bluebottle
Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2009
- Messages
- 191
It's not a waste of time. Been there, done that and it resulted in the offender getting pulled over for a talking to.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Another reason why frieght should be on the railways
- Thread starter crewmeal
- Start date
- Status
It's not a waste of time. Been there, done that and it resulted in the offender getting pulled over for a talking to.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Kernowfem
Member
Yeah good point...perhaps the police might be too busy wasting their time attending scenes which involve lorrys pushing cars down the motorway....
The point i was making was this: Weve all been on the receiving end of a pillock driver, in a lot of these cases people take number plates and report them...not shunt them out the way. Wouldnt it be slightly hypocritical to deal with one idiot driver with idiotic driving of your own. After what i see every day, trust me, it isnt worth it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The same here. Although the guy in my case was a rep who was promptly warned he would lose his job if he carried on driving the way he was.
GearJammer
Member
Who'd give a train driver a truck driving job???????
What a load of c**p!!!!!!!! Typical comment made by someone who obviously does'nt like trucks and knows nothing about driving one!
Im aware and have seen the results thanks, and yes i did laugh my nuts off because as far as im aware no one was hurt or injured!
I think this comment should be dropped unless someones gonna tell us EXACTLY what happened in the clip, but somehow i don't think it will stop the 'truck haters' sticking the knife into the transport industry just to try and make rail look better than road which it never will be!
Many have made the point that much freight goes by road because it's cheaper. Well, yes - becuase road hauliers don't have to pay their full costs - the taxpayer subsidises them to a marked degree, far more so than rail gets subsidised.
The road sytem is provied for them almost free of charge - the amount they pay in road tax is pilitiful (yes, I know it can be thousands) compared to the cost of providing and maintaining a road network that hauliers can use.
If the roads only had to cater for cars, they'd cost a fraction of what they do. And almost all damage to roads is caused by HGVs, not cars. Motorists paying their road tax pay far more than their cost to the road system. Hauliers pay pay far less than their cost.
And then there's the indirect costs. Trucks are involved in a lot of road accidents. Even in just financial terms, how much does a serious RTA cost? Never mind the human misery in death and serious injusry - the lives smashed and the lives terminated. The cost of policing, the pollution from all those diesel engines, the noise pollution, the shaking to bits of old buildings by heavy trucks in towns... etc, etc.
Road hauliers enjoy a massive cost advantage compared to much more heavily regulated (and therefore thousands of times safer) rail freight. The governement really has to tilt the playing field not only level, but to actually bias it against road haulage... becuase of the immense social cost of road transport.
Of course, rail isn't as 'door to door' as road, but many trucks are going from one distribution centre to another. Trains could do that, even if it might mean reinstating some closed lines.
Gearjammer demonstrates the attitude of much of the cowboy HGV industry.
The road sytem is provied for them almost free of charge - the amount they pay in road tax is pilitiful (yes, I know it can be thousands) compared to the cost of providing and maintaining a road network that hauliers can use.
If the roads only had to cater for cars, they'd cost a fraction of what they do. And almost all damage to roads is caused by HGVs, not cars. Motorists paying their road tax pay far more than their cost to the road system. Hauliers pay pay far less than their cost.
And then there's the indirect costs. Trucks are involved in a lot of road accidents. Even in just financial terms, how much does a serious RTA cost? Never mind the human misery in death and serious injusry - the lives smashed and the lives terminated. The cost of policing, the pollution from all those diesel engines, the noise pollution, the shaking to bits of old buildings by heavy trucks in towns... etc, etc.
Road hauliers enjoy a massive cost advantage compared to much more heavily regulated (and therefore thousands of times safer) rail freight. The governement really has to tilt the playing field not only level, but to actually bias it against road haulage... becuase of the immense social cost of road transport.
Of course, rail isn't as 'door to door' as road, but many trucks are going from one distribution centre to another. Trains could do that, even if it might mean reinstating some closed lines.
Gearjammer demonstrates the attitude of much of the cowboy HGV industry.
90019
Established Member
This is why the roads are underfunded, and a lot of them are in bad condition, and last time I checked the figures, it was approx. 18% of the money the government gets from the roads gets reinvested back into them. (IIRC, it was using the 07-08 figures for all of the taxes from the roads and the total investment in them)
Ah, so diesel trains don't produce any pollution?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quite.
