Transc:
After 3 pages of criticism you still can’t see you’re wrong,I can’t work out if you really are that thick or maybe you just love causing a bit of a stir on here,but having followed your posts for some time now I have come to the conclusion that your opinion should be taken with a pinch of salt as your lack of experience and narrow minded/blinkered view when it comes to trucks and driving is laughable,better to remain silent and appear a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt
thought it was quite entertaining , somewhat better than the ■■■■■■■■ and MMTM in a RDC waiting room.
The + side is I can have a beer or Ginger Joe, watch tv then pick up where I left off…
Suedehead:
You drive a tipper.Just go over the kerb/verge ffs
This explains the thread , tipper drivers ffs law unto themselves
Everyone seems to have missed the obvious in that it’s the guvnor’s fault for not providing left hand drive wagons to suit the drivers’ parking habits.
Suedehead:
You drive a tipper.Just go over the kerb/verge ffs
This explains the thread , tipper drivers ffs law unto themselves
Everyone seems to have missed the obvious in that it’s the guvnor’s fault for not providing left hand drive wagons to suit the drivers’ parking habits.
I suppose he could buy an old sweeper and swap the body for a tipper.
Come on Nathan. Think of the children. Professional drive ran blah blah.
FFS chaps is there any need to be attacking folk?
Perhaps the thread was ill advised and he got what he deserved in some peoples view. But to use road safety (I see nothing wrong with cross and DWL to park for your break as long as it’s safe) as an excuse to have a go is probably worse than putting the thread up in the first place.
Also that pelmet, or window trim whatever you want to call it is totally illegal if fitted when the tuck is in use on the public highway. Some also thinks it make drivers look gay.
Tipper Tom:
Come on Nathan. Think of the children. Professional drive ran blah blah.
FFS chaps is there any need to be attacking folk?
Perhaps the thread was ill advised and he got what he deserved in some peoples view. But to use road safety (I see nothing wrong with cross and DWL to park for your break as long as it’s safe) as an excuse to have a go is probably worse than putting the thread up in the first place.
He started the post with an attack, in the title, He just got what he deserved from a very ill advised post and now he’s just prolonging it by trying to dig himself out of a hole he’s in. If he’d just left it it would probably be a bottom of page now. Can’t see how using road safety is worse than the original post, after all he got a good lesson in why parking the wrong way round in a layby is a bad idea, it was dangerous exiting… That bloke wasn’t even that close, if the trucks were parked the right way round. It’s all good fun though, I’ve rarely seen a post go so badly for the poster, couldn’t have happened to a more jolly man…
I keep on looking at this picture and can’t see the other driver being to close. He is nearly 2m distance from you. How much do you need to get out ? The only thing is that his correctly parked truck obstructs your view due to you facing against traffic flow. Nothing is too close -that space he gave you is more than required.
Ok so technically he can cross the lines, but usually the lines are near corners or hills where is not safe to overtake. So therfore hardly the safest place to park facing oncoming traffic. Away and hug a cyclist.
limeyphil:
This is like the headmaster of the school where my missus works. He gave a lecture to all the staff and sent letters to parents about road safety, Where staff should park, where parents should park, How the staff should enter and exit the car park, etc, etc.
My wife took great pleasure in asking him which way he drives to school. He would turn right into the school carpark, straight over the double white lines. He didn’t know what to do when she explained in front of all the staff that what he had been doing for the last 2 years was illegal.
He’s not brought the subject up since.
and i always thought she switched off when i went on a victor meldrew rampage about rules and regs.
Muckaway:
Nope, crossing the whites apply to overtaking,otherwise how do people cross to get into their premises? The layby isn’t “double white” for it’s entirety. The other driver couldn’t reverse back as he was already in the road (I’d gone far forward in the layby to let others park behind me). Also I indicated to said driver to watch me out but got a shrug of the shoulders. In the end, a fellow Trucknet member watched me out who will agree the other driver was up close to my cab. I knew said member would be stopping in the same place hence why I stopped far forward until the layby started to narrow.
So you crossed double white lines, parked facing on coming traffic and pulled so far forward so someone could park behind you…
How are they going to do that
do you expect them to pull past you on the road with double white lines and reverse in behind.
it,s not a double white line. it,s a single white line.
