Re: Bridge 1:0 Bus
alexander.keys1
really)> wrote:
"A double-decker bus carrying children on a school trip has had
> its roof torn off after crashing into a bridge in Leicester.
> Ten nine and 10-year-olds were taken to Leicester Royal
> Infirmary with cuts and bruises after the bus hit the railway
> bridge over Lancaster Road."
> Roland Perry
Presumably not a regular bus route, since it was a school trip, but
the bridge is a bloody great steel girder painted in yellow and black
stripes, and has a height restriction sign attached to it, though I
can't see what the height is because the roof of the bus is in the
way. Don't vehicles anything like high enough to hit bridges have the
height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened?
Was the driver given the wrong route? was (s)he following the route
they were given? Had they taken the wrong route? Were they driving a
higher vehicle than they were used to? Were they just not paying
attention? was the height marked on the bridge, or in the cab,
incorrect? Had the road level been raised by re-surfacing? Surely if
you're driving something high on an unfamiliar road you take care when
approaching a bridge, and ensure that you can get under it, not hit it
fast enough to take the roof clean off.
> Standing at HN28 signal wrote:
>
> > Reported on Yahoo that fog may have been to blame.
>
> No, the driver is to blame. If the fog is so thick he cannot see what is
> in front of him, then she should not proceed.
>
He's certainly guilty of "driving without due care and attention", it
is the driver's legal responsibility to be aware of hazards and avoid
them, no excuses.
Denis McMahon
> He's certainly guilty of "driving without due care and attention", it
> is the driver's legal responsibility to be aware of hazards and avoid
> them, no excuses.
Looks like there was only the one sign, on the bridge from BBC video of
the bus being pulled away. The driver wasn't on a normal bus route, the
bus was being used for a school trip.
I can understand the driver looking forwards and not up, there may have
been something happening (a) inside his vehicle or (b) ahead of the
vehicle which was occupying his attention.
Bus driver was, it is reported, 24 years old.
I thought there were meant to be signs on approach *AND* at the obstruction?
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Usenet Nutter
Was there not also a suggestion made a while back that a chain should
be erected at the same height as the bridge some distance back from it
to give a less damaging warning of the bridges height ahead .
Special Care
but reminds me of the double decker bus chase in
"Live and Let Die" -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V6gtjLAVYg&feature=related
mike scott
> On 11 Dec, 20:09, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline
> really)> wrote:
>
> "A double-decker bus carrying children on a school trip has had
>> its roof torn off after crashing into a bridge in Leicester.
> height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened?
Satnav in use?
--
Mike Scott (unet2 <at> [deletethis] scottsonline.org.uk)
Harlow Essex England
Ian
news:d53e1bab-686e-4c2b...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
If on an unfamiliar route (e.g. a private hire or something similar,
in an unfamiliar part of the country) and I came across an overbridge
that looked a bit "tight" - even one the locals said "You can get
under that easy!" - I slowed right down, positioned bus appropriate if
it was an arch so bus was in line BEFORE entering arch (even if that
upset motorists coming the other way) then approached with head
hanging out of cab window watching busroof / vs bridge interface .....
and went through slowly, and listening.
Or got someone to watch.
Problems with height markings in cab: Often not accurate, usually
someone decides to add 6" for "safety".
Problem with height markings on bridges: Often not accurate, someone
decides to add 1' for safety. Or else someone installs pipework under
the bridge. Or lays 3" od tar on the road. With another 3" a couple of
years later.
Problem with "standard height" buses: they are not standard. Coldhams
Lane in Cambridge has a bridge on the way out to Cherry Hinton, it's a
normal double deck bus route. ECOC had loads of ECW Bristol
Lodekkas - all the same (sort of....). One of them lost its little
round roof ventilators on the bridge just after having had new tyres
fitted, and when the driver was cogging it on a bit making up time and
went over a bump in the road under the bridge... same bus had been
under loads of times before without incident.
See http://www.henden.co.uk//751atHolmesley.jpg .... if you did not
*KNOW* that your DD would go under that bridge, would you try it?
--
Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
Thanks
Ian
Roland Perry
08:03:44 on Sat, 12 Dec 2009, mike scott
<usen...@spam.stopper.scottsonline.org.uk> remarked:
>> height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened?
>
>Satnav in use?
It has already been reported that the bus (which was the driver's normal
vehicle) didn't have satnav.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Usenet Nutter <indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com>
remarked:
>Was there not also a suggestion made a while back that a chain should
>be erected at the same height as the bridge some distance back from it
>to give a less damaging warning of the bridges height ahead .
Just that bridge, or all of them? Chains sag quite a bit, so a bar is
probably better.
I think there may some legal issue too: if you hit a bridge then it's
because you deliberately drove into it; if you hit a chain/bar across
the road, it's because someone deliberately installed it in order to
make you hit it.
--
Roland Perry
IanAl
Yes, but from the pictures of the accident, it's clear that the driver
must have thought he was driving a single-decker.
Roland Perry
Sat, 12 Dec 2009, IanAl <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>from the pictures of the accident, it's clear that the driver
>must have thought he was driving a single-decker.
Odd then, that his employer says he normally drives double-deckers.
--
Roland Perry
S
> In message <6hj5i557br2uicasjbuo2rfmhteen51...@4ax.com>, at 22:57:50 on
> Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Usenet Nutter <individual...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com>
> remarked:
>
> >Was there not also a suggestion made a while back that a chain should
> >be erected at the same height as the bridge some distance back from it
> >to give a less damaging warning of the bridges height ahead .
>
> Just that bridge, or all of them? Chains sag quite a bit, so a bar is
> probably better.
>
> I think there may some legal issue too: if you hit a bridge then it's
> because you deliberately drove into it; if you hit a chain/bar across
> the road, it's because someone deliberately installed it in order to
> make you hit it.
A slightly more high tech alternative would be a beam of light at the
appropriate height, if anything breaks the beam, a big sign flashes up
"STOP now, you moron, your vehicle is too high for the bridge, didn't
you notice the sign?". It should also take a photo of the vehicle as
evidence, although I don't know whether driving without due care and
attention can be prosecuted on the basis of camera evidence.
kkm
.com>, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> writes
>A slightly more high tech alternative would be a beam of light at the
>appropriate height, if anything breaks the beam, a big sign flashes up
>"STOP now, you moron, your vehicle is too high for the bridge, didn't
>you notice the sign?". It should also take a photo of the vehicle as
>evidence, although I don't know whether driving without due care and
>attention can be prosecuted on the basis of camera evidence.
There is a low railway tunnel close to me. It has exactly the system you
describe (but without the abuse) probably because it decapitates those
sort of box vans with space above the drivers cabin, as its clearance is
less than 8ft.
