Letting the side down

[abs1]

with ref to this post i dont want to get into the debate on the pro,s and cons as to who was as fault, but in reply to Johnnys post where he asks what percentage of private cars have defects, i cannot answer but as for taxis i can.

Going to any airport has enough problems for taxis as airports treat you like second class people, but now there are more problems in the form of random checks, im not against these but i wish that the results would be reported with some truth.

But alas truth and news papers dont go together, the headline reads death trap taxis taken off the road, but in reality the truth is that out of all the cars checked 4 had defects wich were:

1 car had no jack.

1 had no spare wheel.

1 had some plasters missing from the first aid kit.

and one did have a tyre on the limit and was given a warning by the police and made to have a new tyre fitted and checked by the council.

so out of all the cars checked only one had a fault that could be classed as dangerous yet it was not bad enough to be reported by the police, i know that there are a lot of good and some bad taxis/drivers/and owners out there there are good and bad in all walks of life thats what makes us HUMAN, if we were not we could turn water into wine or engine oil into beer.

I am all for safety and for the cheks to keep the good on their toes and the bad off the road, but what i do object to is the headline grabbing way its reported, also at these “safety” checks but at the checks are the police, dhss, customs,imigration,council,dept transport, and some people i dont know, so what have some of these to do with safety? and why does dipping my tank make my car safer?.

Taxis have two M.O.Ts per year, a council inspection wich if there is and dust in the ashtray it will fail etc and yet as hgvs they seem to be the target of continued harasment yet how many cars do you see going down the road with bits hanging off etc un-harassed? the top and bottom of it is money i think.
well thanks for the welcome and the advice i have gleamed from this great site i think that you all do a great job,

[billt]

from what i can make out, there is a unique offence ‘causing death by dangerous driving’ attracting a penalty of up to 10 yrs imprisonment.
This offence is only applicable to motorists, whether they be car drivers or lorry drivers.
there is no offence ’ causing death by dangerous flying’ or ‘causing death by dangerous sailing’. dangerous driving now includes; falling asleep at the wheel, reaching for a toffee, using a mobile phone,lighting a cigarette, rifling through delivery documents, etc.
If you are unfortunate to be involved in accident which results in someone’s death, then you have to prove that: for example, you had sufficient sleep on the previous night. What is sufficient sleep; 8 hrs, 6 hrs. 4hrs.
What if a pedestran steps out onto the road and causes a lorry to swerve and kill someone? Would that pedestrian be charged with dangerous walking? No. There is no specfic offence. causing death by dangerous walking.

[jimti]

johnny:
any driver that is in charge of a petrol tanker whether full or empty should be extra cautious when driving that vehicle on the roads where other members of the general public are at large. .

if you get hit up the rear end by a tanker will it hurt more than by a tipper or low loader? What ever you drive,the same amount of caution should be applied…I hope you drive a tanker, if not what level of caution is needed with your truck, Surley not less than any other truck!!! Are you happy to have less cautious drivers in charge of non Tankers?

I do understand the load is a hazard, but so are any LGV’s at 56 mph if they are involved in an accident

[johnny]

obviously you are unaware of the difference between an accident involving a tanker and an accident involving a truck, firstly a truck does not have to carry fire extinguishers in this country, if a truck rolls over down an embankment it sits there while they close a lane or 2 and a few people turn up to help out, a tanker down an embakment is a different matter, even when empty if they have not been purged then they are still a danger, they are in danger of exploding, motorways are closed completely when hazardous loads are involved in accidents, investigations are immediate to establish the dangers to other road users and the general public, if there is leakage then drainage and seepage is another concern.
yes i have driven tankers, not hazardous though and yes i have driven hazardous loads too but only in packages, it is my opinion based on years of experience that all hazardous goods that are carried in the cargo area of a vehicle (no matter how small) should require a trained and licenced driver along with the correct equipment and warning signs on display.
vehicles carrying hazardous goods should be restricted to a lower speed like in france.
parking areas should be set aside at msa’s for hazardous loads.
senders of hazardous goods should share responsibility for ensuring that the correct procedure is being followed by any transporter of their goods.
yes, again i say that any driver of a tanker or carrying hazardous goods should take extra caution when driving, it may not be an accident that puts people in danger, it could be a leaking barrel or a valve not shut off, a minor collision could lead to a major catastrophe.
don’t be naive about this, tankers are a lot more dangerous than any other vehicle on the road, if a tipper hits you up the back end it gives you a jolt or something more severe it doesn’t explode and engulf you and everyone else in the area in a enormous fireball.
take a look at dartford tunnel or blackwall tunnel or the woolwich ferry and you will see that hazardous goods are protected from other motorists, why do you think that is then?
perhaps it is because they might float away but more likely it is because of the danger they would put other motorists in if an incident was to happen.
i have been refused the use of dartford tunnel because i had 56 kgs of a substance that is dangerous when wet, woolwich don’t take any haz and the trailer was too high for blackwall which meant i had to go all the way round the clockwise m25 to the m1.
hazardous goods are very dangerous and like i say, drivers carrying haz need to take extra care.

