Lorries......can anyone explain this to me......

i once read something about if 2 cars are traveling car 1 at 70mph and car 2 100mph and both brake at the same time when the car that was doing 70mph comes to a stop the car that was doing 100mph will still be doing 70mph
i don't really know how accurate these figures are but it does make you think
 
Stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet, at 100mph it is 600 feet: stopping distance in feet inc. thinking = (speed in mph^2)/20 + speed in mph)

At 100mph the reaction distance is about 100 feet so you've only got 215 feet for actual braking compared to the person doing 70mph.

From the formula above the ((speed in mph^2)/20) part is the stopping and the + speed in mph is thinking time.

Using this formula in 215 feet you'd get down to about 75.5mph
 
That's quite true!

All the sensible, concientious drivers here might want to think about that next time they pull out to overtake a slower vehicle in front of that dangerous loony they've seen in the mirror who's charging up behind them at an outrageous speed!

Or they might want to think about "moronic" lorry drivers' spatial awareness and positoning the next time they scratch the bumper corner of their 4.5 metre X 2 metre family car - or scuff a wheel rim against a kerb because they've got their positioning wrong at zero mph parking speed!

It's also, as I posted in the last driving standards thread, not worth knowing that the stopping distance is 215 feet unless you know what 215 feet looks like - that you'll be stopping there ... not next to that lamppost, next to that other lamppost - and possibly more importantly, what it feels like to hit the brakes hard from a serious speed!

FWIW Alan "Bongo Bongo Land" Clarke used to press on in his various cars and he rather eloquently explained that at 150 mph you had to be paying attention to that traffic that is ahead of the traffic ahead of you!!
 
The worst piece of driving I've ever seen was by a truck driver in roadworks

A young woman was in the middle lane of some 50mph roadworks with 2 young children in the back of the car doing 50mph

Lane one was the hard shoulder

The truck was 10ft behind her in the rain flashing his lights

It was obvious to me she was terrified but this c*** was didn't care he just wanted her out of his way

I can't remember the last time I wanted to hit somebody but this guy would have got it

There's a lot of good truck drivers but there's some arseholes that shouldn't have a LGV licence

It's too easy to keep a licence in this country

There isn't a single offence where they can take your licence there and then, even killing somebody and refusing to take a breath test , you can still drive yourself to court.

https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points
 
There isn't a single offence where they can take your licence there and then, even killing somebody and refusing to take a breath test , you can still drive yourself to court.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to take a license from someone who is unconvicted.

Plenty of people used to drive to court and get disqualified. Always good for a laugh to go and nick them as they drive away.
 
Bernie174 said:
It's difficult to take a license from someone who is unconvicted.

Plenty of people used to drive to court and get disqualified. Always good for a laugh to go and nick them as they drive away.
Click to expand...

exactly this, many years ago I worked in motor insurance and the question always asked in the training was why were insurance payouts made when the driver was then convicted of drink driving and that pretty much being the cause of the accident. Simple answer, because at the time, he wasn't a convicted DD offender and at that time [this may have changed, we are going back 20 years now] insurance companies could only act on current, active licence offences, not probable future ones.
 
I'm going to throw another type of moron into the equation COACH DRIVERS :banghead:
I was nearly taken out by one on the M! yesterday, just indicated and pulled straight, even though I was
alongside the rear end and travelling faster then him !!
Luckily nothing in the outside lane so I could swerve over.
Nothing but good driving from the truckers on a very busy M25/M1 (y)a
 
And another one for the list - 1 series drivers, one in particular who (without indicating at any point in the proceedings...) swerved across in front of me and a coach (3 lanes) at one roundabout, only to pull out almost into me at the next. Either he didn't see me (driving without due care and attention) or saw me and decided to go anyway (attempted murder?). Maybe the cost of replacing his driver's side mirror (one owner, never used...) will teach him better road manners. If I'd had anywhere to go, I would have but with a truck (being driven well) on my right and a queue in front of me as well as something right up my chuff (maybe the glass from the mirror gave him a puncture?) I was between a cock and a hard place! Oh, even if he couldn't see me, the Triumph isn't quiet.
 
We should change the name of the forum to -
IAPAM
(Institute of Advance Photographers and Motorists)
:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh I'm going start a fight now....lol (edit after reading more it looks like I'm just jumping in on a fight yay)

Why shouldn't HGV's overtake they pay to use the roads the same as most of us. Most of the time the issue is on inclines..Inclines which when driving a car we don't notice as they have very little effect on our small vehicles. However stick 44 ton behind it and it makes even a small incline an issue.

Cyclists.

Riding two abreast is perfectly legal and most of the time is the preferred method as it makes drivers s,low down to overtake. If you see a single cyclist most drivers will blast past without thinking. When there are two riding side by side drivers need to slow down making the overtake maneuver safer for the rider.