--
Kevin
Ray Keattch
> alexander.keys1 wrote:
>> On 11 Dec, 20:09, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline
>> really)> wrote:
>>
>> "A double-decker bus carrying children on a school trip has had
>>> its roof torn off after crashing into a bridge in Leicester.
> ....
>> height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened?
>
> Satnav in use?
Why satnav?
--
MrBitsy
S
Satnav has the effect of turning the driver's brain off, so lorries go
down narrow country lanes clearly marked as unsuitable for them and
get stuck, because that's the shortest route the satnav finds.
Ian
Lorries (tend to be) one lorry - one (or two) drivers.
Lorries which go to many strange destinations MAY sometimes be fitted
with satnav or the driver MAY have his own.
Most lorry drivers know how to use a satnav properly.
But: It was a bus. (seen pictures of it on the interwebbything, and it
looked more like a bus, even with its roof off, than a lorry.)
Now: Buses tend to work all day, and have maybe 6 or 7 different
drivers during the day.
Buses tend to work the same group of routes all day.
Most bus drivers know where they are going - indeed, they know which
bit of road to use to minimise bumps.
Any one busdriver is not very likely to drive the same bus two days
running (although it can happen).
Any gizmo fitted to a bus only works until its first breakdown - after
that, it only gets fixed if absolutely necessary.
Bus companies are exttremely unlikely to fit sat nav to their
vehicles.
Bus drivers are very unlikely to fit sat nav to their vehicles.
Taking all these factors into consideration, the likelihood that the
bus driver actually had a sat nav is small. And if he or she did have
a sat nav, the likelihood that he or she was relying totally and
blindly on it, is a magnitude of a thousand smaller.
Please do not extrapolate the effect of a satnav on YOUR brain, th the
effect of a satnav on a lorry or bus drivers brain.
(IMO, the driver probably either thought it was a cleared DD route, or
was on a route where he would normally have had a SD. His fault
maybe: but NOT sat nav.)
--
Please visit our appeal at
http://www.donatetobreastcancer.org/nakedbikeride
Thanks
Ian
"S" <s_pick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:00e0e7b3-1e26-45da...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Basil Jet
>
> Was there not also a suggestion made a while back that a chain should
> be erected at the same height as the bridge some distance back from it
> to give a less damaging warning of the bridges height ahead .
Low bridges often have a dip in the road beneath them, so the exact height
of vehicle which fits under the bridge depends on the length of the
wheelbase.
--
We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile.
Ian
cut'n'paste to get it to the bottom..... so here is my former post, in
the right place, so it makes sense "following on"....
Sorry!!
======================
Cynic
>> He's certainly guilty of "driving without due care and attention", it
>> is the driver's legal responsibility to be aware of hazards and avoid
>> them, no excuses.
>Looks like there was only the one sign, on the bridge from BBC video of
>the bus being pulled away. The driver wasn't on a normal bus route, the
>bus was being used for a school trip.
>I can understand the driver looking forwards and not up, there may have
>been something happening (a) inside his vehicle or (b) ahead of the
>vehicle which was occupying his attention.
Bear in mind that the reports say that there was fairly dense fog at
the time. It is possible that the bridge was not clearly visible at
all in such conditions, and certainly the driver would have needed to
concentrate far more than normal on the road surface ahead.
--
Cynic
Roland Perry
15:44:49 on Sun, 13 Dec 2009, Ian <i...@henden.co.uk> remarked:
>It wasn't a lorry.
>
>Lorries (tend to be) one lorry - one (or two) drivers.
>Lorries which go to many strange destinations MAY sometimes be fitted
>with satnav or the driver MAY have his own.
>
>Most lorry drivers know how to use a satnav properly.
>
>But: It was a bus. (seen pictures of it on the interwebbything, and it
>looked more like a bus, even with its roof off, than a lorry.)
>
>Now: Buses tend to work all day, and have maybe 6 or 7 different
>drivers during the day.
>
>Buses tend to work the same group of routes all day.
This was in Leicester, the bus was a school outing from Nottingham.
>Most bus drivers know where they are going - indeed, they know which
>bit of road to use to minimise bumps.
>
>Any one busdriver is not very likely to drive the same bus two days
>running (although it can happen).
>
>Any gizmo fitted to a bus only works until its first breakdown - after
>that, it only gets fixed if absolutely necessary.
>
>Bus companies are exttremely unlikely to fit sat nav to their
>vehicles.
>
>Bus drivers are very unlikely to fit sat nav to their vehicles.
The (Nottingham) bus company says no satnav was fitted.
>Taking all these factors into consideration, the likelihood that the
>bus driver actually had a sat nav is small. And if he or she did have
>a sat nav, the likelihood that he or she was relying totally and
>blindly on it, is a magnitude of a thousand smaller.
>
>Please do not extrapolate the effect of a satnav on YOUR brain, th the
>effect of a satnav on a lorry or bus drivers brain.
>
>(IMO, the driver probably either thought it was a cleared DD route, or
>was on a route where he would normally have had a SD. His fault
>maybe: but NOT sat nav.)
There is talk of fog, but you'd have thought lots of people would have
confirmed that it was foggy, in their reports at the scene. Plenty of
stuff about helping people off the bus, but none saying it was foggy.
Fog of war, and all that.
--
Roland Perry
Denis McMahon
> Buses tend to work the same group of routes all day.
Not in this case, it was a school outing, not a scheduled service.
> Most bus drivers know where they are going - indeed, they know which
> bit of road to use to minimise bumps.
See above.
> Any one busdriver is not very likely to drive the same bus two days
> running (although it can happen).
Apparently this driver was driving the vehicle he normally drove.
> (IMO, the driver probably either thought it was a cleared DD route, or
> was on a route where he would normally have had a SD. His fault
> maybe: but NOT sat nav.)
He was not "on a route", he was driving a special charter.
There didn't seem to be any roadside signage on the bridge approach
(from the bbc clip I saw of the bus being pulled away).
Reportedly (I didn't see this report) there was dense fog.
I can understand a scenario where the driver was concentrating on the
road ahead to the extent that he didn't look up and see the bridge
height, or even that it didn't register (how many railway bridges does
he regularly drive under in the bus and not have a problem, to the point
that he's not in the habit of checking the height warning against the
height plate in the cab?).
I think this may be a "human factors" problem. When a bus driver drives
the same routes most of the time, maybe he gets used to the fact that
his bus fits under the bridges on those routes, and so gets out of the
habit of doing a check when approaching bridges of vehicle height plate
vs bridge clearance.
Then when he gets sent on a route that he doesn't know, the fact he's
out of the habit of doing the height checks leads to bus vs bridge.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Harry Bloomfield
> I think this may be a "human factors" problem. When a bus driver drives the
> same routes most of the time, maybe he gets used to the fact that his bus
> fits under the bridges on those routes, and so gets out of the habit of doing
> a check when approaching bridges of vehicle height plate vs bridge clearance.
