Artics quite often turn into the road outside my office before
realising that they have taken a wrong turn and should have gone
straight on at the 'T' junction.

They then seem to make quite a mess of reversing back out again but it
is great entertainment value.  In recent weeks the post-box on the
corner has been demolished, as has the direction sign and a garden
wall.

Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
(they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.

What is the correct technique?

		East
---------------------------------------------
						South
-------------          ----------------------
             |         |
             |         |
             |         |
             |       A |
             |       r |
             |       t |
             |       i |
             |       c |



-- 
AnthonyL

"AnthonyL" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
news:487b40a8.11401062@news.zen.co.uk...
> Artics quite often turn into the road outside my office before
> realising that they have taken a wrong turn and should have gone
> straight on at the 'T' junction.
>
> They then seem to make quite a mess of reversing back out again but it
> is great entertainment value.  In recent weeks the post-box on the
> corner has been demolished, as has the direction sign and a garden
> wall.
>
> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>
> What is the correct technique?
>
> East
> ---------------------------------------------
> South
> -------------          ----------------------
>             |         |
>             |         |
>             |         |
>             |       A |
>             |       r |
>             |       t |
>             |       i |
>             |       c |
>
>
>

Its not entertainment value at all. Theres nothing more frustrating than 
being in a place where youre not meant to be then finding it a bugger to get 
out of.
Im well aware that a lot of businesses and street arent meant to take artics 
(from experience) and its bloody frustrating when you ask someone if an rtic 
will fit in then you find out it doesnt.
Reversing on your blind side (the left hand) is very difficult indeed and 
should be avoided at all costs. The trailer will eventually block the view 
in the mirrors when it swings around therefore its impossible to tell where 
it actually is - hence the damage to postboxes, lamp posts, parked cars, etc

McK.

In article , AnthonyL says...

> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
> 
> What is the correct technique?
> 
Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing 
on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the 
manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of 
the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see 
where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In 
addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who 
manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper 
or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading 
towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in 
such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park 
your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out 
at all.

And when reversing, the trailer DOES NOT follow the same path as it did 
turning in even if you stopped dead and reversed the unit exactly the 
same.

Stick to driving a car.

 

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:6e159kF4pudjU3@mid.individual.net...
> In article , AnthonyL says...
>
>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>
>> What is the correct technique?
>>
> Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
> on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
> manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
> the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
> where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
> addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
> manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
> or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
> towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
> such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
> your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
> at all.
>
> And when reversing, the trailer DOES NOT follow the same path as it did
> turning in even if you stopped dead and reversed the unit exactly the
> same.
>
> Stick to driving a car.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Conor
>
> I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
> looking good either. - Scott Adams


Put your mobile down and it will make the reversing easier

On 2008-07-14, Conor  wrote:
> In article , AnthonyL says...
>
>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>> 
>> What is the correct technique?
>> 
>
> And when reversing, the trailer DOES NOT follow the same path as it did 
> turning in even if you stopped dead and reversed the unit exactly the 
> same.

See, if you hadn't posted the preceding, and following, paragraphs of
pure ad-homien abuse, this would have been a reasonable reply...

-- 
David Taylor
>

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , AnthonyL says...
>
>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>> 
>> What is the correct technique?
>> 
>Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing 
>on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the 
>manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of 
>the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see 
>where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In 
>addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who 
>manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper 
>or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading 
>towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in 
>such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park 
>your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out 
>at all.

If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
look and start reversing.

On 14 Jul, 16:37, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article , AnthonyL says...
>
> >> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
> >> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
> >> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
> >> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>
> >> What is the correct technique?
>
> >Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
> >on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
> >manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
> >the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
> >where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
> >addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
> >manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
> >or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
> >towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
> >such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
> >your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
> >at all.
>
> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
> boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
> look and start reversing.

The swedish hitchhiker might struggle free and escape.

Ian

AnthonyL wrote:

> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in 

Ever reversed anything with a trailer? Even a small car and trailer?

They don't follow the same path. Get the car slightly out of line and 
the trailer goes sideways, then more sideways unless you catch and 
correct it quick, all while watching where the front of the car is going 
too. Even if you were able to replay the steering wheel input exactly, 
it doesn't follow.

Say you have the hgv half way in. The trailer is at an angle to the 
tractor unit. If you go forward, it will happily follow the tractor in, 
cutting the corner off compared to the tractor unit. If you reverse, and 
don't get the tractor unit and it's steering in line , the trailer will 
pivot outwards around the back axle. I've never driven one, but just 
think about where the push is coming from and what can move.

I'd guess once you 'get' it it would become second nature, but there's 
still the visibility issue.

In article , Graz says...

> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> and take a fucking look before reversing? 

ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.

And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into 
the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <JPMek.26663$E41.20514@text.news.virginmedia.com>, Chris 
Bartram says...

> I'd guess once you 'get' it it would become second nature, but there's 
> still the visibility issue.

Indeed. It's a bit harder than reversing the fuckwit OP's Cinqucento. 

