Now why could i not say that. Spot on buddy 
Right hookers only in the UK and left hookers elsewhere, difficult but would help.
Right hookers only in the UK and left hookers elsewhere, difficult but would help.
M6 accident 21-10-08
- Thread starter JohnboyC
- Start date
That lane hogging is not going to do much really except anger already irate drivers. As soon as the trucks pass the restriction people will go back to using all the lanes again.
What gets my goat is people using the hard shoulder, that I will block.
What gets my goat is people using the hard shoulder, that I will block.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,775
- Reaction score
- 2,628
- Points
- 113
Now why could i not say that. Spot on buddy
Right hookers only in the UK and left hookers elsewhere, difficult but would help.
That blindspot with the left hookers is a killer,you could be overtaking a lorry and the only time they realise you were there is a bump
AndyMac
Retired from service
Problems that would easily be overcome with a bit of thought and planning.
And sidestepping the points about the Germans making it work hasn't gone unnoticed.
Once again you've failed to come up with any ideas (other than very expensive ones), so I would really like to know what constructive input you have other than slagging off other peoples ideas as nonsense.
if they put more freight back on to rail where it belongs then we'd have half as many trucks and half their pollution.
Steve_N
Derv Power
As other have said before there are good and bad drivers, in cars, vans, and trucks.
I totally agree with Faction one well said.
AndyMac
Retired from service
"there are good and bad drivers, in cars, vans, and trucks"
That's pretty obvious to anyone. The difference is that:
1. HGV drivers are supposed to be professional drivers, specially trained, highly experienced etc etc, whereas your average car driver is pretty much a moron who passed a 30 minute test 20 years ago and may only drive on the motorway once a month (if at all).
2. A bad car driver crashes and it's exchange insurance details, a bad HGV crashes and its break out the bodybags and close the motorway.
If people cannot figure out the difference then I feel very sorry for them, so please stop wasting everyone's time with replies like the one above.
As for the people who don't seem to think the problem is that prevalent in the UK and its just a few bad apples, just try driving up the A34 any day of the week and see how long it takes for you to start swearing at inconsiderate HGV's trying to overtake each other on a dual carriageway going up a hill.
That's pretty obvious to anyone. The difference is that:
1. HGV drivers are supposed to be professional drivers, specially trained, highly experienced etc etc, whereas your average car driver is pretty much a moron who passed a 30 minute test 20 years ago and may only drive on the motorway once a month (if at all).
2. A bad car driver crashes and it's exchange insurance details, a bad HGV crashes and its break out the bodybags and close the motorway.
If people cannot figure out the difference then I feel very sorry for them, so please stop wasting everyone's time with replies like the one above.
As for the people who don't seem to think the problem is that prevalent in the UK and its just a few bad apples, just try driving up the A34 any day of the week and see how long it takes for you to start swearing at inconsiderate HGV's trying to overtake each other on a dual carriageway going up a hill.
Steve_N
Derv Power
Why has this turned into a slate the HGV driver thread, dont forget that the car you drive, the chair you sit on and even the food you eat comes by truck. This thread was started because of a crash on the M6 caused by a forigen truck driver not a british one.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
Andy - not picking a fight fella, this is all just opinions, and I'm quite the fan of a good debate; but we're getting close to a chewbacca defence here...
As above, yes HGV drivers are professionals, supposed to be highly skilled, and it would be nice if they all had donkeys' years of experience - the latter doesn't really stand up too well though, because if they've just passed an involved class 1 test, you'd like to assume that the facts are fresh in their mind and they're careful about what they're doing. On the other hand, a class 1 driver who's 10 minutes from retirement might have years of experience - but then he might find himself fatigued at the wheel (being an older gent), have poorer eyesight (despite his bottle-bottoms) etc. I think the fact is that no matter how long you've been doing something, you can still be great at it, or indeed pants.
You might've been to a garage and had work done to your car by a spotty-kid who's fresh out of college and doesn't really know what he's doing. On the other hand it could've been a chap who's been doing the job for 30 years and has a wall full of certificates. They could both balls-up the job and make a mess of your motor. But then there's no de facto standard that says the newly qualified acne-monster doesn't have the required knowledge/skill, and likewise that the old-pro doesn't have an edge from knowing every trick in the book.
And, as before - taking experience out of the equation for a moment - they could both have all the certification required to do the job, but still be no good when compared to those in the higher-percentiles.
Lets look at doctors, they're all supposed to be highly-qualified, professional people, and in cases with a wealth of experience - some of them still drop the scalpel and kill people.
Another one - IT Engineers (looks at self) - I'd like to think that while I've a few certifications, I've got even more experience and a fair amount of skill, so therefore do a good job. That doesn't stop me from having colleagues who, on paper, are better qualified but have deficit of actual knowledge. We're all paid to do a good job, but some are (a lot) better than others.
...and that is a real oversimplification, and I think we both know it. I bet if I asked my old man to document a few of the incidents he saw in over 35 years of cutting people out of cars on the M6 and surrounding motorways, even excluding incidents with HGVs involved, he could still find more bodybags than we've had hot dinners. I've heard about a few myself, and it's quite clear that a car can be perfectly lethal enough all on its own.
Inconsiderate maybe, but is that in itself inherently dangerous?
Regards,
Rob.
As above, yes HGV drivers are professionals, supposed to be highly skilled, and it would be nice if they all had donkeys' years of experience - the latter doesn't really stand up too well though, because if they've just passed an involved class 1 test, you'd like to assume that the facts are fresh in their mind and they're careful about what they're doing. On the other hand, a class 1 driver who's 10 minutes from retirement might have years of experience - but then he might find himself fatigued at the wheel (being an older gent), have poorer eyesight (despite his bottle-bottoms) etc. I think the fact is that no matter how long you've been doing something, you can still be great at it, or indeed pants.