[jimti]

so to put it very simply if you drive a normal truck not carrying hazardous goods you dont need to drive as cautiously■■?
I understand very well the dangers involved with carrying hazardous loads, but I still drive with all possible caution as all other drivers should,hazardous load or not…The way I read your post I would have be excluded from driving DG as I cannnot drive more cautiously than I already do unless I lower my standard of driving now so I can drive extra cautiously if ever I drive DG.
I don’t disagree that DG drivers should drive cautiously, but as I tried to explain in my last post ALL drivers should drive to the highest standard they can at all times, exercising all possible caution, driving any vehicle, not doing so is not an option for me and I would hope not for any driver professional or not.
Your example " again i say that any driver of a tanker or carrying hazardous goods should take extra caution when driving, it may not be an accident that puts people in danger, it could be a leaking barrel or a valve not shut off, a minor collision could lead to a major catastrophe. "
I agree with this statement, but if you have a trailer full of ball bearings and a pallet starts dropping them onto the carrageway of a motorway that is full of coaches etc would you not think the driver of that vehicle would need to be as vigilant as the tanker driver even though he has no ADR training and carries a "non hazardous load? Caution is a requisite of all professional drivers what ever they drive

[mw]

Here is a new thing that my American owned company is enforcing that might change the way that accidents are viewed.

We had a memo from the direcctor proclaiming that there is no such thing as an accident at work. If you are following all of the company procedures correctly you will NOT have an accident. If something occurs which causes damage or injury then you were NOT following company procedures which will then mean you will have to be disciplined,

What a great way of getting the company off of the hook after an unplanned occurance (accident). “it was not the companys fault it was due to the employee not following company rules”.

[johnny]

unfortunately there are those drivers out there (hgv) that are unable to drive safely and have to go from 0 - 56 as quickly as possible so to say that every driver must drive extra cautiously at all times is lost on some, what i am saying is that those drivers of dangerous goods should be made aware of the dangers they can put people in and take extra care, again, unfortunately there are a few drivers of tankers out there with the mentality of a racing car driver and because of the dangers they represent to the general driving public and me and you, the fact that they are unable or unwilling to take the care required then the government should act and take the extra precautions for them, limit them to 80kph.
accidents do happen but over 90% are avoidable if just one of the party involved had taken a little more care, driven a little slower or had been less aggressive.
a classic example is an accident involving a vehicle joining a motorway from a junction and is in collision with the truck in the left lane, the truck driver claims it is the fault of the car driver because the vehicle already on the motorway has the right of passage and the vehicle joining should give way but if the truck driver wasn’t blocking the car driver out then the accident would not have occured, it wouldn’t matter where the car driver got into the traffic because once the traffic clears the car will be 5 miles ahead of the truck within 10 minutes anyway.