Alternatively....
If he was driving an unfamiliar route, in a bus he was familiar with,
surely he ought to have been taking extra care?
I can though sympathise with anyone driving a bus full of kids and the
distraction they could create.
--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk
Martin Clark,
>
> I can understand a scenario where the driver was concentrating on the
> road ahead to the extent that he didn't look up and see the bridge
> height, or even that it didn't register
The bridge was very close to a junction and he would have just turned
off a main road.
See "Bird's Eye View" http://is.gd/5maGL
The museum where they were heading is only a short distance away but not
in the direction that the bus was heading.
The museum is in a pedestrianised area close to a footbridge that
crosses the main road and railway. Maybe there is a coach drop-off point
on the other side of the railway? (Not an excuse, just a possible
explanation for why the bus was heading that way.)
--
Martin Clark
Raymond Dalgleish
I work just up the hill from the bridge in question and there was
certainly no "fairly dense fog" that day. A little misty, perhaps, but
no more than that.
Raymond Dalgleish
I work just up the hill from the bridge in question and there was
Raymond Dalgleish
I work just up the hill from the bridge in question and there was
Raymond Dalgleish
I work just up the hill from the bridge in question and there was
Adrian
like they were saying:
> I work just up the hill from the bridge in question and there was
> certainly no "fairly dense fog" that day. A little misty, perhaps, but
> no more than that.
Typical. You wait ages for a post about a bus, then four come along at
once.
Roland Perry
<11e2e24f-6692-4394...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at
07:39:34 on Sat, 12 Dec 2009, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>A slightly more high tech alternative would be a beam of light at the
>appropriate height, if anything breaks the beam, a big sign flashes up
>"STOP now, you moron, your vehicle is too high for the bridge, didn't
>you notice the sign?".
There's one of those near where I live, on the road towards Melton
Mowbray just outside the Nottingham outer ring road (and just out of
useful sight on Streetview). The railway bridge in question is dis-used.
--
Roland Perry
Cynic
wrote:
>> Bear in mind that the reports say that there was fairly dense fog at
>> the time. It is possible that the bridge was not clearly visible at
>> all in such conditions, and certainly the driver would have needed to
>> concentrate far more than normal on the road surface ahead.
>I work just up the hill from the bridge in question and there was
>certainly no "fairly dense fog" that day. A little misty, perhaps, but
>no more than that.
Are you sure you were looking at the time it happened? Both the met
office and the news report indicated foggy conditions. I was driving
near Brighton when I first heard the news on the radio. It was
certainly foggy where I was, and the weather report stated that the
fog was widespread across the whole country.
--
Cynic
Roland Perry
Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>I was driving near Brighton when I first heard the news on the radio.
>It was certainly foggy where I was, and the weather report stated that
>the fog was widespread across the whole country.
I was twenty miles to the north, and it was "misty" at the time of the
incident, but I wouldn't call it foggy, let alone the sort of pea-soup
you get once every few years that would make a bridge difficult to see.
Which is why I've made a point of asking why so few of the at-the-scene
reports mention thick fog.
--
Roland Perry
Raymond Dalgleish
I drove under the bridge during the morning rush hour, prior to the
accident. I saw the conditions with my own eyes. Slightly misty, NO fog
(and consistent with the conditions "twenty miles to the north").
Brighton is 130 miles from here FFS. Can you take a look out the window
right now and tell me what the weather is like in Leicester?
Cynic
wrote:
>>> I was driving near Brighton when I first heard the news on the radio.
>>> It was certainly foggy where I was, and the weather report stated that
>>> the fog was widespread across the whole country.
>> I was twenty miles to the north, and it was "misty" at the time of the
>> incident, but I wouldn't call it foggy, let alone the sort of pea-soup
>> you get once every few years that would make a bridge difficult to see.
>> Which is why I've made a point of asking why so few of the at-the-scene
>> reports mention thick fog.
>I drove under the bridge during the morning rush hour, prior to the
>accident. I saw the conditions with my own eyes. Slightly misty, NO fog
>(and consistent with the conditions "twenty miles to the north").
>Brighton is 130 miles from here FFS. Can you take a look out the window
>right now and tell me what the weather is like in Leicester?
Obviously not, and I in no way implied that I might be able to. Just
that the weather reports were claiming that there was widespread fog
throughout the country, and that in my location there were certainly
isolated but very frequent patches of pretty dense fog that I had been
driving in and out of for a while.
I had not been listening with complete attention to the radio news, as
driving in those conditions required greater than normal
concentration. It may well be that I misremembered the news of the
accident, and incorrectly inserted into that report the later weather
report of fog. Memory can often play tricks on a person, especially
if it is a memory of something that you were not paying any particular
attention to at the time.
If fog has not been mentioned in any later media reports, and people
who were close to the location at the time are saying that there was
no fog, then I accept that I must be incorrect.
--
Cynic
collybs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/8412071.stm
Peter
Roland Perry
<28b72f86-10dc-4f32...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, at
08:41:35 on Mon, 14 Dec 2009, collybs <pe...@collybs.co.uk> remarked:
Sacking someone *before* you've investigated is always a bit risky, but
they've obviously made their mind up it was the driver's fault.
--
Roland Perry
Ivor Jones
We had a similar incident (although on an empty bus, fortunately) a few
years ago. The driver was sacked but won his appeal when it was found
that he had been sent on a route protested he hadn't been route trained
on it. He turned left instead of right immediately before the bridge and
crunch...
Ivor
Ivor Jones
Oops try reading before posting <g> That *should* read
The driver was sacked but won his appeal when it was found that he had
been sent on a route even though he'd protested he hadn't been route
trained on it.
Late night (my excuse and I'm sticking to it..!)
Ivor
collybs
Driver says that the accident has ruined his life
Cynic
I note that the driver states that (a) he was using a satnav and (b)
it was foggy.
So maybe I didn't imagine the original news report of the incident
after all.
--
Cynic
Recliner
news:0247da9e-f7fb-4254...@9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
> Driver says that the accident has ruined his life
>
> see
> http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/crime/School-bus-crash-driver-Accident-ruined-life/article-1621268-detail/article.html
Interesting that, contrary to what was previously reported, he was using
a satnav:
"I turned right into the road and checked my satnav. It was at this
point the bridge went into my blind spot, then it was too late.
"I didn't see any signs to say there was a low bridge. It was foggy as
well."
____
To me , this suggests that he was looking at his stanav when he should
have seen the bridge warning sign.
Adrian
like they were saying:
> It was at this point the bridge went into my blind spot
Eh? What? Pardon?