You might've been to a garage and had work done to your car by a spotty-kid who's fresh out of college and doesn't really know what he's doing. On the other hand it could've been a chap who's been doing the job for 30 years and has a wall full of certificates. They could both balls-up the job and make a mess of your motor. But then there's no de facto standard that says the newly qualified acne-monster doesn't have the required knowledge/skill, and likewise that the old-pro doesn't have an edge from knowing every trick in the book.
And, as before - taking experience out of the equation for a moment - they could both have all the certification required to do the job, but still be no good when compared to those in the higher-percentiles.
Lets look at doctors, they're all supposed to be highly-qualified, professional people, and in cases with a wealth of experience - some of them still drop the scalpel and kill people.
Another one - IT Engineers (looks at self) - I'd like to think that while I've a few certifications, I've got even more experience and a fair amount of skill, so therefore do a good job. That doesn't stop me from having colleagues who, on paper, are better qualified but have deficit of actual knowledge. We're all paid to do a good job, but some are (a lot) better than others.
AndyMac said:
...and that is a real oversimplification, and I think we both know it. I bet if I asked my old man to document a few of the incidents he saw in over 35 years of cutting people out of cars on the M6 and surrounding motorways, even excluding incidents with HGVs involved, he could still find more bodybags than we've had hot dinners. I've heard about a few myself, and it's quite clear that a car can be perfectly lethal enough all on its own.
AndyMac said:
Inconsiderate maybe, but is that in itself inherently dangerous?
Regards,
Rob.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
Completely hear what you're saying fella. The most important part in all of this is feelings for the family which endured such an incomprehensible loss.
I'm not sure it's completely a 'slate the HGV driver' thread - perhaps a couple of paragraphs have tones of that... Which as my previous two posts, I don't think is fair.
One of the things I'm interested in though, is this question of origin...
Steve_N said:
What I'm trying to get down in type is my feeling that the part in bold doesn't necessarily have to be crucial. The foreign driver (or his rig) was incompetent. I think that's fair to say...
As an equation...
(Incompetent Foreign HGV Driver) = Crash = (Incompetent British HGV Driver)
The lowest common denominator is the incompetence. If you take away incompetence (or indeed negligence or unsuitable equipment) from both sides they're pretty equal, and wouldn't equal a crash...
Regards,
Rob.
AndyMac
Retired from service
I'm glad to say I have no idea what a "chewbacca defence" is. (grow up, it's a kids film)
Nothing to do with the debate really but since you raised it, experience is everything in driving, especially safety, that's why premiums get lower - durrrr!
The old timer could fall asleep at the wheel just as easily as the youngster could have been up all night popping pills etc etc.
"...and that is a real oversimplification" - its a generalisation I admit, but that's what we're dealing with here. HGV's kill twice as many people on the roads per mile, that's a fact, or is that oversimplifying again.
"Inconsiderate maybe, but is that in itself inherently dangerous?"
Well I'd like to recommend a spot on a motorway where an HGV will have an horrendous crash in the near future, but my crystal ball has just been "upgraded" with Vista so no longer works too well. My point was that in my experience (20 years, 20k miles per year) I will see an HGV driver behaving stupidly/inconsiderately/dangerously every day I'm on the road, so they're not these romantic "knights of the road" figures that some people seem to think. Yes, the same goes for bikes and cars, but the standard should be higher from professional drivers and I don't see it.
If you saw a police driver 2 inches off the bumper of an artic you'd be almost compelled to make a complaint. Yes everyone ***** up once in a while but it seems to be a little more than that with HGV's, and it's certainly got worse. Whether it's because of foreign drivers, cost cutting, congestion or all of the above, peak time lane restrictions on motorways would save lives, and that's pretty much a fact and well worth doing. Do it for a week, see what happens. I think there should be more trials. Have a day when all traffic lights are switched off, have a no motorway speed limit day - see what happens, doubt the powers that be would like the results.
Nothing to do with the debate really but since you raised it, experience is everything in driving, especially safety, that's why premiums get lower - durrrr!
The old timer could fall asleep at the wheel just as easily as the youngster could have been up all night popping pills etc etc.
"...and that is a real oversimplification" - its a generalisation I admit, but that's what we're dealing with here. HGV's kill twice as many people on the roads per mile, that's a fact, or is that oversimplifying again.
"Inconsiderate maybe, but is that in itself inherently dangerous?"
Well I'd like to recommend a spot on a motorway where an HGV will have an horrendous crash in the near future, but my crystal ball has just been "upgraded" with Vista so no longer works too well. My point was that in my experience (20 years, 20k miles per year) I will see an HGV driver behaving stupidly/inconsiderately/dangerously every day I'm on the road, so they're not these romantic "knights of the road" figures that some people seem to think. Yes, the same goes for bikes and cars, but the standard should be higher from professional drivers and I don't see it.
If you saw a police driver 2 inches off the bumper of an artic you'd be almost compelled to make a complaint. Yes everyone ***** up once in a while but it seems to be a little more than that with HGV's, and it's certainly got worse. Whether it's because of foreign drivers, cost cutting, congestion or all of the above, peak time lane restrictions on motorways would save lives, and that's pretty much a fact and well worth doing. Do it for a week, see what happens. I think there should be more trials. Have a day when all traffic lights are switched off, have a no motorway speed limit day - see what happens, doubt the powers that be would like the results.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
Woah there. Let's the pair of us take a breath here. I wasn't having a pop, so I don't think the little bracketed snipe is needed.