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor wrote:
> In article , Graz says...
> 
>> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> and take a fucking look before reversing? 
> 
> ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
> 
> And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into 
> the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?

They're fair game?

-- 
Abo

"Graz"  wrote in message 
news:487b7246.98048750@news.motzarella.org...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
> wrote:
>
>>In article , AnthonyL says...
>>
>>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>>
>>> What is the correct technique?
>>>
>>Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
>>on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
>>manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
>>the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
>>where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
>>addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
>>manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
>>or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
>>towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
>>such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
>>your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
>>at all.
>
> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
> boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
> look and start reversing.
>

But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect 
someone to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back in, 
manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and 
impatient car drivers behind.

McK.

McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect someone 
> to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back in, 
> manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and 
> impatient car drivers behind.

Then why are they not fitted with cameras?

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:6e159kF4pudjU3@mid.individual.net...

> And when reversing, the trailer DOES NOT follow the same path 
> as it did
> turning in even if you stopped dead and reversed the unit 
> exactly the
> same.

In theory it does, but slip angles could make a small difference.
Mike.

In article , Harry 
Bloomfield says...
> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
> > But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
> > sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect someone 
> > to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back in, 
> > manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and 
> > impatient car drivers behind.
> 
> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
> 
> 
What difference do you think that'll make?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>
>> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> and take a fucking look before reversing? 
>
>ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.

And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.

>And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into 
>the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?

Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.

But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
you, the fault is entirely yours.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:19:35 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
 wrote:

>
>"Graz"  wrote in message 
>news:487b7246.98048750@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article , AnthonyL says...
>>>
>>>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>>>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>>>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>>>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>>>
>>>> What is the correct technique?
>>>>
>>>Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
>>>on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
>>>manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
>>>the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
>>>where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
>>>addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
>>>manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
>>>or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
>>>towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
>>>such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
>>>your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
>>>at all.
>>
>> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
>> boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
>> look and start reversing.
>>
>
>But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
>sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect 
>someone to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back in, 
>manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and 
>impatient car drivers behind.

Isn't it better to take a 50 foot walk than crash into something,
though?  As for irate/impatient car drivers - fuck 'em.

"Graz"  wrote in message 
news:487c3df6.150193375@news.motzarella.org...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:19:35 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Graz"  wrote in message
>>news:487b7246.98048750@news.motzarella.org...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article , AnthonyL says...
>>>>
>>>>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>>>>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>>>>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>>>>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the correct technique?
>>>>>
>>>>Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
>>>>on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
>>>>manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
>>>>the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
>>>>where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
>>>>addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
>>>>manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
>>>>or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
>>>>towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
>>>>such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
>>>>your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
>>>>at all.
>>>
>>> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>>> and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
>>> boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
>>> look and start reversing.
>>>
>>
>>But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a
>>sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect
>>someone to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back 
>>in,
>>manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and
>>impatient car drivers behind.
>
> Isn't it better to take a 50 foot walk than crash into something,
> though?  As for irate/impatient car drivers - fuck 'em.

Ah.....so now you see what truck drivers have to put up with.

McK.

Conor wrote:
> In article , Harry 
> Bloomfield says...
>> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
>>> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
>>> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect someone 
>>> to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back in, 
>>> manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and 
>>> impatient car drivers behind.
>> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
>>
>>
> What difference do you think that'll make?
> 
  Sigh.

On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
> wrote:
>
> >In article , Graz says...
>
> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>
> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>
> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>
> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>
> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>
> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> you, the fault is entirely yours.


No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.

In article , Graz says...

> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
> 
> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
> 
Yeah, I'm so clueless about reversing that I was employed as a shunter 
trainer. And I can guarantee I can reverse an artic in places you'd 
have no hope of ever doing.

> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into 
> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
> 
> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
> 
You'd think that wouldn't you but they don't.

> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> you, the fault is entirely yours.
> 
Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance 
companies.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <g5hjhg$ej9$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
> Conor wrote:
> > In article , Harry 
> > Bloomfield says...
> >> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
> >>> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
> >>> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect someone 
> >>> to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back in, 
> >>> manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and 
> >>> impatient car drivers behind.
> >> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
> >>
> >>
> > What difference do you think that'll make?
> > 
>   Sigh.
> 
Again, what difference do you think that'll make? You tell me and I'll 
tell you why you've not got a fucking clue.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Graz says...

> Isn't it better to take a 50 foot walk than crash into something,
> though?  As for irate/impatient car drivers - fuck 'em.  
> 
Why would taking a 50ft walk make any difference when reversing into a 
road? Apart from nobends, what is going to magically appear that's not 
already there?

If they've been hitting posts/postboxes, getting out and looking at the 
back is going to make fuck all difference BECAUSE THEY WERE SWIPED BY 
THE SIDE OF THE TRAILER.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
wrote:

>On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article , Graz says...
>>
>> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>>
>> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>>
>> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>>
>> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
>> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>>
>> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>>
>> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>
>
>No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
>he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
>last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
>(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
>rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
>fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
>the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.

