever going to be PH sized.
|
We have no reply from rtj yet, but I'm so pleased you found that funny Mark;)
Pat
|
>> I was referring to Chile.
Ah, I see. Not my fault if you're so vague with your replies ;)
|
Pace FF's original post, it always amazes me when people admit - and particularly on a public forum - to having (possibly) broken the law. I'm sure FF has put enough personal information on here to be able to be recognised by people who know him.
|
Not I.
I only ever fly Jet2 or KLM out of Yeadon airport. And on that 06:15 to AMS I barely recognise myself.
And I openly admit to speeding where conditions allow, especially on lightly trafficked duals when I had Herman. And on A roads as well come to think of it. And the odd B road.
Who's a naughty IAM member then. Tut tut LL!
|
>> amazes me when people admit - and particularly on a public forum - to having (possibly) broken the law. I'm sure FF has put enough personal information on here to be able to be recognised by people who know him.
All drivers break the law more or less incessantly. If they don't they tend to get in the way.
Perhaps that's a slight exaggeration. But only a slight one.
|
>>All drivers break the law more or less incessantly. If they don't they tend to get in the way.
Yes, but minor traffic infringements are one thing. Did I keep religiously to the 20mph limits on Blackfriars Road this morning? Obviously. Whereas admitting to what is arguably dangerous driving is quite another.
|
A summary of opinions.
1. A heavy goods vehicle (lorry, tanker, truck) driver is wrong to sit off you bumper when you're doing 40mph in a 40mph speed zone - because they should be doing that speed anyway.
2. Stopping in front of said HGV to bring them to a stop was not the response - not illegal though?
3. A driver with an 'HGV' licence will have passed a test to show a certain degree of skill and aptitude to get the licence, but:
3.1 They don't need to show that skills or aptitude when actually driving an HGV or anything
3.2 The same goes for 3.1 for car drivers after passing their test - I saw some terrible driving today in Derbyshire!
4. An HGV driver will value their licence and know they need it for work and would never do anything illegal whilst driving or riding anything. Excessive speed for example would be a no-no because your licence is so important and shows you to be such a good driver and would never break the law on the roads.
Is that a fair summary?
|
In the real world - how do you train an HGV driver from driving so closely behind another HGV that the road ahead cannot possibly be seen?
I have often seen much less than one car's length between goods vehicles travelling at over 50 mph.
|
>>In the real world - how do you train an HGV driver from driving so closely behind another HGV that the road ahead cannot possibly be seen?
+1
Crikey - I have just agreed with something that Roger has posted! :-)
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 13 Aug 16 at 12:08
|
|
...they do it in the knowledge that the one in front can't stop on a sixpence, and the hope that that will give them a chance to react....
|
That type of accident happens far more with cars Roger as I mentioned way up this thread, but has been ignored.
So, I'll ask this forum of car drivers, how do you train car drivers not to travel too close to the vehicle in front so they don't get involved in the endless multi vehicle shunts we see every day?
If you have the answer, then it may well be of help to me?
Pat
|
Sorry to harp on and possibly state the obvious, but 55mph is 80 feet per second. Assume that the one in front has to emergency-brake to a stop, and the follower has no warning at all.
It it takes the follower a total of half a second to react physically and to get foot to brake and press it, then other things being equal his lorry will need 40 feet further to stop from the point at which the leader hits the brake. Ergo, he needs at least 40 feet separation to avoid rear ending the leader at some point in the braking period.
Half a second would be more than impressive, impossible I'd say. Allow a second and you need 80 feet, and I think a second would be very difficult unless the follower happened to be looking at the brake lights in front when they came on, or had some prior inkling. An additional benefit of more separation is that the follower can see down the road, where he or she should be looking, rather than looking at the back doors of another lorry.
There's some sound logic behind the two second rule. Without particularising to lorries, if somebody uses maximum brake force, without warning, two seconds is still a stiff test that many would fail. The only reason the motorways are not littered with wreckage is that most people, most of the time, don't do that and most drivers are actually looking further down the road than the back of the car ahead.
The reason that so many get away with it is presumably that it is rare for the leader to go instantly to full braking, or to maintain it to a stop.
|
|
Everybody seems to have conveniently forgotten that 'car into car' with a small speed differential is probably survivable in most modern cars. 'Lorry into car' with a similar speed differential will generally result in massive damage to car and a high probability of death to occupants. Whilst the lorry driver walks away to his charge of d by dd.
|
Quite so Sherlock, but that doesn't make it excusable or acceptable driving standards by car drivers, does it?
Pat
|
As a 'mostly' sensible driver I try to adhere to the two second rule. Three seconds in rain, and more in rain after a prolonged dry spell. Motorways & fast dual carriageways even longer when travelling at speed when it's quiet... Such as the northern M6/ A74(M) on a Sunday evening heading home.
And if you see a silver 330 convertible hooning past it's not me, it's my nephew.
Must be late for work at Brize again......
|
When cars start driving so closely I let them get far ahead and hang back. If someone behind wants to join in close behind the stream of cars travelling at a constant speed I let them past. If they get really stupid I slow down myself and get into the middle or left lane.
Self preservation... the idiots can drive and put themselves in danger.
I've said on here before thaT I once had to release the brakes and get a bit closer to the fast slowing traffic in front to stop the car behind running into the back of me. That driver following me had panic on their face I can tell you.
I wonder how poorer things will get with more and more cars with auto braking using radar?
|
[quote]2. Stopping in front of said HGV to bring them to a stop was not the response - not illegal though?[/quote]
I'm sure it wasn't illegal, but since there was no place to pull over and nowhere for the driver to overtake due to oncoming traffic and roadworks, the simple fact that it took him ages to accelerate away on an incline neatly ensured that I could drive at the speed limit without a lorry bolted to my bumper with his horn blowing and full beam on.
I feel mildly guilty towards the people stuck behind the lorry - having already had someone drive into the back of me once this year I'm not keen for it to happen again.
Last edited by: Fursty Ferret on Sat 20 Aug 16 at 10:57
|
On a drive to York had a van stuck on my backbumper. I was behind a lorry both driving at the legal speed limit and nowhere for the van to overtake due to busy oncoming traffic.
It is annoying and in my younger days would have reacted.Have to go on one of these advanced perfect drivers courses.Or carry a gun like in the States soon calmes the culprat.
|
To the lorry driver on the A66 - sooty123