AndyMac said:
OK, experience is rewarded - but I've never actually said it isn't. What I've been saying is that it doesn't guarantee, unwaveringly, in every case, a driver's safety/ability. Again, I'm quite happy to concede that in the majority of cases, it makes a positive difference. Again, all I've been trying to communicate is that it's not set in stone; there are a percentage with experience who might not actually benefit in terms of safety from it. And yes, premiums get lower because of that majority. But that doesn't mean experienced drivers never have accidents.
...And we're neatly at the centre of my main point... It's not fair to tar all of any given sub-group of drivers with the same brush.
AndyMac said:
You must see that you're inside a quarter-mile of agreeing with me there? The old experienced driver is equally as likely as the younger inexperienced driver to have a lapse in their ability due to things outside of 'the average'... Those examples demonstrate beautifully what I've been trying to say - that you can get people below the standard you'd expect of all types. Older/more experienced, younger/less experienced, British, foreign, those driving super-modern vehicles, those driving old wrecks.
...No group is completely infallible - yes, the odds are different, but never perfect.
AndyMac said:
Yes, again - facts are facts, HGVs may kill twice as many; but if their figure is a positive integer, 2 or above, that means cars do still kill people. Again, I've been saying since my first post that there is a problem with HGVs to be tackled; more than that I've simply been saying that HGVs/their drivers aren't the only problem, and not all of them are.
AndyMac said:
FactionOne said:
So to disagree with the above quote from my original post, what you're saying in effect is that - "I will see an HGV driver behaving stupidly/inconsiderately/dangerously every day I'm on the road, so they're not these romantic "knights of the road" figures that some people seem to think." - means you don't see any good ones?
Again, I'm not saying that all HGVs/their drivers are beyond reproach, but at the same time I'm not saying they're all bad either.
And "stupidly/inconsiderately/dangerously" - again, stupidly/inconsiderately/dangerously are lumped together. Stupidly is of course a fair synonym for dangerously; but I was asking earlier, if inconsiderately automatically meant dangerously; at the time I thought it was more rhetorical than anything, but never mind. My point is that if one driver (of a car for example) was waiting at a red light, and because he/she hadn't drawn close enough to the line, was actually blocking a filter-lane which would allow drivers wishing to turn left through - that's inconsiderate; it's not dangerous by default too. HGVs overtaking each other slowly on a dual-carriageway is also inconsiderate, but again, not dangerous by default - unless of course someone driving a car, van, hovercraft, whatever, wasn't paying attention and ran into the back of one of them. But in that case, who was actually the cause of the incident?
AndyMac said:
So you've never seen a single HGV driver displaying better driving skill/safety than a biker/car-driver? If not, fair enough. If you have though, we're back at what I was getting-at: It's not all professional drivers who are of a low standard, some are, and they should be straightened-out, but some (plenty) actually are of a higher standard.
Let's do pilots again... As you said, the vast majority of pilots are better at driving an Airbus A330 than you or I would be. At the same time, most chaps (and chapettes) at the sharp end of an aircraft aren't intoxicated, but some are.
Actually, wait a minute...
AndyMac said:
Oh and then...
AndyMac said:
...So you're arguing with yourself a bit there?... 1) "most truckers are excellent drivers" but 2) it's not just a few bad apples - I see. I'm not sure where the dispute lies after that.
AndyMac said:
Fella, I completely agree you'd not be impressed by a Police driver doing such a thing; and likewise you shouldn't be impressed by an HGV driver behaving dangerously; I've simply been saying that like not all Police drivers drive like that, nor do all HGV drivers.
Yes, SOME HGVs or drivers might be dangerous, but not all. Yes, the bad examples are bad, and a big problem, but they're not all bad; and they're not the only problem.
Also, I've never disputed your suggested methods for an attempt to improve the situation. While agreeing there is a problem (again, first post), I even suggested some of my own - compulsory blind spot mirrors, checks of lights and signals and tachographs for all foreign vehicles/drivers. Tighter control by VOSA and the Highways Agency wombles of all dangerous HGVs/drivers - foreign AND British.
Regards,
Rob.
AndyMac
Retired from service
OK I'll spell it out:
"Most HGV drivers" just means over 50%, so that could be 51%, leaving 49% that aren't, which I think you'll agree is not just a few bad apples.
The example of overtaking is not a directly dangerous one I agree, but surely you can see that:
1. It shows no consideration for other road users, and is no benefit to the HGV's either as all that happens is the "overtaking" HGV eventually pulls back in behind the truck he was trying to overtake leaving a mile long queue of bunched up frustrated drivers in his wake.
If they have so little understanding of the impact of their own behaviour then I'd hate to think what else they think is an OK manoevour on our roads.
2. While not directly dangerous, the manoevour above causes bunching and frustration, so has a snowball effect when the car drivers eventually get past the holdup. And could influence their behaviour if they see another HGV about to perform the same ******** manoevour.
As to the police example, I'm saying I've never seen a police car drive like that, but I see HGV's doing it everyday. What does that tell you?
"Most HGV drivers" just means over 50%, so that could be 51%, leaving 49% that aren't, which I think you'll agree is not just a few bad apples.
The example of overtaking is not a directly dangerous one I agree, but surely you can see that:
1. It shows no consideration for other road users, and is no benefit to the HGV's either as all that happens is the "overtaking" HGV eventually pulls back in behind the truck he was trying to overtake leaving a mile long queue of bunched up frustrated drivers in his wake.
If they have so little understanding of the impact of their own behaviour then I'd hate to think what else they think is an OK manoevour on our roads.
2. While not directly dangerous, the manoevour above causes bunching and frustration, so has a snowball effect when the car drivers eventually get past the holdup. And could influence their behaviour if they see another HGV about to perform the same ******** manoevour.
As to the police example, I'm saying I've never seen a police car drive like that, but I see HGV's doing it everyday. What does that tell you?