Can you rewrite that in English for me?  Thanks.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:47:12 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
 wrote:

>
>"Graz"  wrote in message 
>news:487c3df6.150193375@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:19:35 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Graz"  wrote in message
>>>news:487b7246.98048750@news.motzarella.org...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article , AnthonyL says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>>>>>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>>>>>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>>>>>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the correct technique?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
>>>>>on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
>>>>>manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
>>>>>the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
>>>>>where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
>>>>>addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
>>>>>manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
>>>>>or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
>>>>>towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
>>>>>such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
>>>>>your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
>>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>>>> and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
>>>> boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
>>>> look and start reversing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a
>>>sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect
>>>someone to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back 
>>>in,
>>>manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and
>>>impatient car drivers behind.
>>
>> Isn't it better to take a 50 foot walk than crash into something,
>> though?  As for irate/impatient car drivers - fuck 'em.
>
>Ah.....so now you see what truck drivers have to put up with.

Yes, but occasionally car drivers also have to put up with impatient
truck drivers.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
wrote:

>On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article , Graz says...
>>
>> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>>
>> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>>
>> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>>
>> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
>> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>>
>> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>>
>> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>
>
>No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
>he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
>last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
>(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
>rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
>fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
>the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.

Can you rewrite that in English for me?  Thanks.

On 15 jul, 11:13, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 퍝, Conor 
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In article , Graz says...
>
> >> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> >> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>
> >> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>
> >> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>
> >> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
> >> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>
> >> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>
> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>
> >No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
> >he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
> >last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
> >(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
> >rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
> >fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
> >the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.
>
> Can you rewrite that in English for me?  Thanks.

Sure, which bit didn't you understand, you could ask your mother
first, it may be easier.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
wrote:

>On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article , Graz says...
>>
>> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>>
>> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>>
>> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>>
>> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
>> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>>
>> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>>
>> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>
>
>No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
>he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
>last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
>(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
>rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
>fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
>the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.

Can you rewrite that in English for me?  Thanks.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:47:12 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
 wrote:

>
>"Graz"  wrote in message 
>news:487c3df6.150193375@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:19:35 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Graz"  wrote in message
>>>news:487b7246.98048750@news.motzarella.org...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article , AnthonyL says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>>>>>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>>>>>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>>>>>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the correct technique?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well for a start, you're having a fucking laugh but they're reversing
>>>>>on their blind side. What that means you cock, is that for most of the
>>>>>manouvre the only thing they can see out of their mirror is the side of
>>>>>the trailer on one side and thin air on the other. THey cannot see
>>>>>where the rear is and have no way of knowing other than experience. In
>>>>>addition to this, you always get some cunt like you in a car who
>>>>>manages not to see the flashing hazard lights, hear the warning beeper
>>>>>or masnage to figure out the fact that this great big thing heading
>>>>>towards them is reversing so you get in the way. Add to that that in
>>>>>such places as you're on about that cunts like you don't so much park
>>>>>your cars as abandon them and its amazing an artic manages to get out
>>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>>>> and take a fucking look before reversing?   Street lights, pillar
>>>> boxes, parked cars etc aren't going to move much between the time you
>>>> look and start reversing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a
>>>sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect
>>>someone to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back 
>>>in,
>>>manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate and
>>>impatient car drivers behind.
>>
>> Isn't it better to take a 50 foot walk than crash into something,
>> though?  As for irate/impatient car drivers - fuck 'em.
>
>Ah.....so now you see what truck drivers have to put up with.

Yes, but occasionally car drivers also have to put up with impatient
truck drivers.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
swore a lot and called a lot of names:

Which was his contribution as to how to reverse an artic.

Plonk!!


-- 
AnthonyL

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:44:54 +0100, "McKev \(yay!\)"
 wrote:

>
>"AnthonyL" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:487b40a8.11401062@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Artics quite often turn into the road outside my office before
>> realising that they have taken a wrong turn and should have gone
>> straight on at the 'T' junction.
>>
>> They then seem to make quite a mess of reversing back out again but it
>> is great entertainment value.  In recent weeks the post-box on the
>> corner has been demolished, as has the direction sign and a garden
>> wall.
>>
>> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
>> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
>> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
>> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>>
>> What is the correct technique?
>>
>> East
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> South
>> -------------          ----------------------
>>             |         |
>>             |         |
>>             |         |
>>             |       A |
>>             |       r |
>>             |       t |
>>             |       i |
>>             |       c |
>>
>>
>>
>
>Its not entertainment value at all. Theres nothing more frustrating than 
>being in a place where youre not meant to be then finding it a bugger to get 
>out of.

I'm sure it is not entertaining to the driver though it is surprising
how many take it in good humour and with patience.

>Reversing on your blind side (the left hand) is very difficult indeed and 
>should be avoided at all costs. The trailer will eventually block the view 
>in the mirrors when it swings around therefore its impossible to tell where 
>it actually is - hence the damage to postboxes, lamp posts, parked cars, etc
>

Well, they could actually reverse out to the driver's side.  They
would have about 50m of usually quiet country lane to reverse down to
get to their proper destination.  

