Compared to the old days of crash gearboxes & no power steering, too easy. As for protection? What protection?

I would love to see one of the more modern drivers trying to drive with a scammell open gate box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joHZSkjBbKU

As for protection we have got a plastic dash and a bit of tin:-(

Up - not too bad
Down - earplugs required :-(

I always thought that driver protection was the car in front.....

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

LOL. I wonder what would be the reaction of the drivers & their reaction time should the Wi-Fi of the lead truck should suddenly drop & stay down.

I would love to see one of the more modern drivers trying to drive with a scammell open gate box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joHZSkjBbKU

Or a Mack B61, looping the arm through the steering wheel for the double shifts.
B61 Triplex
Apparently the real trick was knowing what combinations to use, and not to use, and when.

Then there were days of Diamond Ts, Leyland Hippos and Super Hippos the like.
Back when trucks had the Epicyclic pre-selector. Pre-select the gear on the secondary box, it then engages next time you use the clutch. Many a driver destroyed the secondary box by doing the change going up a hill. Select your final gears down the bottom, then just grind on up the hill.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I would love to see one of the more modern drivers trying to drive with a scammell open gate box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joHZSkjBbKU

Or a Mack B61, looping the arm through the steering wheel for the double shifts.
B61 Triplex
Apparently the real trick was knowing what combinations to use, and not to use, and when.

That looks to be fun, never driven with one of them boxes:-)

Then there were days of Diamond Ts, Leyland Hippos and Super Hippos the like.

Never driven a Diamond T, but I have road exercised the Hippo's as well as the AEC Matador, early Fodens, Bedford QL and numerous others, on a couple of occasions I have delivered old Centurions for hard targets with a MKII Thornycroft Antar.

The old Centurion had a crash box and the gear lever was between your legs.

---

Kevin

Never driven a Diamond T, but I have road exercised the Hippo's as well as the AEC Matador, early Fodens, Bedford QL and numerous others, on a couple of occasions I have delivered old Centurions for hard targets with a MKII Thornycroft Antar.

Ah, AEC Matador (AEC being famous for developing the very first Road Train), and Foden & the Antar were all around post WWII in the early days of Road Train development here in the NT (Northern Territory, Australia). Up to 7 trailers, all unbraked. Top speed around 30-35mph.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

More than likely

I still maintain that should one get stopped & found to be under the influence of alchol, it should be permanent loss of license, hardship excuses be damned.

I still maintain that should one get stopped & found to be under the influence of alchol, it should be permanent loss of license, hardship excuses be damned.

And the limit should be zero , drink drivers are bottom feeding scum !!!

---

Life is what you make of it :-)

When i'm good i'm very good , but when i'm bad i'm shi#eloads better ;-) In't I " buttercups " p.m.s.l at authoritie !!;-)

While I agree in principal with zero tolerance there are certain medical or genetic conditions that result in humans producing alcohol (and not from eating a fresh fruit diet - as elephants are "famous" for). Thus a very low, non-zero, limit is sensible.
However if you are involved (not even "the cause") in a fatal accident with a level above the legal limit (whatever that limit is) then instant ban, for a minimum of ten years, no "hardship", or lame duck excuses allowed, a humongous fine (say, a multiple of your annual income e.g. On the limit = annual income, double = double annual income...).

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

To add to that, if direct cause of fatalities, then a permanent loss of license.

While I agree in principal with zero tolerance there are certain medical or genetic conditions that result in humans producing alcohol (and not from eating a fresh fruit diet - as elephants are "famous" for). Thus a very low, non-zero, limit is sensible.
However if you are involved (not even "the cause") in a fatal accident with a level above the legal limit (whatever that limit is) then instant ban, for a minimum of ten years, no "hardship", or lame duck excuses allowed, a humongous fine (say, a multiple of your annual income e.g. On the limit = annual income, double = double annual income...).

Zero tolerance is a bit taking it to far.
Here the tolerance is 0.02 BAC (Two promille) which is about one pint of lager.
Given all reckless drivers with zero BAC involved in accidents I find it hard to believe that one pint is the major cause for any accident.
It's ok to drive after about two hours having that pint but that doesn't mean zero BAC.

More than likely

I still maintain that should one get stopped & found to be under the influence of alchol, it should be permanent loss of license, hardship excuses be damned.

+1

---

Kevin

While I agree in principal with zero tolerance there are certain medical or genetic conditions that result in humans producing alcohol (and not from eating a fresh fruit diet - as elephants are "famous" for). Thus a very low, non-zero, limit is sensible.
However if you are involved (not even "the cause") in a fatal accident with a level above the legal limit (whatever that limit is) then instant ban, for a minimum of ten years, no "hardship", or lame duck excuses allowed, a humongous fine (say, a multiple of your annual income e.g. On the limit = annual income, double = double annual income...).

