As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
You give truck drivers extra training, more rigorous medical and eyesight conditions, a slow vehicle, and send them on long steady runs and they only manage to have _half_ the accidents of the amateur drivers they so despise.
Is it the trucks themselves that are uncontrollable, or are the drivers not the professional knights of the road they would portray themselves as?
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
You give truck drivers extra training, more rigorous medical and eyesight conditions, a slow vehicle, and send them on long steady runs and they only manage to have _half_ the accidents of the amateur drivers they so despise.
Is it the trucks themselves that are uncontrollable, or are the drivers not the professional knights of the road they would portray themselves as?
to be fair the problem with crashes unless its you and a tree, it normally takes two.
also got a lot of cheap truckers with not a clue where they are.
In news:[email hidden], Budstaff <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
Quoted message said:
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
You give truck drivers extra training, more rigorous medical and eyesight conditions, a slow vehicle, and send them on long steady runs and they only manage to have _half_ the accidents of the amateur drivers they so despise. Is it the trucks themselves that are uncontrollable, or are the drivers not the professional knights of the road they would portray themselves as?
Could be that lorries have many accidents as a result of cars being conducted by menks who fail to appreciate that forty-four tonnes of steel, plastic and baked beans cannot decelerate with the alacrity of a 911?
-- Dave Larrington <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk> Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
I shall write to my MP demanding that the laws of physics be changed forthwith. I propose that 90% of lorry inertia be reallocated to badgers. This will greatly shorten the braking distances for lorries and also seriously increase the respect given to road crossing badgers.
"Budstaff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
You give truck drivers extra training, more rigorous medical and eyesight conditions, a slow vehicle, and send them on long steady runs and they only manage to have _half_ the accidents of the amateur drivers they so despise.
Is it the trucks themselves that are uncontrollable, or are the drivers not the professional knights of the road they would portray themselves as?
If we are to believe Conor from uk.transport then most of the lorry accidents are caused by, as he puts it, "[censored] in cars".
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
A disingenuous statistic. The accident rate may be lower but the fatality rate is much higher.
Deaths per Bn vehicle km
Cars 0.9 HGVs 1.8
(Road Casualties Great Britain 2005, Table 42)
-- Tony
"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate..." Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"Budstaff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
You give truck drivers extra training, more rigorous medical and eyesight conditions, a slow vehicle, and send them on long steady runs and they only manage to have _half_ the accidents of the amateur drivers they so despise.
Is it the trucks themselves that are uncontrollable, or are the drivers not the professional knights of the road they would portray themselves as?
If we are to believe Conor from uk.transport then most of the lorry accidents are caused by, as he puts it, "[censored] in cars".
Tomorrow they're on about getting cyclists and caravans off the roads. Mr and Mrs Excitable have predictably already been on several times this week.
Is anyone going to bet on how long it takes before the RLJ argument comes up? Not if; when. And of course, car drivers never RLJ, as we all know.
Has anyone actually worked out what the point of this week's exercise is? It basically seems to be an excuse for selfish motorists to rant about getting everyone else off the roads. How many heated arguments must there be in workplaces all over the country as a result of this ridiculous show.
I'm not sure about that. After all, I'm sure you'd agree that a collision between a car and a bike is not necessarily the fault of both of them. ;-)
Not necessarily.
But fortunately, it usually is. That's why road users can make mistakes and *almost always* get away with them. A collision happens when one road user makes a mistake *and* another fails to take adequate evasive action - a rare coincidence.
A useful safety feature of a bike is the fact that it requires less space than larger vehicles to avoid trouble.
"TheMgt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Budstaff said:
As part of Vine's current filler on people's vehicle prejudices, a spokesman for the Road Transport Association, defending trucks, stated that the accident rate for trucks per vehicle kilometre was half of that for cars. He also conceded that truck accidents were more serious, but that was just 'the laws of physics'.
Am I alone in finding this totally unacceptable?
I shall write to my MP demanding that the laws of physics be changed forthwith. I propose that 90% of lorry inertia be reallocated to badgers. This will greatly shorten the braking distances for lorries and also seriously increase the respect given to road crossing badgers.
LOL - congrats on an inspired piece of context removal.
