I work for a large (very large) company and I doubt we’ve had 4 accidents on our company car fleet in the last 6 months, let alone 3 of the same type. If our fleet manager had 3 accidents of the same type (our fault or not) to deal with he’d be looking into what we were doing and how we could prevent it …That is quite a lot, but these are all rear Enders where folk haven’t left enough gap I don’t see what training will do?
years ago I was squished by a left hooker waggon moving to the right on the motorway, lucky I wasn’t hit by anything else
im Now always extra extra cautious near big wagons
Yeah, but it doesn’t take much. At my last place we all had company cars and vans. Rate of accident was fairly average, what ever that is. Then we had a new member of staff. 6 accidents with 2 cars written off in 14 months. I left before any conclusion to his employmentI work for a large (very large) company and I doubt we’ve had 4 accidents on our company car fleet in the last 6 months, let alone 3 of the same type. If our fleet manager had 3 accidents of the same type (our fault or not) to deal with he’d be looking into what we were doing and how we could prevent it …
I guess what I’m saying is it sounds like that’s an incredible, some might say unbelievable, amount of accidents to happen to a single company in a 6 month period. Assuming that’s a “normal” amount of accidents then their insurance bill must be astronomical…
Do you really think that their insurance should be invalidated? It's certainly not what I would want if someone was tailgating me.Given the gap most leave these days I'm surprised it happens so infrequently
Perhaps insurance should be invalidated by tailgating?
Every item in or on has momentum - that's why if carries on, or resists change - its not relative to the vehicle, - but you as you say, you only notice when you try to change it, when the vehicle tries to accelerate, decelerate (or as one of my fellow uni students had it, "de-accelerate" ), or turn and the vehicle is applying a force to it - through that 1" wide BnQ strap, with the cut part way through it . . . all to with total momentum having to stay the same.Not sure that's correct in the case of something on/in a vehicle?
Whatever the load is it has zero momentum relative to the vehicle as it's at rest in/on it. The vehicle then stops or decelerates dramatically and the load's mass is then accelerated relative to the vehicle. So the load goes from zero acceleration relative to the vehicle, to whatever the original speed was minus any motion remaining in the vehicle.
I think the momentum of the vehicle and whatever is in/on it is the starting point when they're carrying out crash investigation as the distance travelled from point of impact gives a reliable indicator of speed, direction of travel and in some cases yaw rate.
As you say though, the main point is you really don't need to prove your calculations when predicting what's going to happen to something unsecured in a vehicle if it stops suddenly. You do see some sights when out and about, from sheet materials held down with a bungee to plant machinery with a single B&Q ratchet strap.
I think they've done all they can from an insurance point of view by making it automatically your fault if you run into the back of someone. The only insurance change I can think of which may change attitudes is getting rid of no claims bonus protection. That seems like a license to not give a monkey's.Do you really think that their insurance should be invalidated? It's certainly not what I would want if someone was tailgating me.
As it is a breach of the law its no different to no mot or licenceDo you really think that their insurance should be invalidated? It's certainly not what I would want if someone was tailgating me.
Surely the rule of " the driver at the back is responsible" still hold good.Do you really think that their insurance should be invalidated? It's certainly not what I would want if someone was tailgating me.
Surely momentum can only ever be relative? The items in/on a vehicle cannot have independent momentum until they leave the vehicle ( accelerate, decelerate, centrifugal effect etc) because on/in it they have a contact force but can/are not moving without it. Once the contact force is overcome and they separate they then take on some of the momentum from the whole to which they were once part. Until then they have potential only.Every item in or on has momentum - that's why if carries on, or resists change - its not relative to the vehicle, - but you as you say, you only notice when you try to change it, when the vehicle tries to accelerate, decelerate (or as one of my fellow uni students had it, "de-accelerate" ), or turn and the vehicle is applying a force to it - through that 1" wide BnQ strap, with the cut part way through it . . . all to with total momentum having to stay the same.
As it is a breach of the law its no different to no mot or licence
I would rather be claiming damages from an insurance company than an uninsured driverSurely the rule of " the driver at the back is responsible" still hold good.
Ahh but this is a stockbroker in his new 7 series on his way home to his 3 million pound house in the cotswolds that your insurance company is going after not Kevin in his 1998 corsa from HarlowI would rather be claiming damages from an insurance company than an uninsured driver
Cheers for posting thatTake a look at this document from dvsa, it’s aimed at the hgv operator but the section on steel loads should be relevant. 7.15 if the link doesn’t take you straight to it
Load Securing