Don't forget guys we ALL have a right to use the roads.

Without HGV's you guys would literally have nothing. No house. no clothes hey you wouldn't even have a newspaper to sleep under.

And cyclists were using roads before motorized vehicles.


And no-one pays road tax




All true but said in a light hearted manner
 
If it's not called a tax disc, why do the DVLA still have this page? https://www.gov.uk/tax-disc

HGVs don't pay the same "tax" as other road users, they pay a LOT more (by a factor of infinity in the case of those parasitic psycholists...)

Again, all true and in a light hearted manner.
 
Nod said:
If it's not called a tax disc, why do the DVLA still have this page? https://www.gov.uk/tax-disc

HGVs don't pay the same "tax" as other road users, they pay a LOT more (by a factor of infinity in the case of those parasitic psycholists...)

Again, all true and in a light hearted manner.
Click to expand...

They keep it there for the old folk who are stuck in their ways and can't move with times...lol
 
mattyg said:
Oh I'm going start a fight now....lol (edit after reading more it looks like I'm just jumping in on a fight yay)

Why shouldn't HGV's overtake they pay to use the roads the same as most of us. Most of the time the issue is on inclines..Inclines which when driving a car we don't notice as they have very little effect on our small vehicles. However stick 44 ton behind it and it makes even a small incline an issue.

Cyclists.

Riding two abreast is perfectly legal and most of the time is the preferred method as it makes drivers s,low down to overtake. If you see a single cyclist most drivers will blast past without thinking. When there are two riding side by side drivers need to slow down making the overtake maneuver safer for the rider.


Don't forget guys we ALL have a right to use the roads.

Without HGV's you guys would literally have nothing. No house. no clothes hey you wouldn't even have a newspaper to sleep under.

And cyclists were using roads before motorized vehicles.


And no-one pays road tax




All true but said in a light hearted manner
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has any objection to them overtaking in general, just the mentally challenged ones who think it's ok to do so at a speed resulting in them progressing about a foot every half mile. :-)
 
mattyg said:
They keep it there for the old folk who are stuck in their ways and can't move with times...lol
Click to expand...

From that ever reliable source, Wiki...

A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law.

I think road fund license (or whatever it's called these days - the DVLA seem to only refer to it as "vehicle tax) qualifies under that definition. ;)
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
Stopping distance at 70mph is 315 feet, at 100mph it is 600 feet: stopping distance in feet inc. thinking = (speed in mph^2)/20 + speed in mph)

At 100mph the reaction distance is about 100 feet so you've only got 215 feet for actual braking compared to the person doing 70mph.

From the formula above the ((speed in mph^2)/20) part is the stopping and the + speed in mph is thinking time.

Using this formula in 215 feet you'd get down to about 75.5mph
Click to expand...


Only if car A is a Moggy Minor and car B is a Ford Anglia...LOL with drum brakes
 
mattyg said:
Don't forget guys we ALL have a right to use the roads.

And cyclists were using roads before motorized vehicles.
Click to expand...

Not horses and their riders though, surely. An elitist activity, perpetuated by those perceived to be of a higher class than others, looking down both physically and morally on other valid road users, who don't leave dangerous amounts of slippery, smelly excrement on the road













You did say you wanted a fight. You have to start with smelly bait.
 
Nod said:
(maybe the glass from the mirror gave him a puncture?) I was between a cock and a hard place! Oh, even if he couldn't see me, the Triumph isn't quiet.
Click to expand...


just having a quick check to see if the c is next to the r on the keyboard ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,nope he meant it :)
 
Byker28i said:
Not horses and their riders though, surely. An elitist activity, perpetuated by those perceived to be of a higher class than others, looking down both physically and morally on other valid road users, who don't leave dangerous amounts of slippery, smelly excrement on the road.
Click to expand...
Actually, as someone who cycles everyday I do my best to also leave slippery and smelly excrement on the road, so its not just horses :troll: :LOL:
 
Only when some twit scares the cr@p out of you though - horses do it because they can! On the pavement too...
 
mattyg said:
Riding two abreast is perfectly legal and most of the time is the preferred method as it makes drivers s,low down to overtake. If you see a single cyclist most drivers will blast past without thinking. When there are two riding side by side drivers need to slow down making the overtake maneuver safer for the rider.
Click to expand...

If you're a car driver following the advice of the Highway Code, you should probably be moving into the next lane/other side of the road anyway

hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg


If there are several cyclists together, riding two abreast will shorten the overtaking distance for passing vehicles, rather than them being strung out in a long line.