Roland Perry
Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>see http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/crime/School-bus-crash-driver-Accident-ruined-life/article-1621268-detail/article.html
>
>I note that the driver states that (a) he was using a satnav and (b)
>it was foggy.
>
>So maybe I didn't imagine the original news report of the incident
>after all.
The bus company said they didn't have satnav fitted, so it's maybe a
personal one. There have been no corroborative reports regarding the
fog.
--
Roland Perry
A.Lee
> Interesting that, contrary to what was previously reported, he was using
> a satnav:
> "I turned right into the road and checked my satnav. It was at this
> point the bridge went into my blind spot, then it was too late.
>
> "I didn't see any signs to say there was a low bridge. It was foggy as
> well."
> ____
>
> To me , this suggests that he was looking at his stanav when he should
> have seen the bridge warning sign.
He is a lying bastard then, as I was in the centre of Leicester on the
day, and it was slightly misty, nothing that I would call fog, and
certainly not that dense that you couldnt see less than 100 metres.
The pictures in the local paper back this up too, with little evidence
of any 'bridge obscuring fog'.
<http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Parents-children-hurt-Leices
ter-bus-crash-arrive-city/article-1599584-detail/article.html>
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Cynic
>The man should get at least 10 years jail God only knows what damage
>he has done to those kids lives.
Perhaps God does know. It is quite evident that *you* don't know.
I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the
children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant.
OTOH that may not be what is argued in court if any parent sues the
bus company.
--
Cynic
Denis McMahon
> I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the
> children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant.
Lots of flying glass on the top deck I imagine, and I doubt it all went
outside the bus.
Not to mention it was a bus, so no seat belts, so even at 10 mph a
fairly rapid deceleration.
I hope the kids in the front row of seats didn't get thrown through the
window.
> OTOH that may not be what is argued in court if any parent sues the
> bus company.
I see that the bus company was very very quick to announce that their
buses are not satnav equipped. Almost too quick, like maybe they gave
him a portable satnav to use for this trip and told him just follow the
satnav, and now they're trying to distance themselves from that.
I guess the satnav was the distraction after he'd crossed the opposite
carriageway at the turning. I think he's disingenuous to claim fog though?
It does seem that the only height warning was the one on the bridge
itself, rather than on posts beside the road (but I haven't seen any
photos of possible signage along the dual carriageway approaching the turn?
1) He's used to driving on routes where he knows his bus fits.
2) He's having to cope with an unusual route in an area he's not
familiar with.
3) He's following a satnav placing blind faith in technology.
4) The satnav is an additional in-cab distraction.
5) There may be an issue relating to how the satnav came to be in the cab?
6) He's either failed to notice the height warning on the bridge
(looking at distractions in cab and / or on road ahead under / past
bridge), or has noticed it and not made the connection / check with his
vehicle height (but see 1, maybe he normally drives under lots of such
signs on his normal routes).
A solution would be for bridges to have "I am blah high" transmitters,
and vehicles to have a receiver that stops the engine if they approach
too close to a bridge that isn't tall enough. Too nanny state for you?
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Halmyre
Mar...@hgvu.com says...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:35:25 +0000, Denis McMahon
> <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I see that the bus company was very very quick to announce that their
> >buses are not satnav equipped. Almost too quick, like maybe they gave
> >him a portable satnav to use for this trip and told him just follow the
> >satnav, and now they're trying to distance themselves from that.
> anyone beats me they are a dangerous piece of equipment the numerous
> stories regarding them should be enough to stop anyone buying one. I
> would not have one given me, maybe that is why Halfords are trying to
> get rid by selling them at 50% off
>
Satnavs are like any other piece of hardware and are only as much of a menace
as the end user.
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
Cynic
>> I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the
>> children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant.
>Lots of flying glass on the top deck I imagine, and I doubt it all went
>outside the bus.
>Not to mention it was a bus, so no seat belts, so even at 10 mph a
>fairly rapid deceleration.
>I hope the kids in the front row of seats didn't get thrown through the
>window.
So you believe that the media is lying when it states that there were
no serious injuries?
--
Cynic
A.Lee
> I see that the bus company was very very quick to announce that their
> buses are not satnav equipped. Almost too quick, like maybe they gave
> him a portable satnav to use for this trip and told him just follow the
> satnav, and now they're trying to distance themselves from that.
Doubtful, as there would be counter-claims from the driver in his
interview, so if he did have one, it must have been a personal one.
> I guess the satnav was the distraction after he'd crossed the opposite
> carriageway at the turning. I think he's disingenuous to claim fog though?
There was no fog. It was a lie, or he is clutching at straws, trying to
save himself with a 'possible' excuse.
> It does seem that the only height warning was the one on the bridge
> itself, rather than on posts beside the road (but I haven't seen any
> photos of possible signage along the dual carriageway approaching the turn?
There are the usual statutory warning signs on the road from both ways.
It is a trafficlight controlled junction, with a filter when turning
right, into (under) the bridge.
There is no reason for the bus to go that way. I think he must have been
going south,missed the turn-off for the museum, then took the next left
(which is the only other road off of Tigers Way) , to get back to where
he was meant to be going. So, yes, it could well have been a satnav
telling him to turn left after he had missed the relevant turn
previously.
I doubt he was going North, as there is no reason to go under the bridge
to get to his destination.
> 1) He's used to driving on routes where he knows his bus fits.
It was the drivers responsibility, and I cannot see how he cannot be
charged with a serious driving offence.
Denis McMahon
No, but there's a gap between what I'd call "serious" and what I'd call
"insignificant".
A cut needing a couple of stitches, a greenstick fracture of the
forearm, a broken collar bone or mild concussion are not insignificant,
but they're certainly not serious either.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
>> 1) He's used to driving on routes where he knows his bus fits.
>
> It was the drivers responsibility, and I cannot see how he cannot be
> charged with a serious driving offence.
I'm not disputing that.
However, it helps to understand why the incident occurred when you want
to prevent similar incidents happening again.
I'm not interested in whose fault it was, I'm interested in why it
happened, as a means of preventing such accidents happening in future.
Perhaps one lesson is that double decker vehicles are not suitable for
school outings to areas that the drivers are not familiar with.
Maybe another lesson is that routes for double decker vehicles on such
outings must be pre-planned by a competent person to take account of
hazards such as low bridges.
It could be that height detection systems and warning lights should be
placed on the approaches to bridges less than some specified height.
I've seen such systems in use in some places.
I accept that the driver drove the bus into the bridge, and that's
primarily "driver error", but clearly the driver did not set out to
drive the bus into the bridge, so I'm trying to understand why he might
have made that error, and what changes might alleviate such errors
happening in future for other drivers.