Pretty much all of the worst drivers I've seen on the roads have been in cars or vans.
I have huge respect for drivers of HGVs who have to put up with a lot of sh*t from other drivers, and some pretty apalling driving around them, and often seem to get the blame for things that aren't their fault.
90019, trains produce 5-10 less time pollution than HGVs per tonne mile. Its' also well known heavy goods vehicles pay a fraction of the real costs of imposed on the roads and society at large. A truck does something like 100,000 more damage than a car, but they aren't paying 100,000 times more road tax. Meanwhile Railfreight is billed for exactly the damage it creates.
whoshotjimmi
Member
Oh i'm sorry. I didn't realise that to drive a truck it was necessary to drive 3 feet behind someone else all the time. Not to mention legal.
You all have a huge responsibilty on the road. Start acting like it.
90019
Established Member
I know, it's just the way it was phrased implied they produced none at all.
Again, I'm aware of this, but it's not an excuse for the underfunding of the roads.
Motorists in general pay a lot of tax, most of which goes elsewhere, personally, I don't see this as fair.
I mean, yes, use some money from some things to subsidise others, but using about 80% of money from the roads for other things is rediculous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In my experience, car and van drivers are a hell of a lot worse for tailgating than trucks.
All road users have responsibility, and from my perspective, it's the car drivers who need to start acting like it.
royaloak
Established Member
Usually some tw#t sat in the middle lane of a motorway doing 50 mph instead of being in the inside lane out of the way!
Most accidents involving trucks are caused by a car cutting in front of them and braking or going down the inside of them when they are turning left and things like that, when you REALLY know what you are talking about feel free to join in!
GearJammer
Member
Absolute rubbish, what planet are you on exactly?
Oh and cars never have accidents do they!
Excuse me while i wet myself laughing! What a load of c**p
I'd be very interested to know where you plucked that figure from?
Nothing about me or the industry is 'Cowboy' in nature, im just not prepared to sit here reading c**p from people that know nothing about the road transport industry and know nothing about driving trucks pluck stupid and random comments out the air just to try and make railfrieght look like hard done by!
Kernowfem
Member
Read my original post again...i said who would give THIS lorry driver a train driving job, baring in mind his eye site seems to be somewhat under par.
Glad i dont have you sense of humour sunshine. I say again had your wife and kids been the ones in the clio i would imagine you'd be the last one laughing. Just how much have you seen and are aware of, not very much i daresay or you wouldnt find this clip funny at all, no matter what the outcome.
Im not a truck/hgv driver hater, i have nothing to hate them for. What i dislike are dangerous drivers with a dangerous attitude....in charge of ANY vehicle.
This isnt about whether truck drivers are bad drivers...like all other road users 99.9% are excellent at what they do..its the odd few on all sides that cause accidents. The majority of accidents ive been to have in most cases been caused by car/van drivers. It is quite rare that lorries are involved. My point is why a professional driver would find the clip funny is something i dont understand. I was not attacking gearjammers profession but his attitude towards this incident.
Last edited:
Old Timer
Established Member
Gearjammer
There is clear evidence from the DfT and from various research organisations that HGVs do cause greater damage to both the road structure as well as to adjoining buildings than do cars.
There is also research to demonstrate that HGVs pay a disproportionately low rate of road fund license duty compared to the damage caused.
As for the "Cowboy" element you deny exists this is at variance with Police reports and experience, indeed I recall a little while back reading an article concerning the high proprtion of lorries that were either overloaded and in poor/unroadworthy/dangerous condition.
Your belief in the perfection of the road haulage industry does not give you the right to rubbish other people's posts, especially when they are more accurate than yours are. I do think an apology is in order.
There is clear evidence from the DfT and from various research organisations that HGVs do cause greater damage to both the road structure as well as to adjoining buildings than do cars.
There is also research to demonstrate that HGVs pay a disproportionately low rate of road fund license duty compared to the damage caused.
As for the "Cowboy" element you deny exists this is at variance with Police reports and experience, indeed I recall a little while back reading an article concerning the high proprtion of lorries that were either overloaded and in poor/unroadworthy/dangerous condition.
