Bridge 1:0 Bus
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Accident update
Next: Motorists above the law.
From: Adrian on 21 Dec 2009 14:12 Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>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. Well spotted.
From: Johannes Andersen on 21 Dec 2009 16:41 Neil Williams wrote: > > On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:26:57 +0000, johannes > <johs(a)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. I might print out some A4 maps just in case. I don't like the idea of becoming dependent on satnav. It's the same as when I'm a passenger, then I hardly bother learning the directions.
From: Denis McMahon on 21 Dec 2009 20:16 Cynic wrote: > 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. This comment by yourself: "I'd be very surprised if the damage caused by that accident to the children fell outside a range of between zero and insignificant." which is what started things off, looked to me as if it was conjecture rather than a statement of fact! I responded with my own conjecture, based on the images I'd seen of the bus. Rgds Denis McMahon
From: Denis McMahon on 21 Dec 2009 20:28 Adrian wrote: > 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. No, it's not addressing a symptom of human error, it's addressing a specific error. It mitigates (reduces the effects or consequences of) that error. The error in this case is not realising from the signage that the vehicle doesn't fit under the bridge. This error is mitigated by delivering more warning to the driver that his vehicle won't fit under the bridge. >> 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. Not at all. I haven't said "something must be done", I have said that perhaps the cost and benefit of doing something is worth looking at. What is the annual cost of overheight vehicle vs bridge accidents every year? I have no idea. How much would it cost to install some extra warning at all bridges below some standard height? Again I have no idea. Likewise I have no idea how much it would cost to maintain such equipment or systems annually, and so I am in no position to determine the cost of implementing such systems, nor the potential benefit they might bring. However, I think it's a sum that may be worth doing. Rgds Denis McMahon
From: Adrian on 22 Dec 2009 03:23
Denis McMahon <denis.m.f.mcmahon(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The error in this case is not realising from the signage that the > vehicle doesn't fit under the bridge. > > This error is mitigated by delivering more warning to the driver that > his vehicle won't fit under the bridge. No, no, no. The error is complete and utter fuckwittery and inattention. The error can only be mitigated by making an example of enough inattentive fuckwits that those with the potential for a modicum of clue actually take the frigging hint and stop using time behind the wheel as an opportunity for a snooze. The only way in which extra information will make a difference is if there is insufficient information being provided to the driver currently. And that's already an offence. |