AndyMac
Retired from service
Yes, because you wipe out families on a regular basis, close motorways pretty much everyday of the week and in my experience show little consideration for the non professional drivers on the roads who pay your wages.
Apart from that you're super sweet knights of the roads!
Apart from that you're super sweet knights of the roads!
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
Oh I see... If at the time of posting, you were thinking of a 51/49% split, that's fair enough - and changes the situation somewhat. We'll get on to that though...If of course, you're just using semantics as a method to preserve a shred of your argument, that's fair enough too. I guess we can play semantics a little...
(you'll have to excuse me while I shift excerpts around a little for maximum illustrative effect)
AndyMac said:
So, by that little sarcastic outburst you're saying that 51% is a suitable majority to transpose a prejudice, sorry, summary of one group's behaviour to the remaining 49%.
But then, if you want to be pedantic to the level that 51% is an overruling majority, surely you have to be pedantic enough to see that 51% is a large number, a majority, but (being only 2% away) the remaining 49% make up a not insignificant portion; and therefore your comment to djakstar runs almost a 50% chance of being incorrect.
To oversimplify (I know you love it), if you went to a bar and asked for a pint, but were served a glass containing 289ml - you'd damn sure be complaining that you'd been given half a pint, not 'most' of a pint. And you certainly wouldn't be complaining about being given the 'majority' of a pint, because if, as above, 51% is enough for you to forget about the other 49%, there's no problem with your drink; you've got your pint - so go sit down.
(EDIT which may give some more pause for thought): I guess another angle would be the swing required to 'right' the situation...
Lets pluck a figure out of the sky, and say there are 100,000 HGV drivers in the UK...
51% of them, 51,000 in number - you're saying are dangerous, possibly lethal. You're ignoring the 49,000 good ones. The thing is though, if only 2,000 of the bad ones turn over a new leaf, we'll have 51,000 safe HGV drivers - a mjaority, and so, using your own logic, they're safe as a whole. Of course you'd then have to brush the remaining 49,000 who are still driving around killing people under the carpet.
AndyMac said:
That's sounding a bit like a generalisation again now - I suppose shorthand could be "If a driver shows any sign of inconsiderate behaviour, it guarantees they'll also exhibit dangerous behaviour". Oh no wait, I bet there's a 51% majority (and quid pro quo a 49% rounding-up) at the backbone of that theory too.
AndyMac said:
So that would tell me other drivers are likely to become dangerous in their efforts to forcibly avoid being inconvenienced? I would say 'the chicken and the egg' but it's nothing of the sort - the HGV driver might be inconsiderate, but it's the other driver who becomes dangerous. If I told you to put your hand in a fire (under no duress), and you did; which one of us took the dangerous decision?
AndyMac said:
It tells me that either a) you've personally witnessed a controlled example of the work of every police driver on our roads (or even playing your rules, 51% of them), or b) there are statistics saying that no police vehicles at all are ever at the cause of an accident.
I think we've probably had all the mileage we're going to get out of this discussion, and particularly your special brand of floating-point mathematics which can be as pedantic or as vague as required by any given situation. And I think if we take the comment levelled at djakstar as an example, things are probably quite comfortably beyond rationality. In fact it might even be time to reach for the blood pressure tablets.
Look, I sincerely hope that while we've had points of contention in this debate, and haven't seen eye-to-eye completely, there needs to be no bad blood. Struggling for an apt example - if I saw you broken down at the side of the road (and swearing at HGVs (sorry, couldn't resist
)), I'd still be more than happy to pull over and offer you the loan of my VAG-COM...Regards,
Rob.
AndyMac
Retired from service
What on earth are you banging on about?
My argument is simple, and you've analysed & disected bits of it (mainly out of context) and created some sort of monstrous ******** worthy of a highly paid business consultant.
Forget your prejudices and personal issues, these are the facts:
1. HGV's cause more deaths on the roads than any other single road user
2. HGV's hold up traffic unnecessarily on motorways with their ineffective overtaking manoevours
3. By limiting lane usage at peak times we could save lives.
Anyone got a problem with the facts above?
My argument is simple, and you've analysed & disected bits of it (mainly out of context) and created some sort of monstrous ******** worthy of a highly paid business consultant.
Forget your prejudices and personal issues, these are the facts:
1. HGV's cause more deaths on the roads than any other single road user
2. HGV's hold up traffic unnecessarily on motorways with their ineffective overtaking manoevours
3. By limiting lane usage at peak times we could save lives.
Anyone got a problem with the facts above?
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 29,115
- Reaction score
- 3,862
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Solihull, Midlands
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
Not wanting to get into the argument in any way, or taking the sides of a trucker or general motorist. Why does the trucker on the inside lane never backs off the throttle to allow the trucker in the middles lane - who clearly wants to pass - to go past swiftly and pull in?
And Condolences to the family that was involved in this tragic accident, may they rest in peace.
And Condolences to the family that was involved in this tragic accident, may they rest in peace.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
No no really, I've not taken anything out of context. Yes, I've done other things though... Chiefly finding two statements you made which to some degree contradict each-other. That's how I got into my lengthy last post about percentages...
You said that 'most truck drivers are excellent' but it's not just a few bad apples that are causing the problem.
So, anyone who's not relying on the nth detail to carefully guide a confused argument to its intended destination would fairly describe 'most' as a comfortable majority. In simpler terms, a large number more than in the lesser group.
When you start harping on about 51% being a majority, you sound like a cretin, because while it technically is - it's not really enough to drive home an argument that ALL the group share trait 'X'. That'd be rounding up by a fantastic factor.
In the real, sane, balanced world; you might say that 51% (the majority) of group 'N', have trait 'X' - 49% (the minority) don't. Yes, there is a majority, but in real terms by 2%. A very small margin.
Putting it into the context of good and bad truck drivers...