However when they do reverse out there is sometimes someone from this
corner (me included from time to time) who attempts to signal if
anyone is coming or if they are about to hit something.

I still haven't got an answer though to the question of what is the
correct technique eg:

i) Should they start off tight to the near (blind) side until the
trailer wheels hit the corner?

ii) Should they reverse straight as far as they can then come back in
and angle themselves?

iii) Is it impossible to do it one procedure?

(No response required from Mr Conor thank you).


-- 
AnthonyL

Here’s an illustration of the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqgX1_juElk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH6fFjIZkB0&feature=related


And this is much harder due to the pivot point being further back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOETDijP4a4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5xcyfP8jw&feature=related

On 15 jul, 14:09, nos...@please.invalid (AnthonyL) wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:44:54 퍝, "McKev \(yay!\)"
>
>
>
>  wrote:
>
> >"AnthonyL" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:487b40a8.11401062@news.zen.co.uk...
> >> Artics quite often turn into the road outside my office before
> >> realising that they have taken a wrong turn and should have gone
> >> straight on at the 'T' junction.
>
> >> They then seem to make quite a mess of reversing back out again but it
> >> is great entertainment value.  In recent weeks the post-box on the
> >> corner has been demolished, as has the direction sign and a garden
> >> wall.
>
> >> Surely they only have to take the same path out as they took in but
> >> they end up either with the cab against the wall on the driver's side
> >> (they turned left into the road and are backing out the same way), and
> >> they end up with the cab locked against the trailer.
>
> >> What is the correct technique?
>
> >> East
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> South
> >> -------------          ----------------------
> >>             |         |
> >>             |         |
> >>             |         |
> >>             |       A |
> >>             |       r |
> >>             |       t |
> >>             |       i |
> >>             |       c |
>
> >Its not entertainment value at all. Theres nothing more frustrating than
> >being in a place where youre not meant to be then finding it a bugger to get
> >out of.
>
> I'm sure it is not entertaining to the driver though it is surprising
> how many take it in good humour and with patience.
>
> >Reversing on your blind side (the left hand) is very difficult indeed and
> >should be avoided at all costs. The trailer will eventually block the view
> >in the mirrors when it swings around therefore its impossible to tell where
> >it actually is - hence the damage to postboxes, lamp posts, parked cars, etc
>
> Well, they could actually reverse out to the driver's side.  They
> would have about 50m of usually quiet country lane to reverse down to
> get to their proper destination.  
>
> However when they do reverse out there is sometimes someone from this
> corner (me included from time to time) who attempts to signal if
> anyone is coming or if they are about to hit something.
>
> I still haven't got an answer though to the question of what is the
> correct technique eg:
>
> i) Should they start off tight to the near (blind) side until the
> trailer wheels hit the corner?
>
> ii) Should they reverse straight as far as they can then come back in
> and angle themselves?
>
> iii) Is it impossible to do it one procedure?
>
> (No response required from Mr Conor thank you).
>

Every one is different, on a flat 90 degree bend I usually start off
in the middle of the road if I can, then turn the trailer wheels close
as possible to the apex, follow around with the unit maybe shunting
forward once if needed because of lack of space.

It is satisfying to do it in one swift movement though.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT), NM 
wrote:

>On 15 jul, 11:13, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >In article , Graz says...
>>
>> >> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> >> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>>
>> >> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>>
>> >> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>>
>> >> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
>> >> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>>
>> >> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>>
>> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>>
>> >No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
>> >he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
>> >last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
>> >(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
>> >rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
>> >fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
>> >the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.
>>
>> Can you rewrite that in English for me? =A0Thanks.
>
>Sure, which bit didn't you understand, you could ask your mother
>first, it may be easier.

You're the dyslexic 'tard, aren't you?

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:18:17 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>
>> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>> 
>> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>> 
>Yeah, I'm so clueless about reversing that I was employed as a shunter 
>trainer.

Rocket Science, it ain't.

> And I can guarantee I can reverse an artic in places you'd 
>have no hope of ever doing.

Without looking what's behind the trailer, no doubt.

>> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into 
>> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>> 
>> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>> 
>You'd think that wouldn't you but they don't.

Nobody in their right mind would deliberately get in the way of a
reversing truck.  Your reversing lights do work, don't they?

>> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>> 
>Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance 
>companies.

I suggest you put that to the test.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:20:48 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>
>> Isn't it better to take a 50 foot walk than crash into something,
>> though?  As for irate/impatient car drivers - fuck 'em.  
>> 
>Why would taking a 50ft walk make any difference when reversing into a 
>road? Apart from nobends, what is going to magically appear that's not 
>already there?

At least you'll see what street furniture etc is there.  That's gotta
be better than not looking.

>If they've been hitting posts/postboxes, getting out and looking at the 
>back is going to make fuck all difference BECAUSE THEY WERE SWIPED BY 
>THE SIDE OF THE TRAILER.

You want to watch where you're going then, don't you?