[rob_k]

But Johnny, the truck isn’t BLOCKING the car. The truck has the right of way. Are you saying that a fully loaded tanker driver should ease off and slow down to allow vehicles on the sliproad to merge ? Perhaps you are not aware how dangerous this is ? For example when you ease off to let a vehicle merge and then they don’t, they just carry on to the end of the sliproad without increasing their speed, you keep easing off and then they slam on at the end of the sliproad. Then what? You’ve lost all you momentum and if you’ve ever driven a fully loaded tanker which I have to say I doubt from what you’ve said above, you’d be aware what a 'mare it is to get it rolling again, especially if you’ve had to brake for the clown on the sliproad who couldn’t make his/her mind up whether they felt brave enough to pull out in front of you or not. Not all car drivers drive like the majority of reps, barrel-arsing down the sliproad at 90mph and cutting across in front of you.

I think your suggestion of easing off to let vehicles on the sliproad merge is a very bad example to any newcomers to this site or anyone else, regardless of whether or not you may think “it’s courteous”. Perhaps your attention might need to be drawn to the current (and past) editions of the Highway Code which specifically says that vehicles wanting to join a motorway or any other road from a sliproad must adjust their speed to match the speed of the vehicles already on the carriageway without causing them to alter their speed or direction to accommodate you. This applies to ALL vehicles, including trucks, not just cars.

[wiretwister]

Rob K:
…snip…I think your suggestion of easing off to let vehicles on the sliproad merge is a very bad example to any newcomers to this site or anyone else, regardless of whether or not you may think “it’s courteous”. Perhaps your attention might need to be drawn to the current (and past) editions of the Highway Code which specifically says that vehicles wanting to join a motorway or any other road from a sliproad must adjust their speed to match the speed of the vehicles already on the carriageway without causing them to alter their speed or direction to accommodate you. This applies to ALL vehicles, including trucks, not just cars.

Sorry Rob but I can’t agree with your comment that “easing off to let vehicles on the sliproad merge is a very bad example to any newcomers to this site or anyone else, regardless of whether or not you may think “it’s courteous”.”. I can think of at least 2 situations when easing off is less hazardous than not.

1. the M4 junction 18 (Bath) going west. You start at the top of a incline and descend for the best part of 2 miles. You would be expecting to have to be holding back any way so why would starting earlier be wrong?

2. Reading services M4. The slip roads on to and off of the service area have long bends with an advised speed limit of 20 mph. how would a truck be expected to get up to the speed of the main carriage way before running out of slip road?

Of course these examples are repeated in many other locations but then even when the traffic is at a crawl there are many instances when people on the main carriage way close the gap between them and the vehicle in front to prevent vehicles joining or force into the traffic flow from the slip road. In my way of thinking a little courtesy helps reduce the stress and that helps me through, and improves, my day.

[rob_k]

I don’t disagree with you there. I’m not implying that I refuse to let any vehicle merge at any cost which is perhaps how you may have interpreted me. The examples I’m thinking of are any of the sliproads that don’t become a lane at Lofthouse interchange (M1/M62) for example and in particular any sliproads that drop down a slope to merge. Wagons come hell for leather down them and up to 56mph, get to the end of the sliproad, then look in the mirror and see you there and basically force you out of the way into the next lane and then sit alongside you for miles without so much as a thanks or anything else. Sorry but they don’t do this with me. The first part up to the end of sliproad still occurs but then they either have to slam on or remind themselves what the hard shoulder looks like. If I can manage to descend a sliproad laden or empty and adjust my speed to merge with the traffic already on the carriageway be it wagon or car then everyone else can; it’s no special task. I think a lot of it is, “I must get out in front of that wagon or I’ll be up his arse for miles closely examining his rear doors”.

The trick I’ve found works well for that fraternity is to leave them at the side of you on the sliproad until a point comes where they’re just starting to ease off coz they’ve run out of road, then pull out a lane. By the time you’ve pulled out and checked your mirror usually you’re already past them enough to pull back in. Although the driver won’t be best pleased that you (deliberately) left it to the last minute he can’t moan too much because you did courteously pull over for him

I started my driving career with what would be classed as professional manner, pulling over for everything trying to merge, being a good driver blah-blah but as always you rarely get any thanks and get stranded in the middle lane, and wagon drivers doing it are as common as others so many get the tin-hat treatment now. I used to have a large bottle of respect and consideration for other road users but I’m not far off the dregs already.