51% of truck drivers are safe, 49% aren't. So, yes, the majority are safe, and the minority aren't. But in actual fact, the figures are only slightly adrift from the case being 'there are just as many safe truck drivers as dangerous ones'. It works just as well the other way around, if 51% are dangerous, 49% aren't - and again, it's only slightly off 'there are just as many dangerouns truck drivers as safe ones'.
That alone is enough to say that 'Not all truck drivers/trucks are dangerous'
For christ's sake man, all I'm saying is that generalising is largely unfair. By definition, you can't accurately specify points made in generalisation, because then you're no longer generalising, you're being specific.
Just hold that thought for a moment...
Right, only a few posts ago you levelled criticism at djakster directly, citing that "Yes, because you wipe out families on a regular basis, close motorways pretty much everyday of the week and in my experience show little consideration for the non professional drivers on the roads who pay your wages."
...That would seem like a) you've identified a problem with trucks and/or drivers (I have never disputed that part), but then b) unless djakster does drive a truck regularly, and very regularly wipes out families or closes motorways, you've taken a statement which applies to a specific group (ie those incompetent drivers/those with substandard vehicles) and applied it to EVERYONE.
How fair that is of course rests on a sliding scale...
If it were true that 99% of lorry drivers kill on a regular basis, it's not so much of a leap. If 50% of lorry drivers kill on a regular basis, it's being unfair to as many as it is fair. If 1% of lorry drivers kill on a regular basis, it's being unfair to many more than it is fair.
See where I'm going? Probably not... We'll press-on anyway...
So, in comments like those aimed at djakster (and in various other bits of your posts), you've expressed that on the whole, lorry drivers are dangerous by default.
You'd also said that 'most' lorry drivers are excellent...
Can anyone see the beginnings of a contradiction yet?
Even if we use your 51% excellent, 49% dangerous split (which we all know was picked purely to illustrate the potential to get the biggest number in the 'dangerous' minority)... In making generalisations like those toward djakster, you've contradicted your own view that 51% are excellent.
You can't make generalisations like those toward djakster when by your own admission 'most truck drivers are excellent' - whether you take most to be 51% (as in your objection earlier), or even 99%.
Surely, if you were going to generalise at all (which I'm simply trying to illustrate, is very shaky ground in a complex situation), you would generalise IN FAVOUR of the MAJORITY.
Again, your example... 51% THE MAJORITY - EXCELLENT DRIVERS....
So, without knowing djakster, or any other trucker's unique safety record, you might apply a generalisation (riskily), which, given the majority would more aptly be YOU'RE AN EXCELLENT DRIVER.
To further drive home what I'm saying... You had a go at djakster as a dangerous trucker based on a generalisation you're making. But then you had also said, earlier on, that the majority (which we found out could be 51%) are excellent (read: safe) drivers.
Can't you see the contradiction you're making?
REALLY?
It'd be exactly the same to round-up a bunch of doctors, finding that the majority (between 51 and 100%) of them are skilled professionals, and excellent at conducting their work; then (correctly) saying 'most doctors are safe and skilled' then picking any one out at random and annoucing: "'you're all dangerous quacks who can't stop killing people".
More on this contradiction angle really isn't worth exploring if you can't see what I'm trying to say from that. I guess all that can be hoped is that our other dear readers do.
To answer your question though...
1) If the number of deaths per mile are greater with HGVs than other vehicles (which I agree it is), there is a considerable problem with HGVs - obviously there are a dangerous group involved - what I have been saying is that it's not ALL HGVs or drivers.
2) Maybe some of them do. Again, my main point would be that it's not all of them. And again, as previously, impeding other road users' progress temporarily doesn't incur danger automatically.
3) Quite possibly it could - but then I never disputed that either, and as mentioned before, I actually suggested some extra things which might help too.
...So in summary, I'm not denying the existence of any problem. I'm simply saying it doesn't apply to all; and by saying 'most HGV drivers are excellent' (no matter how small or large the majority), you've sort-of excluded yourself from justifiably being able to say that ALL of them are dangerous.
Regards,
Rob.
You said that 'most truck drivers are excellent' but it's not just a few bad apples that are causing the problem.
So, anyone who's not relying on the nth detail to carefully guide a confused argument to its intended destination would fairly describe 'most' as a comfortable majority. In simpler terms, a large number more than in the lesser group.
When you start harping on about 51% being a majority, you sound like a cretin, because while it technically is - it's not really enough to drive home an argument that ALL the group share trait 'X'. That'd be rounding up by a fantastic factor.
In the real, sane, balanced world; you might say that 51% (the majority) of group 'N', have trait 'X' - 49% (the minority) don't. Yes, there is a majority, but in real terms by 2%. A very small margin.
Putting it into the context of good and bad truck drivers...
51% of truck drivers are safe, 49% aren't. So, yes, the majority are safe, and the minority aren't. But in actual fact, the figures are only slightly adrift from the case being 'there are just as many safe truck drivers as dangerous ones'. It works just as well the other way around, if 51% are dangerous, 49% aren't - and again, it's only slightly off 'there are just as many dangerouns truck drivers as safe ones'.
That alone is enough to say that 'Not all truck drivers/trucks are dangerous'
For christ's sake man, all I'm saying is that generalising is largely unfair. By definition, you can't accurately specify points made in generalisation, because then you're no longer generalising, you're being specific.
Just hold that thought for a moment...
Right, only a few posts ago you levelled criticism at djakster directly, citing that "Yes, because you wipe out families on a regular basis, close motorways pretty much everyday of the week and in my experience show little consideration for the non professional drivers on the roads who pay your wages."
...That would seem like a) you've identified a problem with trucks and/or drivers (I have never disputed that part), but then b) unless djakster does drive a truck regularly, and very regularly wipes out families or closes motorways, you've taken a statement which applies to a specific group (ie those incompetent drivers/those with substandard vehicles) and applied it to EVERYONE.