On 15 jul, 17:04, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT), NM 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 15 jul, 11:13, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >In article , Graz says...
>
> >> >> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> >> >> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>
> >> >> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>
> >> >> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>
> >> >> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
> >> >> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>
> >> >> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>
> >> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> >> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>
> >> >No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
> >> >he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
> >> >last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
> >> >(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
> >> >rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
> >> >fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
> >> >the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.
>
> >> Can you rewrite that in English for me? =A0Thanks.
>
> >Sure, which bit didn't you understand, you could ask your mother
> >first, it may be easier.
>
> You're the dyslexic 'tard, aren't you?

If you say so, but little you say has any weight, as usual.

Conor laid this down on his screen :
>> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>>  
> Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance
> companies.

I think you will find you are very wrong there.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

After serious thinking Conor wrote :
> In article , Harry 
> Bloomfield says...
>> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
>>> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
>>> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect 
>>> someone  to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back 
>>> in,  manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate 
>>> and  impatient car drivers behind.
>> 
>> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
>> 
>> 
> What difference do you think that'll make?

They would make all the difference between your being able to see to 
safely reverse and reversing completely blind hoping for the best as 
you presently seem to do.

A camera on the top of each front upper corner of the trailer, plus one 
on the tail, would eliminate all of the blind spots.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article , Harry 
Bloomfield says...
> After serious thinking Conor wrote :
> > In article , Harry 
> > Bloomfield says...
> >> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
> >>> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a 
> >>> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect 
> >>> someone  to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back 
> >>> in,  manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate 
> >>> and  impatient car drivers behind.
> >> 
> >> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
> >> 
> >> 
> > What difference do you think that'll make?
> 
> They would make all the difference between your being able to see to 
> safely reverse and reversing completely blind hoping for the best as 
> you presently seem to do.
> 
> A camera on the top of each front upper corner of the trailer, plus one 
> on the tail, would eliminate all of the blind spots.
> 
ROFLMFAO. Fucking priceless. Know many cameras with a 270 degree field 
of vision? And when the driver is looking at all these monitors in the 
cab, how is he supposed to drive?

Thankyou for demonstrating you've never driven an artic though.




-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Graz says...

> >If they've been hitting posts/postboxes, getting out and looking at the 
> >back is going to make fuck all difference BECAUSE THEY WERE SWIPED BY 
> >THE SIDE OF THE TRAILER.
> 
> You want to watch where you're going then, don't you?
> 
How can you? There is either the side of the trailer in one mirror or 
nothing other than the other side of the road in the other? You cannot 
see down both sides of the trailer when it is turning you dumb fuck.


Thankyou for demonstrating you've never driven an artic.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Graz says...

> >You'd think that wouldn't you but they don't.
> 
> Nobody in their right mind would deliberately get in the way of a
> reversing truck.  Your reversing lights do work, don't they?
> 
Yes and they do frequently to the point where they'll drive up 
pavements and into premises to get around you.
And apparently, we're able to see through solid objects too.

> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
> >> 
> >Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance 
> >companies.
> 
> I suggest you put that to the test.
> 
OK, I'll give you a couple of scenarios that happened recently.

1) When reversing into a factory, fucking car driving cunts were so 
impatient they were driving INTO the factory gate to get around me.
2) When reversing out of Howdens Joinery in Harrogate, there was a shop 
employee in a hi-viz vest in the road stopping the traffic. I was 
reversing out with reverse warning beepers and hazards on. A stupid 
bitch in a X5 drove up the pavement to get around me.

In which of those two scenarios which happen a lot do you think the 
insurance company and police would place blame on the HGV driver?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Harry 
Bloomfield says...
> Conor laid this down on his screen :
> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
> >>  
> > Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance
> > companies.
> 
> I think you will find you are very wrong there.
> 
> 
I think you'll find you've not got a fucking clue.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , AnthonyL says...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:14:16 +0100, Conor 
> swore a lot and called a lot of names:
> 
> Which was his contribution as to how to reverse an artic.
> 
> Plonk!!
> 
Wow, does saying that make you feel big?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

Conor submitted this idea :
> ROFLMFAO. Fucking priceless. Know many cameras with a 270 degree field
> of vision? 

Know any mirrors with a 270 degree field of vision?

All you need is a wide enough field of vision to see down the side of 
your trailer.

> And when the driver is looking at all these monitors in the
> cab, how is he supposed to drive?

All? One monitor is quite cable of doing the job and they are already 
fitted and in use. You can get used to them, just like you have to get 
used to reversing on mirrors really, except they don't suffer the 
limitations of mirrors.

-- 
Regards,
        Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article , Harry 
Bloomfield says...