I also wish the drivers of the two vans who overtook me on different occasions in the last few days had observed both rule 163 above and 167

Highway Code Rule 167 said:
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
  • approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
  • when you would force another road user to swerve or slow down
  • when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
  • stay behind if you are following a cyclist approaching a roundabout or junction, and you intend to turn left
Click to expand...

Attempting to overtake me on my bike with about a one foot clearance while I was clearly signalling my intention to turn was somewhat disconcerting, to say the least.
 
Last edited:
mattyg said:
Oh I'm going start a fight now....lol (edit after reading more it looks like I'm just jumping in on a fight yay)

Why shouldn't HGV's overtake they pay to use the roads the same as most of us. Most of the time the issue is on inclines..Inclines which when driving a car we don't notice as they have very little effect on our small vehicles. However stick 44 ton behind it and it makes even a small incline an issue.

I am always encountering car drivers who can't maintain speed when the come across the smallest of inclines.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gremlin said:
I'm going to throw another type of moron into the equation COACH DRIVERS :banghead: (y)a
Click to expand...

I've met a few coach drivers that shouldn't be on the road

Once on the M6 , I was following a truck in the middle lane overtaking another truck at the usual 0.1mph difference

I'd left a safe braking distance between us but I was towing so couldn't use the outside lane so I waited.

This coach came up behind me, started flashing his lights putting 2ft into the outside lane so he knew I could see him

No idea where he thought he was going
 
Triumph haven't made cars for about 30 years...
 
Indeed, if such a thing existed! Like Moses, the roar of my Triumph can be heard throughout the land (865ccs in 2 cylinders through just legal pipes have that effect!)
 
wack61 said:
I've met a few coach drivers that shouldn't be on the road

Once on the M6 , I was following a truck in the middle lane overtaking another truck at the usual 0.1mph difference

I'd left a safe braking distance between us but I was towing so couldn't use the outside lane so I waited.

This coach came up behind me, started flashing his lights putting 2ft into the outside lane so he knew I could see him

No idea where he thought he was going
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, the worst drivers I have seen and see on the road are 3.5 tonne van drivers. Whether that be builders, multi drop white van man or wannabee truckers, they are all awful.Each and every one of them.

Excuse the sweeping generalisation, just following the norm on this thread.
 
....and musicians.
 
Steve Smith said:
... and driving instructors.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Why do driving instructors take complete beginners to housing estates to learn the very basics of pulling away and stopping? I know everyone has to start somewhere but especially at this time of year when there are loads of kids on the streets, it's neither the time or the place! There's a site just out of town with roads set out with zebra crossings and traffic lights for exactly this purpose. Motorcycle tyros have to get a CBT (certificate of basic training) before they're allowed on the road, IMO car drivers should have at least an idea of car control before they are let loose.
 
And farmers..............they should make it compulsory to fit a V12 in tractors so they don't slow down 6 miles of traffic :)
 
I think it's to give them something to do to keep them awake! The cause enough West YorkshireWest Yorkshire:(
 
The worst drivers ( without question) are the ones who wear hats in vehicles:-

A) Baseball caps - young people.

B) Trilbys - old people

C) Exception / exemption to rule ( as defined above) - anyone who has a straw hat or panama on the rear parcel shelf with their university or regimental colours around the circumference of the band.

That is all.
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
Funnily enough, the worst drivers I have seen and see on the road are 3.5 tonne van drivers. Whether that be builders, multi drop white van man or wannabee truckers, they are all awful.Each and every one of them.

Excuse the sweeping generalisation, just following the norm on this thread.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more, I've seen some right dicks driving vans
 
wack61 said:
Couldn't agree more, I've seen some right dicks driving vans
Click to expand...
I think it is fair to say that whatever vehicle, there will be a % of dicks driving them Darren.
 
Agreed , a few months ago I watched a guy in a car, come out of knutsford services , drive down the hard shoulder until he got to about 90 undertaking trucks then he went in and out of lanes, whichever had the least traffic undertaking and overtaking until he was out of sight

Somebody like that needs a ban but there's no cops on the road anymore so he's unlikely to get caught
 
I have just spent approx 7 hours driving along M4,M25,M26 and M20.........wife counted the following........ 23 lorries overtaking other lorries and causing trail backs....one of which we measured at 3.2 miles (sad I know but it was fun logging it all)........14 buses causing overtaking and causing tailbacks...........11 caravans/motor homes hogging the middle lane..........63 under takers (not the burial kind) 20 of which done so because of slower traffic in the middle and acceleration lanes........and not to mention the numerous arseholes, who just don't give a [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] and shouldn't have a licence........it is now beer o'clock........and this experiment has been brought to you by Mr and Mrs Archangel........enjoy your weekend (y)
 
Whilst Travelling down the M1 last week, the road opened out to four lanes. Twice on the stretch, three lanes were taken up by lorries overtaking, surely they should be banned from the third lane?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top