How fair that is of course rests on a sliding scale...
If it were true that 99% of lorry drivers kill on a regular basis, it's not so much of a leap. If 50% of lorry drivers kill on a regular basis, it's being unfair to as many as it is fair. If 1% of lorry drivers kill on a regular basis, it's being unfair to many more than it is fair.
See where I'm going? Probably not... We'll press-on anyway...
So, in comments like those aimed at djakster (and in various other bits of your posts), you've expressed that on the whole, lorry drivers are dangerous by default.
You'd also said that 'most' lorry drivers are excellent...
Can anyone see the beginnings of a contradiction yet?
Even if we use your 51% excellent, 49% dangerous split (which we all know was picked purely to illustrate the potential to get the biggest number in the 'dangerous' minority)... In making generalisations like those toward djakster, you've contradicted your own view that 51% are excellent.
You can't make generalisations like those toward djakster when by your own admission 'most truck drivers are excellent' - whether you take most to be 51% (as in your objection earlier), or even 99%.
Surely, if you were going to generalise at all (which I'm simply trying to illustrate, is very shaky ground in a complex situation), you would generalise IN FAVOUR of the MAJORITY.
Again, your example... 51% THE MAJORITY - EXCELLENT DRIVERS....
So, without knowing djakster, or any other trucker's unique safety record, you might apply a generalisation (riskily), which, given the majority would more aptly be YOU'RE AN EXCELLENT DRIVER.
To further drive home what I'm saying... You had a go at djakster as a dangerous trucker based on a generalisation you're making. But then you had also said, earlier on, that the majority (which we found out could be 51%) are excellent (read: safe) drivers.
Can't you see the contradiction you're making?
REALLY?
It'd be exactly the same to round-up a bunch of doctors, finding that the majority (between 51 and 100%) of them are skilled professionals, and excellent at conducting their work; then (correctly) saying 'most doctors are safe and skilled' then picking any one out at random and annoucing: "'you're all dangerous quacks who can't stop killing people".
More on this contradiction angle really isn't worth exploring if you can't see what I'm trying to say from that. I guess all that can be hoped is that our other dear readers do.
To answer your question though...
1) If the number of deaths per mile are greater with HGVs than other vehicles (which I agree it is), there is a considerable problem with HGVs - obviously there are a dangerous group involved - what I have been saying is that it's not ALL HGVs or drivers.
2) Maybe some of them do. Again, my main point would be that it's not all of them. And again, as previously, impeding other road users' progress temporarily doesn't incur danger automatically.
3) Quite possibly it could - but then I never disputed that either, and as mentioned before, I actually suggested some extra things which might help too.
...So in summary, I'm not denying the existence of any problem. I'm simply saying it doesn't apply to all; and by saying 'most HGV drivers are excellent' (no matter how small or large the majority), you've sort-of excluded yourself from justifiably being able to say that ALL of them are dangerous.
Regards,
Rob.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
Rob...haven't you locked this yet
Mate, if it were Andy and anyone else, or any two others at all going at each other about it, that'd probably be worth considering. However I suppse if one person has contradicted themself to some degree, and the other is just trying to highlight that, locking is a grey area.The fact of the matter is it's not an option for me anyway, because I'm sure it would be labelled an abuse of power yada yada yada...
I've not really got a great deal more to say on the subject. I made my own feelings clear in my first post, and since then have only really been trying to defend an innocent contingent of a larger group from being tarred with the same brush, or being victims of a hypocritical contradiction. I would hope my last post clears that up reasonably well?
Regards,
Rob.
AndyMac
Retired from service
When did I ever say all HGV's are dangerous? I never have. My response to djakster was obviously tongue in cheek which was the only way to respond to such a comment.
If you want to reduce deaths on the road you aim for the big killers, as this will have the biggest effect. This is called logic (look it up).
Without looking at every one of the 1000's of deaths every year caused by HGV's, all we can do is generalise. Generalisations made on published statistics and generalisations made from what we see whilst driving.
I'm sure eventually you'll stop banging about 51% (which was just an example of how low "most" could be), and actually lower yourself to at least consider the more important points made in my last post. I can't honestly believe anyone has the time or inclination to study my ramblings that closely desperately trying to find one tiny thing that they believe doesn't quite add up and then focus wholeheartedly on that to the exclusion of everything else. What are you a tabloid journalist?
If you want to reduce deaths on the road you aim for the big killers, as this will have the biggest effect. This is called logic (look it up).
Without looking at every one of the 1000's of deaths every year caused by HGV's, all we can do is generalise. Generalisations made on published statistics and generalisations made from what we see whilst driving.
I'm sure eventually you'll stop banging about 51% (which was just an example of how low "most" could be), and actually lower yourself to at least consider the more important points made in my last post. I can't honestly believe anyone has the time or inclination to study my ramblings that closely desperately trying to find one tiny thing that they believe doesn't quite add up and then focus wholeheartedly on that to the exclusion of everything else. What are you a tabloid journalist?
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
So, the 'bones' of what I've been saying is:
1) Yes, there's a considerable safety issue with HGVs on our roads
2) The problem isn't down to ALL HGVs or drivers, there are good and bad.
3) There are good and bad from outside the UK, and good and bad from inside the UK
4) I think something should be done - stricter controls for foreign vehicles, better enforcement of regulations for UK drivers/vehicles too.
Perhaps djakster's question about 'having it in for truckers' wasn't merely a coincidence, maybe it was a question prompted by the tone of your argument, perhaps he genuinenly did get the impression you were lumping all the good in with the bad. Especially interesting given that's the same thing I got, and really the only thing I've been disputing.