> All? One monitor is quite cable of doing the job and they are already 
> fitted and in use. You can get used to them, just like you have to get 
> used to reversing on mirrors really, except they don't suffer the 
> limitations of mirrors.
> 
> 
ROFLMFAO. How big are the pictures going to be as they'll have to be on 
the screen at the same time. Frequently I end up in areas where I've 
literally got a couple of inches either side. Is it going to show that? 
Are these cameras going to give me an accurate way to work out the 
height of an obstruction?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT), NM 
wrote:

>On 15 jul, 17:04, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT), NM 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 15 jul, 11:13, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >In article , Graz says...
>>
>> >> >> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> >> >> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>>
>> >> >> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>>
>> >> >> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>>
>> >> >> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
>> >> >> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>>
>> >> >> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>>
>> >> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> >> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>>
>> >> >No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
>> >> >he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
>> >> >last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
>> >> >(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
>> >> >rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
>> >> >fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
>> >> >the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.
>>
>> >> Can you rewrite that in English for me? =A0Thanks.
>>
>> >Sure, which bit didn't you understand, you could ask your mother
>> >first, it may be easier.
>>
>> You're the dyslexic 'tard, aren't you?
>
>If you say so, 

It's obvious, isn't it?

>but little you say has any weight, as usual.

Whatever I say can, at least, be understood.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:14:14 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>
>> >You'd think that wouldn't you but they don't.
>> 
>> Nobody in their right mind would deliberately get in the way of a
>> reversing truck.  Your reversing lights do work, don't they?
>> 
>Yes and they do frequently to the point where they'll drive up 
>pavements and into premises to get around you.
>And apparently, we're able to see through solid objects too.



>> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>> >> 
>> >Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance 
>> >companies.
>> 
>> I suggest you put that to the test.
>> 
>OK, I'll give you a couple of scenarios that happened recently.
>
>1) When reversing into a factory, fucking car driving cunts were so 
>impatient they were driving INTO the factory gate to get around me.
>2) When reversing out of Howdens Joinery in Harrogate, there was a shop 
>employee in a hi-viz vest in the road stopping the traffic. I was 
>reversing out with reverse warning beepers and hazards on. A stupid 
>bitch in a X5 drove up the pavement to get around me.
>
>In which of those two scenarios which happen a lot do you think the 
>insurance company and police would place blame on the HGV driver?

I was actually referring to reversing into something stationary.  I
thought that would have been obvious from the context.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:10:32 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>
>> >If they've been hitting posts/postboxes, getting out and looking at the 
>> >back is going to make fuck all difference BECAUSE THEY WERE SWIPED BY 
>> >THE SIDE OF THE TRAILER.
>> 
>> You want to watch where you're going then, don't you?
>> 
>How can you? There is either the side of the trailer in one mirror or 
>nothing other than the other side of the road in the other? You cannot 
>see down both sides of the trailer when it is turning you dumb fuck.

In other words, you're driving blind every time you reverse.  How
thick is that, you thick cunt?

>Thankyou for demonstrating you've never driven an artic.

Why would I want to?  It's for Yorkie-chomping Daily-Star-'reading'
thickos like you.

On 15 jul, 23:39, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT), NM 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 15 jul, 17:04, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT), NM 
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On 15 jul, 11:13, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >In article , Graz says...
>
> >> >> >> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
> >> >> >> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>
> >> >> >> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>
> >> >> >> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>
> >> >> >> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
> >> >> >> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>
> >> >> >> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>
> >> >> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> >> >> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>
> >> >> >No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
> >> >> >he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
> >> >> >last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
> >> >> >(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
> >> >> >rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
> >> >> >fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
> >> >> >the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.
>
> >> >> Can you rewrite that in English for me? =A0Thanks.
>
> >> >Sure, which bit didn't you understand, you could ask your mother
> >> >first, it may be easier.
>
> >> You're the dyslexic 'tard, aren't you?
>
> >If you say so,
>
> It's obvious, isn't it?

Aah! Proof by assertion, must make it a fact.

>
> >but little you say has any weight, as usual.
>
> Whatever I say can, at least, be understood.

Only a cretin would fail to comprehend, as you have just proved.

NM (dominate and infest).

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:10:47 -0700 (PDT), NM 
wrote:

>On 15 jul, 23:39, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:53:56 -0700 (PDT), NM 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 15 jul, 17:04, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT), NM 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 15 jul, 11:13, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT), NM 
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On 15 Jul, 08:03, g...@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:55:00 +0100, Conor 
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >In article , Graz says...
>>
>> >> >> >> >> If you can't see what's behind you, shouldn't you get off your arse
>> >> >> >> >> and take a fucking look before reversing?
>>
>> >> >> >> >ROFL..here talks a twat who has never done it.
>>
>> >> >> >> And there talks a twat who apparently doesn't know how to do it.
>>
>> >> >> >> >And does this also mean that between doing that and getting back into
>> >> >> >> >the cab, cars will magically be prevented from getting in the way?
>>
>> >> >> >> Cars that are moving that get in the way can also get out of the way.
>>
>> >> >> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> >> >> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>>
>> >> >> >No it isn't, if a car driver sees you reversing into a bay but decides
>> >> >> >he can nip rapidly across your path as you reverse, to get next the
>> >> >> >last parking bay in the car section situated 90 degrees to your path
>> >> >> >(the car bays were full, he was aiming to park illegally on the end)
>> >> >> >rather than wait a moment or two, it was like pot black, the black
>> >> >> >fiat car being the ball and my trailer being the cue. Fucker scratched
>> >> >> >the paint on my under run bumper, fiat was a write off.
>>
>> >> >> Can you rewrite that in English for me? =A0Thanks.
>>
>> >> >Sure, which bit didn't you understand, you could ask your mother
>> >> >first, it may be easier.
>>
>> >> You're the dyslexic 'tard, aren't you?
>>
>> >If you say so,
>>
>> It's obvious, isn't it?
>
>Aah! Proof by assertion, must make it a fact.

