Random Thoughts... [Automotive Edition]

[D-Fence]

Ah, yeah, I'm supposed to read foreign regulations I know nothing about as opposed to giving the answer my own country's Department of Transportation gives when someone asks why we have rear underriders and no side underriders or barriers. And I'm supposed to magically know everything about Euro law so I can just go look up the appropriate section. Wow, realistic expectations there!

I suppose if I ask why European item X doesn't have feature Y that's mandated in the US, you should automatically know why that feature is required, and where to find the appropriate law, right? After all, I shouldn't accept your government agency's answer as to why it's not present. I mean, that's only fair, right?

No, but the chance of an European trying to talk bullshit about US stuff and wiggle his way out of it when proven wrong compared to you doing the same thing is way smaller.

oh and BTW:

Also, if you think the depicted Euro barriers prevent drivers from running over curbs and such with their trailers, I'm sure Cowboy, who is, you know, an actual European truck driver, could tell you otherwise.

Here you go, Mr. Hot Air.

 

[Spectre]

I thought the possible side barriers on American trucks were to hide the gun arsenal underneath.

No, when they do fit them, and then run in the Southern US, it's to hide the army of illegal immigrants clinging to the bottom of the trailer.

When they're running to and from Canada, it's to hide the giant marijuana load they're smuggling in. (This one's actually true, some Montana state cops stopped a truck for inspection and under the aero shields was a couple of tons of weed.)

Good aero is only a side effect, IMHO.

Maybe you need some more emphasis then....



Try reading that veeery carefully.

Wow. I have no idea how I overlooked that. I type corrected, then.

However, the original posts didn't say anything about it.

 

[Cobol74]

IMHO a valid safety feature the side skirts on an artic.

 

[IceBone]

India, on the other hand...

 

[Spectre]

Meanwhile in ex-Soviet Russia, cyclist hits truck!

Not that that truck had a barrier, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have mattered if it did and the truck had kept going instead of halting.

Obviously this (motor)cyclist was an idiot (as has been discussed elsewhere).

 

[D-Fence]

Yes, he rode a motorcycle. That qualifies.

 

[Hemihead]

How's the trusty 605? At least the Lada must be in working order?

The 605 actually works as intended but with most of the front end being repainted and thus being 120 km away, it will not pass the MOT. The old Vaz is just a stripped body with a drivetrain in it.

 

[Cowboy]

Read what he wrote ffs. It's not to prevent the trailers from running over curbs, it's to prevent cyclists and pedestrians ending up under the trailers wheels in the case the driver missed them in their blind spot.

Just to end the whole discussion :

Preventing pedestrians and lycraidiots from going under the truck is indeed exactly what they are for, infact they are called a bycylecather/bycyleguard.
Although it's not so much for the drivers blind spot and things he missed in them, (that area of the truck is in plain view in the mirrors, unless it's short 'fixed' truck, and even then) , It's more for stopping cyclists crashing into YOU and going under after they fail to see a 40Ton truck/run a red light/are to busy with their Ipod to actualy look what they are racing towards/all of the previous combined.

As for stopping cars........they might stop an ecobox going 10kph, anything faster or heavier will simply fold the standard aluminium bar they tend to be made of.

They do obviously not prevent you from going over curbs, but they do make sure that when you do, you take out the streetscenerey on the inside

 

[Aston Martin]

I blame the MX5 in the pic I posted.

I am surprised that there isn't massive legislation in America about them. What with all that crap, like the rubber bumpers on cars the 80's.
But maybe Spectre is correct, to be honest I don't think i've ever heard of anyone t-boning a truck with barriers. Maybe they are unnecessary, but i'd rather have them there.

 

[Redliner]

(...)
Most custom bikes are actually fairly useless as actual motorcycles. There are some builders that pay more attention to actual performance and power, but most of them make ridiculously impractical crap like this:

By the way? People pay over $60,000 for something like that. Way, way, way over.

That was one of the things that bugged me when I was an active motorcyclist.
I used to ride to class, and people saw the gear and automatically assumed two things:
-my dream in life was to own a Harley-Davidson
-I was in love with the Teutul family and their awesome creations.
Explaining why I had no intentions whatsoever to own such a motorcycle was usually a lost battle.

 

[Cowboy]

I blame the MX5 in the pic I posted.

I am surprised that there isn't massive legislation in America about them. What with all that crap, like the rubber bumpers on cars the 80's.
But maybe Spectre is correct, to be honest I don't think i've ever heard of anyone t-boning a truck with barriers. Maybe they are unnecessary, but i'd rather have them there.

If I'm honest, I don't see a real point to them either, apart from saving people who get to close from their own stupidity.....did I ever tell you guys about that cyclist that tried to hold on to the side of my truck while I was already rolling? It's for saving those people....Darwin would not approve but my peace of mind and the insurancecompany does.