Think of like taking the AAIB approach to accident investigation, which
is to determine (a) what happened (b) why it happened (c) what the
consequences were (d) what factors contributed to it happening (e) what
might have prevented it happening (f) what we should do to stop it
happening again, without getting sidetracked by looking for people to
pin the blame on to.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Neil Williams
>Satnav's are a menace
Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Roland Perry
Sat, 19 Dec 2009, A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> remarked:
>> I guess the satnav was the distraction after he'd crossed the opposite
>> carriageway at the turning. I think he's disingenuous to claim fog though?
>
>There was no fog. It was a lie, or he is clutching at straws, trying to
>save himself with a 'possible' excuse.
The mist may have been sufficient that it was harder to read the words
on road signs from a few hundred yards away, or to orient oneself by
aligning with tall buildings a mile away.
So it could slightly increase the chances of getting lost. There was no
"fog" in the sense of "London smog", where it's impossible to see across
the road, or see a bridge fifty feet ahead.
(And I don't think I've seen such a fog anywhere for more than 30
years).
--
Roland Perry
AlanG
wrote:
>In article <df6qi5tkg14o3qnhn...@4ax.com>, James
>Mar...@hgvu.com says...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:35:25 +0000, Denis McMahon
>> <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I see that the bus company was very very quick to announce that their
>> >buses are not satnav equipped. Almost too quick, like maybe they gave
>> >him a portable satnav to use for this trip and told him just follow the
>> >satnav, and now they're trying to distance themselves from that.
>> Satnav's are a menace and how the MOT can allow them to be used by
>> anyone beats me they are a dangerous piece of equipment the numerous
>> stories regarding them should be enough to stop anyone buying one. I
>> would not have one given me, maybe that is why Halfords are trying to
>> get rid by selling them at 50% off
>>
>
>Satnavs are like any other piece of hardware and are only as much of a menace
>as the end user.
Indeed.
After driving around Northamptonshire recently for an hour in the dark
trying to find the place we were staying I went out and bought a basic
satnav. That will not happen again
JNugent
> wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:
>> James Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
>>> Satnav's are a menace
>> Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
>> idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
> Satnav.s have a habit of taking you through housing estates and along
> almost impassable roads has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
If you're trying to find an address in a "housing estate", they're invaluable.
Conor
Mar...@hgvu.com says...
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:36 GMT, wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:30:12 GMT, James Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
> >
> >>Satnav's are a menace
> >
> >Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
> >idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
> >
> >Neil
> almost impassable roads has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
Not in my experience and I've used them for 100,000's of miles. You have
to use a little common sense.
Talking of which, you apparently think its better to drive with an A to
Z in one hand whilst trying to navigate through a built up area...
--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
Recliner
news:lhasi55t5bp4hb83j...@4ax.com
>>
>>> Satnav's are a menace
>>
>> Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
>> idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
>>
>> Neil
> almost impassable roads has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
Not if you ask for the quickest, as opposed to the shortest, route.
johannes
James, Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:35:25 +0000, Denis McMahon
> <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I see that the bus company was very very quick to announce that their
> >buses are not satnav equipped. Almost too quick, like maybe they gave
> >him a portable satnav to use for this trip and told him just follow the
> >satnav, and now they're trying to distance themselves from that.
> Satnav's are a menace and how the MOT can allow them to be used by
> anyone beats me they are a dangerous piece of equipment the numerous
> stories regarding them should be enough to stop anyone buying one. I
> would not have one given me, maybe that is why Halfords are trying to
> get rid by selling them at 50% off
Too ryt! Drivers staring at a 4" screen instead of the windscreen can't
be any good. The you have to worry about them getting nicked and have to
hide or carry in your pocket. I use excellent google earth/map facilities
before embarking in an unknown journey. Then download the info to my
biological memory system.
Stephen Farrow
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:36 GMT, wensleyd...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>
> Williams) wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:30:12 GMT, James Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
>
> >>Satnav's are a menace
>
> >Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
> >idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
>
> >Neil
>
> almost impassable roads has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
If you don't have one and wouldn't use one, how can you possibly know
how well they work?
--
Stephen
Ivor Jones
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:36 GMT, wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
> Williams) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:30:12 GMT, James Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
>>
>>> Satnav's are a menace
>>
>> Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
>> idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
>>
>> Neil
> almost impassable roads has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
Those well publicised cases where satnavs have taken lorry drivers along
narrow country lanes etc. are due entirely to the failure of the driver
to program them correctly.
My unit has different settings for car, bus, lorry etc. and will avoid
roads which are not suitable for large vehicles as long as they are set
correctly.
As has been said, if the driver is too thick to set the thing properly
then that's his/her fault/problem. They are *extremely* useful when
riding a motorcycle where it is difficult to consult a map easily.
Ivor
Ophelia
It took me a wee while to get used to mine, but now I wouldn't be without
it. I think it is important to be able to see the countdown to ie a turn.
It is too easy to turn too soon because the voice demands that you 'turn
now'!
One just needs practice and then *mostly* they are very useful.
On a very long journey, it is good to see the ETA and realise that the 'run'
is not going on forever:)
Neil Williams
>Satnav.s have a habit of taking you through housing estates and along
>almost impassable roads
Sat-navs will take you by the shortest/quickest route, depending what
you ask them to do. This might include "housing estates" and small
country roads.
However, one of the good things about sat-navs is that if you don't
like something it asks you to do, just don't follow it. It will
automatically correct the route.
> has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
I find mine extremely useful when used correctly. Perhaps you should
give one a go?
Neil Williams
<jo...@sizef9768544333356itter.com> wrote:
>Too ryt! Drivers staring at a 4" screen instead of the windscreen can't
>be any good. The you have to worry about them getting nicked and have to
>hide or carry in your pocket.
Mine normally lives in the glovebox. But that, of course, depends on
where you park your car.
>I use excellent google earth/map facilities
>before embarking in an unknown journey. Then download the info to my
>biological memory system.
If you can remember a long route (I know some people can) you're
lucky. I would have to read a list of directions, which is harder
than a sat-nav reading out what to do.
Ian Dalziel
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:40:36 GMT, wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
>Williams) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:30:12 GMT, James Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
>>
>>>Satnav's are a menace
>>
>>Sat-navs are a useful tool, particularly when driving alone. If
>>idiots can't use them properly, that's their problem.
>>
>>Neil
>Satnav.s have a habit of taking you through housing estates and along
>almost impassable roads has I stated I wouldn't have one given me .
I've never heard of one grabbing the wheel.
--
Ian D
Stephen Furley
wrote:
> >I use excellent google earth/map facilities
> >before embarking in an unknown journey. Then download the info to my
> >biological memory system.
>
> If you can remember a long route (I know some people can) you're
> lucky. I would have to read a list of directions, which is harder
> than a sat-nav reading out what to do.