You've admitted it before.  That's what makes it a fact.

>> >but little you say has any weight, as usual.
>>
>> Whatever I say can, at least, be understood.
>
>Only a cretin would fail to comprehend, as you have just proved.

Only a 'tard could fail to be understood, as you have just proved.

>NM (dominate and infest).

Dysxelics of the world untie!

Eli

On Jul 15, 8:09 pm, Conor  wrote:
> In article , Harry
> Bloomfield says...
>
> > After serious thinking Conor wrote :
> > > In article , Harry
> > > Bloomfield says...
> > >> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
> > >>> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a
> > >>> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect
> > >>> someone  to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back
> > >>> in,  manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate
> > >>> and  impatient car drivers behind.
>
> > >> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
>
> > > What difference do you think that'll make?
>
> > They would make all the difference between your being able to see to
> > safely reverse and reversing completely blind hoping for the best as
> > you presently seem to do.
>
> > A camera on the top of each front upper corner of the trailer, plus one
> > on the tail, would eliminate all of the blind spots.
>
> ROFLMFAO. Fucking priceless. Know many cameras with a 270 degree field
> of vision?

Stick to what you know about. You obviously know fuck all about the
state of the art in vehicle electronics, especially camera systems.

MBQ

On 2008-07-15, Conor  wrote:
> In article , Harry 
> Bloomfield says...
>> 
>> A camera on the top of each front upper corner of the trailer, plus one 
>> on the tail, would eliminate all of the blind spots.
>> 
> ROFLMFAO. Fucking priceless. Know many cameras with a 270 degree field 
> of vision?

Why on earth would there be any need for a camera with a 270 degree
field of vision?

> And when the driver is looking at all these monitors in the 
> cab, how is he supposed to drive?

Er, if he's going backwards, more easily than he can without being able
to see anything.


-- 
David Taylor

In article , Graz says...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:14:14 +0100, Conor 
> wrote:
> 
> >In article , Graz says...
> >
> >> >You'd think that wouldn't you but they don't.
> >> 
> >> Nobody in their right mind would deliberately get in the way of a
> >> reversing truck.  Your reversing lights do work, don't they?
> >> 
> >Yes and they do frequently to the point where they'll drive up 
> >pavements and into premises to get around you.
> >And apparently, we're able to see through solid objects too.
> 
> 
> 
> >> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
> >> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
> >> >> 
> >> >Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance 
> >> >companies.
> >> 
> >> I suggest you put that to the test.
> >> 
> >OK, I'll give you a couple of scenarios that happened recently.
> >
> >1) When reversing into a factory, fucking car driving cunts were so 
> >impatient they were driving INTO the factory gate to get around me.
> >2) When reversing out of Howdens Joinery in Harrogate, there was a shop 
> >employee in a hi-viz vest in the road stopping the traffic. I was 
> >reversing out with reverse warning beepers and hazards on. A stupid 
> >bitch in a X5 drove up the pavement to get around me.
> >
> >In which of those two scenarios which happen a lot do you think the 
> >insurance company and police would place blame on the HGV driver?
> 
> I was actually referring to reversing into something stationary.  I
> thought that would have been obvious from the context.
> 
And this subthread moved on and obviously left you behind.
Are stationary objects the only ones likely to be present?

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , Graz says...

> In other words, you're driving blind every time you reverse.  How
> thick is that, you thick cunt?
> 
How thick is it not to realise that that's exactly what happens when 
you're reversing a 8x14x45 foot solid object?

Is that why cunts like you get in the way because you're too stupid to 
realise this?


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article <869da768-7e4c-49a1-89f6-
4e069861fd7f@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Man at B&Q says...
> On Jul 15, 8:09 pm, Conor  wrote:
> > In article , Harry
> > Bloomfield says...
> >
> > > After serious thinking Conor wrote :
> > > > In article , Harry
> > > > Bloomfield says...
> > > >> McKev (yay!) used his keyboard to write :
> > > >>> But a movement of about 3 or 4 feet on the ground of the artic can mean a
> > > >>> sideways swing of the trailer by a fair bit. Its a bit much to expect
> > > >>> someone  to get out, walk 50 feet to check where the trailer is, get back
> > > >>> in,  manouvre, then go through it all again - especially if theres irate
> > > >>> and  impatient car drivers behind.
> >
> > > >> Then why are they not fitted with cameras?
> >
> > > > What difference do you think that'll make?
> >
> > > They would make all the difference between your being able to see to
> > > safely reverse and reversing completely blind hoping for the best as
> > > you presently seem to do.
> >
> > > A camera on the top of each front upper corner of the trailer, plus one
> > > on the tail, would eliminate all of the blind spots.
> >
> > ROFLMFAO. Fucking priceless. Know many cameras with a 270 degree field
> > of vision?
> 
> Stick to what you know about. You obviously know fuck all about the
> state of the art in vehicle electronics, especially camera systems.
> 
Answer the question. Remember that the resulting picture has to be 
usable to the point of allowing the driver to reverse to an accuracy of 
2 inches or less as that's the space we get sometimes.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

In article , David 
Taylor says...