Your belief in the perfection of the road haulage industry does not give you the right to rubbish other people's posts, especially when they are more accurate than yours are. I do think an apology is in order.
merlodlliw
Established Member
Well the rail strike if it occurs, will put paid to more rail freight thoughts.
I worked in the newspaper distribution trade a few years back, and I am sorry to say it was the then NUR who blacked all copies of the Sunday Times & Sun being carried by rail, like all other newspapers.
As a result, all newspapers choose to use road transport.
I worked in the newspaper distribution trade a few years back, and I am sorry to say it was the then NUR who blacked all copies of the Sunday Times & Sun being carried by rail, like all other newspapers.
As a result, all newspapers choose to use road transport.
Old Timer
Established Member
To be honest it was a blessing that we lost the newspaper traffic.
It caused a whole load of inefficiencies, as well as causing real problems with regards to track maintenance in the Birmingham Divsion especially.
Newspaper traffic never actually paid its costs, and took disproprtionate amounts of time and resources, as well as being disruptive to overnight freight.
It caused a whole load of inefficiencies, as well as causing real problems with regards to track maintenance in the Birmingham Divsion especially.
Newspaper traffic never actually paid its costs, and took disproprtionate amounts of time and resources, as well as being disruptive to overnight freight.
This is absolutely true. The wear on roads is measured in units called standard axles, equal to the wear caused by one axle with an 80kN load. An average HGV is considered the equivalent of 4.4 standard axles. An average family car is the equivalent of 1/33000 of a standard axle. One HGV is therefore equal to 145,200 average cars in terms of the damage done to roads.
Cars are in fact completely disregarded when calculating the amount of wear which will be done to a road.
Geezertronic
Established Member
I saw an accident involving a lorries and a car yesterday although the car was 99.9% at fault in my opinion.
The car - a BMW M3 driven by a kid who didn't look old enough - was tailgating me down the M50 for a good few miles and I asn't going to pull over between the lorries as I would have had to slow down. When I eventually pulled over when there was a decent gap, he got alongside me, gave me "the bird" and zoomed off into the distance. I was doing 85mph myself and he went out of sight, I could estimate 120mph easy.
I saw ahead that a lorry was indicating and pulling out and the guy never slowed down until it was too late. He swerved to avoid the lorry, clipped his car off the back of the lorry (bits going everywhere) and ended up stopped in the central reservation. I cannot attribute much blame to the lorry driver because if he saw the car in his mirror, he would not have expected it to be travelling so fast. I hope the M3 driver learnt a lesson by not being an inconsiderate tw4t on the roads.
The car - a BMW M3 driven by a kid who didn't look old enough - was tailgating me down the M50 for a good few miles and I asn't going to pull over between the lorries as I would have had to slow down. When I eventually pulled over when there was a decent gap, he got alongside me, gave me "the bird" and zoomed off into the distance. I was doing 85mph myself and he went out of sight, I could estimate 120mph easy.
I saw ahead that a lorry was indicating and pulling out and the guy never slowed down until it was too late. He swerved to avoid the lorry, clipped his car off the back of the lorry (bits going everywhere) and ended up stopped in the central reservation. I cannot attribute much blame to the lorry driver because if he saw the car in his mirror, he would not have expected it to be travelling so fast. I hope the M3 driver learnt a lesson by not being an inconsiderate tw4t on the roads.
Shame you didn't stop to take some photos then send them to him.
A few years ago, I saw an M3 nearly crash after coming off a roundabout. All the traction control in the world can't rescue a tit going far too fast in a RWD car, changing direction rapidly. He was inches from the crash barriers, and threw up gravel and mud all over the place when he went off the road.
He still zoomed off after, so I guess he didn't learn!
A few years ago, I saw an M3 nearly crash after coming off a roundabout. All the traction control in the world can't rescue a tit going far too fast in a RWD car, changing direction rapidly. He was inches from the crash barriers, and threw up gravel and mud all over the place when he went off the road.
He still zoomed off after, so I guess he didn't learn!
bluebottle
Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2009
- Messages
- 191
Both points are valid but don't take into account the huge amount of money that fuel duty takes from the haulage industry.