Speaking as somebody who has never even seen one of these things; what
information do they present to the driver, and how do they present it?
Neil Williams
<fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote:
>Speaking as somebody who has never even seen one of these things; what
>information do they present to the driver, and how do they present it?
Normally they present it in a few ways. Mine (a TomTom One) has:-
1. A view of the upcoming road marked with any turnings that are
coming up. Sometimes this is "flat" like a map, and sometimes it is
in 3D so mimics what you're seeing out of the windscreen. It is often
also marked with names of roads.
2. In the top right corner, an example of the next "sign" you should
be looking to follow (not the actual sign, but something about the
general direction - e.g. "M6 South".)
3. In the bottom left, arrows showing the next turn(s).
4. At the bottom, the current time and expected time of arrival.
(This is surprisingly accurate).
5. The name and designator (e.g. "A123") of the road you're currently
on.
There is also (possibly most importantly) a set of voice directions,
such as...
"Turn right"
"Take the exit"
"Take the motorway"
"Go around the roundabout, second exit"
These get prefixed with...
"Ahead" = coming up fairly soon
"...Then" = next direction e.g. "Turn left, then turn right".
"In 100 yards" = pretty obvious :)
(no prefix) = immediately
The more expensive devices (not mine) will suffix with "onto the A123"
or similar.
As with any computing device, the more you know about how they work,
the more you'll get out of them. But they aren't infallible, and as
with a map if you blindly follow them you may well end up looking like
an idiot. The good thing, though, is that if you don't like a
direction, just ignore it, and the device will recalculate.
Roland Perry
<fb9080df-519c-4d59...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, at
12:50:41 on Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Stephen Furley <fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk>
remarked:
>Speaking as somebody who has never even seen one of these things; what
>information do they present to the driver, and how do they present it?
There's usually two methods: voice and map.
It will tell you "in 400 yards take the second exit", and count that
down to the junction. Meanwhile a map in 2D or pseudo-3D will show you
the road you are supposed to be taking.
This is an upmarket one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kYywZ7C1G4
More examples at:
http://www.civinfo.com/wiki/index.php?title=Satnav_demo
--
Roland Perry
damdu...@yahoo.co.uk
Williams) wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 13:47:41 GMT, James Mar...@hgvu.com wrote:
>
>>Satnav.s have a habit of taking you through housing estates and along
>>almost impassable roads
>
>Sat-navs will take you by the shortest/quickest route, depending what
>you ask them to do. This might include "housing estates" and small
>country roads.
>
I Set one with a Male voice to quickest and a one with a female to
shortest The difference in directions was just like being in Mum and
Dads Cortina again.
G.Harman
Neil Williams
>I am able to find my way to most places in the UK having driven trough
>most places at some time or other in the course of my employment and
>now if I want to locate a street or whatever I stop at the first
>police station, post office, and ask I am not to lazy to get out of
>the car.
Each to their own. I find a sat-nav more efficient.
>I do not like to have voices in my ears when driving I don't even have
>the radio on I like to solely concentrate on my driving perhaps that
>is why I have 48 years accident free driving under my belt .
I find the opposite on a long motorway journey - having the radio on
breaks the monotony and thus keeps me more alert.
As for the sat-nav, not having to worry about where I'm going allows
me to pay more attention to the road.
Neil Williams
>I gave the one a friend bought a try out have read previously how
>"wonderful" they where .
Fair enough, then perhaps one is not for you. But some of us do
really like them.
But equally, some people don't know how to use them properly, and end
up making a complete idiot of themselves.
johnwright
> On Dec 13, 1:58 pm, Ray Keattch <r.keattch5...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> mike scott wrote:
>>> alexander.keys1 wrote:
>>>> On 11 Dec, 20:09, Chris Tolley <cj.tol...@bogus.co.uk (ukonline
>>>> really)> wrote:
>>>> "A double-decker bus carrying children on a school trip has had
>>>>> its roof torn off after crashing into a bridge in Leicester.
>>> ....
>>>> height marked in the cab? Those that I've seen do. What happened?
>>> Satnav in use?
>> Why satnav?
>
> Satnav has the effect of turning the driver's brain off, so lorries go
> down narrow country lanes clearly marked as unsuitable for them and
> get stuck, because that's the shortest route the satnav finds.
Very true. The Tom Tom I use when coming from a particular direction
tries to send me home via a farm track that is only in use by tractors
and people like me walking dogs. No sane person would ever take anything
short of a tractor down that track.
--
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
?John Wright
Ivor Jones
[snip]
> I am able to find my way to most places in the UK having driven trough
> most places at some time or other in the course of my employment and
> now if I want to locate a street or whatever I stop at the first
> police station, post office, and ask I am not to lazy to get out of
> the car.
> I do not like to have voices in my ears when driving I don't even have
> the radio on I like to solely concentrate on my driving perhaps that
> is why I have 48 years accident free driving under my belt .
You are Ron Chew and ICMFP.
Ivor
Neil Williams
here.com"> wrote:
>Very true. The Tom Tom I use when coming from a particular direction
>tries to send me home via a farm track that is only in use by tractors
>and people like me walking dogs. No sane person would ever take anything
>short of a tractor down that track.
Which anyone with any sense would notice, and ignore the sat-nav's
directions, at which point it would recalculate and give something
else. You could even use its software to report the issue.
The trouble is that there are idiots who just blindly follow the
directions, however stupid they are.
Ian Dalziel
here.com"> wrote:
Presumably you are posting from your vehicle stuck on a farm track,
then?
Otherwise it isn't very true at all, is it?
--
Ian D
Conor
> Those well publicised cases where satnavs have taken lorry drivers along
> narrow country lanes etc. are due entirely to the failure of the driver
> to program them correctly.
>
Is the wrong answer.
> My unit has different settings for car, bus, lorry etc. and will avoid
> roads which are not suitable for large vehicles as long as they are set
> correctly.
That'll be the one that got slated on the truck driving forums for doing
exactly the opposite.
>
> As has been
> said, if the driver is too thick to set the thing properly
> then that's his/her fault/problem. They are *extremely* useful when
> riding a motorcycle where it is difficult to consult a map easily.
>
You cannot "set them properly" for a lorry or a bus. Even the supposed
dedicated HGV ones aren't much cop. For example, there's far more than
1500 low bridges but only Network Rail has a database the mappers can
accesss. Local authorities seem to not know.
Conor
Mar...@hgvu.com says...
> I did a few years ago why do you think I am so against them
Here's a clue...THINGS MOVE ON.
Peter Beale
> In article <7p73pk...@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones says...
>
>> Those well publicised cases where satnavs have taken lorry drivers along
>> narrow country lanes etc. are due entirely to the failure of the driver
>> to program them correctly.