> Why on earth would there be any need for a camera with a 270 degree
> field of vision?
> 
Because you not only need to be able to see down the side but OUT to 
the side and also directly down as well as also being able to show 
where the unit is in relation to the trailer. Unless it can do all of 
that it's as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

> > And when the driver is looking at all these monitors in the 
> > cab, how is he supposed to drive?
> 
> Er, if he's going backwards, more easily than he can without being able
> to see anything.
> 
Riight. Stick to cars. You haven't a clue WTF you're on about.


-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Conor"  wrote in message 
news:6e5v9kF5gjebU5@mid.individual.net...
> In article , David
> Taylor says...
>
>> Why on earth would there be any need for a camera with a 270 degree
>> field of vision?
>>
> Because you not only need to be able to see down the side but OUT to
> the side and also directly down as well as also being able to show
> where the unit is in relation to the trailer. Unless it can do all of
> that it's as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
>
>> > And when the driver is looking at all these monitors in the
>> > cab, how is he supposed to drive?
>>
>> Er, if he's going backwards, more easily than he can without being able
>> to see anything.
>>
> Riight. Stick to cars. You haven't a clue WTF you're on about.
>
>
> -- 
> Conor
>
> I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
> looking good either. - Scott Adams

And you do?  Stick to driving VANS conor

On 16 Jul, 10:57, Conor  wrote:

> And this subthread moved on and obviously left you behind.
> Are stationary objects the only ones likely to be present?


Conor, genuine query, I'm not trying to have a go here!  If while
reversing an artic on your blind side, you hit some stationery object
(street lamp etc) that you genuinely couldn't see from the cab, what
view do police and insurance companies take?

Steve.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:57:23 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:14:14 +0100, Conor 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , Graz says...
>> >
>> >> >You'd think that wouldn't you but they don't.
>> >> 
>> >> Nobody in their right mind would deliberately get in the way of a
>> >> reversing truck.  Your reversing lights do work, don't they?
>> >> 
>> >Yes and they do frequently to the point where they'll drive up 
>> >pavements and into premises to get around you.
>> >And apparently, we're able to see through solid objects too.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> >> >> But if you reverse into something because you can't see what's behind
>> >> >> you, the fault is entirely yours.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >Is the wrong answer in both the eyes of the Police and insurance 
>> >> >companies.
>> >> 
>> >> I suggest you put that to the test.
>> >> 
>> >OK, I'll give you a couple of scenarios that happened recently.
>> >
>> >1) When reversing into a factory, fucking car driving cunts were so 
>> >impatient they were driving INTO the factory gate to get around me.
>> >2) When reversing out of Howdens Joinery in Harrogate, there was a shop 
>> >employee in a hi-viz vest in the road stopping the traffic. I was 
>> >reversing out with reverse warning beepers and hazards on. A stupid 
>> >bitch in a X5 drove up the pavement to get around me.
>> >
>> >In which of those two scenarios which happen a lot do you think the 
>> >insurance company and police would place blame on the HGV driver?
>> 
>> I was actually referring to reversing into something stationary.  I
>> thought that would have been obvious from the context.
>> 
>And this subthread moved on and obviously left you behind.

No, you introduced red herrings.

>Are stationary objects the only ones likely to be present?

Those are the ones you'll get done for reversing into.  As for the
others, it depends...

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:40:29 -0700 (PDT), Steve Smith
 wrote:

>On 16 Jul, 10:57, Conor  wrote:
>
>> And this subthread moved on and obviously left you behind.
>> Are stationary objects the only ones likely to be present?
>
>
>Conor, genuine query, I'm not trying to have a go here!  If while
>reversing an artic on your blind side, you hit some stationery object
>(street lamp etc) that you genuinely couldn't see from the cab, what
>view do police and insurance companies take?

A dim one, generally.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:59:03 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article , Graz says...
>
>> In other words, you're driving blind every time you reverse.  How
>> thick is that, you thick cunt?
>> 
>How thick is it not to realise that that's exactly what happens when 
>you're reversing a 8x14x45 foot solid object?

How thick is actually doing it knowing you can't see where you're
going?

>Is that why cunts like you get in the way because you're too stupid to 
>realise this?

No, cunts like you shouldn't be reversing if you can't see where
you're going.  The obvious answer is...you need an assistant to look
where you're going as you reverse!