It still falls far short of the cost to the taxpayer. And doesn't rail pay fuel duty as well?
merlodlliw
Established Member
I am not sure a lot of freight paid for itself after 1947/8, but the railways had to carry anything and did, red star was a very good idea, using spare daytime capacity on passenger trains, lots of freight have left the railway never to return, when I worked in Rhyl the Elephant bay at the station always amused me,that too
long since gone,
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
All road freight vehicles have to run on white diesel.This does not apply to the railways who do not run on white diesel, I am not sure of taxation on diesel used for the railways if any, but if it were red, its half the duty of white diesel.
Anyone know if rail diesel is tax exempt like kerosene used by aircraft.
Last edited:
Teaboy1
Member
"As for road v rail im affraid rail will loose to road in most cases, i haul shipping containers out of Southampton, as an example tommorrow i will take a 20ft standard container from Southampton to Basildon in Essex, get it unloaded, then take it to Epsom in Surry, get it reloaded and get it back on the quay in Southampton docks the same day! All this can be done legally, in fact its no hardship to take a loaded container out of Southampton docks and get it tipped and reloaded and back on the quay in less than 24hours. In this day in age custermers want there containers delivered at a specific time, trucks are flexible, there are more of them, and when you want one then most of the time there is one available, rail can't compete with that! I also recall an occasion when i left Southampton docks, i noticed an EWS 66 with an Intermodel train leaving the docks, i can't recall the number but did write it down, i was heading up to the Birmingham area somewhere, where exactly i can't recall but while heading up the M42 the very same 66 and intermodel train went over the top of the motorway, so the train is'nt that much quicker either, where rail can beat road is in bulk haulage, ie coal and oil etc and tonnages!"
To read what Gearjammer say's I have to fully agree, small loads under 25 ton will ALWAYS be better by road, where rail scores is where the load is 2500 ton!
As for driving etiquette, then trucks are generally alright, its just the nutter who makes the whole job sour. Can fully agree that the woman car driver may well have been long over due for a lesson in carving up truckers, she sure wont do it again soon!
What I find tedious is the trucker over taking another truck and taking about 3 miles to get past, its here that we see truckers saying "sod-the-car-driver" while on a 2-lane m-way. In France & Italy, etc trucks NOT allowed totally unlimited access to the outer lane, usually they HAVE to keep right!
I'm afraid that the damage was done by Beeching and it is now beyond repair or rebuilding.......we are stuck with the rail network we have remaining, better get used to it folks and lets keep what bit we have remaining.
Bad truckers are IMHO about the same ratio as bad car drivers, therefore always give the trucker a wide berth, he in that ****in cab all day long and deserves a bit of room!!
To read what Gearjammer say's I have to fully agree, small loads under 25 ton will ALWAYS be better by road, where rail scores is where the load is 2500 ton!
As for driving etiquette, then trucks are generally alright, its just the nutter who makes the whole job sour. Can fully agree that the woman car driver may well have been long over due for a lesson in carving up truckers, she sure wont do it again soon!
What I find tedious is the trucker over taking another truck and taking about 3 miles to get past, its here that we see truckers saying "sod-the-car-driver" while on a 2-lane m-way. In France & Italy, etc trucks NOT allowed totally unlimited access to the outer lane, usually they HAVE to keep right!
I'm afraid that the damage was done by Beeching and it is now beyond repair or rebuilding.......we are stuck with the rail network we have remaining, better get used to it folks and lets keep what bit we have remaining.
Bad truckers are IMHO about the same ratio as bad car drivers, therefore always give the trucker a wide berth, he in that ****in cab all day long and deserves a bit of room!!
Kernowfem
Member
A) It hasnt stated anywhere in the media the lady in question 'carved up' any
truck.
B) You wouldnt be saying that if it was you or your family in that clio.
Its always fine and dandy and acceptable when it doesnt happen to you.
Its scary that there are drivers on the road who find the whole incident quite funny or deserved in some way.
That car almost certainly got there by the actions of the truck driver. I once saw exactly this myself on the M6. Truck pulled out of slow lane just as the car in the middle lane was almost past the truck; truck's cab hit rear end of the car, pushing it to the right, causing the car to swerve uncontrollably to the left and become lodged exactly where that car is in the video.
There was a shower of broken window galss and clouds of rubber smoke from the car's tyres.
It is a VERY common accident on our motorways, usually caused by LHD trucks which have a massive blind spot to their right. Even RHD trucks are relatively blind there, and the one in the video is a UK truck. The lesson for car drivers is - don't hang around in that blind spot - hang back untill you can squirt quickly past.