Any real crash involvining anything motorised and they do nothing.....also top tip : if you ever plan on hitting a truck in a car, hit the backweels from the side, they will not pull you under, infact they will often throw you back away from the truck, it's gonna hurt like hell but it gives you the best chances.

 

[Aston Martin]

Vauxhall will officially import you a Maloo E3. I always thought the one Hammond used was a random import?

But it's ?10k more than a VXR8.

 

[Matt2000]

^awesome. I saw a Cortina pickup yesterday and wished we could get something similar over here.

 

[bone]

also top tip : if you ever plan on hitting a truck in a car, hit the backweels from the side, they will not pull you under, infact they will often throw you back away from the truck, it's gonna hurt like hell but it gives you the best chances.

tnx! will definitely try it that way next time

 

[gaasc]

If I'm honest, I don't see a real point to them either, apart from saving people who get to close from their own stupidity.....did I ever tell you guys about that cyclist that tried to hold on to the side of my truck while I was already rolling? It's for saving those people.

You mean that sort of thing isn't uncommon on more civilized countries!? Man. It's happened more then once that Some random cyclist will grab hold of the mitsu on the lights. But since I don't have a vigilante campaingn against cyclists (you know who you are ) I resist the temptation of flooring it as he holds the bed with one hand and texts with the other.

Granted I'm speaking of a much smaller car but sights of cyclists holding to the back of semi's are more frequent than you'd think.

re: Maloo, I wonder if you could make an LHD conversion to those.

 

[IceBone]

 

[narf]

3. DOT looked at mandating side underrider bars (like what's on the back of the trailers) and determined that the (IIRC) 12 casualties a year caused by going under a trailer from the side were not worth mandating companies spending billions of dollars re-equipping the trailer fleet. Seriously, if it wasn't 12, it was pretty close. And it just doesn't make any sense to spend billions to save 12 people from their own stupidity.

No need to retro-fit existing trailers if you can't afford to protect your citizens properly. Simply mandate that any new trailer from whenever + a few years has them to allow trailer makers to adapt needs to have them.

Amount spent? Virtually nothing.
Spend virtually nothing to save up to twelve lives anually and potentially lots of healthcare costs? Good deal.

I suppose if I ask why European item X doesn't have feature Y that's mandated in the US, you should automatically know why that feature is required, and where to find the appropriate law, right? After all, I shouldn't accept your government agency's answer as to why it's not present. I mean, that's only fair, right?

That's exactly what you expect from us quite sad not living up to your own standards.

 

[Cowboy]

No need to retro-fit existing trailers if you can't afford to protect your citizens properly.

As with all matters concerning pedestrians/cyclists, you keep missing the phrase 'save them from their own stupidity' and replace it wth some bleading heart 'common good' bullcrap.

You can idiotproof all you want, as long as people don't understand that the big thing on wheels is dangerous to play tag with and it's in their own intrest not to get in its path unless they know the driver has seen them and can/will stop accidents will happen, ruining at least 2 lives I might ad.

Pedestrian/cyclist proofing a truck is like trying to wrap a T-rex in paper with kittens on it.......it might look safer but it will still fucking eat you.

 

[Rossco]

I remember there was a guy in the U.S. who was trying to make it mandatory for trucks to have those barriers.

Why?

Because while he was sitting in traffic on his HD, the light changed and someone tried to pass him in his own lane. Their mirror clipped his handlebars and we went down, between the wheels of a semi that was accelerating away. He posted a video chronicling his slow and painful recovery on youtube, but I'd rather not post it here because it's a bit of a downer (If you do want to check it out, type in Ruben Carril on youtube). In the end, he lost part of his leg, and has to go to the bathroom in a bag.

The bigger question I have to ask is, why did a car pass him in his own lane? What could have been done to prevent that?

Sometimes you have to treat the disease, not the symptom.

 

[narf]

As with all matters concerning pedestrians/cyclists, you keep missing the phrase 'save them from their own stupidity' and replace it wth some bleading heart 'common good' bullcrap.

You can idiotproof all you want, as long as people don't understand that the big thing on wheels is dangerous to play tag with and it's in their own intrest not to get in its path unless they know they driver has seen them and can/will stop accidents will happen, ruining at least 2 lives I might ad.

Pedestrian/cyclist proofing a truck is like trying to wrap a T-rex in paper with kittens on it.......it might look safer but it will still fucking eat you.

You can't protect idiots, see the guy running under a rolling truck willingly. However, accidents do happen even if no idiots are involved. Here's a simple, cheap solution that will make a few accidents less harmful. I don't see the harm in implementing that.


Also,
https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/05/11/images.jpg

Sometimes you have to treat the disease, not the symptom.

Treating one symptom for virtually no money doesn't stop you from treating the disease as well.