>>
>
> You cannot "set them properly" for a lorry or a bus. Even the supposed
> dedicated HGV ones aren't much cop. For example, there's far more than
> 1500 low bridges but only Network Rail has a database the mappers can
> accesss. Local authorities seem to not know.
>
But every low bridge is clearly marked with the height, both at the
bridge itself and on approaching roads, in time for an alternative route
to be taken. Is it not the responsibility of the driver to note those
and take action, whatever his satnav may tell him?
Peter Beale
Cynic
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So you believe that the media is lying when it states that there were
>> no serious injuries?
>No, but there's a gap between what I'd call "serious" and what I'd call
>"insignificant".
>A cut needing a couple of stitches, a greenstick fracture of the
>forearm, a broken collar bone or mild concussion are not insignificant,
>but they're certainly not serious either.
The meda reports state that the only injuries were minor cuts and
bruises. As you appear to believe that there were greenstick
fractures, broken collarbones etc., you obviously think that the media
is lying or misinformed, and I ask you to justify your belief.
I can agree that the *potential* for very serious injury, including
death was present in the accident. It is extremely fortunate that the
actual consequences were as mild as it turned out. But don't make out
that the damage was a lot worse than it actually was simply because it
*could* have been worse.
I see no reason to suspect that any of the children suffered any
significant harm. Most of the harm would have been fright and shock
rather than physical injuries, but as the event was not long-lasting
or particularly horrific, the probability of any lasting effects are
extremely low. From the child's POV the event was most probably on
par with falling off a bicycle.
I see the no-win no-fee parasites are onto the case
http://www.youclaim.co.uk/news-children-in-double-decker-bus-accident-claim.htm
--
Cynic
Ophelia
> I gave the one a friend bought a try out have read previously how
> "wonderful" they where .
Ok but I found I needed time to accustom myself to it. I hated it at first,
Ophelia
> I Set one with a Male voice to quickest and a one with a female to
> shortest The difference in directions was just like being in Mum and
> Dads Cortina again.
Awwwwwwww:)))
Cynic
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>It could be that height detection systems and warning lights should be
>placed on the approaches to bridges less than some specified height.
>I've seen such systems in use in some places.
There is a very simple system in use at most multi-story car parks I
have visited. A board hanging from chains above the entrance. If
your vehicle hits the board, it's too high. Adding a switch to the
board that will sound an alarm or lights if the board is struck would
be trivial.
I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.
--
Cynic
Adrian
were saying:
> There is a very simple system in use at most multi-story car parks I
> have visited. A board hanging from chains above the entrance. If your
> vehicle hits the board, it's too high. Adding a switch to the board
> that will sound an alarm or lights if the board is struck would be
> trivial.
If the driver doesn't notice the bang & scrape from their vehicle hitting
the board/chains, do you really think they're going to notice lights/
alarms?
> I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
> low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.
I see little benefit. The bridges must, by law, be marked as must, again
by law, high vehicles. All it takes is a driver who can compare two
numbers. For trained professionals, this should not be too difficult.
If there's a failing on the vehicle operator to mark, then that doesn't
excuse the driver, since it is always the driver's responsibility to
ensure the vehicle can go where he points it. If there's a failing on the
part of the local authority or highways agency or whoever to mark the
bridge, then that's a different matter. It really doesn't need extra road
furniture or legislation.
Doctor Watson
Better still why not be aware of where their lorries are going and how
tall they are?
Denis McMahon
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:29:45 +0000, Denis McMahon
> <denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> So you believe that the media is lying when it states that there were
>>> no serious injuries?
>
>> No, but there's a gap between what I'd call "serious" and what I'd call
>> "insignificant".
>
>> A cut needing a couple of stitches, a greenstick fracture of the
>> forearm, a broken collar bone or mild concussion are not insignificant,
>> but they're certainly not serious either.
>
> The meda reports state that the only injuries were minor cuts and
> bruises. As you appear to believe that there were greenstick
> fractures, broken collarbones etc., you obviously think that the media
> is lying or misinformed, and I ask you to justify your belief.
You said "I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to
the children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant."
I postulated that there would have been a lot of broken glass, and I
raised the possibility of front row top seat passengers being thrown
from the vehicle.
You then suggested that by postulating a potential for serious injury
where "no serious injuries" had been reported I was calling the media
reports into question.
My response to that was that there was a big "gap" between the
categories of "insignificant injury" and "serious injury", and I gave
some examples of injuries that would fall be significant but not
serious, and which I believe were injuries that might be caused amongst
passengers in a collision such as this.
However, at no point was I commenting on the actual injuries suffered by
passengers on this bus in this incident.
Let me clarify - I believe, from looking at the photo, that there was a
potential for serious injury from flying glass, impact with "seat in
front" or by falling (if any passengers were out of their seats) and the
potential for the front row top deck passengers to be thrown from the
vehicle.
You on the other hand seem to think that the accident could, at worst,
have caused "insignificant" injuries. You then quoted "no serious
injuries" from the media to back up your assertion.
I dispute your assertion that a collision such as this would cause, at
worst, insignificant injuries. I believe that a collision such as this
has the potential for serious and even fatal injuries (eg skull
fractures from being thrown from the vehicle). That's the potential
injuries.
As far as the reported injuries in this specific accident are concerned,
it would seem that they are generally minor and insignificant, at least
as far as physical injuries are concerned.
I also dispute your assertion that the fact "no serious injuries" are
reported means that no significant injuries have occurred. It is
possible for injuries to be significant without being serious, and I
gave examples. Cuts needing a few stitches, a greenstick fracture of the
forearm, mild concussion or a broken collar bone I would consider to be
significant but not serious.
There is more than one "axis" that can be used when assessing the need
for treatment. How rapidly does it need to be treated, and how much
treatment does it need are two of these. I consider "serious" to be an
indicator on the "how rapidly does it need treatment" scale, and
"significant" an indicator on the how much treatment scale.
Eg someone choking needs a swift heimlich, but needs it immediately. A
broken radius needs to be set, possibly in an operation (mine did), but
it's not going to kill the patient if they have to wait 24 hours (mine
was operated on the afternoon after I broke it).
My broken arm was in no way life threatening, I don't think it was
really a major injury, but the treatment it needed was significant.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
I think the systems used on highways tend to be an optical beam across
the carriageway on poles, possibly so there's no risk of it being hit
and falling across the carriageway.
Any sort of hanging barrier system would have to be tested to ensure
that, in this case, it wouldn't have smashed the windows at the front of
the top deck.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Denis McMahon
>> I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
>> low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.
> I see little benefit. The bridges must, by law, be marked as must, again
> by law, high vehicles. All it takes is a driver who can compare two
> numbers. For trained professionals, this should not be too difficult.