There was a shower of broken window galss and clouds of rubber smoke from the car's tyres.
It is a VERY common accident on our motorways, usually caused by LHD trucks which have a massive blind spot to their right. Even RHD trucks are relatively blind there, and the one in the video is a UK truck. The lesson for car drivers is - don't hang around in that blind spot - hang back untill you can squirt quickly past.
Geezertronic
Established Member
I must admit I find the lorries overtaking on dual carriageways the most annoying. I use the M42/A42 (where it is dual cariageway), the M50 and associated routes into South Wales and other dual carriageway roads very frequently and these are the roads that pee me off the most when the lorries decide to overtake each other with maybe only a couple of mph difference in their speed.
But as my post above details, car drivers are not blameless either. Some can be particularly dangerous on a single carriageway road overtaking lorries with oncoming traffic
But as my post above details, car drivers are not blameless either. Some can be particularly dangerous on a single carriageway road overtaking lorries with oncoming traffic
Kernowfem
Member
I must admit I find the lorries overtaking on dual carriageways the most annoying. I use the M42/A42 (where it is dual cariageway), the M50 and associated routes into South Wales and other dual carriageway roads very frequently and these are the roads that pee me off the most when the lorries decide to overtake each other with maybe only a couple of mph difference in their speed.
But as my post above details, car drivers are not blameless either. Some can be particularly dangerous on a single carriageway road overtaking lorries with oncoming traffic
I would agree..the A42 is a pain in the rear. However i wonder if there are any plans to widen it to three lanes like they have widened the M1 to four in places.
I fully agree that car drivers are just as bas as lorry drivers...theres good and bad on all sides.
Geezertronic
Established Member
I wouldn't have thought so unfortunately. If they were to do that, they would probably have to upgrade it to Motorway standard which would mean adding an extra 2 lanes per direction (one being a hard shoulder). Knowing todays economy, that would not be cost effective to do as the traffic throughput wouldn't warrant it (even though it is a main part of the road network).
They seem to have done the A1 a lot up North though so stranger things have happened?
bluebottle
Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2009
- Messages
- 191
Not necessarily. The only time I've ever seen it happen was when a car overtaking a truck pulled back into lane 1 before it had passed the truck and clipped its corner. Cue a cloud of tyre smoke from the car as it span to the left and became planted across the front of the truck. Incidentally the car in the video is facing lane 3, it looks likely in this case that the car moved to the right without seeing the truck there. I've had a few near misses with cars which have done exactly that.
ChrisCooper
Established Member
The fact that the car is facing the middle of the Motorway does tend to suggest that it was it's rear right corner that was hit, and therefore the lorry was on the right hand side of the car. The lorry driver pulling in to the left hand lane and clipping the back of the car is possible, but doens't seem that likely. The car pulling out as the lorry was passing and clipping it seems more likely. Would also make sence with it being a right hand drive lorry.
On the subject of lorries overtaking, on 3 lane Motorways it's also a pain for coach drivers since they can't use the right hand lane, yet often would have the speed to get past the lorries.
On the subject of lorries overtaking, on 3 lane Motorways it's also a pain for coach drivers since they can't use the right hand lane, yet often would have the speed to get past the lorries.
Why is that then?
Weight is only a part of the score. Volume and distance are huge factors. Your trip that you describe from Southhampton to Baslidon is all well and good (and that sort of trip may well be more suitable to the road), but try shifting 50 boxes from say Felixstowe to the Midlands and see how many HGVs and associated truck drivers you would need and count up all the drivers hours against what you would need by rail.
That's yet another eason why railfreight would be cheaper than road if the playing field were level. How many HGV drivers would be needed if a train's worth of freight went by road instead of rail?
One could take this further.....
Note all those nose-to-tail trucks on any motorway, each with a driver, each with its own diesel engine and fuel tanks.
Why not couple them all together so you'd only need a driver in the lead vehicle? To vastly cut the rolling resistance of those big rubber tyres on tarmac, replace them with metal wheels on metal rails - sorts out the steering problems as well. And why have a noisy, polluting diesel engine in each one; why not have the lead vehicle electric powered from overhead lines? You could even generate the electricity in a nuclear power station, so it's carbon-free!
'Ang on. I think we just invented the railway again!
- Status