Since the conviction usually results in loss of job, the fine won't get paid and then confinement time for the crime of failing to pay the fine. Then comes the drug dealing to get the money to live and pay the fine and that leads to burglary and robbery. One must be very careful with mandatory monetary sentences that they aren't too much so you create a much worse problem. But that is your side of the pond.

If you are 0% the cause, then it should be treated as if you were just pulled over and no accident. e.g. sitting legally stopped at a traffic signal and another drunk plows into you and/or others. If you are even 1% at fault, then you are at fault, enhancements apply.

Fatal here and at fault, the charges you are worried about aren't drink driving, they are some degree of manslaughter or second degree murder. You are going to prison with a felony. When they parole you, you will be doing piss tests for a long time. The drink driving charge revoked your license, but you don't need it in a prison cell.

As to just being pulled over, no accident, you will have an ignition interlock, piss tests, and a host of other restrictions and requirements with hoops your probation officer will make you jump through, after they suspend your license and impound your car. Oh and for the next ten years you better stay sober or you have violated your probation and that is a crime.

We now have another issue besides prescription drug driving, and that is weed driving. No quick tests for it and there are no limits set for it yet.

Another issue is a self driving car with a filthy drunk in it? Drink driving? It may be with the way the law is written. I remember a case where a drunk was on horseback and convicted. The horse was sober.

A lot to ponder.

Since the conviction usually results in loss of job, the fine won't get paid and then confinement time for the crime of failing to pay the fine. Then comes the drug dealing to get the money to live and pay the fine and that leads to burglary and robbery. One must be very careful with mandatory monetary sentences that they aren't too much so you create a much worse problem.

Hence fines based on income, not a fixed fine for one size fits all.

If you are 0% the cause, then it should be treated as if you were just pulled over and no accident. e.g. sitting legally stopped at a traffic signal and another drunk plows into you and/or others.

Just the appropriate DUI (Driving Under the Influence) penalties.

We now have another issue besides prescription drug driving, and that is weed driving. No quick tests for it and there are no limits set for it yet.

Here in Australia many states have drug driving tests using saliva that take 3-5 minutes for a result, and the levels for most states are 0. If there is a positive result, a second test will be done. If it returns positive your licence is suspended immediately for 24hours, the remainder of the second saliva sample is sent to a laboratory for a better analysis. If that returns positive then you will be charged for drug driving. If you can't or won't provide saliva for testing, then you'll be taken to the local station for blood testing (this is for Queensland, the procedure varies by state).

Another issue is a self driving car with a filthy drunk in it? Drink driving? It may be with the way the law is written.

Hence the changes to legislation for self driving cars- depending on the level of autonomy. If it's fully autonomous, and the "driver" is just a passenger and can't take control at any time, then they are not in control of the car & can't be held responsible. If it's a mostly autonomous vehicle and the driver can take control, and there are indications that they did, then they are responsible.

I remember a case where a drunk was on horseback and convicted. The horse was sober.

But the rider wasn't, and the rider is meant to be in control of the horse at all times.
As an example- Animals on freeways & motorways tend to cause a lot of carnage when they're sober, let alone if their rider is not.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I remember a case where a drunk was on horseback and convicted. The horse was sober.

But the rider wasn't, and the rider is meant to be in control of the horse at all times.

Here the DUI law covers only motor vehicles and hence not riders on a horseback.
However, the rider may be convicted of negligence in traffic if he can not perform the horse safely.
The same goes for bicycles.
I think it's only when a serious accident really has occurred that the rider can be convicted for DUI.

Over here you can be done for DUI on anything other than your own 2 feet (or a foot and 2 crutches). ;-)

Cheers.

Over here you can be done for DUI on anything other than your own 2 feet (or a foot and 2 crutches). ;-)
Cheers.

So you mean that using the 'Apostle's horses' (per pedes apostolorum) also could be considered DUI when you had a pint of beer?
I think I stay at home:)

Over here you can be done for DUI on anything other than your own 2 feet (or a foot and 2 crutches). ;-)
Cheers.

So you mean that using the 'Apostle's horses' (per pedes apostolorum) also could be considered DUI when you had a pint of beer?
I think I stay at home:)

Yep, if you can't walk then you're in trouble as any other form of transport controlled by you means that you are in trouble, thankfully I can roll 3 doors down the hill from the top pub..

Cheers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-41065582

Yes. Don't drink and drive.
The limits in Scotland are different to the rest of the UK.
The limit is almost the half there.

Level of alcohol	England, Wales and Northern Ireland	Scotland
Micrograms per 100 millilitres of breath	35	22
Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood	80	50
Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine	107	67

England, Wales and Northern Ireland have the highest limits in Europe!