I think it would be fair to say we're perfectly in agreement on points one and four above, there have only been question marks over 2 and 3...
Fine, you have never explicitly said ALL HGVs/drivers are dangerous, but you've not exactly acknowledged the ones who aren't - that's all I was trying to do when saying that some are incompetent fools, and others are knights of the road; and when I did, you were quick to point out they're not.
As for...
...being tongue-in-cheek, that's a pretty interesting way of looking at it. I'd agree the last sentence was, but the first seemed pretty damning - I suppose that's all down to an individual's perception though; but I'd hazard a guess djakster didn't see it so tongue-in-cheek, if you'd made a similar (baseless) comment about the way I conduct myself, I wouldn't see it so tongue-in-cheek, and I dare say there'd be a few others in the same boat; maybe even yourself...
I guess you could take the submission of that comment into the debate as a line in the sand, I wouldn't have entered that because it doesn't hold relevance to any of what I was saying (unless we were to find out that djakster is indeed one of the bad ones I mention).
I think I did answer those, largely in agreement?
And I suppse that's the summary...
On points 1 and 4 above, we've agreed from the off. On points two and three there's been some doubt, but if you're saying that while some HGVs/drivers are a problem requiring a solution, but at the same time a lot are good at what they do, and conduct themselves safely; we've not really been arguing about anything. We're pretty much completely in agreement?...
Regards,
Rob
1) Yes, there's a considerable safety issue with HGVs on our roads
2) The problem isn't down to ALL HGVs or drivers, there are good and bad.
3) There are good and bad from outside the UK, and good and bad from inside the UK
4) I think something should be done - stricter controls for foreign vehicles, better enforcement of regulations for UK drivers/vehicles too.
AndyMac said:
Perhaps djakster's question about 'having it in for truckers' wasn't merely a coincidence, maybe it was a question prompted by the tone of your argument, perhaps he genuinenly did get the impression you were lumping all the good in with the bad. Especially interesting given that's the same thing I got, and really the only thing I've been disputing.
I think it would be fair to say we're perfectly in agreement on points one and four above, there have only been question marks over 2 and 3...
Fine, you have never explicitly said ALL HGVs/drivers are dangerous, but you've not exactly acknowledged the ones who aren't - that's all I was trying to do when saying that some are incompetent fools, and others are knights of the road; and when I did, you were quick to point out they're not.
As for...
AndyMac said:
...being tongue-in-cheek, that's a pretty interesting way of looking at it. I'd agree the last sentence was, but the first seemed pretty damning - I suppose that's all down to an individual's perception though; but I'd hazard a guess djakster didn't see it so tongue-in-cheek, if you'd made a similar (baseless) comment about the way I conduct myself, I wouldn't see it so tongue-in-cheek, and I dare say there'd be a few others in the same boat; maybe even yourself...
I guess you could take the submission of that comment into the debate as a line in the sand, I wouldn't have entered that because it doesn't hold relevance to any of what I was saying (unless we were to find out that djakster is indeed one of the bad ones I mention).
AndyMac said:
I think I did answer those, largely in agreement?
And I suppse that's the summary...
On points 1 and 4 above, we've agreed from the off. On points two and three there's been some doubt, but if you're saying that while some HGVs/drivers are a problem requiring a solution, but at the same time a lot are good at what they do, and conduct themselves safely; we've not really been arguing about anything. We're pretty much completely in agreement?...
Regards,
Rob
AndyMac
Retired from service
I know Andy (djakster) so he would have taken it the way it was meant. Should have a put a smiley face on that one sorry.
In fact you are the one who's been arguing semantics from day one. If you'd bothered to read the posts rather than skimming them you would see it's more your comments that have me supposedly damming every HGV driver out there. Do you really think I'm that much of a moron (don't answer that).
All I've said all along is that there are more than a few bad truckers out there and the situation is getting worse. There's a lot of good ones, but it seems to me they are a dying breed (not a good expression to use, sorry). I don't know if this is because standards are slipping or congestion is getting worse but the problem needs to be tackled, and apart from more rigorous safety checks I don't see anyone coming up with any helpful solutions. IMO the whole MOT system needs to be completely overhauled for all vehicles. It's a joke, and not a very good one. It should be nationalised with maybe VOSA type bods hanging out at petrol stations checking out vehicles while they fill up.
In fact you are the one who's been arguing semantics from day one. If you'd bothered to read the posts rather than skimming them you would see it's more your comments that have me supposedly damming every HGV driver out there. Do you really think I'm that much of a moron (don't answer that).
All I've said all along is that there are more than a few bad truckers out there and the situation is getting worse. There's a lot of good ones, but it seems to me they are a dying breed (not a good expression to use, sorry). I don't know if this is because standards are slipping or congestion is getting worse but the problem needs to be tackled, and apart from more rigorous safety checks I don't see anyone coming up with any helpful solutions. IMO the whole MOT system needs to be completely overhauled for all vehicles. It's a joke, and not a very good one. It should be nationalised with maybe VOSA type bods hanging out at petrol stations checking out vehicles while they fill up.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
AndyMac said:
OK, Firstly, I did read the earlier posts, carefully. I wasn't intentionally trying to put words in your mouth (or keyboard, whatever); that is honeslty what was coming across. The flash-point seemed to be about 'knights of the road' - I simply said that there were some who are, not all. I don't see what's wrong with that. Also, I agree that (like you said) the majority are excellent, and there are more than a few bad apples. I'd just say from all the regular mileage I do on the M6, M5, M50, M4, M25, etc. that while there may be a (disappointingly) larger percentage who can be inconsiderate, it's a much smaller percentage who are consistently dangerous.
