Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Adrian on 21 Dec 2009 08:19 Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they 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.
From: Doctor Watson on 21 Dec 2009 08:30 On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:00:16 -0000, Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:41:34 +0000, Denis McMahon > <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)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. > Better still why not be aware of where their lorries are going and how tall they are?
From: Denis McMahon on 21 Dec 2009 10:21 Cynic wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:29:45 +0000, Denis McMahon > <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)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
From: Denis McMahon on 21 Dec 2009 10:32 Cynic wrote: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:41:34 +0000, Denis McMahon > <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)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. 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
From: Denis McMahon on 21 Dec 2009 10:39
Adrian wrote: >> 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 |