Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Adrian on 21 Dec 2009 10:44 Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much 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.
From: Cynic on 21 Dec 2009 12:14 On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:21:08 +0000, Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)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
From: Mike Civil on 21 Dec 2009 12:13 In article <ui9vi5p3ok81v1ebkvgeco72rp40eutrp0(a)4ax.com>, <James Martin(a)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.
From: Cynic on 21 Dec 2009 12:19 On 21 Dec 2009 13:19:10 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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
From: Conor on 21 Dec 2009 12:37
In article <7p96b1Fr2dU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Peter Beale says... > > Conor wrote: > > In article <7p73pkF9lvU1(a)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. > >> > > Is the wrong answer.... > > > > > 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? > The poster who I replied to said that there were ones which calculated HGV routes if you put in that it was a lorry. That is nonsense. -- Conor www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. |