AndyMac said:
I will answer, and honestly, I don't. As I said earlier, debating something keenly is one thing, falling out over it is something entirely different. I stand by what I said about not wishing any bad blood. I would hope that feeling is reciprocated, but that's not for me to decide.
AndyMac said:
...And I can wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, save for perhaps adding that I feel enforcing tachograph use etc. for visiting drivers would maybe go beyond 'more rigorous safety checks'
Regards,
Rob.
Steve_N
Derv Power
To answer your point on more rigorous safety checks, it is not really the condition of the vehicle that is the problem, but the person in charge, i dont drive a brand new top of the range unit, i drive an M reg volvo, but it has a safety inspection every four weeks as per VOSA regs and passes its MOT every year without fail, the trailer i pull is 8 years old and again is MOT'd every year.
As for MOT's they are all conducted at VOSA test stations, they test the unit and the trailers, so there is a national standard and no cases of back street garages dishing out dodgy mot certs.
Vosa do carry out spot checks at services and laybys and also at the ferry ports so they really cant do any more.
When you see an accident with a truck involved majority of the time it will involve a truck from the continent, but dont assume it was the trucks fault, as ive already said if i had a pound for every time i had a car pull in front at the approach to traffic lights and cutting my braking distance then i could retire.
Now i am not defending all truck drivers because there are some that should have their licences revoked, but then some of us are safe, just to make the point in the 6 years that i have been on the road i have never had an accident, and dont intend to ever have one if i can help it.
AndyMac
Retired from service
Yes sorry, the safety check point was aimed at continental HGV's. The MOT point was aimed at cars and thus the back street garages etc etc.
Our local police did a day of spot checking on the M27 a few months ago and 56 of the 90 lorries inspected failed. These could not all have been continental drivers. Frightening.
Our local police did a day of spot checking on the M27 a few months ago and 56 of the 90 lorries inspected failed. These could not all have been continental drivers. Frightening.
AndyMac
Retired from service
Sorry are we boring you?Rob...haven't you locked this yet
On that basis the word association thread would have been locked before the first reply!
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,326
- Reaction score
- 201
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Preston
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
auditek
Registered User
Thats a kinda stupid remark to make, the reason why this thread has continued is because Rob sees the reason for a forum, fair & balanced debates, if Rob was to go around closing threads just cause someone disagreed with him then it would never be as fun a forum & sucessful as it is today, Rob doesnt seem someone who would have that kinda attitude of dont fuk with me.
Personally from the small snippets I've read Andy has some fair points about lorry drivers & have to say from someone that used to do thousands of miles a year up & down country for years I've seen & still do some unbelievable driving from these guys, law unto themselves, just because they are bigger than the rest they tend to have the attitude of dont feck with us its our roads, thats how these innocent people get killed, pull out wthout a care, try to overtake when its obvious they wont be able to & cause tailbacks & then pull in after few miles, not generalising that all lorry drivers are the same but thats the general attitude from a fair few I've seen over the years, had one driver pull a knife out at me waving it from his cab for literally nothing just cause I pulled out from a junction onto the 25 in front of him as we all were in tailback traffic doing 5mph so wasnt as if I'd cut him up, needless to say he got pulled other side of the QE bridge, knife found, serves the **** right should have his license taken cause thats the kinda lorry driver you dont need on the roads.
EssVier
There ain't no party like an S-Club Party.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 849
- Reaction score
- 24
- Points
- 18
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 29,115
- Reaction score
- 3,862
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Solihull, Midlands
- Website
- www.audi-sport.net
With all this talk about 51/49%, I now have an excuse to call Rob Fraction One.
.....groan!
Well since October 07 Ive clocked up approx 65000 miles (in just my LWB Sprinter, I could probably easily add on another 15000 miles which I have done in my Vivaro and a Fabia VRS Ive just sold). Previous to that, from say Sept 07 back to Feb 04, I did on average another 50000 per annum in western Europe, Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus. That was in RHD mk5 Golfs and 8p Audi A3's plus LHD Vivaro's, Pajeros and Discoverys. I hold full UK, German and Cyprus driving licenses in addition to all the MOD stuff I also had to have so while I wouldnt claim to be an expert driver, I know what I know.
Chances are either someones flashed them to let them go, theres someone trying to enter the A14 and they have moved over or they have seen a space and gone for it. Failing all three like my original post said theres the occasional crap lorry driver but the majority of bad drivers on the roads these days are in cars, they dont drive for a living and they are in a hurry.
(Also this is my personal rant to all the morons out there. Instead of ******* round with your mobile or your ipod, chatting to your mates or staring at your Sat Nav, learn to read the road. Look ahead to possible dangers. When I approach a slip road I always clock whats about to come onto the motorway, see if its the feds or a truck or a car towing a caravan then I look at the implications. Who is going to need to move over? Is there enough gaps? If Ive got room to move into the middle or fast lane will this make someone elses life a bit easier??? Or shall I just be a nob? Honestly *I think* its a no brainer but a large proportion of people out there have serious mental difficulties fathoming it out...)
When your sitting on the busy motorway in your A4 what can you see? **** all thats what, maybe two cars infront but thats it. If your in a van or a HGV, unless theres something really big infront of you, normally you can tell whats going on at least a mile infront just by the brakelights of the traffic ahead. So if your on a quiet bit of motorway and theres a truck up your **** then your going too slow, if your on a busy bit of motorway and theres a truck up your **** then hes keeping a steady speed and watching the traffic ahead or maybe your one of those idiots thats leaves a massive gap infront of you just so you dont have to change gear while the truck drivers attempting to not stall or have to rev the tits off his wagon.
The flipside of this is, knowing that it takes so long to get a HGV up to speed surely anyone intentionally or inconsiderately slowing them down should be treated with disdain or tailgated accordingly?
As per my original post, theres bad drivers everywhere but very few of them are in HGV's.