The benefit is that it mitigates some human error. Human error happens,
whether the cost of mitigating it is in all circumstances worthwhile, I
don't know.
In an ideal world we wouldn't need barriers at level crossings, just
warning lights.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Adrian
like they were saying:
>>> I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
>>> low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.
>> I see little benefit. The bridges must, by law, be marked as must,
>> again by law, high vehicles. All it takes is a driver who can compare
>> two numbers. For trained professionals, this should not be too
>> difficult.
> The benefit is that it mitigates some human error.
Not quite. It attempts to workaround one symptom of it.
> Human error happens,
Yes, it does. But this is the kind of "human error" that really
_shouldn't_ happen if there is the slightest bit of attention being paid
to the task in hand.
> whether the cost of mitigating it is in all circumstances worthwhile, I
> don't know.
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore, this must be done.
> In an ideal world we wouldn't need barriers at level crossings, just
> warning lights.
As, indeed, many level crossings have had for many years. Safely.
Unfortunately, we have seen the rise of those conditioned to being
protected from the consequences of their own stupdity. Sometimes, they
realise the hard way that it is impossible to provide total protection,
at all times, from complete stupidity.
Cynic
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The meda reports state that the only injuries were minor cuts and
>> bruises. As you appear to believe that there were greenstick
>> fractures, broken collarbones etc., you obviously think that the media
>> is lying or misinformed, and I ask you to justify your belief.
>You said "I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to
>the children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant."
Yes. I assumed you already knew that the actual physical injuries
were minor, and so would know that I could only have been referring to
possible psychological trauma.
>I postulated that there would have been a lot of broken glass, and I
>raised the possibility of front row top seat passengers being thrown
>from the vehicle.
But why speculate about facts that are well-known?
>You then suggested that by postulating a potential for serious injury
>where "no serious injuries" had been reported I was calling the media
>reports into question.
When you are using speculation that we know is untrue to justify a
claim of serious harm, then yes, that is the only logical conclusion.
>My response to that was that there was a big "gap" between the
>categories of "insignificant injury" and "serious injury", and I gave
>some examples of injuries that would fall be significant but not
>serious, and which I believe were injuries that might be caused amongst
>passengers in a collision such as this.
Again, why talk about "might haves" when the facts are known?
>However, at no point was I commenting on the actual injuries suffered by
>passengers on this bus in this incident.
>Let me clarify - I believe, from looking at the photo, that there was a
>potential for serious injury from flying glass, impact with "seat in
>front" or by falling (if any passengers were out of their seats) and the
>potential for the front row top deck passengers to be thrown from the
>vehicle.
>You on the other hand seem to think that the accident could, at worst,
>have caused "insignificant" injuries. You then quoted "no serious
>injuries" from the media to back up your assertion.
I am saying that the accident *did* cause insignificant injuries. You
appear to think I'm incorrect because something different might have
happened in an alternate reality.
I fully agree that it could have been far worse. The fact is that it
wasn't. The harm done to the children is the result of what actually
happened, not what might have happened, and is the only thing that *I*
have been talking about.
--
Cynic
Mike Civil
<James Mar...@hgvu.com> wrote:
>And bodies move into A&E departments due to being distracted by them
>on Mways etc .
The same thing happened with people trying to map read while on the
move. Most modern satnav designs will guide you through voice commands so
the distraction level isn't much different from having someone shouting
directions from the passenger seat.
Cynic
>If the driver doesn't notice the bang & scrape from their vehicle hitting
>the board/chains, do you really think they're going to notice lights/
>alarms?
I have no idea whether the driver of a double-decker bus would hear
the bang of a board hitting the top deck above the engine sound and
possibly noisy passengers. Do you?
>> I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
>> low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.
>I see little benefit. The bridges must, by law, be marked as must, again
>by law, high vehicles. All it takes is a driver who can compare two
>numbers. For trained professionals, this should not be too difficult.
Because it is easily possible to miss seeing a number painted on a
sign, while the crash of a board or the sound of an alarm bell is
unlikely to be overlooked.
--
Cynic
Conor
HGV routes if you put in that it was a lorry. That is nonsense.
Cynic
>> The benefit is that it mitigates some human error.
>
>Not quite. It attempts to workaround one symptom of it.
We cannot prevent humans from making errors. We can only make some
errors less likely to occur, and/or make the consequences of the error
less severe.
>> Human error happens,
>Yes, it does. But this is the kind of "human error" that really
>_shouldn't_ happen if there is the slightest bit of attention being paid
>to the task in hand.
No error, by definition *should* happen, so you are stating the
obvious. You cannot guarantee that a driver will not be distracted by
something or other and fail to see something that he should be paying
attention to. You can however make it less likely that he will fail
to notice something important, by making the warning or notification
more prominent and attention-grabbing.
>> whether the cost of mitigating it is in all circumstances worthwhile, I
>> don't know.
>Something must be done.
>This is something.
>Therefore, this must be done.
Nonsense. That saying is used when the measure being proposed is
unlikely to have any effect on the thing it is attempting to prevent.
In this case the warning is almost certain to greatly reduce the
frequency of the human error in question. The only question is
whether the number of accidents that occur because of the error, and
would thus be prevented by the measure are sufficient to justify the
expense.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<she...@myson.net> wrote:
>>> It could be that height detection systems and warning lights should be
>>> placed on the approaches to bridges less than some specified height.
>>> I've seen such systems in use in some places.
>> There is a very simple system in use at most multi-story car parks I
>> have visited. A board hanging from chains above the entrance. If
>> your vehicle hits the board, it's too high. Adding a switch to the
>> board that will sound an alarm or lights if the board is struck would
>> be trivial.
>> I see no reason why a gantry could not be erected either side of every
>> low bridge - it would cost little more than a road sign.
>Better still why not be aware of where their lorries are going and how
>tall they are?
*Who* should be aware? Obviously the drivers should be aware of both
those things, but clearly that is insufficient to prevent the
occasional human mistake.
If the sat-nav were programmed with the height of the vehicle and the
clearance of all bridges, it would probably go a long way to
preventing such incidents by acting as a back-up to the driver's
awareness of the situation.
But I suspect that equipping all busses with suitably programmed
sat-nav warning systems would be more expensive than erecting the
road warning system proposed.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<denis.m....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think the systems used on highways tend to be an optical beam across
>the carriageway on poles, possibly so there's no risk of it being hit
>and falling across the carriageway.
A better, but more expensive system.
>Any sort of hanging barrier system would have to be tested to ensure
>that, in this case, it wouldn't have smashed the windows at the front of
>the top deck.
Good point. I think busses are fairly standard heights, so I should
think the hanging barrier could be shaped so as to make it safe for a
bus to hit.
--
Cynic